Page 2 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Oct 2011, 7:34 pm

Joker wrote:

I do enjoy classical liberalism, thought it is better then American Liberalism, which is like a off brand soda its not as good as the original :lol:


Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

ruveyn



mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

17 Oct 2011, 8:49 pm

Gedrene wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Gedrene wrote:

Then why are said libertarians to be found advocating absolutely the opposite of that on occasion?


When, where, how? Be specific.

ruveyn

For example the liberalization of the equity market in the United States. That led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
How do you know? Have you done a controlled experiment? Why did the pure investment banks (e.g. Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch), who never took advantage of relaxed regulation to merge with consumer banks (at least not before the crux of the sub-prime crisis), fall into trouble before the banks that did merge with investment banks/insurance companies (eg BAC and Citi)?

The link between GLB and the sub-prime crisis is extremely sketchy, to say the least.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

17 Oct 2011, 10:57 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

Liberalism evolved, but libertarians confused policy means with ends. A liberalized economy beat the prior regime of a king's ministries chartering corporations, mercantilism, the landed aristocracy, etc.; but industrialization and trusts brought about new problems, creating illiberalisms that had to be addressed by measures libertarians disagree with.



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

18 Oct 2011, 12:49 am

http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

18 Oct 2011, 1:22 am

peebo wrote:
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php



That just about sums it up.

Many of the recent assertions seem to be nearly snippet versions from the works of Jonah Goldberg, and he is still at it with new books eminent. Some of the ideas are near copies of snips in "Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning" by Jonah Goldberg (Jan 8, 2008).

It seems to be a multi-dimensional crack from "The Nazi Hydra in America".

Google " Jonah Goldberg 2007 Old Shirer " and take the first books-dot-google listing for page 57 sample of such Libertarianism as revamped Neo-Conservative Anal Nazi pseudo-Leftest nonsense. Search for "Libertarian" in the book for more leads to disease inducing "anti-bodies" in the passionate libertarian.

Another review with stronger language is:
http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.c ... in-la.html

Tadzio



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Oct 2011, 9:20 am

NeantHumain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

Liberalism evolved, but libertarians confused policy means with ends. A liberalized economy beat the prior regime of a king's ministries chartering corporations, mercantilism, the landed aristocracy, etc.; but industrialization and trusts brought about new problems, creating illiberalisms that had to be addressed by measures libertarians disagree with.


Liberalism now embraces The State and they fall panting and puffing on each other's bosom. Liberalism evolved into "soft fascism" in which the State is conceived of as the main engine of social progress. It is no such thing. The State grown overlarge is tyranny.

Liberalism is it is now is a good view gone bad. Liberalism as it is now provides the paving blocks (oh so Good Intentions) for the road to Hell.

ruveyn



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

18 Oct 2011, 2:30 pm

mcg wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Gedrene wrote:

Then why are said libertarians to be found advocating absolutely the opposite of that on occasion?


When, where, how? Be specific.

ruveyn

For example the liberalization of the equity market in the United States. That led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
How do you know? Have you done a controlled experiment? Why did the pure investment banks (e.g. Lehman, Bear Stearns, and Merrill Lynch), who never took advantage of relaxed regulation to merge with consumer banks (at least not before the crux of the sub-prime crisis), fall into trouble before the banks that did merge with investment banks/insurance companies (eg BAC and Citi)?

The link between GLB and the sub-prime crisis is extremely sketchy, to say the least.


I think you are being far too limited in restricting your view to GLB. The sub-prime crisis points to a failure of prudential superversion on a much broader scale.

First of all, the practice of "slicing and dicing" through the development and issuance of instruments like collateralized debt obligations, mortgage backed securities and asset backed commercial paper transferred 100% of the risk of default off of the shoulders of the issuing lender and on to the buyers of mortgage backed securities. Now there's nothing wrong with selling off your investments to a third party, provided that you are honest about what you are selling off. But in the case of subprime mortgages, many of these were issued on the basis of improper ratings of the credit worthiness of the borrowers, issued by rating agencies who were responding to competitive pressure exerted by lenders.

Second, there was the practice of overleveraging, where lenders would provide up to 125% of the equity in a property as principal. Because lenders intended to sell on that risk, they had little incentive to manage that risk.

Third, there was the practice of predatory lending. Lenders would provide mortgages on very attractive terms, and fail to properly disclose the changes to those terms that would occur in mid-term, and penalties for early termination of those mortgages. Because lenders intended to sell on that risk, they had little incentive to manage it.

