Liberal discourse is at most anti-regulation, but it’s fully supportive of wealthy powerful people being as oppressive as they may feel like. It calls it “freedom” when corporations submit people to their demands, by glossing over power disparities.
In this case, I’m using the contemporary definition of liberalism. I call the type of liberalism you’re referring to “classical liberalism”. It is the political philosophy that created the United States.
That doesn’t change it. Classical liberalism puts the most focus on the importance of a free market, and in a free market the largest financial interests can rule however they see fit.
Economic freedom and individual autonomy are often at odds with each others. Often people even need to change their off-work habits to suit the demands and image that their employers expect.
And this is considering an ideal scenario, not even like, unpaid overtime or prejudice-driven market practices and so forth. Not to mention that monopolies and cartel practices are pretty much inevitable, it’s only out of idealism that it’s assumed that they are a result of not following the political philosophy properly.
Yes, you’re describing classical liberalism. That’s not what I was referring to. I was talking about the contemporary definition of liberalism, which “combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a well-regulated mixed economy” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States). Related, but clearly not the same.
I see. In that case I don’t see where you draw the distinction from modern liberalism and progressism, and in what way this non-progressive liberalism is anti-authoritarian that is not in service of the free market.
Overall, calling all leftism authoritarian still seems misguided. Leftism is by itself a whole spectrum including philosophies like the social democrat. This vilification of the whole left seems like a remnant of the Red Scare.
Liberal discourse is at most anti-regulation, but it’s fully supportive of wealthy powerful people being as oppressive as they may feel like. It calls it “freedom” when corporations submit people to their demands, by glossing over power disparities.
In this case, I’m using the contemporary definition of liberalism. I call the type of liberalism you’re referring to “classical liberalism”. It is the political philosophy that created the United States.
That doesn’t change it. Classical liberalism puts the most focus on the importance of a free market, and in a free market the largest financial interests can rule however they see fit.
Economic freedom and individual autonomy are often at odds with each others. Often people even need to change their off-work habits to suit the demands and image that their employers expect.
And this is considering an ideal scenario, not even like, unpaid overtime or prejudice-driven market practices and so forth. Not to mention that monopolies and cartel practices are pretty much inevitable, it’s only out of idealism that it’s assumed that they are a result of not following the political philosophy properly.
Yes, you’re describing classical liberalism. That’s not what I was referring to. I was talking about the contemporary definition of liberalism, which “combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a well-regulated mixed economy” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States). Related, but clearly not the same.
I see. In that case I don’t see where you draw the distinction from modern liberalism and progressism, and in what way this non-progressive liberalism is anti-authoritarian that is not in service of the free market.
Overall, calling all leftism authoritarian still seems misguided. Leftism is by itself a whole spectrum including philosophies like the social democrat. This vilification of the whole left seems like a remnant of the Red Scare.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator