What is NEOliberalism and is it worth reclaiming or rejecting?

The Guardian once called neoliberalism "the ideology at the root of all our problems." New York Magazine called neoliberalism "the left's favorite insult of liberals."

But does anyone really know what the word means - or know anything about its origins?

For this video, Learn Liberty reached out to Neo from The Matrix. He politely declined to comment. But we did get ahold of Colin Mortimer, Director of the Center for New Liberalism and a proud, self-proclaimed neoliberal, as well as Dr. Phil Magness, Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research and ardently NOT a neoliberal.

They laid a foundation for understanding the term and roughly agreed on its origins. And, broadly speaking, they agreed that it only became an insult around the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were in power.

However, they differed sharply on how liberty-minded folks should approach the term in modern times. They also disagreed on ideas like carbon taxes and Universal Basic Income.

The sparks fly in "NEOliberalism: Reclaim ... or Reject?" So, watch it and decide who makes a stronger argument, then comment below with your thoughts. And if you'd be interested in watching a live debate between Clin and Dr. Magness, LIKE this video.

#Neoliberal #Neoliberalism #Debate #ReclaimOrReject

LEARN LIBERTY:

[elliottmiller]

I used to be a fan of the neoliberal project and I still like Jerimiah. But I can't, in good conscience, be a part of them anymore, as I don't think their ideology has any kind of consistant basis. I think that classical liberal or just liberal is a much better term to reclaim.

[TheScottishMutt]

Reclaiming a term that's been misused further muddies the waters of the debate. If the right are against liberalism, and call themselves "neoliberals" while being anti-liberal, then their whole plan is to obfuscate the debate; kick up dirt and blow smoke. If the left try to reclaim the term "neoliberalism" to redefine it in order to be more in-line with its presumed definition, then you're doing the work of the right: kicking up more dirt until nobody outside the debate can tell what's going on. When your opposition uses a term incorrectly, they do it intentionally to confuse people who are on the fence surrounding the debate. When you try to reclaim that term (as a big "F you" to them), you play into their hands while trying to circumvent their plan to confuse everyone.

Just keep shit simple: stick to your ideals, then define them with an accurate label that's actually not being used already. Let the term "neoliberal" stand for anti-liberal sentiment so that it's clear what the term means: "neoliberal is anti-liberal." The current Republican party used to be called the Democratic party once upon a time; names are just meaningless labels that require context. Don't call yourselves "neoliberal" if you stand for liberal policies; that word's already being used - let them use it, and point out how stupid they are for using it.

[matthewkopp]

Arguably the most liberal founding father was Thomas Jefferson, but Jefferson was against monopolies and wanted to tax land monopolies out of existence. He was also for a 100% inheritance along with Franklin, to prevent Plutocracy and oligarchy.

The thing is I don’t see liberals, classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians proposing things like Thomas Jefferson.

And being that we are in an era of monopolies, real estate monopolies, oligarchy and plutocracy wouldn’t certain measures like this be warranted?

So therefore I have a hard time taking those who use these terms seriously. Because they seem not to understand Liberalism.

[andrew_personalniemeyer]

There is a small role for the state to play. Simplification such as standardization is, in my mind, one of it's strengths. It also is useful in covering universal benefits such as military, roads, streetlights, etc.

There is also power in using your opponent's insults against them. The vagueness, however, is a problem.

I would coin a new term instead of using Neoliberal.

[stacynevitt]

Please, give us a thoughtful debate on this!

[LordDigby]

A huge, gigantic pass on Colin's take. We don't need a "3rd way"--we need the free market. "Laisse Faire", if that's what floats his boat. But I don't want, or need, him, or the State, to direct my purchasing. Nor do I want/need government taking money from others (and/or me), in order to guarantee someone having money. In fact, the more I think about it, Colin can go kick rocks...right on down the road.

[factualclass]

I would love to see a debate.

I think the neoliberal label has been too tainted in people's minds and doesn't have enough historical meaning to warrant it being reclaimed (like the word liberal should be in the United states). Why start an up hill battle?

I am a libertarian/ classical liberal at heart, but i guess a neoliberal in the way that he defined it (a softer hand of government) but not one of those neoliberals that belive in bombing people into freedom

[royalisy]

A third way between (classic) liberalism and socialism: social liberalism. "Neo-liberalism" basically implies an updated version of the original - not a mix with something else!

[dorisandilands]

Yes I would like to see a debate. And do reject 'neoliberalism'.

[sangaman]

Interesting and balanced video, I'd watched more about this topic. I consider myself both a libertarian and a neoliberal, the former moreso in principle and the latter more as a matter of practicality/compromise with mainstream politics, but I also consider both terms to be pretty broad and to mean different things to different people.

