(02-06-2019 08:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 07:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 06:01 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-06-2019 11:16 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  But American leftists (young or otherwise) who declare support for "socialism" are not doing so chiefly because some of their opponents have labeled safety-net policies as socialist. Rather, they are doing so chiefly because they are willfully ignorant of how execrable socialism is. That's their failing, not their opponents'.



That last clause would indeed be right at home in Scandinavia -- but it would make you a heretic among the left wing in the US.

Agree about some on the left, but we'll disagree about how many would find that heretical. I think the majority just don't view unfettered capitalism as the answer to problems the way the right tends to portray it. Even Adam Smith recognized that government played an integral role in society to a certain point, yet it feels as if the right thinks the invisible hand is the best and ultimate arbiter for all issues facing modern society.

Adams recognized govt as *an* actor. Your addition of 'intregal' is far more of a Kenysian approach.

Hell. Even Mises recognized the government as an actor. Neither. the first or last noted them as integral. That honor really only belongs to Keynes.

I can go pull the section of the book on historic economists I read two nights ago discussing Smith’s views on the role government in society and how, based on his feelings, that role appeared to be integral. He very specifically felt that there were roles the government should play (such as enforcing contracts), thus making it integral...

I dont think anyone argues that providing the bedrock of a system of law is a huge positive towards economic freedoms.

You would be correct that the government ability to enforce contract is a very powerful role --- in a strictly adjunct means if you note. It actually 'helps' the invisible hand operate efficiently. And contrary to your comment that the right is too fing stupid to see that adjunct functional advantage, I would say that most on the right are absolutely on board with that.

FFS, even the hardest core Chicago school types recognize that adjunct function.

But, the discussion isnt in the context of teh police provisiosn to provide contract relief. The discussion is that of the government's role as an actor, mind you.

But you seemingly either mix and match the role of government now, or simply dont understand the context in which you place Smith's stance -- especially when the discussion was geared towards a comparison with Scandinavia and the role of the government as an actor or an ultimate actor (i.e. Scandinavian welfare-centric socialism).

I mean your discussion of the government as providing the means to obtain contract enforcement (and yes, integral) really doesnt have **** to do with the discussion as the level of the government as an actor, does it?

Ah, ok, so you do want me to provide examples. Sorry that I picked one example that showed that Smith believed the government had an integral role to play in society that you didn't like...

My point was that very often many on the right treat government as if it is only a problem, and that the best government is less government, regardless of what aspect of society is touches, and yet even the father of the invisible hand was explicit in arguing that government should play an integral role.

Smith focused on three primary, and integral, roles that government should play: safety/security, administration of justice, and most relevant to this conversation, "erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works which may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society," but which "are of such a nature that the profit could never pay the expense to any individual or small number of individuals."

Specifically, Smith had mentioned things like roads and education to explain the last item - but the implicit suggestion carries much further than those two items.

It's been interesting reading about these economists/economic thinkers.