Article on using 'classical liberalism' as cover for old fashioned racism

[marc]

Thought this was an interesting article on people using the label "Classic Liberal" to describe themselves, when they promote the same old political stances as many conservatives/libertarians/racists (cue trigger on those that doth protest too much). You know the policies: the free market and smaller government will solve all problems including racism.

For Fancy Racists, Classical Liberalism Offers Respect, Intrigue

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

An interesting article.

The first few paragraphs describe how those highly regarded by classic liberals would be surprised by the term. But of course, they were not classic back then, they were new back then. There was nothing classic about Adam Smith, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill at the time they were active. I don't know why the author but scare quotes around "great thinkers" when describing those three. Perhaps the author has a high disregard for those three, but I really do see John Locke as a great thinker. He was.

Nobody ever describes a contemporary idea as "classic". So what? It seems to be a great bug to the author.

Mises and Friedman did not applaud fascists. Mises was a harsh critic of fascism, and Friedman was foolish enough to answer the Hobson's choice of "if you had two bad options which do you think is less bad." Ever since then he's been credited wrongly as a supporter of Pinochet.

Even though he states Friedman's position on racism in the article itself showing that he opposed racism and thought the free market was the best way to solve racism. Since the author thinks that the free market is the worst way to solve it, he uses Friedman stating his opposition to racism as proof that Friedman didn't want to solve it. It is hard to say "Friedman supported racism" when you have Friedman on record opposing it, but the author went ahead based on disagreement on the method of solving the problem.

It is funny to read people saying if you disagree with a particular solution that means you disagree with solving the problem at all. I agree with Friedman that the free market is the best way to solve racism issues, and therefore by the author's logic but from my perspective, that makes the author an advocate of racism.

The author fails to make the case.

Paul Ryan? I don't know how many times I'm going to have to debunk that PRATT. To put it in a word, Paul Ryan lied. I've listed many positions of his before on this subject, I suppose I'll have to list them again.

He voted Yes on TARP.
He voted YES on Economic Stimulus HR 5140
He voted YES on $15billion bailout for GM and Chrysler
He voted YES on $192billion additional anti-recession stimulus spending
He voted YES on federalizing rules for drivers licenses to hinder terrorists
He voted YES on making the USAPATRIOT Act permanent
He voted YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
He voted YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
He voted YES on emergency $78Billion for war in Iraq and Afghanistan
He voted YES on declaring Iraq part of the War on Terror with no exit date
He voted NO on reducing US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
He voted YES on limited prescription drug benefit for Medicare recipients
He voted YES on providing $70million on Section 8 Housing vouchers
He voted YES on extending unemployment benefits to 59 weeks
He voted YES on No Child Left Behind
He voted YES on Head Start Act

 

[marc]

Even though he states Friedman's position on racism in the article itself showing that he opposed racism and thought the free market was the best way to solve racism. Since the author thinks that the free market is the worst way to solve it, he uses Friedman stating his opposition to racism as proof that Friedman didn't want to solve it. It is hard to say "Friedman supported racism" when you have Friedman on record opposing it, but the author went ahead based on disagreement on the method of solving the problem.

For a long time racists would not outright say they are racists. Also there seems to be plenty of racists who don't think they are racists for whatever reason. But the article does not say Friedman was a racist, just that racists correctly saw his reasoning as a way to prevent attempts to dismantle social structures used to keep minorities down.

I agree with Friedman that the free market is the best way to solve racism issues,

No, it really wasn't. Which is why racists are so eager to embrace it as it allows them to continue discrimination.

and therefore by the author's logic but from my perspective, that makes the author an advocate of racism.

But that is not the author's logic. Of course disagreeing with a solution does not mean disagreeing with solving the problem. But when the people who who don't want the problem solved embrace a 'solution' to the problem, that tends to show that the 'solution' will not solve anything.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The author's logic is "if I propose a solution to a problem, and you oppose my particular solution, that means you oppose solving it at all."

I have just put forth the solution of free markets to the problem of racism. You oppose that particular solution. Therefore you oppose solving the problem at all.

 

[laughing dog]

The author's logic is "if I propose a solution to a problem, and you oppose my particular solution, that means you oppose solving it at all."

I have just put forth the solution of free markets to the problem of racism. You oppose that particular solution. Therefore you oppose solving the problem at all.

You correctly applied your straw man. Now how about addressing the OP?

 

[marc]

The author's logic is "if I propose a solution to a problem, and you oppose my particular solution, that means you oppose solving it at all."

I have just put forth the solution of free markets to the problem of racism. You oppose that particular solution. Therefore you oppose solving the problem at all.

 

[Underseer]

Wait. I thought racism was a conservative thing and that libertarians definitely aren't racist (even though they use the same catch phrases to take the same positions on race issues) because libertarians are like totally different from conservatives, but here we see a supposed libertarian taking a distinctly conservative position on race issues yet again.

Funny how that keeps working out.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Classical liberalism is not a distinctly conservative position.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The author's logic is "if I propose a solution to a problem, and you oppose my particular solution, that means you oppose solving it at all."

