Can Liberalism Save Capitalism From Conservatism?

[JohnStOnge]

Unsubstantiated assertion after unsubstantiated assertion. But I guess that's what editorials often are.

[kalm]

Unsubstantiated assertion after unsubstantiated assertion. But I guess that's what editorials often are.

Do you disagree with this notion or think it's unsubstantiated?

Even if all business owners and executives were completely virtuous and rational, in certain circumstances the pursuit by businesses of their legitimate short-term interests could produce disaster for the market economy as a whole. What is good for particular businesses may not be good for Business with a capital B.

[JohnStOnge]

Do you disagree with this notion or think it's unsubstantiated?

Even if all business owners and executives were completely virtuous and rational, in certain circumstances the pursuit by businesses of their legitimate short-term interests could produce disaster for the market economy as a whole. What is good for particular businesses may not be good for Business with a capital B.

I was talking more about stuff like this:

the maximum of government authority allowed by libertarian theory is well below the minimum required by a functioning community.

However, I do think the implied premise behind the statement by the author is unsubstantiated. Sure, I think it's possible for one business to do something over the short term that is bad for "business" overall in the short term. But the implied premise of the author is, I think, that it is good for "business" overall over the long term to have government intervene in situations in which people are acting virtuously and rationally. I think that is an unsubstantiated premise. We do not know that things such as those things done by FDR are best for "business" overall in the long term.

In any case, the point of the American Revolution wasn't buidling the most efficient society or maximizing overall business performance. It was Liberty.

[kalm]

Do you disagree with this notion or think it's unsubstantiated?

Even if all business owners and executives were completely virtuous and rational, in certain circumstances the pursuit by businesses of their legitimate short-term interests could produce disaster for the market economy as a whole. What is good for particular businesses may not be good for Business with a capital B.

I was talking more about stuff like this:

the maximum of government authority allowed by libertarian theory is well below the minimum required by a functioning community.

However, I do think the implied premise behind the statement by the author is unsubstantiated. Sure, I think it's possible for one business to do something over the short term that is bad for "business" overall in the short term. But the implied premise of the author is, I think, that it is good for "business" overall over the long term to have government intervene in situations in which people are acting virtuously and rationally. I think that is an unsubstantiated premise. We do not know that things such as those things done by FDR are best for "business" overall in the long term.

In any case, the point of the American Revolution wasn't buidling the most efficient society or maximizing overall business performance. It was Liberty.

Then quick, point me to a country where libertarianism has been successful.

I actually agree that many of the author's points are theoretical and as you say "opinion". But in response to your point about the Revolution, and to quote FDR, "a neccessitous man is not a free man."

[native]

...Then quick, point me to a country where libertarianism has been successful. ...

The United States of America


Thanks for the layup, kalm!

[Chizzang]

The conservatism of Iranian culture lies in Zoroastrianism and centuries of Persian culture, neither of which the mullahs respect or attempt to preserve and protect. Iran is an Islamo-fascist regime, not a conservative one. Although there have been relatively liberal caliphates throughout history, sharia law is inherently fascist and bigoted. The "Revolutionary" Iranian regime is only a modern version of its twisted heritage.

China is not politically conservative. The conservatism of Chinese culture lies in Conficiansim, which the communists tried unsuccessfully to destroy for 50 years. Chinese culture is intensely ethno-centric and racist, however. Han Chinese ethnocentrism makes overbearing Yankees look like amateurs.

America and Canada remain conservative cultures at the core, while integrating many of the best aspects of classical liberalism. In fact, most North American conservatives are classical liberals in many respects. The current state of liberalism in America owes too much to communism and bears little resemblance to its honorable classical heritage.

Nice post, cleets. We probably agree more than we disagree. Maybe it comes down to definition of terms. My frustration with many of your posts comes from the self-unaware biases of your worldview.

So in other words you would describe Iran and China as liberal regimes and the US and Canada as conservative democracies?

It's pretty simple...
Liberal societies are historically much more successful for its citizens & the general population than conservative societies. This is NOT really even a debatable topic - there’s just way too much historical evidence...

Regarding Political orientation I think Liberalism taken too far doesn’t work (for obvious reasons) where as Conservative Political Orientation can be taken much farther as long as the Political structure doesn’t destroy the Liberal society it sits on or operates within

Ideally:
We have a Liberal Societal environment with a relatively conservative Political orientation… With the Political NOT dictating to the society anything regarding Religion / Morality / Basic Freedoms / and not Using Military to negotiate global corporate strategy...


that's all...

[native]

So in other words you would describe Iran and China as liberal regimes and the US and Canada as conservative democracies?

It's pretty simple...
Liberal societies are historically much more successful for its citizens & the general population than conservative societies. This is NOT really even a debatable topic - there’s just way too much historical evidence...

Regarding Political orientation I think Liberalism taken too far doesn’t work (for obvious reasons) where as Conservative Political Orientation can be taken much farther as long as the Political structure doesn’t destroy the Liberal society it sits on or operates within

Ideally:
We have a Liberal Societal environment with a relatively conservative Political orientation… With the Political NOT dictating to the society anything regarding Religion / Morality / Basic Freedoms / and not Using Military to negotiate global corporate strategy...


that's all...

Well said, cleets!

Thoughtful, balanced, intelligent, gracious... have you been getting laid lately?!???

[kalm]

It's pretty simple...
Liberal societies are historically much more successful for its citizens & the general population than conservative societies. This is NOT really even a debatable topic - there’s just way too much historical evidence...

Regarding Political orientation I think Liberalism taken too far doesn’t work (for obvious reasons) where as Conservative Political Orientation can be taken much farther as long as the Political structure doesn’t destroy the Liberal society it sits on or operates within

Ideally:
We have a Liberal Societal environment with a relatively conservative Political orientation… With the Political NOT dictating to the society anything regarding Religion / Morality / Basic Freedoms / and not Using Military to negotiate global corporate strategy...


that's all...

Well said, cleets!

Thoughtful, balanced, intelligent, gracious... have you been getting laid lately?!???

Hint, Nate: We don't neccessarily have the ideal part.

[JohnStOnge]

Then quick, point me to a country where libertarianism has been successful.

I don't think I can point you to a country where libertarianism has been tried.

[JohnStOnge]

It's pretty simple...
Liberal societies are historically much more successful for its citizens & the general population than conservative societies. This is NOT really even a debatable topic - there’s just way too much historical evidence...

I think a lot depends on how one defines liberal and conservative. For example: Was the American Revolution a "liberal" movement or a "conservative" one? It was "liberal" in the sense that it was a dramatic change. But it might be construed as "conservative" by today's standards in that it was a movement towards reduction of the power of central government.

I have often thought that what we call "conservative" today might actually be liberal because what is called the "conservative" position today involves moving away from the status quo of looking at government as the solution to all problems while what is called "liberal" involves basically sticking to that status quo.

It is a VERY debatable topic.

[Chizzang]

It's pretty simple...
Liberal societies are historically much more successful for its citizens & the general population than conservative societies. This is NOT really even a debatable topic - there’s just way too much historical evidence...

I think a lot depends on how one defines liberal and conservative. For example: Was the American Revolution a "liberal" movement or a "conservative" one? It was "liberal" in the sense that it was a dramatic change. But it might be construed as "conservative" by today's standards in that it was a movement towards reduction of the power of central government.

I have often thought that what we call "conservative" today might actually be liberal because what is called the "conservative" position today involves moving away from the status quo of looking at government as the solution to all problems while what is called "liberal" involves basically sticking to that status quo.

It is a VERY debatable topic.

Like most conservatives you get confused by this one...
I'll keep it simple: In a liberal society personal autonomy, the right to choose one’s own way of life for oneself, is the supreme value. A liberal society makes a sharp distinction between the sphere of personal moral views and that of the law; no one can use the law to impose their beliefs on others...

In a liberal society Government has little to no involvement in Religion Morality and Personal Freedoms

That's all a Liberal society is...

[kalm]

I think a lot depends on how one defines liberal and conservative. For example: Was the American Revolution a "liberal" movement or a "conservative" one? It was "liberal" in the sense that it was a dramatic change. But it might be construed as "conservative" by today's standards in that it was a movement towards reduction of the power of central government.

I have often thought that what we call "conservative" today might actually be liberal because what is called the "conservative" position today involves moving away from the status quo of looking at government as the solution to all problems while what is called "liberal" involves basically sticking to that status quo.

It is a VERY debatable topic.

Like most conservatives you get confused by this one...
I'll keep it simple: In a liberal society personal autonomy, the right to choose one’s own way of life for oneself, is the supreme value. A liberal society makes a sharp distinction between the sphere of personal moral views and that of the law; no one can use the law to impose their beliefs on others...

In a liberal society Government has little to no involvement in Religion Morality and Personal Freedoms

That's all a Liberal society is...

Shit, you just turned 99% of the conks on this board into social liberals. Since technically speaking they are also economic liberals, they must therefore be liberal liberals.

Next time someone brings up Friedmanism or Hayek I'm gonna swat it and tell them to get their liberal shit outta here.

Political labels are fun. Mostly meaningless, but still fun. No wonder you guys like Rush and Glenn so much.