The shift from an essentially liberal, that’s with a lowercase ‘l’, to a neoliberal nation has been most evident in the last few years.
How do we define ‘liberal’, as used in the context of an overarching philosophy for a population? This is quite a challenge since the concept has changed very much over time. A simple definition from ethics.com is “Liberalism is founded on the belief that individual freedom should be the basis of a just society.” The explanation goes on consider some of the aspects of freedom including who may marry who, religious freedom, where to live, what career to choose and so forth. Possibly the most broad definition can be found in the UN Declaration of Human Rights which is aimed at allowing all people to live lives with dignity no matter what their colour, religion, ethnicity, education level, gender, even their self definition. In simple terms fairness and equity for every one, no mater what ethnicity, gender, religion, hair colour or whether left or right handed or any other self-definition.
The fight for those basic rights has been a long, arduous and bloody journey, and sadly still continues today.
From about the year 800CE to the sixteenth century, the Holy Roman Empire spread and controlled the religion of Christianity through Europe, from Italy to the North Sea, and it influenced governance, education, law and civic control throughout Europe, into Britain and Ireland. Kings and those in high office swore allegiance to the papacy.
During the 12th and 13th centuries, the power of the papacy dominated European life. Kings and rulers, knights and feudal lords swore their allegiance to the Pope, Emperors continued to go to Rome for their coronations, claiming the title Emperor-August, as did Charlemagne on his coronation by Pope Leo III, with the congregation calling “To Charles, the most pious, crowned Augusta by God, to the great peace-making Emperor, long life and victory.” (Bruce L Shelley: Church history in plain language (1995) p.174).
The earliest European colonial ambitions included the notion that colonised peoples should be Christianised and fall under the same religious and legal framework as in the Holy Roman Empire; all falling under the authority of the Roman church. Those who remained barbarians were not treated as fellow believers and condemned to what ever punishment was considered appropriate.
And then came the Gutenberg Bible, the printing of the Bible and making it available beyond the selected, privileged few led to the Reformation.
The transition from an overly controlled population to one which accepted at least religious difference emerged after the Reformation in Europe which but only after the Hundred Years’ War, and not satisfied with that bloodbath, followed by the Thirty Years’ War, fought on the right to freedom of religion. It took more than arguably half the European population to be killed through bloody battles, burning at the stake and starvation for a time of reckoning to be faced, to declare, somewhat reluctantly, that religion was a matter of personal choice.
Liberalism has moved along apace in Europe, and most democratic nations with voting rights becoming universal for adult populations, abortion rights, same sex marriage, gender definition, equality under law and so forth. Some people still find these freedoms a bit much and there is a bit of push and shove and they surface in political discourse from time to time. The US Supreme Court decision which protected the right to abortion through-out the US was overturned and very quickly some states passed laws banning abortion and others placing severe restrictions on the availability of abortions. Much the same we see that immigration is an issue, as is race relations, attempts to rewrite the laws as it were.
Recent election campaigns in Australia have had abortion rights on the agenda as well as ‘law and order’ despite the prevalence of crime being at historically low rates. Interestingly, I had a conversation with a tradesman who was cleaning graffiti painted in a picnic area by the beach. He commented that there is so much more graffiti than he can remember. I disputed that, suggesting that since it is his job to clean it up, he is far more aware of it as an issue. I also wonder how one candidate who is rumoured to be a regular illicit drug user can stand for a law and order ticket. Perhaps randomised drug and alcohol testing should become a regular feature in parliaments as it is in many workplaces.
The fundamental rights promoted through liberalism are those of personal well-being and the protection of personal freedoms, including what to produce, what to buy, what to wear, what to consume, where to live, and equality under law.
Governance has changed from autocracies such as nations and kingdoms developed and reinforced through alliances with religion to become today’s democracies. Through industrialisation and a broadening of economies, the population shifts from serfdom to working and middle class urbanisation saw the need to supporting infrastructure, roads, power and other services to be constructed to service the needs of the growing urban and suburban populations. Governments, at all levels, Local, State and Federal have accepted as part of their roles to provide certain infrastructures, roads, power, water, sewerage, public transport, hospitals and health services, among others. The rates and taxes collected by governments have been used to pay for these services, and the charges are ongoing; we all pay our share of these taxes and charges, or as few of them as we are able, but still accept that in our democratic world basic services should be available. For major infrastructure projects governments borrow, traditionally by raising government bonds, but we are also seeing major banks and corporations financing such projects as major roads and charging a fee for users; a toll. No longer is it the governments providing the infrastructure, but that has been passed on to investment bodies, a Neoliberalism has emerged which is far more demanding than those objecting to the freedoms achieved which upset some religious and moral sensibilities.
