Hacker News Reader

Comment by munificent | Hacker News Reader

> the liberal fantasy of allowing every private company to do as it pleases

How is that a liberal fantasy? I thought the standard liberal belief is in heavy regulation of business?

Or do you mean "liberal" in the general "lots of liberty" sense and not "in the liberal political camp"?

in defense of the parent, it would have been helpful if the quoted phrase said "classical liberal" since the definition of liberal has drifted over the past 100 years, and there's a continental difference depending on if you're in north america vs europe.

A liberal fantasy isn't heavy regulation of business, it's regulations to prevent/punish corporate robbers from exploiting the public. It's only a fantasy because corporations are buying politicians to let them further chain the populace and siphon their money in as many ways as they can get away with (and no, just not buying their product is often not a good enough solution or is hardly even a choice, like private prisons or the electrical grid).

Why do you say that the standard liberal belief is in heavy regulation of business? Liberal economics emphasize minimal regulation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism

I was thinking more along the lines of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_Unite...

Liberal does not mean "left-wing". It is a political philosophy mainly informed by the work of John Locke. It places primacy on rights of individuals to basically to do as they like to the extent that it does not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

This is a difficult bit. There are many different ideas about conflicting rights. Without going into these ongoing debates it is enough to say that liberalism is a big tent philosophy. It encompasses "left wingers" in one end where the state has many responsibilities to uphold individual liberties. At the other end are libertarians who say there is no need for government intervention for individuals to pursue their own ends. People can argue about rights and still be correct in calling themselves liberals.

Sorry I should have been clear I meant "anti-regulation advocates"

Liberalism is a school of philosophy dating from the 17th century which generally espouses freedom of speech and association, the separation of church and state, pluralism and religious toleration, state protection for property rights and enforcement of contracts, open markets, popular control of the government, separation of powers, etc.

It is the dominant overarching ideology in America (the American “founding fathers” were mostly devoted liberals) and Western Europe, and there are many disagreements among different sorts of liberals.

"Liberal" does indeed have tons of definitions and connotations. I would have called it more of a Libertarian fantasy (fully free, unregulated market and anti-censorship). That appellation too, though, is fraught with sometimes negative connotations; modern Libertarians in the political arena are derided as nothing more than neoconservatives hiding behind a Fawkes mask and stroking Nazi flags.

Edit for the downvoters: I'm not saying I agree with how Libertarians are seen, just reporting what I've observed. I tend to lean Libertarian on a lot of issues (freedom of movement, freedom of and from religion, live and let live, the right to be left alone, and so on), while also being a socially progressive liberal.

I suspect that parent meant "libertarian fantasy".

Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are virtually meaningless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com