One thing which Rob may consider is the broad idea of "privatisation'.

To me, that term suggests that some asset has been created by public funding (our taxes), then later its ownership has been changed to private.

What about the fiscal investment of the original funders, us?

On a level closer to our immediate lifestyle, it's like our building a home then having the ownership of that very home given to somebody else.

Government, at least democratic government, is the policy-making entity of the populace. It is important that those whom we appoint to undertake and administer policy understand the dominant fact that government ownership is exactly that - not private ownership!

Ponder,
Privatised assets are sold off, not given away.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Neoliberalism, like other economic philosophies, is a collection of features that we can pick and choose - we don't have to accept or reject the whole package. It's likely that as more people realise the problems with neoliberalism, and the false basis on which many of its claims to be good for the economy are based, many more of its features will be rejected.

This Rob Steward has got me buggered.

I thought that conservative racists like myself were "neo-cons" and leftist social regressive like Rob were the "neo-liberals." Somehow, he got that reversed. A bit like his thinking in general.

When I saw the heading of this topic I naturally assumed that the author had penned a piece pointing out the new failure of leftism. With working and lower middle class Europe in almost open revolt against it's own leftist, elitist leaders, terrorism, leftists demanding restrictions on freedom of speech, Venezuela, "deplorable" working class people in the USA giving their liberals the finger, and democratic countries now dangerously divided over ethnic differences, it is obvious to anybody with half a brain that socialism has imploded again.

But no, here is Rob banging on about "inequality" being the root of all evil. Just end "inequality" and hey presto, everything will be OK. That has been tried 47 times in 47 different countries, Rob, and it has failed every time. 100 million dead. How many times more does it need to fail before Rob's "intelligent" caste flash on the fact that it doesn't work, has never worked, and it will never work? Just one more five year plan, comrades, and everything will be fine.

We seem to be witnessing leftism as a new religious cult. Except hat it promises heaven on earth instead of heaven after death. It has it's own evangelical clergy of university educated elites who, like their religious competitors, can plainly ignore self evident facts that clearly demonstrate the fallacy of their belief system.

I'd much rather be a peasant in todays world than be one in the 15 16 17 or 18 hundreds. In fact there has never been a better time to live.

Even in the third world people are living better lives than at any other time. They would be much better off if we & particularly our elites would just leave them alone to improve their culture & lives, for themselves, as the west had to do for itself.

The main worry for us is people like Rob Stewart who think they know it all, & want to tell us & the rest of the world how to live.

Having obviously done very well from we tax payers Rob, why don't you go quietly into retirement, & leave the organisation of the future to people who have had a real job, & have a better idea of what works, than an aged bureaucrat.

LEGO,
Racists like you are usually considered lunatic fringe.

Neocons are statist and socially conservative. They're typically atheists, but are in favour of religion because it improves social cohesion. But they think having a common enemy is the best way to improve social cohesion, and are often associated with the Military Industrial Complex.

Neoliberals are globalist. They're likely to be socially liberal, though it's not a defining feature. They're strongly in favour of deregulation because they see governments as impediments to business. They want lower taxes (particularly at the top end) because they still think that's the best way to make the economy more competitive.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,
I too would prefer to live in the present than centuries ago, but that doesn't mean we can't do a lot better. Your false dichotomy is also illogical, as conditions a couple of centuries ago are in some ways closer to what neoliberals favour.

The main worry for us all is people like you who think they know it all, & want to shut down debate in order to preserve the status quo.

It can be a little confusing at the mishmash of political terms (such as neo-liberalism). Sometimes I'm sure that the terms are purposefully confusing.

Patrick Deneen sees Classical Liberalism (John Locke's version of Freedom) both economic free trade and social liberalism (diversity, political correctness, feminism, multiculturalism) as problematic for stable society. He sees the rachetting of liberal policy across both business and worker sides of government. But the author Rob Stewart appears as just another socialist trying to push "their type of liberalism".

As Deneen implies "liberalism creates gluttons" and a movement towards conservatism and responsibility and more local forms of government is healthy.

Liberalism promotes change- but change is stressful for most- a benefits few- therefore we need to stop those trying to change our communities away from the expectations of the masses. Liberalism and its advocacy of change is toxic to the community. A return to Utilitarianism (the greatest happiness for the greatest number) seems to be needed