Once liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. Its hold was so strong that the Red-Baiter Richard Nixon claimed to advocate “practical liberalism”. It is now crashingly clear that this period of American political life is over.
Liberalism had its own philosophers, chief among them John Rawls. In his book A Theory of Justice, Rawls began with a thought experiment on the origins of a society. Of course, we didn’t create our society, nor did we create its rules. They showed themselves to us as we grew up and interacted with the wide world. Rawls set out to derive a set of principles that would emerge if people could participate in the creation of rules that would govern them. He created a thought experiment that begins with what he calls the Original Position. Here is a good description.
In the thought experiment, the people charged with setting up the rules work behind the veil of ignorance. They do not know the race, ethnicity, gender, age, wealth, intelligence, joy, beauty, physical abilities, or anything else about the citizens they represent, and they do not know anything about the society. They know that citizens are different with different life goals; that the society has enough material wealth to go around, but not enough for everyone to have all they want; and they know something about how people live. Rawls reasons his way to the rules they would create that would maximize the share of each citizen in just and equal treatment and in material wealth. Here is the simple version of those principles:
First Principle: Each person has the same indefeasible claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme of liberties for all;
Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions:
They are to be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
They are to be to the greatest benefit of the least-advantaged members of society (the difference principle).
The First Principle tells us how to design a political framework. The second tells us how to design our social and economic framework. In the last 30 years, most citizens and all politicians have discarded these liberal principles, casually, unthinkingly, as we would a used Kleenex.
What happened to our basic liberties? We torture people, we conduct mass raids to see if we can find undocumented people, we wiretap without warrants, we poke and prod at travelers or take naked pictures of them, we let nutcases buy guns and kill people, and we have other nutcases walking around carrying weapons in bars, churches and legislatures. Presidents of both parties assert that they have the power to order the extra-judicial murder of our citizens.
What happened to our basic economic liberal principles? Once it was the general rule that as our economy grew, all citizens shared in that growth, in line with the principle that economic benefits conferred on the wealthy benefit the poorer members of society. That ended in 1980.
Economic benefits have been showered on the wealthy ever since. Progressive taxation, the idea that high earners should pay more taxes than low, began to erode under Reagan when FICA taxes were increased to strengthen Social Security, but the proceeds were actually used to finance tax cuts for the wealthy. Today both parties are poised to cut Social Security benefits to those who thought they were paying for them, completing the theft. The huge range of loopholes for the rich minimize the progressive effects of the income tax. The effects are obvious.
We have abandoned even the pretense of fairness at the economic level. No one seriously argued that the most recent round of tax cuts for the rich would benefit the bottom 90% of society. President Obama simply gave in to the demands of the rich whose servant politicians refused to allow minimal and incomplete benefits to the unemployed unless the rich got more. Obama presented a done deal to the cowardly democrats in Congress and the triumphant minority party, and they joyfully agreed.
Liberal principles have not been replaced by an equally compelling set of conservative principles. We are now governed only by the principles of power. Our liberties are gone in the name of fighting terrorism, or offered up as sacrifices to the demands of the religious right wing. Our economy is run for the benefit of the tiny minority of financiers and their wealthy clients.
The President says he is a pragmatist. Whatever that means, it has nothing to do with liberal principles. That era of American history is over.





95 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors,” Conservative Political Action Conference, January 2002. Coulter later clarified what she meant; “when I said we should “execute” John Walker Lindh, I mis-spoke. What I meant to say was ‘We should burn John Walker Lindh alive and televise it on prime-time network TV’. My apologies for any misunderstanding that might have occurred” . http://www.conservapedia.com/Ann_Coulter
Sounds like good old fashioned religious communism. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Or in a much older version “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Peace
The right wing loves law and order. Like putting people in work or death camps. Torturing people. The death penalty. Waging war. And so on. The Left loves none of those things. Peace
Obama’s version of the 1% Doctrine is that he only actually responds to the demands of the top 1%.