Fourth, there was the development of credit default swap derivatives. These are instruments largely exchanged between the investment banks that were underwriting the issuance of CDOs, MBSs and ABCPs and the insurance companies that were underwriting the default risks. They are vastly complex arrangements that were little understood at the highest levels within the Federal Reserve, the SEC, the Department of the Tresury, the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and HM Treasury (the principal government agencies responsible for prudential supervision).

Finally, there were the Chinese walls--every institution was, of course, responsible for modelling their own risk. But nobody was responsible for understanding the other guys' risk. On September 15, 2008, capitalism stopped for four days. Why did it stop? Because banks stopped lending money to banks. The liquidity market--banks lending to banks--is the biggest market in the world, bar none. And banks lend to each other because they are confident that they will get repaid. But when the housing market collapsed, everyone started looking at their own balance sheets and seeing all these junk derivatives, and suddenly nobody knew what anyone else was holding. And when you can't be certain about the other bank's balance sheet, there's only one rational answer: STOP LENDING. First Northern Rock failed. The Countrywide. Then Bear Stearns. Then Lehman.

When Lehman failed, the Treasury drew a line in the sand, and it was the wrong line. Everything seized up.

Before government gets to drawing lines in the sand, somebody should ask the question, "What happens if the whole system fails?" That somebody is government, and that question never got asked.

So, why didn't it get asked? It didn't get asked because Alan Greenspan and Mervyn King both believed that left to their own devices, people in the marketplace will naturally come up with deals that are in their mutual best interest, and that the market works best when they are left alone. This is capital liberalism at its most fundamental and it is eminently sensible and reasonable. But it was also a causa sine qua non of the subprime liquidity crisis.


_________________
--James


Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Oct 2011, 4:26 pm

peebo wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Gedrene wrote:

Then why are said libertarians to be found advocating absolutely the opposite of that on occasion?


When, where, how? Be specific.

ruveyn

For example the liberalization of the equity market in the United States. That led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Libertarianism specifically states that a minimum level of regulation was required, yet I doubt that the minimum level of regulation that was broken by the USA government brought any tears to the eyes of any libertarians.


"libertarianism" is built upon absurdities of logic. you have to expect this sort of thing.


No, it's a strategy being co-opted by the right of America. Perceiving themselves as opposite to the left is the only thing they have, and they'll do that by seizing any sort of ideal that they want and shoving it in to their coat pockets. The fact is that Libertarianism doesn't mean lack of regulations, it means as few regulations as required. And the conservatives didn't follow that ideal to the letter or the spirit and ended up burning the hands of the US economy.

They are playing politics like a military strategy. The fact is that both sides have as much claim to want to preserve free market as each other, witht he democrats saying the Govt has a larger role and the Repubs saying it has no or little role. Libertarianism is a cookie that the Republican party is trying to snatch up. What the Democrats are going to have to do is drop any pretence of not caring and smash their fist in to the Republican hand trying to grab that damned cookie because it's a double chocolate chip cookie and the Democrat's can't afford to give it up when it's in sight.

If you look at the Libertarian party manifesto (which is basically a big public announcement board for the Libertarian movement) the Democrats will find some things that will chime with them more than the Republicans. So you can't own the cookie. What matters is that you have it because neither major party can claim to be fully Libertarian.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Oct 2011, 4:29 pm

Tequila wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Do you object to the government regulating every last detail of your life. Telling you what to eat and not to eat. Telling you how to work. If you object to such detailed government regulation of your one and only life, then you are a libertarian.


Not necessarily. Most people are just liberals, not libertarians. I'm inclined towards classical liberalism and I wouldn't call myself libertarian.

ruevyn was trying to make a false black and white dichotomy there. You don't have to be libertarian to disagree with what ruevyn is saying. In fact I think you can be as much of a blue democrat as you want and not be like that.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Oct 2011, 4:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Joker wrote:

I do enjoy classical liberalism, thought it is better then American Liberalism, which is like a off brand soda its not as good as the original :lol:


Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

ruveyn


Classical Liberalism puts emphasis on the rationalization of markets. Libertarianism puts emphasis on a minimum of regulations.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Oct 2011, 4:43 pm

Gedrene wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Joker wrote:

I do enjoy classical liberalism, thought it is better then American Liberalism, which is like a off brand soda its not as good as the original :lol:


Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

ruveyn


Classical Liberalism puts emphasis on the rationalization of markets. Libertarianism puts emphasis on a minimum of regulations.


