Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Jul 09, 2019 1:30 pm

It's not such an unfair point. He wants to subsidise coal miners; punish companies that move their supply chain across borders; remove unskilled migrant workers from the local economy; impose import substitution tarrifs; cancel multilateral trade deals... not a classic socialist agenda, but a very traditional trade unionist platform.

We mock his Art of the Deal stuff, but he sold all that to guys who still think they are free trading capitalists.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5936
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:28 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:49 am
Well we aren't going to agree on any of that because you two are fundamentally illiberal.
We're classical Liberals. We believe in individual rights and responsibilities. We believe in voluntary societies, local solutions, and charity. (At least, I certainly do, but I can't speak for Henry on that.) Not big government.
It's part of any liberal creed to maximise the space for personal conscience and give people space to live their lives.
Yes, and...?
A secondary corollary is that we don't subscribe to myths of human perfectibility,
Yes, and....?
so we aren't going to buy into the idea that...a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people.
This would mean you're for personal conscience and space to live life, but against self-sufficiency? That contradicts itself. If you don't believe people deserve a chance to be self-sufficient, why would you give them more space, or trust their personal conscience?

You've forgotten the inescapable flip-side of personal freedom: personal responsibility. If you believe people deserve to be given rights and opportunities, then you also have to believe they are capable of taking them, and using them in a way which is good for them and good for society. And you have to be willing not simply to regard them as responsible for their successes, but responsible for their failings, as well.
The real world is where we make policy choices,
If "policy choices" are your answer to local problems, then you're a big government advocate, and not a classical Liberal. Big government destroys both personal responsibility and personal freedoms, in the name of mass-management.
If you are intent on analysing poverty as a moral failing
Well, shouldn't you be, if it is?

Obviously it often is. Far more often, in fact, than the mere fact of having less money. More money is possible to make, if one gets life in order. Again, all the studies prove that all you've got to do is finish high school, not misbehave reproductively or financially, and get a job. Problem solved.

And on the contrary, are you suggesting that moral failings, such as alcoholism, drug abuse, gambling, broken homes and/or financial mismanagement are NOT contributors to poverty? If you are saying that, then you have not single bit of data to support such a claim, and a multitude of credible studies that contradict you.

The problem here is that Leftist ideology always gets put ahead of facts; even if the facts are totally clear, as in this case. So Leftist ideology simply ignores them, and continues on its merry way.
Last edited by Immanuel Can on Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Skepdick
Posts: 889
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:28 pm
We believe in voluntary societies, local solutions
Do you believe in local solutions to global issues? Like curing the top 10 MEDICAL causes of human death?

Or do you think that each village should find a cure for itself?

Do you know anything about economics?

And the most pertinent question, when did you locally reinvent the wheel for yourself?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5936
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:39 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:28 pm
We believe in voluntary societies, local solutions
Do you believe in local solutions to global issues?
I have not said we should have NO governments. National defence, protection of common human rights, law enforcement, immigration, and so on, are legitimate functions of government. No one doubts that.

But what classical Liberalism holds is that government should a) not be bigger than necessary to perform such functions, b) be balanced by controls on their power (by checks and balances, such as a limited term of office), and c) not be permitted to curtail human rights and human responsibilities.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:48 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:28 pm
A secondary corollary is that we don't subscribe to myths of human perfectibility,
Yes, and....?
so we aren't going to buy into the idea that...a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people.
This would mean you're for personal conscience and space to live life, but against self-sufficiency? That contradicts itself. If you don't believe people deserve a chance to be self-sufficient, why would you give them more space, or trust their personal conscience?
You see how you took a single sentence there and you treated it as two, and unrelated at that, in order to change the meaning? That sort of behaviour is a problem.

Now you can do your shock and surprise routine, and let me kow how you don't think that's what you were doing. I expect it's sort of hurtful that I would misinterpret your actions this way ... and the all other stuff you did last time I took exception to the same thing.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5936
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:53 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:28 pm
Quoting FD, in part:
so we aren't going to buy into the idea that...a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people.
You see how you took a single sentence there and you treated it as two, and unrelated at that, in order to change the meaning? That sort of behaviour is a problem.
The only thing I did is remove the part about religiosity, which was off topic and had nothing to do with classical Liberalism. There's no automatic connection between being classical Liberal and being religious.

