Its not that you’re old or the meanings have changed - here’s Phil Ochs in 1966:
“In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally”
Classic Liberalism overlaps with modern Libertarianism in quite a lot of ways. The emphasis is on personal freedom and restrictions on the power of the State. So, progressive in 19th Century terms, and theoretically anti-oppression (although in practise mainly for the white middle/upper class who benefited from free trade and markets).
This developed into Neo-Liberalism from the 70s/80s-ish, which goes fully all in on free markets and unregulated capitalism, and on essentially running a country centered around economic growth ideologies and private industry at the expense of, say, public services etc. Neo-Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West, to the point where ‘left-wing’ parties like the UK’s Labour or the USA’s Democrats don’t challenge it.
From a 20/21st Century leftist PoV, the big problems with Liberalism are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality, and things like opposition or indifference to welfare and public services, and a lack of reform/change from the state tackling systematic -isms etc.
So the kind of ‘Archetypal Liberal’ is someone who is ostensibly against oppression and injustice, but unwilling to address these issues in a meaningful way. Pro-status-quo, sometimes NIMBYs, very often white middle class. Wants more social justice, just not at the expense of the housing market.
are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality
But one would think they don’t increase it really.
It’s cronyism coupled with regulations (as in patents and IP law) which increases it in case of big fish.
It’s also literal crimes not being prosecuted, like actual fraud (or selling not what you advertise, or pressing out competition by non-market means, or not paying your employees, or bribing officials, or …).
I don’t see this being connected with market regulations. Actually in case of IP and cronyism market regulations are present on the side of “the big fish” here.
Its not that you’re old or the meanings have changed - here’s Phil Ochs in 1966:
“In every political community there are varying shades of political opinion. One of the shadiest of these is the liberals. An outspoken group on many subjects. Ten degrees to the left of center in good times. Ten degrees to the right of center if it affects them personally”
Classic Liberalism overlaps with modern Libertarianism in quite a lot of ways. The emphasis is on personal freedom and restrictions on the power of the State. So, progressive in 19th Century terms, and theoretically anti-oppression (although in practise mainly for the white middle/upper class who benefited from free trade and markets).
This developed into Neo-Liberalism from the 70s/80s-ish, which goes fully all in on free markets and unregulated capitalism, and on essentially running a country centered around economic growth ideologies and private industry at the expense of, say, public services etc. Neo-Liberalism is the dominant ideology in the West, to the point where ‘left-wing’ parties like the UK’s Labour or the USA’s Democrats don’t challenge it.
From a 20/21st Century leftist PoV, the big problems with Liberalism are things like unregulated markets increasing wealth inequality, and things like opposition or indifference to welfare and public services, and a lack of reform/change from the state tackling systematic -isms etc.
So the kind of ‘Archetypal Liberal’ is someone who is ostensibly against oppression and injustice, but unwilling to address these issues in a meaningful way. Pro-status-quo, sometimes NIMBYs, very often white middle class. Wants more social justice, just not at the expense of the housing market.
(Sorry for the essay, i got a lil carried away)
Well said. Thanks
But one would think they don’t increase it really.
It’s cronyism coupled with regulations (as in patents and IP law) which increases it in case of big fish.
It’s also literal crimes not being prosecuted, like actual fraud (or selling not what you advertise, or pressing out competition by non-market means, or not paying your employees, or bribing officials, or …).
I don’t see this being connected with market regulations. Actually in case of IP and cronyism market regulations are present on the side of “the big fish” here.