Comments on: Don proves his point http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/ Observations from Carlton's Lone Classical Liberal Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:05:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: NPOV http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12645 NPOV Mon, 07 Apr 2008 22:06:57 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12645 Jc, I'd argue that left liberals have moved a lot closer to classical liberals in the last few decades. The success of economic liberalisation is there for all to see, and fairly few left liberals would still argue that things were better in the 60's and 70's when the government ran everything from banks to airlines, and tax rates were up in 80% range etc. Australia is now one of most economically liberal countries in the world - exceeded only by two countries that aren't even proper democracies. On that basis, surely to claim that Australia's level of economic liberalisation is "about right" would still allow you to qualify as moderate classical liberal. OTOH, we're far from the most socially liberal, so it would seem to be a logical time for classical and social liberals to focus their efforts on jointly arguing for a reduced role of govenment in controlling our personal lives. Jc, I’d argue that left liberals have moved a lot closer to classical liberals in the last few decades. The success of economic liberalisation is there for all to see, and fairly few left liberals would still argue that things were better in the 60’s and 70’s when the government ran everything from banks to airlines, and tax rates were up in 80% range etc.
Australia is now one of most economically liberal countries in the world - exceeded only by two countries that aren’t even proper democracies. On that basis, surely to claim that Australia’s level of economic liberalisation is “about right” would still allow you to qualify as moderate classical liberal.
OTOH, we’re far from the most socially liberal, so it would seem to be a logical time for classical and social liberals to focus their efforts on jointly arguing for a reduced role of govenment in controlling our personal lives.

]]> By: JC http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12654 JC Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:19:19 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12654 <i>Does this represent a redistribution of income from the poor to the rich? And does using this kind of language suggest that there is some authority that is able to distribute incomes according to a desired pattern without altering the amount of wealth that is created?</i> Don seems to be obsessing that every crumb be evenly distributed rather than understanding what is actually going on. In a free market people become wealthy as a result of selling their services or making things people want to buy. Wealth in this case is a sign of economic success .. that the market is bestowing rewards on the firm that is able to achieve this. We should never lose sight of the fact that it is impossible for there to be GDP growth without income growth. Does this represent a redistribution of income from the poor to the rich? And does using this kind of language suggest that there is some authority that is able to distribute incomes according to a desired pattern without altering the amount of wealth that is created?

Don seems to be obsessing that every crumb be evenly distributed rather than understanding what is actually going on.

In a free market people become wealthy as a result of selling their services or making things people want to buy. Wealth in this case is a sign of economic success .. that the market is bestowing rewards on the firm that is able to achieve this.

We should never lose sight of the fact that it is impossible for there to be GDP growth without income growth.

]]> By: JC http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12653 JC Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:09:42 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12653 How about Don tries this thought experiment. He asserts that classic liberals/ libertarians ought to move closer to left liberals. Why not the other way around? How about Don tries this thought experiment. He asserts that classic liberals/ libertarians ought to move closer to left liberals.

Why not the other way around?

]]> By: Leon http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12652 Leon Mon, 07 Apr 2008 12:13:38 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12652 <blockquote>And classical liberals look at left liberals and assume that they are motivated by an envious desire to punish the rich even if it means making everyone worse off.</blockquote> In my experience, Righties tend to accuse Lefties of misguided idealism, or self-flagellating self-righteousness, or moral laxity. But rarely will a Righty accuse a Lefty of envy or selfishness. Accusations of self-interestedness tend to flow in the other direction---and this asymmetry makes the point, I think, that there is a real intuitive basis to political outlooks.

And classical liberals look at left liberals and assume that they are motivated by an envious desire to punish the rich even if it means making everyone worse off.

In my experience, Righties tend to accuse Lefties of misguided idealism, or self-flagellating self-righteousness, or moral laxity. But rarely will a Righty accuse a Lefty of envy or selfishness. Accusations of self-interestedness tend to flow in the other direction—and this asymmetry makes the point, I think, that there is a real intuitive basis to political outlooks.

]]> By: NPOV http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12651 NPOV Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:12:34 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12651 I don't see why that would be considered redistribution from the poor to the rich. Redistribution from the poor to the rich is basically what used to happen in the days of serfdom, when peasants/craftsmen had to give up considerable portions of their productive output just to support the lifestyles of nobles and kings. I don’t see why that would be considered redistribution from the poor to the rich. Redistribution from the poor to the rich is basically what used to happen in the days of serfdom, when peasants/craftsmen had to give up considerable portions of their productive output just to support the lifestyles of nobles and kings.

