It took me some time to realize that I was a liberal. I called myself centrist, a left-leaning moderate. But knew I wasn’t a Goldwater conservative, and I had problems with progressives. Their PC strictures seemed to go against free speech.
Then I reread the Declaration of Independence and some of the Constitution as well. That brought me to the conclusion that I was what I call a Preamble-Liberal.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seems a pretty good trio of legs for a stool that a liberal can sit on.
The Constitution expands on the rights we have as Americans.
Looking at those two documents, I argue that the patriotism they imply is a liberal one.
In part of my view is colored by a degree and post graduate work in Economics.
In that world socialism and capitalism are clearly defined by how the means of production are controlled.
A separate issue is whether and how we provide a safety net for our citizens and other residents.
I see this as a philosophical issue that stems from the concept of public goods, and how that concept highlights a failing of unbridled free-market capitalism.
Common examples of public goods are clean air and potable water.
I have lived in the greater Los Angeles since early childhood. I experienced smog first hand in grade school when, on some days at recess, it hurt to take a deep breath.
Our air is much cleaner now due to government regulations.
There was no way that problem would have been solved by free-market capitalism.
We had to cast a wide net of regulations and taxes to pull this off.
But what we did was not socialism. Instead, we saved a public good from ruin by providing a safety net.
Safety net strategies are related to political and economic strategies. But they are different and deserve their own forum.
Good observations but considering the urgency of the moment the Oligarchy is stronger than ever. Change will come at a high cost . Even change back to a more classical liberal framework is looking like a stretch . We can start by resisting authoritarian government . Governors and mayors of big cities need to take a stand against the tyranny of the federal government and defend their citizens and their rights. Liberals will have to throw their rule book in the trash bin because the oligarchs and their minions don’t follow the rules.
As I've said before, I think getting out of this will in part require a reevaluation of what constitutes economic capital and what constitutes economic land, that is, "that value which is the creation of the community".
"The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive. It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses. When all rent is taken by taxation for the needs of the community, then will the equality ordained by Nature be attained. No citizen will have an advantage over any other citizen save as is given by his industry, skill, and intelligence; and each will obtain what he fairly earns. Then, but not till then, will labor get its full reward, and capital its natural return." (Henry George, "Poverty and Progress")
Michael Hudson neatly describes oligarchy as the counter-revolution of neoliberalism against liberalism, and "socialism" as societal control of economic rules. Several authors have spoken directly to the democratization of corporations as the key to correcting wealth inequality. Once a thriving family business goes public, it needs to have community oversight, lest greedy manipulators again take the upper hand. Those are always lurking, craving advantage over community well-being.
The "Word" has so much value, but it also can be a distraction from getting closer to the "truth."
"Rent-seekers, or rent-seeking," "classical liberalism," and even "moderation" are becoming incomprehensible to me- and I am not sure all these terms tossed out in an air of academic highbrow really serve a purpose. Let me explain.
Through man's history, from Biblical stories of Cain & Abel, there has been this basic or primitive side to man to acquire, to get, to consume. And, there never seems to be enough, so that you hear phrases such as
"The rich get richer, while the poor stay poor"
"Those with the gold make the rules."
Throughout the annals of humankind (sic), we have the prince and the pauper, the Kings and the Serfs, The Hollywood "Rich and Famous" who despite all their extreme wealth appear on just about every advertisement, acquiring still more.
We have popular TV series like Downton Abbey, portraying the absurd wealth and pampering of the ultrarich. And we have the reality of the monarchy in the UK, living in palaces and having, upon their demise, funerals costing more than the net worth of 1,000 "ordinary" people.
All of us have seen and experienced this. A rich uncle of mine would give me an occasional dime, as if it were a deed of great generosity. The poor or moderately wealthy man would tip me 3-5x more than the wealthy professional. In my own profession, I have seen medicine devolve to where the "name of the game" was physician income >> patient outcome. And poster boys for this are in our midst from Musk, to Trump to all the other billionaires that work hard to figure a way to spend their money. There are exceptions like the Gates who are philanthropic.