That was your error, but I was trying not to call you on it. I wanted to protect your feelings, and it's not nice when somebody points out an obvious error on your part.

Now I have to. Sorry. I tried to avoid that.

Skepdick
Posts: 889
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:39 pm
I have not said we should have NO governments. National defence, protection of common human rights, law enforcement, immigration, and so on, are legitimate functions of government. No one doubts that.

But what classical Liberalism holds is that government should a) not be bigger than necessary to perform such functions, b) be balanced by controls on their power (by checks and balances, such as a limited term of office), and c) not be permitted to curtail human rights and human responsibilities.
How and why have you chosen to outsource those particular problems to the government?

Why do you task government to solve people-problems (crime, violence, invasions) but you don't task government to solve scientific problems - like heart disease. Medical conditions kill way more people than crime does.

And I ask again: do you even understand economics? If not - how do you measure a return-on-investment on taxes spent? What are you buying with your taxes?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5936
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:11 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:59 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:39 pm
I have not said we should have NO governments. National defence, protection of common human rights, law enforcement, immigration, and so on, are legitimate functions of government. No one doubts that.

But what classical Liberalism holds is that government should a) not be bigger than necessary to perform such functions, b) be balanced by controls on their power (by checks and balances, such as a limited term of office), and c) not be permitted to curtail human rights and human responsibilities.
Why do you outsource those particular problems to government?
They're not "outsourced." Classical Liberalism recognizes there are legitimate functions of national government.

It's about "balance of power," really. Leftists believe that Big Government is always better...for everything. Unfortunately, they're indifferent to the ways in which Big Government is insensitive to local realities and personal freedoms/responsibilities. So large-scale disasters routinely follow, and most particularly, curtailments of local autonomy and of human rights. Classical Liberals want hedges to prevent that.
...you don't task government to solve scientific problems - like heart disease.
Name the last such medical "problem" Big Government solved by itself.

In every case, you'll find it was done by local research, private enterprise and individual initiative. Very little gets done through Big Government, in regard to medicine. In fact, approval-after-the-fact by the FDA is about all they do; and I think we can grant them that, even if they keep slowing down the release of new drugs...sometimes too much.

Skepdick
Posts: 889
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:18 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:11 pm
They're not "outsourced." Classical Liberalism recognizes there are legitimate functions of national government.
Potato potatoh. For all your preaching about 'personal responsibility' all the problems you are NOT busy solving yourself and for which you are paying taxes, are (in practice) outsourced to the government.

Outsource. verb. obtain (goods or a service) by contract from an outside supplier.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:11 pm
It's about "balance of power," really. Leftists believe that Big Government is always better...for everything
I don't know a single person who believes that.

Some problems are better solved locally.
Some problems are better solved centrally.
Not all problems are scale-invariant.

The entire social dialectic is about deciding who should be solving which problems and how to fund those projects.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:11 pm
Name the last such medical "problem" Big Government solved by itself.
Define 'by itself'. Would you say that you are solving 'by yourself' all those things you are buying from other people?
Like electricity, cars, medical services, food?

The government solves problems the same way. It pays people to solve problems. The only difference is in the number of zeros the government can write on its cheques.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:11 pm
In every case, you'll find it was done by local research, private enterprise and individual initiative. Very little gets done through Big Government, in regard to medicine. In fact, approval-after-the-fact by the FDA is about all they do; and I think we can grant them that, even if they keep slowing down the release of new drugs...sometimes too much.
3rd time I am asking you this. But it's really becoming the elephant in the room. Do you even understand economics?

How much do you think it costs to do medical research and solve problems that matter at social scale?
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 1751
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:22 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:53 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:48 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:28 pm
Quoting FD, in part:
so we aren't going to buy into the idea that...a slice of self sufficiency makes for better people.
You see how you took a single sentence there and you treated it as two, and unrelated at that, in order to change the meaning? That sort of behaviour is a problem.
The only thing I did is remove the part about religiosity, which was off topic and had nothing to do with classical Liberalism. There's no automatic connection between being classical Liberal and being religious.

