"Neo-Liberalism"

[melon]

I really don't know what to call it, so I guess I just coined this term (although I'm sure someone else coined it before me).

But the fact is, I guess, I really don't find myself liking it. Perhaps I come from a more old-fashioned liberal background, but my emphasis has always been on workers' rights, union rights, freedom of speech / press, and tolerance.

I do perhaps find freedom of speech and tolerance in neo-liberalism, but, I guess, what I find more is just a group of people who are just looking to strengthen their own irresponsibility and greed.

I guess I look at the time and energy people have put into pot legalization efforts. I'm truly amazed at the duration and the systematic elements that have made this campaign fairly successful in changing the minds of the world public. Even though I don't necessarily agree with it, I can admire this. However, as I don't really believe that pot legalization is really the most pressing issue facing the world today, where are the same efforts to help change things like declining wages, eroding workers' rights, increasing censorship of the press (aside from tabloid journalism), the fact that less than half even vote, etc.? I think you get my point.

But what do we find "neo-liberalism" putting their emphasis on? Pot legalization and a string of violent riots against the WTO that really do nothing to change actual policy.

Well, maybe I'm ranting. Maybe I'm completely off-base on this topic. In fact, I don't even necessarily believe I'm right. I guess I just feel something is amiss in the world of liberalism. Something just seems...empty.

Maybe someone has some perspective on this?

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[Anthony]

I think we all know whats missing, but we don't like to face upto it because it negates the concept of democracy; but the fact is, when you provide everyone with the right of free speech, the quality of democracy will obviously detioriorate. I hope I'm not the only one to say that some people just don't deserve the right to free speech! Its true, some people don't deserve certain rights and priveleges. I'm sure that if people had to earn the right to free speech, the quality of democracy would improve.

Ant.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

I agree Ant and I think we should start by censoring...YOU.

MP

 

[Anthony]

What.. why?

Ant.

 

[Trash Can]

Originally posted by Anthony:
I think we all know whats missing, but we don't like to face upto it because it negates the concept of democracy; but the fact is, when you provide everyone with the right of free speech, the quality of democracy will obviously detioriorate. I hope I'm not the only one to say that some people just don't deserve the right to free speech! Its true, some people don't deserve certain rights and priveleges. I'm sure that if people had to earn the right to free speech, the quality of democracy would improve.

Ant.

...Ummmmm... And just WHO decides what is "deserving" and how one "earns" the right?

Democracy is messy. Human Beings are messy... My bedroom is messy.

Peace.


____________________

"I asked God for all things, that I might enjoy life...but, I was given life, that I might enjoy all things."

 

[Anthony]

"Ummmmm... And just WHO decides what is "deserving" and how one "earns" the right?"

What do I look like, a social architect? I don't know. All I know is, some people don't deserve the right to exercise their freedom. ie- terrorists.

Ant.

 

[Manu Chao]

I am one of those who were at Quebec City to protest against the FTAA. It's pretty late here, so I'll complete my post tomorrow, but the alternative is certainly not violent protests or pot legalization. The medias, corporations and governments show us violent protest to say that we (protesters) aren't right, aren't politically-correct. I have read a lot on the subject and saw it in Quebec city. There is elements that the medias don't show in the protests... anyways, I'll come back later on.

cheers

------------------
=HJ Clandestino=

"Hell is other people" - Jean-Paul Sartre

"There's no shame in preferring happiness." - Albert Camus

"Let us be realists... let us insist on the impossible". - Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

"Give in to temptation before it goes away" - ?picure

 

[bonoman]

Originally posted by melon:
But what do we find "neo-liberalism" putting their emphasis on? Pot legalization and a string of violent riots against the WTO that really do nothing to change actual policy.

You Cant really put these two issues into one. They are seperate and people have different thoughts on them. Just because they are rioters doesnt make them pot heads, and just because there pot heads doesnt make them rioters.

I see what your getting at. But i think that some issues are more important to others then they are to you. WTO, FTAA, G8 are at the top of many peolpes lists. Just because they arnt on yours doesnt make them bad.

------------------
Running to Stand Still-"you gotta cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice."

"we're not burning out we're burning up...we're the loudest folk band in the world!"-Bono

 

[radiodivision]

Melon,

It depends on what you mean by neoliberalism. As you are probably aware, the WTO, World Bank etc. are considered neoliberal entities meaning that they push a neoliberal market agenda. Here is a short explanation I found (I apologize for the length):

----
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies that have become widespread during the last 25 years or so. Although the word is rarely heard in the United States, you can clearly see the effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.