Our heavily referred to Founding Fathers were steeped in the reading of Plato, where in The Republic, and Charmides the concept of "moderation" is focused. Plato's "moderation" was more than simple self-restraint but rather a fundamental state of Harmony and Order-what we currently are blatantly lacking in the US. Moderation, for Plato, controlled the Appetitive part of the soul and ensured that one's desires did not lead to excess or chaos.
If you read the magnificent work of Dee Hock in The Birth of a Chaordic Age, he expounds on the sickness that pervades our current society:
Ego, Envy, Ambition, and Avarice. What Hock advises is that ego, envy, avarice and ambition (opportunism) must be replaced with Humility, Benevolence*, Altruism, and Magnanimity. Some terms should be defined with the hope of agreement:
Opportunism: a style of human behavior, opportunism has the connotation of a lack of integrity, or doing something that is out of character (inconsistent). The underlying thought is that the price of the unrestrained pursuit of selfishness is behavioral inconsistency. Thus, opportunism involves compromising some or other principles normally upheld. Thus, substantively, opportunism refers to the acting on opportunities in a self-interested, biased or one-sided manner that conflicts or contrasts in some way with one or more general rule, law, norm, or principle. (Wikipedia)
Benevolence: willingness to act to benefit others
Magnanimity: taking actions for noble purposes
If we as a global society, or at the very least as a melting pot of peoples, value such traits over acquisition of stuff, then we need to act and expend effort to achieve such a Republic.
I tend to think we will not have Midterms due to the GOP's devious nature and apparent lack of any moral fiber. Others I know feel we will have Midterms and currently the GOP will be victorious, at least in the Senate. Nothing short of a Democratic majority in all Congress would be satisfactory to me if there is a tiny chance to begin restoration of this crippled country.
This is where I feel our efforts should be. Fixing all other pathologies would follow the goal of restoring sanity to the rules and regulations of governance. What's the point of all other mental masturbation? All it does is create enmity. Those who need to be awakened need more basic talk about human values, about legacy for our children and grandchildren, about vision that will give us any hope of human unity (humanity). First things first.
It took me some time to realize that I was a liberal. I called myself centrist, a left-leaning moderate. But knew I wasn’t a Goldwater conservative, and I had problems with progressives. Their PC strictures seemed to go against free speech.
Then I reread the Declaration of Independence and some of the Constitution as well. That brought me to the conclusion that I was what I call a Preamble-Liberal.
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seems a pretty good trio of legs for a stool that a liberal can sit on.
The Constitution expands on the rights we have as Americans.
Looking at those two documents, I argue that the patriotism they imply is a liberal one.
In part of my view is colored by a degree and post graduate work in Economics.
In that world socialism and capitalism are clearly defined by how the means of production are controlled.
A separate issue is whether and how we provide a safety net for our citizens and other residents.
I see this as a philosophical issue that stems from the concept of public goods, and how that concept highlights a failing of unbridled free-market capitalism.
Common examples of public goods are clean air and potable water.
I have lived in the greater Los Angeles since early childhood. I experienced smog first hand in grade school when, on some days at recess, it hurt to take a deep breath.
Our air is much cleaner now due to government regulations.
There was no way that problem would have been solved by free-market capitalism.
We had to cast a wide net of regulations and taxes to pull this off.
But what we did was not socialism. Instead, we saved a public good from ruin by providing a safety net.
Safety net strategies are related to political and economic strategies. But they are different and deserve their own forum.
Good observations but considering the urgency of the moment the Oligarchy is stronger than ever. Change will come at a high cost . Even change back to a more classical liberal framework is looking like a stretch . We can start by resisting authoritarian government . Governors and mayors of big cities need to take a stand against the tyranny of the federal government and defend their citizens and their rights. Liberals will have to throw their rule book in the trash bin because the oligarchs and their minions don’t follow the rules.
As I've said before, I think getting out of this will in part require a reevaluation of what constitutes economic capital and what constitutes economic land, that is, "that value which is the creation of the community".
