What we have suffered since at least 1694 is Liberalism under Banksters - the criminal, parasitic gang which own most central banks - and MUCH else (politicians, media, giant corporations, etc).
We need liberalism without Banksters.
I think it's possible . . . but there will always be parasites on the money system, so there need to be deliberate, anti-parasitic policies in place to prevent them taking over as they have done.
The coherent political philosophy you're looking to identify is LIBERTARIANISM. It opposes ALL forms of force - fascism, communism, corporatism - and don't forget government-supported cartels and government-supported unions (not to be confused with cartels and unions that have no political power). I think it's a fallacy to suggest that liberalism causes colonialism and associated barbarism just because you cite examples where they occurred at the same time. There is ALWAYS a desire for elites (including in communist and fascist countries) to see control and power over others. It is a battle that must always be fought for liberalism - political/personal liberties or economic liberties - to prevail. The goal should always be: Make government as small and as possible. Tiny budgets, strictly limited authority (with teeth), and no foreign intervention.
In a way, it did, yes. We had politicians who prioritized “working with those across the aisle” over representing the interests of those they claimed to represent.The appearance of good government was more important than actual good government. “Appearing too liberal” was something to deny, be ashamed of, distance themselves from. Why not be unabashed in our positions? The other side does. They care little for how they sound or how they appear? Working well with others-they could care less.
Much needed essay Toby. Liberalism just too broad and corruptible to be a viable world view label. I moved to sticking to simpler clearer principles so that no political party or change in cultural tone can adulterate and abuse them:
Freedom. Personal sovereignty with rights and boundaries we protect. National sovereignty with boundaries we protect. Embracing fully the American Constitution and Bill of rights. Anti-war. Pro-Diplomacy. Separation of Church and State. Separation of Corporations and Government. Limited Goverment. And so on.
Toby I always get a kick out of your brief and regular posts on X. Brutally candid observations about the realities we face and that are coming on down the pike. And often with dark humor.
Liberalism is flawed because conceiving of freedom as "the right not to be interfered with" invariably leads to private monopolies and the imposition of self-serving policies that exploit others. The free market only gives the benefits we associate with free markets when it is perfectly competitive. The answer I believe is for the public authority to regulate economic and political life in line with the natural law. We need Toryism, i.e., classical conservatism, to avoid the pitfalls of liberalism and the stakeholder fascism that grows out of it.
Ever heard of Douglas Social Credit? It's a monetary reform movement in favour of the individual in a way that decentralizes power to everyone. It's the solution we need and the answer to the liberal-fascist conundrum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IgVHlOVdcM&t=
Please look at this critique. While most of your essay is correct, your
summary of the "Marxian critique" is completely inaccurate. You paint us Marxists as indistinguishable from right wing anti-monopolist populists who agree with Adam Smith that the problem comes from differences in "talent" (where did Marx talk about THAT?)?! Our theory of why capital concentrates in just a few eugenicist billionaires' hands is based on far more solid grounds, like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as the organic composition of capital rises. Your rendition of Marx sounds more like his rival Proudhon, against which Marx joked that P's belief that we can have capitalism without monopoly, is just like the belief that you can have Catholicism without the Pope. And this superficial dismissal of our critique leads you to falsely claim that all we need to do is to renew liberalism, in some form which you do not delineate, rather than socialism (which I believe our movement absolutely needs). https://bmccproftomsmith7.substack.com/p/yes-drs-malone-and-rogers-liberalism
Great! But does this mean you're actually going to READ Karl Marx's THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY, rather than continue to confuse it with THE PHILOSOPHY OF POVERTY?
The two primary problems with liberalism are, well ... three major problems ... 1. Voting has been expanded to way too many people, people who are ignorant and have no business voting for leaders who can change our laws, 2. corporations, 3. global free trade.
