I think in all fairness that the mixture of people with differing ideologies
among the Progressives (or New Liberals as they were called in Britain)
shifted substantially over the period from 1890 to 1940 from primarily
libertarianish to primarily statist, and that the shift followed a fairly st
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Post-modern liberalism didn't spring full-blown into being like Athena from
the forehead of Zeus. It evolved rather over time from classical
liberalism
through several fairly-distinct phases.
You're right on this. But it might be more accurate to say that at any
given t
Post-modern liberalism didn't spring full-blown into being like Athena from
the forehead of Zeus. It evolved rather over time from classical liberalism
through several fairly-distinct phases.
In the earliest stages of "progressivism" people still by and large believed
in free markets and priva
From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Carson wrote:
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves to
cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the larg
Kevin Carson wrote:
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves
to cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the large
corporations effectively function as
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves to
cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the large
corporations effectively function as a state-enforced carte
t corporations. And a
lot of big business propagandists like to howl about how "anti-business"
forces have won consistently. But in fact, it is a case of Brer Rabbit
hollering "Please don't fling me in that briar patch!"
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTE
in benefit) and second pillars.
A full second pillar includes forced savings, which becomes the property
of the individual. And a third, IRA type optional pillar, which would
reduce the basic benefits in some 1:2 proportion.
Tom
>>> Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
Than
Thanks for the clarification Tom. I do agree that government money, as it
predates socialism, probably doesn't rightly fall under the category of
socialism. I wonder though if most folks would agree that social security is
socialism. Americans don't like to admit that they like socialism. and
ainly oppose forcing the poor to
save or subsidize the rich!
Tom
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 17 June, 2003 12:43 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under Nixon
>
>
> I would agree that not e
I would agree that not every government infringement of liberty warrants the
label "socialist," although on a larger level a rose by any other name still
has thorns. It's ironic, however, that Tom chose "pension reform" as an
example to illustrate the point that not all government infringement
> --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Americans don't like to support something called "socialism," but
> > they often support socialism by some other name.
> > David
>
> All but a very few Americans, including economists, are in favor of
> socialized money. That is the most pervasive socialist
> p
In a message dated 6/16/03 10:20:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Americans don't like to support something called "socialism," but
>> they often support socialism by some other name.
>> David
>
>All but a very few Americans, including economists, are in favor of
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Americans don't like to support something called "socialism," but
> they often support socialism by some other name.
> David
All but a very few Americans, including economists, are in favor of
socialized money. That is the most pervasive socialist program in the USA
I tend to agree with Marc, but it's worth note that while no avowed socialist
has ever gotten into the double-digits (Eugene V. Debs peaked at 6% in 1912),
the Democratic Party has enacted virtually every plank in the 1928 Socialist
Party platform, and the Republicans have come to accept virtual
TED]
>cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: Wage-Price Controls Under
Nixon
[EMAIL PRO
"Well, the average American is not so pro-freedom as, say, Walter Williams,
but considerably more so than the average Frenchman or German."
Really? How do you measure this?
The remarkable fact is that it is apparently perfectly legal for the government in the United States to control the price
Well, the average American is not so pro-freedom as, say, Walter Williams,
but considerably more so than the average Frenchman or German. So it's all
relative.
By the way, contrary to Kinsley's assertion, wage and price controls were
not merely a "cynical re-election ploy." There was a real
18 matches
Mail list logo
