I am an ardent student of American history, the Constitution, and political philosophy. So, yes, I have very strong opinions. I wish you would take the time to read what I wrote, my friend, and not go off quarter-cocked with suppositions and accusations that are entirely unrelated to what I wrote. I was not criticizing those founders as hypocrites at all - I admire them. What I am saying is that the "conservative ideals" they wanted to believe and apply did not work in the real world, so they adapted, and, for the most part adapted marvelously. Both Jefferson and Madison are outstanding examples of such adaptation. I am not a purist, though I am an idealist.

I would ask that you approach this discussion with some humility rather than hubris.

Question for Senator Hatrack...

How does Classical Liberal ideology deal with non-monetized issues such as environmental degradation and social ills?

I was seriously hoping for a response Logs. I was geniunely curious of Hatracks response.

Question I have for you though Logs is: What part of environmental degradation isn't monetized?

I have a harder time seeing what isn't than is.

No, it doesn't tick me off. Yesterday's liberals are tomorrow's conservatives. The modern day liberals (MDL) want to conserve the programs of the New Deal. Classical liberals want to get rid of them.


As a Classical Liberal you want to bring back federalism.
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
James Madison

My point is that degradation is all too often ignored as a cost of doing business, if the free marketeer can get away with it. It's called "externalization", precisely because the cost is not part of the economic calculation.

The "fixing" (or the repercussions of not fixing) the damage falls to all of society, sometimes all of the earth, which is a massive failure of the "free market" ideology. Which means that the myth of free markets ignores the fact that they are supported by socialism. In my opinion...

Nope, nope and nope. Egalitarianism as applied to economics is not about equal outcomes, it's about equal opportunity.

PS: Equal outcomes is not socialism, it's communism.
There's a difference, even though it is clear you probably don't believe there is.

Curious - are you saying that liberal philosophy becomes the new conservate position, or that the liberal abandon their philosophy for that of the conservatives?

That just isn't what the USA evolved into though. The states didn't evolve into small autonomous nations with a 6 foot 5 big brother who would kick your ass if you f*cked with them. We became one big nation who pledged allegience to a single flag.

I think my social democracy is gonna be way easier than your federalism. And way more popular.

I fully agree that the federal government is one of enumerated powers (and limited thereby), and that States possess what are described as "general police powers". But within those enumerated authorities, the federal government has both superior ( Article VI, cl. 2) and, in many cases, plenary authority. For example, States may not enter into treaties, engage in international warfare, or tax (or even) commerce of and interstate or international character. In my view we have never lost federalism.