I Want a New Name
Call it a midlife crisis, but I can tolerate the label “conservative” no longer. Can there possibly be a name that makes a person sound more boring? Certainly this is the work of our adversaries, in an attempt to make our ideas sound old, outdated, and irrelevant. When I hear the word “conservative,” I think of an old guy in a smoking jacket, having a scotch at “the club.” Now, I have nothing against a good single malt, but as for the rest, well...
I’m not sure how this happened. How did the people that are in favor of maximum liberty become “conservative?” How did the people that are in favor of maximum government become “liberal?”
It wasn’t always this way. Most Americans in 2008 don’t remember this, but it was not that long ago that the term “liberal” meant exactly the opposite of what it does today. Locke, Rousseau, and Hume are all considered fathers of the modern “liberal tradition.” Their work directly inspired our founding fathers, who were liberals one and all. As late as the 1940’s, F.A. Hayek was still referring to the concepts of laissez faire capitalism and individual liberty as “liberal.” Even today, Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines liberalism as,
“b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties”[1]
If that is what liberalism is, one only need look at the campaign platforms of Barack Obama and Ron Paul to see that we have become terribly confused. Somehow, less freedom has become “liberal” and more freedom has become “conservative.” What kind of Orwellian doublespeak is this? What’s next, “War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, and Ignorance is Strength?”[2]
Actually, over sixty years ago, Hayek warned us about the redefining of important words,
“The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they, or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. The people are made to transfer their allegiance from the old gods to the new under the pretence that the new gods really are what their sound instinct had always told them but what before they had only dimly seen. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.”[3]
Wow. That explains why every time I hear people say the word “liberal” in relation to politics, I feel like Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride. I want to say, “You keep on using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means.”
It’s time to start beating the pro-tyranny crowd at their own game. First, they changed the meaning of the word “liberal” to mean exactly the opposite of what it used to mean. The “classical liberals” became modern conservatives. If that weren’t bad enough, “conservative” has now been redefined as well. If you haven’t noticed, it doesn’t mean less government and more freedom anymore. We now have “neo-conservatives” that like big government just fine - complete with huge gains in entitlement spending, unnecessary warfare, corporate bailouts, and unmasked socialism. Neither “liberal” nor “conservative” have any liberty left in them. We need a new name.
I suggest that the freedom movement wage a little linguistic warfare itself. From now on, let us call ourselves “neo-liberals.” I know. Half of the people reading this just spit their cheerios all over their computer monitors. Lew Rockwell is organizing a posse. Even mild-mannered Ron Paul is warming up his left jab, unused along with his wrestling moves since 1952. I have to admit, the first time I said it, I had an attack of the heebie jeebies myself. However, it is not even a matter that “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”[4] It really is OUR name. It was simply stolen from us, like Charles Manson stole that song from the Beatles. Now, we’re stealing it back.
There is no reason why this couldn’t work. If we’ve learned anything, we’ve learned that if you say something over and over enough times, no matter how ridiculous it might be, you can get the majority of people to start believing it. This idea isn’t a bit ridiculous. We have to come to terms with the fact that, whatever we think conservatism means, the rest of America has moved on with the new “neo-conservative” definition. Conservative now means pre-emptive war, police-state security policies, record government spending, and corporate socialism. Liberal now means the politics of envy, higher taxes, record government spending, and democratic socialism. Liberty needs a new word, a word people under seventy can live with.
Neo-liberals. See? You’re getting used to it already.
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberalism (the first definition is omitted as it applies
to the word as defined when used in a religious context).
[2] Orwell, George 1984 © 1990 Penguin Books
[3] Hayek, F.A. The Road to Serfdom Routledge Classics 270 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Pg. 161
[4] Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1065 reads
****
What good is Freedom of the Press
If The Press will not Press for Freedom!
We have a name and it is I
As in Individual
Of course this dialogue inevitably smacks of Monty Python. The People's Front of Judea vs. the Judean People's Front. LOL!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Just another idea. The more confusing to the Campbell Brown's of the world, the better. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
The New Liberal Right actually sounds really good, but that only works as a third person reference. I find myself wondering if we are even on the right anymore, or if its even advisable to pigeon hole ourselves with the distinctions of our rivals.
if you claim to be on the right, then that puts you automatically at odds with anyone who considers themselves leftist. That kind of oppositional distinction prevents our message from reaching people across "conventional" party lines to the extent that it should.
