Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-“libertarians”.
To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.
I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it’s peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.
I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they’re not really neolibs though. They’re fascists, or close to it.
You can’t have your cake & eat it too.
This is simple logic.
You’re talking about differences in degree the words do not imply.
You’re confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.
You don’t have to agree with their policies to understand they don’t fit the definition.
Definitions don’t imply your approval/disapproval.
If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal.
If they are not for that (eg, they’re for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.
Unless you can refute a definition, you’re just fighting logic (in vain).
Comrade, the only people who are for complete nonintervention are right-“libertarians”.
To call the Democratic ideal a mixed market is kinda wild. Nearly everything that could be privatized already is, besides perhaps the post office.
I will not pretend that the current programs are not significant or that cutting them will not kill people. But the fact of the matter is that it’s peanuts compared to the social-democracy that reigned in Western Europe for most of the Cold War or even the social-liberalism of the pre-Reagan US.
I am not sure what your talk of the Republicans has to do with this. I am certain they’re not really neolibs though. They’re fascists, or close to it.
You can’t have your cake & eat it too. This is simple logic.
You’re talking about differences in degree the words do not imply. You’re confusing mixed market with rejection of markets & muddling words.
You don’t have to agree with their policies to understand they don’t fit the definition. Definitions don’t imply your approval/disapproval.
If they are for unregulated, free markets, then they are absolutely neoliberal. If they are not for that (eg, they’re for regulated markets & public services), then they are not neoliberal.
Unless you can refute a definition, you’re just fighting logic (in vain).
Even Reagan left some regulations be.