Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Thatcher's Defense of the Free Market

  • 13-12-2008 2:05pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭


    I enjoyed the following article and from a purely historical point of view would make me curious to find out more about how she developed her economic views.

    by J. R. Nyquist
    Weekly Column Published: 12.12.2008
    Print
    G oethe once said, “I hate everything that merely instructs me without augmenting or directly invigorating my activity.” The political teachings of right and left, for the past thirty years, constitute a sort of sleepy and repetitive humbug. We hear the words, we repeat the words, and we shuffle along like sleepwalkers. If the left is disappointed by Obama’s centrist appointees, or the right is disappointed at the emptiness of Republican politicians, then perhaps today’s ideologies are more sedative than stimulant. “Here is the truth,” they promise. “Now you can rest because everything is settled.” For an exhausted modernity, ideological instruction is like a pillow. It is a place to rest one’s head.

    Goethe would argue that an idea (as opposed to an ideology) is not a resting place, but a point of departure. The case of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher offers a good example of someone whose activity was directly invigorated by instruction. Instead of using ideology as a comfortable corner to defend, she challenged the world. We see this in Claire Berlinski’s biography of Thatcher, There Is No Alternative. According to Berlinski, “It is critical to appreciate that Thatcher’s enthusiasm for free markets can’t be reduced to an enthusiasm for economic efficiency – this is a charge often made, but it simply isn’t so. A moral society, not an efficient one, was her ultimate goal.”

    It is my theory that today’s gross materialism is a corollary of our collective sleepwalking. Our political and economic ideas are merely convenient, and adapted to meet the needs of a hedonistic shopping mall regime. Our society has lost its way, forgetting the values that made us strong and prosperous. In 1977 Thatcher noted: “The main issues are moral. In warfare, said Napoleon – the moral is to the material as three to one. You may think that in civil society the ratio is even greater. The economic success of the Western world is a product of its moral philosophy and practice.”

    As America turns to socialism (i.e., the government allocation of economic resources) it is interesting to consider the immorality of what is done. The rich want to keep their wealth. And they seem perfectly willing to exhaust public funds to do so. But the wealth that many want to preserve was never real. The boom that made this wealth was false – and corrupting. At bottom, the market is now trying to correct the immorality of self-deceptive practices. Many participants don’t accept this correction, and so they reject the market just as the ancient Israelites rejected the prophets.

    “Choice is the essence of ethics.” said Thatcher, “If there were no choice, there would be no ethics.” If human beings are free to choose, then man must reap what he sows. This is what is being denied today. Therefore, many financiers and industrialists turn to the government. “Bail us out,” they cry. “If we go down, everything goes down.” In answer to this, precious resources are diverted by the state in support of the worst malpractices of the previous era. Here is the essence of socialism, the core of a rotten policy. “The socialists,” said Thatcher, “would take away most or all of [our] choices. A man would do what he was told by the state and his union, work where work was ‘found’ for him, at the rate fixed and degree of effort permitted. He would send his children to school where the education authority decided what the children are taught and the way they are taught, irrespective of his views, he would live in the housing provided, take what he could get, give what he was obliged to give.”

    Even if the U.S. government could save Detroit, the banks and Wall Street, consider Thatcher’s warning: “This doesn’t produce a responsible or a moral society. This doesn’t produce a classless society; on the contrary it produces the most stratified of all societies, divided into two classes: the powerful and the powerless; the party-bureaucratic elite and the manipulated masses.” The result is disastrous: economic inefficiency, national demoralization and schlubocracy. (Speaking of which, we see the future promise of this type of government in Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to solicit bribes in exchange for the president-elect’s senate seat.)

    Politicians believe that government spending can save us from catastrophe. Berlinski calls this “the wickedness of profligacy.” Such spending marks a return to inflation. As Margaret Thatcher explained, “For many years we have been told that a little bit of inflation is good for you. Many economists assured us … that inflation is necessary to maintain full employment, to facilitate growth and keep the economy moving. The message was: spend your way to prosperity, and when the economy faltered, spend and spend again.” History shows that the policy doesn’t work. By debasing the currency, the government breaks the trust between government and the governed. According to Thatcher, “Once the people lose their trust in money, the freedom of … society will be diminished or even, eventually, destroyed.”

    Thatcher was confident in her conclusions because she had historical sense. She saw that the West was the most advanced civilization. She looked at the values and ideas that held sway as the West advanced from feudal squalor to modern prosperity. When these values were discarded, she saw that progress turned to stagnation. Quite logically, the solution was to rediscover the old values. Invigorated by this instructive insight, Thatcher turned her country around by defending the free market as a moral principle.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    This post has been deleted.


    Looks like I am some reading to do over xmas , off to Amazon:) I have read around the the Austrian school and up until now I have been more interested in the economic case as it has been a useful "prism" to understand current events and as far as I am concerned has predictive value

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭rcecil


    Set us on the road to this year's economics collapse. Democratic Socialism is the road to a better future not the selfish ideals of Ms. Thatcher, Milton Friedman and Sir Ronald Reagan.