Maybe we should try to exist beyond their spectrum, outside of their box.
Government has solved the age old dilemma of the alchemists. In order to turn lead into gold, just add blood.
What good is Freedom of the Press
If The Press will not Press for Freedom!
Well how about "Paleo Conservative"?
What's in a name?
Lovers of Liberty!
I say call yourself by any name you please, but keep up the work of fighting Tyranny, corruption, opprerssion and Lies.
Then I at least shall call you friend.
The thing about the term Conservative, is that it is it doesn't carry any beliefs or convictions with it, its an ambiguous term that just means you want things the way they are/were. Whatever that may be/have been. With no real definition behind the title, its no wonder the Neo Cons (a group with an oxymoron for a title) ripped the rug right out from under the the the old school Republicans.
throwing a prefix that means old in front of a word that simply means you dont want change or advocate cautious change, is just the same old bulls eye on our backs that the socialist democrats spent the last century shooting at.
i think we should look to advertisers for a cue as to what works and with what demographic, whatever it is though, i believe that it must carry with it passion and strong convictions.
Government has solved the age old dilemma of the alchemists. In order to turn lead into gold, just add blood.
Wow! You just gave me an idea. I will get back to you on that later in the week. I have a marketing firm president that I need to get a little tipsy. :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
LoL!!
Government has solved the age old dilemma of the alchemists. In order to turn lead into gold, just add blood.
Tom, I did some "research" (websearch) and NeoLiberal is used. according to wikipedia we are for the most part classified as neoliberal, but Neoliberalism is the name for a "school of economic thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal
"Neoliberalism and social liberalism are both alternative forms of liberalism but with different purposes. Social liberalism is defined by individual and social liberty, whereas neoliberalism is based on individual and economic liberty."-wikipedia
I spent some time with a dictionary and a thesaurus and a list of prefixes... as far as new goes it doesn't look too good.
We could always go with some thing like Dynamoliberal, it sounds pretty neat.
Government has solved the age old dilemma of the alchemists. In order to turn lead into gold, just add blood.
If I was naming a pet I would choose a name that suited the animal..
A soft and delicate anilmal I might call Cutio or Snuggles.
A dangerous roughian I might call Brutus or Tyson.
What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.
A Just and Enduring Government
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable — whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
The Complete Perversion of the Law
But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.
-Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850)
For atheists, substitute "from God" with "innate." :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Not 100% with the intent of that video in this thread, possibly an argument to continue with the Libertarian Title, but regardless. It was a good watch. Thanks for posting that.
I tend to go by my gut and my own logic on the issues, so all too often I neglect to pay heed to the scholars on the subject. I really gotta stop that. I'm off to find a recommended reading list!
If you put a noose around the neck of a neo con and put him up on a stool, he'll kick the stool out from under himself because "well for better or for worse I'm already here."
what about this statement from John Stuart Mill:
"The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise."
I realize he came after Locke, etc... but it seems to me that when it comes to individual liberty and the limits of the State over the individual to do as he please (even if his decision could be bad for him personally) this is pretty much the standard libertarian response. Of course, to be more precise, the classical liberals didn't have laws against most or any drugs (no FDA or its equivalent as far as i am aware) and prostitution may have been considered morally wrong (especially for married men), but was practiced in all the major city's throughout the known world. Back then of course visiting a prostitute was much riskier - as medicine was not that advanced, venereal diseases rampant, and "protection" (condoms) pretty much non-existent or shoddy at best.
I'm not really sure what your statement was in response to. Ya lost me. LoL Sorry but, I'm gonna have to ask you to be a bit more specific and obvious regarding the intent of your post.
If you put a noose around the neck of a neo con and put him up on a stool, he'll kick the stool out from under himself because "well for better or for worse I'm already here."
"Alan Ryan, a former professor of Politics at Princeton University, argues that the claim from
contemporary libertarians...that they are classical liberals...is not wholly true. There is at least one strain of libertarian thought represented by Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia that advocates the decriminalization of 'victimless crimes' such as prostitution, drug-taking and unorthodox sexual activities. There is nothing of that in John Locke or Adam Smith.[19]
Having written nothing regarding these subjects, however, does not negate that there may have been support, or that prostitution and illegal narcotics were already legal (or not legally enforced).
I should have stated more - - I assume that John Stuart Mill got his notions of the limits on State power over the individual from the "classic liberal" tradition. But here people are saying that that tradition is not compatible with libertarianism. Or there is some conflict. If there be such a conflict, it can be overcome and the positions of Adam Smith et al can be reconciled with those of people like Mill on personal freedom and limits of state power vis a vis the individual.
It really does not matter in the end (on a thread about a new name) - so feel free to not respond. I realize you were quoting someone else in that portion.
I"m not sure if I am out of sequence, but your above quote from On Liberty certainly indicates that Mill would support decriminilization of victimless crimes, and I also believe that those Libertarian positions are implicit in Locke, if not explicit.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
there are many types of Libertarianism, and some are far away from Classical Liberalism, and some are indeed Classical Liberalism. Its just a matter of where each individual stands on the spectrum.
If you put a noose around the neck of a neo con and put him up on a stool, he'll kick the stool out from under himself because "well for better or for worse I'm already here."
A Fatal Tendency of Mankind
Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies. This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man — in that primitive, universal, and insuppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.
Property and Plunder
Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.
But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.
Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.
When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.
It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.
This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.
- Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1850)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Again, right, right, right.
Right on taking it too seriously. You do. So do I. It is not a bad thing. I think that you and I both care deeply about truth and freedom and, at least speaking for myself, I find that sometimes I take it all so seriously that, while I may be right, I do not endear myself to those I am trying to convince. In addition, my desire to have the debate decided by reason is always frustrated when our adversaries "frame the debate," as you correctly pointed out, blurring the definitions and introducing abitrary assumptions upon which the debate must rest.
Liberty is the natural result of Reason. It is the only system that can win at the end of a reasonable debate. The only way it can be defeated is if its opponent is able to depart from reason and get away with it in the court of public opinion. The opponents of Liberty do so all of the time, using techniques like this one you have pointed out. They watch us writhe and turn red in the face because we know they are wrong (and deep down, they know it too) but their desire to win overcomes their desire for justice, and unfortunately their techniques work.
I say, let's turn those weapons around on them. Let's start framing the debate ourselves. If nothing else, it at least neutralizes the battlefield of ideas and gives Reason a chance to compete. Let's watch them writhe in frustration for a change. Let's have a hearty LAUGH about it. Wouldn't that be better than being right and angry for a change?
Reason is on our side. In the end, we are smarter. We can frame the debate better than they can.
That's kind of where I'm going with all of this. I'm not married to the idea of calling ourselves "Neo-Liberals," but I really like it. I think it gets us covered by the media just because it sounds new. THen, we get more coverage when the Ted Kennedys and Nancy Pelosi's of the world come out and try to say that we're not really Liberals. Then, we confuse them with confusion and watch them rant and rave. For a change, they look like the angry idealists and we are the cool, calm "friends of the people" that just want to "try something new."
Great posts, by the way. I wish all of the debates on this site could sound more like this.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
I believe we have reached consensus.
the only thing left to discuss, in my opinion, is the morality of using the manipulative and mentally subversive techniques they use against us, in our own defense. What they are doing is just short of brainwashing, and I believe to a movement that prides itself on truth and accountability, embracing their techniques would be hypocrisy.
Doesn't this equate to the seductive powers of the darkside??
If you put a noose around the neck of a neo con and put him up on a stool, he'll kick the stool out from under himself because "well for better or for worse I'm already here."
Damn you! :)
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
I'm full of them Tom!
Government has solved the age old dilemma of the alchemists. In order to turn lead into gold, just add blood.
I usually tell people I am for small government or limited government, or that I am a libertarian. I think it's honest and accurate-- do these terms have negative connotations?
How about "small-government liberal"? Sounds cute and humble...
Of course, Gail and Revolution Man are correct, that is what we are (this is actually a recognized term for our political philosophy). Revolution Man says, "Neo Liberal (no offense) sounds like a cheap uninventive rip off of the title Neo Conservative."
