What is a "True" Liberal?

[wayneL]

From the Fraser thread:

Explod for once I agree with you . Its been a long sad gap between true liberal leaders rather than conservative.

A liberal political party would have my vote for sure.

But I'll never vote conservative which is what the so-called "Liberal" party has become in recent times.

There is no word in politics (with the possible exception of "Keynesian") that has been more bastardized than the word "liberal".

In the US the term is used to denote the authoritarian left (aka social democratism), while in Oz it is used to denote the authoritarian right (aka conservatism).

In the UK, the term survives in it's proper usage only with true liberals and libertarians of which there is a large minority. Because of yet another quirk of politics it has become enmeshed with the evil of social democratism.

So what is a true liberal?

The root is the Latin "liber" which means "free", hence the word "libertarian".

In political philosophy the meaning has become muddied. A good article from Stanford here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ details the evolution from classical liberalism, to the current "new" liberalism (as opposed to the so-called neo-liberals).

Confusingly, classical liberal economics (AKA the Austrian school) has been identified with conservatism whereas the socialist Keynesianism identified with liberalism. Von Mises and Hayek were actually liberals/libertarians.

People often confuse economic liberalism with social liberalism, whereas these are two distinct areas. Conservatives are often socially authoritarian and economically liberal, with Social Democrats often socially liberal and economically authoritarian.

The upshot is that "liberalism" has become somewhat confusing as to what it actually means.

A "true" liberal party might mean vastly different things to different people.

Discuss.

 

[Bushman]

A "true" liberal party might mean vastly different things to different people.

Discuss.

By its definition, a 'liberal' must be interested in the pursuit and preservation of liberty. In my view, a true Liberal party would thus be:
1. secular;
2. republicans;
3. equal parts environmentalists and capitalists;
3. interested in free market economics;
4. strong defenders of civil liberties and the rights of its citizens;
5. necessarily interested in small governments mainly interested in the provision of essential services, infrastructure and defence of sovereign rights;
6. authoritarian only in its capacity to protect private property and human rights;
7. focussed on taxation and resource policy as a means of building wealth for future generations; and
8. free of the influence of the unions or industries.

We would proudly shoulder our international responsibilities with regard to refugees, the United Nations and the Geneva Convention.

 

[wayneL]

By its definition, a 'liberal' must be interested in the pursuit and preservation of liberty. In my view, a true Liberal party would thus be:
1. secular;
2. republicans;
3. equal parts environmentalists and capitalists;
3. interested in free market economics;
4. strong defenders of civil liberties and the rights of its citizens;
5. necessarily interested in small governments mainly interested in the provision of essential services, infrastructure and defence of sovereign rights;
6. authoritarian only in its capacity to protect private property and human rights;
7. focussed on taxation and resource policy as a means of building wealth for future generations; and
8. free of the influence of the unions or industries.

We would proudly shoulder our international responsibilities with regard to refugees, the United Nations and the Geneva Convention.

That not only sounds truly liberal, it sounds nearly bloody ideal.

 

[Trembling Hand]

What Bushman said

Absolutely no friggin chance in the world that will ever see it though

 

[Bushman]

What Bushman said

Absolutely no friggin chance in the world that will ever see it though

Yep Buckley's chance.

 

[Julia]

A further supporter for what Bushman said which is really well thought through.
Why do we automatically assume (and I do too) that we will never achieve this?

 

[tayser]

By its definition, a 'liberal' must be interested in the pursuit and preservation of liberty. In my view, a true Liberal party would thus be:
1. secular;
2. republicans;
3. equal parts environmentalists and capitalists;
3. interested in free market economics;
4. strong defenders of civil liberties and the rights of its citizens;
5. necessarily interested in small governments mainly interested in the provision of essential services, infrastructure and defence of sovereign rights;
6. authoritarian only in its capacity to protect private property and human rights;
7. focussed on taxation and resource policy as a means of building wealth for future generations; and
8. free of the influence of the unions or industries.