I really enjoy your writing. Thank you. My curiosity has turned towards the idea/theory of Rule by Elites. I also have become aware of the theory of cyclic global catastrophism based on periodic interactions between the galactic center, our star and earths geomagnetic shield. Our shield appears to have entered into an exponential decline which puts us into the red zone for impending global catastrophe. My theory is that, there exists among the ruling elite, a core group that is aware of this cycle and has learned how to cultivate humanity in between the disasters. As we enter the red zone, they abscond (to where I'm not sure, underground?). They have learned the practice and habit of NOT worrying. They are the Original Preppers (OP). When all the chaos settles, they reemerge to have another go. The crazy we are experiencing now is the result of an ignorant, opportunistic poser class who have no clue or deny our cyclic nature. In the run up to the great reset, humanity suffers greatly, but enough survive to be re-cultivated when the Real Elite re-emerge with new stories to tell.
Liberty cannot coexist with rent-seeking. This is strange and counter-intuitive to capitalism and a “free” society. Of course Rent-seeking applies to many industries but the one it gets it’s namesake from - housing- is a good place to start. You should be free to own as many houses as you wish and rent them for profit right? Yet this is the single most destructive practice to wealth distribution. Laws can be passed that prevent corporations like Blackrock and Opendoor from owning homes altogether. Individuals can also be limited in number of homes owned. This would immediately dump housing prices and make owning a house (wealth) more accessible to a greater population.
"The US (along with our liberal allies in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) won World War II because we were able to build tanks, boats, planes, and bombs faster and better than Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or Imperial Japan."
Wow! You are rewriting history and continuing the demonization of Russia! "Communist Russia" was one of our ALLIES in WW II. They, almost singlehandedly, defeated Nazi Germany. They lost 24 million people in that war which is why even today they have a severe mistrust and hatred of Nazi's, and is one of the reasons they invaded Ukraine.
I noticed that sentence, too, for a different reason. I have a feeling our British friends might not appreciate being relegated to the position of sidekick.
I've only now come across your excellent essay. I have a few quibbles with it, but your excoriation of progressivism is spot on. What I would add is that the Progressive Era began more than a century ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Without it we would not have seen the incredible debauching of the currency, and subseqent inflation, that ensued.
Somewhat related, I would argue, has been the dramatic expansion of the Surveillance State over the past several decades, propelled by the ubiquitous iPhone, and Android and other "smart" technologies which have served as 24/7 monitoring devices. (Even now we are unwitting, or at least unwilling, participants.) No development could be less "liberal" or more devastating to our personal freedom than this.
Also remember that the land farmed for Virginia tobacco was Indigenous peoples’ land claimed by the Virginia Company under the doctrine of ‘Christian Discovery’.
The founding fathers did a good job creating guard rails for 18th century government. But we are now in technological 21st century Wild West with inadequate guard rails.
The role of government should still be to create the rule book for society to flourish. Road rules to protect citizens from each other, from corporations, from foreign threats, etc. We need new founding fathers for the 21st century to create updated guard rails for Americans to pursue Life, Liberties, and Happiness.
Reflecting on recent history, we need to waste no time.
Thanks for your good work towards a more perfect union and brighter future.
So there's really this third branch of liberalism — liberal foreign policy — that has always been characterized by empire, conquest, and exploitation. Liberal foreign policy is the dominant and indispensable branch — it makes possible the other two branches of liberalism (political and economic). It fights the wars, secures the resources, and creates the markets. It's driven by the military, intelligence agencies, defense contractors, and the Rebuild & Exploit multinational corporations (Halliburton, BlackRock, et al.). And now that third branch has turned on the American people (and people throughout the developed world) and is colonizing our bodies, our cells, and our DNA — because that's where the most wealth can be extracted.
'I’ve got a feeling that it looks like a sort of Mennonite community with very modest incomes and standards of living.' Yes. All outlined and presented superbly in the late David Fleming's masterful, inspiring 'Lean Logic'. Thank you for your writing.
What we have suffered since at least 1694 is Liberalism under Banksters - the criminal, parasitic gang which own most central banks - and MUCH else (politicians, media, giant corporations, etc).
We need liberalism without Banksters.