Rational Markets are Free Markets. Read Adam Smith.

Classical Liberalism pushed the separation of government and free markets. that is the essence of the libertarian stand. The separation of Government and Business. The classic for this is Herbert Spencer's book: The Man and the State.

ruveyn



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Oct 2011, 4:47 pm

ruveyn wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

Liberalism evolved, but libertarians confused policy means with ends. A liberalized economy beat the prior regime of a king's ministries chartering corporations, mercantilism, the landed aristocracy, etc.; but industrialization and trusts brought about new problems, creating illiberalisms that had to be addressed by measures libertarians disagree with.


Liberalism now embraces The State and they fall panting and puffing on each other's bosom. Liberalism evolved into "soft fascism" in which the State is conceived of as the main engine of social progress. It is no such thing. The State grown overlarge is tyranny.

Liberalism is it is now is a good view gone bad. Liberalism as it is now provides the paving blocks (oh so Good Intentions) for the road to Hell.

ruveyn


Okay, now we're equating social liberals and the Democrats with Fascists. I expect Godwin's law to come and slap us all in the face in a minute. The fact is that you're in a crisis that could become another crisis because people were allowed to have too much power to decide what they wanted and couldn't be trusted to be sensible. That is a tyranny of oligarchs and it's far worse that some half-baked whinging about government regulation when the person who pays is the man of the street, even more tragic when those men don't blame who it makes sense to blame.

Unlike anyone else (and I must admit Joker surprised me in this regard) it's clear that you're railing against something as being not only a more extreme version of what it really is, but also something that would have prevented something terrible that has already happened.

Let me tell you all government regulation isn't bad. The Republican party is more to blame of sweeping regulation and government control, and moreover of violating the constitution, than the Democrats.

At the same time whilst you people whinge about regulation the fact is that your freedoms are guaranteed by rights, which are regulations by any other name. Regulations against governments, against individuals and against groups. They're just particularly dearly held regulations.

Rights are regulations with moral imperium attached that deny the abridgement of a freedom.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 Oct 2011, 4:51 pm

[quote="Gedrene"

Okay, now we're equating social liberals and the Democrats with Fascists. I expect Godwin's law to come and slap us all in the face in a minute. [/quote]

Fascism is NOT Seig Heil and Jack Boots. Fascism is the hellish partnership between Business and Government. They are not, or should not be partners. Governments are backed up by armed force. Business consists of consentual buying and selling in the market place.

A combination of Business with Government is what I call "soft fascism". It puts a damper on innovation and liberty and ultimately relies on government guns and jails for enforcement.

ruveyn



Tadzio
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2009
Age: 68
Gender: Male
Posts: 877

18 Oct 2011, 4:59 pm

ruveyn wrote:
NeantHumain wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

Liberalism evolved, but libertarians confused policy means with ends. A liberalized economy beat the prior regime of a king's ministries chartering corporations, mercantilism, the landed aristocracy, etc.; but industrialization and trusts brought about new problems, creating illiberalisms that had to be addressed by measures libertarians disagree with.


Liberalism now embraces The State and they fall panting and puffing on each other's bosom. Liberalism evolved into "soft fascism" in which the State is conceived of as the main engine of social progress. It is no such thing. The State grown overlarge is tyranny.

Liberalism is it is now is a good view gone bad. Liberalism as it is now provides the paving blocks (oh so Good Intentions) for the road to Hell.

ruveyn


Sorry about any possible "Great Depression" and/or "Seminal Nazis" after the Great Following Pep-Talk talk from President Coolidge on January 17, 1925:

"They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of opinion that the great majority of people will always find these are moving impulses of our life. The opposite view was oracularly and poetically set forth in those lines of Goldsmith which everybody repeats, but few really believe:

Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates, and men decay.

