The Founders wanted small govt. Today's so-called liberals want to
control every aspect our lives, from the food we eat, to the car we
drive, to our temperature settings, school busing, quotas .. .....
Classic liberalism was more akin to today's conservatism.
That's for starters.
Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism,
and Individualism
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.
I have often been asked to present a brief introduction to Classical
Liberalism and how it fits into the philosophical tradition of which I
consider myself to be a member, that of Classical Realism.
Furthermore, some have questioned me about my use of the term
"Moderate Libertarianism" to also describe my political philosophy.
And finally, there have been questions raised about my use of the term
"Individualism" and how that term is used in Classical Liberalism. I
hope this essay satisfies, at least to some extent for now, those who
have raised these matters with me.
Classical Liberals and Welfare Liberals
Classical Liberals, like myself, stress such ideas as voluntary
association, incentives, and self-interest. We believe that people are
bound by their own decisions, agreements, contracts, and so on.
Therefore, people may do unpleasant jobs, for instance, because they
pay. They may, of course, do things as well for non-financial reasons.
It is important to note that we stress that our way of doing things
combines a way to get things done with a high degree of individual
freedom. We assume that people recognize the rights of others and some
uncontracted obligations toward others, as well. Classical Liberalism
can be contrasted with Welfare or Modern Liberalism which has an
opposing view and is currently the dominant political philosophy in
the United States.
Welfare Liberals think that citizens should have far more welfare
guarantees; indeed, some have suggested that everyone should have a
guaranteed income. For example, two Yale Law School professors, Bruce
Ackermann and Ann Alstott, have advocated that every U.S. citizen with
a high school diploma should receive a bounty of $80,000 on his or her
twenty-first birthday.
Welfare Liberals tend to favor paternalistic actions by government to
protect people, and they are less worried about the ethics and
practicalities of social engineering by government. They give more
weight to social obligations, instead of basic rights, and when they
talk about rights and obligations, they have in mind the idea that
those who are fortunate have an obligation to serve the community as a
whole.
To accomplish their aims, Welfare Liberals are strong proponents of
public or state education. They use this as a means of shaping people
for the so-called responsibilities and duties of citizenship, much of
which could be rightly called "state propaganda." Classical Liberals,
by the way, tend to see something sinister in governments shaping
character through education. We are very suspicious about that.
So we can say in a general way that one approach, Classical
Liberalism, favors incentives, the shaping of the individual through
family upbringing, and participation in the ordinary institutions of a
commercial society. The other side, Welfare or Modern Liberals, puts
greater weight on socialization to predispose people to specific views
and perspectives which favor their agenda.
Welfare Liberalism, by the way, does have a real problem with how to
get individuals to do things since there is little incentive to do
constructive things if you are given what you need by the government
rather than having to work for it yourself. One might note that
welfare recipients have little incentive to take really unpleasant
jobs.
Classical Liberals emphasize the importance of individual freedoms of
various kinds. We see these as moral rights. There is, however, a
great deal of room for disputes about the scope and character of these
rights, as in government by consent. We do argue about these rights,
which can enliven any gathering of Classical Liberals. We do agree,
however, that any government that does exist exists to safeguard or
protect the individual rights of its citizens, that is, that is the
proper role of government even though we realize that some actual
governments don't do that. So we might say that this ought or should
be the role of any "legitimate" government.
We also expect that if people's rights are safeguarded and protected,
human interaction will generate well-being or happiness for each
individual. This is achieved through voluntary market transactions,
voluntary mutual aid and charity and, in very limited ways, possibly
through government action. We believe that individuals are the best
judges of their own interests and that government should be limited in
scope and function by what citizens will consent to and by individual
rights. So we tend to favor a self-limiting Democratic Republic with a
written constitution that guarantees protection of individual rights
against a simple majority rule.
Virtually all Classical Liberals agree with the ideal of the rule of
law, rather than the rule of men. And the law should be general in
character, publicly available, not retrospective, not arbitrary and
capricious, but objective and based on a rational foundation.
Government should act only on the basis of the law, and not on mere
whim or circumstance. Furthermore, the state should be broadly neutral
regarding people's concerns, such as with religion for example. While
we all agree that law and order in any society is important and it is
the government's job to see to this matter through protecting the
rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is some
disagreement among Classical Liberals over the matters of national
defense and "public goods" such as mail services and other things that
people need but that are not provided or are underprovided by the free
market.
Classical Liberals also emphasize private property. In fact, many of
the early Classical Liberals fostered the idea that individual rights
included primarily the rights to life, liberty, and property. In the
U.S. Declaration of Independence the right to property was changed to
the right to the pursuit of happiness. I happen to agree with this
modification because, in my opinion, the rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness are "absolute" rights, whereas, the right to
property is not absolute on its face but is derived from the former
three and especially the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is a
primary right while the right to property is secondary.