    Private enterprise can be incorporated into a socialist culture but not by allowing rampant, war creating capitalism and greed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,210 ✭✭✭gaf1983


    I finished The Road to Serfdom last Saturday. I definitely struggled through the first half, felt it was full of contemporaneous references, second half was more of a general nature. The highlight for me was definitely the chapter entitled "Why the worst get on top." (of Socialist regimes)

    I'd love it if Hayek was alive to day to see what he would have made of China's economic growth since 1978.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    rcecil wrote: »
    Set us on the road to this year's economics collapse. Democratic Socialism is the road to a better future not the selfish ideals of Ms. Thatcher, Milton Friedman and Sir Ronald Reagan.
    Yahoo!!! Let's all wave a red flag and come out with some emotive clichés!

    If you look at Thatcherism in the context of its time, you need to remember that it came about as a reaction to the moribund economic policies of the seventies labour government, back when many still claimed that the Soviet economy was 'catching up'.

    On the topic of bail-outs, I believe the problem is that governments are adopting a pragmatic rather than moral approach. The moral, and perhaps better long term, approach may well be to let the market cull those institutions that were were the architects of their own misfortune, thus ensuring economic accountability and that the lesson is learned in the future.

    However the repercussions of such a move could be of a magnitude of those that we will otherwise feel. Consider not guaranteeing bank deposits; this was (prior to the Irish government actually doing so) already heading towards the direction of a run on the banks most vulnerable, which would inevitably lead to their collapse and lots of people losing all their savings.

    Unfortunately the problem with being moralistic is that you need to be prepared to have blood on your hands to achieve it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    Correct me if I’m wrong but Margaret Thatcher was essentially a libertarian. Libertarianism is unjustified when you consider that it places absolute importance in private property. The libertarian state is essentially a very weak state, everything except the police and army are privately owned. This is seen as a defence of the libertarian’s freedom from an inherently corrupt state and the best way to get productive use of the earth’s resources. However Libertarians cannot justify why some people should have legitimate claim over resources when clearly these resources were taken by force at some point in the past. Furthermore there is no legitimate claim to own the world and pass this world to only their own children whilst denying poorer people and their children any claim to the earth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Offalycool wrote: »
    However Libertarians cannot justify why some people should have legitimate claim over resources when clearly these resources were taken by force at some point in the past. Furthermore there is no legitimate claim to own the world and pass this world to only their own children whilst denying poorer people and their children any claim to the earth.

    I am probably not the best to answer this but maybe Liberteranism should not be painted as if it is some form of rampant mercantilism. Ideally "gun boats" would not available to exploit developing countries assuming you are talking about the third world.
    If you are saying that passing on wealth within a particular society somehow stratifies it, I would argue that now isnt the closed society of the middle ages, the only judge is if the resources are being managed in an effecient manner, if not other winners emerge. The libertarian would argue that gov. create barriers to entry and creates monopoly behaviour in the system which in a very arbitary way creates its own winners and losers.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    Contemporary Political Philosophy by Will Kymlicka is an great introduction.
    I am sure the third world would argue the system is currently monopolised. Regardless of any legitimate claim the third world should have, in western ‘liberal’ societies the state protects the weakest of its society via taxation. The liberal believes in taxing the rich to provide a minimum standard of living for all society. However the Libertarian believes this taxation is unjust, for him; the rich and able have no obligation to provide for the poor, but generosity is a virtue. Who was it that said “let them eat cake?”

    http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Political-Philosophy-Will-Kymlicka/dp/0198277237


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Offalycool wrote: »
    Contemporary Political Philosophy by Will Kymlicka is an great introduction.
    I am sure the third world would argue the system is currently monopolised. Regardless of any legitimate claim the third world should have, in western ‘liberal’ societies the state protects the weakest of its society via taxation. The liberal believes in taxing the rich to provide a minimum standard of living for all society. However the Libertarian believes this taxation is unjust, for him; the rich and able have no obligation to provide for the poor, but generosity is a virtue. Who was it that said “let them eat cake?”

    http://www.amazon.com/Contemporary-Political-Philosophy-Will-Kymlicka/dp/0198277237


    What about the people in the middle? The vast majority of people do not lie at either end of the curve. From a Libertarian point of view we are seeing alot of economic chickens coming home to roost which I'll argue is largely due to meddling in the market by Gov and central banks since at least the 1960's.
    The rich can look after themselves under any system but the middleclass are the very ones that are treated like milk cows by the state

