2
   

Information control, or, How to get to Orwellian governance

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 04:39 pm
Just went to check the dates, so as to be certain. Mill wrote The Subjection of Women in 1869--i've not read it, and frankly have little interest. But to assert on the basis of the book that his ideas were novel and liberal seems more than a little silly to me. I refer you to Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman[/i], published in 1792. That's fully three-quarters of a century before Mill, and was sufficiently celebrated (she had previously written A Vindication of Rights of Man, taking on Edmund Burke, the parliamentary enfant terrible of his day) that i strongly suspect Mill had already read it.

I can't say without reading Mill's book, but i suspect that it is not original work.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 06:24 pm
Thomas wrote:
Suppose that, for some unlikely reason, some government would heed the advice in Mill's essay On Liberty. Suppose it abolished expanded free-speech laws to legalize holocaust denial, allowed consenting grown-ups to enter polygamous marriages, established free trade in opium, privatized the schools, and so forth. How would a typical speaker of French, German, Italian or Spanish categorize this set of policies? For one thing, the speaker would most likely categorize it as "nutty", for continental Europeans tend to trust their governments more than the English, Americans, and other peoples with Anglo-Saxon traditions. Also, more pertinently to our disagreement, all of the speakers would categorize these policies as "liberal" or "neoliberal". (For everyday policy discussions, both words mean the same; "neoliberal" is the buzzier buzzword though.)

I don't expect you, Setanta, to take my word for any of this. You are therefore welcome to cross-check with other native speakers of European languages such as nimh, Walter, or Francis.

Of course. What you say here is common place for anyone acquainted with current European political culture. No reason to expect people elsewhere to necessarily be so, but yes, they can certainly take your word on this.

Setanta wrote:
I think you have some idealistic notion of what it means to be libertarian, and that you confuse this with liberalism. Two different critters.

Set, what in most of Europe (with the exception of the UK) is called "liberal" is a lot more like what you call "libertarian" in the US than what you call "liberal" there.

Thomas would be considered a typical, if somewhat dogmatic, liberal in Holland, Germany, France, Scandinavia, Belgium, Switzerland, etc.

The Mediterranean countries do not really seem to have such an explicitly labelled, strong "liberal" current, but even there, if one would for example identify which main party in Italy is the most liberal, one would say Berlusconi's Forza Italia - not his social-democratic opponents who have so much in common with America's liberals.

The Central/East-European liberal political current, too, nowadays tends to combine its centrist intellectual tradition of enlightenment on cultural issues with this ardent capitalist/free market beliefs on the economy that Thomas describes and personifies.

When you define liberalism and libertarianism as two different critters, you are talking from a (North-)American perspective. In Europe, hardly anyone ever uses the term "libertarianism", since we already call the free-market/anti-regulation ideology liberal. The difference between them would here merely be seen as one of degree - US libertarians would be seen as radical liberals (radical-borderline-insane, that is).

For example: take the flat tax rate. Out with the redistributive principle of tax rates that go higher the richer you are - a "flat tax" instead. That is what we in Europe would call a very liberal idea, a typically liberal wish. From Slovakia to Holland and Germany, it has therefore also been liberal parties that have begun to pioneer the idea: in Holland the VVD, in Germany the FDP, and in Slovakia the small Democratic Party, which later merged into the SKDU - which did indeed implement the flat tax when it became the governing party.

Most everywhere in Europe - again with the striking exception of the UK - it's the liberals who advocate for lowering, cutting and abolishing taxes. In the US, of course, liberals would be the people who'd oppose something like a flat tax.

(The UK Liberal Democrats are really a case of their own. They have very much been what you in the US would call typically liberal - even boldly advocating for a tax increase. But make no mistake, the party has a libertarian wing too, and it has been winning distinct influence - amongst other ways, by calling on the party to adhere to a more truly "liberal" - ie, free market, individualist - economic vision).
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2006 07:05 pm
Just stepped in to celebrate Wollstonecraft.

Nice to see her cited.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 01:37 am
nimh wrote:
The difference between them would here merely be seen as one of degree - US libertarians would be seen as radical liberals (radical-borderline-insane, that is).

Thanks, nimh! I knew I could count on your support. Razz
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 04:21 am
Lash wrote:
Just stepped in to celebrate Wollstonecraft.

Nice to see her cited.

Nah, she just liberated people who don't really count. Ya know, women and stuff. <ducks behind the monitor>
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 04:23 am
Setanta wrote:
But to assert on the basis of the book that his ideas were novel and liberal seems more than a little silly to me.

