[Kaiserschmarrn]

Okay, I can see where you're coming from, then. I won't agree of course, but I can see that of course we are framing the issue differently from each other because of a different understanding of how things work.

But the reason I argue is because I don't think it's just a matter of perspective, I think that people like Pants-of-Dog ans Roxunreal and SpaciousBox really do have it wrong.

I don't know. Strictly speaking, going by the definition of liberalism and liberal capitalism, they are "more right" than you in their categorisations. Clearly, capitalism has been spreading everywhere after the end of the Cold War. Liberalism, as defined here, on the other hand, has had a much harder time in many places.

You seem to be more concerned with the results of the events of the last few decades and the current trend: The (economic) alignment and interdependence of capitalist states (which are to varying degrees also liberal, with some exhibiting very little actual liberalism) with the most powerful, and clearly liberal-capitalist, states/regions today, the US and Europe. That's a valid perspective, but it requires explanation. In particular, there needs to be some justification why a distinction based on the political organisation (i.e. are countries liberal democracies or not) is irrelevant or less important.

For example, Pants-of-Dog denies that class is relevant. By doing that denial, he will always end up having to focus on secondary phenomenon (or even things that exist explicitly despite liberalism, in unease and at tension with it) which have come to be associated with liberalism, rather than focussing on primary phenomenon which define liberalism across generations solidly through different stages of social change. Because of this defect in their understanding, they might seize upon things like 'full suffrage' or maybe 'rights of gay people recognised under law', call these things 'intrinsically liberal', and then perhaps looking back in time, they might strangely disclose to us that liberalism somehow did not exist in the UK in 1911. Or that somehow liberalism didn't exist in the USA until a couple weeks ago when the Obama adminstration repealed the Defence Against Marriage Act. Or that somehow liberalism will not exist in Russia until the Russian establishment catches up to 2013 and makes peace with gay people.

When they present things like that, it creates a lot of problems, because the flip-side of that defect in understanding, is that they start to also think and propagate the idea that if a person wants to have such-and-such nice contemporary secondary phenomenon, a person must accept the structure of the present system and everything that comes with it. You can see it from the posts that contain lines that start with 'you should thank liberals' and lines like 'all the alternatives are worse than the USA', and so on and so forth.

Basically it leads to a depressing conservation of the status quo in all the most significant ways.

I admit I'm having difficulties with arguments that give so much importance to class, but before I reply to this I need some clarification: Is class the (only) primary phenomenon you are talking about in the above quote?

[Rich]

The founding fathers are responsible, at least in the US, for the Constitutional protection of freedom of speech.

Completely untrue. The States could and did restrict freedom of speech, the banning of abolitionist literature, for example. Good grief next you'll be telling me that the British bill of rights was about individual rights as opposed to defending the Protestant collective ascendancy. I'm really starting to come to the opinion that Americans are intellectually challenged. I mean no doubt in Britain there's a few cretins who imagine that King John's barons worked tirelessly to abolish serfdom, but at least in Britain they're a small minority. The founders were White Supremacists first, nationalists second and Liberals a distant third.

[Eran]

Completely untrue. The States could and did restrict freedom of speech, the banning of abolitionist literature, for example.

Come on. You can voice reservations to what I said without characterising it is "completely untrue". You, for example, are correct to point out that the term "founding fathers" as normally understood in America, refers to attitudes towards the Federal government. It is certainly possible to be a Federal libertarian while reserving highly-unlibertarian powers to state governments.

Eventually (though it took 100 years), Federal protections over freedom of speech were extended to the states. But that extension can be traced back to the Federal Bill of Rights which is the immediate result of founding father libertarian attitudes.

The founders were White Supremacists first, nationalists second and Liberals a distant third.

The founders shared the white (and male) supremacist views of their eras. They were certainly nationalists as well - it is hard to count as the founder of a nation if you aren't. Alongside both of those, however, their attitude towards the role of government was distinctly libertarian (by modern standards).

You can be a nationalist racial supremacist while believing in a strong central government. The founding fathers didn't.

[Rich]

Come on. You can voice reservations to what I said without characterising it is "completely untrue". You, for example, are correct to point out that the term "founding fathers" as normally understood in America, refers to attitudes towards the Federal government. It is certainly possible to be a Federal libertarian while reserving highly-unlibertarian powers to state governments.

Oh so by your logic the British National party along with most of the European far right count as Libertarians because they want to give no power to Europe. In fact Europe must considered a highly libertarian continent, because most Europeans support giving Europe less powers than the founders gave to the Fed.

But anyway hang on a moment, I was assured by more than one Libertarian that no Libertarian could support slavery. So what is it? Is opposition to slavery a fundamental principle of Libertarianism or is just a matter of fashion and cultural preference.

[Eran]

Oh so by your logic the British National party along with most of the European far right count as Libertarians because they want to give no power to Europe. In fact Europe must considered a highly libertarian continent, because most Europeans support giving Europe less powers than the founders gave to the Fed.

That's an excellent point. I do believe that even when considering the proper role for state governments, the prevailing attitude at the time of the Revolution was for a much smaller role for government than what we see today. But you are correct to suggest that merely looking at the Federal constitution isn't enough to establish the point.

We know, of course, that welfare features of the modern state were absent (or radically smaller) at the time. Religious toleration, while not Federally-guaranteed, was common in the states of the union of the time. Your oft-cited prohibition on abolitionist literature is, I believe, chronologically later as well.

But anyway hang on a moment, I was assured by more than one Libertarian that no Libertarian could support slavery. So what is it? Is opposition to slavery a fundamental principle of Libertarianism or is just a matter of fashion and cultural preference.

Libertarianism isn't an absolute set of principles. At is a relative attitude towards the scope of legitimate government action. People are libertarians relative to their political environment.

Modern libertarianism is radically opposed to slavery. However, in the context of 18th-century American society, some people (Jefferson) can see a smaller role to government than others (Hamilton), and thus be considered relatively-libertarian, even while tolerating slavery.

Again, I bring up the example of Ancient Athens. We often refer to it is the cradle of democracy, and would normally characterise it as democratically-ruled. That in sharp contrast with monarchies that existed at the time. But by modern standards, Athens was all but democratic, given that women, slaves and foreigners weren't given a vote.

[Cromwell]

Now, it may have been covered. But, have any of you read Robert Heinlein's novel "For Us, The Living"? In it, he describes how the 'will of the people' could be expressed and how best to avoid corruption or a usurping of power. He goes into quite a lot of things but these are the two most important:

Firstly, he advocated a Social Credit monetary dividend, issued to all citizens. This would, immediately, allow anyone, who wanted to run for public office, do so. This eliminated the two-horse race, devil you know, political system.

Secondly, he advocated unpaid and single-term elections; the former ensured that only those willing to sacrifice potential income for the purposes of serving their country would run (I would, if I were you, advocate extending this to an automatic seizure of any and all income from other sources, during a term) and the latter ensured that any politician was elected only to enact his , previously described, policy platform (if he failed, he could regain his reputation) and also, partly, ended lobbying corruption ("if you don't do as we say, you won't get re-elected").

Anyway, if you can pick it up; it's a good-read, especially for any social liberal (it was written in Heinlein's early, more idealistic, days).

[quetzalcoatl]

Please do not turn this into a semantic discussion. The OP clearly indicates that "liberal" means someone who wishes to use state power to enforce regulation of corporations in order to protect the populace from the pitfalls of an unregulated free market.

I contend that we should not have unlimited freedom in defining (or redefining) terms. "Liberalism", like "capitalism" has a long intellectual and applied political history which can't be simply abandoned. Liberalism's intellectual baggage may seem like a dead weight, but failure to deal with it will likely condemn one to repeating past mistakes.

[Eran]

Secondly, he advocated unpaid and single-term elections; the former ensured that only those willing to sacrifice potential income for the purposes of serving their country would run (I would, if I were you, advocate extending this to an automatic seizure of any and all income from other sources, during a term) and the latter ensured that any politician was elected only to enact his , previously described, policy platform (if he failed, he could regain his reputation) and also, partly, ended lobbying corruption ("if you don't do as we say, you won't get re-elected").

What incentive would such a single-term elector have to serve the public interest? Being a volunteer job, wouldn't it attract people who are able to use their political power to advance their future interests?

Rather than lobbying incumbents seeking re-election, lobbyists will work with (1) candidates wishing to be elected for the first and only time, and (2) incumbents, starting to think about their post-political lives.

[Cromwell]

What incentive would such a single-term elector have to serve the public interest? Being a volunteer job, wouldn't it attract people who are able to use their political power to advance their future interests?

Rather than lobbying incumbents seeking re-election, lobbyists will work with (1) candidates wishing to be elected for the first and only time, and (2) incumbents, starting to think about their post-political lives.

The interest would be in his legacy and that of his party. The only thing he will be able to, definitively, say is that he did or did not do what he said he would. The parties, as well, could be easily and objectively be measured based on how many, and to what extent, the men they elected fulfilled their election pledges.

[Eran]

Determining whether or not elected officials fulfil their election pledges is anything but straightforward.

When Obama ran for re-election, his supported felt he fulfilled his election pledges or, to the extent he hasn't, he either was prevented from doing so by circumstances (or political opponents), or had good causes to change his mind.

Politicians are, by definition, expert demagogues. Experts at persuading voters to look at history through their preferred lenses.

And while commercial products can typically be compared against alternatives under identical circumstances, political leaders never can, as circumstances never repeat themselves.

So against the vague suggestion that his legacy may be tarnished, our politician balances the certainty of fat rewards from his political backers. Which do you think will dominate?

[Cromwell]

Determining whether or not elected officials fulfil their election pledges is anything but straightforward.

