Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Libertarians get a real good kick in the arse!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Libertarians get a real good kick in the arse!

    Written by a liberal economist. I found it to be enlightening, and is really a harsh critique against neo-liberal and libertarian politics/economics.
    The politics made me feel sick..

    http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm

  • #2
    It looks very interesting. Now I have finished my degree i must not be lazy and must carry on reading this stuff (not just Conan pastiches as i have been doing!)

    But I am also looking for some positive economics - not just critiques of neoliberalism, but what will actually work in practice (if anything...)
    \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

    Comment


    • #3
      As soon as it got to the part about not using mathematics I stopped reading. The founder of libertarianism used mathematics and economic theory. To not do so changes the infrastructure of the party into something else, rather like voodoo. Of course, Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan have called themselves libertarians, so it has obvious veered from its roots to become the party of "anything goes".

      As of now, I am no longer paying any attention to the Libertarian Party.

      They had their shot, and blew it.

      Miqque
      ... just another sailor on the seas of Fate, dogpaddling desperately ...

      Comment


      • #4
        There is some room for confusion here. I think the word "liberalism" has different connotations either side of the pond. I noticed this talking to relatives in Canada. When I hear the word, I tend to think of liberal, i.e. "free market" economics. Americans tend to use it in a political rather than an economic sense, and it seems to mean what we would call "social democratic". Am I right?
        \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

        Comment


        • #5
          It seems to me that :

          - in Europe and particularly in France, liberalism is viewed as a theory about economy, founded by Smith and Ricardo, arguing for the supremacy of free market as regulator.


          But there is also a political liberalism, defending democracy and political freedom.

          - In the United States, since the world has been given a pejorative meaning, liberalism is viewed as the child of the wild sixties, permissiveness, free sex and drug and so on .

          But Hamilton, Jeferson were liberlas in the traditionnal, political and economical meaning of the word.

          Libertarian are people who think that the market must be the only regulator of social life, the state being the ennemy. In their ideals, even regalian functions, justice, police and so on must be privatized. Personnal freedom is the only rule.

          It is evident that the result would be feodalism.
          Last edited by Morgan Kane; 09-06-2006, 11:41 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mikey_C
            There is some room for confusion here. I think the word "liberalism" has different connotations either side of the pond. I noticed this talking to relatives in Canada. When I hear the word, I tend to think of liberal, i.e. "free market" economics. Americans tend to use it in a political rather than an economic sense, and it seems to mean what we would call "social democratic". Am I right?
            Well according to Wallerstein (sorry for bringing the old prof. up again), in 'After Liberalism', the Liberal programs followed what seemed to me like bourgeoise social-democracy, aka social-liberalism.

            And Mikey! I'm always searching for alternatives. But the changes would probably be of an incremental evolutionary type, if any.
            Or their really will be more chaos and a new system of economics and powerstructures will emerge.

            Just read this:
            http://fbc.binghamton.edu/commentr.htm

            Though I do have some doubts to this. Anything goes...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Morgan Kane
              It seems to me that :

              - in Europe and particularly in France, liberalism is viewed as a theory about economy, founded by Smith and Ricardo, arguing for the supremacy of free market as regulator.


              But there is also a political liberalism, defending democracy and political freedom.

              - In the United States, since the world has been given a pejorative meaning, liberalism is viewed as the child of the wild sixties, permissiveness, free sex and drug and so on .

              But Hamilton, Jeferson were liberlas in the traditionnal, political and economical meaning of the word.

              Libertarian are people who think that the market must be the only regulator of social life, the state being the ennemy. In their ideals, even regalian functions, justice, police and so on must be privatized. Personnal freedom is the only rule.

              It is evident that the result would be feodalism.
              Which seems to be an austrian yearning. Weird things seem to come out of Austria. Is their something within the austrian culture or mindset, to make them want this sort of society?

              Comment

              Working...
              X