My first encounter was needing to pay a toll to cross Sydney Harbour on that famous bridge in 1973. A depression era build using borrowed money, but in state government hands. It felt a bit like paying a fare for the bus or train. Collections by the government agency which provides and maintains the service.
New roads in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are contracted to and financed by the investment corporation Transurban, and they are reaping in bucket loads of money for a simple commute or a trip away for the weekend. On a recent ABC Four Corners programme, examples were given where people just going to work could be paying as much as 10% of their wages on tolls… just to get to work and back. If the toll is not paid in a timely manner, through fines and various administrative fees, a $3.00 toll can quickly escalate to over $300.00. Transurban reported profit after tax for 2024 of $326 million, an increase of 414.2% over 2023. In part because of an agreement that toll fees rise at CPI rates.
Governments, wanting to demonstrate economically responsible by not having budget deficits to meet their commitments, pass their responsibilities for infrastructure to private corporations and tax payers pay an additional price for the infrastructure used to go about their everyday lives.
Much the same with the privatisation of power generators and telecommunications has seen the sell-off of state owned infrastructure to profit hungry investors.
In this, the liberal demands for fairness and equity are passed of to highly profitable corporations who are not subject to the checks and balances and scrutiny democracy allows. Neoliberalism can be very profitable.
Another example of the greed of neoliberalism is in the retail services such as banking, supermarkets and hardware. Competition has been squeezed out in those sectors with a few major players writing profits which are well above the sorts of profits written by similar corporations in other markets. Wages for workers in those industries are not great but executive salaries are pretty good. But the pricing of the goods on sale and the relationship with suppliers are questionable. In his 2022 book, Liberalism and its discontents, Francis Fukuyama quotes a former US Solicitor General Robert in the Nixon and Ford administrations, Bork who stated that ‘anti-trust laws should have one, and only one, goal, which is to maximise consumer welfare, understood in either terms of prices or quality.’ (p34) Or to use a wonderful Aussie expression, the pricing and quality provided should pass the pub test. Transurban, the banks, the major retailers and other large corporate service providers are struggling to pass that test. Oh I just got an insurance renewal, so include insurance providers, where the cost of insuring a vehicle has increased but the resale value has decreased (how is that fair?)
It is time to go back to the basic tenets of liberalism where fairness and equity for all become the norm.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
We can all thank Thatcher and Reagan and all those that slavishly followed.
We can also thank Bob Hawke and Paul Keating for introducing neoliberalism to Australia.
Bert, you accepted this definition; “Liberalism is founded on the belief that individual freedom should be the basis of a just society.”
And in fact, that’s a very accurate summary.
But the definition is not logical.
Justice in general has been discussed here recently, and it’s been generally accepted by readers that equity is the heart and soul of justice, for reasons that I won’t go over again.
But equity, as justice, has nothing to do with individual freedom, or at best, a link between the two is tenuous.
Individual freedom sounds great until it’s realised that in reality it involves a distancing of the individual from society. And it therefore encourages a diminishing of the value of society.
So when you summed up with this; “It is time to go back to the basic tenets of liberalism where fairness and equity for all become the norm” you were stating a position that you had not established. Your reference in the article to fairness and equity was in regard to the UN declaration, not liberalism. It was then tacked on to liberalism without evidence.
Your established position was the dominance of individual freedom that you began with, then repeated with “The fundamental rights promoted through liberalism are those of personal well-being and the protection of personal freedoms, …”
So your established position leans towards a diminishing of society and by extension, a diminishing of the concept of justice.
I know that this is not your intent, so what have you left out?
Just because liberals preach fairness and equity, does not make fairness and equity features of liberalism.
Fairness and equity are human values that were around long before the emergence of liberalism.
And we can see the true regard that the liberal democracies have for fairness and equity being demonstrated with absolute clarity in Gaza and Lebanon right now.