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    In a global context the vast majority are at or below the poverty line, the people in the middle are a minority. The central banking system is a private organisation that has the power to create money out of the commitment people in the middle make to fulfil their debt + interest, via ‘growth’. Libertarians would have us believe the market enables people to defend their liberty via property ownership. However people in the middle are in massive debt to retain the property they reside in. In the market there is only the principle, ie. the money that is available in the market due to money provided as debt through the banking system. The interest charged on the lent money does not actually exist in the market, and this promotes an antagonistic relationship within communities as people compete for finite capital in order to pay interest on mortgages that is not in the market. This creates monopolistic imbalance in communities, and ultimately undermines the system as more and more people default on their debt commitments. Furthermore it promotes aggressive violent behaviour in the people in the middle, who exploit weaker people in order that they may fulfil their obligations to the privately owned banks. Ultimately this competitiveness does not ensure productive use of property either because it requires more and more resources to be turned into crap, in order that people will discard their junk to start the cycle of consumption again, so that debt obligations can be met. This is why stuff just doesn’t last like it used too, and superficial entertainment has become such a profitable industry. In a liberal society there is a sort of social contract to offset the negative impact the ‘free’ market would have at home, Libertarians however do not feel this is necessary, and actually counterproductive. However there is no evidence to support the belief that most people would be able to sustain freedom in a monopolistic system such as private ownership. With every new boom more and more debt is produced to promote unproductive growth, and with every recession more people find themselves without the means to meet the debt repayments, thereby falling into properly-less poverty. Ultimately the market system is unsustainable, as resources are finite and libertarians do not promote any radical solutions to this fact. Libertarians are wrong to suppose people in the middle can retain their liberty by upholding property as the means to be free.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Offalycool wrote: »
    Libertarians would have us believe the market enables people to defend their liberty via property ownership. However people in the middle are in massive debt to retain the property they reside in. In the market there is only the principle, ie. the money that is available in the market due to money provided as debt through the banking system. The interest charged on the lent money does not actually exist in the market, and this promotes an antagonistic relationship within communities as people compete for finite capital in order to pay interest on mortgages that is not in the market.

    I dont dsagree with this, the libertarian position as it gels with the Austrian school would be to have an honest money system or some kind of gold standard, franctional reserve banking is a con in the long run. Its gov and the central banks that run the inflation machine , it is not a private development.


    Offalycool wrote: »
    With every new boom more and more debt is produced to promote unproductive growth, and with every recession more people find themselves without the means to meet the debt repayments, thereby falling into properly-less poverty. Ultimately the market system is unsustainable, as resources are finite and libertarians do not promote any radical solutions to this fact. Libertarians are wrong to suppose people in the middle can retain their liberty by upholding property as the means to be free.

    Again the market is unsustainable because imbalances are allowed to build up in the system. A Libertarian or any decent parent would not pass debts down to their children, the state has no such qualms.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    Offalycool wrote: »
    The central banking system is a private organisation
    How do you figure that, exactly?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    How do you figure that, exactly?

    im not sure about europe but in america it is certainly true the federal reserve is essentially a private business run by a small amount of people with alot of vested interests. it is an absolute joke and as henry ford said something along these lines ' if the mass's knew how the banking system was run there would be a revolution of massive proportions tomorrow'

    i dont think this quite applies to the european central bank

    edit sorry economiste i didnt look at who i was replying to im sure you know more about it than me so i could be wrong


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    im not sure about europe but in america it is certainly true the federal reserve is essentially a private business run by a small amount of people with alot of vested interests. it is an absolute joke and as henry ford said something along these lines ' if the mass's knew how the banking system was run there would be a revolution of massive proportions tomorrow'

    i dont think this quite applies to the european central bank

    edit sorry economiste i didnt look at who i was replying to im sure you know more about it than me so i could be wrong

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

    "The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    silverharp wrote: »
    http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm#5

    "The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects."

    iv obviously been effected by some sort of anti federal reserve propoganda


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    iv obviously been effected by some sort of anti federal reserve propoganda
    I've outlined the basic structure of the Fed before, you can read it here if you want to. Essentially, the arguments, from what I've read, come from a court ruling that regional Federal Reserve Banks being "private" in the sense that they can be sued, and the failure to distinguish the Federal Reserve System from individual banks. Also, the capital structure of regional Reserve Banks is slightly misunderstood. Arguments from Austrian Economists, vis-a-vis the Fed, are in relation to inflation eroding the long-term value of money, the perceived benefits of a gold standard, and about market distortions from interest rates being too low. Essentially, they would like a free-market for money. There's a better argument to be had there, as opposed to conspiracy theories about the Fed and its hidden intentions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    Thanks for providing that insightful information, I stand corrected.

    I think the fractional reserve system is a natural evolution in libertarian politics. I acknowledge the libertarian argument to return to some sort of gold standard, but I feel human nature being what it is, property power eventually leads people to exploit their capital in unjust ways. The liberal may be perceived to be a wishy washy middle of the road spectre, but political ideology is rarely applicable to reality. Economically advanced societies are stabilised to some degree by the liberal in so far as economic injustice is somewhat reduced through a modest redistribution of resources. This is I believe the only feasible way to sustain maximum liberty, innovation and economic prosperity in our time because many people will have opportunities in a liberal society that they would not have in a libertarian society. The state is the only entity that ideally aims to represent and protect the liberty of the citizen regardless of the property that citizen possess. Very strong states are dangerous for a variety of obvious reasons but the extremely weak state is just as dangerous because it remove the distinction between rights and power. Thatcher wrapped up her economic ruthlessness in idealised principles and envisioned her society maintain its liberty at the expense of its own citizens and the citizens of other regimes.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Offalycool wrote: »
    I think the fractional reserve system is a natural evolution in libertarian politics. I acknowledge the libertarian argument to return to some sort of gold standard, but I feel human nature being what it is, property power eventually leads people to exploit their capital in unjust ways.

    one aspect is having a robust constitution, looking at the US, their constitution is bypassed when convenient. If its human nature to corrupt the system, then try to build this into the system otherwise accept that all systems will fail if human nature will corrupt any system.

