US Citizens: Please vote tomorrow

[Ron Texas]

The next one has begun. The sun will rise tomorrow and shine brighter for some than others, as always.

I suppose that's true.

 

[JJB70]

You write that «neoliberalism is just a label».

That is a gross, yet widespread misunderstanding. In 2016, Adam Smith Institute finally came out of the closet as neoliberals:

https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/coming-out-as-neoliberals

And there is an increasingly large literature on neoliberalism from the historian’s perspective.

That’s why I wrote that it takes some time to digest the fact that neoliberalism is today’s religion, eating up democratic institutions from the inside.

This perspective is quite interesting once you spend some time and effort looking into it.

I am not trying to win an argument here. My only wish is to contribute to our understanding of modern democracy.

The Adam Smith Institute speaks for themselves and those who agree with them, they don't speak for libertarians in general any more than any other self appointed spokes person of the people (and they certainly don't speak for Adam Smith, given he has been dead for over 200 years).

However, even if I look at the Adam Smith Institute list I find it interesting why it might be considered a threat to democracy:

1. Pro-markets - OK some don't like the markets (and many of the criticisms are grounded more in an entirely sensible aversion to corporate welfare rather than actual markets) but it's hardly a threat to democracy
2. Pro-property rights - I don't see how this could be controversial, is anybody here happy to accept anybody walking into their home and walking out with their stuff or ejecting them from their houses because the government decides somebody else should have it? Far from being a threat I'd consider this to be an essential part of a functioning democracy
3. Pro-growth - If you want good healthcare, education, pensions etc then something has to pay for it, ditto the best way to lift people out of poverty is to generate wealth, i.e. you want economic growth
4. Individualistic - a personal choice, I really have no issue with anybody joining a commune, signing over all their property to a commune etc etc as long as it is there choice and nobody demands that I join in, and surely a functioning democracy should recognise the right of individual choice?
5. Empirical and open-minded - Anybody that isn't empirical and open minded would be something of an idiot in my opinion
6. Globalist in outlook -again, a matter of opinion, but whilst this may not be a popular idea today globalism has lifted more people out of poverty globally than any foreign aid or charity ever did by promoting economic growth and development in the emerging world
7. Optimistic about the future - that's entirely a matter of personal choice but personally I think it's better to go through life as an optimist as a defeatist, fatalist or cynic
8. Focused on changing the world for the better - Could any rational person disagree with this?

So from this, if the Adam Smith Institute really do represent an ideology called neoliberalism then I can think of much worse ideologies, and certainly none of the above is a threat to democracy.

 

[Wombat]

The Adam Smith Institute speaks for themselves and those who agree with them, they don't speak for libertarians in general any more than any other self appointed spokes person of the people (and they certainly don't speak for Adam Smith, given he has been dead for over 200 years).

However, even if I look at the Adam Smith Institute list I find it interesting why it might be considered a threat to democracy:

1. Pro-markets - OK some don't like the markets (and many of the criticisms are grounded more in an entirely sensible aversion to corporate welfare rather than actual markets) but it's hardly a threat to democracy
2. Pro-property rights - I don't see how this could be controversial, is anybody here happy to accept anybody walking into their home and walking out with their stuff or ejecting them from their houses because the government decides somebody else should have it? Far from being a threat I'd consider this to be an essential part of a functioning democracy
3. Pro-growth - If you want good healthcare, education, pensions etc then something has to pay for it, ditto the best way to lift people out of poverty is to generate wealth, i.e. you want economic growth
4. Individualistic - a personal choice, I really have no issue with anybody joining a commune, signing over all their property to a commune etc etc as long as it is there choice and nobody demands that I join in, and surely a functioning democracy should recognise the right of individual choice?
5. Empirical and open-minded - Anybody that isn't empirical and open minded would be something of an idiot in my opinion
6. Globalist in outlook -again, a matter of opinion, but whilst this may not be a popular idea today globalism has lifted more people out of poverty globally than any foreign aid or charity ever did by promoting economic growth and development in the emerging world
7. Optimistic about the future - that's entirely a matter of personal choice but personally I think it's better to go through life as an optimist as a defeatist, fatalist or cynic
8. Focused on changing the world for the better - Could any rational person disagree with this?

So from this, if the Adam Smith Institute really do represent an ideology called neoliberalism then I can think of much worse ideologies, and certainly none of the above is a threat to democracy.

Neo-liberalism is about individuals first. Good luck building community on that basis. Individualism thrives in an environment of fear - fear of those who are different and fear of sharing what individual opportunity has reaped. It used to be called selfishness and greed.