[stuarthirsch]

The purpose of government in a free society is to protect individual liberty, promote a free and fair market, and provide for the GENERAL welfare, meaning infrastructure, transportation, education, the environment, public safety and health. It is not to act as a wealth transfer agent, which has mainly become. Government needs to concentrate its primary functions and let the market handle do its job. Sometimes the lines are blurry, but they have a limited range.

[bradley]

As a classical liberal let me tell you how it frustrates me to see someone say they are 'Neoliberal' and that there is such a thing as ''new'' liberalism. We still believe in the same things.. There is no such thing as neoliberalism.

[amandadevasconcellos]

Likely the best content I've ever seen about this subject

[nickd]

The original meaning had been long forgotten when it re-appeared in the 1990s to refer to a return to neo-classical liberalism. In 1992 the former Tory cabinet minister Ian Gilmour for example wrote that supporters were wrong to see Thatcher as returning to 19th century conservative values, she was really a "neo-Liberal, " supporting the ideology of the party of Gladstone. it may be impossible to determine whether this was a source of the modern term, but it's an obvious description of the paradigm that replaced the post WW2 welfare state consensus.

[MUSTASCHO]

Neoliberal and classical liberal are pretty much interchangeable in my mind. Neoliberal has a better ring to it but comes with the years of dirt that has been thrown on it.

I prefer referring myself as classical liberal, liberal, and neoliberal over libertarian, because I feel libertarians in the UK are more likely to side with nationalists (believe it or not), put their belief in natural rights before the consequences, and are irrationally sceptical of governments ability to address negative externalities. I accept this last paragraph is just my opinion and could be wrong in parts, and I don't mean to offend anyone who would call themselves a libertarian.

[whatsup]

I have a question. If someone look at hospital with lower price or higher quality service it encourage competition. In that case what if u r unconscious due to a car accident in that situation u don't look at cheap hospital with good quality but hospital near u. In that situation is this out of pocket system works? Is it possible u can negotiate with hospital in that condition? Could you please answer my question

[DanHowardMtl]

Do you have links to the other 2 videos?

[rkdeshdeepak]

Herbert Spencer probably one of the most popular "libertarian" in 19th century, said liberalism will be the "new toryism" full of socialism and many aspects if 19th century liberalism will be defended by conservatism. He himself rejected liberalism.
But most of these modern debates never tries to reject liberalism itself, either it's neoliberalism or keyenesian liberalism or liberal socialism, etc. while neglecting that all these ideas came from liberalism( classical ). And share common goals with it like normative individualism( at least in social realm)/social progressivism, and these goals are what generally drives the non "liberal" ways itself.

The only good part of liberalism(classical) was anti government and anti violence/aggression stuff.

Reject liberalism embrace conservative anarchism.

Read Edmund Burke's "Vindication of natural societies".

[psikeyhackr]

Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith has been in the public domain for some time and can be downloaded from Project Gutenberg and searched. The printed book can cost you $15 and take a lot of effort to search. Has Smith's "Invisible Hand" been used as a propaganda tool for decades since most people would never read WoN?

Smith used the word 'invisible' six times but only once as "invisible hand". It is really curious that we hear about the 'invisible hand' so much.

Smith used the word 'education' EIGHTY TIMES. We are not told about that. Search for "and account" and you will find multiple instances of "read, write, and account", not "read, write and arithmetic". Double entry accounting was more than 300 years old when Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, but 50% of Brits were illiterate and public schools did not exist in 1776.

The United States could have made accounting/finance mandatory in the schools since Sputnik. Wouldn't that have helped everyone best serve their own self interest? But we do not hear the people who propagandize us about the "invisible hand" advocating mandatory accounting because that might make their invisible rip-offs more difficult.

Adam Smith never used the word 'depreciation' in WoN. He mentioned paper money being depreciated one time. Marx wrote about 'depreciation' 35 times in Das Kapital, sometimes regarding the depreciation of machines and sometimes of money. Marx even mentioned Adam Smith 130 times though not much about education.

Consumers did not buy automobiles, air conditioners, televisions and microwave ovens before 1885.
Marx died in 1883.

But it's OK! Our brilliant economists do not talk about the depreciation of under engineered consumer trash today either. Every time you buy a replacement the purchase is added to GDP. What about NDP? Oh sorry, when do you ever hear an economist explain NDP? That's OK too, they only depreciate the Capital Goods and ignore the depreciation of consumer junk anyway.

Wealth of Nations has probably been in the public domain for a very long time but cheap computing did not make it available in Project Gutenberg until 3/17/2001. Milton Friedman died in 2006. Was Friedman giving us the straight dope on economics or treating us like a bunch of dopes for decades?

[danielreardon]

Its hard to use any label no matter who you all labels mean different things to different people