Steve:
Exactly which individual rights and freedoms do you think need to be curtailed and/or controlled in order to acieve a truly equitable society?
My husband commented the other night that why should developers have to pay for roads, sewerage, and other public infrastructure just to develop housing?
My response was why should we have to pay in taxes for those things so that the developers get to pocket more in profits?
Brevity can be an asset leefe, but on this occasion I’m gunna do a Hanson — please explain.
I thought my meaning was obvious Sterve.
You said that Bert’s use of the word “liberal” was wrong, and that Your established position was the dominance of individual freedom that you began with, then repeated with “The fundamental rights promoted through liberalism are those of personal well-being and the protection of personal freedoms, …”
So your established position leans towards a diminishing of society …
So, if personal freedoms diminish society and thus, in your view, equity, which specific freedoms and rights are we talking about, and how shoulld they be limited in order to achieve what you consider to be an equitable society?
In short, the elite minority who obtain power and wealth (however they come by it) have found their way back to a modern day form of feudalism, and this term ‘liberal’, ‘liberalism, ‘neoliberalism’ is the language, the means and deception by which they have brought about the return to that political, social and economic ideology and abuse of power, manipulating society and subjugating it and us to their purpose.Twisting the language, which sounds electable to that which should be unelectable, unworthy of our vote and representation, for it plays us against ourselves.
Nice capture of history, Bert. great example of what should always be responsibility of government – road construction, public road tolls if we have to have them (and that is on reason and merit contestable), essential public services, the Public Service, infrastructure and utilities, all of which the ‘Liberals’ have deceived and taken away from us and handed to the unregulated or poorly regulated less responsible profit driven and elite, not individual enterprise for that is not how it works. So of course we pay far more for far less, a pittance and subject to the corporate or individual power brokers that own them. No person by virtue of wealth, power and particularly inheritance and privilege, nor by their own hard work have or earn the right to play judge and jury also, none of these acquisitions engender or nurture ethics, morality and social responsibility, only blind patriarchy, deviant philanthropy and feudalism. Hence the primary root cause of our most recent bout of inflation, which you go onto, moving to the specific examples you cite.
‘We all pay our share of these taxes and charges, or as few of them as we are able, but still accept that in our democratic world basic services should be available’. Not quite so, the higher up the ladder you go, the less tax these entitled beings and entities pay, proportionally and actually, till you reach the biggest corporations and billionaires who pay almost none – so we kid ourselves if we believe the ideology set before us. It is a convenient excuse to ensure compliance of the ‘masses’ and overlook the exclusion of those who have money and power to avoid their civic duties. Instead they own the infrastructure and vehicles of wealth which they acquired through privatisation and nepotism and now provide it, which they also profit from – a gargantuan double-dip and double standard. And Liberals call this incentivisation, ‘good’ ha ha economics and efficiencies, and the right to reap the rewards of hard work, a bastardisation for freedom of the individual and biblical in its context and application – and yet another religious allegiance and fundamental (ism).
I can’t remember when a liberal ‘preached fairness and equity’ except as a cover for popularity and election, it is not in their blood. Like the true meaning of liberal, it is precisely the opposite.
Leefe, you left out a crucial portion of my position on that.
“Individual freedom sounds great until it’s realised that in reality it involves a distancing of the individual from society. And it therefore encourages a diminishing of the value of society.”
Making individual freedom “the basis of a just society” as is the case in liberalism, places individual rights above community rights. They are not merely a feature of a just society among other features. Individual rights become THE feature. As stated. There is no room for interpretation of that.
Individuals who embraces that idea have made community rights subordinate to individual rights and so have distanced themselves, to an extent, from society. That is a diminishing of the role and the significance of society.
So individual rights do diminish fairness.
For example, the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth in a liberal system immediately extinguishes fairness in so many fields, the legal system for one.
So if you are looking for a personal freedom to limit in pursuit of a fair society, you could do a lot worse than to start with the right to the unlimited accumulation of wealth.
Okay so this is not brief and brevity can be as much a hindrance as an asset with complex multi-layered issues, meaning and definitions – Life and living is never black and white like a bar of chocolate and anyone who cuts short good argument, facts and reasoning is a potential flatulent wart on the pastures of progress.
The very concept of neo-liberalism, in it’s common contemporary meaning, if not morphed intention, is a lie and a bastardisation even on the original notion of liberalism, which actually acquired numerous meanings in a political lexicon of terms and phrases – not accounting for the deception of the political proper noun and party name ‘Liberal’, which has itself morphed and become ‘almost’ the opposite of its heritage.
Liberal (lower case)l as defined contemporaneously in the English language, Oxford dictionary states:
(Adjective)
1. willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
“they have liberal views on divorce”
2.relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
(Noun)
1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
“classical liberals emphasized the right of the individual to make decisions, even if the results dismayed their neighbours or injured themselves”
(Thesaurus)
Tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded, enlightened, forbearing, permissive, free, free and easy, easy-going, laissez-faire, libertarian, latitudinarian, unbiased, impartial, non-partisan, indulgent, lenient, lax, soft
Of course it might be worth looking at a 20th or 19th century definition for comparison, but we are dealing with today. Note in few or none of these definitions is the meaning just limited ‘to freedom of the individual’ or ‘minimal government’ or defined without an overarching moral, ethical or social frame of reference and implied responsibility and context, such as the values of equity, fairness, responsibility, respect, and in terms of an alternative enshrined in the French version of that now ashamedly sullied US term ‘Republican’ – liberty, equality, fraternity… and I think we should add sororities here.
Any reasonable and common sense person will see that these definitions do not in any way reflect what we have come to experience in the philosophy, principles, values, behaviour or code of conduct of politicians, political parties and supporters of today’s so called ‘liberals’, US Republicans, indeed (UK) conservatives, and are almost the antithesis of neo-liberalism which is indeed a very dirty word, the opposite of ‘liberal’ or ‘liberalism’, and itself a true bastardisation of its intent, use and purpose. Afterall Neo-Nazi is Nazi, not so with Liberal and Neo-Liberal which has become an euphemism for ultra conservativism, leaning close to fascism and feudalism, and I believe deliberately used to confuse, obfuscate and support the rights of today’s elite powerbrokers, corporate, economic, social and political. This colossal minority group blinds and indoctrinates the masses into what I’d circumscribe as feudalism, the kings, overlords, landlords, generals, warriors, heroes and tyrants of yesterday, medieval, religious, classical (with historical and insightful exceptions) and ancient times.
So the language and meaning of liberal(ism) and its deceitful counterpart and shadow neo-liberal(ism) has come full circle to justify those whose existence is founded on privilege, entitlement, exploitation, prejudice, abuse and power – power over than power sharing.
Note the antonym (opposite meaning) of ‘liberal’ as defined in the Oxford dictionary – narrow-minded, bigoted and all the other synonyms that accompany that meaning and ideology. Not the opposite of ‘freedom’ or freedom of the individual – not at all, and not to be confused with that which sounds similar, ‘liberty’ (not the same think far be it) for which by way of social reckoning, the same reciprocity has to be applied, one individual’s right otherwise impinges on another and there is no freedom in a narrow-minded view of ‘liberal’, not as defined. So who does this sound like?
Hence ‘from empire to Liberalism and Neoliberalism… (and back) – full circle. There should be no surprises here, as that is what human-beings do, they go round in circles, re-inventing themselves with new names, but the same old ways. There’s progress in it, but the burdens and benefits are rarely shared and equitable, ethics, respect and responsibility are always second fiddle, if not lost behind a smoke screen for ever fighting for the humanity in us and others, and for love of irony, survival.
Beware of anyone who claims to be a liberal, they either do not know what they are talking about (general ignorance, stupidity, dissonance) or it is a deliberate mask to conceal their true intentions, entitlements, self-importance and delusions (often of grandeur). There can be no liberal value or rights of the individual, individual freedom without recognition of the equal rights of others, your neighbour and those who arguably, but with good reason and mutual fairness might think differently, be different and behave differently.
So what does this mean in terms of US politics – A bloody nightmare with the many simply not fit for office, not just Trump but especially Trump. And sadly the Constitution like the bible is either a fabrication of the truth, a convenient distortion, lie or heavily and secretly shrouded, riddled in misinterpretation, self-interest, ungovernable conduct and obsession. Likewise present day Liberal and LNP, none of them are fit for office, feeble-minded, untrustworthy, ideologically conflicted, many plainly just repugnant. If Dutton rides in Federally next year on the QLD wave, gosh we will have Duttonism here, and that is the same corrupt, divisive, destructive and offensive branch of Trumpism that brings out the fascism on the right hand of neoliberal.
Steve:
You can start with that, but surely there are more, in your opinion. I recall your qualified agreement with my statement that personal and private matters must remain the business solely of the person/people involved when we were discussing “neoliberal” versus “liberal” with regard to one of Lucy’s articles, where you added the proviso “in so far as it is consistent with social cohesion”. That suggests there are other matters than purely the accumulation of wealth.
Please, list them, and elaborate their flaws.
Making individual freedom “the basis of a just society” as is the case in liberalism, places individual rights above community rights. They are not merely a feature of a just society among other features. Individual rights become THE feature. As stated. There is no room for interpretation of that.
“Basis” does not mean “the one and only feature”. It means it’s the starting point. There’s plenty of room for interpretation. Individual freedoms and rights – with regard to personal matters – can be included with a wide range of different options in other areas.
For someone who once railed against the lack of nuance in some comments here, your own position is very black-and-white.
leefe, if you intend to quote statements I’ve made in the past, give a link.
You said ““Basis” does not mean “the one and only feature”. It means it’s the starting point.”
It is not the starting point.
It’s the dominant feature, and as discussed elsewhere, it becomes the only feature when the accumulation of wealth is threatened.
“There’s plenty of room for interpretation.” Only by those with a hidden agenda. As I’ve noted before, anyone reading the Stanford entry on liberalism would conclude that liberalism can be anything that any liberal wants it to be at any point in time.
“Basis The foundation, or that on which a thing rests; the groundwork or first principle”
(I can quote other dictionaries if you like)
Nowhere does it say it is the ONLY distinguishing feature. That is your interpretation only.
So, to get back to my initial point:
Are you capable of giving a straight answer to a straight question? Please list ALL the personal freedoms and rights you think should be limited in order to achieve a truly equitable society.
leefe — “That is your interpretation only.”
It certainly is. Because as I said “It’s the dominant feature, and as discussed elsewhere, it becomes the only feature when the accumulation of wealth is threatened.” My interpretation is not at odds with the definition you found.
“Please list ALL the personal freedoms and rights you think should be limited in order to achieve a truly equitable society.”
Not one of your better questions.
It has a contrived look about it.
We’ve discussed this before, so the thing you already know, and about which you pretend ignorance, is that my position on personal freedoms under liberalism is that I, and liberals, don’t give a hoot as to how you conduct your personal life. But liberals certainly start to give a hoot when your activities threaten their sacred cow — the unlimited accumulation of wealth.
So your loaded question evaporates into nothing, because the problem is not individual rights as a concept.
Individual rights are important. The problems arise when individual rights are made pre-eminent. When they dominate community rights. If you cannot see that, cannot accept that, then present your objections and a legitimate discussion can begin.
You clearly have a particular view of rights because you said “Individual freedoms and rights – with regard to personal matters – can be included with a wide range of different options in other areas.”
So tell us about them. What are the wide range of different options?
If you don’t feel up to that, we could seek guidance in this from a certain Karl Marx — “The so-called rights of man (as proclaimed by liberals) are only the rights of egoistic man, man separated from other men and from the community. Liberty (in this view) is thus the right to do and perform anything that does not harm others. The limits within which each can act without harming others is determined by law … This is the liberty of man viewed as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself. Liberty as a right of man (in this view) is not based on the association of man with man but rather on the separation of man from man. It lets every man find in other men not freedom, but rather the limitation of his own freedom.”
Where does this analysis by Marx take us?
It exposes the sham of individual rights under liberalism.
It exposes the lack of fairness that lies at the heart of individual rights that dominate.
As I’ve noted before, how does liberalism protect my rights as an individual when food standards are lowered? When billions spent on armaments are not spent on public health or homelessness? Where is the fairness in that?
Liberalism does not protect your rights or my rights; it protects the right to profits.
When the actions of the egoistic individual are limited by law, (the law being their substitute for a system of ethics) what does egoistic man do? He has the law changed.
That’s equity as practised under liberalism.
