Becoming a liberal

[SigniferOne]

Are you joking? Thomas Paine was one of the earliest intellectuals to propose a welfare state (an idea he took from the demands of working class movements of the time). He advocated progressive taxation, social security, taking religion out of politics, etc. etc. He even advocated international revolutionary solidarity and the overthrow of traditional government, which rather exceeds normal 'Liberal' approaches. He was far more 'Liberal' than most modern 'Liberals'. Go read his actual writing, you might learn some fun things.

I have, thanks. In Common Sense he is an unadulterated champion of self-government, not the obese nanny-state. In Rights of Man he is rather radical, but not a welfare-statist that you try to attribute to him. The only thing that he has in common with modern welfare champions is that he was an atheist, a rather small bridge over which to build a friendship with somebody.

Finally, how the hell can you conflate Marx and Keynes? Do you know anything about them? Marx was a stalwart critic of liberalism. His social goals and techniques were anethema to liberalism.

Marx was a critic of classical liberalism. By Keynes time, that has ceased to exist, aside from a few classical economists who were quickly becoming extinct. That's why I can, and do, conflate Keynes and Marx -- both were champions of modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with the classical one. Thomas Paine would turn in his grave if the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the champions of nationalization, used his name. To him self-government was a sacred value, the government was a necessary evil, and government officials an eternal enemy. Tell me if Barack Obama or the Daily Kos believe that. Stop dreaming.

 

[Profler]

Because he was.

He was the guy who took the money the government robbed from the citizens and returned it to them.

I have a little personal theory that you can actually see the development of modern British politics as far back as the Robin Hood legend. While you'd expect the mordern middle classes (aspiring to the historical landed gentry and nobility) to oppose even the merest whisper of heavy taxation, there is (except for a notable blip in the uniquely egalitarian sixties and early seventies) a distinct trend of the British working classes to instinctively oppose taxation of any sort while still expecting the services of a high taxation European state.

My (completely unresearched and unashamedly unsupported) belief is that this could well be folk memory stretching back far enough to a time when 'government' meant Norman knights lording it over saxon peasants trying to eke a living from the land. Over time the relatively smooth (compared to similar european powers) transition from servitude to government has erased the memory of the conquest and effective apartheid that, but I personally think that a little bit of the oppressed saxon lurks in the back of all our minds, screaming out the words "Norman bastard" to any government that comes cap in hand.

Marx was a critic of classical liberalism. By Keynes time, that has ceased to exist, aside from a few classical economists who were quickly becoming extinct. That's why I can, and do, conflate Keynes and Marx -- both were champions of modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with the classical one.

Apologies for the double post, but I have to disagree, 'modern Liberalism' seeks to achieve a balance between the positive and negative freedoms espoused by classical and social liberalism, accepting that in individual circumstances the one may supercede the other. Marx argues that the one cannot exist without the other, there is a subtle but important difference between balance and coexistence.

P.S.
I'll admit I'm coming at it from the British sense of Liberalism, since I really don't think that the US as is really has anything to offer that might be regarded as genuine liberalism, if wires are crossed I'll apologise in advance.

 

[Scar Face]

I find it mildly amusing that conservative Americans are the only people in the whole developed world who seem to have a problem with free healthcare. Is it too absurd to conceive a concept such as "positive freedoms"? Freedom from disease, hunger, pain? I won't get into a lofty discussion of political theory, citing Isaiah Berlin or the forefathers of Liberalism - it does not matter if things such as free healthcare are expensive, they're just right.

All that expensive healthcare and socialistic programs will serve America and the world real ****ing well when the baby boomers retire- or any nations equivalent, even more so when that country experiences a recession and or a depression!

Socialism feels good, it is not viable long term.

 

[BNS]

You can still be a "hippie" and have "hippie" chicks dig you while maintaining respect for the rights of others and economic sense. Just become a liberal, a classic liberal.

 

[removeduser_052420]

Liberals are the best. No seriously, They are.

 

[Scar Face]

It's kind of funny when Liberals cling to Liberals of the past as inspiration, because almost without exception the Liberals of the past are the rigid Conservatives of the present...

 

[jankren]

I don't know what it is about hot hippie chicks and the laid back life style, but i'm without a doubt attracted to being a liberal. The problem is, I think. That's not meant to be an insult or anything like that, I can't seem to fundamentally come to terms with things like redistribution, the minimum wage, universal healthcare or just in general mass distribution of scarce goods. Most of my friends tend to be liberals, but unfortuantely the closest i've come is being a libertarian. I get the whole, "leave me alone in the bed room" argument. Being mathematically oriented I throw too much logic into the equation, arguments about morality and how the world should be versus how it is never carried weight. While I can sit by and agree that we should in essense be left alone, when arguments turn towards health care, the numbers don't work. Nor does the logic.

So why i'm making this thread is a sort of search for answers. Not answers as to why or not universal healthcare is correct, but rather why being a liberal is a good thing. And while i'm not willing to hear the arguments about how healthcare or public education might work one day, help me break through on the morality factor. I look at things in terms of costs and benefits, and while costs are pretty much plain for everyone to see, idealism can certainly be a benefit. Help me see it that way. I want to be a liberal, atleast I think.