The other 99% will have to make do with his Fiercely Advocating shtick.
Ann Coulter from another source…
LOL – :-)
well said
The GOP has sold the idea nothing is “fair” except the “market” – any government regulation or legislation to help anyone is “unfair” and “un-American”. Government contracts to private companies doing work previously done by government workers lessens the power of the government to increase its size and thereby reduce Freedom.
The narrative of “freedom” and not “un-American” and indeed the only way to be “fair” is an easy sell.
I have yet to see what the Democratic Party has come forward with to counter the above. It is amazing the Democratic Party still exists, given its lack of a message that is as easy to sell as the GOP’s.
a good read!
cept when WE…have to bail out the market and all the rich investors
Regarding the “Top 1% getting a quarter of the income” thingy:
It’d be one thing were these one-percenters actually creating tangible new wealth in the forms of sustainable, broadly beneficial goods and services here. But, recall that during the last decade as much as 40% of U.S. corporate profits came from the “financial sector,” about 3 times what you’d expect of an “agency/facilitator” economic function. Basically there was increasingly more (and faster) profit to be made via flipping paper, foisting off the risks on clueless others. We pretty much know this whole latest burst bubble story by now.
Not that we’ve learned much. There is a very real danger we’ll essentially go right back to that. Beyond that (and relatedly), say I have more money to “invest” as a result of Repu’ublicist tax cutting. I can start a business, employ people, work and worry 24/7 for years, yadayadayada, and maybe turn a profit eventually, — OR I can put the money into paper and keep my nails clean. Both options entail “risk,” but our system seems to favor the clean-nails choice, net.
Now, at the end of that paper chain may well be the output of tangible goods and services, but a good bit of them — perhaps most of them — will be in places like Asia, India, and emerging 3rd world economies outside of our borders.
Dunno. I think we are pretty screwed.
There are no real markets. There are only Republican frauds who talk about free markets. Peace
your conclusion is inescapable.
His “Theory of Justice”, is just that…His THEORY.
Our Constitution is not THEORY but our Law. We have not lost our liberties, but we have given them away, by screaming to government to “take care of us from cradle to grave and to keep us safe at all costs, or we’ll sue”.
Here is my THEORY of Justice. The government should protect my right to retain my hard earned property. I will decide how and when it should be used; Protect my right to succeed and protect my right to fail; Protect my free speech and religous beliefs.
That, my friends is Justice.
Money makes money. People who work make wages. Wages don’t make money. The wealthy don’t work for wages, they profit from their money. Peace
The only thing NOT FAIR in this world is children with cancer. That’s it..
Not really. Rawls agrees that some inequality is necessary and just, and benefits everyone. The idea is that the rules must insure that everybody actually benefits, that the benefits don’t all flow to the top. Obama and the Democrats have joined the republicans in repudiating this view. It’s perfectly all right for all the benefits to flow to the top, and for all the losses to fall on the bottom 90%.
You are not a liberal.
Your single principle makes no sense to me. Why should I pay a nickel to protect your property? Particularly if I have no expectation of having any, and you use your property to make my life worse?
masaccio, I pretty much agree, although I think that most Americans still support lots of liberal ideals- you just have to call them by a different name.
If I had to pick one factor in the abandonment of liberal policies by our government it would be the desire to make America all about the Benjamins- which has corrupted our politics and subverted the notion that we are a nation of laws and not men. Unfortunately, we seem to be going down the same path of other failed great powers, and in particular Great Britain, in decimating our manufacturing base and broad middle class to in order to promote the financial wealth of the few. No government can stand for long against the power of concentrated wealth of a small number of financial elites.
That’s a Libertarian’s idea of paradise: rights but no responsibilities.
It isn’t Justice.
Justice is making sure that people who are innocent don’t get punished. It’s making sure that people who need help, of any kind, can get it, without having to give up everything they own. It’s making sure that everyone who wants to work can have a job that pays enough to live on. It’s making sure that everyone pays taxes, not just the little people.