That was your error, but I was trying not to call you on it. I wanted to protect your feelings, and it's not nice when somebody points out an obvious error on your part.

Now I have to. Sorry. I tried to avoid that.
This is just insane. You took a string of consecutive words with a comma in the middle to indicate a single sentence with two clauses. You chopped that into two seperate quotes and treated them as unrelated. This changed the meaning of what I wrote. Then, when I called you on it and in no way accidentally included both quotes, including the comma to indicate they were one sentence, you just removed one of them to requote a little bit less accurately.

I couldn't care less about you tastefully eliding a trivial reference to religion, that's cosmetic. I care about you changing the logical structure of what I present, because that is dishonesty.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5936
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:23 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:18 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:11 pm
They're not "outsourced." Classical Liberalism recognizes there are legitimate functions of national government.
Potato potatoh.
:D Ah. I forgot.

You don't always believe what you say.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:11 pm
Name the last such medical "problem" Big Government solved by itself.
Define 'by itself'.
I did. Without recourse to private enterprise, individual initiative, and private foundations. I mean a time when Big Government said, "We don't need you local lads anymore...WE'RE going to solve this medical problem..." and put their actions into making it happen...and succeeded.

When did such a thing ever happen?

Skepdick
Posts: 889
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Skepdick » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:25 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:23 pm
I did. Without recourse to private enterprise, individual initiative, and private foundations. I mean a time when Big Government said, "We don't need you local lads anymore...WE'RE going to solve this medical problem..." and put their actions into making it happen...and succeeded.

When did such a thing ever happen?
The exact same thing can be said about any business.

When did any business ever solve anything? When did any business ever say 'WE'RE going to solve this medical problem....' and put their actions into making it happen?

People said such things. People undertook to solve those problems, not businesses or enterprises.

(if that's the sophistry game you want to play - I'll beat you with your own cheap parlour tricks)
Last edited by Skepdick on Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Mannnie

Post by henry quirk » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:25 pm

"Why do I even talk, when you're going to say it with more style? :wink:"

As I say: when I get the right balance between nicotine and caffeine, I can do marvelous things.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5936
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:26 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:22 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:53 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 2:48 pm


You see how you took a single sentence there and you treated it as two, and unrelated at that, in order to change the meaning? That sort of behaviour is a problem.
The only thing I did is remove the part about religiosity, which was off topic and had nothing to do with classical Liberalism. There's no automatic connection between being classical Liberal and being religious.

That was your error, but I was trying not to call you on it. I wanted to protect your feelings, and it's not nice when somebody points out an obvious error on your part.

Now I have to. Sorry. I tried to avoid that.
This is just insane. You took a string of consecutive words with a comma in the middle to indicate a single sentence with two clauses. You chopped that into two seperate quotes and treated them as unrelated.
No.

I actually did a standard editing procedure. I eliminated an irrelevant clause, and indicated that I had done so by three little dots (...), which is called an "ellipsis," and is standard academic procedure. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis)
This changed the meaning of what I wrote.
Only by eliminating the irrelevant part.

But you want it back in? Do you want to claim that classical Liberals are all religious?

You can do that, if you want. What's your pleasure here?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 5936
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:32 pm

Skepdick wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:25 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 3:23 pm
I did. Without recourse to private enterprise, individual initiative, and private foundations. I mean a time when Big Government said, "We don't need you local lads anymore...WE'RE going to solve this medical problem..." and put their actions into making it happen...and succeeded.

When did such a thing ever happen?
The exact same thing can be said about any business.
Well, only if you believe individuals can be induced to do research without the enterprise opportunity. I think that's questionable, but okay.
When did any business ever solve anything?

In almost every case of the invention of a new drug or therapy, it was the private enterprise opportunity and the ingenuity of individual scientists that produced it. But as I say, I don't mind ignoring that.
People solve problems, not businesses or enterprises.
So now you're even more classical Liberal? It's now the individual, and not even the enterprise in which he works?

I'm fine with you saying so. But I don't mind giving some props to the corporation that funded his research. You and I don't have to agree about that, because it's not the problem.

What did Big Government do, though? That's your problem with that argument.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests