Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Yeah I agree, what I mean is that they are occupying the name on the electoral commission's lists.

    I think British liberalism was poisoned by utilitarianism. When socialism came into fashion as a 'pragmatic', 'scientific' and 'rational' way of doing things in the late 19th and early 20th centuries they had no effective ideological defence against it. It explains why the moribund Tories managed to survive while the Liberals collapsed, at least.
    Probably... in fact it is very likely that Mill has done more for socialism than Karl Marx himself :eek3:

    By the way, socialism is still considered scientific and rational. If you ever pay attention to socialists, everything that they say is very similar to the gospels though. It sounds like they have a direct relationship with god himself (the irony).

    "Women are discriminated against in the workplace".
    "The third world would be better off if Nike didn't exist" - this is hilarious
    "Minimum wage raises standard of living"
    "Everyone should get health care and education"

    I mean that is science.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    To be honest, liberalism has had a welfare liberal strain going back to Bentham.
    Well he can **** off an' all then :p:

    But yeah, it was those bloody utilitarians who started things on the wrong track.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    To be honest, liberalism has had a welfare liberal strain going back to Bentham.
    That explains Owen, I guess.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Well, if you look at the Classical Liberals like Mises or Hayek, they would never come to the same conclusions as the Libertarians. For example, they wouldn't support a form of anarchism.
    Not all libertarians are anarchists. Some are wrong that way! Mises' only real area of disagreement was on ethics.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Subscribing to this thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Not all libertarians are anarchists. Some are wrong that way! Mises' only real area of disagreement was on ethics.
    Anarchism is very close to Liberalism (I mean... not the modern one but the classical one). In fact, some modern anarcho-communists/syndicalists/whateverists are vastly influenced by Enlightment thinkers (Chomsky?). Private property rights aside

    And don't forget Individualist Anarchism...

    Btw, you have to think of Mises as your grandpa. He was a conservative on social matters. But hey... he's your grandpa. You wouldn't find that shocking now would you?
    But he didn't call himself a conservative. In fact, I don't think any Austrian economist would ever call himself a conservative. Hayek has written extensively on the subject You can't be a conservative when the views that you hold have not been put into practice in order for them to be conserved. So if you are a severe critic of the "establishment" (Mises, Hayek, etc) you don't want to conserve it but change it.

    Oh and ... Hayek ruled. I found an interview of him on the internet and I do not know why but it brighten my day (quite sad, I know but it happened). http://www.vimeo.com/4063439 check it out
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    Anarchism is very close to Liberalism (I mean... not the modern one but the classical one). In fact, some modern anarcho-communists/syndicalists/whateverists are vastly influenced by Enlightment thinkers (Chomsky?). Private property rights aside

    And don't forget Individualist Anarchism...
    Indeed. Google "Gustave de Molinari and Liberal Anti-Statism" and you'll get a good article. Or search for the French classical liberals and get much the same stuff.

    Btw, you have to think of Mises as your grandpa. He was a conservative on social matters. But hey... he's your grandpa. You wouldn't find that shocking now would you?
    But he didn't call himself a conservative. In fact, I don't think any Austrian economist would ever call himself a conservative. Hayek has written extensively on the subject You can't be a conservative when the views that you hold have not been put into practice in order for them to be conserved. So if you are a severe critic of the "establishment" (Mises, Hayek, etc) you don't want to conserve it but change it.

    Oh and ... Hayek ruled. I found an interview of him on the internet and I do not know why but it brighten my day (quite sad, I know but it happened). http://www.vimeo.com/4063439 check it out
    I'll check it out
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    Anarchism is very close to Liberalism (I mean... not the modern one but the classical one). In fact, some modern anarcho-communists/syndicalists/whateverists are vastly influenced by Enlightment thinkers (Chomsky?). Private property rights aside

    And don't forget Individualist Anarchism...

    Btw, you have to think of Mises as your grandpa. He was a conservative on social matters. But hey... he's your grandpa. You wouldn't find that shocking now would you?
    But he didn't call himself a conservative. In fact, I don't think any Austrian economist would ever call himself a conservative. Hayek has written extensively on the subject You can't be a conservative when the views that you hold have not been put into practice in order for them to be conserved. So if you are a severe critic of the "establishment" (Mises, Hayek, etc) you don't want to conserve it but change it.

    Oh and ... Hayek ruled. I found an interview of him on the internet and I do not know why but it brighten my day (quite sad, I know but it happened). http://www.vimeo.com/4063439 check it out
    Good post. RE: Hayek, I refer you to my avatar :wink2:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hayek was far more of a conservative than a modern libertarian that is for sure.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    No, he was far more of a Liberal. Hayek was very weird in comparison to the rest of the Austrians who nowadays appear to be raving Rothbardites. I dislike Rothbard strongly on a personal level, but that's aside from the point. Hayek was much more "in" with the establishment: he once described meeting QE2 as the "happiest day of his life" after being dropped off at the Reform Club. As you can see, hardly the outcast that many Austrians consider themselves to be. (http://books.google.com/books?id=k0O...age&q=&f=false page 305)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Hayek was far more of a conservative than a modern libertarian that is for sure.
    Here's what the man himself had to say - http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/hayek.htm
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Hayek was far more of a conservative than a modern libertarian that is for sure.
    http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?opt...ask=view&id=46

    This is an abstract from the Constitution of Liberty (I think this is the one that Thatcher used to carry with her :P) by F. Hayek and it's called "Why I am NOT a Conservative".

    Hayek didn't call himself a Conservative and I don't think he was one. He used to say that he was an Old Whig or a Liberal (that was before he went to America and witnessed the pornographic use of the term Liberal).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Collingwood)
    Here's what the man himself had to say - http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/hayek.htm
    Damn, you got me!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    In an ideal world where an individual's ability and effort entitled them to an appropriate level of reward, perhaps I would be more sympathetic to Libertarianism.

    As it stands most Libertarians seem to think the free market can be relied onto to take care of all; the market is an artificial creation and to my mind any results that come out of it are just as arbitary as in a state controlled economy, neither has any moral superiority.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    In an ideal world where an individual's ability and effort entitled them to an appropriate level of reward, perhaps I would be more sympathetic to Libertarianism.

    As it stands most Libertarians seem to think the free market can be relied onto to take care of all; the market is an artificial creation and to my mind any results that come out of it are just as arbitary as in a state controlled economy, neither has any moral superiority.
    What do morals have to do with the free-market? It's about efficient allocation of resources. It's about using knowledge most effectively.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    What do morals have to do with the free-market? It's about efficient allocation of resources. It's about using knowledge most effectively.
    The moral question would come when talking about state involvement via the introduction of the minimum wage etc. I struggle to believe that Libertarians object to Government involvement in the economy solely on the grounds of efficiency reasons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    What do morals have to do with the free-market? It's about efficient allocation of resources. It's about using knowledge most effectively.
    Morals have everything to do with it.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    What do morals have to do with the free-market? It's about efficient allocation of resources. It's about using knowledge most effectively.
    One presumes that morals have everything to do with the free market?

    One of the major questions in political philosophy regards equitable distribution of goods (who is entitled to what) within our society.

    If a free market (or any other allocative system for that matter) didn't meet human needs and act within a certain moral framework, there would be little to recommend it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I have read "Why I am not a Conservative" and it still doesn't particularly help your case. Hayek's arguments against big states and social planning are conservative or traditionalist arguments.

    There's a reason he called himself a "Burkean Whig". I'm not saying that he was a conservative but he was certainly more of a conservative than a "libertarian", that's for sure.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Communist Daughter)
    the market is an artificial creation.
    Ah -- no, it isn't. Market exchange at the very basic level happens through spontaenous order -- it's not directed, it's not created, it happens because every single different human comes together for just one purpose: profit. Nobody ordered markets to come into place. Nobody, in a market orders people to create goods and buy and sell them. It happens because of the order amongst human beings that arises spontaenously without central command or direction. Perhaps you are right that in the modern world we have some things that are artificial creations, intellectual property for instance, but the basic principle of the market is anything but artificial.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2009
The home of Results and Clearing

1,029

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.