I have just put forth the solution of free markets to the problem of racism. You oppose that particular solution. Therefore you oppose solving the problem at all.

You correctly applied your straw man. Now how about addressing the OP?

I did already. Post 2 in this thread. Then I described the author's fallacy. You think correctly describing the author's fallacy is a straw man.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Classical liberalism is not a distinctly conservative position.

First time I heard the term "classical liberalism" i took it at face value, as meaning actual liberalism, for liberty, free speech (which used to be a liberal thing), equal treatment and anti-prejudice, etc, rather than the illiberal "liberals" that are gaining so quickly in number these days. I realized later that there actually was something called "classical liberalism" that was entirely different. So we need a name for actual liberals who are for liberty, free speech, anti-prejudice etc. When the "left" morphs into what it used to decry, what do you call what it used to be?

 

[laughing dog]

The author's logic is "if I propose a solution to a problem, and you oppose my particular solution, that means you oppose solving it at all."

I have just put forth the solution of free markets to the problem of racism. You oppose that particular solution. Therefore you oppose solving the problem at all.

You correctly applied your straw man. Now how about addressing the OP?

I did already. Post 2 in this thread. Then I described the author's fallacy. You think correctly describing the author's fallacy is a straw man.

No, I think your incorrectly described the author's position. Of course, I know from history that the expecting a response from you that is tethered to the OP or my post is an 8 sigma event.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Classical liberalism is not a distinctly conservative position.

First time I heard the term "classical liberalism" i took it at face value, as meaning actual liberalism, for liberty, free speech (which used to be a liberal thing), equal treatment and anti-prejudice, etc, rather than the illiberal "liberals" that are gaining so quickly in number these days. I realized later that there actually was something called "classical liberalism" that was entirely different. So we need a name for actual liberals who are for liberty, free speech, anti-prejudice etc. When the "left" morphs into what it used to decry, what do you call what it used to be?

There are many libertarians who use the term "classical liberalism" and "libertarianism" to be nearly synonymous.

Technically there is a distinction, but it is similar to the distinction between modern liberals and progressives - you have to go in depth to find it. To put it simply, both liberals and libertarians are derived from the same classical liberal root of seeking justice, but while libertarians seek it through freedom liberals seek it through equality.

This doesn't cover progressives though. They're a whole different creature who find liberals to be useful tools. The means of seeking equality often involve government taking an active role, and government taking an active role is the goal of progressives. So progressives use equality to get government, while liberals use government to get equality.

 

[dismal]

Classical liberalism is not a distinctly conservative position.

First time I heard the term "classical liberalism" i took it at face value, as meaning actual liberalism, for liberty, free speech (which used to be a liberal thing), equal treatment and anti-prejudice, etc, rather than the illiberal "liberals" that are gaining so quickly in number these days. I realized later that there actually was something called "classical liberalism" that was entirely different. So we need a name for actual liberals who are for liberty, free speech, anti-prejudice etc. When the "left" morphs into what it used to decry, what do you call what it used to be?

I think you were right the first time. "Classic Liberalism" is for freedom and individual rights. People started putting the word "Classic" in front of it because that's what liberalism meant before "liberal" started meaning "I like big government and a welfare state" in the USA. I think in England "liberal" still generally means "support for freedom and individual rights" so people from that part of the world may be confused by this.

As for the OP it appears too be nothing more than the disingenuous "ZMFOG everyone who disagrees with me politically is a racist!!!!!!1" form of argument we see so much from the modern left.

 

[Trausti]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have seen this quote before, and it is so true. I feel old that I have seen it change in my lifetime.

 

[marc]

No, I think your incorrectly described the author's position. Of course, I know from history that the expecting a response from you that is tethered to the OP or my post is an 8 sigma event.

Yea, that is why I don't often try responding to some posters. When they tend to deflect and derail, or ignore direct questions, what is the point? Or the fad now to use a verbose equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?".

 

[Mumbles]

I have seen this quote before, and it is so true. I feel old that I have seen it change in my lifetime.

It's actually pretty laughable - the question is what standard should be used. People who insist that people of different races are simply "lazy" for not overcoming ongoing bigotry against them are basically arguing for racism, and many people who insist on "academic" standards, again, will find reasons to make exceptions for wealthy white people - and poor people willing to run their bodies into the ground for free to benefit the school in question, and yes I'm talking about the NCAA.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Maybe this article will help, JP.

If you don't want to read the whole article:

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have seen this quote before, and it is so true. I feel old that I have seen it change in my lifetime.

It's actually pretty laughable - the question is what standard should be used. People who insist that people of different races are simply "lazy" for not overcoming ongoing bigotry against them are basically arguing for racism, and many people who insist on "academic" standards, again, will find reasons to make exceptions for wealthy white people - and poor people willing to run their bodies into the ground for free to benefit the school in question, and yes I'm talking about the NCAA.

Ok, i will bite. What does any of what you wrote here have to do with what you quoted?