Classical liberalism....

[Darkylightytwo]

Ok, let's start with a question.
what is classical liberalism ? and don't give me its libertarianism, because it is not. and it is not conservative, neither neoliberalism., which both new-conservatives and libertarian belong to.

Classical liberals believe a free-market is place where people can engage in competition and transactions, which is not controlled, but can very well be regulated and some things can be banned. Like Whale products.

Neoliberals believe a free market is a market where the price are the lowest possible, and where companies are free from any regulation from state.

there is nothing in common, classical let a great place for state regulation while you, neoliberal hate the state...

[Siggon Kristov]

Neoliberalism still loves the state, just silently. Classical Liberalism was the same. I would argue that Neoliberalism is even more statist; it just weakens the state's role in the economy while strengthening it elsewhere.

Classical Liberalism considered the state to be a necessary evil to protect private property rights; Neoliberalism puts the state in the same role.
Classical Liberalism embraced democratic elections because that would guarantee peace by having everyone involved in decision-making, though Classical Liberals hated the collectivism of Democracy; in the modern world, Neoliberals don't need Democracy much anymore because decisions can be made and forced upon the people by the state, without much fear of social uprising.

Neoliberalism started out as embracing small aspects of Welfare Liberalism to serve the dual purpose of placating the proletariat and having some government spending which Keynes said would strengthen the economy; Keynes was more in favour of government spending as a stimulus, while Classical Liberals slammed him for that. The post-Keynes neoliberals turned back on the pro-welfare developments of neoliberalism and made it more like Classical Liberalism.

Please, Comrade, do not romanticise Classical Liberalism. Neoliberalism is bad, but Classical Liberalism isn't any better. I wrote an essay where I criticised Classical Liberalism from a Marxist's point of view, mostly focusing my arguments against those made by Hayek. You can let me know if you're interested in reading it.

[Darkylightytwo]

Sure,

Although I get that Hayek is one of the most prominent neoliberal.

I also get that their theory is complete bullshit, saying that state-welfare lead to nazism....

[Siggon Kristov]

Sure,

Although I get that Hayek is one of the most prominent neoliberal.

Hayek was a Classical Liberal. He was always defending Classical Liberalism.
His defence of Classical Liberalism simply shifted the direction of Neoliberalism, which was developing at the time.
He was never a part of the neoliberal movement; the neoliberals just loved him.

PM me your email address so I can send it to you.

[Arizal1]

I will try to contribute to this discussion.

To me, while it is definitely not outdated, classical liberalism, it has lost a lot of its "revolutionary" character. It was first and foremost the support of ideas combating feudalism and the weight of established religions. In a world without those ideas (at least the Occidental world), those ideas are still useful since they protect some established values, but liberalism isn't the only ideolology around.

Thoughts are, in my views, heavily influenced by what surrounds us. It is not to say that no understanding is possible, only that it is possible to link some ideas with the people who would be the most advantaged by them. And the beauty in all that is that we cannot see if people support ideas because they advantage them or because they truly think it is the best for the society

Anyway, with that in mind, liberalism is in a way the thoughts of burghers who loathed the difference in rights that people had just because of the cast in which they were born. They wanted power, as many people in the world, and supported ideas which gradually discredited the dominant idea that feudalism was the way the world worked.

However, liberalism isn't democracy. The liberals didn't wanted the populace to be represented because, in their eyes, the populace didn't have a good understanding of the way things worked. They would want to redistribute the wealth, which would result in the impoverishment of all (especially them).

Laissez faire and elitism from the cens didn't survive the XIXth century. When the universal vote happenened and the regulation of commerce came back, liberal became a word to talk about the civil rights, which, at the same time than superb ideals based on the dignity of humans, are (still) a way to circumvent those representation rights liberals fought for. Some liberals pursued those ideas so far as to push the state at its very limit while making demands to be as emancipated from it as possible. Those are libertarians. In my opinion, they are still liberals.

Neo-liberals are also liberals, and this is when we realize that this world impregnates so much of modern toughts that it is everywhere : hence the need to differenciate liberals between what they are looking for. Honestly, I'm a little at lost to establish such a typology. I think libertarians are different than neo-liberals, which are themselves different (but not that much) from classical liberals.

Basically, I think libertarians took the moral message and extrapolated it in a society in which barriers to the market are minimals. Neo-liberals still think that the wealthy should rule the others. And there are some idealists like me which have internalized only the idea that liberalism is compatible with democracy.