We would proudly shoulder our international responsibilities with regard to refugees, the United Nations and the Geneva Convention.

Pretty much spot on, but your 7th point is too narrow, a true liberal (to me anyhow) wouldn't focus on one thing to build wealth for future generations, a true liberal government would encourage the individual to be more productive and encourage innovation above all else.

Focusing on digging **** up and putting it on a boat to China is ignoring the fact that the overwhelming majority of people don't work to support this sector

anyhow, I'd join and and vote a party which followed those principles.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Point 3 is the most important. Without free markets to aid free people we fall into other paradigms of less pleasant circumstances.

 

[disarray]

Point 3 is the most important. Without free markets to aid free people we fall into other paradigms of less pleasant circumstances.

i quite liked this story about ludwig erhard and the post ww2 reconstruction of germany (from the daily reckoning, i'm an economic tinfoil hatter)

After three years of military occupation, inflation, controls and rationing, the ensuing chaos ruled supreme. At that time the Economics Minister, Ludwig Erhard, was a product of the Classical School. After serving in WW I he was trained as an economist by Walter Eucken, Franz Oppenheimer and Wilhelm Ropke. He knew that inflation and large state bureaucracies could not cure their problems. He knew that they were the problem.

Erhard was averse to everything authoritarian. Having carefully laid his plans, with agreement from the supervising Allies, he announced on June 19th 1948 that inflation was finished. A new currency would be issued. In round figures it was exchanged ten of the old marks for one of the new ones. The limit was 400 per person. 'And', said Erhard, 'there will be no more money printing'.

Then, knowing that he would never ever get agreement from the supervising Allies to change policy, he decided upon unilateral action. On Sunday July 8th, only three weeks later, he advised the public that he was to address the Nation between 11 pm and midnight about the problems which they faced and with which they were struggling. He advised them that in their own interest everybody should listen to what he had to say. He knew that ideology cannot be destroyed by force so he was persuasive.

He knew that everybody was sick of controls. He knew that everybody was sick and tired of being hobbled and kicked around by bureaucrats. He had also previously expressed his views in many speeches, and his speeches were always well reasoned. He was a master of his subject.

He announced to the population that he had, as from midnight that night, abolished all rationing, wage controls, price controls, government control and regulation of foreign exchange rates. He was also reducing taxation and heavily reducing tariffs.

The burden of supporting tens of thousands of bureaucrats was, in one stroke, removed from the taxpayers' shoulders. The following Tuesday (Monday was a holiday) Erhard was instantly called to book by General Clay, the Commander of the resident US occupying force. Clay quickly came to the heart of the matter, 'Herr Erhard, my advisers tell me that what you have done is a terrible mistake.What do you say to that?' Erhard's reply came swiftly and without hesitation: 'Herr General, pay no attention to them, my own advisers tell me the same thing'.

Under the terms of the surrender no changes were to be made to Allied policy without consultation with the conquerors. An economist Army Colonel on Clay's staff shouted at Erhard, 'How dare you unilaterally relax our rationing system and price controls when there is a widespread food shortage!'. Erhard replied courteously, 'But Herr Oberst, I have not relaxed rationing and price controls, I have abolished them'. It had not occurred to the bureaucrats that such a thing could possibly happen.

Erhard went on to say 'Henceforth, the only rationing ticket the people will need will be the Deutschmark. And they will work hard to get these Deutschmarks, just you wait and see'. He was confident, as reported in his book Prosperity Through Competition, and he abolished taxation on all income tax on hours worked over 40 hours.

who wouldn't want to work second jobs / overtime if the government kept their filthy paws out of their paypacket?

 

[Ageo]

By its definition, a 'liberal' must be interested in the pursuit and preservation of liberty. In my view, a true Liberal party would thus be:
1. secular;
2. republicans;
3. equal parts environmentalists and capitalists;
3. interested in free market economics;
4. strong defenders of civil liberties and the rights of its citizens;
5. necessarily interested in small governments mainly interested in the provision of essential services, infrastructure and defence of sovereign rights;
6. authoritarian only in its capacity to protect private property and human rights;
7. focussed on taxation and resource policy as a means of building wealth for future generations; and
8. free of the influence of the unions or industries.

