On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 12:03:50 -0500 Jon Lebkowsky <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>At 06:59 AM 4/25/97 PDT, Laura Simson wrote:
>>>
>>>At 07:47 AM 4/25/97 -0600, Brian O. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Basically, if anyone can help me out, what I want to know is: 1)
What
>>>>is a good definition of "neoliberalism"? and 2) How is this term
related
>>>>to "liberalism" or liberal policy????
>>>> Thanks for your help everyone.
>>>
>>>Brian, "neoliberalism" is synonymous with "libertarian," especially
with
>>>regard to the commitment to an unconstrained market.
>>
>>Thanks for the response and clarification.
>>
>>Neoliberalism, then, sounds suspiciously like anarcho-capitalism, "the
>>freedom
>>to do what you want with your property and engage in free contract with
>>others,"
>>[Tom Lane] to which Chomsky has posited: "Anarcho-capitalism, in my
>>opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever implemented, would lead
to
>>forms of tyranny and oppression that have few counterparts in human
>>history.... The idea of 'free contract' between the potentate and his
>>starving subject is a sick joke...."
>>[quoted from a 1996 interview with Tom Lane, ZNet archives]
>
>I think that's accurate.
>
>"Neoliberalism" is used outside the U.S., where it's less likely to be
>confused with the liberal=left connotation.
>
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Jon Lebkowsky * [log in to unmask] * www.well.com/~jonl
>"We're just a virus with shoes..." -- Bill Hicks
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
While we are discussing identities:
If liberal=left and left=sinister, does liberal=sinister?
If my recollection is accurate, the original liberal philosophy, having
quickly attracted so large and active a following, was hijacked and drawn
so far off course that now it is proceeding towards tyranny rather than
away. Those who would promote the ideas of the original liberals find
they must alter the label in order to escape modern stereotyping. So, to
discover what Neoliberalism is in theory, look up Classical Liberalism or
to discover what it is in practice, get on the Internet and browse for
people with whom to discuss it.
I do not believe that Neoliberalism is identical to Libertarianism and
that either espouses a totally unrestrained market. Both hold that
individuals should be free to enter into agreements without interference
by the state until an affected party complains and seeks redress from the
state for his grievance.
I am unfamiliar with Mr. Chomsky's anarcho-capitalism, but I do not think
that it is the same as Libertarianism. As promulgated today,
Libertarianism holds that the power of the state should be limited and
Libertarians often cite the Constitution of the United States of America
and the Bill of Rights as a good start, to be protected and followed
until something better is created. Applying this assertion to the topic
above, if a contract between a potentate (Thank Mr. Chomsky for choosing
this word for it brings to mind the idea of an impotentate. Do we know
any of these?) and a pauper were contested by the pauper, the
Libertarian ideal would bring to him whatever justice he deserves as
adjudicated by real people pursuant to a system of justice.
If I venture to discuss the term anarcho-capitalism after only an
examination of the roots and definitions of the composite words, can I
presume that anarcho- precludes any legally sanctioned and enforced
limitation on any action by anyone, potentate, impotentate or pauper,
whether grouped or individual? Adding -capitalism means that free market
contracts are not subject to this preclusion and are somehow protected or
sanctioned. Can a contract exist within any kind of anarchy except when
voluntarily struck between two or more honorable participants? In such
agreements, law and the state, it seems to me, is always irrelevant.
Does law then become just a tool to be used by the potentates to
interfere with and control the actions and prerogatives of honorable
individuals?
Submitted with Respect,
Don Brayton
[log in to unmask]
|
