Based on Richard A. Epstein’s new Broadside, this video outlines the differences between the classical liberalism of the Tea Parties and the progressive agenda advanced by the OWS movement, and reveals that the painful performance of the American economy in the past decade is not a function of bad luck, but the product of flawed institutional design….
Do you buy this?
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
No, I don’t buy this for a minute. “classical liberalism of the Tea Parties” is the biggest joke. The tea party is an excuse for bigotry, racism, homophobia, misogyny and a place to favor the wealthy.
I’m pretty sure “classical liberal” is meant as a coded insult anyway, because it implies that liberalism isn’t a dynamic entity. In any case, it’s also obviously meant to make people think that true liberals are either liars or idiots.
Classical Liberalism I’ve seen used synonymously with anachro capitalism. If there are differences I can’t tease them out.
#3
On planet Ing, John Stuart Mill was an Anarcho-Capitalist.
Poison the well much?
Does anyone have an example of a country where a flat tax and no government oversight has resulted in a high quality of life and low unemployment? When I’ve had occasion to ask a libertarian this question, I generally get some answer along the line of “quality of life and unemployment don’t matter, it’s simply wrong to take my money”.
John Stuart Mill’s best line:
I think he meant “classic laissez-faire fascism” not “classic liberalism”
Well that was fair and balanced.
First twice as much time was spent making a positive case for the Tea Party’s “classic liberalism” as was spent making a distorted case for the OWS’ progressive values. I suppose we should be grateful for that. You know the case is distorted when terms like “wealth destroying” is used. I didn’t notice the term “middle-class eviscerating” used to describe the Tea Party.
I’ve often asked Marnie’s question about whether there are any contemporary successful industrialized nation states that model the low tax, laissez-faire model advocated by the Tea Party.
Because I can think of easily a half-dozen tangible successes for the progressive model. Sweden. Denmark. Norway. The Netherlands. Canada. Finland.
Which takes the question out of the realm of the theoretical, doesn’t it?