: Note that Australian Septimus used the word liberal in its accurate form.
Probably because he is a commited socialist of the no quarter shall be given school, that's fine but myself I know that since the war and Keynesianism Liberalism is a variety of planned markets that isnt as harsh as Capitalism, that's not even mentioning T.H. Green etc. the philosophical statists who reformed liberalism to meet with the demands of labour and moderate socialism.
The term should be neo-classical political economists or something.
: : Here's my solution, one I've proposed many times; When you see a homeless guy, or someone that is makeing lousy wages and can't support himself according to your standards, take him in, give him your food, share your soap, allow him equal use of your gas range.
: :That is fine as far as it goes, admirable even, but I can't perform such acts on a global, national or even more than local scale. Charity is fine but it eventually leads to dependency and then it degrades both parties.
: I think Frenchy has a point here. His contention that if you want to help you should shows up an important element - that the helper is not obliged under force of law to help - its in denial of the notion that "people are bad unless you force them to be good" and and it also undermines the notion that "people are behaving 'badly' because 'the system' forces them to". Unless I've misread him.
Right, this is altogether fine but it like me suggesting that you should be as capitalist as possible in an individual capacity in Cuba, China or Libya each claims to have a socialist economy or to have abolished property, I'm sceptical but I'm sure that you'd agree with that analysis, anyway I'm sure that you'd commit your energies to changing the institutions etc.
: But your point is interesting - you see I think that when you personally help a person out it becomes a matter of mutual regard, the person helped will often wish to repay the kindness, to show the appreciation - both parties are willing exchangers, its genuine and focussed. Institutionalised 'help' whether its via government handouts, charity or by an enforced social decree which demands that everyone may take the same creates the enmity and dependance. Enmity because the help is offered via a removed faceless institution and not from the hands of actual genuine people (makes you feel like a second class citizen) and dependancy creating because its always there regardless , you dont get the impression that "wow, this kind fellow really helped out or I'd be a gonna" - a feeling of bing uniquely selected for help by a real person but more "the well is never dry, I may aswell get my bit, the bastards" - a feeling of receiving alms for being incapable.
I've read in great depth these ideas Gee from the Charity Organisation Society in the nineteenth century right up to the neo-tory think tanks and the problem remains the same you might aswell put a bandaid on a cancer. The theory is broadly that cohesion and co-operation can bring about a classless society while maintaining the inequality and capitalist mechanism to provide rewards for the industrious, this is what the third way is about,however it's totally schitzo to suggest that at one time ruthless competition is fine, encouragable, and the next not good enough.
: : This is a very sound question citizen, you are perhaps used to dealing with a different calibre of socialist etc. the sort that is more concerned with fousting a monolithic superstructure upon everyone else, the type of person who finds it easier to empathise with institutions, parties, leadership or abstract theories than people.
: Lark, I mentioned here that authority may be necessary anyway.
So what Gee? I dont consider all authority bad, just as you dont, just totally unaccountable authority like business and the upper ecolones of the state. You however want an oligarchal dictatorship which is very libertarian.