I wouldn't say Classical Liberalism is dead, there just aren't many of us left, some of the Blue Dog Democrats can be considered Classic Liberals.
What we're really referring to is people's desire to use the term. Its one-upmanship, typically within the party political system (with either a wing of a party suggesting superiority or the fake libertarians using it to distinguish them from political consensus)
My problem would be with establishing national standards and/or criteria based upon very limited demographics and anecdotal experience.
Classical liberalism is not dead but many too often look at the 19th Century that fundamentally defined classical liberalism as being representative of classical liberalism and it was not. The key when addressing that "poverty is relative" is that what needs to be established is relative to what? To be moral, compassionate, and humanitarian does not go against the values or principles of classical liberalism. Some mistakenly believe that it does but in fact classical liberalism must be moral, compassionate, and humanitarian or it is not a viable political ideology and I can make the arguments to support that. This is where the "conservative" political ideology fails, not classical liberalism. Back to the point of the negative income tax. For any tax proposal to be viable it must meet two fundamental criteria. 1) It has to pay for the authorized expenditures of government regardless of what is authorized. 2) It must be paid for by those that are able to pay for it without any significant decrease or more preferably with no decrease in their standard of living. A subset of this is that it can't impose a higher tax burden relative to income/wealth on those with less income/wealth which is what our current tax codes impose at not just the federal level of taxation but even more so at the state levels of taxation. I believe that any tax proposal needs to focus on these two fundamental criteria. I don't believe the negative tax proposal meets the first criteria because it is established based upon arbitrary tax rates as opposed to being based upon funding the authorized expenditures.
As a libertarian in many discussions with other libertarians on another forum I disagree completely with this. There are "anarchists" that label themselves and Libertarians and I believe that this is where this misconception originates. The "anarchists" lose virtually all of their arguments on the Libertarian forum where I'm a member. Of course there are also social conservatives that try to claim to be libertarians and they also lose virtually all of their arguments. This is especially true of those identified with the Tea Party movement that claim they're libertarian and that they are fiscal conservatives and they're neither. The Tea Party movement is an anti-tax movement and not a fiscal conservative movement.
I agree with that statement. A person can be poor in one part of the country with an income which gives someone a reasonable standard of living elsewhere.
One problem that I would note is that the States and Local governments are far better at addressing the necessity to mitigate the effects of poverty but typically have failed to fulfill this responsibility which is why there are federal welfare programs. Had the states and local communities been ensuring that those in need were actually being taken care of there never would have been a rationalization for federal welfare programs. The same is true with education assistance. If the states and local communities were providing all of the funding necessary then federal assistance couldn't have been rationalized. The key differences is probably that the People control taxation at the state and local levels while the People have actual control related to federal taxation. This often leads to the state and local governments being incapable of funding necessary expenditures that the state and local government really are responsible for.
I have mixed emotions about that comment. I agree that local governments are better at addressing the problems of poverty. I also agree that under our current system the federal government has had to mitigate the effects of poverty. BUT, the question arises, does the local governments fail because the federal government usurped that part of their function? Or does the local government has never done the job well even before federal programs took over most of of the financing? And does the federal government overstep its authority in determining what level of assistance needed? Effectively does the federal government have the authority to take the level of assistance out of the hands of locally elected officials?
You have an interest to suggest it thrives. Its all about 'pretending' the high ground. The only aspect I'd be interested in is where classical liberals would be placed in today's society. Smith's egalitarianism, for example, would ensure his modern liberal friendliness. Irrelevant really. Its a handy poverty methodology. Easy to measure and easy to utilise index corrections to take into account depth of poverty. It just happens that consensus measures confirm its validity. The problem is that its based on right wing rhetoric that lacks economic validity. In terms of integrating tax and benefit systems, we might as well accept the minimum income guarantee. Similar analysis, but not based on Friedman fluff!
[American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia , 2006] http://mises.org/daily/4596 "Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism — if such it can still be called — is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism. That description suggests that classic liberalism is more closely related to conservatism than with the current description of liberalism.
A poor source, given Austrians can't even get libertarianism right (instead going for a dogmatic and ideological splurge that often is just about cowering from economic reality and market failure). Classical liberalism is a political economic term from a historical age. Those using it are doing it for political reasons. Its typically about manipulating the gullible
Part of what you say may be true, but Classical Liberalism still tends to look more like conservatism than it does liberalism. I also do not throw out the various tenets of Austrian economics as capitalism follows those theories very closely, and successfully. Having said that, no one economic school is all correct, and only some, like the socialist paradigm tend to be all bad.
