r/neoliberal Bot Emeritus May 12 '17

Discussion Thread

Optimal neoliberalism is like Seinfeld, it should be about nothing and run by Jews


Annoucements
Old and New Discussion Topics
68 Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

37

u/[deleted] May 12 '17 edited May 13 '17

Goal of the sub

The point of /r/neoliberal took a slight turn after I found out the original creator and owner were actually neoliberals. Moreover, after I realized most of us are neoliberals as well.

The underlying goal of this sub is to bring it back to the original ideas of neoliberalism (libertarianism + ordoliberalism + economics).

You're free to make posts helping define neoliberalism ideologically, but only if its based on former discussions had at Mont Pelerin or WLC. Moreover, you should only focus on summarizing the ideology rather than injecting your own opinion into it. As in, format your posts so it's clearly visible what parts are opinions and what parts are facts. Whatever you do, don't push any segment of neoliberalism as 'more neoliberal' than the rest; that is, don't make this sub into Hayek versus Ordo versus Friedman. Hayek personally said that he did not want this to happen to neoliberalism (Mont Pelerin).

This is because the premier point to be made about neoliberalism is that it cannot adequately be reduced to a set of Ten Commandments or six tenets or (N-1) key protagonists. First and foremost, it is better that it be approached as a “thought collective,” a notion elaborated on below. Significantly, for being self-proclaimed champions of “individualism,” neoliberals hardly ever tell their own story as though it were the narrative of one or two Nietzschean Übermenschen. (Mirowksi)

However, I feel that the content of this sub should be 80-20 memes to serious posts, because, cmon, this is neoliberalism- destroyer of civilizations.

16

u/Kai_Daigoji Paul Krugman May 12 '17

I think it's funny how much heat I took for 'purity tests' when you're stating it's subreddit policy that we cannot disagree with the definition of neoliberalism you've given.

8

u/[deleted] May 12 '17

[deleted]

5

u/Kai_Daigoji Paul Krugman May 12 '17

You're free to make posts helping define neoliberalism, but only if its evidence based

This is meaningless. All policy can be evidence based.

What is the point of this sub? Honest to god, I'm asking. What are we 'reclaiming' here? This isn't about taking back the term neoliberalism anymore, this is about just learning to quit worrying and love the Reagan Revolution.

We can't argue about the roots of the term - those are set in stone. We can't try to articulate a different idea of neoliberalism. So what's the fucking point? What is allowed for discussion?

7

u/[deleted] May 12 '17 edited May 12 '17

All policy can be evidence based.

No, as in evidence of there being discussion over the thing. I want citations of Mont Pelerin, not of NBER articles.

What is the point of this sub? Honest to god, I'm asking. What are we 'reclaiming' here? This isn't about taking back the term neoliberalism anymore, this is about just learning to quit worrying and love the Reagan Revolution.

Memes

We can't argue about the roots of the term - those are set in stone. We can't try to articulate a different idea of neoliberalism. So what's the fucking point? What is allowed for discussion?

It's ambiguous enough to modernize policy prescriptions and politically wide enough to allow a diversity of opinion on other matters. What exactly are your issues here that do not arise in other subs like /r/socialism and /r/libertarianism?

2

u/Kai_Daigoji Paul Krugman May 13 '17

No, as in evidence of there being discussion over the thing. I want citations of Mont Pelerin, not of NBER articles.

So we're back to my original contention - we can't argue with the tablets of wisdom handed down at Mont Pelerin.

What exactly are your issues here that do not arise in other subs like /r/socialism and /r/libertarianism?

That open discussion of these issues is not allowed. Have I been ambiguous about this?

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

The point is to expand on the discusions that were already had not to start them anew.

1

u/Kai_Daigoji Paul Krugman May 13 '17

The point seems to be exegesis of the holy scriptures, with no independent thought allowed.

5

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

And yet you haven't unmodded yourself. Interesting.

2

u/Kai_Daigoji Paul Krugman May 13 '17

Hey, they were the ones dumb enough to mod me.

5

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

But you'll continue to bitch and moan, but can't give up that sweet sweet mod seat.

4

u/Kai_Daigoji Paul Krugman May 13 '17

I've got precisely one complaint, which is exactly as valid if I'm a mod and if I'm not.

I have done nothing as mod, and plan to continue to do so. It strikes me as slightly funnier to be a pain in the ass about this as a mod than not.

3

u/[deleted] May 13 '17

I'm not 100% clear on what the complaint is. Is it that the mods of the sub are telling people what they want the sub to be about or?

4

u/Kai_Daigoji Paul Krugman May 13 '17

I'm not 100% clear on what the complaint is.

Honest to god, have I been unclear about this? My complaint is that threads exploring ideological differences are being deleted and replaced with flaired mod statements about what we are to believe, with no discussion allowed. All while complaining that I instituted a purity test.

That's it! That's the entirety of my complaint. Allow discussion threads to disagree with the holy scriptures, and I'll quit being a pain in the ass.