When Obama ran for re-election, his supported felt he fulfilled his election pledges or, to the extent he hasn't, he either was prevented from doing so by circumstances (or political opponents), or had good causes to change his mind.

Politicians are, by definition, expert demagogues. Experts at persuading voters to look at history through their preferred lenses.

And while commercial products can typically be compared against alternatives under identical circumstances, political leaders never can, as circumstances never repeat themselves.

So against the vague suggestion that his legacy may be tarnished, our politician balances the certainty of fat rewards from his political backers. Which do you think will dominate?

But that is just it, he has one chance to do what he said he would do. It doesn't matter if his failure was completely his own, he has no chance to make up for it. If a party has a history of objective failures, then the electorate will go for a party that does not.

I am not suggesting that corruption would be entirely got rid of, just that it would be minimised. No more revolving doors, no more "Four more years!", no more political cronies.

[Phred]

.

[Eran]

If a party has a history of objective failures, then the electorate will go for a party that does not.

In politics, there is no such thing as objective failure (or success). There are no objective yardsticks by which to measure failure or success. That is one of the reasons that politics is so inferior to free markets in steering the economy.

In the market, a product can objectively be determined to be a success if it sells for a price that allows it to be profitably produced. A company is objectively successful if it is profitable in the face of competition.

These objective measures are possible because different products are offered, and different companies operate simultaneously.

In politics, by contrast, only one government operates within a particular company during a given time period. Comparing across countries or across time periods is impossible, due to the huge multiplicity of differing circumstances.

Consequently, failure and success of never a matter of objective assessment, and always subjective.

[Cromwell]

In politics, there is no such thing as objective failure (or success). There are no objective yardsticks by which to measure failure or success. That is one of the reasons that politics is so inferior to free markets in steering the economy.

In the market, a product can objectively be determined to be a success if it sells for a price that allows it to be profitably produced. A company is objectively successful if it is profitable in the face of competition.

These objective measures are possible because different products are offered, and different companies operate simultaneously.

In politics, by contrast, only one government operates within a particular company during a given time period. Comparing across countries or across time periods is impossible, due to the huge multiplicity of differing circumstances.

Consequently, failure and success of never a matter of objective assessment, and always subjective.

Perhaps it would not be totally objective but it could be more objective than the present system.

A bi-partisan committee could be contravened to come up with a reasonable mathematical rating system for out-going politicians. It could, perhaps, be what percentage of their platform and, for executives, divided by how much of the legislature their party controlled.

I would argue, however, that the free-market is not so much better. A slick advertising campaign can convince a consumer to buy a product that may be objectively more expensive or of less quality than its alternative.

[Eran]

I would argue, however, that the free-market is not so much better. A slick advertising campaign can convince a consumer to buy a product that may be objectively more expensive or of less quality than its alternative.

The free market is much better, for a number of reasons.

First, we have to acknowledge that the valuation of members of the public, in their capacity as either voters or consumers, is always subjective. That subjective valuation is influenced, to varying degrees, by the objective attributes of the choices they are facing.

Second, we also agree that in either arena, making choices as either consumers or voters, people are susceptible to the qualitative, non-objective qualities of their choices. Appeal to emotion, for example, work equally well in either arena.

However, the free market choice process is vastly superior for the following reasons:
1. Setting aside the emotional component of the decision (common to both arenas), products in the market do have objective qualities that can be assessed through comparison to relevant alternatives. In some cases, the comparison is made directly by the consumer (buying one brand of laundry detergent one day, and another the following week). In other cases, it is made by professional reviewers (e.g. in car magazines) or through reference to a large number of independent individual reviews (e.g. TripAdvisor or Amazon comments).

As described above, a similar comparison to relevant alternatives is unavailable in the "political market".

2. Political choices are of very little consequence to the voting individual. To be clear, who ultimately gets elected may be of significant consequence (although typically it isn't). But the consequence of one's own, personal voting choice is nil.

By contrast, people directly bear the entire consequence of their choice as consumers, both paying the price and reaping the benefit of the product purchased.

The obvious consequence is that people tend to pay much more attention to, invest more time studying and reflecting upon consumption choices than voting choices.

3. Political choices are relatively rare, typically made only once every few years. Each choice refers to a huge mix of issues. As a result, the voting process conveys very little information from voters. Typically, only one or two issues affect the choice of a voter, with dozens or hundreds of other issues upon which the vote ultimately decides having no "voice" in the election process.

Those issues (e.g. farm subsidies), while unimportant to most voters, are of critical importance to small, well-organised special-interest groups. They concentrate their power and, in the absence of opposition, have very significant sway.

Market choices, by contrast, are very frequent (depending on the specific market), thus conveying far more detailed information from consumers to producers.

4. The political market is much more restricted. In most countries, a comfortable duopoly has been established, with voters having very limited set of choices. In the commercial markets, typically, the number of choices available is much greater. Further, barriers to entry are much lower.

If political markets were judged by the standard of anti-trust legislation enforcement, a forced breakdown of the major parties would have taken place long time ago.