In this first decade of the 21st century, liberal thought, in both its theoretical and political aspects, has reached a historic crossroads. Although the fall of the Berlin Wall and of real socialism beginning in 1989 appeared to herald "the end of history" (to use Francis Fukuyama's unfortunate and overblown phrase), today, and in many respects more than ever, statism prevails throughout the world, accompanied by the demoralization of freedom lovers.
Therefore, an "aggiornamento" of liberalism is imperative. It is time to thoroughly revise liberal doctrine and bring it up to date in light of the latest advances in economic science, and the experience the latest historical events have provided.
I would really suggest everyone read it. Because while you may not agree with everything he says he makes a very important point about re-thinking liberal arguments for the 21st Century.
6 comments:
"Therefore, an "aggiornamento" of liberalism is imperative. It is time to thoroughly revise liberal doctrine and bring it up to date in light of the latest advances in economic science, and the experience the latest historical events have provided."
Really? If anything, it seems that historical events have only shown that the old liberal principles have been vindicated.
"What would Jesus do?"
Sorry. Someone had to say it.
As I indicated on Twitter, he doesn't appear to have thought through - at least not in the article - the possible consequences of competing systems of law.
Systems of law justify the use of force and would effectively be competitive providers of force against whoever you believed you had a complaint against.
A single system of law is therefore necessary, even if it is indeed implemented by competing agencies, otherwise, the agencies would not be limited applying force to dealings between men.
See also
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government
Of course, this being my only issue, I agree with much of the article.
Sorry I missed a premise. The consumer of law would be able to choose the system he went to for resolution, and would have an incentive to choose the system most likely to apply force. Consumer choice promotes production, in this case, the production of coercive force.
"What would Jesus do?"
Well, if you read the entire article, you will discover from footnote 7 that Jesus is an anarchist, i.e. a free-market/libertarian anarchist - at least according to James Redford.
Perhaps even more surprisingly, note 7 implies that Professor Huerta de Soto seems to think that Pope Benedict XVI has has libertarian sympathies.
De Soto's piece is almost as good as this utterly briliant piece, written by a stunningly attractive LPUK member!
Post a Comment