Further to Cord’s post below, a real liberal, not a statist claiming to be one, would be familiar with John Stuart Mill’s argument that minorities need small government to protect them from the “tyranny of the majority“:
The “people” who exercise the power, are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised, and the “self-government” spoken of, is not the government of each by himself, but of each by all the rest. The will of the people, moreover, practically means, the will of the most numerous or the most active part of the people; the majority, or those who succeed in making themselves accepted as the majority; the people, consequently, may desire to oppress a part of their number; and precautions are as much needed against this, as against any other abuse of power. The limitation, therefore, of the power of government over individuals, loses none of its importance when the holders of power are regularly accountable to the community, that is, to the strongest party therein. This view of things, recommending itself equally to the intelligence of thinkers and to the inclination of those important classes in European society to whose real or supposed interests democracy is adverse, has had no difficulty in establishing itself; and in political speculations “the tyranny of the majority” is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard.
Mill goes on to warn that limits on government are not enough, for the tyranny of the majority can also operate through convention - and this is what distinguishes the liberal Mill from the conservative. However, in a world where the liberal victory over convention is well-nigh complete, it is the limitation of the power of government over individuals that is more important. That is where liberalism has failed, because people who presumptuously call themselves liberals have been seduced by the power of the state and seek to use it to impose their own view of the world on everyone. The fatal conceit that Hayek, another great liberal who despised the idea that he might be thought of as conservative, warned against as leading down the road to serfdom has so completely infected modern liberalism that it has become the establishment that Mill warned against (perhaps Nobel laureates form the new aristocracy of this establishment).
It is perhaps a jape by history that conservatives have become the prime guardians of real liberty, but once liberty becomes a tradition, conservatives are bound to uphold it. Mill would recognize this, and approve heartily. If he does not know this, Krugman is not only no liberal, but he is no intellectual either.
Loading ...
The knee-jerk reaction of many NYT “intellectuals” is to pretend modern government is capable of solving any problem, with complete disregard of its centuries-long track record of incompetence and corruption. I think they are aware of the trade-off of less liberty for more progress, but they overestimate the progress. For them, progress usually means equality, regardless of the overall benefit to humanity. And equality is IMPOSSIBLE because everyone thinks they deserve more than the next guy. It's in our DNA.
I have some more commentary on his column here: http://www.krugmanwatch.com/?p=41
I think Krugman knows better, and that he's just concerned with convincing useful (voting) idiots that conservatism is essentially racist because it's useful to his ilk. Of course the refrain is all bullshit, as anyone who knows or even googles a bit of history will quickly understand - but statists don't care about truth or honesty anymore because it's not as useful as simple propagandizing. It's about getting the seldom-thinking to adopt your views by attacking the other side, however false and absurd the claim. Though it's also about scaring the seldom-thinking into buying their cries for more centralized control, including international “cooperation.” Krugman is a brave new worlder, which - by its sheer historical ignorance and its disdain for continued individual rights and responsibilities - is the worst form of both utopian vanity, anti-Americanism, general stupidity (unless Stalin is his hero), and in the sense of our Founders' views of liberty that imbue the Constitution, treason. The irony is that this movement relies on democracy in order to ultimately destroy democracy, by putting all meaningful authorities and responsibilities at the central government's feet. Big Brother indeed, and his little ones' keepers.
This is why Krugman is a Nobel laureate.
I think there are conservatives and then there are republicans. Edmund Burke was a conservative. Lee Atwater was a republican. Considering context when judging others thoughts can be helpful. I don't believe Burke had a southern strategy. But I believe Atwater did. As far as liberals using the power of the state to impose their own view of the world on everyone, what are your supporting arguments.
Isn't political power wielded by those with that power specifically to implement their world view. And in a democracy, political power is achieved thru democratic process and is representative of the electorate? Hence, Obama and the Democrats are in power. Keep me informed of when they start imposing their world view on everyone. They certainly have the apparatus kindly provided by Bush Cheney to spy on and imprison anyone they so desire. You've always got the ACLU to protect your rights.
Regards,
Mickster
Of course he isn't. He is a leftist puke like Stalin and Mao. Force is all he believes in.
After all, he works for the organ that white-washed Stalin's crimes: The New York Times. Anyone that works there doesn't have a shred of integrity.
Krugman's article is RIGHT ON, bro! The Republican party has turned itself into the party of small minded, illiberal, know-nothing authoritarians. They did so willingly and with malice aforethought.
The libertarian philosophes are now waking up to find themselves in bed with these dregs, and object that they are being unfairly characterized because of who they chose to sleep with! You made that bed, you laid down in it, and you have been caught In flagrante delicto. And you have picked up a little “souvenir” from the encounter. Penicillin and a strong purgative are in order.
I love that you have that URL. Excellent.
If you add “repression” and “domination” to government's track record it becomes millenia long rather than centuries.
Obama has not even taken the oath and already the tit-for-tat justification of corrupt politics has started. And not by the least of observers. Declared Hillary fan Paul Krugman posted this in his NYT blog on November 18:
“Everywhere you look, there’s stuff about Bill Clinton’s donors and all that, often with the implication that there must inherently be something dirty going on, because, well, just because.
But I guess that’s just the way things are. After all, do you remember all the grief President Bush got over his family’s questionable business ties?â€
Now, nobody is asking to forget the Bush phallacy even before it came to an end, but this disculpation of one person by pointing at his/her predecessor’s actions, especially out of the pen of a Nobel prize winner, is just not what we need right now. Let’s hope Krugman doesn’t set the tone for the mainstream press. Change: yes we could, but only if it suits us?
Read more on Crunchreport.com.