Excellent poetry, but not a good working philosophy. Goldsmith would have been right, if, in fact, the accumulation of wealth meant the decay of men. It is rare indeed that the men who are accumulating wealth decay. It is only when they cease production, when accumulation stops, that an irreparable decay begins. Wealth is the product of industry, ambition, character and untiring effort. In all experience, the accumulation of wealth means the multiplication of schools, the increase of knowledge, the dissemination of intelligence, the encouragement of science, the broadening of outlook, the expansion of liberties, the widening of culture. Of course, the accumulation of wealth can not be justified as the chief end of existence. But we are compelled to recognize it as a means to well nigh every desirable achievement. So long as wealth is made the means and not the end, we need not greatly fear it. And there never was a time when wealth was so generally regarded as a means, or so little regarded as an end, as today. Just a little time ago we read in your newspapers that two leaders of American business, whose efforts at accumulation had been most astonishingly successful, had given fifty or sixty million dollars as endowments to educational works. That was real news. It was characteristic of our American experience with men of large resources. They use their power to serve, not themselves and their own families, but the public. I feel sure that the coming generations, which will benefit by those endowments, will not be easily convinced that they have suffered greatly because of these particular accumulations of wealth.
So there is little cause for the fear that our journalism, merely because it is prosperous, is likely to betray us. But it calls for additional effort to avoid even the appearance of the evil of selfishness. In every worthy profession, of course, there will always be a minority who will appeal to the baser instinct. There always have been, and probably always will be some who will feel that their own temporary interest may be furthered by betraying the interest of others. But these are becoming constantly a less numerous and less potential element in the community. Their influence, whatever it may seem at a particular moment, is always ephemeral. They will not long interfere with the progress of the race which is determined to go its own for ward and upward way. They may at times somewhat retard and delay its progress, but in the end their opposition will be overcome. They have no permanent effect. They accomplish no permanent result. The race is not traveling in that direction. The power of the spirit always prevails over the power of the flesh. These furnish us no justification for interfering with the freedom of the press, because all freedom, though it may sometime tend toward excesses, bears within it those remedies which will finally effect a cure for its own disorders."

And in re re-election 1928, while vacationing in the Black Hills of South Dakota, he issued the most famous of his laconic statements, "I do not choose to run for President in 1928."

By the time the disaster of the Great Depression hit the country, Coolidge was in retirement. Before his death in January 1933, he confided to an old friend, ". . . I feel I no longer fit in with these times."

Tadzio



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Oct 2011, 5:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Gedrene wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Joker wrote:

I do enjoy classical liberalism, thought it is better then American Liberalism, which is like a off brand soda its not as good as the original :lol:


Classical Liberalism of the non-statist variety is version 1.0 of the modern libertarian position. Classical Liberalism is the origin of the libertarian stand of today.

ruveyn


Classical Liberalism puts emphasis on the rationalization of markets. Libertarianism puts emphasis on a minimum of regulations.


Rational Markets are Free Markets. Read Adam Smith.

I have the Wealth of Nations a home thankyou very much and I know more about him than you do I am sure. Go tell your Grandmother to suck eggs. I didn't say free markets before so quit splicing in argument that you can feel you can get away with making. I know what a free market is thankyou. A rational market is a market that is efficient and rationsalizes resources correctly. A free market is a market where everyone is a trader and can be.

ruveyn wrote:
Classical Liberalism pushed the separation of government and free markets. that is the essence of the libertarian stand. The separation of Government and Business. The classic for this is Herbert Spencer's book: The Man and the State.

ruveyn


Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Libertarianism doesn't advocate constitutionalism. Libertarianism just advocates as little restriction as possible and often that involves a tendency towards the anarchic. That goes further than Classical Liberalism and indeed separates completely with Classical Liberalism when it comes to the guarantor of rights, where the state is supposed to do that. Libertarianism however just pooh-poohs it generally.



Gedrene
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jul 2011
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,725

18 Oct 2011, 5:36 pm

ruveyn wrote:
[quote="Gedrene"

Okay, now we're equating social liberals and the Democrats with Fascists. I expect Godwin's law to come and slap us all in the face in a minute.


Fascism is NOT Seig Heil and Jack Boots. Fascism is the hellish partnership between Business and Government. They are not, or should not be partners. Governments are backed up by armed force. Business consists of consentual buying and selling in the market place.[/quote]
Er no, that's not fascism at all. Fascism is extreme nationalism that supposes that the government has the ability to do what it wants by co-opting a falsehood of consent known as the 'general will' and supposes the superiority of the home nation over all others and uses terms such as loyalty to push all its people in to line. Now, I think American exceptionalism from the right is more indicative of Facism than the left's views of the USA. In fact Fascism isn't the Obama administration at all.

[quote="ruveyn"]A combination of Business with Government is what I call "soft fascism". It puts a damper on innovation and liberty and ultimately relies on government guns and jails for enforcement.

ruveyn[/quote]
Didn't you just explain the cosy relationship between the Republicans and seedy business oligarchs quite nicely there? I think so.