...Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, and believed to be first fully formulated by Adam Smith and Robert Cox, of UCL, London, which advocatesminimal interference by government in a market economy, though it does not necessarily oppose the state's provision of a few basic public goods with what constitutes public goods originally being seen as very limited in scope.Eric Aaron, What's Right? (Dural, Australia: Rosenberg Publishing, 2003), 75. These theories began in the eighteenth century with the then-startling claim that if everyone is left to their own economic devices instead of being controlled by the state, then the result would be a harmonious and more equal society of ever-increasing prosperityAdams, Ian. Political Ideology Today. Manchester U Press 2001. p 20. This underpinned the move towards a capitalist economic system in the late 18th century, and the subsequent demise of the mercantilist system. Read full entry
This entry is from Wikipedia,the leading user-contributed encyclopedia.It may not have been reviewed by professional editors(See full disclaimer)
- 1.Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Theories in support of economic liberalism were developed in the Enlightenment, ... While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it ...
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E
conomic_liberalism
- 2.Economic Liberalism: Information from Answers.com
- Economic Liberalism i> Economic liberalism is an anachronistic but useful term to describe theories propounded in the seventeenth and eighteenth
- http://www.answers.com/topic/e
conomic-liberalism
 |
where does economic liberalism whats the difference between
economic liberalism and
conservatism.
how can you explain it to me
so that i can understand it.
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
Try the history or economics categories. You're not going to get anything but rants from either side here. |
|
|
|
|
|
Are economic liberalism and By economic liberalism I
understand the freedom of the
individual to make his or her
(or its in the case of
corporate entities) own
decisions concenring the
acquisition of goods and
services, including things
like health care. By social
liberalism, I understand the
freedom of the individual to
do whatever he or she likes
providing it does not
interfere with others. Please
correct me if these
definitions are inadequate.
Economic liberalism would
appear to enable those who
already have resources to use
them to gain more, hence
generating ever increasing
inequality. Given human
nature, I would have thought
that it is also likely to
result in short-term decisions
that deplete essential
resources in the long-term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have heard (read) the argument that you can not have one without the other. For their to be true social liberation, then their must be economic liberation first... I have also read the opposite. Some of the more active libertarian authors, like most of those belonging to the Austrian school (Mises, Böhm-Bawerk, et al) and the Chicago school (Friedmen, et al... though to a lesser degree today). See my references. I would also look up Nozick, but if you read Nozick, you really should read Rawles for reference and if you read Rawles you should read Locke... and well, you get the idea. I am not totally familiar with Sen (see references), but I believe he argues something along the lines of the later. That said, to answer your question more directly, yes, they are compatible. Henry George attempted to answer this very question over 100 years ago and chronicled this in his book "Progress and Poverty". (See references) In contemporary economics, Georgists aside, the prevailing notion is that a trade exists between efficiency and equity. Or rather, we can not have a totally free market and a totally free society at the same time. Which, given the current paradigm is largely true. Indeed, the very notion of an income tax is contrary to social liberalism and economic liberalism at the same time. The argument for a tax on income (wages) is that it is better then any other alternative. The argument against, from a social justice perspective, is as follows. Consider you are a man alone in the wilderness. Maybe God created you, maybe you evolved, it doesn't matter. Either way, in this state of nature, we can probably agree that you own yourself and by extension all people own themselves. This implies that anything you do with yourself, you also own fully. For example, let's say there is an apple tree and you pick some apples, you have mixed your labor with the land and the product then becomes wholly yours (since, in this state of nature, the land belongs to no one). Locke went on to say, let's say there are many apple trees and many people and I pick all the apples. If I pick all the apples and then they go to waste this would be a problem, but after money was created, this was no longer a problem. I can no sell my apples for other goods and store the value of my labor in some transient vehicle (like money). The other issue, for Locke, was the scarcity of land (as much as, and as good as for others), but he said that the bounty of the New World was so large as it would never be a problem (and we see how well that worked out). The argument against, from a perspective of efficiency, is that to tax anything which is being produced, in this case labor, provides a disincentive to continue producing it at the rate when it was not taxed. This is actually a complicated problem when it comes to labor, so I will simply leave it at that; however, I will add very quickly that it has something to do with the Laffer Curve and you can see the references if you wish to explore this idea further. In your second paragraph, you make the observation that it doesn't seem to be a question of the rich getting so much, as it is a question of resource scarcity and who has control of those resources. For that, I point you to the third of my references, when Henry George was attempting to answer the very question you are asking this observation ended up being crucial to his thesis. |
|
|
|
|
|
Why does economic liberalism In other words, why are the
conservative parties so often
in favour of free markets (at
least superficially), but also
highly protectionist about
things like "family values"?
And vice versa, of course.
Is this just a historical
accident affecting Western
countries (I'm aware that the
Russian communist party is
pretty socially conservative)
or does it reflect something
deeper?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well you see you need to understand that politics has two scales. First the Left/Right scale. Far Left is totally Government controlled economy, i.e. Communism, and right is laissez-faire, or a free economy. The Authoritarian/Libertarian scale deals with rules, like you say "family values". The reason why the right-wing parties seem to be Authoritarian is because they descend mainly from strongly religious leaders, who were rich, and the strongly religious, be it Christian or Muslim, always have strong rules. Even if its not following their holy book correctly... Hope it helps. |
|
|
|
|
* Indicates a required fieldAdd your knowledge or ask a question:
