Paul, Carl, Jim C. and Daniel have valid perspectives, but I
want to add another angle:
in the history of political theory, a
"liberal" is someone who believes that there exists a "public interest"
(reflecting an underlying consensus), which differs from individual
interests or particular (or special) interests. The purpose of liberalism is
unite the various particularistic interests to attain the public good (serve the
public interest). There are different types of liberalism: _laissez-faire_ or
neo-liberals emphasize the role of the market (and business) over the state,
whereas new or New Deal liberals emphasize the need for a well-informed
technocratic state in order to attain an optimal private-public mix. The latter
are more likely to emphasize the need for a well-informed and active public
(voters).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://myweb.lmu.edu/jdevine
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf
Of Frank,
> Ellen
> Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 11:10 AM
>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L] Radical
Economics
>
>
> I write a Q&A column for Dollars and Sense
Magazine and the Q for the
> up-coming issue is ths: what's the
difference between a radical
> and liberal economist (or a progressive vs
liberal)? Naturally I have
> my own thoughts on this, but I'd love
to hear what pen-lers have to
> say.
> Ellen Frank
>
>