    Offalycool wrote: »

    Economically advanced societies are stabilised to some degree by the liberal in so far as economic injustice is somewhat reduced through a modest redistribution of resources. This is I believe the only feasible way to sustain maximum liberty, innovation and economic prosperity in our time because many people will have opportunities in a liberal society that they would not have in a libertarian society. The state is the only entity that ideally aims to represent and protect the liberty of the citizen regardless of the property that citizen possess. Very strong states are dangerous for a variety of obvious reasons but the extremely weak state is just as dangerous because it remove the distinction between rights and power. Thatcher wrapped up her economic ruthlessness in idealised principles and envisioned her society maintain its liberty at the expense of its own citizens and the citizens of other regimes.

    What boundries does a "liberal society" have and assuming there is a gov that is involved in various aspects in the economy how does the society stop the special interests groups from gaming the system, which would affect the
    "maximum liberty, innovation and economic prosperity" you mentioned?
    As for Thatcher, there was obviously a neocon aspect to her policies so I am far from being a total fan.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    silverharp wrote: »
    one aspect is having a robust constitution, looking at the US, their constitution is bypassed when convenient. If its human nature to corrupt the system, then try to build this into the system otherwise accept that all systems will fail if human nature will corrupt any system.

    Corruption is a problem in any system. As time passes the systems we have in place need to be open to alteration as inadequacies in the previous legislation must be addressed. For example feminists would argue the oppression of women is so ingrained in society, any constitution drawn by men alone is unfit for a society that values egalitarian principles.
    silverharp wrote: »
    What boundries does a "liberal society" have and assuming there is a gov that is involved in various aspects in the economy how does the society stop the special interests groups from gaming the system, which would affect the
    "maximum liberty, innovation and economic prosperity" you mentioned?
    As for Thatcher, there was obviously a neocon aspect to her policies so I am far from being a total fan.

    The second problem is our responsibility. The liberal holds the citizen responsible for the political justice in liberal society. This is why any citizen can hold public office. In truth the Libertarian system is just as corruptible as the Liberal when you consider what is similar about them. In both the liberal and libertarian society the police and army are independent of the political realm in that they are to a large extent permanent. Democratic liberal governments are drawn from the pool of the public and by law are subject to routine change but the police are permanent and ultimately have the power to create the laws that enable them to pervade and corrupt society through lobbing the government for ever more power in times of weakens and crisis. Derrida belied the theocracy was superior to democracy in this regard because at least the king is permanent and therefore provides a legitimate counterweight to the 'revolting' unchecked police in democracy. However I prefer society to represent the people before the individual and while there is no perfect system and the liberal society does tend to swell with bureaucracy; at least the liberal society offers any citizen the opportunity to hold office and represent the interest of his community.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    silverharp wrote: »
    As for Thatcher, there was obviously a neocon aspect to her policies so I am far from being a total fan.
    What aspect is this? Other than both broadly falling under the category of 'right wing'.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    What aspect is this? Other than both broadly falling under the category of 'right wing'.

    I was thinking about their foreign policy/defense policy, neocon probably overlaps with right wing thinking here.

    The second problem is our responsibility. The liberal holds the citizen responsible for the political justice in liberal society. This is why any citizen can hold public office. In truth the Libertarian system is just as corruptible as the Liberal when you consider what is similar about them. In both the liberal and libertarian society the police and army are independent of the political realm in that they are to a large extent permanent. Democratic liberal governments are drawn from the pool of the public and by law are subject to routine change but the police are permanent and ultimately have the power to create the laws that enable them to pervade and corrupt society through lobbing the government for ever more power in times of weakens and crisis. Derrida belied the theocracy was superior to democracy in this regard because at least the king is permanent and therefore provides a legitimate counterweight to the 'revolting' unchecked police in democracy. However I prefer society to represent the people before the individual and while there is no perfect system and the liberal society does tend to swell with bureaucracy; at least the liberal society offers any citizen the opportunity to hold office and represent the interest of his community.


    I wont argue this but in a previous post you seemed unhappy debt based money system and the use of resources in society. I cant see how any of the above will sort out these fudamental flaws in society

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    silverharp wrote: »
    I was thinking about their foreign policy/defense policy, neocon probably overlaps with right wing thinking here.
    They're totally different. During her premiership Britain carried out only one armed conflict and that was when British territory was invaded (although she favoured British involvement in the Gulf). Beyond that, there was no specific policy of regime change abroad, no unilateralism, no serious interest in the Middle East (another focal point of neoconservatism) - indeed the vast bulk of Thatcherism was ideologically concentrated on domestic economics rather than foreign policy.

    So, linking her or Thatcherism to neoconservatism makes little sense outside of a general 'right-wing' generalization.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    They're totally different. During her premiership Britain carried out only one armed conflict and that was when British territory was invaded (although she favoured British involvement in the Gulf). Beyond that, there was no specific policy of regime change abroad, no unilateralism, no serious interest in the Middle East (another focal point of neoconservatism) - indeed the vast bulk of Thatcherism was ideologically concentrated on domestic economics rather than foreign policy.

