From: dks@athena.mit.edu (dks)
Subject: Re: "Liberal" - A Misnomer
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 02:47:55 GMT


From: jason@ab20.larc.nasa.gov (Jason Austin):
>
> Words mean things, and the terms liberal and conservative
> designate a general politcal philosophy.

Yes, but the terms designate *ideals* and cannot be applied
accurately or precisely to real people.


> A conservative believes in a reduction of government and traditional
> values while a liberal believes in the expansion of government to
> supply everyone with everything they need.

You may think so, but others don't find the distinction quite so
straightforward.  Take, for instance, the following discussion by
Herbert Stein, who calls himself a conservative:

        Perhaps I can explain my puzzlement by reference to the late
    Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek, a leading expositor of the many
    merits of free markets and of the dangers of socialism. He has
    become the idol of American conservatives. President Bush gave him
    the Medal of Freedom.
        In 1960 Hayek wrote an article, "Why I Am Not a Conservative,"
    in which he said the following: (Note that he uses the word
    "liberalism" in the 19th century European sense of assigning
    highest value to individual freedom.)
        "I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of
    liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from
    socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of
    conduct which do not directly  interfere with the protected sphere
    of other persons do not justify coercion."
        Feeling much in sympathy with Hayek, I am disturbed to find the
    vice president now injecting himself forcefully into moral beliefs
    concerning matters of conduct in areas commonly considered private
    and personal. This is especially anomalous coming from the man who
    is the spearhead of the administration's program for reducing
    regulation of private economic activity.
     This anomaly has, of course, been frequently noted. Nowadays, the
    difference between conservatives and liberals, in the American
    sense, is less in the degree of government regulation they advocate
    than in the subjects they propose to regulate. Liberals want to
    regulate the purity of the medicine dispensed in the drug store and
    conservatives want to regulate the purity of the books sold there.

          Herbert Stein, former chairman of the Council of Economic
       Advisers under Presidents Nixon and Ford, is a senior fellow
       at the American Enterprise Institute.

As you can see, Stein -- a self-proclaimed conservative, by the way -- thinks
that government should not prescribe values, "traditional" or not.  He also
criticizes other conservatives for the hypocrisy and transparency of their
so-called anti-government campaigns.  Has it ever occurred to you that life
is not as simple as you make it out to be?


> Picking a side and calling them label-throwing is label-throwing in
> itself and completely void of any issue discussion.

Agreed.  Which, by the way, is why I think the entire "PC debate" is
such a rip-roaring farce.  But that's a different story.


> 	Historically, a left wing society is economically inefficient
> and is much too permissive of criminal and anti-social behavior.  A
> right wing society is highly efficient but is too inflexible in
> defining morality.

Absurd.  Tell me which clause you want to argue first and I'll be happy
to discuss examples and counter-examples.  With two conditions:

  1. We'd have to agree on definitions for "left wing" and "right wing"
     and "efficient" and "anti-social" and "morality" first... and

  2. The whole discussion must somehow revolve around Dannikins.

By the way, no homogeneous society is permissive of criminal (or immoral)
behavior.  If a homogeneous society -- whether homogeneously "right wing"
or homogeneously "left wing" -- has decided to label certain behaviors
as being "criminal" (or "immoral"), then it is _de_jure_ (or _de_facto_)
not being permissive with regard to those behaviors.  You seem to be
assuming _a_priori_ definitions of "criminal" and "immoral."  Feel free
to make your own assumptions about which behaviors ought to be described
by these terms, but don't be surprised if other people and other communities
insist on doing the same thing for themselves.


> 	Looking at the problems in the US, my conclusion is that the
> government is a little bit left of where it should be.  The economy is
> lacking in efficiency, the crime rate has soared due to lack of crime
> deterrents, and kids are failing out of school and getting involved in
> drugs, because it is socially acceptable to do so.  This tells me it's
> time to push the government a little to the right; voting for Bush may
> not do this, but it will prevent the government from sliding even
> farther in the wrong direction.

Quite a paragraph.  I disagree with every single conclusion, assertion, and
underlying assumption.  I am also amused at your baldly hypocritical
declaration that the "right" government can correct these problems.  Haven't
you just finished explaining to us that governmental solutions are a failed
"liberal" fantasy?  Where's your anti-government "conservatism" now, Jason?


Dhanesh