Nope, authoritarianism goes hand in hand with conservatism. The fellows use the liberal tag as part of the 'dressing up'. Kiddy stuff There is no socialist paradigm. There is numerous socialist ideas, with some feasible (including feasibility consistent with Austrian rhetoric). Sounds like you're another victim of the McCarthyism hangover
I don't agree! Authoritarianism can pollute conservative politics and socialist politics. In fact in my opinion socialism cannot succeed without an authoritarian/dictatorial government. I disagree there too. Economists who tend to look mostly to social programs as a means to either control or rescue an economy are part of that socialist paradigm. It may not be called that in their philosophy, but extreme leftism tends to be of a socialist nature. I personally abhor both extremes, Anarcho capitalism or socialism. I prefer a lightly regulated capitalism with social programs to help those who can't help themselves. I don't really care what it is called, but definitely not any kind of authoritarian government that cannot at least be mostly controlled by the people. I think sometimes when we call our system capitalist because our economy requires private capital to drive it we overlook that private enterprise without regulation can be an economic system run amok. You might read some of the articles found here: http://www.bing.com/search?q=socialist%20paradigm%20economist&pc=conduit&ptag=AF393C122247E446898F&form=CONBDF&conlogo=CT3210127&ShowAppsUI=1
It doesn't matter. The authoritarian personality has been successfully tested numerous times and found consistent with conservatism. Again your opinion is quite backward. Hayek's output in the socialist calculation debate merely led to changes in socialist analysis. You're probably confused yourself with state capitalism. Naff all to do with socialism. You're referring to a social welfare function here. That is typically just a reference to regulation within social or liberal democracy. You haven't given one valid critique of socialism yet. There is no such beast as 'lightly regulated capitalism'. Capitalism is inherently unstable and therefore requires significant regulation.
Socialism has been a dismal failure where ever it has been tried and it cannot succeed even for the short haul without authoritarian/dictatorial government. Social programs are what you are calling social welfare. Socialism or Statism in which the government owns or controls production, distribution and usually wealth does not work longer than it takes high achievers to get tired of carrying the non achievers on their backs. Capitalism is a system which builds any kind of permanent prosperity in a system. Regulation to prevent fraud and reduce or prevent unfair business practices is needed, but capitalism is the only economic system that can succeed over the long haul.
You're again really just referring to state capitalism. Is socialism difficult to deliver? Certainly. However, socialist political economy is rather vibrant. Feasible socialism, even- as I said- within Austrian confines, is available. Nothing to do with socialism. Again, you're merely referring to state capitalism. Capitalism only continues because of significant government interventionism, including the' social programs' that you implied were socialist!
No, social programs are not socialism. Socialism is government ownership or control of production, distribution and wealth, and it has never succeeded for any length of time and cannot succeed at all without an authoritarian/dictatorial government. Free enterprise/capitalism is the only system which can succeed over the long haul and is the system which creates the most prosperity. In my opinion, interventionism does more to harm capitalist systems more than nonintervention.
Wrong! It is worker ownership and control. You continue to refer to state capitalism Your opinion only tells me you don't understand capitalism. Without intervention, capitalism dies
I subscribe to what socialism is commonly defined. Worker ownership and control is as likely a capitalist enterprise as a socialist enterprise. Merriam Webster:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Full Definition of SOCIALISM 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done On line Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism So·cial·ism (ssh-lzm) n. 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy. 2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/551569/socialism socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. According to the socialist view, individuals do not live or work in isolation but live in cooperation with one another. Furthermore, everything that people produce is in some sense a social product, and everyone who contributes to the production of a good is entitled to a share in it. Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. That is about all I have to say about what socialism and capitalism are, since they are well defined in easy to access reference books. What is really important is how our economy affects our people, and I don't mean just in the US as my liberal side has no border.
The workers can own the enterprise under capitalism and the workers are generally unqualified to control the enterprise. False. Even with government opposition capitalism thrives in the black markets dealing in prohibited goods and services. The problem with the black market isn't the government interventionism that attempts to close it down but instead that the Rights of the Person are unprotected by regulation. What capitalism doesn't need is government intervention to control outcomes.
Reiver has never understood anything that he talks about, and mindlessly repeats the same proven false statements he has for thousands of posts. He's a hack. Stop talking to him. I 'ignored' his posts a long time ago. You'll never show him the obvious failures of his beliefs, and have him admit he's wrong, because he doesn't care about the truth, as much as repeating the lies he's invested into. Let him go. Talk to people that actually want to be more informed.
How about getting back to the topic as well. The problem with the negative income tax is that it's based upon arbitrary tax rates and tax credits that are completely unrelated to the requirement of the People to pay the authorized expenditures by Congress. Any tax code that does not fund the authorized expenditures of Congress is fiscally irresponsible and that is the inherent flaw in the Negative Income Tax and other proposals like the Consumption Tax (with prebates) proposed by FairTax.org (which is also unconstitutional as the federal government has not Constitutional authority to impose a sales tax).
