The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australian liberalism: the rocky road ahead > Comments

Australian liberalism: the rocky road ahead : Comments

By Chris Lewis, published 14/4/2011

Extreme positions are not the hallmark of real world political philosophies.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Peter, unfortunately i am going to use my last response.

Well i am a supporter of liberalism in the sense that i support liberal ideas, as you suggest, but I am also aware of why interventionist policies are introduced to preserve the national interest. They may indeed be wrong sometimes, but I support the pragmatic tradition of liberal democracy which determines the level of govt intervention in line with the demands of the international economy.

You say,

"There was a time in the western world when people thought the proper role of government was to protect inefficient businesses from their more efficient competition, and to protect businesses from competition from free trade. The very existence of the USA and the Commonwealth of Australia, and our high standards of living is because of the victory of libertarian ideas in favour of free trade and against mercantilism, otherwise the states within these unions would still be practising the kind of anti-social protectionism which you advocate between states outside these unions".

Well come on, there is a whole of factors that explain such success, is there not. In regard to Britain and the US, the importance of liberal ideas is matched by some brutal realities.

I do indeed share the thrust of libertarian ideas. That is why I am a supporter of free trade, within reason. That is why, I ignored an academic telling me to send my proposed article attacking the Home Insulation Program to Quadrant on the basis that it was polemic rubbish. I have disdain for waste and inappropriate govt intervention, just like many others. with the article published in another journal, I am doing my bit in academia to highlight the faults of govt.

But arguing for open borders or pure free trade is not the real world. The world changes for the better or worse from changing events, which forces societies and govts to adopt a policy mix that very much reflects the struggle for certain ideas and resources, including how they are dispersed
Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:38:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris,

allow me to come to your aid with a definition of "neoliberalism", or "extreme liberalism" I offered Peter the other day, at his urgent entreaty:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4393#111871

Peter hasn't responded so I had thought it fair to infer he concurred with me..
But now I see this..

Time permitting, I shall had a comment to this thread later.
Posted by Squeers, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:47:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Chris Lewis,

Very interesting summary of the 'state of play'.

"Whatever the outcomes, I am betting that any new policy trends that emerge will have more to do with pragmatic responses by government and society rather than any dreamland libertarian solution that adheres to pure free trade or open borders for immigrants."

So am I.

Economics isn't a science, so, neo-liberal policies are basically ideological positions that, by a strange coincidence, favour the owners of capital. Most of the successful East Asian economies have been produced by mercantilist,not neo-liberal policies.

Sooner or later the 'Lucky Country's' luck will run out, as Donald Horne predicted,if we follow the neo-liberal agenda our future would be more like Nauru's,an empty quarry.
Posted by mac, Thursday, 14 April 2011 11:51:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are not in position to “debate” anyone while the principles of logical thought continue to elude you and your entire argument consists of circularity and straw men, and, when challenged, personal disparagement.

You want to start your discussion from the proposition that the very idea of economic and personal freedom is stupid and unreasonable and preposterous, and then meet critical analysis proving your errors by circularly repeating your original method!

In other words, you’re not interested in liberalism. Fine. But perhaps it would be more honest if you only offered to debate with people who, like you, believe that the only issues are what number, kind and variety of restrictions on liberty there should be; and change the name of your article to “Miracles of Mercantilist Central Planning”?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:30:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mac
I have seen many people on OLO use the term "neo-liberalism" but no-one will dare to define it apparently. Perhaps you will.

The fact that *your* political opinion and intellectual method is based on ideology and has no basis in science does not justify your assumption that everyone else's is. You are only repeating the Marxian belief that there can be no such thing as economic science, that it is a mere cover for the interests of particular economic classes, that the interests of the participants in social co-operaton are irreconcilably in conflict, and that employment is intrinsically exploitative. But all this Marxian *ideology* was refuted as a matter of *science* long ago, so you need to correctly represent and refute the argument before re-running it all over again.

If what you are saying were correct, physical laws would have no logical consequence for human action. We could make up whatever economic reality we want, simply by passing laws.

It is this extremist fantasyland drivel that you and Chris Lewis espouse, and then have the gall to accuse others of ideology.

When you've refuted the following argument, you'll be in a position to start re-running that one: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

By all means, let us see your refutation of it.

And no, Chris, personal snivelling doesn't count.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 14 April 2011 12:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
alas, we will have to wait till tomorrow to see the next round in this exciting session of verbal tennis

love your game peter .. chris, oh chris, stiff upper lip mate
Posted by Amicus, Thursday, 14 April 2011 1:16:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy