As discussed here many times, there is no commonality between classic liberalism and neo-liberalism, apart from the co-opted language used by modern neo-liberal oligarchs. So lets touch on a couple points here.
The Free Press- Liberalism is inherently anti-state. Really, it is more aligned with the anarchists view that any concentration of power is suspect. In this case, our countries belief in a free press was designed to serve as an additional check on centralized authority. Thus you can see the inherent problem with corporate media. It is controlled by the very forces it was designed to be suspicious of, and it serves as a mouthpiece for central government authority. Therefore, ALL free media is INHERENTLY liberal.
In regards to demarcation between liberalism and neo-liberalism, corporate media offers a great example. Corporate media uses the language, and constructs of a free press, but it isn't a free press at all. But the average person assumes the news is the news, when in fact it is tightly controlled corporate disseminated government propaganda.
Socially Liberal- Liberalism recognizes the inherent duality of government- that it has a responsibility to represent the will of the people, and that the trade off is a small amount of individual loss of freedom. A government, if it is truly by and for the people, is not necessarily a centralized power threat IF it is truly a representative of the people's will. If the people collectively decide xyz, then xyz is a self-determined direction en masse. Often social conservatives strive for the same governmental reach, just in different quadrants (people's bedrooms rather than welfare), regardless, such organized power, if truly representative of democratic mechanism, is thus the will of the people, whether than will is socially conservative, or "liberal" in nature.
Unfortunately today, the political machine of America is disproportionately focused (usually to distract the masses) in this arena, yet these are some of the least politically salient topics. The grayness of this area tends to leave it so wide open, yet contain any topic within dualities, that it is the perfect area for the PERCEPTION of political choice to be fostered. So instead of open debate of actual ideas, you have a tightly controlled illusion of "political beliefs" which are generally constrained to simplistic dualities and binaries. Thus the illusion of opinion and choice is most often fostered here.
Liberalism in Economics- First and foremost the liberal recognizes that economic markets are not, nor have they ever been, inherently free. In order for markets to be free, they have to be regulated to be as such. The idea that unregulated market systems will simply self-regulate is a gross misunderstanding of free market philosophy. There is no historical precedence for free market systems to exist on their own, exist in balance and self-regulating ways without some form of centralized regulating structure. If there are to be free markets, there must by default be central regulation, and government control. However, this is not a PROBLEM IF 2 CONDITIONS ARE MET- 1. YOU HAVE INFORMED CONSUMERS MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN INTERESTS. 2.THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS COMPOSED OF, BEHOLDEN TO, AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Obviously we are nowhere near this in this country.
Liberalism and Socialism- Are not inherently opposed, as the tenets of ACTUAL socialism, where labor has control of the means of production and directly profits from them, and the belief in personal freedoms, and the resistance to centralized authority in liberalism extends both to private and public sectors.Most people have no idea what liberalism or socialism actually mean, and thus, these terms have been widely co-opted and basically robbed of their real meaning. The contention really lies in what we mean by "private property". Is a laborers ownership of his craft, the tools of his craft, the distribution and sale of his craft considered "private"? If he collaborates with other laborers in the same craft, to combine production, is it still private? If all the laborers of a particular craft collectively own the production means and split the fruits equally, is it still private? It is private in the sense of ownership, private in the sense of lacking central governmental control over the production and distribution. And it is aligned with the individual laborers right to join forces, or not join forces with other laborers in collectivist enterprise. I recommend Mises on the topic of liberalism, and Chomsky on the topic of socialism. I also recommend, in true liberal tradition, that you decide where the demarcation between socialization and private property is for yourself.
The Free Press- Liberalism is inherently anti-state. Really, it is more aligned with the anarchists view that any concentration of power is suspect. In this case, our countries belief in a free press was designed to serve as an additional check on centralized authority. Thus you can see the inherent problem with corporate media. It is controlled by the very forces it was designed to be suspicious of, and it serves as a mouthpiece for central government authority. Therefore, ALL free media is INHERENTLY liberal.
In regards to demarcation between liberalism and neo-liberalism, corporate media offers a great example. Corporate media uses the language, and constructs of a free press, but it isn't a free press at all. But the average person assumes the news is the news, when in fact it is tightly controlled corporate disseminated government propaganda.
Socially Liberal- Liberalism recognizes the inherent duality of government- that it has a responsibility to represent the will of the people, and that the trade off is a small amount of individual loss of freedom. A government, if it is truly by and for the people, is not necessarily a centralized power threat IF it is truly a representative of the people's will. If the people collectively decide xyz, then xyz is a self-determined direction en masse. Often social conservatives strive for the same governmental reach, just in different quadrants (people's bedrooms rather than welfare), regardless, such organized power, if truly representative of democratic mechanism, is thus the will of the people, whether than will is socially conservative, or "liberal" in nature.
Unfortunately today, the political machine of America is disproportionately focused (usually to distract the masses) in this arena, yet these are some of the least politically salient topics. The grayness of this area tends to leave it so wide open, yet contain any topic within dualities, that it is the perfect area for the PERCEPTION of political choice to be fostered. So instead of open debate of actual ideas, you have a tightly controlled illusion of "political beliefs" which are generally constrained to simplistic dualities and binaries. Thus the illusion of opinion and choice is most often fostered here.
Liberalism in Economics- First and foremost the liberal recognizes that economic markets are not, nor have they ever been, inherently free. In order for markets to be free, they have to be regulated to be as such. The idea that unregulated market systems will simply self-regulate is a gross misunderstanding of free market philosophy. There is no historical precedence for free market systems to exist on their own, exist in balance and self-regulating ways without some form of centralized regulating structure. If there are to be free markets, there must by default be central regulation, and government control. However, this is not a PROBLEM IF 2 CONDITIONS ARE MET- 1. YOU HAVE INFORMED CONSUMERS MAKING RATIONAL DECISIONS BASED ON THEIR OWN INTERESTS. 2.THE GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS COMPOSED OF, BEHOLDEN TO, AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. Obviously we are nowhere near this in this country.
Liberalism and Socialism- Are not inherently opposed, as the tenets of ACTUAL socialism, where labor has control of the means of production and directly profits from them, and the belief in personal freedoms, and the resistance to centralized authority in liberalism extends both to private and public sectors.Most people have no idea what liberalism or socialism actually mean, and thus, these terms have been widely co-opted and basically robbed of their real meaning. The contention really lies in what we mean by "private property". Is a laborers ownership of his craft, the tools of his craft, the distribution and sale of his craft considered "private"? If he collaborates with other laborers in the same craft, to combine production, is it still private? If all the laborers of a particular craft collectively own the production means and split the fruits equally, is it still private? It is private in the sense of ownership, private in the sense of lacking central governmental control over the production and distribution. And it is aligned with the individual laborers right to join forces, or not join forces with other laborers in collectivist enterprise. I recommend Mises on the topic of liberalism, and Chomsky on the topic of socialism. I also recommend, in true liberal tradition, that you decide where the demarcation between socialization and private property is for yourself.
