Dedicated Triariusowi.
I. Tiger anger.
In my post "oligarchs versus middle class," in which I allowed myself distinguish between economic liberalism in the classic sense of the modern-liberal lying , współbloger Triarius deigned worthy post comments which noted that "lying-liberalism - it's just a real liberalism, the one that exists . All the others live only in the brains of various disorders who come into contact with the world of freaks, while to my inquiry whether Adam Smith also zaliczyłby to "freaks" he said that "to Enlightenment speculation rather" , but then questioned whether that Adam Smith was a liberal, and all finished strong przytupem, suggesting jakobym the invisible hand did "religion" , " Or a fucking utopia ", while " liberalism (...) is half the road to communism ". I tried to give a fairly accurate Triariusa arguments - full comments TU and TU .
Because it makes me upset seeing how an otherwise rare brain fog zasnuwa obduracy, allow myself to be more polemic in a separate post, hoping for your understanding.
II. Generalization error.
Well, I think the fundamental error committed by Triariusa (and not just by him, the phenomenon is greater) to bring the intellectual achievements of the Enlightenment only in France and various Diderotów Voltaire, indeed the perception of the acquis era through their prism. Meanwhile, Anglo-Saxon Enlightenment is a completely different kettle of fish, and the liberalism of Adam Smith is something completely different than the utopian cackling Rousseau or encyclopedists. Generally speaking, the difference is between the speculative and wool-gathering and gilotynowaniem anyone who does not share this rocking hatched from an ideology, a description of reality skrzętnym and drawing conclusions from that reality.
Another error, this identification with liberalism antycywilizacyjnego current dominant policy in the countries and transnational structures of the West as in the material sphere, as well as spiritual - here I refer to my series about Antycywilizacji Progress ( TU, TU and TU). In other words, it's like to call a duck a chicken just because the lords of this world for their own purposes they agreed to yell "duck."
III. From liberalism to socialism.
Meanwhile, smithowska praise of entrepreneurship, supported by a strict morality and the Protestant work ethic (sorry for the kitchen weberyzm, but it's better for the clarity of argument) and "Theory Moral Sentiments, "based on the concept of empathy, which underpinned the economic power of Britain and the United States. Operate the same colonies (United Kingdom), and conquered tracts of the continent (United States) could not do that, if not fundamental, the concept arose from the observation that the source of the wealth of nations lies not accumulated amount of ore, grain, ground - but the work. Even embraced a different concept of Spain (gold) and Russia (the land). Differences can be seen with the naked eye.
Well, but, as Aristotle taught his grandfather, wynaturzają political system, and I let myself from adding that a similar sequence of events affects economic systems. In the case of economic liberalism beginning of the end to the social liberalism of John Stuart Mill, which is the subject of freedom, including economic, in place of the individual has made a collective, society. This concept of liberalism came to the United States, which has so far been practiced common sense liberalism described by Adam Smith, not knowing that they speak in prose. The term liberalism was brought into contact with the ocean on a large scale due to JS Mill was, therefore, with the United States 'liberal' means left-wing, or even a supporter of liberalism lewaka in type smithowskim is "conservative."
later appeared in economic doctrine of John Maynard Keynes who, as a reaction to the Great Depression, which underpinned the New Deal rooseveltowskiego with all this interventionism, stimulating demand through public investment and slight deficit. Bang! - Here we go back to the natural conflict between the magnates and the average of the nobility, who outlined in the introduction of that scrap "oligarchs versus middle class," and which parts of this troubled Triariusa. Business magnates in the concept of Keynes sensed their chance, because if the state has to be "active" that's not entrusted to carry out their activity multitude of small and medium-sized businesses, but just lords, because a big maybe more.
To join the interests of the magnates and terrorized political class was behind the crisis at the root of the economic system in which it currently we live. Next it went, the more that continental Europe has never been well since. The irony of history is that a quasi-socialist concept of Keynes, was founded as a protest against smithowskiego liberalism today is called "liberalism" is, while protesting against the "Anti-globalists" believe that if the socialist "liberalism" is not checked, this recipe it should be ... more socialism, more control, etc. (vide - global demand for the tax on capital movements).
IV. Between neototalitaryzmem and liberalism.
As can be seen from the foregoing, the term "liberalism" is a mouthful, you pull yourself from the throats of various groups with a cushion under the concept of mutually exclusive content and claiming that my definition is "najmojsza" . Currently, the top of the bastards are conceived with the marriage of the French Enlightenment speculation, social liberalism, JS Mill and Keynes's economic doctrine, also filled with the revolt and counter-cultural tone sowietyzmem "generation '68. " It is clear that so understood "liberalism" is "half the way to communism," without a doubt. With these bastards, the word "liberalism" is chewed by decent people with disgust, and a "liberal" does for a standard insult in the politico-ideological naparzankach. It's just that this "liberalism" is really oppression and enslavement neototalitarna - at every level, so economically and spiritually, so I let myself this toxic mutation to be called "lying-liberalism." This "overt or thinly disguised totalitarianism" pretending to be freedom.
true liberalism, however, with regard to the welfare of people and not "people", sometimes referred to as conservative liberalism (economic freedom plus a conservative world view), is nothing like going back to Adam Smith - reward work and entrepreneurship citizens (although Smith "invisible hand of the market" rather than "discovered" as stated Triarius sharply as just described). The state's role in this "premiowaniu" is (apart from the construction of infrastructure) to ensure a level playing field - the same fiscal burden (as far as possible, low), the efficient judiciary oliwiącego economic turnover, the removal of feeding at the interface between various government -business, in a word: kleptokratycznych suppression mechanisms blocking the development of middle class - the basics of any healthy state and nation.
my opinion this approach is worthy, just and salutary. And yes, this is liberalism.
Talking Mushroom
0 comments:
Post a Comment