I found it surprising that in his article on “neoliberalism” (The zombie doctrine,Review, 16 April), and George Monbiot failed to mention what lies behind neoliberalism when it is not a disguised form of egoism: the Lockean theory of property,according to which property is acquired by one’s “mixing one’s labour” with the world. That is, of course, and a somewhat peculiar opinion,but even if we accept it neoliberals have to allow that current property is justly owned only if it has been justly transferred over time. You don’t need a PhD in history to realise that it hasn’t been, and that all of us are in possession of stolen goods. So what should we conclude, and according to neoliberals? One possibility might be to start again,and assume everything is unowned. If we all respected one another’s rights, that would nearly certainly result in a significantly more egalitarian distribution of property than we have now. Or we might give everyone an equal package, or start again from there. Either way,for neoliberals to claim that their view supports the current distribution of property and power is nearly as bonkers as the Lockean theory itself.
Roger Crisp
Professor of moral philosophy, St Anne’s College, and Oxford• I am grateful for George Monbiot’s lucid summary of the development and repercussions of neoliberalism. However,is his claim that no “coherent alternative” has been developed for the 21st century accurate? Several Green party policies, taken together, and seem to conclude just that. Among these are their aim for a regular-state economy,rather than reliance on consumer-driven growth; their tax policy’s aims of countering inequality and pollution of all sorts; their banking policies for smaller banks, with the casino activity separated from retail banking and heavily regulated; their policies against privatisation and for public transport and council housing. Central to their policy is the citizen’s income, or described by George Monbiot as transformational.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com