[nucklepunche]

For a long time I've more less played this whole "not a liberal" thing and have claimed to be a totally distinct ideology. I guess it is the fact that I went from being a more or less conventional partisan Democrat to evolving gradually more libertarian until I became an anarcho-capitalist, and eventually turning against that and jumping around ideologically basically believing the same things but at various points claiming to be a centrist, modern whig, and even a red tory. But now I'm wondering if I am essentially a liberal. Even if I do not simply agree with the Democratic Party platform via fiat.

Essentially I believe in the dynamism of the marketplace and remain a staunch supporter of capitalism however I believe you need to temper that capitalism with a dose of government as I view laissez-faire as fundamentally a disaster and immoral.

My economic views.

I think the two key issues facing America right now are unemployment and stagnate wages, unemployment caused by a drop in demand. Various people of the left have suggested things to solve this. Most of the time it involves restricting trade, increasing education, or unions. But an article in the American Conservative of all places got me thinking otherwise.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/raising-american-wages-by-raising-american-wages/

While at times I was convinced that minimum wages were inefficient and the welfare state was the answer the case is made that most of the jobs that are going to be created over the next several years are not college level jobs but also unoutsourcable and relatively unautomatible service jobs. Most people in manufacturing already make well above minimum wage and even if some manufacturing returns due to the logistics overseas getting less attractive it will never come back in full. And there simply will never be enough college level jobs needed.

Perhaps the answer is to simply increase wages by fiat. Raise minimum wages to something like 12 per hour and adjust for inflation. There will be some job loss in the short term however this will boost workers bottom lines and allow them to purchase more goods. For those who believe unions are the answer it is absurd to think Wal Mart would raise wages in isolation but perhaps if they and all their competitors were forced to it would make sense. No doubt business owners would go nuts but it may be the simple silver bullet solution. While I once looked to various prescriptions like unions, "investing" in college, huge stimulus spending, or protectionism I am no longer so sure.

Health Care: I support a health care system with a single payer and private providers. I believe by having private providers we can continue to have the dynamism of the marketplace but under a monopsony we can negotiate prices lower whereas under many third party buyers providers will have an incentive to jack up prices.

Immigration: I believe immigration can be a good thing but I think that the current chain migration policies in the USA are bringing us in a surplus of people whose skills we simply do not need, people whose low skills saturate the market. But we have a shortage of doctors and engineers. Family reunification may seem more "humanitarian" but we shouldn't commit slow economic suicide in the name of being PC. I believe the answer is to move to a points based immigration system that gives people more points for needed skills and investment and where family reunification is only one component of the process.

Social Security: I think in a lot of ways Social Security is a manufactured "crisis. The answer is minor tweaks. Increase the amount of income destined to payroll taxes which is actually at a historic low. I am not saying remove the cap but bring it back up to the historic levels of 91%. We can also increase the retirement age somewhat to reflect people living longer. Maybe 69 is a good age. If people want to retire earlier they can make provisions fo this. Perhaps we can allow people to set aside some SS income for investment but not totally privatize the system.

Education: Public education is good. I tend to think teachers should be given some freedom to experiment instead of having tight standards. I don't really have too many thoughts on it though. I think higher education's cost is a bigger problem in education which can be resolved by accepting not everybody needs to go to college and promoting trade schools and apprenticeships for most people, replacing student loans with a grant based system.

Taxes and Regulation: Taxes should be as a rule moderately, but not excessively progressive. I tend to think it is regulation and not taxes that is stifling small businesses as high taxes do not kick in until a higher rate. I consider myself to be conservative on regulation and moderate to liberal on taxes. I know business owners often attack "taxes and regulations" as if they are a monolith but they are not. If I am starting a business I am worried more about licenses etc. than I am about taxes.

In general I think corporate and individual taxes should be simplified. I also think we may ought to consider a supplemental VAT to the current tax code.

Welfare: I'm essentially a Clintonian style welfare to work kind of guy.

Social Issues

I typically digress from the stereotypical leftist position on crime, abortion and guns.

Abortion: Keep it legal at the first trimester, outlaw it except for rape, incest, life/health of the mother, and severe fetal defects beyond that. While I am not an absolutist on this issue I tend to think abortion as birth control is a negative development for society since it encourages personal irresponsibility by allowing people to sweep "consequences under the rug."

Crime: I am all in favor of three strikes laws and capital punishment. I feel like if you can't help but commit three felonies maybe you ought to go away for life. How unreasonable is it to ask people not to commit crimes? I am tired of the PC left acting like criminals are "victims."

Guns: I favor some restrictions on gun ownership in order to keep them out of the hands of felons, minors, mentally ill etc. otherwise I support a generalized right to keep and bear arms.

On most other social issues however I am liberal.

Gay marriage, marijuana, etc. should be legal.

On foreign policy I'm strongly opposed to imperialism and neo-conservatism. I feel if anything Obama has failed to break the neo-conservative paradigm. I believe America ought to defend America and scale down our military budget to meet these obligations only.

So there you have it. Am I liberal or not?

[Soixante-Retard]

I would say that on balance, by the stands you take, that you're approaching a "vulgar" liberal position, i.e. a modern liberal; you have more in common with modern conservatives than you have with classical liberals or libertarians.

Clinton was, and still is, good in a few instances, especially when he contrasts his marginally neoliberal policies to that of his Democratic and more neoconservative policy-orientated successor, Obama.

[Stormsmith]

I would say that on balance, by the stands you take, that you're approaching a "vulgar" liberal position, i.e. a modern liberal; you have more in common with modern conservatives than you have with classical liberals or libertarians.

Soixante, one of the things I have a hard time keeping up with is everyone's individual interpretation of political entities. Could you give us a brief discription of your idea of a classical liberal? Cheers

I also think we may ought to consider a supplemental VAT to the current tax code.

I have some concerns on the effect of a flat tax on the under $100,000 fraternity.

[Soixante-Retard]

Could you give us a brief discription of your idea of a classical liberal?

In short, and this may seem vague to you, but I believe the classical liberal ideal is that everyone is equal before the law, the government carries no interest or favors with any groups or persons. That the role of a government is to not interfere with the private actions of consenting adults, so long as the actions do not deprive any party (external or internal) of their life, liberty and property. Government sets the rules which must be adhered to by everyone and government is to act as an umpire; interpreting and enforcing these rules which carry no privilege with anyone. Government is not there to create castes; where one group benefits at the expense of another. Government is to protect minorities against majorities; the smallest minority being the individual. The classical liberal ideal is therefore devoid of paternalism (treating adults as autonomous and demanding that they are responsible for their actions) and embraces equalitarianism (equality before the law). I'm not sure there is much else that needs to be said. Suffice to say, equality of all persons before the law (noone is above it) is paramount to the classical liberal creed.

Whatever Congress does for one American it must do for all Americans. If Congress makes payments to one American for not raising pigs, every American not raising pigs should also receive payments. Obviously, were there to be such a law, there would be reduced capacity for privilege-granting by Congress and less influence-peddling.

[nucklepunche]

So what is the difference between a classical liberal and a libertarian? In a sense I've sort of always viewed Hayek as a classical liberal because even if he opposed special privileges he still allowed for a lot more government than most libertarians as long as it benefitted all people the same (even if he allowed for a lot less than most modern welfare states), not a libertarian.

Classical liberals: Hayek, Adam Smith, various continental European political parties including the German Free Democrats.

Libertarians: Mises, Rothbard.

Up for debate: Friedman, Ron Paul. In some sense I view these figures as "almost libertarian" but falling just short of the mark. Friedman is at the line between classical liberal and libertarian territory whereas Paul is at the mark between paleoconservative and libertarian territory.

[Soixante-Retard]

@nucklepunch. I do not see much difference between classical liberals and libertarians. All libertarians are classical liberals, but not all classical liberals are libertarians (visualize and Venn diagram: Libertarianism is a subset of Classical Liberalism).