"Liberalism" can refer to political, economic, or even religious ideas. In the U.S. political liberalism has been a strategy to prevent social conflict. It is presented to poor and working people as progressive compared to conservative or Right wing. Economic liberalism is different. Conservative politicians who say they hate "liberals" -- meaning the political type -- have no real problem with economic liberalism, including neoliberalism.

"Neo" means we are talking about a new kind of liberalism. So what was the old kind? The liberal school of economics became famous in Europe when Adam Smith, an English economist, published a book in 1776 called THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. He and others advocated the abolition of government intervention in economic matters. No restrictions on manufacturing, no barriers to commerce, no tariffs, he said; free trade was the best way for a nation's economy to develop. Such ideas were "liberal" in the sense of no controls. This application of individualism encouraged "free" enterprise," "free" competition -- which came to mean, free for the capitalists to make huge profits as they wished. Economic liberalism prevailed in the United States through the 1800s and early 1900s. Then the Great Depression of the 1930s led an economist named John Maynard Keynes to a theory that challenged liberalism as the best policy for capitalists. He said, in essence, that full employment is necessary for capitalism to grow and it can be achieved only if governments and central banks intervene to increase employment. These ideas had much influence on President Roosevelt's New Deal -- which did improve life for many people.

The belief that government should advance the common good became widely accepted. But the capitalist crisis over the last 25 years, with its shrinking profit rates, inspired the corporate elite to revive economic liberalism. That's what makes it "neo" or new. Now, with the rapid globalization of the capitalist economy, we are seeing neo-liberalism on a global scale.
-----

Anthony,

You cannot say that you believe in free speech or freedom in general, and than turn around and say that some people should not be allowed to express these freedoms. To say that is to not be for free anything.

 

[melon]

LOL...it was a loose term I made up (well, I thought I did). I guess I mean 'neo-neo-liberalism' then.

Basically--and it just hit me yesterday--I wonder if people are just into liberalism for the fashion of it. The idea of protesting against the system, the idea of campaigning for an illegal substance that gives you a high (a.k.a., marijuana), the idea of saying you want to 'Free Tibet,' protesting the Gap for sweatshop violations, etc....well, I guess I just question the sincerity of a lot of people who call themselves liberal that's all. Of course, then there are plenty of problems on the American domestic front that needs addressing, and they've been all but ignored, because they're not 'glamorous.' Yes, protesting globalism is quite the popular issue, and I will agree that it is a very important issue, but, I guess, if you want to quelch globalism, you'd better try and change the U.S., which, for better or for worse, dictates the definition of 'globalism.' But I guess it's not fashionable enough...

I don't know. I'm still thinking my way out.

Melon

------------------
?Confused by thoughts, we experience duality in life. Unencumbered by ideas, the enlightened see the one reality.? - Hui-neng (638-713)

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Ant,

Why are you being censored? We'll let you know once you've "earned" the right to free speech. In the meantime, clam it.

MP

 

[Anthony]

I think you misunderstand when I say some people don't deserve the right for self-expression or determination; people like terrorists. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that ETA terrorists or IRA terrorists have any rights whatsoever should go and actually bother to research what democracy can sometimes cause; people who take it into their heads that they can do and act however they wish. THAT is who I am against and I most certainbly can claim to deny them their right to even speak. I'm sorry, but I won't accept the fact that people who go around killing innocent people for their 'rights' deserve such rights. You ask me to claim and earn my right, I have; I respect other people's opinions enough not to go around killing them, like some bloody terrorist/violent activist of sorts.

Now, I think it is painfully clear, some people do not deserve democracy.

ANt.

 

[radiodivision]

Originally posted by Anthony:
I think you misunderstand when I say some people don't deserve the right for self-expression or determination; people like terrorists. I'm sorry, but anyone who thinks that ETA terrorists or IRA terrorists have any rights whatsoever should go and actually bother to research what democracy can sometimes cause; people who take it into their heads that they can do and act however they wish. THAT is who I am against and I most certainbly can claim to deny them their right to even speak. I'm sorry, but I won't accept the fact that people who go around killing innocent people for their 'rights' deserve such rights. You ask me to claim and earn my right, I have; I respect other people's opinions enough not to go around killing them, like some bloody terrorist/violent activist of sorts.

Now, I think it is painfully clear, some people do not deserve democracy.

ANt.