 

[JJB70]

Neo-liberalism is about individuals first. Good luck building community on that basis. Individualism thrives in an environment of fear - fear of those who are different and fear of sharing what individual opportunity has reaped. It used to be called selfishness and greed.

It's not generally libertarians I hear spreading anti-semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, villifying foreigners etc, and when I look at the multiple genocides over the last couple of centuries few appear to have been started by people promoting the rights of individuals and choice. However don't let that interfere with a good sound byte. I have no issue with the concept of community, free people will join together when they have a shared interest, I do object to it being used as an excuse for creeping state power and interference in life.

 

[Cosmik]

Individualism thrives in an environment of fear

Logically, I would have thought it would be the opposite of this: in times of fear, people will seek to band together with others. Only in times and places where fear is absent can individuality (and therefore 'individualism') thrive.

 

[svart-hvitt]

The Adam Smith Institute speaks for themselves and those who agree with them, they don't speak for libertarians in general any more than any other self appointed spokes person of the people (and they certainly don't speak for Adam Smith, given he has been dead for over 200 years).

However, even if I look at the Adam Smith Institute list I find it interesting why it might be considered a threat to democracy:

1. Pro-markets - OK some don't like the markets (and many of the criticisms are grounded more in an entirely sensible aversion to corporate welfare rather than actual markets) but it's hardly a threat to democracy
2. Pro-property rights - I don't see how this could be controversial, is anybody here happy to accept anybody walking into their home and walking out with their stuff or ejecting them from their houses because the government decides somebody else should have it? Far from being a threat I'd consider this to be an essential part of a functioning democracy
3. Pro-growth - If you want good healthcare, education, pensions etc then something has to pay for it, ditto the best way to lift people out of poverty is to generate wealth, i.e. you want economic growth
4. Individualistic - a personal choice, I really have no issue with anybody joining a commune, signing over all their property to a commune etc etc as long as it is there choice and nobody demands that I join in, and surely a functioning democracy should recognise the right of individual choice?
5. Empirical and open-minded - Anybody that isn't empirical and open minded would be something of an idiot in my opinion
6. Globalist in outlook -again, a matter of opinion, but whilst this may not be a popular idea today globalism has lifted more people out of poverty globally than any foreign aid or charity ever did by promoting economic growth and development in the emerging world
7. Optimistic about the future - that's entirely a matter of personal choice but personally I think it's better to go through life as an optimist as a defeatist, fatalist or cynic
8. Focused on changing the world for the better - Could any rational person disagree with this?

So from this, if the Adam Smith Institute really do represent an ideology called neoliberalism then I can think of much worse ideologies, and certainly none of the above is a threat to democracy.

Singapore, maybe even China, fit that description well. But those countries are not democratic and they’re very different from the USA and Europe.

 

[JJB70]

Singapore, maybe even China, fit that description well. But those countries are not democratic and they’re very different from the USA and Europe.

China and Singapore are both countries that I love but neither of them could be accused of being centres of libertarianism or celebrating the qualities and rights of individuals. Although in some ways I have a greater respect for China than many other countries as at least there is an honesty about their state centred philosophy.

 

[svart-hvitt]

It's not generally libertarians I hear spreading anti-semitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, villifying foreigners etc, and when I look at the multiple genocides over the last couple of centuries few appear to have been started by people promoting the rights of individuals and choice. However don't let that interfere with a good sound byte. I have no issue with the concept of community, free people will join together when they have a shared interest, I do object to it being used as an excuse for creeping state power and interference in life.

You use the terms «individuals and choice». Neoliberals define those words differently than democrats. For neoliberals choice is about «free to choose» products and services in the market place, not necessarily their rulers. For democrats, power is a central term that they’ve spent tremendous intellectual efforts and hard-won wisdom to get about right.

Neoliberals also think of the individual differently than religious people, say christians.

 

[JJB70]

You use the terms «individuals and choice». Neoliberals define those words differently than democrats. For neoliberals choice is about «free to choose» products and services in the market place, not necessarily their rulers. For democrats, power is a central term that they’ve spent tremendous intellectual efforts and hard-won wisdom to get about right.

Neoliberals also think of the individual differently than religious people, say christians.

I have never seen any libertarian or anybody that might be labelled as a neoliberalism speak against the right of a free people to choose who will govern them. I regularly hear people who wrap themselves in a flag of democracy and serving the public good say things intended to marginalise people and divide the people into "us" and "them".

 

[andreasmaaan]

I have never seen any libertarian or anybody that might be labelled as a neoliberalism speak against the right of a free people to choose who will govern them. I regularly hear people who wrap themselves in a flag of democracy and serving the public good say things intended to marginalise people and divide the people into "us" and "them".

In your opinion/experience, do libertarians and/or neoliberals believe in the nation state as the basic political institution? Do they believe in trade/immigration borders?

 

[SIY]

In your opinion/experience, do libertarians and/or neoliberals believe in the nation state as the basic political institution? Do they believe in trade/immigration borders?

Hard to make a sweeping statement. At least among American libertarians, there's a very wide range of views, which I guess shouldn't be surprising given that philosophy's basic premise. There are many brands of libertarians, ranging from anarcho-capitalist (“there is no role for government”) to minarchist (“the government as Locke’s ‘night watchman,’ running civil and criminal courts and providing mutual defense”).

Most libertarians I know (and I know quite a few) are very strong advocates of free trade, but there are exceptions. Their views on immigration are all over the map.

 

[JJB70]

In your opinion/experience, do libertarians and/or neoliberals believe in the nation state as the basic political institution? Do they believe in trade/immigration borders?

An interesting question as these are labels that are applied to a disparate bunch of people and there really isn't any defined philosophy or belief that unites them beyond a basic belief in the rights and freedoms of individuals and allowing people to lead their own lives free from interference so far as is possible.

Personally I accept the concept of government as we do need certain rules to allow a society to function, and I believe that a formalised system of law and order is essential. However is that the same as believing in the concept of a nation state? I'm really not so sure. I certainly advocate free trade, I generally advocate free movement of people too.

 

[Cosmik]

Are you people fans of 'the nation state', or would you like to see government at a higher level than that? Logically, economically, it might make perfect sense to have one world government with homogenised currency, language, products, culture, and completely free movement of labour people. Think of the efficiency.

If it would be the logical, rational, economically-desirable, evidence-based policy that everyone says they believe in, why not?

 

[JJB70]

Are you people fans of 'the nation state', or would you like to see government at a higher level than that? Logically, economically, it might make perfect sense to have one world government with homogenised currency, language, products, culture, and completely free movement of labour people. Think of the efficiency.

If it would be a logical, rational, economically-desirable, evidence-based policy (the sort that everyone says they believe in), why not?

An interesting question, for all the advantages I also think things work best when kept local and where governance can be recognised as being more genuinely reflective of people agreeing to work together and with tighter over sight and links between the governed and those who govern. Hence why I'm not so certain my agreement in a necessity of government of some form to assure law and order equates to a belief in the nation state. As these things get bigger the distance between those who govern and those who are governed tends to get bigger with the resulting disconnect becoming steadily greater.

 

[SIY]

Think of the efficiency.

"He made the trains run on time."

 

[Thomas savage]

Logically, I would have thought it would be the opposite of this: in times of fear, people will seek to band together with others. Only in times and places where fear is absent can individuality (and therefore 'individualism') thrive.

Maybe isolationist would suit better, @Wombat ?

 

[Thomas savage]

This has actually turned out well so far so thanks guys ,, amir will have to bait his line without these worms lol

 

[Cosmik]

This has actually turned out well so far so thanks guys ,, amir will have to bait his line without these worms lol

I think the key is never to mention real people, countries, events. It isn't necessary in a discussion about ideas, and as soon as you bring them in, a whole load of extra baggage obscures the point you want to make - as well as stoking up the temperature.

And of course, we are not second or third rate minds

 

[Sal1950]

And of course, we are not second or third rate minds

Oh how you flatter yourself.

 

[Cosmik]

An interesting question, for all the advantages I also think things work best when kept local and where governance can be recognised as being more genuinely reflective of people agreeing to work together and with tighter over sight and links between the governed and those who govern. Hence why I'm not so certain my agreement in a necessity of government of some form to assure law and order equates to a belief in the nation state. As these things get bigger the distance between those who govern and those who are governed tends to get bigger with the resulting disconnect becoming steadily greater.

Yes, I think the logical, fact-based efficiency argument - that is used all over the place as a justification for policies - falls down in the face of what seems 'natural'. If we were really influenced by such arguments, and not just using them because they happen to suit us at certain times, all countries would drive on the same side of the road, use the same currencies, speak the same language, have the same electrical plugs, eat the same foods, etc. Maybe some people want this, but not me. I hate the idea, no matter how efficient it would be.