I agree it would be silly to call all of Mill's ideas "novel". Then again, neither Blatham nor I ever stated that Mill was the first liberal in the world. He certainly wasn't.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 03:33 pm
Why, thank you, blatham.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Oct, 2006 08:56 pm
Quote:


We Told You So: "The Daily Show" Is News

Jon Stewart may joke about how his lead-in is puppets, but anyone who has ever watched "The Daily Show" knows it's a misnomer to call it fake news: It may be a fake newscast, but the news it reports and comments upon night after night is all too real. And now it's official: A study by the University of Indiana has found that "The Daily Show" is as substantive as network news.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/10/05/we-told-you-so-the-dail_e_31042.html

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 02:03 pm
Virtually everyone i've ever met in the United States who claimed to "libertarian" has been more conservative in their opinions than most people who are called or who call themselves "liberal" here. I begin to suspect that neither Habibi nor Thomas know what most people here who call themselves libertarian are really like. To equate liberals with libertarians in an American context shows a lack of understanding of what self-described libertarians think here. What you say may be true of Europeans--it's not true in the United States.

I don't think many if any of Mill's ideas were novel, i think he was simply a wonderfully articulate man who expressed very well what he had imbibed from his father and Bentham. In the first place, i consider that that doesn't give one any good reasons to describe him as the father of liberalism. In the second place, i don't consider that his core theses are consonant with the politcal practice of liberalism.

So sue me.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 02:05 pm
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

Just thought i'd fix my "broken post," for those who would actually like to read Miss Wollstonecraft's work.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 06:56 pm
Setanta wrote:
Virtually everyone i've ever met in the United States who claimed to "libertarian" has been more conservative in their opinions than most people who are called or who call themselves "liberal" here. I begin to suspect that neither Habibi nor Thomas know what most people here who call themselves libertarian are really like. To equate liberals with libertarians in an American context shows a lack of understanding of what self-described libertarians think here. What you say may be true of Europeans--it's not true in the United States.

Emphases mine.

Well, duh. The whole point that Thomas was making here, and that I confirmed, was that what Europeans (or people elsewhere in the world, for that matter) consider liberal is different from how you would use the term in (Northern) America. That - as I actually already literally wrote - "what in most of Europe (with the exception of the UK) is called "liberal" is a lot more like what you call "libertarian" in the US than what you call "liberal" there". (Whereas the closest here to what you would call "liberal" would probably be "social-democratic").

Remember - this was Thomas's point on this:

Thomas wrote:
Thomas wrote:
You are entitled to this opinion of course, but don't be surprised if it fails to persuade a lot of other people.

On reflection, I think I should expand on this a little. After all, Setanta has repeatedly corrected me when he thought I miss the nuances of American attitudes and usages. It would seem unfair not to return the favor. As Setanta stated in the beginning of his post, " i refer to the European model, not the just left of reaction American mode." With this in mind, I can assert the following point on my authority as a European.

Suppose that, for some unlikely reason, some government would heed the advice in Mill's essay On Liberty. [..] How would a typical speaker of French, German, Italian or Spanish categorize this set of policies? [..] all of the speakers would categorize these policies as "liberal" or "neoliberal". [..]

I don't expect you, Setanta, to take my word for any of this. You are therefore welcome to cross-check with other native speakers of European languages such as nimh, Walter, or Francis.

You responded to that post with a long expostulation ending again with: "Claiming that Mill speaks for liberalism is ludicrous, to say the least. "

Thomas then actually clarified once more:

Thomas wrote:
Look. In the post I directed to you, I tried to clarify a point about the European usage of the word "liberal", which I knew you'd disagree with. The historical context you provided is irrelevant to this point of current European usage. If you are interested in exploring with an open mind whether your disagreement is correct or not, you are welcome to cross-check with other speakers of European languages. Just ask nimh, Walter, or Francis, none of whom agrees with my politics, whether they agree or disagree with the usage point I make in my post.

And I could indeed heartily confirm that statement and add detail.

The point being: it may be "ludicrous" to claim that Mill speaks for liberalism as you understand the term in the US, but if we're talking about liberalism as a global concept, how it is understood internationally, it is not ludicrous in the least.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Oct, 2006 07:09 pm
(edited my post above for clarity)

Setanta wrote:
In the second place, i don't consider that his core theses are consonant with the politcal practice of liberalism.

..in America.

Setanta wrote:
I begin to suspect that neither Habibi nor Thomas know what most people here who call themselves libertarian are really like.

I begin to suspect that you dont actually always read the posts you respond to.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 09:56 am
nimh wrote:
The point being: it may be "ludicrous" to claim that Mill speaks for liberalism as you understand the term in the US, but if we're talking about liberalism as a global concept, how it is understood internationally, it is not ludicrous in the least.


Yes, it is. Apparently, you don't read the texts which explain Mill's point of view. Mill's notion of responsible and effective government exclude occupational health and safety legislation, minimum wage legislation, maximum hours legislation, workers compensation, aid to dependent children--so i can only conclude that you are insufficiently familiar with what Mill's actually did state he believed, or that you are asserting that modern international concepts of liberal government does not call for any of those social legislation measures.

Quite apart from that, neither you nor Thomas has shown any reason to believe that modern, international concepts of liberal government derive directly from Mill's writings.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 11:01 am
I think many people are guilty of ignoring context.