Ahhhh… the Ayn Legend-in-Her-Own-Mind Rand argument.
In the United States of SCAMerica, you are arguing for a TON of strong government. Friend, your “rights” exist only to the extent that society writ large will enforce them for your benefit. While underestimating the significant requisite resources for doing so may be great, convenient fun, it is nonetheless pretty unreflective and unhelpful.
lol !
A lot of what calls itself the left these days seems to acquiesce to, if not exactly love, these things.
But you do want the government to protect you, and you seem unwilling to give the government anything at all in return. Where will the government get the resources to “protect your right to retain your hard-earned property” if you are unwilling to pay any taxes to support the government?
Kelly doth spell “things” out most clearly, deftly, and humorously.
;~DW.
“Some inequality is necessary.” That’s where his thinking lost me. He really offered no mechanism(s), aside from those already in use, to prevent wealth from ultimately moving to the top. Peace
Lots of people call themselves lots of things and yet have no idea what they’re talking about. The Christ was an honest to God Leftist. Which is why the Jewish and Roman authorities found him to be so dangerous and put him to death. Socrates as well. Peace
kumari should hop on over to the Korengal Valley, stand on a rock outcropping, and loudly proclaim his/her “rights.”
…and temporarily, it seems. score one for the magic of market.
you are insuring that it is over by voting lesser evil and being unwilling to accept a brief period out of power to purge the party of nonliberals like obama.
letS not forget McShitty
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001170-503544.html
It may be that specific liberal proposals have majority support. But ask around and see if these liberal principles have majority support. I don’t think they do. And if they do, there is precious little willingness to act on them particularly by the elites that run the nation, and our politicians and judges.
The problem with the Original position is that it requires a binding agreement from all interested parties. Within a system of more or less fundamentalist market-ism, its not in the interest of the ruling class to agree to limit themselves in any way. Capitlalism is incapable of accepting or agreeing to any limit to itself.
Funny you should write about this now. There was an article in Atlantic a week or so ago that talked in part about the similiarities of libertarians, like the Pauls, and liberals. The problem with the pure libertarians is their world view tends to disintegrate the more questions you ask. All sounds good at one level but three steps later it goes to pieces, like I suspect Kumaris here will do as well. Protect my property but if the other guy loses his pension that’s ok? It must’ve been his fault, I suppose.
That’s just wrong
The wealthy “elites that run this nation” would be out of business if the Left ever took over. The Republicans hate the Left. Peace
and thats continuously reinforced by the feedback loop of elitist directed advertising/propaganda. public opinion hasnt changed because the majority are better off now than they were 40 years ago, but because of the massive and continous campaign to capture public opinion by the right. in these latter stages the establishment liberals have joined the right and abandoned any allegiance to the original position. the problem is not an idealogical one, it is a class problem
Their world view is the ‘survival of the fittest’. That’s not even a Christian world view. Or shouldn’t be. Peace
Protect my right to MY earned property..enforce the rule of law..
NOT protect people from themselves..there is a HUGE difference
Which is why Capitalism is fighting for its very existence as we speak. Capitalism does not work for the benifit of the many and never has. Peace
How did you “earn” this property of yours? Did you buy it or steal it? Be careful the answer that you give may incriminate you….legally Peace
but how do you accomplish that without collecting taxes to pay for the “protection”. who decides what is your “fairly earned property”, and what your share of responsibilty for payment is?
No it is not OK if his pension was paid for by HIM..most times it is not, but paid for by the Corp.