By the way, I’m still waiting for the link to the statement of mine that you referred to.
It is worth considering that corporations were formed as accumulators, to accumulate owners /investors, and to accumulate proceeds of trade or other endeavors. Like in the use of nominee in Trusts and property transactions, corporations are most often used to reduce the legal risk and conceal the identity of individual beneficiaries. Like in the East India corporations, for ‘royals’ to avoid using their ‘standing armies’ and to avoid being directly associated with the ‘dirty deeds’ of colonization and subjugation.
Essentially, they are devices for the accumulation of wealth and power.
In the USA, the corporation was used rampantly to conceal ownership and beneficiaries of illegal trade in alcohol, gambling and prostitution. So successful were they, that buyouts and takeovers created a huge monopoly network nationally, and naturally gave rise to organized crime. And that organized crime then moved on to other industry sectors, and to massive political influence – along with the entanglement of corporate personhood.
Corporations and Anti-Trust laws were established in a bid to control and rein in the behavior of corporations. There are more laws on corporations, tax and criminality than anything else, and sophisticated high-priced lawyers and accountants are engaged to find and exploit the loopholes. It’s a never-ending process.
Suffice it to say that the coverage afforded corporations has seen their burgeoning success via write-offs, losses carried forward, and take-overs and conglomerations. And since Reagan and Thatcher’s trickle down economics (aka neoliberalism) corporations thrived on a system that in essence predated upon ordinary individual citizens (and their governments). As for the legal responsibilities of corporate boards and the c-suite executives, a tango of protective contracts, bonuses and share options, super-high remuneration, risk-taking and convenient concealments saw corporate adventurism navigate new heights, like jurisdiction jumping, and shareholding agglomeration such that despite a diversity of corporations, ultimate ownership and accumulated beneficial wealth is the domain of only the top 1% of persons across the globe. While half of the world’s net wealth (increasing) belongs to the top 1%. The top 10% of adults hold 85%, while the bottom 90% hold the remaining 15% (decreasing) of the world’s total wealth.
Hardly a situation where the raison d’être is that the broader community of individuals across the globe are afforded freedoms other than those dictated by the (mega) corporations.
I have to agree with Steve on this one. All the arguments above are premised on assumptions.
But neoliberalism is the obvious extrapolation of liberalism.
Its all founded on the misconception of why we got so wealthy after ww2. To compound the issue, it was thought that eternal growth was just in reach, if we only did that little more. Nobody dare question orthodoxy when clearly we are doing well financially. Well, that bubble has burst, but we havent noticed yet.
I discovered the true meaning of tarrif reductions in the 70s when whole industries just disappeared with no real support mechanisms for those people just junked. The mantra at the time was that people would just move on…clearly the start of a robodebt mentality. The unemployed are dole bludgers, plenty of low paid work around. I know my mother never worked again. It just adds to my understanding of the burden that put on my father to work harder. They went from hopeful to survival mode.
The problem with liberalism is liberalism itself. Elon Musk in an interview stated as his premise that governments are corpoarations. And here is the crux of the problem, we are under the illusion governments work for us. The reality is they work to support the status quo. They react to economic forces to sooth the markets, we are but collateral.
Liberalism is a false hope, just like socialism and communism. Dont tell me we cant do better. Anyone who votes for Trump or Dutton is a stooge. Thats not putting the bar for Albanese high at all.
I have another observation, we as a species have survived because we are socialist at heart. Empires have collapsed when the social glue has been trashed. Even Rome was very wealthy at one stage, the British empire too…..America maybe close to tottering too. Australia is but the King of Hutt river.
“… we as a species have survived because we are socialist at heart.”
Not just a beautiful summary Andy — an indisputable truth.
Steve:
But liberals certainly start to give a hoot when your activities threaten their sacred cow — the unlimited accumulation of wealth.
If that’s liberalism, I’m not liberal. And yet I am on those personal and private matters. Weird, eh?
I just don’t agree with the way you use the word and doubt I ever will. And I cannot see why one cannot have a wide swathe of personal freedoms without this supposedly inevitable segue into economic neoliberalism (to use my prefered term).
It’s interesting that refuse to answer my questions, but insist I answer yours. Inequitable, much?
What assumptions have I made? You’ve said that individual rights and freedoms are incompatible with an equitable society. I’m trying to find out to which rights and freedoms that applies, to what extent, and what changes need to be made to create this society of which you apparently dream.
So, again, which specific individual rights and freedoms must be subjugated to social requirements, and in what way, other than the bit about accumulation of wealth?
Most of Lucy’s articles have gone from the index here – I’ve tried doing a search and none of those on neoliberalism come up. And it was not recent enough for me to still have the email link. Do you deny that you have ever said anything of that nature, or that it is an accurate reflection of your thoughts on the matter?
… we as a species have survived because we are socialist at heart.
We survived and evolved because we are an adaptable, social species; that’s not the same as socialist. Indeed, the examples of other primates and of our own history suggests otherwise. Competition is the main driver of evolution; this has occured not only biologically, but socially, culturally and technologically.
“If that’s liberalism, I’m not liberal. And yet I am on those personal and private matters. Weird, eh?”
Not weird. Sensible.
“And I cannot see why one cannot have a wide swathe of personal freedoms without this supposedly inevitable segue into economic neoliberalism (to use my prefered term).”
Who said that personal freedoms lead to neo-liberalism? Not me.
“It’s interesting that refuse to answer my questions, …”
Except I did answer it.
To the extent that a loaded question that missed the point can be answered. You assumed I had a hit-list then demanded that I respond to a situation that only occurred in your head.
“What assumptions have I made?” You’re at it again. Alleging I’ve said something but not quoting and providing a link.
“You’ve said that individual rights and freedoms are incompatible with an equitable society.”
Now you’re deliberately distorting what I said. I made it clear that individual rights that are pre-eminent are incompatible with an equitable society. So your follow-up question is pure nonsense. If you disagree that pre-eminent individual rights are not compatible with an equitable society then state your case. Stop insisting that I justify a perception that exists only in your head.
In regard to the statement you alleged earlier that I made, you put it in quotation marks and now claim that you cannot find it. That was a very dodgy tactic. Deceitful. So until you produce it, it never happened. And it’s a triviality anyway.
“Competition is the main driver of evolution …”
Liberal propagandists are delighted that you said that.
And are congratulating themselves on the success of their misinformation campaign.
I suggest you do some research.
In regard to the statement you alleged earlier that I made, you put it in quotation marks and now claim that you cannot find it. That was a very dodgy tactic. Deceitful. So until you produce it, it never happened. And it’s a triviality anyway.
It isn’t deceitful. I went looking. A search on the site produces no record of any of Lucy’s articles on neoliberalism; very few of her articles at all. Are you saying I’ve invented those articles, along with the discussion in which you made that comment? That Lucy Hamilton never wrote a series of articles that were published here, on the subject of neoliberalism, and that those articles were not the first where I engaged in discussions about the meaning of both “neoliberalism” and “liberalism”? Or am I just inventing the exchange? (All of which amounts to lying, in other words.)
Your comment amounts to an ad hominem. Not surprising or even new from you, but totally unwarranted. And it does rather detract from the perverse pleasure I get in observing the contortions you go through to avoid answering a direct question.
The deceit was in presenting it as a quote from me.
In future, make sure that when you quote me, you give a link.
Oh brother … – I’ve learnt to expect that Bert Hetebry’s articles give me palpitations, and this one did not disappoint. Made me choke on my muesli, it did! They might serve as conversation starters. But if so, they are rather annoying conversation starters.
This one starts off with a little whinge about how 19th century individualistic liberalism has morphed into 21st century neo-liberalism, hints at the long and bitterly and violently contested historical run-up to 19th century liberalism, failes (on purpose?) to even attempt to draw a distinction between principled liberalism and unbridled permissiveness, segues into a BIG WHINGE about modern neo-liberal corporatocracy, insists that it does not pass the pub test (why is a bunch of ha’pissed Aussie lager louts the highest and final authority on any matter economic, political or philosophical?), and concludes with the exhortation that we should forthwith “go back to the basic tenets of liberalism where fairness and equity for all become the norm.” As if!
I’m not sure where even to begin to comment on this bourgeois middle-class carry-on about disappointed self-entitlement.
Maybe, Bert, and anyone else, before endeavouring further pronouncements into the subject of liberty, read, and contemplate at some length, Isaiah Berlin’s Two Concepts Of Liberty. That’s an authoritative survey of the issues involved.