I think it's possible . . . but there will always be parasites on the money system, so there need to be deliberate, anti-parasitic policies in place to prevent them taking over as they have done.
The coherent political philosophy you're looking to identify is LIBERTARIANISM. It opposes ALL forms of force - fascism, communism, corporatism - and don't forget government-supported cartels and government-supported unions (not to be confused with cartels and unions that have no political power). I think it's a fallacy to suggest that liberalism causes colonialism and associated barbarism just because you cite examples where they occurred at the same time. There is ALWAYS a desire for elites (including in communist and fascist countries) to see control and power over others. It is a battle that must always be fought for liberalism - political/personal liberties or economic liberties - to prevail. The goal should always be: Make government as small and as possible. Tiny budgets, strictly limited authority (with teeth), and no foreign intervention.
In a way, it did, yes. We had politicians who prioritized “working with those across the aisle” over representing the interests of those they claimed to represent.The appearance of good government was more important than actual good government. “Appearing too liberal” was something to deny, be ashamed of, distance themselves from. Why not be unabashed in our positions? The other side does. They care little for how they sound or how they appear? Working well with others-they could care less.
Much needed essay Toby. Liberalism just too broad and corruptible to be a viable world view label. I moved to sticking to simpler clearer principles so that no political party or change in cultural tone can adulterate and abuse them:
Freedom. Personal sovereignty with rights and boundaries we protect. National sovereignty with boundaries we protect. Embracing fully the American Constitution and Bill of rights. Anti-war. Pro-Diplomacy. Separation of Church and State. Separation of Corporations and Government. Limited Goverment. And so on.
Toby I always get a kick out of your brief and regular posts on X. Brutally candid observations about the realities we face and that are coming on down the pike. And often with dark humor.
Liberalism is flawed because conceiving of freedom as "the right not to be interfered with" invariably leads to private monopolies and the imposition of self-serving policies that exploit others. The free market only gives the benefits we associate with free markets when it is perfectly competitive. The answer I believe is for the public authority to regulate economic and political life in line with the natural law. We need Toryism, i.e., classical conservatism, to avoid the pitfalls of liberalism and the stakeholder fascism that grows out of it.
Ever heard of Douglas Social Credit? It's a monetary reform movement in favour of the individual in a way that decentralizes power to everyone. It's the solution we need and the answer to the liberal-fascist conundrum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IgVHlOVdcM&t=
This article will also be of interest: https://www.socred.org/s-c-action/social-credit-views/free-market-follies
Please look at this critique. While most of your essay is correct, your
summary of the "Marxian critique" is completely inaccurate. You paint us Marxists as indistinguishable from right wing anti-monopolist populists who agree with Adam Smith that the problem comes from differences in "talent" (where did Marx talk about THAT?)?! Our theory of why capital concentrates in just a few eugenicist billionaires' hands is based on far more solid grounds, like the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as the organic composition of capital rises. Your rendition of Marx sounds more like his rival Proudhon, against which Marx joked that P's belief that we can have capitalism without monopoly, is just like the belief that you can have Catholicism without the Pope. And this superficial dismissal of our critique leads you to falsely claim that all we need to do is to renew liberalism, in some form which you do not delineate, rather than socialism (which I believe our movement absolutely needs). https://bmccproftomsmith7.substack.com/p/yes-drs-malone-and-rogers-liberalism
All good points. Thank you for raising them.
Great! But does this mean you're actually going to READ Karl Marx's THE POVERTY OF PHILOSOPHY, rather than continue to confuse it with THE PHILOSOPHY OF POVERTY?
The problem is not the noble ideals of classical (NOT modern) liberalism – the problem is their institutional delivery system.
Argument from authority: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0674240944
Argument from logic, with the alternative of kleristocracy described: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1947660853
The two primary problems with liberalism are, well ... three major problems ... 1. Voting has been expanded to way too many people, people who are ignorant and have no business voting for leaders who can change our laws, 2. corporations, 3. global free trade.