You bet! Exactly! LOL! I say we get our hands dirty (without compromising principles or matters of substance). As far as the spin game goes, Neo-Liberal would be so much more fun. The Liberals would never see us coming. Pretty soon THEY would be arguing for free markets and an end to the welfare state. The Neo-Cons would be trying to smear us, saying "you're not even true liberals," and we'd just keep saying, "yes we are, just look it up in the dictionary" while secretly we'd be laughing our a**es off and saying "how do YOU like it for a change?"
The other point I would make is that "classical" inevitably is associated with "old" while "neo" literally means "new." I'd rather be the "New Liberals" than the "Old Liberals." That could be another part of the joke that's on them - we're calling ourselves the New Liberals when, in fact, our ideas are actually those of the original (old) Liberals.
Let's screw around with them. I want to see Nancy Pelosi turn three shades of red trying to argue that we're not liberals. So much more fun!
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
Maybe its just me, but when i hear the world Classic, or Classical, old, is not what comes to mind. What comes to mind is tasteful and refined. Classic is something that may be old but stands the test of time. We might lose ground with the more "simple" elements, but we'll score big points with intellectuals, and educators with the word Classic.
1. of the first or highest quality, class, or rank: a classic piece of work.
2. serving as a standard, model, or guide: the classic method of teaching arithmetic.
3. of or pertaining to Greek and Roman antiquity, esp. with reference to literature and art.
4. modeled upon or imitating the style or thought of ancient Greece and Rome: The 17th and 18th centuries were obsessed with classic ideals.
5. of or adhering to an established set of artistic or scientific standards or methods: a classic example of mid-Victorian architecture.
6. basic; fundamental: the classic rules of warfare.
7. of enduring interest, quality, or style: a classic design; classic clothes.
8. of literary or historical renown: the classic haunts of famous writers.
9. traditional or typical: a classic comedy routine.
10. definitive: the classic reference work on ornithology.
11. of or pertaining to automobiles distinguished by elegant styling, outstanding engineering, and fine workmanship that were built between about 1925 and 1948.
We'll have the same effect on the liberals either way and we've already got a solid WTF Factor among the Neo Cons.
Heres an interesting bit from the Classical Liberalism wikipedia article.
"Classical liberalism" and libertarianism
Raimondo Cubeddu of the Department of Political Science of the University of Pisa says "It is often difficult to distinguish between 'Libertarianism' and 'Classical Liberalism'. Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by those who we may call libertarians of a 'minarchist' persuasion: scholars who, following Locke and Nozick, believe a State is needed in order to achieve effective protection of property rights".[56] Libertarians see themselves as sharing many philosophical, political, and economic undertones with classical liberalism, such as the ideas of laissez-faire government, free markets, and individual freedom. Nevertheless, others reject this as a mere "superficial" resemblance:
Libertarianism's resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power, to be impartially exercised for the common good.[57]
Those who emphasize the distinction between classical liberalism and libertarianism point out that some of the key thinkers of classical liberalism were far from libertarian:
Adam Smith should be seen as a moderate free enterpriser who appreciated markets but made many, many exceptions. He allowed government all over the place.[58]
For example, Adam Smith supports public roads, canals, schools and bridges. However, he favored that these goods should be paid proportionally to their consumption (e.g. putting a toll).[59]
In the Mid 1800s, Abraham Lincoln followed the Whig version of economic liberalism, which included state provision and regulation of railroads. The Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 provided the development of the First Transcontinental Railroad.[60]
However, such a claim appears to be assuming "libertarianism" as a doctrine of absolute laissez-faire. While there are libertarians who oppose all government intervention, there are libertarians who do make exceptions to allow for government intervention and provision of some public goods such as roads and public utilities. Therefore the claim that libertarianism is not the same as classical liberalism because some classical liberals make exceptions to absolute laissez-faire may only hold for a particular type of libertarianism.[original research?]
Further, some argue that libertarianism and liberalism are fundamentally incompatible because the checks and balances provided by liberal institutions conflict with the support for complete economic deregulation offered by most libertarians.[61] However, arguments over the similarities are made difficult by the large number of factions in both classical liberalism and libertarianism. For example, minarchist libertarians are not necessarily in favor of complete economic deregulation in the first place and often support tax-funded provision of a select few public goods.