    So, linking her or Thatcherism to neoconservatism makes little sense outside of a general 'right-wing' generalization.


    I'll ask as a question , how would you class the whole arms build up and stance against Russia of Britain at the time, If Chaney/Bush had been around in the 80's their foreign policy would have been similar to Regan's? Given Britain's ardent support for US policy as the time does it not make the term interchangeable?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    silverharp wrote: »
    I'll ask as a question , how would you class the whole arms build up and stance against Russia of Britain at the time, If Chaney/Bush had been around in the 80's their foreign policy would have been similar to Regan's? Given Britain's ardent support for US policy as the time does it not make the term interchangeable?
    The politics of the arms race during the Cold War were not the same thing as those of the Bush administration post-9/11. They concentrated on a policy of containment of the Soviet threat from a multinational perspective. Neoconservationism firstly believed in confrontation rather than containment (Iraq was and Iran is 'contained' after all) and secondly rejected the need for a multinational approach.

    Britain's support of the US was in this context; no one advocated armed conflict with the Soviets - after all, the whole point of the arms race was as a deterrent, where neither side would have a military advantage that would tempt them to believe that conflict could be won.

    Additionally Thatcherism was always more concerned with economics than foreign policy, while Neoconservationism had very little interest in economics.

    The two are quite different and can only be grouped together under a very broad 'right-wing' category. Beyond that, it's just the same wishful thinking that compares Bush to Hitler.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    silverharp wrote: »
    I wont argue this but in a previous post you seemed unhappy debt based money system and the use of resources in society. I cant see how any of the above will sort out these fudamental flaws in society

    You are correct that I am unhappy with the injustice of the situation. The liberal can be accused of not fulfilling his obligation to his ideal liberal principles, so in truth, there is a degree of inconsistency in the liberal approach. The liberal accepts society as a collection of individuals and therefore does not pass judgement on the selfishness of some, but harnesses the productive power of the able for the betterment of all society with a sort of compromise. In this way I feel the liberal is more pragmatic than may political idealisers because even if liberal ideal leans to a universalising principle, she recognises that more good can be achieved by the practical implementation of her principles. I don't believe any system can take the responsibility of justice from us, we must be ever vigilant of the truth that justice can only be pursed by the people, for the people. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    Please forgive my poor spelling..
    Offalycool wrote: »
    ..justice can only be pursued by the people, for the people. :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,854 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    The politics of the arms race during the Cold War were not the same thing as those of the Bush administration post-9/11. They concentrated on a policy of containment of the Soviet threat from a multinational perspective. Neoconservationism firstly believed in confrontation rather than containment (Iraq was and Iran is 'contained' after all) and secondly rejected the need for a multinational approach.

    Britain's support of the US was in this context; no one advocated armed conflict with the Soviets - after all, the whole point of the arms race was as a deterrent, where neither side would have a military advantage that would tempt them to believe that conflict could be won.

    I agree the situations were different because the "enemies" were different. but at the same time if you take the litany of US interfence in South America, it was still a case of stand in the way of perceived US "interests" and we will come after you. Is there much of a differnce in fact between invading Iraq and instigating coups in South America?








    Offalycool wrote: »
    You are correct that I am unhappy with the injustice of the situation. The liberal can be accused of not fulfilling his obligation to his ideal liberal principles, so in truth, there is a degree of inconsistency in the liberal approach. The liberal accepts society as a collection of individuals and therefore does not pass judgement on the selfishness of some, but harnesses the productive power of the able for the betterment of all society with a sort of compromise. In this way I feel the liberal is more pragmatic than may political idealisers because even if liberal ideal leans to a universalising principle, she recognises that more good can be achieved by the practical implementation of her principles. I don't believe any system can take the responsibility of justice from us, we must be ever vigilant of the truth that justice can only be pursed by the people, for the people. :)


    you wont agree with the sentiment of this article excerpt:D, but it seems to come down to promise and delivery. you will probably retort that the same applies to Libertarianism:pac:


    The Great Society: A Libertarian Critique
    [First published in The Great Society Reader: The Failure of American Liberalism, 1967.]


    The cruelest myth fostered by the liberals is that the Great Society functions as a great boon and benefit to the poor; in reality, when we cut through the frothy appearances to the cold reality underneath, the poor are the major victims of the welfare state. The poor are the ones to be conscripted to fight and die at literally slave wages in the Great Society's imperial wars. The poor are the ones to lose their homes to the bulldozer of urban renewal, that bulldozer that operates for the benefit of real-estate and construction interests to pulverize available low-cost housing.[10]

    All this, of course, in the name of "clearing the slums" and helping the aesthetics of housing. The poor are the welfare clientele whose homes are unconstitutionally but regularly invaded by government agents to ferret out sin in the middle of the night. The poor (e.g., Negroes in the South) are the ones disemployed by rising minimum-wage floors, put in for the benefit of employers and unions in higher-wage areas (e.g., the North) to prevent industry from moving to the low-wage areas. The poor are cruelly victimized by an income tax that Left and Right alike misconstrue as an egalitarian program to soak the rich; actually, various tricks and exemptions insure that it is the poor and the middle classes who are hit the hardest.[11]

