I think a private version of Youtube would partially solve the commons problem YT currently has.
When technology catches up to make such an operation comparatively cheap for hundreds of Youtube-hydras to pop-up, I will leave YT behind in the dust.
The idea of an “Austrotube”, “Misestube”, “Ludwigtube” (okay these are clunky portmanteau’s…), and not merley specific channels on YT, gives me a bit of hope.
I came across this post whilst looking for material on Ron Paul and neoliberalism.
I don’t feel any of the answers given actually address what it is that excludes Ron Paul from the definition of neo-liberal, even though it seems taken to be the case.
So, might someone like to make a proper case as to why Ron Paul is not a neo-liberal? What are the genuine differences between Paul and neo-liberalism?
From my perspective the difference is minimal - they’re strands of the same school. To any non-expert this is a reasonable, if not entirely accurate picture. Isn’t it? If not, why not?
TIA
Perhaps you could tell us how you define neoliberalism first, so that we don’t talk past each other.
Using what it is generally understood as neo-liberal:
Neo- liberals support government intervention in the market. Ron Paul opposes it.
Neo-liberals support paper money and a central bank. Ron Paul opposes both.
Just a simple example.
The problem is that marxists call neo-liberal anything that is not near marxism, therefore debates including the world neo-liberal are generally pollitically charged and with no real substance. Neo-liberal tends to mean nothing concrete. You could try defining what is a neo-liberal for you.
I acutally don’t mind the term “neoliberal” per se; I would have liked to recapture the term liberal from its socialist thieves. Of course, as has been emphasized by others, leftists usually bandy “neoliberalism” about when actually referring to corporatism and other corruptions of capitalism.
No, actually leftists refer to unregulated free markets. They’re really not that progressive enough to distinguish between corporatism and free markets.
Why would you call Obama a communist, unless it was hyperbole?
The incorporative process (or corporatism* as it was originally called) is one that precedes communism - a process by which all existing institutions (schools, utitlities,.etc) are to be brought within the arm’s reach of a newly formed central authority.
Corporatism is much older, going back to the days of Republic of Florence, and it is basically the modern state doing what it has always done - changing the rules of playing field for its own reasons. de Medici was not a communist - he was a businessman who used force of his own created police authority to keep other businesses within his indirect control and have him calling the shots.
de Medici and Obama are no more communists than the Bishop of Canterbury is a closet druid.
If libertarians call Obama a communist, they shouldn’t be surprised with Facebook crowd calling them evil fascist neoliberals.
DD5, that was my point: they mistake “free market” for the uncapitalism we now endure.
thanks
Seems to me that the definition is accepted to be pretty fuzzy, although (here) only the left is criticised for the fuzziness.
My understanding is that it’s a self-proclaimed new liberalism in government/states which came to the fore following the stagflation of the 70s which brought to an end (in UK at least) the post-war consensus. The vanguard in UK was Thatcher (Keith Joseph in particular, and Brian? Walters) and in USA Reagan and …was it Schiff? The emphasis was monetarism, small-government, balanced budgets, the end of welfarism, ‘no such thing as society’, etc. An effort to return company profitability which had been declining, an effort to reduce labour power, privatisation, reduction of entitlements, tax-cuts, economic policy decided by interest rates based on money supply (M0, M3, M3 etc all of which failed as guides as it happens, supply-side ‘reform’, etc.
Also, S American intervention by USA and the Chicago Boys in Chile - which was used as an example of success for such policies in developing nations.
Somewhat crude perhaps, but there’s a clear difference between post-war consensus and 19080s onwards - in USA that means Reagan, Bush - in UK Thatcher + Major. Even as public hostility built, the ‘left’ response was Tony Blair and his emasculation of traditional leftwing program in a successful attempt to get elected, and somewhat similarly Clinton in USA. Both Clinton and Blair stand for the left’s acceptance and adoption of much of the new right’s program (expediency to get elected?)
Whilst actual ‘existing neo-liberalism’ might not yet perfectly fulfil the theoretical purity and scope of neo-liberalism, it provided the intent and motor. And I’m sure there are many disagreements amongst right factions that my description elides, but the general thrust is as described, imo.
Ron Paul is thus part of a more extreme and ‘pure’ neo-liberalism - he’s even more ideological than most: gold standard, privatisation of everything, competing currency etc - the complete marketisation of everything and aggressive hostility to any welfarism / socialism (which has contributed to such silliness as americans believing Obama is ‘a commie’ and the conspiracists view of the American government as either socialist or even fascist. Paul’s dalliance with conspiracist loons like Alex Jones don’t help either…)
I don’t think Paul has aggressive hostility to welfare/socialism. And has said that Obama is not a socialist, but a corporatist.
The myth of ‘hostility towards welfare/socialism’ is the one that tries to make Libertarianism seem like it is based on specific goals; namely ones that will make people uneasy about Libertarians. It’s an appeal to prejudice. Rather than the overarching opposition either to the expedience of the state in its entirety or to its immorality as an ‘aggressive force’ (which is more than hostility, but guns pointed at people’s heads).
It’s like when creationists say that evolutionists are anti-God or anti-prayer. Or if New Agers say mainstream scientists are anti-alternative medicine. So people say 'Oh noes, these people are going to crucify us. Or they hate us!" Rather than actually look at the philosophy itself.
Does this not contradict much of what you wrote? It seems like you’re trying to make Paul fit the neoliberal label, instead of allowing Paul’s positions to speak for themselves. Calling it “more extreme” and “pure” makes little sense, for how is the gold standard/competing currencies the more extreme or pure application of monetarism? And notice there is nothing in your description about cutting government spending, which Paul believes is as important as cutting government revenue, and which both Reagan and Bush completely ignored?
The few times I’ve heard the word, it’s always been used derogatively and as a reference to Thatcher’s various policies (American liberals aren’t extremely keen calling it neoliberalism, so it makes sense it’s used closer to Europe). It is my experience as well that it often refers to the public-private partnerships version of “privatization,” which Paul and many of us here do not advocate. It is described as an ideology obsessed with money profits, which is also unfair to Paul.
Well, neo-liberalism is originated at the beggining of the XIX century and originally tried to be a third way between the classic liberals (free market) and the central planning socialist (communism, national socialism), but with a market driven rethoric, for example, they were for government intervention but to keep the market safe and fair, etc… (this is obviously bullshit). So it was kind of a right-wing social-democratic ideology. During the 70’s the marxists (not all the left) highjacked the term and used it to describe the supply-siders, the policies that were used during the Reagan era. So in reality neo-liberalism can mean a lot of things. You are refereing to the marxists use of neo-liberalism.
The problem with your analisis of Paul and neo-liberalism is that you are constrained in your left-right vision. So you see Paul as more right-wing, therefore “more neo-liberal”. But Ron Paul is for drug legalization, he has said gay people can marry and call it how they want, he wants to end the central bank, he wants to end corporate subsidies, etc… How is this more right-wing or neo-liberal? Its not, and it is because Ron Paul is a libertarian.
Neo-liberalism, even in the marxists conception, is a form of right-wing social-democratic ideology, socially conservative and economically a mix of monetarism and keynesianism, and that is completely opposed to libertarianism.
PS: Btw, gold standard and competing currencies is incompatible. Its one or the other.
The myth of ‘hostility towards welfare/socialism’ is the one that tries to make Libertarianism seem like it is based on specific goals; namely ones that will make people uneasy about Libertarians.
Well, it can certainly make me uneasy. And I can’t say I can agree it is just a myth because I’ve met plenty of such (self-styled) libertarians on the 'net.
Are you saying that many of the pro-Miseian and anti-socialist comments here are not by libertarians? Or that the libertarians elsewhere are not really libertarians? I consider myself libertarian by instinct and a lot of so-called libertarians scare the hell out of me. Easy to say “I stand for liberty!” isn’t it? Kings and despots have a lot of liberty.
I don’t think Paul has aggressive hostility to welfare/socialism.
You’re kidding? Is it the word ‘aggressive’ you dispute, or the hostility? I think he’s completely opposed to it - absolutely and totally. Maybe aggressive isn’t the right word, but hostility surely is?
I just came across this whilst looking for an example of Paul’s hostility to socialism: it doesn’t fit the bill but it says something else quite interesting:
“In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.
“He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”
I thought that was what Ron Paul wanted - for corporations to take over and run the country.
[presumably this quote is what you were referencing? fancy that! I was looking for something else but found what you were on about. ;)]
Still, isn’t that what Ron Paul wants? Private corporations running the show? What does he want if not that? It’s always seemed he’s confused on this with his hostility (!) to the private federal reserve. Apparently the bankers can’t run a central bank properly but they can run your schools and hospitals. hmmm. lol
I think it’s fair to categorize Hayek as a Neoliberal/Ordoliberal. Certainly not Mises or Rand, though.
So in reality neo-liberalism can mean a lot of things. You are refereing to the marxists use of neo-liberalism.
That makes sense as it’s doubtless where I have acquired most of my conceptions. 
Thanks for the elucidation. Neo-liberalism as a third way in late 19C. I see.
And this place’s position (and Ron Paul’s?) is more strictly classical liberalism? Is that right?
In that sense, the British post-war consensus was neo-liberal? And the Thatcher ‘revolution’ was just a turn towards a more classical liberalism? [the terms are just too crude? still, there must be a way through it]
you are constrained in your left-right vision. So you see Paul as more right-wing, therefore “more neo-liberal”. But Ron Paul is for drug legalization, he has said gay people can marry and call it how they want, he wants to end the central bank, he wants to end corporate subsidies, etc… How is this more right-wing or neo-liberal? Its not, and it is because Ron Paul is a libertarian.
lot of stuff in there.
