Liberalism vs America

[Pogo]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.

You are correct we aren't as far apart as the demagogues who dabble in disingenuous dipshittery would have us believe with such baiting redefinitions.

dear, if you don't think liberalism and conservatism are opposites and not very far apart please tell us why or admit you lack the IQ to defend what you say.

 

[Pogo]

dear, if you don't think liberalism and conservatism are not opposites and not very far apart please tell us why or admit you lack the IQ to defend what you say.

I've gone over this with you in the past and you chose to completely ignore it rather than challenge your own self-indoctrination.

So guess what I'm doing with all these inane troll posts..

I refuse to enter debate with Pee Wee Herman constantly clucking "I know you are but what am I'. Grow the fuck up.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I've gone over this with you in the past and you chose to completely ignore it rather than challenge your own self-indoctrination.

So guess what I'm doing with all these inane troll posts..

translation: as a typical liberal I lack the IQ to defend what i say

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

of course if true we'd have a capitalist health care system with 80% lower prices and 10-20 years added to our life expectancy rather than libcommie Obamacare!! See why we have to be positive that liberalism is based in pure ignorance? Please tell me what other conclusion is possible.

a liberal will lack the IQ to say why he disagrees

 

[norwegen]

actually dear it was a revolution for very very limited govt. Sorry to rock your world.

Our revolutionary principles were, indeed, to the right. So far right, in fact, that Americans feared the country may succumb to licentiousness. The Philadelphia Convention was the cure. A new constitution, the delegates reasoned, was necessary for the central authority to provide for the payment of its debts, raise revenue, and create more cohesion among the states, such as with the power to regulate commerce.

After the convention, the federal government was still very limited, but was still able to provide for the new nation's general welfare. This new limited government, of course, did not include a progressive tax on the people, a corrupted senate, government redistribution of wealth, regulatory agencies, recall elections, referendums and voting "rights," and a whole host of progressive measures and policies that never entered into our revolutionary debates, that post-19th century liberals celebrate.

 

[jasonnfree]

Careful Sallow

a liberal will lack the IQ to say why he disagrees

a liberal will lack the IQ to say why he disagrees

You go with this liberal I.Q. statement a lot, Ed. Any sources to back it up?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You forgot about lack of respect for the law.

That's not correct, Bush. Essentially

America was not founded on liberalism. It was founded on libertarianism, which fosters capitalism and individual freedom. The Founders were wealthy businessmen, merchants, and farmers.

Whaaaa?

This nation most certainly was founded on liberalism, i.e., the classical liberalism of the Anglo-American tradition of natural law, harking back to the Augustinian foundation of natural law and most significantly propounded by John Locke, the Father of Classical Liberalism, in his Two Treatises of Civil Government.

The Declaration of Independence is essentially Lockean sociopolitical philosophy 101, from start to finish.

Jefferson's "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", for example, is a paraphrase of Locke's triadic formula life, liberty and private property. In fact, Jefferson is not the origin of the phrase pursuit of happiness. The latter is a term of art which denotes the construct of private property as the foundation of liberty, the first principles of which are the ownership of oneself and the fruits of one's labor.

Contemporary conservatives and libertarians are the classical liberals of limited and divided republican government.

Today's so-called liberals are not liberals in the historical sense at all. PaintMyHouse is a pathological liar and an historical ignoramus. Today's "liberals" are in fact statists of the Rousseauian tradition of democratic collectivism or of the Hegelian historical dialectic, and the post-modern sociopolitical expressions of the latter are, alternately, progressive fascism and progressive Marxism.

The following from Wikipedia is mostly right, though in fact the themes of classical liberalism were already well-established by the early 18th Century, decades before the American Revolution, and it was the French economist Vincent de Gournay (1712 - 1759) who popularized the construct of laissez-faire, though the latter is essentially the same thing as Locke's labor theory of property:

Traditional classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States [Wrong!]. It advocates civil liberties [which is correct, as opposed to emphasizing governmentally enforced civil rights/protections beyond fundamental political rights] with a limited government under the rule of law, and belief in laissez-faire economic policy. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo, stressing the belief in free market and natural law. . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

The Wikipedia contributor in this case is one- to two-hundred years off the mark! Classical liberalism arose out of the Enlightenment of the 17th Century. LOL! Also, he lists John Locke second behind Smith, with no mention of the equally important economist Vincent de Gournay. LOL! But he's got the fundamental doctrines of classical liberalism correct.

While the political themes of modern libertarianism are for the most part rooted in the Enlightenment, the term libertarian was coined near the end of the 18th Century by classical liberals who emphasized the metaphysical construct of free will in opposition to determinism, but, of course, Locke had already propounded a political rendition of free will as extrapolated from the Judeo-Christian tradition in opposition to Hobbes' Leviathan. In fact, Locke extrapolated the bulk of his theory from the sociopolitical ramifications of Judeo-Christianity's ethical system of thought, namely, its historically unique rendering of the Golden Rule, which, in political terms, emphasis the dangers of centralized secular power, the worth of the individual over the collective, and the proprietary construct of the birth right, though, no doubt, these more advanced ramifications of the biblical Golden Rule will elude most.