Alan Ryan, a former professor of Politics at Princeton University, argues that the claim from
contemporary libertarians...that they are classical liberals...is not wholly true. There is at least one strain of libertarian thought represented by Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia that advocates the decriminalization of 'victimless crimes' such as prostitution, drug-taking and unorthodox sexual activities. There is nothing of that in John Locke or Adam Smith.[19]
Having written nothing regarding these subjects, however, does not negate that there may have been support, or that prostitution and illegal narcotics were already legal (or not legally enforced)
If you put a noose around the neck of a neo con and put him up on a stool, he'll kick the stool out from under himself because "well for better or for worse I'm already here."
Everything you say is correct. However, if all we get are the intellectuals, we won't win any elections. That is not a slam against "the masses." It is just reality. I also have the same feelings about "classical" as you. I recognize that something is neither good nor bad just because it is old, and "change" is not good in and of itself, just because it is change. THe important question to ask is "from what to what?"
However, the great majority of people are excited about something if they believe it is new. This can be the good natured joke we play on everyone. Our "new" philosophy will be nothing more than Classical Liberalism. The "intellectuals" on the other side will try to point out that there is nothing new about our platform, but like the intellectuals in any movement, they are the minority. We will just keep saying "Neo-Liberals" until their "intellectuals" (yes, I have to put it in quotes) are surrounded by people talking what they believe is nonsense, just as we feel we are surrounded today. We can watch them pleading with their followers that they are adopting the ideas of "the enemy" without realizing it and turn red in the face trying to shout over the crowd.
Wouldn't it be fun?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear."
-Thomas Jefferson
I think I maybe just take this all a little too seriously to agree with you, but i really don't see the productive value in arguing further, so instead here is some info on what i believe your talking about.
Have you ever read anything on framing?? if not you might want to study up on it a bit more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)#cite_note-0
truthfully anyone reading this should, understanding framing, and learning how to wield it as a weapon in your rhetoric, is highly advantageous. Whether its for spreading the ideals of Classical/Neo Liberalism or if your just trying to bid for the window seat the next time you travel.
if your interested in learning more about the application of framing, check out http://www.scribd.com/doc/2993155/Michael-Hall-Frame-Games
If you put a noose around the neck of a neo con and put him up on a stool, he'll kick the stool out from under himself because "well for better or for worse I'm already here."
I like Classical Liberal, it gives us an air of ethos, and intellect. It hitches our train to the long line of great thinkers that preceded this movement.
Neo Liberal (no offense) sounds like a cheap uninventive rip off of the title Neo Conservative. I wouldn't feel comfortable being part of the group that stole an idea from the Neo Conservatives. Nor do I want to be associated too strongly with todays "Liberals". I think Classical Liberal provides enough distinction from modern Liberals, to be effective. Plus the meaning of the phrase Classic Liberal is all but lost in the media vernacular, we we can pretty much put whatever spin on it we want. Theres no connotation attached yet, good or bad. Whereas the words Neo Con and Liberal, each have their negative connotations depending on which station your tuned to.
I think we have a real chance to get over the hump with the title Classical Liberal.
Above all else this is our chance to rise above simply being "Ron Paul supporters". A title they have given us that has come to imply in many an American household that we are cultist loonys.
Dr Paul is great and all but like he said this is our revolution, and we really really need to separate ourselves from him, especially after this Fall.
If you put a noose around the neck of a neo con and put him up on a stool, he'll kick the stool out from under himself because "well for better or for worse I'm already here."
"Tom and Scott, do you think that people are basically well meaning and that they would support free markets if they could be convinced that freedom is the way to prosperity, or do you think there is a dark side to socialists (and anyone else who is non-libertarian) that compels them to want to control other people for selfish reasons, and that they would support socialism even if they knew it made people's lives worse?"
I've been looking at evolutionary psychology lately, as a personal interest, and I think it plays into the objections people have with Libertarianism.
We are not individuals. We are collective mammals, who have individual thoughts.
Just as morality is intrinsic, collectivism is also innate.
You can't remove the breeding and the culturization.
We ARE collective mammals, and our instincts are collectivist in nature.
Religion doesn't flourish because it is right, it flourishes because it grants group cohesion, which includes thought cohesion.
The impulse to operate collectively is strong in us. You cannot deny that impulse or you deny our humanity.