"The tax upon land values is, therefore, the most just and equal of all taxes. It falls only upon those who receive from society a peculiar and valuable benefit, and upon them in proportion to the benefit they receive. It is the taking by the community, for the use of the community, of that value which is the creation of the community. It is the application of the common property to common uses. When all rent is taken by taxation for the needs of the community, then will the equality ordained by Nature be attained. No citizen will have an advantage over any other citizen save as is given by his industry, skill, and intelligence; and each will obtain what he fairly earns. Then, but not till then, will labor get its full reward, and capital its natural return." (Henry George, "Poverty and Progress")
Michael Hudson neatly describes oligarchy as the counter-revolution of neoliberalism against liberalism, and "socialism" as societal control of economic rules. Several authors have spoken directly to the democratization of corporations as the key to correcting wealth inequality. Once a thriving family business goes public, it needs to have community oversight, lest greedy manipulators again take the upper hand. Those are always lurking, craving advantage over community well-being.
The "Word" has so much value, but it also can be a distraction from getting closer to the "truth."
"Rent-seekers, or rent-seeking," "classical liberalism," and even "moderation" are becoming incomprehensible to me- and I am not sure all these terms tossed out in an air of academic highbrow really serve a purpose. Let me explain.
Through man's history, from Biblical stories of Cain & Abel, there has been this basic or primitive side to man to acquire, to get, to consume. And, there never seems to be enough, so that you hear phrases such as
"The rich get richer, while the poor stay poor"
"Those with the gold make the rules."
Throughout the annals of humankind (sic), we have the prince and the pauper, the Kings and the Serfs, The Hollywood "Rich and Famous" who despite all their extreme wealth appear on just about every advertisement, acquiring still more.
We have popular TV series like Downton Abbey, portraying the absurd wealth and pampering of the ultrarich. And we have the reality of the monarchy in the UK, living in palaces and having, upon their demise, funerals costing more than the net worth of 1,000 "ordinary" people.
All of us have seen and experienced this. A rich uncle of mine would give me an occasional dime, as if it were a deed of great generosity. The poor or moderately wealthy man would tip me 3-5x more than the wealthy professional. In my own profession, I have seen medicine devolve to where the "name of the game" was physician income >> patient outcome. And poster boys for this are in our midst from Musk, to Trump to all the other billionaires that work hard to figure a way to spend their money. There are exceptions like the Gates who are philanthropic.
Our heavily referred to Founding Fathers were steeped in the reading of Plato, where in The Republic, and Charmides the concept of "moderation" is focused. Plato's "moderation" was more than simple self-restraint but rather a fundamental state of Harmony and Order-what we currently are blatantly lacking in the US. Moderation, for Plato, controlled the Appetitive part of the soul and ensured that one's desires did not lead to excess or chaos.
If you read the magnificent work of Dee Hock in The Birth of a Chaordic Age, he expounds on the sickness that pervades our current society:
Ego, Envy, Ambition, and Avarice. What Hock advises is that ego, envy, avarice and ambition (opportunism) must be replaced with Humility, Benevolence*, Altruism, and Magnanimity. Some terms should be defined with the hope of agreement:
Opportunism: a style of human behavior, opportunism has the connotation of a lack of integrity, or doing something that is out of character (inconsistent). The underlying thought is that the price of the unrestrained pursuit of selfishness is behavioral inconsistency. Thus, opportunism involves compromising some or other principles normally upheld. Thus, substantively, opportunism refers to the acting on opportunities in a self-interested, biased or one-sided manner that conflicts or contrasts in some way with one or more general rule, law, norm, or principle. (Wikipedia)
Benevolence: willingness to act to benefit others
Magnanimity: taking actions for noble purposes
If we as a global society, or at the very least as a melting pot of peoples, value such traits over acquisition of stuff, then we need to act and expend effort to achieve such a Republic.
I tend to think we will not have Midterms due to the GOP's devious nature and apparent lack of any moral fiber. Others I know feel we will have Midterms and currently the GOP will be victorious, at least in the Senate. Nothing short of a Democratic majority in all Congress would be satisfactory to me if there is a tiny chance to begin restoration of this crippled country.
This is where I feel our efforts should be. Fixing all other pathologies would follow the goal of restoring sanity to the rules and regulations of governance. What's the point of all other mental masturbation? All it does is create enmity. Those who need to be awakened need more basic talk about human values, about legacy for our children and grandchildren, about vision that will give us any hope of human unity (humanity). First things first.