There are some redeeming comments: andyfiftysix observed that “we as a species have survived because we are socialist at heart”. That’s Kropotkin’s answer to social Darwinism, expounded in Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution.
And yes (leefe and Steve Davis), individual liberty and collective liberty can be at odds. Especially when evaluated within existing bourgeois rights-based philosophical frameworks. Things do become more tractable when expanding this framework of reference from mere rights to actual agency and capabilities (Sen, Nussbaum).
So, guys, please: do The AIMN proud, and try to dig a little deeper than the slurred ramblings of pokie addicts at the local.
Pub test, my arse!
Arnd I’m surprised that you see Nussbaum as having a contribution to make here.
I see her 10 capabilities as motherhood statements that have no substance.
Why?
Because they are no more than wishful thinking that disappear into the mist and are forgotten when faced with the harsh reality of liberalism in full flight.
Take 10.2 for example.
“Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers.”
You know better than anyone that those items ignore the reality that those with a head start in life will not only grab more than their fair share of those, they will then perpetuate a system that denies those things to the masses.
She’s no philosopher.
She’s a propagandist.
I rather enjoy Bert’s articles.
Good onya Roswell, as some here seem to come for a pose and others to risk the balls getting kneed. Read the articles and “enjoy”. At the end of this stream it remains fairly uneducational, but useful.
Thanks, Phil.
From what I keep hearing from the boss this site exists to give people like Bert – and anybody else – a place to have a say: a voice they might not have anywhere else.
Every writer here has taken that opportunity. And almost all of the authors originally were commenters who took the plunge.
Fair enough, Phil. But then again, some people seem to quite “enjoy” watching others “pose” and having their “balls getting kneed”, in a “funniest (philosophical) home videos” sort of a sense. Like you might watch at the pub, after having grown tired of bawling the lyrics scrolling on the karaoke screen.
(Note: Bert’s facile “pub test” reference obviously really set me off. It’s a trope straight out of the neo-con catalogue of empty phrases.)
Steve:
I’m glad to see that someone’s paying attention – and disappointed that it was, once again, Steve Davis doing so. Someone else have a go, maybe?
It’s more Sen than Nussbaum who’s making the contribution here. And to be honest, I don’t know all that much about it, anyway. Other than Nussbaum’s implicit libertarianism leading her into ethically very turbulent waters.
I took note of the “capabilities approach”, because in my own reflections on why exactly the East German socialist experiment resulted in ham-fisted government overreach into personal liberty, one of the reasons that emerged was their reliance on what essentially still was a bourgeois rights (and “just desert) based jurisprudence, which is simply incompatible with socialism. I consequently came up with my own home-made “capacities”- approach, to emphasize actual ability and agency, rather than abstract “rights”. Nussbaum’s “capabilities approach” is the better title. But it is patently incompatible with capitalist-style “liberalism” – and consequently, as you say, she indeed is a propagandist dressed in philosopher’s clothing.
Whew Arnd !!
For a while there I thought you had gone over to the Dark Side !
Yes, it was clear from the linked article that Sen was much more careful and nuanced in his approach.
I’ve had a great respect for Sen since he exposed the “deaths from communism” lie with his study of the handling of the East Asian famine by capitalist India and communist China.
Chaps and chappettes, I’ve stayed out of much here, too depressed by aspects of world and local outlook, but, it’s all educational, entertaining, ephectic, excrementivorous and generally effed to require further intrusive comment. Let the festering commence! As for a “pub test'”, what silly shit. Ozzie pissheads nagging around what they don’t comprehend anyway…
For my two bob’s worth, er, make that ten bucks… if that’s around the price of a beer in a pub, I think the phrase ‘pub test’ is overused and long past its UBD. Not that I frequent pubs, but I’ll wager that ten bucks that the things that get discussed over beers in pubs could be encapsulated within a narrow framework that includes sport, work, sex, sport, work, sex, sport, work, sex and not much more. It’s a fantasy to propose that the type of people who habituate boozing in pubs would move into discussions on matters economic, political, sociobiological et al.
But then, I don’t go to pubs, so what would I know? SFA, probably.
Comments from pub frequenters invited.