    The poor are victimized too by a welfare state of which the cardinal macroeconomic tenet is perpetual if controlled inflation. The inflation and the heavy government spending favor the businesses of the military-industrial complex, while the poor and the retired, those on fixed pensions or Social Security, are hit the hardest. (Liberals have often scoffed at the anti-inflationists' stress on the "widows and orphans" as major victims of inflation, but these remain major victims nevertheless.) And the burgeoning of compulsory mass public education forces millions of unwilling youth off the labor market for many years, and into schools that serve more as houses of detention than as genuine centers of education.[12]

    Farm programs that supposedly aid poor farmers actually serve the large wealthy farmers at the expense of sharecropper and consumer alike; and commissions that regulate industry serve to cartellize it. The mass of workers is forced by governmental measures into trade unions that tame and integrate the labor force into the toils of the accelerating corporate state, there to be subjected to arbitrary wage "guidelines" and ultimate compulsory arbitration.

    The role of the liberal intellectual and of liberal rhetoric is even more stark in foreign economic policy. Ostensibly designed to "help the underdeveloped countries," foreign aid has served as a gigantic subsidy by the American taxpayer of American export firms, a similar subsidy to American foreign investment through guarantees and subsidized government loans, an engine of inflation for the recipient country, and a form of massive subsidy to the friends and clients of US imperialism in the recipient country.

    The symbiosis between liberal intellectuals and despotic statism at home and abroad is, furthermore, no accident; for at the heart of the welfarist mentality is an enormous desire to "do good to" the mass of other people, and since people don't usually wish to be done good to — since they have their own ideas of what they wish to do — the liberal welfarist inevitably ends by reaching for the big stick with which to push the ungrateful masses around. Hence, the liberal ethos itself provides a powerful stimulant for the intellectuals to seek state power and ally themselves with the other rulers of the corporate state. The liberals thus become what Harry EImer Barnes has aptly termed "totalitarian liberals." Or, as Isabel Paterson put it a generation ago:

    The humanitarian wishes to be a prime mover in the lives of others. He cannot admit either the divine or the natural order, by which men have the power to help themselves. The humanitarian puts himself in the place of God.

    But he is confronted by two awkward facts; first, that the competent do not need his assistance; and second, that the majority of people … positively do not want to be "done good" by the humanitarian…. Of course, what the humanitarian actually proposes is that he shall do what he thinks is good for everybody. It is at this point that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.[13]

    The rhetorical role of welfarism in pushing people around may be seen clearly in the Vietnam War, where American liberal planning for alleged Vietnamese welfare has been particularly prominent, e.g., in the plans and actions of Wolf Ladejinsky, Joseph Buttinger, and the Michigan State group. And the result has been very much of an American-operated "guillotine" for the Vietnamese people, North and South.[14]

    And even Fortune magazine invokes the spirit of humanitarian "idealism" as the justification for the United States' falling "heir to the onerous task of policing these shattered colonies" of Western Europe, and exerting its might all over the world. The will to make this exertion to the uttermost, especially in Vietnam and perhaps China, constitutes for Fortune, "the unending test of American idealism."[15] This liberal-welfarist syndrome may also be seen in the very different area of civil rights, in the terribly pained indignation of white liberals at the recent determination of Negroes to take the lead in helping themselves, rather than to keep deferring to the Lords and Ladies Bountiful of white liberalism.


    In sum, the most important fact about the Great Society under which we live is the enormous disparity between rhetoric and content. In rhetoric, America is the land of the free and the generous, enjoying the fused blessings of a free market tempered by and joined to accelerating social welfare, bountifully distributing its unstinting largesse to the less fortunate in the world. In actual practice, the free economy is virtually gone, replaced by an imperial corporate-state Leviathan that organizes, commands, exploits the rest of society and, indeed, the rest of the world, for its own power and pelf. We have experienced, as Garet Garrett keenly pointed out over a decade ago, a "revolution within the form."[16] The old limited republic has been replaced by empire, within and without our borders.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    silverharp wrote: »
    I agree the situations were different because the "enemies" were different. but at the same time if you take the litany of US interfence in South America, it was still a case of stand in the way of perceived US "interests" and we will come after you. Is there much of a differnce in fact between invading Iraq and instigating coups in South America?
    Or with Soviet interference in eastern Europe and Eurasia - does that make them neocons? Seriously, you're making very superficial comparisons between the two periods.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    silverharp wrote: »
    you wont agree with the sentiment of this article excerpt:D, but it seems to come down to promise and delivery. you will probably retort that the same applies to Libertarianism:pac:

    There is no law without force. With the creation of the state the law that existed prior was violated and overthrown through violent force by the people. Thereby the people create and are responsible for the state. After the creation of the 'just' state, the state maintains its dominion through violence, it retains the absolute right to use violence on behalf of the people. If the state fails in its obligations to the people the people will destroy the state. In order that the state remain stable justice must be respected. If there is injustice in the state (and there always is) it is the responsibility of its citizen to try to address the injustice. The libertarians suppose that monopolistic imbalance is due to compromise, and justice is to be found in law. Law can never be a substitute for justice because justice is an ideal, therefore the law must be open to change in a just society. As Blaise Pascal remarked, “It is right that what is strong should be made just, it is necessary that what is strong must be followed.” The state draws its power from the people and it is the peoples responsibility to make the state just, the state can only retain real power, that is the power of the people; if it is just.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 459 ✭✭Offalycool


    I thought this point of view might be of interest to people who would like to try libertarianism out for themselves.. :pac:
    Democracy For $ale:
    Libertarian Paradise
    DR. JACK MILLER / Monitor Winter 2004-05 20feb2005



    The United States has the lowest taxes and smallest government of any industrial nation (as a percent of Gross Domestic Product). After years of huge tax cuts for wealthy elites and corporations, government at all levels is struggling to meet public needs.