I really enjoy your writing. Thank you. My curiosity has turned towards the idea/theory of Rule by Elites. I also have become aware of the theory of cyclic global catastrophism based on periodic interactions between the galactic center, our star and earths geomagnetic shield. Our shield appears to have entered into an exponential decline which puts us into the red zone for impending global catastrophe. My theory is that, there exists among the ruling elite, a core group that is aware of this cycle and has learned how to cultivate humanity in between the disasters. As we enter the red zone, they abscond (to where I'm not sure, underground?). They have learned the practice and habit of NOT worrying. They are the Original Preppers (OP). When all the chaos settles, they reemerge to have another go. The crazy we are experiencing now is the result of an ignorant, opportunistic poser class who have no clue or deny our cyclic nature. In the run up to the great reset, humanity suffers greatly, but enough survive to be re-cultivated when the Real Elite re-emerge with new stories to tell.
Liberty cannot coexist with rent-seeking. This is strange and counter-intuitive to capitalism and a “free” society. Of course Rent-seeking applies to many industries but the one it gets it’s namesake from - housing- is a good place to start. You should be free to own as many houses as you wish and rent them for profit right? Yet this is the single most destructive practice to wealth distribution. Laws can be passed that prevent corporations like Blackrock and Opendoor from owning homes altogether. Individuals can also be limited in number of homes owned. This would immediately dump housing prices and make owning a house (wealth) more accessible to a greater population.
"The US (along with our liberal allies in the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) won World War II because we were able to build tanks, boats, planes, and bombs faster and better than Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, or Imperial Japan."
Wow! You are rewriting history and continuing the demonization of Russia! "Communist Russia" was one of our ALLIES in WW II. They, almost singlehandedly, defeated Nazi Germany. They lost 24 million people in that war which is why even today they have a severe mistrust and hatred of Nazi's, and is one of the reasons they invaded Ukraine.
I noticed that sentence, too, for a different reason. I have a feeling our British friends might not appreciate being relegated to the position of sidekick.
I've only now come across your excellent essay. I have a few quibbles with it, but your excoriation of progressivism is spot on. What I would add is that the Progressive Era began more than a century ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Without it we would not have seen the incredible debauching of the currency, and subseqent inflation, that ensued.
Somewhat related, I would argue, has been the dramatic expansion of the Surveillance State over the past several decades, propelled by the ubiquitous iPhone, and Android and other "smart" technologies which have served as 24/7 monitoring devices. (Even now we are unwitting, or at least unwilling, participants.) No development could be less "liberal" or more devastating to our personal freedom than this.
Also remember that the land farmed for Virginia tobacco was Indigenous peoples’ land claimed by the Virginia Company under the doctrine of ‘Christian Discovery’.
See: https://peterderrico.substack.com/p/a-colonial-god-biblical-roots-of
The founding fathers did a good job creating guard rails for 18th century government. But we are now in technological 21st century Wild West with inadequate guard rails.
The role of government should still be to create the rule book for society to flourish. Road rules to protect citizens from each other, from corporations, from foreign threats, etc. We need new founding fathers for the 21st century to create updated guard rails for Americans to pursue Life, Liberties, and Happiness.
Reflecting on recent history, we need to waste no time.
Thanks for your good work towards a more perfect union and brighter future.
KIWIKERRY
So there's really this third branch of liberalism — liberal foreign policy — that has always been characterized by empire, conquest, and exploitation. Liberal foreign policy is the dominant and indispensable branch — it makes possible the other two branches of liberalism (political and economic). It fights the wars, secures the resources, and creates the markets. It's driven by the military, intelligence agencies, defense contractors, and the Rebuild & Exploit multinational corporations (Halliburton, BlackRock, et al.). And now that third branch has turned on the American people (and people throughout the developed world) and is colonizing our bodies, our cells, and our DNA — because that's where the most wealth can be extracted.
Dang. This is so enlightening and terrifying.
'I’ve got a feeling that it looks like a sort of Mennonite community with very modest incomes and standards of living.' Yes. All outlined and presented superbly in the late David Fleming's masterful, inspiring 'Lean Logic'. Thank you for your writing.