Classical Liberals, generally, are a little more generous to government than Libertarians. But the differences on policies or results are ever so slight. However, I would put Mises, not Friedman, as sort of consistent boundary figure within the philosophy. Friedman, like Hayek, certainly got more radical with age. Paul (a politician), on the other hand, is very hard to categorize, so I won't.

[Stormsmith]

Soixante-retard:

Thank you for your response. Far from vague, it was clear, and matches my own definition. Where we diverge is over the notion of Libertarianism. Now, it might be the case I've been over influenced by some of the posters here on PoFo, but the key difference from your position and that presented by some of the posters here hinges on the notion of egalitarianism.

Classical Liberals, generally, are a little more generous to government than Libertarians. But the differences on policies or results are ever so slight.

I shall take your opinion to heart, as you are clearly better read on this topic than I, but the efforts put forward by the posters here are more than a little less generous, they're downright stingy and shortsighted with it. They don't seem to see that programmes are implemented to address social problems, and that the immediate termination of some of these programmes would be problematic, and more expensive in the long run.

[Dr House]

Sort of centrist-leaning Democrat. I'd mostly pile you in with any other moderate white working-class stiff.

I think the two key issues facing America right now are unemployment and stagnate wages, unemployment caused by a drop in demand.

Well, no. See, the problem with this logic is that the American economy contains demand in excess of its current production, which is why to this day it has the world's largest trade deficit. The real problem that needs to be tacked here is that the economy is not structurally efficient enough to absorb this excess demand over and above foreign competitors.

Decreasing demand is itself a surface problem, stemming from the fact that the bulk of employment in America is fed by value added by distribution of goods from abroad, purchased with IOUs. This is us discovering the hard way the fact (that should have been glaringly obvious already) that this is completely unsustainable. We have reached the debt tipping point.

Health Care: I support a health care system with a single payer and private providers. I believe by having private providers we can continue to have the dynamism of the marketplace but under a monopsony we can negotiate prices lower whereas under many third party buyers providers will have an incentive to jack up prices.

Uh, no they don't. The average health insurer underwrites at a net loss (that is, their payouts exceed their premiums), which they offset by investing their premiums in the open market. There's no guarantee that a public provider will do likewise, and it will certainly have less efficiant administration -- resulting in more expensive healthcare.

The reason American healthcare is more expensive than European healthcare is beause Americans overconsume healthcare. In Europe this isn't allowed, because it would break the bank.

Taxes and Regulation: Taxes should be as a rule moderately, but not excessively progressive. I tend to think it is regulation and not taxes that is stifling small businesses as high taxes do not kick in until a higher rate. I consider myself to be conservative on regulation and moderate to liberal on taxes. I know business owners often attack "taxes and regulations" as if they are a monolith but they are not. If I am starting a business I am worried more about licenses etc. than I am about taxes.

I agree with regards to personal income taxes, but not to business taxes. American corporate taxes are both horrifically high and very unfriendly to capital investment (they have, for instance, one of the slowest capital depreciation schedules in the developed world), which isn't a great problem for capital-light industries (like finance and retail), but is a great problem for the capital-heavy industries (like manufacturing) that provide the bedrock of a wealthy, sustainable economy.

A bigger problem though isn't whether businesses can afford these, but whether they're willing to. A 40% corporate tax rate will make locations less competitive in other instances but with better tax treatment of investment will suddenly look more attractive.

[Elect G-Max]

"Liberal" has been misused and warped to the point of being meaningless.

You're a socialoid/leftist.

[Stormsmith]

Nucklepunche,
I'd say you were right of centre fiscally, left of socially. How does that feel to you?

[Dr House]

I'd say you were right of centre fiscally,

I'd disagree.

[Soixante-Retard]

"Liberal" has been misused and warped to the point of being meaningless.

You're a socialoid/leftist.

I'm a proud liberal.

The simple fact is that libertarians are liberals—and we should be proud of that.