Of course, liberalism in America is not liberalism in Europe. Europe did not have America's "peculiar institution" and the path leading to the American Revolution differed from the path leading to the French Revolution. Although America borrowed somewhat from the British when establishing its judicial and legislative systems, it also borrowed from other sources and created its own modes and means.

Some Americans make extravagent claims for the Federalists being the antecedants for certain current political philosophies and the Anti-Federalists for others, but, if you read The Federalist Papers carefully, you see that both the left and the right are descended from certain aspects of Federalism, just as both are the children of certain aspects of Anti-Federalism.

And, of course, you have to posit the effect that technology has upon society. Bentham, Mills, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, etc., lived in a technologically simpler world that shaped their thoughts as much as our technology forms our own.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 03:32 pm
Setanta wrote:
I begin to suspect that neither Habibi nor Thomas know what most people here who call themselves libertarian are really like. To equate liberals with libertarians in an American context shows a lack of understanding of what self-described libertarians think here.

(1) That's mutual. A year or so back, we had a similar quarrel over this one, during which you confidently equated Libertarians with LaRouchies. After that, I don't respect you as an authority on American libertarians either. (Needless to say, I continue to respect you on quite a lot of other points.)

(2) Coming back to this thread, the opinion you expressed two pages ago wasn't about liberals "in an American context". It was about "[l]iberalism, as it is known in continental Europe". And on liberalism thus known, your opinion was false, however incompetent nimh and I might be about American libertarians. That said, "liberalism" as the Europeans use it today describes the same policies as "liberalism" as the Americans used it in the 19th century. (You can look this up in the Britannica if you don't believe me.) The meaning of the term shifted in the early 20th century -- which was the point of my remarking to blatham: "The enemies of Mill's liberalism have appropriated its name".
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Oct, 2006 04:36 pm
Setanta wrote:
Mill's notion of responsible and effective government exclude occupational health and safety legislation, minimum wage legislation, maximum hours legislation, workers compensation,

None of these are currently planks in the platform of the FDP, our (in the European sense) liberal party. I doubt they would play an important role in the Netherland's "Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie", Switzerland's "Freisinnig-Demokratische Partei", or comparable parties, all of which are considered 'liberal' throughout continental Europe. But I admit I haven't actually checked.

Setanta wrote:
aid to dependent children

... is a demand that Mill makes in chapter 5 in On Liberty -- at least for children whose parents cannot provide for those children by themselves. I'm sure you know that because, 'unlike nimh', you have read On Liberty.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Oct, 2006 06:06 pm
Thomas wrote:
Lash wrote:
Just stepped in to celebrate Wollstonecraft.

Nice to see her cited.

Nah, she just liberated people who don't really count. Ya know, women and stuff. <ducks behind the monitor>

I have come back to survey the carnage of Thomas' prior execution for his mean He Man Woman Haters statements to find him merrily unscathed!!

What the **** is with the women in this place anymore! Where is the tornado of swirling harpies that would fry his tenderloin for such an affront!!?

<broil>

<fume>

Very Happy

(I apologize for the diction. Reading too much Shakespeare...and watching too much South Park...)
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Oct, 2006 02:33 pm
Let's add to the confusion.

I know a French-Canadian, who, while working as a librarian in Montreal, read, "A Theory of Justice," by John Rawls and immediately thought, "This is the book of the 20th C." He returned to school to earn a doctorate in political philosophy and then did his post-doc at the London School of Economics and at HArvard under Rawls.

This man considers himself a libertarian. HE once said the oldest political question is who is more liberal, a liberal or a libertarian. I disagreed that libertarians are liberal and did not answer his (rhetorical) question.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:45 am
Quote:
Two ordered not to discuss Guantanamo claims
Paralegal, military attorney brought forward allegations of prisoner abuse

Updated: 4:33 a.m. ET Oct 15, 2006
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - A paralegal and a military lawyer who brought forward allegations about prisoner abuse at the Guantanamo Bay detention center have been ordered not to speak with the press, lawyers and a military spokeswoman said Saturday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15271493/
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 15 Oct, 2006 11:48 am
Quote:
In N.Y., Sparks Fly Over Israel Criticism
Polish Consulate Says Jewish Groups Called To Oppose Historian

By Michael Powell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 9, 2006; Page A03

NEW YORK -- Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate here last week, saying the academic was too critical of Israel and American Jewry.

The historian, Tony Judt, is Jewish and directs New York University's Remarque Institute, which promotes the study of Europe. Judt was scheduled to talk Oct. 4 to a nonprofit organization that rents space from the consulate. Judt's subject was the Israel lobby in the United States, and he planned to argue that this lobby has often stifled honest debate...

"The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure," Kasprzyk said. "That's obvious -- we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that."...

"This is serious and frightening, and only in America -- not in Israel -- is this a problem," he said. "These are Jewish organizations that believe they should keep people who disagree with them on the Middle East away from anyone who might listen."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/08/AR2006100800817.html



Quote:
http://www.observer.com/20061016/20061016_Suzy_Hansen_pageone_coverstory1.asp
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/13/2025 at 01:44:55