Why do Conservatives Embraces Libertarians, but Neo-Liberals Don't?

I think Lucrum is actually fairly conservative.

 

It gets foggy, no disrespect to anyone in particular. I just noticed the left has not chimed in, and I cannot help but wonder why. Im pretty sure if they do show it will be with an ad hom. But, hey, I can hope.

 

I've been called a lot of things here. But this is the first time anyone thought I was a liberal.

 

Thanks for clarifying that Lucrum. More interesting is that yet another conservative has chimed in to clarify he is not a liberal. On this thread political ideologies have been brought up and discussed, as what should happen in a free republic.

I read somewhere that Neo-Libs cannot freely discuss their ideology in a public forum. They must pass their agenda legislatively in the middle of the night, or thru activist judges......

Thoughts?

 

I made the mistake in years past, even very recently, of calling myself a liberal, not understanding that classical liberals are now what are called libertarians.

After that, I have been able to get people motivated towards government. A lot of "liberals" are actually libertarians. This is what got Pres. Obama into office. Hope and change was that no one could do worse than Bush the Younger, no one. I am sad to admit that I voted for Bush the Younger, both times.

When the media speaks of "independents" they are actually talking about libertarians, but as phenomena has pointed out, for some reason they don't want the people talking about that particular axis on the political spectrum. They want left and right only.

I think the Tea Party began because some folks started thinking about that axis. Ron Paul is a champion of that axis, but he draws out the nutbirds en masse. I hate that.

Full out nationalization of key industries is not what most people voted for. I think that before it is over, Pres. Obama will understand what Pres. Clinton did and bring the democrats towards the center.

 

You appear to be equating the left with neoliberalism. I really don't know much about the term; the wiki gives this definition:

"Neoliberalism is a market-driven approach to economic and social policy based on neoclassical theories of economics that maximise the role of the private business sector in determining the political and economic priorities of the state.

The term "neoliberalism" has also come into wide use in cultural studies to describe an internationally prevailing ideological paradigm that leads to social, cultural, and political practices and policies that use the language of markets, efficiency, consumer choice, transactional thinking and individual autonomy to shift risk from governments and corporations onto individuals and to extend this kind of market logic into the realm of social and affective relationships.

In the 1970s some Latin American economists began using "neoliberalismo" to designate their program of market-oriented reforms. By the 1990s, however, the term "neoliberalism" had become a pejorative to classical liberal critics, who dismissed it as a catchphrase invented by academic radicals to denigrate the ideas of Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek.

Neo-liberalism first took hold in Chile under Augusto Pinochet (from 1973) and spread, first to Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher (from 1979) and the United States under Ronald Reagan (from 1981)."

In that light, I don't see how neoliberalism is socialist.

 

Thanks for your reply.

Neo-Libs as I can see want government to tell us what we can and cannnot do. I have an issue with that.

I don't have an issue with anyone. I believe that as long as you can afford your lifestyle, then live it.

Neo-Libs, from what I can ascertain, want me to subsidize substandard ways of living.

I have a problem with that.

If your way of life become bad for your bottom line, then you need to change how you are living.

I have no interest in rewarding bad behavior.

 

And, if anyone is confused, I believe in free markets. No one should have been bailed out.

Free markets.

If I fuck up, then the free markets will eliminate me.

I have no issue with that.

That is why i am a trader.

 

And btw, I did not miss that you tried to tie me and my beliefs to Pinochet.

Edit: I realize that you were not talking about me. Sorry. I may be a bit reactionary.

Libertarians are used to catching it from both sides. You are saying Neo-Libs are akin to Pinocet. Well I hope not, because Neo-Libs are who governs the US at this point

 

Ricter's trying to educate you. One more time:

Neo-liberals are monetarists; they were the "Chicago boys". They basically prescribed neo-classical solutions to the Chilean government. The Chicago School of monetarism I've seen described as "Austrian light".
I leave it up to you to decide how close or far they are to your school of thought, but they have nothing to do with modern liberalism, which are the folks you're aiming at.
We, as you know, like Keynes, Minsky, people like that.
Our beef on a theoretical level with you guys is simple: you don't actually live in the real world. It's very easy to say "no" to everything, but you know, once you get past the age of two, that kind of reaction gets old.
How childish do we think you are? The below is from "A Dynamic Theory of Forward Exchange", an old book by Paul Einzig on how forward exchange influences and is influenced by the spot fx exchange rate. It details how Mises insisted, despite detailed evidence to the contrary, that the Austro-Hungarian central bank responded to a currency crisis not through the forward exchange market, but through buying and selling gold, in a manner consistent with the classic gold standard. It's long but worth it for the light it sheds on the libertarian mindset:

Theory over fact. If the world doesn't fit your theory, make it fit. That pretty much describes libertarianism.