    Nevertheless, with services being slashed, infra-structure crumbling and deficits soaring, demands continue for smaller government and lower taxes. A key player in this process is arch-libertarian Grover Norquist—the most powerful man you never heard of in Washington. He runs the well-funded Americans for Tax Reform, and his goal is to shrink government to the point "you can drown it in a bathtub." Norquist's ideal citizen is "the self-employed, home schooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit because that per-son doesn't need the goddamn government for any-thing.'" Norquist has made a living of bashing anything with the word "public" attached, and his message heavily influences the Bush administration and resonates with many anti-government Americans.

    Democracy For $ale: Libertarian Paradise DR. JACK MILLER / Monitor Winter 2004-05 20feb2005

    Well, I've done some research and have great news for Grover and his followers. I actually found a place where the government has already been "drowned in a bathtub—"a tax-free paradise awaiting any libertarian who cares to travel a little: Somalia! That's right! Located in picturesque East Africa, caressed by the warm waters of the Indian Ocean, Somalia has no functioning government, so there's no one to steal your hard-earned dollars.

    Well, almost no one—since there are no police, the warlords sort of call the shots (no pun intended). They may demand some tribute, but it's not like wasting your money on police protection, garbage collection, sidewalks, schools, libraries, clean water, etc. Think about it: by paying tribute you're getting something really personal in return—your life! Don't despair—if the war-lord even leaves you fifty bucks, you'll still be a Somali millionaire. According to the CIA, "The absence of central government authority, as well as profiteering from counterfeiting, has rapidly debased Somalia's currency" to where one U.S. dollar now buys 30,000 Somali shillings!"

    Also, if you arrive by sea, be careful. Somalia has no tax-supported Coast Guard, so our State Department advises that there are real live pirates who keep a sharp lookout for over-upholstered, spoiled libertarians (like Grover) to snatch for ransom. At the risk of seeming wimpy, you might want to check the "Weekly Piracy Report" on the International Chamber of Commerce's web site before sailing."'

    Arrhh, matey, if you are kidnapped, the closest U.S. Embassy is in Nairobi, Kenya! But who cares? Since embassies are another symptom of bloated tax-hungry governments, self-respecting libertarians will gladly walk the plank before submitting to any such official meddling. That may not become a problem, anyway, because you can hit the beach heavily armed (remember, no gun laws). In fact, no laws at all! No patronizing, nosey officials to keep you from doing absolutely anything you want to do.

    With no public health system or sanitation in Somalia, malaria, tuberculosis, tetanus and leprosy may become a problem for even the tidiest libertarian. Try to limit your contact with the waterways; no wading or swimming is suggested, but of course, not ordered. The inland waters are a veritable toxic brew of microbes, which cause cholera, hepatitis, typhoid, dysentery, and several other ailments not routinely found in brutally high-tax areas. Don't despair, there is good news! According to our tax-supported Centers for Disease Control, at least one pesky parasite, the blood fluke, dislikes salt water and only bores through tender, libertarian skin exposed to fresh water in'and. Whew! That means the warm waters of the Indian Ocean off Somalia are blood fluke-free—so enjoy!

    While frolicking in the Indian Ocean there is one minor concern: Since Somalia has no tax-supported Navy to patrol its shoreline, foreign ships routinely dump highly toxic waste into the coastal waters. According to the BBC, a massive fish kill a couple years ago was caused by nuclear waste freely off-loaded into Somalia's territorial waters. Well, a quick dip shouldn't hurt—a slight bodily glow at worst. Most of the locals don't have to worry very long about such inconveniences since the average person only lives 46 years.

    Remember to take along a powerful radio since the public telecommunications system was completely destroyed during the last civil war. If another freedom lover, say a bandit, liberates your powerful radio, you can currently make international connections from the capitol, Mogadishu, by satellite.

    When you visit Mogadishu to send your message, plan on doing some walking. According to the UN, "No car, no bus, no heavily armed jeep can make its way through this Mogadishu road block: only goats and pedestrians attempt to climb the huge mound of rubbish—a solid mass.'"

    Highway travel is possible elsewhere. The country's principle highway is a 700-mile two-lane paved road from Chisimayu to Hargeysa. Don't worry about getting stuck at a railroad crossing since there are no railroads in Somalia. Drive on whatever side of the road suits your mood! Hey, pedal to the metal, but keep yourfingers crossed because the northern segment of the highway still needs to be cleared of land mines. Links to neighboring countries are mostly dirt trails and tend to be impassable in rainy weather.