]]> By: Don Arthur http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12650 Don Arthur Mon, 07 Apr 2008 07:21:26 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12650 *** "My concern with certain right-wing economic policies is not that they will redistribute income from the poor to the rich, but simply that their primary purpose is make it easier for the rich to become richer, and either assuming (or claiming outright) that as the rich will get richer, the poor will get richer too." *** . It's interesting to look at the language people use. Some people talk about 'social exclusion'. They usually mean that some working age people are not participating in the labour market -- people who depend on income support payments for long periods of time. . So when the economy grows, extra income does not flow to the 'socially excluded' unless they move into work or their benefits increase. As a result their 'share' of total income falls and they become relatively poorer. . Does this represent a redistribution of income from the poor to the rich? And does using this kind of language suggest that there is some authority that is able to distribute incomes according to a desired pattern without altering the amount of wealth that is created? ***
“My concern with certain right-wing economic policies is not that they will redistribute income from the poor to the rich, but simply that their primary purpose is make it easier for the rich to become richer, and either assuming (or claiming outright) that as the rich will get richer, the poor will get richer too.”
***
.
It’s interesting to look at the language people use. Some people talk about ’social exclusion’. They usually mean that some working age people are not participating in the labour market — people who depend on income support payments for long periods of time.
.
So when the economy grows, extra income does not flow to the ’socially excluded’ unless they move into work or their benefits increase. As a result their ’share’ of total income falls and they become relatively poorer.
.
Does this represent a redistribution of income from the poor to the rich? And does using this kind of language suggest that there is some authority that is able to distribute incomes according to a desired pattern without altering the amount of wealth that is created?

]]> By: NPOV http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12647 NPOV Mon, 07 Apr 2008 05:01:36 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12647 BTW, Don, did you really mean "Left-leaning liberals ...assume that the motivation is to redistribute income from the poor to the rich"? My concern with certain right-wing economic policies is not that they will redistribute income from the poor to the rich, but simply that their primary purpose is make it easier for the rich to become richer, and either assuming (or claiming outright) that as the rich will get richer, the poor will get richer too. I would have thought that would be the position of most left-leaning (or even centrist) liberals. Of course some go further and assume they are they about protecting the status quo - ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, but I suspect even that's a dying viewpoint. BTW, Don, did you really mean “Left-leaning liberals …assume that the motivation is to redistribute income from the poor to the rich”? My concern with certain right-wing economic policies is not that they will redistribute income from the poor to the rich, but simply that their primary purpose is make it easier for the rich to become richer, and either assuming (or claiming outright) that as the rich will get richer, the poor will get richer too.
I would have thought that would be the position of most left-leaning (or even centrist) liberals. Of course some go further and assume they are they about protecting the status quo - ensuring that the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, but I suspect even that’s a dying viewpoint.

]]> By: NPOV http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12657 NPOV Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:30:32 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12657 I do wonder why it is that classical liberals might worry that the Left's "desire to reshape society according to their conception of ‘justice’ will lead to excessive state control", while progressives tend to worry that the Right's desire to reduce the role of government to satisfy their concept of 'liberty' will lead to exploition of the poor and disavantaged by the rich and privileged. While there certainly are historical examples of both occurring, it's usually under relatively unusual circumstances that I'm not convinced would apply to a modern social democracy like Australia. Nor are the goals at all incompatible - there's no reason we can't aim for smaller government and the pursuit of social justice. In fact, if the only role of government was to focus on upholding the rule of law and the pursuit of social justice, would this keep both sides happy? I do wonder why it is that classical liberals might worry that the Left’s “desire to reshape society according to their conception of ‘justice’ will lead to excessive state control”, while progressives tend to worry that the Right’s desire to reduce the role of government to satisfy their concept of ‘liberty’ will lead to exploition of the poor and disavantaged by the rich and privileged. While there certainly are historical examples of both occurring, it’s usually under relatively unusual circumstances that I’m not convinced would apply to a modern social democracy like Australia. Nor are the goals at all incompatible - there’s no reason we can’t aim for smaller government and the pursuit of social justice. In fact, if the only role of government was to focus on upholding the rule of law and the pursuit of social justice, would this keep both sides happy?

]]> By: Jason Soon http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12646 Jason Soon Mon, 07 Apr 2008 03:29:06 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12646 Don appears to have a very broad definition of 'rich' Don appears to have a very broad definition of ‘rich’

]]> By: Rafe http://andrewnorton.info/2008/04/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12649 Rafe Mon, 07 Apr 2008 02:10:53 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2008/04/07/don-proves-his-point/#comment-12649 Don, try reading some Mises, starting with his short book on Liberalism. It is on line at the Mises Inst. Don, try reading some Mises, starting with his short book on Liberalism. It is on line at the Mises Inst.

]]>