A random thought about open borders.Britain, Denmark, or Italy have a traditional people with roots there going back to hundreds of years. In cultural interests, it makes some sense that they restrict who comes in.It would be a different case, for example, for Chile or Uruguay, where most people are recent arrivals or have origins in recent arrivals.Plus, restricting immigration makes sense in a country with huge social services and need to curb unemployment. But in a country with few social services and a scarcity of workers, probably not so - as would be the case in certain Latin American countries.What do you think?
"anti-libertarian" with a small l? You sure you want that? Look at what that means. Small l libertartians favour gay marriage, legalized pot, reducing or ending the war on drugs, we can have threesome with the neighbour if we don't startle the horses, no censorship. "anti free market" is bad too, but at least people can grok the sense you mean: anti unregulated laissez faire.
No, Old Left means concern for individual rights *tempered and limited* by the needs and collectivist concerns of the community as a whole.I am sceptical of legalized pot, nor do I support legalised drugs. Also, Old Left doesn't mean some bizarre cultural hedonism and selfish impulses unleashed. I'm fine with strong and stable nuclear families, instilling of morality, work ethic, and civic values, not hedonism, thanks.
Y'old Tory you!
According to Russell, JM Keynes was a sophisticated edwardian hedonist... and he did advocate inequality in precisely that way : the very existence of a wealthy, educated elite with plenty of leisure is supposed to pave the way for a more civilised, pleasure oriented society when productivity will allow.Actually, if you are neither a theist nor a follower of some sort of "philosophy of history" what could possibly make more sense than avoiding suffering (for yourself and for others as well) and seeking pleasure ?