Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
How can government intervene so much in society and then claim to be libertarian? I am not against many of those things but they're not libertarian at all. They require the government to regulate different areas of society. Only the devolution of power would be something a libertarian would support there. Corbyn is almost the polar opposite of a libertarian.
Although libertarianism isn't the same as liberal. I don't think we have much of a tradition of it in the UK.
Quote often. Protectionism is often advocated by some on the left who are skeptical of free trade, believing it favours mega-corporations and the expense of workers.
Although I don't think we disagree much here. I think only in that prior to Trump you didn't see many Conservatives advocating against free-trade in the Western Worlds (as far as I am aware).
|
I think we are getting hung up on the relative libertarian credentials of process and means and outcomes here and not getting the bigger picture. Corbyn's outcomes are libertarian because they create economic and social freedoms. The means of getting there do not necessarily have to be authoritarian. Measures such as investment in jobs, the environment, housing, education and training, enhancing worker and human rights etc are enabling devices. This kind of intervention is also a libertarian process. No doubt some of these cannot be achieved without laws and codes of conduct that restrict employers ability to unfairly exploit their workers. If you think taxation is authoritarian rather than an essential funding device then I suppose all political colours are authoritarian. My yardstick is the extend to which the vast majority have their liberties advanced.