    So there you are: a country about the size of Texas where you can roam free. Free from the Nanny-State, un-mined highways, laws, police, paramedics, telephones, museums, schools, clean water, libraries, hospitals, sanitation, old-age and most of all—free from taxes! Bon voyage, you lucky libertarians, and don't for-get to write. Oops! I forgot—there are no post offices there, either.

    Dr. Jack Miller is Coordinator of the Indiana Alliance for Democracy.
    Monitor is a publication of the Indianapolis-based Hoosier Environmental Council

    1.

    Michael Scherer, "The Soul of the New Machine", Mother Jones, Jan/Feb, 2004
    2.

    http://worldfacts.us/Somalia.htm
    3.

    Canadian Dept. of Foreign Affairs Travel Report 4-19-01
    4.

    http://unsomalia.org/sectors/health_nutrition/stories/20001221.htm

    Source.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 162 ✭✭fugazied


    The problem is thinking people have already examined the true free market experiements in Chile and in Russia under Yeltsin. Without exception they were failures. Many people starved, they suffered massive inflation and when the markets settled, there were a LOT more people in poverty and a lot more billionaires in the those countries. They were plundered by greedy capitalists and the market didn't provide solutions for feeding the poorest in the society or giving them jobs.

    As for libertarianism, the desire for small efficient government is admirable, but selling off all of the public assets to corporations leaves the governments in a vulnerable position to corporations at the moment in my opinion. We have to remember most of the governments are broke, particularly the US government. They have been through a period of intence economic rationalism, selling off profitable industries to corporations. If they continue to sell off countries' infrastructure how long until police and military are privatised? The US already uses mercenaries in Iraq. Once the government is fully privatised they will become talking heads for corporations, and libertarianism could facilitate this through it's small government idealogue. It's too much power in their hands.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 99 ✭✭getonyourboots


    This post has been deleted.

    When is the next meeting of the Donegal Thatcherite Society?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Amberman



    Unfortunately the problem with being moralistic is that you need to be prepared to have blood on your hands to achieve it.

    Corinthian...can you please elaborate on what you mean by this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Amberman wrote: »
    Corinthian...can you please elaborate on what you mean by this.
    Classic example is the cure that was derived from unethical research. To employ such a cure would be morally wrong, however if one follows one's moral convictions in this, people would end up suffering when a cure could be administered.

    Propping up the banks by, for example, guaranteeing deposit accounts (and such a guarantee lessens their debt exposure) is actually immoral in light of their irresponsible behaviour - it rewards the unjust and incompetent. However, not doing so would lead to their collapse and with that collapse the loss of deposits belonging to many innocents.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    Offalycool wrote: »
    Correct me if I’m wrong but Margaret Thatcher was essentially a libertarian. Libertarianism is unjustified when you consider that it places absolute importance in private property. The libertarian state is essentially a very weak state, everything except the police and army are privately owned. This is seen as a defence of the libertarian’s freedom from an inherently corrupt state and the best way to get productive use of the earth’s resources. However Libertarians cannot justify why some people should have legitimate claim over resources when clearly these resources were taken by force at some point in the past. Furthermore there is no legitimate claim to own the world and pass this world to only their own children whilst denying poorer people and their children any claim to the earth.

    Margaret Thatcher was not a Libertarian.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Belfast wrote: »
    Margaret Thatcher was not a Libertarian.
    Do you actually know what a Libertarian is?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    Do you actually know what a Libertarian is?

    Yes.

    A good example of a Libertarian is Ron Paul Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
    from Texas's 14th district.
    the link below give the policies of the American libertarian party.
    http://www.lp.org/platform


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Then why do you think Thatcher was not?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,355 ✭✭✭Belfast


    Then why do you think Thatcher was not?

    Mrs thatcher did every little to increase personnel liberty.
    She trampled on civil liberties.
    Still no written constitution in the UK to give people in the UK rights.
    She did nothing to stop the rigged housing market (through planning permission) in the UK or stop the housing boom of the 1980's
    She did not restore the gold standard or sliver standard or get rid of fiat money.
    She did not get rid of income tax. before the early 1900s Britain did not have income tax.
    She did not end the government role in trying to manage the economy.
    She did not end the probation on drugs or prostitution.
    She did not reform the justice system in the UK to make criminals responsible to compensating the victims of their crimes.
    She did not close down the NHS in the UK
    She did not end subsidies to the Nuclear industry and many other state subsidies to other industries or business etc.
    She did not close down the welfare state.
    She did not get rid of all state owned business.
    She did not give the UK a small Libertarian government.
    She removed power from local government and gave it to central government.
    libertarian should decrease the power of central government not increase it.
    She did not pay off the National Debt.
    She did not return Britain to world wide free trade.
    She did not end immigration control.

    There are other things she should have done if she were a libertarian, but the list is long enough already.

    Mrs Thatcher did move Britain a little closer to a free market, But that does not make her a Libertarian.

    "Libertarianism is a philosophy. The basic premise of libertarianism is that each individual should be free to do as he or she pleases so long as he or she does not harm others. In the libertarian view, societies and governments infringe on individual liberties whenever they tax wealth, create penalties for victimless crimes, or otherwise attempt to control or regulate individual conduct which harms or benefits no one except the individual who engages in it."


Advertisement