We would proudly shoulder our international responsibilities with regard to refugees, the United Nations and the Geneva Convention.

Whats sad is 90% of our population would agree with this but continue to accept our way of life for some stupid reason.

 

[Julia]

Whats sad is 90% of our population would agree with this but continue to accept our way of life for some stupid reason.

How would you suggest the population as a whole effect change along the lines of Bushman's model? We can only vote for the politicians who are on offer.
If that's a stupid reason, then I'm sure we'd all be grateful for your advice on how to do otherwise.

 

[Ageo]

How would you suggest the population as a whole effect change along the lines of Bushman's model? We can only vote for the politicians who are on offer.
If that's a stupid reason, then I'm sure we'd all be grateful for your advice on how to do otherwise.

Overthrow the government would be a start, actually show the government that the people are in power and not the pollies.

Julia people are scared of their own government who they put in power.....

Tell me 1 person who actually likes politicians and governments??? we complain yet put up with it. A revolt as crazy as it sounds would shape things up.

 

[Julia]

Well, Ageo, I await with much anticipation and eagerness your starting said revolt.
In truth, the vast majority of the population don't even think about government.

 

[wayneL]

Overthrow the government would be a start, actually show the government that the people are in power and not the pollies.

Julia people are scared of their own government who they put in power.....

Tell me 1 person who actually likes politicians and governments??? we complain yet put up with it. A revolt as crazy as it sounds would shape things up.

One problem.

They've got all the guns.

 

[wayneL]

How would you suggest the population as a whole effect change along the lines of Bushman's model? We can only vote for the politicians who are on offer.
If that's a stupid reason, then I'm sure we'd all be grateful for your advice on how to do otherwise.

I've reflected on this very subject for a number of years Julia.

The problem is that it would require a hefty majority of people to put aside self interest and forego the gu'mint welfare teet in the interests of a freer liberal society. Unfortunately, nearly all sectors of society rely on government largesse in some form (even if they are being pillaged in other ways).

At this point in time, people prefer security over liberty and while that persists, true liberalism doesn't stand a chance.

True liberalism would mean the removal of a vast number of programs designed primarily as pork barrelling exercises that have been inducted into what people consider what they are entitled to ad infinitum. e.g. baby bonuses, FHOG, various tax credits... not to mention many of the straight out welfare benefits.

The price of self determination is self responsibility and our society has been infantilized to such an extent that people are no longer capable the same.

 

[Julia]

Wayne, I agree with all you say.
Now and again someone tries to start a party with noble aims, but the general apathy of much of the population usually means it's doomed.

How are you finding the political scene in New Zealand ?

 

[wayneL]

Wayne, I agree with all you say.
Now and again someone tries to start a party with noble aims, but the general apathy of much of the population usually means it's doomed.

How are you finding the political scene in New Zealand ?

I like ACT, a true liberal party. http://www.act.org.nz/ (in coalition with the Nats)

The current National/coalition government is doing OK mostly.

The Labour heathen are as repulsive as elsewhere.

 

[Ageo]

One problem.

They've got all the guns.

Have you noticed all the dictating governments that rule over their people make sure their citizens can only fight back with rocks???

They ban and disarm their citizens of firearms so that way if they revolt they have no chance in hell.

That is why the U.S government has to be so smart in propaganda to get their people in line otherwise the 2nd amendment rule would allow them to overthrow any government in power who is abusing their privilidges.


John howard did the best liberal thing ever in 96............ for someone who hated guns so much he loved being surrounded them for his own protection.

 

[Calliope]

The problem is that it would require a hefty majority of people to put aside self interest...

Ah! There's the rub.

 

[Bushman]

Vale to one of the true liberals. His stance on refugees has always been rock fast in the face of the populism and mindless bureacracy unleashed by Howard/Ruddock.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-leaves-stage-with-a-swipe-20100603-x1qy.html