The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
"We will select the best essays based on the quality of their arguments, not the extent to which they align with our views"
Does one not always believe that one's views are based on the highest quality of argument?
There really should be a carbon/climate change question
Very good idea, TE! Congrats for coming up with the idea! So we could learn from the young and smart who are our future. For it is they who shall inherit the earth, poor or rich.
A personal note - perhaps "classical liberalism" could be more precisely framed, for purposes of your competition, by capitalizing "C" and "L". Classical Liberalism has earnest philosophical underpinnings and historical derivations, not to be confused with a brand of "anything-goes-let-it-all-hang-out" mental attitude that sometimes typifies the unbridled passions of 16-25 year olds these days who spend a great deal of their time reading bizarre things on FaceBook and Twitter, and Texting on mobile devices. An outgrowth of this mental attitude is the Rule of Law is anathema to Liberalism.
Look forward to reading your winners. If we could bring Classical Liberalism back, at a minimum, maybe we could rid ourselves of the avalanche after avalanche of attacks on ill-defined "Liberals" by self-named "Conservatives", specifically of the Trumpian brand. "Liberal" to these so-called "Conservatives" means anything, anyone that a Foxy commentator makes a career of denouncing, fact-less and fact-free.
I have said Classical Liberalism is dead. Evangelicalism of the Get-Rich-Quick-Gospel variety in America and Thatcherism have killed it. I add here Trumpism has cremated it.
Perhaps the winners could resurrect it.
Again, really look forward to reading the winning entries. Your "5 themes" is a great start.
I agree that Classical Liberalism is dead, but I don't agree that it has anyone to blame for that but it's own internal contradictions.
Classical Liberalism died from the same things that killed it back when it was classical, back in the Gilded Age days: Money begets more money and can be leveraged to box others out of competition for profits through various means including the mechanisms of the state, resulting in ever-widening inequality and concurrently ever more control over the State by capital interests at the expense of potential new competitors to the marketplace (who are snuffed out in the womb).
Leaving the population little other recourse to be heard than populist revolt against the elites who have abused the benefits of their power and privilege for selfish gains. As catastrophic as those populist revolts have proven to be in the past....
When a person is wholly dependent on lending to enter a competitive marketplace at all, the lender gets to set the terms of existence for that entrant entirely and can extract rents far in excess of their actual contribution from the lendee.
Maybe if our lenders were good people who wouldn't do this sort of thing Classical Liberalism would work. But lenders are as prone to monopoly as any because monopoly is the ideal form of profit maximization. And they like all other userers in this farce have been taught that that is what they are supposed to, that there is nothing wrong with that.
Thank you for your input, @Peace Love and Understanding. Particularly for the time y you took in writing it.
I have feeling although we use the same terminology, we are talking about apples and oranges - precisely what I was worried about when I wrote the post I wrote.
I am truly tired and have not the time to write a lengthy treatise on Classical Liberalism, what it is, and what it isn't. Suffice it to say you can Google it and follow all the suggested readings in the footnotes, or any year-long Philosophy 301 course will be plenty adequate for it.
Again, thank you for your input.