Then you don't believe in free-speech or democracy. That's what you are basically saying.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Ant,

You don't understand what free speech is. Even murderers have the right to express themselves. And we have the right and obligation to feel and express our contempt for them.
Besides, when we try to repress the thoughts and ideas of even the most reprehensible among us we legitimize and empower them in the eyes of many. It is wiser to allow say, the KKK to march and expose them to public ridicule then it is to deny them the right and to thus martyr them.
Besides, although you obviously consider yourself wise enough to legislate who has the right to free speech and who doesn't how would you like it if some unstable soul such as myself got to decide if your speech should be repressed or not?

MP

 

[Anthony]

"You don't understand what free speech is."

Obviously I don't, but as I said before, free speech is gruesomely overrated, in the hands of those who abuse it.

"Even murderers have the right to express themselves."

And thats my criticism of democracy.

"It is wiser to allow say, the KKK to march and expose them to public ridicule then it is to deny them the right and to thus martyr them."

Well, I'm not one to lecture about the KKK, but what if I were to talk about something I DO know about, such as ETA terrorism. What do you have to say about that? Shall we let them parade around and blast people into oblivion, or should we just give up and give in to their demands? Its not so easy, is it?

"Besides, although you obviously consider yourself wise enough to legislate who has the right to free speech and who doesn't how would you like it if some unstable soul such as myself got to decide if your speech should be repressed or not?"

Primarily, I don't consider or have any pretensions in wisdom; I don't know wisdom and for all we know you're probably a million years older, and wiser, than me; how am I to compete on the Wisdom meter? I may not be wise, but I can tell why the world is screwed up in certain ways and why there are innocnet people suffering; the democratic extremes are known to cause such suffering. From complete autocracy or fascism, to complete democracy; either way you endanger society and cause suffering, sometimes more disastrously. The bottom line, I DON'T believe in democracy, especially when its abused, how can I put faith into a system that allows degenerates, criminals, sadists, murderers and corruptors of society the right to express themselves? It is NOT what its cracked up to be.

Interestingly, I'm not for fascism either. Its a dichotomy but my point is that complete freedom of speech shouldn't be a divine right, it should be denied where it is prove undeserved. ANd I have already said who I think doesn't deserve them.

Ant.

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

Ant,

Obviously we are going to have to agree to disagree. I believe fundamentally that even a "degenerate" or a "criminal" has the right to free speech. What constitutes degeneracy and criminality to you? Why shouldn't these people be allowed to express themselves?
Obviously some types of speech are censured even in an open and democratic society and I support that. Speech that encourages violence against others is unacceptable and as a U.S. Supreme Court justice famously said in the early twentieth century, "free speech does not extend to yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded movie theater if there isn't one.

Fundamentally, free speech should extend to everyone because we cannot collectively agree on what types of speech should be censored.

MP

 

[bonovista]

I am just so happy to see intelligent people having intelligent communication without calling each other names..

Just glad to see that here for a change..

------------------
****Formerly known as Miss Bonovista..Now known as Mrs.Emeraldscorpio.****

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by melon:

Perhaps I come from a more old-fashioned liberal background, but my emphasis has always been on workers' rights, union rights, freedom of speech / press, and tolerance.

An interesting topic to add to the division I face in day to day life. I worked in a union, the UAW, and while the local union was new and had their own internai struggles and growing pains, I appreciate them for the generous pay increase/benefits package they demanded and GOT from the company. I also appreciate the way management kissed our asses and didn't fuck with us because they were scared of us.

What I really cannot understand, is how so many union workers I know are against the union, and how they are prepared to vote "yes" to make oklahoma a "right to work" state. Our election is coming up in 3 or 4 weeks, and the rhetoric for this right to work issue is alarming.

People actually believe that if it passes, then we will get all these new jobs here in oklahoma, and all of these new companies wil be knocking on our door. Yet, these so called companies will probably pay only $7-8 per hour. And management will treat the employees like shit(e), and the benefits will be non-existent at best.

The truth is, the only stimulant to our economy will be to our government and the management of these few companies who do come here. The real harm will be to the average worker, union or non-union shop. By making companies that are already union shops the workers choice to be a union member, you destroy the integrity of the existing union, and divide the employees therefore destroying their effectiveness and productivity. This, is the "company set-up", awaiting the enevitable fall.

So the logic of adding new jobs makes no sense to me when a "$15 an hour guy" is replaced by 2 "$7 an hour guys", because those guys can't buy houses and cars and support families like the other guy could.

Right to work is a rip-off, and I hope they don't pass it here and lower OUR wages and make THEM richer in the process.

It's about time oklahoma had another democrat governor like David Walters and got rid of our BAD GREEDY republicans like the one we have now.

I'm not necessarily jumping fences, because I never really claimed one side anyways, but I do call it as I see it!