Sure, I am ‘constrained’ by left-right. But do I see RP as more rightwing therefore more neo-liberal? Hmmm. Good for Paul that’s he’s for drug legalisation, that he’s hip for gay marriage. He wants to end a private for-profit central-bank but wants the same people to run hospitals and schools instead. Odd. He wants to end corporate subsidies? And abolish taxation of them too! See, at one point you’re saying he’s anti-corporate and the next he’s pro-corporate. Corporations can provide charity and welfare but somehow they can’t run a central bank. I just don’t understand.
Neo-liberalism, even in the marxists conception, is a form of right-wing social-democratic ideology, socially conservative and economically a mix of monetarism and keynesianism, and that is completely opposed to libertarianism.
How is it completely opposed to libertarianism? [and how does libertarianism connect with Mises? they’re not one and the same, are they?]
Isn’t RP a social conservative? I don’t imagine it’s hard to make such an argument.
Might I trouble you for some names of those 19C neo-libs?
On gold standard vs competing currencies, I meant to suggest Paul agitates for them both.
Let’s Legalize Competing Currencies
by Ron Paul
Whilst elsewhere we have Paul writing :
By Rep Ron Paul
2-9-7
|
|---|
He has called this “going forward to a new gold standard” to make it clear that this is not the same thing as going “back to the gold standard.”
So, he wants gold and silver legalised as tender, along with lolly sticks or cat ears or anything at all - not a gold standard (even though that’s what Lew Rockwell of Mises Institute had argued for in the article Paul introduced to the record?)
its the way political scientist etc (any economic illiterate person really) refers to the ‘free’ trade, ‘deregulation’ that we had since the 80’s
Libertarianism’s main influence is classic liberalism, although you can say its a improvement or derivation.
British post-war consensus is keynesian. Think IMF, Bretton Woods, etc…
Thatcher ‘revolution’ was what marxist consider neo-liberalism. One of the main influences of neo-liberalism is supposed to be Milton Friedman, although you could include the social-democratic part of Hayek ideas.
The central banks are always a government creation. For example the ECB is not only a government creation but government owned. In the USA, the case you are refering, the Fed is a government created and regulated entity. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve (Bernanke and the rest of the gang) is nominated by the President and ratified by Congress. Sure, the local Feds have stocks and are owned by private banks, but its not much of a real market since they have no say in the important decission or they can not sell stocks. If the Federal Reserve was like the ECB nothing would change, since the people calling the important decissions are already nominated by president and ratified by congress. Saying that the Federal Reserve is private or a market entity is like saying Freddie and Fannie are private. They are “private” government controlled entities.
You look intelligent enough to understand the issues, and not repeat stupid talking points. Actually, its funny, because the central bank is a mercantilist institution that socialist have always supported. Opposition to the central bank has always come from the classic liberal side. Karl Marx in his Comunist Manifesto demanded a central bank. The fabian socialist have always demanded a central bank as a key point. But somehow the socialist always try to paint the central bank as a non-socialist institution. Its dishonest.
You certainly dont understand. Corporations dont run a central bank. The central bank is always a government controlled entity. The government, using violence, imposes a monopoly on money on the people, and then gives the management of the money monopoly to the central bank. If the government decides to create a entity with private status but still controlled by it to manage the money monopoly is still a government intervention, not a market creation. There can be no central bank in a free market.
Discussing about taxation with you would be too long. At least get the facts about the central banks right so you know who to blaim.
Also, corporations are a charter of government.
Libertarianism opposes social-democracy. Small government libertarians support a republic, and anarchist-libertarians support anarchy (obviously).
Ludwig Von Mises is one of the main influences of libertarian though specially on economics. If you are thinking that Von Mises is a neo-liberal you are completely wrong.
No he is not.
Did I say XIX century? Sorry, its XX century. If I recall correctly the term was born arround 1920’s or 1930’s in Germany.
You have to think that for the majority of libertarians the right-wign social-democracy and left-wing social-democracy are two different sides of the same evil. I dont see much difference at the end between them. For me, neoliberalism is more a propaganda thing than any real movement or theory.
The_Last_Name_Left,
Are you saying that many of the pro-Miseian and anti-socialist comments here are not by libertarians?
Libertarians oppose coercien, not altruism (although some may do, e.g. Randians). So if I say I hate socialism, which I do, I mean the collectivist aspect of it - how the state forces me to do things. A libertarian can give away 90% of his income (personal ethic) yet hate socialism (political philosophy), simply because he sees central planning for the lunacy it is.
I thought that was what Ron Paul wanted - for corporations to take over and run the country.
There’s a big difference between corporations executing government policy (corporatism) and companies competing for voluntary demand (free market). Ron Paul favors the free market, whether this means people will buy from companies or self-produce in communes, although he probbaly expects (like many here do) that great companies will remain big, simply because they provide stuff people want in a way nobody else seems able to (e.g. Ryanair).
So for your “private” Federal Reserve: Ron Paul wants to abolish it, because it is a monopoly granted by the government. Whether the shareholders are “the government” or individuals doesn’t matter.