Daffy Duck "left/liberal/progressive voices"

Qué?

There's half the problem, right there.
"Liberal" has been lumped in with the very things it is not: left (preachy collectivists) and progressive (pushy utopians).

The article does not clearly define "classical" liberalism and seems to confuse it with libertarianism (which you could call "extremist liberalism").

Liberalism works *within* a society and its economy.

It doesn't necessarily work *between* them (globalisation, multiculturalism) because there is *no* genuinely universal/global society/economy.

Societies and their economies only really exist locally/domestically/nationally.

Their cultures are domestically specific, their economies are taxed domestically for domestic public services.

A revival of "liberalism" that simply regurgitates the utopian/idealist "global" stance of recent politics will alienate a lot of people, myself included.

We can be liberals *and* nationalists, you know.

Shockadelic

"Societies and their economies only really exist locally/domestically/nationally."

Aren't you confusing societies with states?

Australian *society* is international. For example look at all the goods that we get from China, and the food, clothing, technology and ideas from all over the world. The people entering Australia every day, and leaving.

It's the *State* that exists "nationally". By its very existence it represents an attempt to restrict the flow of people, labour, capital etc. to within its defined national territory on terms that it dictates backed by force.

Human society is indeed international, and if international trade were cut off so as to achieve the dreams of the national socialists, and the green utopians, the result would be the deaths by starvation of thousands of millions of people.

Classic liberalism is only compatible with nationalism to a limited extent (government being a national monopoly of security services) but it is certainly not in favour of trade protectionism on a national basis. On the contrary, it is precisely the argument over free trade/protectionism that gave rise to the classical liberals in England (movement to repeal of the Corn Laws and all that).

Jardine, liberalism and democracy have contradictory impulses, yet you wouldn't refute that we can be both simultaneously.
We just need to "compromise" sometimes.

I am not a purist, slavishly following ideology.

You can have social and economic liberty *within* a society, without it existing outside it, or extrapolating to global proportions.
(If the rest of the world was communist, Australia could still be *internally* liberal).

There's no universal "society".
There are only specific societies (French, Turkish, Bengali) that may or may not choose to interact (*Not* interacting is also part of "liberty").

"look at all the goods that we get from China"
And the void from elsewhere.

China dominates both trade and immigration.
Can you truly have a "global society" when *one* people/regional society overshadows all others?

No I'm not confusing state and society.
But they do roughly correspond in most cases. That's how states came into being.
French society existed before "France".

If you support "democracy", international interaction (trade, immigration) should only occur with the consent of "the people".
Which is not the case.

All our international interactions, whether we want them or not, are choices made by politicians, who often deceive the public about their intentions or contradict the known public sentiment.

"if international trade were cut off so as to achieve the dreams of the national socialists and the green utopians"

I don't want either to achieve their dreams.

I would never propose "cutting off" trade.
Such a sudden shock would *hurt* the domestic economy.
But we could gradually phase it out.
Without plentiful oil, we may have to, as shipping will stop.

"government being a national monopoly of security services"

It's you that's confusing the state and society.
The "nation/society" is the people, not the government.

"the classical liberals in England" lived in a time where most trade occurred within their own empire, or with adjacent continental countries.

They would never have envisioned people and goods from the *entire planet* moving "freely" about.

I'm sure they would have seen the dangers such chaos creates for the "civil society" needed for a liberal democratic system to work.

“There's no universal "society".”

Why not? What is society but human co-operation by a different name?

“There are only specific societies (French, Turkish, Bengali)”

Why? Why aren't the people in those state boundaries also in society with people outside them"

> "look at all the goods that we get from China"
"And the void from elsewhere."

There isn’t a void from elsewhere. We get goods and from from, and send goods and services to, all over the world.

China dominates both trade and immigration.
Can you truly have a "global society" when *one* people/regional society overshadows all others?”

Why not? Why can’t people co-operate with other people, by voluntary exchanges, regardless what states claim the right to make laws over them?

“If you support "democracy", international interaction (trade, immigration) should only occur with the consent of "the people".
Why should the deciding factor be political power, rather than the freedom of the people to enter into voluntary transactions?

“All our international interactions, whether we want them or not, are choices made by politicians”

No they’re not. When you buy and sell goods and services, that’s not “choices made by politicians”

"…politicians , who often deceive the public about their intentions or contradict the known public sentiment."

It’s true they do. So why should politicians be the deciders? Why not the people by their own voluntary transactions?

“I would never propose "cutting off" trade.
…But we could gradually phase it out.”

Why would you want to phase out trade?

Jardine "Why aren't the people in those state boundaries also in society with people outside them"

A few individuals interacting globally doesn't create a genuine "society".
A "society" is a large *group* that share persistent connections.

What are the persistent connections between Muslim Turks, agnostic New Yorkers and Irish wiccans?
Does such a "group" on a large scale even exist?

There are over 6000 different ethnic groups (the principal basis of "societies") in the world. What could possibly connect all of them?

"There isn’t a void from elsewhere."

Imports are disproportionately Chinese.
Try finding anything at Kmart *not* made in China.

Try finding anything, anywhere made in Brazil, made in Turkey, made in South Africa, made in Russia. Where are they?

"When you buy and sell goods and services, that’s not “choices made by politicians”"

Yes, it is. Because they decide what can be bought or sold.
They can prohibit goods (heroin) or goods to or from certain countries (North Korea).
They can stipulate production specifications (size, weight, etc).
Politicians also sign "free trade" agreements without our consent.

"So why should politicians be the deciders? Why not the people by their own voluntary transactions?"

Why not the people through "democracy"?
We are supposed to be both liberal *and* democratic.
You seem to value only the former.

"Why would you want to phase out trade?"

Have a look at the economic turmoil of recent years.
The more interlinked we are, the more we're affected by disastrous externalities.

"Free trade" sounds great if you're Switzerland, where trading with a dozen other countries involves a trip of a few kilometres.

Look at Australia on Google Earth.
We're virtually alone, with most other countries on the other side of the planet!

This means international trade is dependent on shipping, reliant on cheap oil and good weather.
An economy dependent on such favourable conditions continuing indefinitely is a very vulnerable economy.

Foreign political stability is also a factor.
Middle Eastern or Central American conflict could close the Suez or Panama Canals.
China may disintegrate one day.
The more we can produce domestically, the better.

>>"Why would you want to phase out trade?"

>Have a look at the economic turmoil of recent years.
The more interlinked we are, the more we're affected by disastrous externalities.

Then why not phase out all trade? Think how free of the possibility of economic turmoil life would be then: a veritable Paradise.

But if not, by what rational principle do you distinguish what trade is to be "phased out" (forcibly suppressed) and what not?

Yours is a creed of total government power - the opposite of liberalism.

The problem with your theory, as with all collectivism, is that you're thinking in vague and arbitrary generalities. All the criteria you give as distinguishing what you call societies, apply just as much within and between those societies. What has a capuccino-sipper in Melbourned to do with a jackaroo in the Kimberley. The latter has more meaningful interaction with the Indonesians he sells his product too and visit on holiday than the former. You confuse society with the state, confuse violence-based decision-making by a monopoly of force with consent-based thinking by people free to choose, and have supplied no way by which liberalism can be reconciled with its contradictions by democracy.