That is why 401K’s and IRA’s are a better idea. That way the individual has skin in the game. The idea that anyone has a right to paid vacation, paid time off, retirement or health care is just ludicrous. Have any of you worked for yourself? When the independent takes a vacation HE pays for it..when he retires, if he so chooses, HE pays for it..if he has a retirement plan, HE sets it up and pays for it all..lock stock and barrell..He must pay for his own Health Insurance, and when he does take a vacation, it is not paid for. He gets paid only when he works and makes money. He is on vacation, he’s not working, not making money, not getting paid. So jsut tell me WHY it should be different if you work for a Corp.???HUH??? The pay check is the barter exchange for your work. Then you should be responsible for the other 16 hours of your daily life.
Yes we do!!
can you answer my question @37 ?
What do you mean fairly earned..it’s earned. I dont mind paying taxes. What I do mind is paying to take care of others..Subsidizing anyone with a hang nail, disabilities, most of them needless..anchor babies, school lunches, green jobs (what a scam), GM,GE,ADM,Freddie and Fannie, foreclosure bailouts, cash for clunckers, TSA, ICE,protecting the silver minnow, on and on it goes…just STOP it
(((chirp.. chirp.. chirp..)))
My post clearly read: Protect my right to succeed and protect my right to fail;
Pitiful and very sad. Who is it in kids literature who has a heart two sizes too small? The Grinch?
I got mine, f**k everyone else?
Pitiful.
The soulless insularity and tiny mindedness of the libertarian mind endlessly fascinates me.
We did not give away our liberties. They were stolen from us by elected Democrats and Republicans who violated their oath and sold our birthright for money.
The person who is demanding that the government take care of him/her from cradle to grave is a straw man. I have never made such demands and I have never known anyone to make such demands.
Subsidizing anyone with a hang nail, disabilities, most of them needless..anchor babies, school lunches, green jobs (what a scam), GM,GE,ADM,Freddie and Fannie, foreclosure bailouts, cash for clunckers, TSA, ICE,protecting the silver minnow, on and on it goes…just STOP it
And here we are folks…the “conservative” mind laid bare. Its all about you. Of course you recive NOTHING at all for all your hard work and wealth. But hey, at least you admit that there will be a governemtn whether libertarians say there shouldnt be or not.BTW. Im sorry i did not know that you got stuck paying for all that wildly diverse group of things.
WOW, intelligent
Fixed.
I’m going to make this brief massacio. Why did Rawls rework TJ? The account of stability was wrong. Look at how the overlapping consensus account of stability works in the final view presented in Political Liberalism. A just and stable society is not be possible unless people are willing to publicly show how their comprehensive moral doctrines support the principles of justice. This has not happened. Rawls understanding of the need for this is by far the deepest aspect of his thought. His reading of Habermas was the most likely stimulus. Cf. H’s ideal speech act.
The snotty superiority and arrogance of that comment boggles the mind.
LOL. sorry about that but i waited and did not think you would answer. when you did spew out that spastic bottled up response i was suprised at your directness and honesty. thank you.
You have NO IDEA how much I help others..but I do it on my own..I don’t abdicate the responsibility to the Government.
You know, you people are always clamoring for the Govt. to get you out of a hole..but then you are the first to cry like helpless babies when the Govt’s inefficiency rears its ugly head..you know like snow removal in NYC, Katrina, 9/11…hypocrits, all
WOW, intelligent, again
As someone who has in past lives lived and worked in places like NYC and upstate NY, it just couldn’t be a problem with snow removal because the Republicans in charge have cut far more than fat from city and state budgets could it?
Nah, of course not.
your bitterness is matched by your self absorbed narcisism and your ignorance. you really are responding emotionally and without much objective understanding of the world around you.
what do you mean?
thanks SirLurksalot.why cant we get a real talk about the freidmanite reliance on magical miracles in thier model to sell it? they always assume that technology and optimism will miracuclously solve problems. its why even an old money coot like G.H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics”. can it be because their true argument is Kumaris? That they dont really expect their rising tide to lift all boats, and that they include that trickle down nonsense because they arent as honest as Kumari?
When a promise is made it is a contract. Remember that or does it only count when you want it to? When a company says I will pay you this much when you retire or for vacation or sick pay, the employee has a right to expect payment. In your world of thinking the person has agreed to forego compensation for payment later, like insurance, a bargain has been struck. the same applies to SS and medicare. If there was no promise the person would logically have taken some other action. There are times contracts can be broken but only at exteme times, like bankruptcy.
I remind you again that a promise of a pension is my property, not something you can discard like trash.
Oh if the world were only filled with people like you who were o so charitable. Maybe we should have a government to enforce it. O wait, we do.
Kumari, you are the perfect example of what that article in Atlantic was talking about. A few question in and your whole world view falls apart. you have to maintain a fiction based on something that sounds good like “everyone has to take care of themselves.” But of course children cannot, those injured cannot and on and on it goes until you can no longer say “everyone” just some people should and even that gets cloudy. Oh if the world were so simple.
I take your excellent comment as a partial response to solerso @31. The reasoning process that leads to the principles of justice may not resonate with everyone, at least enough to cause them to follow it into real life. People’s moral structures may lead to the same or reasonably similar principles.
The stronger point solerso makes is that some groups won’t agree because they think they can do better on their own, as kumari seems to think, or because they follow some competing set of rules, like might makes right. It is possible for them to disagree because they are not at the beginning, laying out the rules, but in the middle of an existing society, where they can pick and choose and push and shove for their own benefit, regardless of the consequences to others.
Either way, we are talking about the end of liberalism. There is no one even pretending that we run this society on the basis of the Principles of Justice described by Rawls, or any similar set of liberal ideas.
If there is majority support for old liberal programs or projects, it is because those supporters expect to benefit more from their continuation than from ending them, not out of some overarching principle.
I just perused the comments. I wasn’t responding to anyone.
Some in this thread are laboring under a misconception that there is some account of property prior to an account of justice. There is not. And to argue from property to justice is just begging the question.
Your’s is an interesting post masaccio. And I agree with your conclusion that Liberalism is dead. Or perhaps just the expression of it, suppressed by the Fascists who have managed to gain the upper hand.
If we would have another go at freedom, democracy and the rule of law we will have to defeat not the Democrats or the Republicans but the Democrats AND the Republicans. It is they who suppress Liberalism on behalf of the Oligarchs who intend to enslave us all in a new Feudalism.
Massaccio: Excellent post and excellent question, which will deserve more than one book to answer, if ever.
Here’s what I think as a member of the gilded generation that lived through the whole decline as an adult. One reason is the exceptional social mobility that characterized the United States between the end of World War II and about 1970. There was nothing like it, not even in the 1840s and 1850s, when virtually free land made it possible for ordinary people to strike it rich in capital gains. In my generation it was access to excellent education and a strong job market (for white people). That mobility lifted many of us from our working class roots; it also removed us from the communities in which we were raised, as we moved to the metropolitan areas where our skills were more highly remunerated. People usually take the high mobility of Americans as something good: I think it weakens community sentiment and the capacity to effectively demand and supply public goods. When you are mobile, you can just move to a better jurisdiction (I moved to Canada).
Things were so good, that we didn’t think we had to worry much about governing. We let the second-raters do it for us, and we got, as one would expect, second-rate results.
A second reason is surbanization and television, which wrecked the local newspaper as a source of political information and a means of expressing local community. I remember when I first moved to New York City in 1961. There must have been at least seven major English daily newspapers, each speaking to a particular community, and in a sense representing it. TV ruined them. The time people spend in cars going to and from work also ruined the newspapers, and made it virtually impossible for people to participate in ordinary public affairs, like local improvement clubs or even the PTA. The church has taken up some of the slack, but the growth has been among evangelicals, not the mainline denominations.
My point is that in addition to the obvious culprits, there were some basic trends in American life developing after 1960 that were going to make it increasingly difficult to maintain a more collective approach to our public life. There was a tipping point in the mid 80s when a large number of people determined that they could make it better on their own than in a group. A kind of reversed version of Benjamin Franklin’s quip that ‘if we don’t hang together, we will all hang separately.’