[Siggon Kristov]

Anyway, with that in mind, liberalism is in a way the thoughts of burghers who loathed the difference in rights that people had just because of the cast in which they were born. They wanted power, as many people in the world, and supported ideas which gradually discredited the dominant idea that feudalism was the way the world worked.

However, liberalism isn't democracy. The liberals didn't wanted the populace to be represented because, in their eyes, the populace didn't have a good understanding of the way things worked. They would want to redistribute the wealth, which would result in the impoverishment of all (especially them).

Liberals support private property rights and hereditary ownership of land/property. I understand their disgust with nobility, but they still support ideas which contribute to inequality, and I elaborate on this in my essay.

Laissez faire and elitism from the cens didn't survive the XIXth century. When the universal vote happenened and the regulation of commerce came back, liberal became a word to talk about the civil rights, which, at the same time than superb ideals based on the dignity of humans, are (still) a way to circumvent those representation rights liberals fought for.

Defence of civil rights is not a core tenet of Liberalism, though it is presented as such. Liberals only defend civil rights as a development of their defence of the idea of private property. I elaborate on this in my essay as well. I see it in Jamaica.

The Liberal argument for repealing Jamaica's main anti-LGBT laws are that they infringe on the right to private property. While such an argument pays attention to the well-being of middle class and upper-middle class LGBT people, it completely ignores the poor LGBT who are the most vulnerable in society. Property rights are already respected, so middle class and upper-middle class LGBT people are rarely bothered.

One may say that the argument for the rights shouldn't matter, and it's the rights themselves that should matter when they come. I strongly disagree. When we establish LGBT rights on the basis of private property, private property is also demanding respect there. Therefore, just like in many places in the USA, it will become difficult to enact anti-discrimination laws to protect LGBT persons from discrimination in the private sector. Basing things on private property, as Jamaican liberals have done, really alienates the economically-disadvantaged LGBT persons.

The class divide in the LGBT community in Jamaica is quite clear. It's no secret that the poor ones are scorned by the middle class and upper-middle class ones. Because the middle class LGBT organisation in Jamaica doesn't do much to help the poor LGBT people, it's up to allies of the LGBT community to help them out because they don't have the funds that are available to the middle class LGBT people who have neglected them. Of course, Liberals just blame the economic conditions of these people (instead of their sexuality) for what is happening to them, despite the fact that it's directly related to their sexuality as well; these people have been chased out of their homes and communities by their families and neighbours, and are forced to live in the streets. Liberals want the government to stay out of the bedroom, but what about the LGBT people who don't have bedrooms? The Liberals don't care. As long as everyone is equal in the law, regardless of reality and material conditions, Liberals are fine. They can feel content with blaming other LGBT people's suffering solely on economic conditions as an excuse to ignore them in the fight for LGBT rights.

Some liberals pursued those ideas so far as to push the state at its very limit while making demands to be as emancipated from it as possible. Those are libertarians. In my opinion, they are still liberals.

Neo-liberals are also liberals, and this is when we realize that this world impregnates so much of modern toughts that it is everywhere : hence the need to differenciate liberals between what they are looking for. Honestly, I'm a little at lost to establish such a typology. I think libertarians are different than neo-liberals, which are themselves different (but not that much) from classical liberals.

Yeah, they're all Liberals with the way I see it.

Basically, I think libertarians took the moral message and extrapolated it in a society in which barriers to the market are minimals. Neo-liberals still think that the wealthy should rule the others. And there are some idealists like me which have internalized only the idea that liberalism is compatible with democracy.

I believe that Liberalism is antithetical to Democracy, and that a mix of them is only corrupting the latter. I do believe in individual rights, but not from the perspective of private property. I believe that people (especially workers) must have agency over their bodies.

[Arizal1]

Those are interesting thoughts, Siggon!

Liberals support private property rights and hereditary ownership of land/property. I understand their disgust with nobility, but they still support ideas which contribute to inequality, and I elaborate on this in my essay.
[...]
Defence of civil rights is not a core tenet of Liberalism, though it is presented as such. Liberals only defend civil rights as a development of their defence of the idea of private property.
[...]
I believe that people (especially workers) must have agency over their bodies.

While I understand the link you are making between private property and civil rights, and how you think in a liberal mindset private property trumps civil rights, I'm not sure I agree with you.