What most of you can readily grasp, however, is that God (or the Creator) is the Source and Guarantor of human liberty, not the State. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights. . . ." That's not Jefferson! That's Jefferson's expression of Locke's declaration that Divinity is the Source and Guarantor of human rights in opposition to the statist notions of the time of the divine right of kings and European theocracy. The assertion of the inalienable right of the people to take up arms and overthrow tyrannical governments/factions is Locke too. Hence, the immediately apparent sociopolitical ramifications of the Judeo-Christian Golden Rule: the law of nature and nature's God is the only just foundation for the rule of law, not the state, and one is bound to respect the fundamental rights of others as one would have others respect one's rights . . . or else.

Neo-classical liberalism [or contemporary libertarianism proper as formally distinguished from the classical liberalism of contemporary conservatism] emerged in the era following World War II during which social liberalism and Keynesianism were the dominant ideologies in the Western World. It was led by economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman [later, Buckley] who advocated the reduction of the state and a return to classical liberalism. It did however accept some aspects of social liberalism, such as some degree of welfare provision by the state, but on a greatly reduced scale. Hayek and Friedman used the term classical liberalism to refer to their ideas. . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

This is why I don't refer to the bootlicking stastists among us as liberals, but as leftists, and it is the rise of Wilsonian Progressivism in America, especially, initially rooted in European fascism, that is the impetus of the confusion between the classical liberalism of the Republic's founding and the "liberalism" or "neoliberalism" of post-modern political culture. And today's leftists, beginning with FDR and especially since the 1960s are predominately of the Marxist side of the Hegelian historical dialectic! Classical liberals don't make baby talk of "it takes a village," for example, and they sure as hell don't spout the depravity of cultural Marxism, a.k.a., political correctness.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Careful Sallow



You go with this liberal I.Q. statement a lot, Ed. Any sources to back it up?

You quoted him twice? Low IQ?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

True.


Liberalism is the same today as it was during the Foundation Era: where the rule of law is paramount.


Using Constitutional case law to safeguard citizens' civil liberties and restrict government overreach is a fundamental tenet of liberalism, where the burden is placed most heavily on the state to justify enacting laws limiting citizens' civil rights, and failing to met that burden, laws, referenda, and like measures are invalidated by the courts because they exceed government's authority to limit a protected right.


A basic liberal principle is that one's inalienable rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state or jurisdiction of residence, and whether or not one has his civil liberties is not subject to popular vote.


Liberalism is now and always has been guided by the doctrine of enhancing citizens' civil liberties at the expense of the authority of the state, where absent a proper legislative end, the state is prohibited from infringing upon the rights of citizens.


The most recent and pronounced example of these liberal principles manifesting today can be found in courts across the country where gay Americans are fighting for their comprehensive civil liberties unjustly denied them by the states.

You're out of your friggin' mind, Comrade. You're not a classical liberal of this nation's founding in any way, shape or form, Mr. Mobocracy. What's more you're a lying degenerate, consciously confounding the distinction between positive and negative rights, and the distinction between the fundamental political/civil rights afforded by government and the inalienable civil liberties predicated on nature! There is no friggin' right of homo marriage under natural law, and the government sure is hell has no legitimate right to compel anybody in violation of their civil liberties to make wedding cakes for homofascists like you or photograph your homofascist rituals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

actually dear it was a revolution for very very limited govt. Sorry to rock your world.

No, not as you perceive 'very limited government.'


Liberals are advocates of limited government, there currently exists limited government, just as intended by the Framers. That you and others on the right disagree with how Constitutional case law defines those limitations on government doesn't change that fact.

 

[Moonglow]

So you rwer's think that the British were liberals and the colonialist were the conservatives?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No. It doesn't mean that at all. You can call a mountain a "river"; that doesn't make it one just because you say so. And once again like the previous guy you're conflating "left" and "Liberal" and "socialism" as if they're all the same thing. That's absurd, and lazy thinking. Why would we need multiple words for the same thing? Think about it. What you have here is a misapplication of terms by demagogues seeking to demonize a term by association. You need to grow out of that stage of gullibility.

Saying that one's opposition is 'calling a mountain a river', does not turn an otherwise soundly reasoned point, from sound to unsound.

There is no meaningful difference; none, zero..., between any facet of the Ideological Left and another. Meaning simply that national socialism represents, in practice, no meaningful difference from international socialism. The only difference is in how such is established.

National Socialism 'progresses' a nation toward socialism, while international socialism prefers a revolutionary approach. National socialism appeals to a nations culture; its history and traditions, slowly undermining the culture's knowledge and understanding of their history and traditions, until it no longer possesses a meaningful kinship to what the nation was. National Socialism uses the same tactics to do this as international socialists, it simply does so over a longer time. Where the history of international socialism is that they infect a culture, divide te culture from those who can and do from those who can but don't, quickly rising to war against the people who make the nation work, quickly losing that fight, having murdered innocents, destroyed property, producing chaos, calamity and catastrophe, the history of Nations Socialism is that it does the same thing, just over a longer period of time.

Left-think, in short, is an irrational species of reasoning known as Relativism. It is the reasoning on which socialism rests.