The original position is hypothetical and it is stipulated that the parties don’t know whether they are wealthy or not.
That’s a little strong and I apologize..We hate the way you “think”. Not you..Your thinking, in our mind, is un-American
The benefits of socialism have been made apparent. The Pilgrims gave it up soon after arrival in the New World. The Paris Commune is no longer around. The Soviet socialist empire collapsed in its own stew of inefficiency, as did the slave states forced to obey its dictats enforced by tanks. Western hemisphere Marxist regimes appeal to the basest of human instincts and can only survive through police state repression, a necessity for a socialist state. Existing states based on the socialist model, China for instance, prosper only to the extent that they adopt free market practices. The European socialists have been subsidized by the free market west for decades, now that can no longer be sustained. But class envy continues to justify the confiscation of property to achieve the equal outcomes that neo-Marxist fools like Frank Lester Ward never quit dreaming about.
Socialism comes in degrees as does capitalism. Free markets will not survive the destruction of the middle class. Indeed, they have not. Class envy is far from the only consideration at work. And what of the confiscation of property to achieve unequal outcomes? Or do you not see it?
…the right hates liberals…
Proclaiming hatred for other human beings? That’s an invitation for a burnt karma burger in the restaurant of life.
Randian disciples somehow don’t get it that living in a society that at least aspires to value all of it’s members leads to a lot more peace of mind than the alternative. I can only conclude that Rand appeals to misanthropes who’s only recourse when faced with the call to compassion is to rant meaninglessly about the nobility of the self-employed – and then to attempt demonize those who work for someone else for a living.
“Inasmuch as you have done for these the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me.”
Oh, right, Ayn Rand was an atheist.
Having been both self-employed and an employee, I can say that the benefits such as sick time, vacation, etc., were a part of my employment contract. My employer was free not to offer them, and I was free to go somewhere else where they were offered if I had the opportunity. I received far more income when I was self-employed, a tradeoff for not being paid benefits that an employee would have received.
You’re simply at odds with the last 150 years of social progress.
And if you fail, totally fail with no resources left to buy food or shelter, what will you do? I’ll protect that right, but are you going to then exit the world by your own hand so as to not be a burden on anyone?
earlier I said :
“The GOP has sold the idea nothing is “fair” except the “market” – any government regulation or legislation to help anyone is “unfair” and “un-American”. Government contracts to private companies doing work previously done by government workers lessens the power of the government to increase its size and thereby reduce Freedom.
The narrative of “freedom” and not “un-American” and indeed the only way to be “fair” is an easy sell.
I have yet to see what the Democratic Party has come forward with to counter the above. It is amazing the Democratic Party still exists, given its lack of a message that is as easy to sell as the GOP’s.”
To the above “fair” you add “Justice”.
Somehow I can hear from the back of the room “justice … and the American Way” – coming from some guy in a cape and an “S” on the front of the outfit.
This debate took place in the 19th century, true liberals, those who believed in individual freedom, like Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner, pointed out the logical fallacies of the trendy ideas neo-liberals with class envy, like Franklin Lester Ward and his followers, Woodrow Wilson for instance. In that era, the general population was well-educated enough to accept reality and disregard what they felt were statist concepts rooted in the alien philosophy of Hegel as manifested in the ever-powerful state designed by Bismarck. Wilson and Roosevelt were able to graft the growing state apparatus onto the nationalistic fervor they engendered by committing the US to two foreign wars, sadly abetted by precipitous decline in the true educational level of the general population.
You should learn how to read. You might actually learn some economics if you did. Don’t spout crap you don’t understand. It just pollutes the waves.
Knut (Ph.D.Econ Yale)
Here we agree.