To go further, we should answer to both questions : "what are civil rights?" and "what is [the right to] private property?" And beyond, "what is a right?" Shame on me, I'm going to wikipedia to answer that. Rights would be, according to the Stamford Encyclopedy : "the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory"

So, rights are "what is allowed or owed to people", to be shorter. You claim that private property is the alpha and omega of liberalism, which would mean that everything a pure liberal think must go under that filter. How is this accomplished? Probably by the idea, dear to libertarians, that one owns one-self which is at the core of individualism. From this idea, that someone has a kind of property right on himself, we can go to the idea that one can do what he wants with himself (since the very idea of a property right is that we can do what we can with it) and, since provate property is protected by the State in a liberal mindset, then the person is also protected by the State.

Once you have the idea that you can do what you want with you and that the State protects you, you are not that far from agency. What is lacking seems to be the link between that and the republican tought that the people can take decisions for a minority, which can be achieved by the social contract. But since this social contract (in which people agree to be conventionally bound to one another) originates from property rights, it is vulnerable to people putting their rights above decisions of the group, pretending that their rights are stronger than those decisions.

So it is there that liberalism clashes with democracy. But perhaps not necessarily. I used the old idea of social contract, but before that I was talking about the State which protected the right to private property. So the State clearly existed until I erased it to find a way to embark liberalism into decision-making. If the State precedes the individual, then the picture is different : for the State is at the same time potentially protecting private property and attacking it, especially if said State is seen as an all-powerful Leviathan which can strip people from their possessions and crush their individual thoughts. It could be conceived that it is to defend themselves from the State, that civilians would combine their strenghts and use representation. This would be an use for democracy that would stem from a desire to protect "negative rights".

As each person could have a different idea of its rights, this model would effectively combine liberalism and (representative) democracy. And democracy itself, as a blank tool, could allow different ideologies to emerge, including the ones who promote wealth redistribution. Altough if private property of oneself can be tought as the protection of one's life, then we could have a basis for a liberal(ish) defense of comprehensive governmental social programs.

I went further than I intended. I hope this is understandable and not too much a long shot. I agree that classic liberals probably didn't tought of that.

[Siggon Kristov]

Those are interesting thoughts, Siggon!

Liberals support private property rights and hereditary ownership of land/property. I understand their disgust with nobility, but they still support ideas which contribute to inequality, and I elaborate on this in my essay.
[...]
Defence of civil rights is not a core tenet of Liberalism, though it is presented as such. Liberals only defend civil rights as a development of their defence of the idea of private property.
[...]
I believe that people (especially workers) must have agency over their bodies.

While I understand the link you are making between private property and civil rights, and how you think in a liberal mindset private property trumps civil rights, I'm not sure I agree with you.

To go further, we should answer to both questions : "what are civil rights?" and "what is [the right to] private property?" And beyond, "what is a right?" Shame on me, I'm going to wikipedia to answer that. Rights would be, according to the Stamford Encyclopedy : "the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory"

So, rights are "what is allowed or owed to people", to be shorter. You claim that private property is the alpha and omega of liberalism, which would mean that everything a pure liberal think must go under that filter. How is this accomplished? Probably by the idea, dear to libertarians, that one owns one-self which is at the core of individualism. From this idea, that someone has a kind of property right on himself, we can go to the idea that one can do what he wants with himself (since the very idea of a property right is that we can do what we can with it) and, since provate property is protected by the State in a liberal mindset, then the person is also protected by the State.

Once you have the idea that you can do what you want with you and that the State protects you, you are not that far from agency. What is lacking seems to be the link between that and the republican tought that the people can take decisions for a minority, which can be achieved by the social contract. But since this social contract (in which people agree to be conventionally bound to one another) originates from property rights, it is vulnerable to people putting their rights above decisions of the group, pretending that their rights are stronger than those decisions.

So it is there that liberalism clashes with democracy. But perhaps not necessarily. I used the old idea of social contract, but before that I was talking about the State which protected the right to private property. So the State clearly existed until I erased it to find a way to embark liberalism into decision-making. If the State precedes the individual, then the picture is different : for the State is at the same time potentially protecting private property and attacking it, especially if said State is seen as an all-powerful Leviathan which can strip people from their possessions and crush their individual thoughts. It could be conceived that it is to defend themselves from the State, that civilians would combine their strenghts and use representation. This would be an use for democracy that would stem from a desire to protect "negative rights".

As each person could have a different idea of its rights, this model would effectively combine liberalism and (representative) democracy. And democracy itself, as a blank tool, could allow different ideologies to emerge, including the ones who promote wealth redistribution. Altough if private property of oneself can be tought as the protection of one's life, then we could have a basis for a liberal(ish) defense of comprehensive governmental social programs.

I went further than I intended. I hope this is understandable and not too much a long shot. I agree that classic liberals probably didn't tought of that.

What I have seen is the liberal state protecting those with property, and ignoring or even lessening the well-being of those without.