By the way, not all Classical Liberals agree with me on this so, as
you can see, there are disputes, mostly minor fortunately, among those
of us who claim to be Classical Liberals. I see this as positive
because it means Classical Liberalism is not simply a dead political
philosophy but a living one with many theoretical and practical
problems still to be resolved. But the right to property is definitely
important to us and your private property should not be interfered
with by others, including the state, outside the law. The law should
protect justly acquired private property, the only exception being in
certain specified emergencies and only then with due process of law.
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 17:42:57 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 16:39:55 -0500, Kali wrote:
In article , says...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 14:23:42 -0500, Kali wrote:
You can start with Nobel Prize winning Paul Krugman:
Not intersted in socialist economists.
He isn't a socialist, he is a liberal.
Yup.
Classic liberalism of the Founders has devolved into a 180.
Wrong.
But can understand why those of you tit suckers who want Uncle Sugar
to pay for abortions, sex ed, child care, job-finding assistance would
be.
Surprised you don't want the government to provide you with a personal
trainer and a masseuse.
Here's a very easily understood primer on the conflict:
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...n2009/db200901
27_702149.htm?campaign_id=rss_topStories
I'll stick with the guy who saw all of this coming a long time ago;
the guy who won a Nobel Prize; an eminent scholar of the Great
Depression. Hopefully there will be enough spending to really get
the economy going again.
You can go ahead and insist on tax cuts only or the extreme
conservative view: do nothing. But I think something is going to be
done, regardless. Personally I think the GOP should sit down and
STFU after what they've dragged us through economically, but I fear
Obama will put the appearance of bipartisanship over all else.
In a couple of years we'll know if Moody's multipliers are correct -
they are less generous on the effect of tax cuts than Obama's team's
multipliers.
Lump sum tax rebate: 1.02
Temp across the board tax cut: 1.03
Temp payroll tax holiday: 1.29
Perm/extend AMT patch: .48
Bush tax cuts permanent: .29
Cap gains/div tax permanent: .37
Perm cut corporate tax rate: .30
Extend unemployment benefits: 1.64
Temp increase in food stamps: 1.73
General aid to state govt: 1.36
Increased infrastructure spending: 1.59
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/do...the-impact-of-
the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf
[... and another dumbass wingnut greggie sock goes into the bin.]
--
Kali
“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain
“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama
Spending that won't achieve the desired end.
Spending what on what? What is your claim?
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10147
A conservative blog, presumably one that backs up your views. Is he
smarter than you are? That's nice, but do you need to tell your
buddy here that if he can't figure out why govt spending on
infrastructure creates jobs and stimulates the economy, he needs to
do a lot more reading and a lot less writing (whining). Also, some
of the items listed have already been cut out.
Mr. Obama would have us believe that unless they pass his 900 billion
dollar "stimulus" package immediately, our entire nation is going to
plunge into oblivion. That's right, no time to study or rationally
review anything! Just throw massive amounts of worthless money at
random targets and "hope" it all somehow gets better.
Didn't we learn anything at ALL from the last "stimulus" fiasco? More
precisely... is there anybody left in Washington with a brain? And
why the big rush Mr. President? Could it be because your "stimulus"
package is so full of pork it virtually oinks?
It's been jokingly referred to as every Democratic special interest
group's 40 Year Wish List. Most American's don't find that all that
funny. Even The Wall Street Journal said "By our estimate only $90
billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for
something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. And even
many of these projects aren't likely to help the economy immediately.
The rest is pork."
Here's some of what we can expect out of this newest spending orgy.
The only thing it will stimulate is my sense of outrage!!! What part
of THIS COUNTRY IS ALREADY BANKRUPT do they not understand?
$2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal
power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last
year because it said the project was inefficient.
A $246 million tax break for hollywood movie producers to buy motion
picture film.
$650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.
$88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker
(arctic ship).
$448 million for constructing the Department of Homeland Security
headquarters.
$248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.
$600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.
$400 million for the Centers for Disease Control to screen and prevent
STD's.
$1.4 billion for rural waste disposal programs.
$125 million for the Washington sewer system.
$150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities.
$1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of
$3 billion.
$75 million for "smoking cessation activities."
$200 million for public computer centers at community colleges.
$75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.
$25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction.
$500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River.
$10 million to inspect canals in urban areas.
$6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings.
$500 million for state and local fire stations.
$650 million for wildland fire management on forest service lands.
$1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job
programs.
$88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health
Service.
$412 million for CDC buildings and property.
$500 million for building and repairing National Institutes of Health
facilities in Bethesda, Maryland.
$160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and
Community Service.
$5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of
Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.
$850 million for Amtrak.
$100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.
$75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State
Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing
facilities of other agencies.
$110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems.
$200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles
for use on military installations.
Oink. Oink. Oink.
--
Kali
“This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill.”
-Sen. John McCain
“What do you think a stimulus is? Spending, that is the whole
point.” -Pres. Barack Obama