The Last Ditch by Tom Paine

2 responses to “Classical liberalism – Part 2. The Chicago School”

1. 

   Nigel Sedgwick

   June 17, 2012

   Thank you for putting up this interesting set of short lectures; I have leapt ahead of your posting and watched all seven.. They certainly have a good coherence. However, I have two points on them.
   Firstly, Dr Ashford seems, IMHO, to be widening the definition of Classical Liberalism beyond that which I would use. My view is that Classical Liberalism is the (perhaps left) wing of Libertarianism that most tolerates wider government activity; the other wing being Anarcho-Capitalism. And with with Minarchism being somewhat towards (ie away from the centre and the same side as) Anarcho-Capitalism. Now, of course, I must support freedom of vocabulary – the right to write one’s own dictionary. But I still think it better to have a somewhat narrower view of the meaning of Classical Liberalism and to view Libertarianism as the better word for the breadth that Dr Ashford so helpfully analyses.
   Secondly, and I think more importantly, Dr Ashford says nothing on the purpose of government including the provision of a ‘stable’ currency (and the detailed differences of opinion as to what is ‘stable’ WRT currency). I am of the opinion that this is a major function of government, through protection of notes and coins (directly or indirectly) from forgery – and beyond the duties of any issuing bank. Also the protection of the currency from too fast a fluctuation, such that trade (including retail) and other economic activity can proceed with much reduced uncertainty (ie close to zero, but not ignoring the existence of inflation and deflation) in the short term, and possibly into the medium term. It is clear to me from other reading (particularly of Rothbard) that this economic and currency issue is also one that also differentiates the schools/wings described by Dr Ashford.
   Best regards

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   james higham

   June 18, 2012

   As I wrote at Trooper’s, economic theories fail to take into account Them and the agenda to keep recession and recovery bubbling for the purpose of profit and impoverishing the people. From Rothbard to Keynes, all these theories fail to take this into account.

   LikeLike

   Reply