And I said it; yes, Liberalism is concerned with civil rights and all that, but only as a development on their concern for property rights. While it's now independently seen as a tenet of modern Liberalism, it still originated from property rights; you should be able to do what you want in the space of your private property. But what if you have no private property? What do you do then? This thing about your body being your private property has no relation to the experience that I have seen people having. These persons have no private space of their own to bring their bodies to; they have no homes, and must 'squat' on the private lands of others, or live on public land where they are not welcome. Essentially they have no rights, because a law that says you can do whatever you want in the space of your private property doesn't apply to them; they have no private property, and they are not allowed to do anything in public really. I have pointed to a very specific case, and you have failed to address it. I can't say that I expect better from a liberal.

And you say "we can go to the idea that one can do what he wants with himself" and Hayek would agree; Hayek says that people are free to starve, as if all starving people choose to be in a state of starvation (I know some individuals choose to starve themselves, but they are not usually poor).

[Arizal1]

Sorry if my reflexions irked you. I didn't mean to be rude, but I may have seemed a lot disconnected.

It is true that i just tried to find a way liberals could be concerned by the well-being of people without adressing the real issues you presented me. This very theoric talk is not much rooted in reality and is very idealistic. Of course I do not deny all those wrongs suffered by the poors under a regime not so interested by them. I do not imply that poor people, starving people, chose to be poor and to starve!

I tried to explain a view and failed in your opinion. However, before writing this tale of moral liberals, reading your post made me wonder : on what lie some of the concepts you use? What I mean by that is : you are talking about human rights and agency. From where come those human rights and this agency? Are you just feeling that the human rights are good and should be enforced to everybody or is there some global theory which inspires you. I would be interested to read more about your vision of the world.

For my part, the idea to which I was coming was not that each should live in a bubble. Rather, my own view is that everyone should have a minimum to live. This is the guaranteed minimum income; this can also be state housing and quantity of state helps to those who need them most. However, I also think the government should not try to manage all the economy, that sometimes it's better to just regulate the market and let it distribute the goods and services.

Is this a "liberal" view? Maybe. I personally think this can come from a liberal basis, and I find this well interested in my fellow humans well-being.

Now, however, it is true that I didn't adressed what you were saying at first about poor LGBTs living without rights because they have no property. I suppose that means they cannot be themselves in the street and are discriminated everywhere they go. They have great difficulties to find jobs. I believe part of the solution could be the kind of measures I talked about (minimal income, state housing). Another part would be a better education for their fellow citizens taking in account diversity of sexual orientation and of gender. Financial help to fight discrimination causes and enforce the existing law (if it exists) would also help them, but I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the people you talk about has great trust, interest or time to invest in the judicial system, nor that it would help them in their everyday life.

If none of those ideas would work, I would be greatly interested in you presenting me your views on this matter. I hope I didn't appear as insensitive as before. I tend to be, and to be theoric on many subjects. It even irks my boyfriend.

[Siggon Kristov]

Sorry if my reflexions irked you. I didn't mean to be rude, but I may have seemed a lot disconnected.

It is true that i just tried to find a way liberals could be concerned by the well-being of people without adressing the real issues you presented me. This very theoric talk is not much rooted in reality and is very idealistic.

Just like all Liberal/right-wing thought is.

Of course I do not deny all those wrongs suffered by the poors under a regime not so interested by them. I do not imply that poor people, starving people, chose to be poor and to starve!

Well Hayek is someone I associate with Liberalism, and he believes that people choose to starve if they starve. I'm talking about the disadvantage people face from not having private property, and how possession of private property determines one's access to rights, and you're telling me something like "but their bodies are their private property" to completely ignore the disadvantage they face from not having actual property. They need personal space. They cannot get it in public space, and they do not have their own property to hide on.

I tried to explain a view and failed in your opinion.

I question the relevance of your views if they're so disconnected from reality. I care about real people and real issues.

However, before writing this tale of moral liberals, reading your post made me wonder : on what lie some of the concepts you use? What I mean by that is : you are talking about human rights and agency. From where come those human rights and this agency? Are you just feeling that the human rights are good and should be enforced to everybody or is there some global theory which inspires you. I would be interested to read more about your vision of the world.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

For my part, the idea to which I was coming was not that each should live in a bubble. Rather, my own view is that everyone should have a minimum to live. This is the guaranteed minimum income; this can also be state housing and quantity of state helps to those who need them most. However, I also think the government should not try to manage all the economy, that sometimes it's better to just regulate the market and let it distribute the goods and services.