Welcome to the enlightened path.

I hope more people leave the dark side as well.

Liberals are the best. No seriously, They are.

Liberals yeah!

 

[Lord Consul]

free healthcare? SIGN ME UP!

Oh wait...oh i see ...*reads fine print*

Its a scam...

By free healthcare I obviously meant public healthcare, as in maintained and paid for the State with the tax money extracted from the economically active citizenry. If you consider such arrangement a "scam", well... Lucky you. Most countries and governments in the developed world see that as common sense.

Marx was a critic of classical liberalism. By Keynes time, that has ceased to exist, aside from a few classical economists who were quickly becoming extinct. That's why I can, and do, conflate Keynes and Marx -- both were champions of modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with the classical one.

Your grasp of Marx is shaky at best. The German philosopher can be described as many things, but certainly not as a liberal. In fact, both the Communist Manifesto and The German Ideology are full of rants decrying the freedoms and rights considered essential by the Liberals as "petit-burgeois ideological deformations".

 

[removeduser_052420]

It's kind of funny when Liberals cling to Liberals of the past as inspiration, because almost without exception the Liberals of the past are the rigid Conservatives of the present...

I know what you mean. During the 80's and 90's there was a major flip-flop with liberals and conservatives. But hey man, JFK was one cool dude

 

[Icefrisco]

What's so bad about Liberals? What's so bad about supporting gay rights, stem cell research, women's rights, and the environment? Liberals advocate these issues very strongly and very few people can strongly argue against these issues.

 

[Viking Prince]

According to the WHO(World Healthcare Organisation) in 2000 the US (population plus government) spent the most on healthcare of any nation in the world (by some margin), and yet had only the 37th most effective health care sytem in the world. So much for the efficiency of the market when it comes to medicine.

Rankings are skewed by what you judge to be important. If you value extra ordinary efforts to save infants at birth you will spend more than others who abort "defective" babies in the womb. You will also show a higher infant mortality. This is one of the problems with the rankings. Kill of the old and infirm while preventing the birth of the fragile and defective and you will rise in the WHO rankings. I would rather not rise in the rankings if that is the price to be made.

If the USA spends the most (you did not say per capita, gross, including R&D, etc.) one can presume it is effectively spent according to the persons spending the resources.

The USA spends wuite a bit developing drugs and treatments that much of the world is thus able to free ride on the technology. The rankings do not adjust for free rider effects since the measures are no effective spending, but overall health measures of those alive.

By differant measures, the USA does quite well in delivery of 21st century healthcare.

 

[Quadratus]

Liberals are the best. No seriously, They are.

Ugh....

 

[jankren]

Ugh....

The truth hurts eh? Deal with it.

 

[Ummon]

How can you look ahead if you don't look behind?

 

[Helm]

Because he was.

He was the guy who took the money the government robbed from the citizens and returned it to them.

Giving it back to them involved robbing passing wealthy nobles and merchants at arrow point though. He was a bandit that's what he did.

 

[Justice and Mercy]

Giving it back to them involved robbing passing wealthy nobles and merchants at arrow point though. He was a bandit that's what he did.

In the original stories he robbed only the nobles who got their money through taxation.

 

[Ahlerich]

those nobles didnt offer any services for the taxation

 

[Quadratus]

The truth hurts eh? Deal with it.

No, it doesn't hurt, and that wasn't the truth.

 

[Last Roman]

Marx was a critic of classical liberalism. By Keynes time, that has ceased to exist, aside from a few classical economists who were quickly becoming extinct. That's why I can, and do, conflate Keynes and Marx -- both were champions of modern liberalism, which has nothing to do with the classical one. Thomas Paine would turn in his grave if the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the champions of nationalization, used his name. To him self-government was a sacred value, the government was a necessary evil, and government officials an eternal enemy. Tell me if Barack Obama or the Daily Kos believe that. Stop dreaming.

so wrong. Marx clearly wanted the state to not just intervene, but CONTROL the market, while Keynes argued for gov't intervention, not total control. Also, modern liberalism espouses the idea of social liberalism, not something I'm sure Marx would've been too keen on.

 

[Helm]

In the original stories he robbed only the nobles who got their money through taxation.

But it was still the poor who were bearing the burden while the nobles were loafing around with a load of money. So you're still looking at the concept of forced wealth redistribution even if that was the case. And besides I think he would ask any wealthy looking noble passing through Sherwood forest where he got his money, he would just take it.

 

[SigniferOne]

so wrong. Marx clearly wanted the state to not just intervene, but CONTROL the market, while Keynes argued for gov't intervention, not total control.

You're talking about a small difference in degree, and to you that qualifies as "so wrong"? If conflating Marx with Adam Smith would be so wrong, what would it be to conflate him and Keynes? Come on! You're splitting hairs in infintesimal amounts of degree.