It is the ideas through which evil is expressed: Politically.

Now the reason that you people 'need' multiple words to describe the same thing is for the purpose of deceit. You cannot use words which accurately define yourself and your goals, because to do so would destroy your means to acquire power. So you latch onto words which have no kinship with you, until the word actually comes to mean YOU! When the word attaches itself to YOU, the definition comes to convey that which is otherwise unenviable. At which time you attach yourself to ANOTHER word, which means something else... until it becomes associated with YOU and what YOU ARE. Then you attach yourself to ANOTHER WORD.

ROFLMNAO!

This is SO BAD, that not too terribly long ago, some of your cult literally came to refer to themselves as "NO NAME". Which of course quickly became associated with YOU and ... well, you know.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

No, not as you perceive 'very limited government.'


Liberals are advocates of limited government, there currently exists limited government, just as intended by the Framers. That you and others on the right disagree with how Constitutional case law defines those limitations on government doesn't change that fact.

ROFLMNAO! Adorable.

What color is the sky, in your world?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

So you rwer's think that the British were liberals and the colonialist were the conservatives?

Only if by "liberals" you intend to convey the advocacy for a strong, central authority enforcing a stringent social and economic policy, which sets the needs of the collective, over the rights of the individual. And "conservative" to mean those who adhere to intrinsic principles of nature which govern viable, sustainable existence.

 

[Moonglow]

Only if by "liberals" you intend to convey the advocacy for a strong, central authority enforcing a stringent social and economic policy, which sets the needs of the collective, over the rights of the individual. And "conservative" to mean those who adhere to intrinsic principles of nature which govern viable, sustainable existence.

No surprise, the again, rwer's think Abe Lincoln was not a Progressive.....

 

[rdean]

He's right. We know how "Conservatism vs America" ended. With debt, unrest and a tattered country.

 

[rdean]

Only if by "liberals" you intend to convey the advocacy for a strong, central authority enforcing a stringent social and economic policy, which sets the needs of the collective, over the rights of the individual. And "conservative" to mean those who adhere to intrinsic principles of nature which govern viable, sustainable existence.

Why do right wingnuts talk about the rights of the individual when they want to legislate women's bodies and deny civil rights to every minority in America? Just the voter suppression alone proves it.
Seems the only individuals they care about are the fetus and corporations.

 

[Pogo]

Saying that one's opposition is 'calling a mountain a river', does not turn an otherwise soundly reasoned point, from sound to unsound.

There is no meaningful difference; none, zero..., between any facet of the Ideological Left and another. Meaning simply that national socialism represents, in practice, no meaningful difference from international socialism. The only difference is in how such is established.

National Socialism 'progresses' a nation toward socialism, while international socialism prefers a revolutionary approach. National socialism appeals to a nations culture; its history and traditions, slowly undermining the culture's knowledge and understanding of their history and traditions, until it no longer possesses a meaningful kinship to what the nation was. National Socialism uses the same tactics to do this as international socialists, it simply does so over a longer time. Where the history of international socialism is that they infect a culture, divide te culture from those who can and do from those who can but don't, quickly rising to war against the people who make the nation work, quickly losing that fight, having murdered innocents, destroyed property, producing chaos, calamity and catastrophe, the history of Nations Socialism is that it does the same thing, just over a longer period of time.

Left-think, in short, is an irrational species of reasoning known as Relativism. It is the reasoning on which socialism rests.

It is the ideas through which evil is expressed: Politically.

Now the reason that you people 'need' multiple words to describe the same thing is for the purpose of deceit. You cannot use words which accurately define yourself and your goals, because to do so would destroy your means to acquire power. So you latch onto words which have no kinship with you, until the word actually comes to mean YOU! When the word attaches itself to YOU, the definition comes to convey that which is otherwise unenviable. At which time you attach yourself to ANOTHER word, which means something else... until it becomes associated with YOU and what YOU ARE. Then you attach yourself to ANOTHER WORD.

ROFLMNAO!

This is SO BAD, that not too terribly long ago, some of your cult literally came to refer to themselves as "NO NAME". Which of course quickly became associated with YOU and ... well, you know.

Nope, sure don't.

And I'll repeat once again, since anything deeper seems to sail over heads, we're not talking about socialism or leftism; the topic was Liberalism. You know, that kinky stuff this country is based on. Once again, pretend definitions, stuffing your own words in others' mouths and flailing attempts at synonym-by-association are going to fall on deaf ears of those who already know better. All you have here is a lot of disjointed whining free of substance. Basically you declare "Saying that one's opposition is 'calling a mountain a river', does not turn an otherwise soundly reasoned point, from sound to unsound", and then proceed to go, "that mountain is too a river!"

Here son, when you're ready to shut up and hear, git cho self a edumacation. Until then... bullshit walks.

 

[BlindBoo]

actually Reagan started the Great Moderation- the longest period of sustained economic growth in American history. See why we say liberals are slow?

Based on cheap foreign sources of energy that crushed the American Exploration industry and put us over the ME barrel like never before. He was first and foremost a big business shill. Granddaddy of all pseudo-conservatives.