Is this a "liberal" view? Maybe. I personally think this can come from a liberal basis, and I find this well interested in my fellow humans well-being.

Essentially... placate the workers and keep them alive for exploitation by the Capitalist fucks. Give them enough to keep them alive and happy without them needing to revolt. Of course it's a Liberal view. You sound like John Rawls. Welfare Liberalism, and even Social Democracy, are bullshit; I criticise them in my essay.

Why are you asking me if it's a Liberal view? Don't you read on these theories before jumping to align yourself with one?

Now, however, it is true that I didn't adressed what you were saying at first about poor LGBTs living without rights because they have no property. I suppose that means they cannot be themselves in the street and are discriminated everywhere they go.

It means that their mere existence is at the mercy of everyone they come into contact with. They have to be themselves. They have no choice. They are themselves in the street, and their situation is bad - even if they weren't LGBT. Being LGBT only makes their situation worse, just like Amartya Sen said that poverty amplifies other unfreedoms (I don't like his theories in general, but we're on par on some things).

They have great difficulties to find jobs.

Difficulties? No, it's not simply "great difficulties" - no-one is giving them jobs. No-one wants to hire them, and no-one wants to go to a place that hires them. There's your free market.

I believe part of the solution could be the kind of measures I talked about (minimal income, state housing).

This is Jamaica. We're not wealthy. The IMF isn't going to allow us to spend money on a new project like this. We have state-built housing, but it's a complex thing and people still have to pay money over time (separate from taxes).

Luckily, the government does plan to partner with NGOs (and I believe secret private sponsors) to build a homeless shelter specifically for LGBT people, but this is facing heavy criticism from the 70%+ of our population that is homophobic.

Another part would be a better education for their fellow citizens taking in account diversity of sexual orientation and of gender. Financial help to fight discrimination causes and

Education will help people in 5-10 years from now, but "education" won't just fix things. And at the end of the day, they will be economically disadvantaged. Any social programme, to help them, will be shot down by the IMF.

enforce the existing law (if it exists) would also help them,

Enforcing the law means jailing the adults for being LGBT, and sending the minors home to get murdered by their families/neighbours (and no-one will admit who did it, so police wouldn't be able to convict anyone). Another option is sending them to a children's home, but there's a famous case of a boy running away from those, and also fearing returning home because his dad will kill him.

but I'm not deluding myself into thinking that the people you talk about has great trust, interest or time to invest in the judicial system, nor that it would help them in their everyday life.

Well, some politicians have voiced support for LGBT rights, but are afraid to take action on it because an election is coming up. Another problem with liberal democracy: populism trumps people power.

If none of those ideas would work, I would be greatly interested in you presenting me your views on this matter. I hope I didn't appear as insensitive as before.

With the current political and economic arrangements, I see no way for the government to help these people. Their lives are at the mercy of people with money and property, who can choose to help them, but often don't. The most a few of us can do at a time is give them some food, but it will be difficult to do a large-scale project to help them because of private sector disinterest (which is natural, because people wouldn't want to buy from the company that sponsored LGBT rights) and government disinterest (because the current administration is pro-LGBT, but it makes no sense to vote for LGBT rights (or vote to repeal our anti-LGBT laws) in parliament if the other party will just repeal them upon winning the next election).

That's Liberal Democracy, for you. Any plans I draft up would either be disallowed in Liberal Democracy, or economically-impractical for Jamaica (but not both at the same time, thankfully). The first practical step would be repealing our anti-LGBT laws, and educating people as you suggested.

--

By the way... another example (as in, apart from LGBT rights) is marijuana.

Until very recently, we had anti-marijuana laws where you would have a criminal record if you were caught with even a tiny spliff/joint. People of all social classes smoked marijuana, but police would never step into an uptown suburban home to arrest someone for that. Uptown suburban homes were the social spaces for the people who lived their, and their friends; people chill at each other's houses. In the run-down urban areas (ghettoes), where people don't have much private space of their own, all their actions are in public; their chilling space is on the corner of the street, around a domino table across from the shop, or close to a small open field. Police would arrest these people easily. My Marxist-Feminist lecturer came to the conclusion that, effectively, the law only exists "to criminalise poor people." I see the same with LGBT rights.

When advancing rights for LGBT people, we need to assert their rights as people and ensure that their rights are disconnected from (i.e. not dependent on) property rights. This nonsense about their bodies being their private property won't help; it won't help to get them jobs, it won't help them to be accepted by landlords if they can afford a place in the future, and it doesn't guarantee them personal space during the time that they can't afford a place to stay.