VARGAS LLOSA: political liberalism and economic liberalism, by Eric and Alfredo Eric Calcagno (for "Miradas al Sur" of 04/24/1911)
Monday, April 25, 2011
Clever Sayings To Go With Candies
Miradas al Sur. Year 3. Issue No. 153. Sunday April 24, 2011
For
Eric Calcagno, Senator of the Nation,
For
Eric Calcagno, Senator of the Nation,
politica@miradasalsur.com
Buenos Aires Visiting Nobel Prize for Literature Mario Vargas Llosa, leaving two presentations-one at the Mont Pelerin Association and another at the Book Fair, and many press interviews, radio and television. Opined on politics and economy, and made a defense of political liberalism while economic, which considered as parts of the same unidad.En one of the interviews he gave, Vargas Llosa argues that "a liberal is a man who believes in freedom and believes that freedom is indivisible, can not divide the political freedom of the economy. That is a basic principle of liberalism. Is Adam Smith, the father of liberalism. If there is anyone who seeks to divide the political and economic freedom are wrong: not entitled to be called a liberal or gives a completely corrupt, and criticism of liberalism. That's not the liberalism I defend and with which I am identified. Also, I have shown that my conduct is conduct very clearly in defense of freedom in the political, social field and in the economic field "(Interview with Silvina Martín Granovsky and Friesen, Page / 12, April 22, 2011). This identity of political liberty with freedom economy is not new and has been the liberal letter for over two centuries, such equivalence seems to lack theoretical basis and practical reality. Let's see.
Political Liberalism.
When structured, political liberalism meant a huge progress, intended to affirm the freedom of individuals and groups, for which called for a State to fix the game and only act to ensure compliance. Implied, in fact, the abandonment of religious explanation in terms of human phenomena to look at the interaction of individuals, civic dimension that created a particular state through the different theories of social contract and established a governance structure based on "checks and balances" and the representation of minorities, to prevent despotism, whether of tyrants or the people. Means the choice of rulers by voting, often tinged by income levels and the exercise of the liberties of conscience, association and press, so that minorities can get to become the majority.
economic liberalism.
That vision of man in society, progressive in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is at odds with the liberal theory of economics. In fact, we are told that the search uncoordinated individual interests leads to the greater good of all, if the rules governing the free market, in a context where there is equal access, in which there is perfect information, and freedoms of participation and choice. It is as if economic agents as they seek their personal interest, were guided by an invisible hand to do good generally more effective if purposely seek interest. Although it is impossible to show, it follows that the sum of individual selfishness leads to the common good. Its salient features are the defense of private property and free initiative of private agents, which should be preserved for state intervention in its many forms (eg, customs barriers, pricing or regulations).
Democracy and political and economic liberalism.
Democracy, political and economic liberalism, so differentiate clearly defined, are the subject of much confusion. The painting, at the risk of an indicative, has the advantage of the different nature of each uno.La first major difference is that of values, which distinguishes the negative freedom of positive freedom. For FA Hayek, a leading liberal thinkers, the important thing is respect for the "negative freedom", ie that individuals are not forced to do what they do not want. With this definition of freedom, one can live without political rights or starve, while still being free. Faced with this negative freedom (freedom to do anything) is positive freedom (freedom to do: eat, work, participate in social decisions.) Political liberalism defends negative freedom and economic liberalism applies the negative liberty to prevent the action of the state and positive freedom for private enterprise. A second difference is marked by the different nature of political freedom and of the capital. Economic freedom is at the heart of capital and is completely unrelated to political freedom, because they act on different circuits. The capital is driven only by profit and not for the attainment of freedom. Has political objectives only if the track affect money-commodity-money increased (RL Heilbroner, Le capitalisme, Paris, 1986). In economic liberalism not prevailing electoral laws but the laws of the market: the boss is not visible most of the people but the invisible hand, his logic is profitability and has nothing to do with blatant divergence democracia.Una third states in relation to substantive democratization, which refers to the degree of equality has been achieved in a society. In political liberalism affirms the equality before the law, and economic liberalism away any inclination equal. The divergence between democratic processes, political liberalism and economic liberalism is evident not only in theory but is reflected in practice. The bloody coups of the seventies in Uruguay, Chile and Argentina, part of the same political project that was implemented by the economic liberalism and political liberalism was settled with tens of thousands dead. When Vargas Llosa tells a unique political and economic liberalism and indivisible seems to ask: Do you believe in what I say or what your eyes see?.
Published in:
http://sur.elargentino.com/notas/vargas-llosa-liberalismo-politico-y-liberalismo-economico
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment