Comments on: Neoclassical Liberalism: How I’m Not a Libertarian Free Markets and Social Justice Fri, 19 Jan 2018 19:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Conversations with Corbynites | Commonly understood as [a blawg] Fri, 26 Aug 2016 11:42:28 +0000 […] In the interest of transparency, I self-type as an interest group pluralist, and more broadly as a neoclassical liberal in general political philosophy (something akin to Third Way centrism). I’m not a […]

By: Sylvia Wei Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:02:00 +0000 Taxing the rich to give to the poor is the reaction against the action of exploitation. It’s a reparation for past injustice.

“In a world in which all property was acquired by peaceful processes of labor-mixing and voluntary trade, a tax-funded Basic Income Guarantee might plausibly be held to violate libertarian rights. But our world is not that world. And since we do not have the information that would be necessary to engage in a precise rectification of past injustices, and since simply ignoring those injustices seems unfair, perhaps something like a Basic Income Guarantee can be justified as an approximate rectification?”

By: Sylvia Wei Fri, 05 Aug 2016 17:00:00 +0000 The economic system of maximizing profit and minimizing cost is at the core about legalized stealing. The unfortunate imperfection of market force due geographical limitations, alliances, time, luck, delay of response, etc lead to accumulation of wealth thanks to imperfect competition and current law.

Universal Basic Income is perfectly compatible with libertarianism, in that it is a reparation for the existing and growing inequal distribution of wealth in a wealthy world that’s earned through legalized exploitation. It’s especially true as of now.

By: G Trieste Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:27:00 +0000 Feh, I have no problem examining libertarian principles first, that is in fact why I defend them.

It is quite simple, do you own yourself? Then do you own your stuff?
If you do, absolute property rights ensue, if not, then someone else has superior rights to them than you do.

Of course in application libertarianism adds a few corollary expectations, that such rights are to be respected by all members of the society, and that the guaranty/protections of those rights will be defended by the state by default.
Other corollaries then further ensue, but all axiomatically built upon the previous fundamentally derived propositions.

Of course, if you don’t agree with the fundamental core premise of libertarianism, then there is no conflict in having a different view of personal and property rights.

By: G Trieste Sun, 12 Jun 2016 19:18:00 +0000 Your propositions are not rigorous, nor is the structure of them.

On point one, you have a compound proposition – [1] IF (some rendition of) libertarianism were true, AND then [2] IF it turned out that respecting property rights caused death to 20% of the people, then those deaths would be consistent with libertarianism.

All points after that are purely dependent propositions, and cannot be used in a Socratic proof.

By: G Trieste Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:37:00 +0000 If “an” economic liberty is the guarantee that people will have what they need to survive economically, whether they work for it or not, then that liberty means a direct counter economic enslavement another person to work for that entitlement.
It is interesting to focus on the needs of people and the view that those needs will be provided, just will. It is emotionally satisfying to know that people’s real needs will be fulfilled.
But that focus is at the expense of realistic thinking, where the question of “where the money come from” is simply not addressed.

By: G Trieste Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:29:00 +0000 “We want for ALL of us is merely: clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, liveable communities, unexploited majestic forests preserved for its living inhabitants to feed the souls of our children, freedom of hunger and despair, work that rewards the body and the soul.”

Even if those things are taken by force from people who have them, but don’t want to give them.
Libertarians want those things too, but are not willing to steal them from people A, to give to people B.

By: Quem são e o que defendem os Bleeding Heart Libertarians? – Rodrigo Rey Thu, 02 Jun 2016 15:13:30 +0000 […] apenas. Algumas tentativas de rotulá-lo foram feitas: “liberalismo neoclássico”, por Jason Brennane John Tomasi, “Strong BHL”, por Matt Zwolinski e “liberalismo BHL”, por Kevin Vallier, e […]

By: Del Boland Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:21:00 +0000 Thank you. Having worked for several years with a former chair of the Libertarian Party and argued at length with my older son, an Ayn Rand guy, I’ve struggled to describe what you have written very well. Ultimately, I believe we need a balance.

I leaned toward the market side until I had a special needs son, then social justice started to make sense to me. Through this process, I’ve come to believe that a purely market driven society ends like the game of Monopoly in which there’s only one winner. Given a derivatives market that’s roughly 17 times world GDP while carrying little of the tax load, I think perhaps it’s time to think about the Middle Class and some form of moderation while continuing to support the least among us without throwing free enterprise out the window. Balance is never easy.

After ten years in authoritarian Chicago, I felt compelled to address this topic with some levity in my book .

By: Joan59 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:47:00 +0000 oh my. you assume liberals think our “neighbors” have anything we actually value. Sorry, “your cash – in all its useless, glittery manifestations – ain’t nothing but trash.”
What we actually do value, what we want for ALL of us is merely: clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, liveable communities, unexploited majestic forests preserved for its living inhabitants to feed the souls of our children, freedom of hunger and despair, work that rewards the body and the soul.
But hey our children will probably die desiring these things, once libertarians impose their materialist utopias upon all of us.
Unless mother nature gets to all of us first.