On 01/23/2017 12:44 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > That's the collateral damage of the republicans. Neoliberals protect the > very strong and the very weak, avoid existential threats to the collective, > while ignoring those that ought to be able to carry on, even though they feel > they should be entitled to special treatment.
I suppose I can see that. The Clintons' and Obama's version of it definitely lean that way. I suppose even Bush2, with the "compassionate conservatism" falls in there. But I think it's reasonable to assert that pure neoliberalism focuses more on allowing whatever the markets (social and economic) determine. Sure, we can kinda clean up after them, preventing the worst consequences (like genocide or pandemics). But too much "caring for the poor" results in too many codified plans with too many unforeseeable kinks/singularities that may well be more catastrophic than the problems we're trying to solve. Neoliberalism is simply the idea that any full exploration of the phenotype requires parallel processing. And the term definitely does not deserve the vitriol poured on it by some. I kinda like the idea that neoliberals like me will become something like socialist democrats (or democratic socialists). As long as it's likely that large populations of cities can sustain a wide diversity of individualist focus, much of which is useless failure but with less death and suffering, then the neoliberal has a path to the fundamental parallelism of the ideology. What has died is rural neoliberalism. You can't globalize and reap the benefits by installing Walmarts and Wells Fargo branches. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