Indeed I lived through that – at Children’s Hospital in Boston in 1970. A child flown in from Germany, and my child, with the same horrible test results – same age – same room – they played together – great parents.
Operations on the same day – mine showed no recurrence – diagnosed as cancer had not yet spread and was just very large and just pressing on the liver enough to interfere with liver function tests – the other child just went downhill. We left after a month – and never saw them again.
I later volunteered – also did reading to minority K-4 – but could not handle severely disabled or dying. A blessing to us all are the nurses that do handle such children – and their parents – and the children -those that make it through their problems, and those that don’t.
Yes I agree with you – other injustices pale beside the one of children with cancer – or disability.
If you indeed spent some time at Yale then you must be aware of perhaps the school’s greatest teacher ever, William Graham Sumner.
Boy do we disagree – I doubt we read the same history – indeed your facts are not facts as far as I can tell.
Book Salon up with Eric Janszen’s The Postcatastrophe Economy: Rebuilding America and Avoiding the Next Bubble hosted by Scott Nelson
95% of government expense can be traced to protecting property – that army that prevents a forced change of ownership for example and the CIA that protects your overseas investments and the transportation that is mainly for your corporations- but the top one percent that have nearly all the property/wealth want their contribution to that expense to be subsidized by the middle class – and complain if any middle class benefit comes from the government – even in pass through form as in Social Security and Medicare.
As was said in the Princess Bride – “I do not think the words mean what you think they mean” if you define “justice” and “fairness” as you seem to do so.
Why the “William Graham Sumner” ? – a fellow that invented “Sociology” as a course – and thought the gold standard meant something it does not mean.
A smart fellow – but wrong on so many things in so many areas. Sumner was also the first to teach a course entitled “Sociology”. Of course he thought everything was a variation on anthropology – even pushed an anthropological approach to economics.
This is meant to impress?
I don’t know where you have been living lately, but the vast majority of “confiscated property” has been a direct result of actions by banking and financial institutions, definitely NOT for the purpose of achieving “equal outcomes” for everyone.
Have we become a country filled with fear…fear of terrorists, of anyone “different”, of those in our communities, of our neighbors and on the list goes. Have we as a nation lost our sense of “community” in favor of the “individual” first, last and foremost?
Where is real leadership in this country? The politicians are completely compromised by moneyed interests. So called “religious leaders” with a bully pulpit certainly are NOT showing “moral” leadership… citizens are acting on “learned helplessness” except for those in the “tea party” who unknowingly or knowingly represent the interests of the wealthy few. Our media has a monopoly on broadcasting the “conservative voice”. Masaccio, I agree, at this point “liberalism” has been abandoned “on the surface”. However, if those principles which make all of us human, provide a sense of community, and caring for each other have been abandoned, then we have abandoned more than just liberalism, we are lost as a nation.
Most Libertarians consider taxes stealing. Conservatives only consider taxes that benefit anyone other then themselves stealing. Neo-Liberals consider taxes a necessary evil, Liberals consider taxation the price for a somewhat Civil society , Progressives consider some forms of taxation ethical and just and others regressive and unjust.
Those are fair points, showing that the struggle to maintain some sense of community would be difficult. I can’t see that anyone made a sustained argument for the benefits of community. Without that sense of community, it isn’t easy to see what makes us a coherent nation. On my darker days, I think the only thing that holds us together is inertia. Most of us won’t hang out with anyone who isn’t a lot like us.
This is how the Paris Commune ended. The French Army killed the common people.
spencer and sumner were social darwinists, not liberals. i flagged you two days ago, do we not have moderators anymore.
You beat me to it. Ditto. No need for me to say more.
Here’s a tip for the libertarian crew visiting: find a desert island and try out your little experiment there. I’ll be interested to see how it works out. Be sure to write.
From:
Liberalism: Rawls
to
Neoliberalism: Nozik
this kid had a black band on his arm one morning after carter lost, i asked him who died he said liberalism, i didn’t really appreciate it at the time