And there's one further interesting connection here. Keynes belonged to a famous social club. Do you think it might have Marxist associations? Yep that's right, the FABIAN SOCIALISTS.

You guys are being highly disingenuous by trying to draw a strong distinction between Marx and Keynes. Kapital was Keynes' friggin' bible. I don't want to see all the liberals try to back-pedal away from Marx now that he's been shown to be such an embarassment. Man up, and own to the fact that he is the founding father of your movement (while classical liberals have become a completely different strain of ideology, much more what today is called conservative).

 

[Last Roman]

You're talking about a small difference in degree

I fail to see how gov't intervention and total state control with no economic or social class system is a "small difference"

your attempt to somehow paint modern liberalism as communism, quite frankly, shows that you're not quite as knowledgeable as you think you are.

And there's one further interesting connection here. Keynes belonged to a famous social club. Do you think it might have Marxist associations? Yep that's right, the FABIAN SOCIALISTS.

again, you prove your lack of knowledge. socialists aren't marxists. in fact, a prominent communist derided the fabian society, Trostsky, saying that they were not radical enough.

 

[SigniferOne]

again, you prove your lack of knowledge. socialists aren't marxists. in fact, a prominent communist derided the fabian society, Trostsky, saying that they were not radical enough.

Which shows it to be just a matter of degree.

If Socialists aren't Marxists, then Marxists aren't Marxists, and Kapital is a book about the virtues of capitalism. I've no idea what you guys are talking about. Do I need to quote Marx's own words on socialism as an transition point on the way to communism?


So to get back to JP, I don't see why you have a crisis of identity. So far I haven't seen anything here that is to be admired.

 

[Helm]

Do I need to quote Marx's own words on socialism as an transition point on the way to communism?

He didn't really mean the kind of Communism we're familar with. He wouldn't have approved of Stalin.

 

[Last Roman]

Which shows it to be just a matter of degree.

If Socialists aren't Marxists, then Marxists aren't Marxists, and Kapital is a book about the virtues of capitalism. I've no idea what you guys are talking about. Do I need to quote Marx's own words on socialism as an transition point on the way to communism?

and he mentions capitalism as a transition from feudalism, doesn't mean they are the same or even close.

Do I need to quote Marx's own words on socialism as an transition point on the way to communism?

He didn't really mean the kind of Communism we're familar with. He wouldn't have approved of Stalin.

besides the point, what I'm getting at is that communism (whatever version of it) is still not the same as Keynesian economic thought, which Sig1 seems to think here.

 

[Icefrisco]

How can you look ahead if you don't look behind?

Liberals do that too. For isntance, when Truman started the de-segregation of the government, what did he integrate Blacks into first? The military. He did this because most likely because at some point one of his liberal advisors told that Blacks faired well in the military in the Indian Wars and were respected by their White officers during the Civil War.

Liberals do look behind. However, they use the past; they do not want to transform the future into the past. American Liberalism offers the hope that one day we can finally overcome our prejudices and failed practices of the past.

 

[Helm]

You can learn from the past without having to live in it.

 

[SigniferOne]

It's a fairly wild caricature to say that anybody wants to literally roll back the clock in some particular, literal way. The lure of conservativism is that (by being classically liberal) it offers insight into truths that are eternal. For instance modern liberals no longer believe in the natural rights of John Locke, but conservatives do. That doesn't mean anybody wants to roll back the clock to the time of Locke, it means that the principles he discovered have in fact been present since the beginning. Thus one shapes society living by eternal and the unchanging principles, rather than the latest fad or a pragmatic hodgepodge. That's why modern liberals have nothing to offer to counter that. All they can offer is, "But don't you feel bad for a particular group X, or a particular resource X?" It's nothing but some play on emotion. It's a tragedy that JP is willing to conscientiously give that up just to land in bed with a hippie chick (are they really that worth it?).

 

[Justice and Mercy]

But it was still the poor who were bearing the burden while the nobles were loafing around with a load of money. So you're still looking at the concept of forced wealth redistribution even if that was the case.

Which is fine in this case.

And besides I think he would ask any wealthy looking noble passing through Sherwood forest where he got his money, he would just take it.

He didn't rob random nobles passing through the forest.

 

[Lord Consul]

You guys are being highly disingenuous by trying to draw a strong distinction between Marx and Keynes. Kapital was Keynes' friggin' bible.

My feelings about Das Kapital are the same as my feelings about the Koran. I know it is historically important and I know that many people, not all of whom are idiots, find it a sort of Rock of Ages and containing inspiration. Yet when I look into it, it is to me inexplicable that it can have this effect. Its dreary, out-of-date academic theorising seems so extraordinarily unsuitable as material for the purpose. . . Will you promise to read it again, if I do?

*

I stole the above quote from Todd Buchholz's New Ideas from Dead Economists, but you can find it in many books (Keynes at Harvard, his biographies, his collections of famous letters addressed to many personalities of his time, in that "A Man for All Seasons" article in the The New Republic...)

If you really think Das Kapital was Keynes' bible, you need to re-read both Keynes and Marx.