The End of Liberalism.

[Votto]

As was said, having a moral code inhibits liberty. Laws also inhibit liberty. But then, laws are simply a moral code imposed by a secular state.

We then have a Progressive secular government making laws and regulations to the tune of about 40,000 a year.

Think of the liberty that slips through our fingers every year.

Are we really that bad? It appears so.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This is what would happen with the end of liberalism. I don't think you understand what liberalism is?

I don’t think YOU understand. You are not a liberal. I am. Thomas Jefferson was.

You are a chunky hyena semen gargling COMMIE.

You goddamn statist authoritarian Bolsheviks have hijacked and grotesquely bastardized the word.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Baby steps to the stars, Baby!

Liberalism as a label ebbs and flows, but liberal thinking, the kind of liberal thinking that led to the French and American Revolutions that established western democracy is alive and well. Even among many who today label themselves as 'conservative'.

Disgusted With Conservatism, America Was Born Liberal.

But Modern American Liberals reject individual liberty and yearn for an All powerful central government.

The idea of having 50 states with 50 different governments is a failed experiment. A central government couldn`t be worse than the mess we have now with ridiculous institutions like the Senate and the Electoral college.

I said it before, but Fascists and Communists love an all powerful Central government

 

[Mindful]

In recent days we’ve seen inspiring demands for liberty from the oppressed citizens of Iran. Our situation in the West today seems the opposite: too much ill-used liberty combined with a soft authoritarianism that we have largely welcomed. We buy what we want, throw away what we no longer desire, and allow the debt to accumulate. We enjoy Caligulaesque sexual liberty but no longer marry nor have children. We eat until we are obese, legalise drugs that take the edge off, consume a degraded popular culture that leaves us stupefied, and alter our brainscapes through unceasing consumption of online ephemera. Amid these seemingly unlimited personal choices, we can see the growth of an encompassing state and transnational institutions that make innumerable decisions in politics and economics over which average citizens exercise no control. If this is the form of ‘liberty’ that protesters in Iran aspire to achieve, then any liberation is likely to prove Pyrrhic.

In a world longing for liberty, advanced western liberalism seems to have reached a dead-end. Having promised liberation from any constraint that is not chosen by the consent of the individual, we have created nations of individualists who are now responsible to no-one in particular, but simultaneously subjects of an all-encompassing state and international order. That liberalism has succeeded. It has also visibly failed. Western liberal democracies are in a state of internal crisis: by every measure, they are wealthy, powerful, and unchallenged by any ideological contender. But an internal rot has spread as its citizens feel at once powerless amid their autonomy. Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded.

How can we understand this paradox?

The end of liberalism | Coffee House

The Founding Fathers, such as Ben Franklin, understood that only a moral society can be a free society. As he put it, the Constitution will last only as long as society was moral, but eventually corruption would overwhelm society and we would all fall back into despotism.

It works like this, we give people freedom but eventually they are become unable to restrict their own freedom in favor of moral conduct that does not harm others in society. At that point, society is then faced with government becoming their moral inner voice for them. It then can deteriorate until the morals of society are no better than that in a prison. At that point you simply build a big wall around them and hire a warden.

This is why I'm a conservative. Most sneer at the "God botherers" and demand that the economy is what needs attention and not a moral character.

But in reality, wealth is but a powerful tool that will only exacerbate the evil result of ones lack of moral fiber, which will cause others to suffer.

I don't think government is particularly moral.

I've experienced three of them to come to a conclusion.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wait. Founding Liberals wanted individual freedom and liberty, right? What happened when "the parties switched sides"? That mean that Modern Liberals now hate individual Liberty and freedom, amiright

 

[NYcarbineer]

"The End of Liberalism"

A no longer popular bumper sticker in Alabama.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wait. Founding Liberals wanted individual freedom and liberty, right? What happened when "the parties switched sides"? That mean that Modern Liberals now hate individual Liberty and freedom, amiright

Why, yes. Yes they do hate individual liberty

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I said it before, but Fascists and Communists love an all powerful Central government

Because they are not liberals.

 

[Votto]

In recent days we’ve seen inspiring demands for liberty from the oppressed citizens of Iran. Our situation in the West today seems the opposite: too much ill-used liberty combined with a soft authoritarianism that we have largely welcomed. We buy what we want, throw away what we no longer desire, and allow the debt to accumulate. We enjoy Caligulaesque sexual liberty but no longer marry nor have children. We eat until we are obese, legalise drugs that take the edge off, consume a degraded popular culture that leaves us stupefied, and alter our brainscapes through unceasing consumption of online ephemera. Amid these seemingly unlimited personal choices, we can see the growth of an encompassing state and transnational institutions that make innumerable decisions in politics and economics over which average citizens exercise no control. If this is the form of ‘liberty’ that protesters in Iran aspire to achieve, then any liberation is likely to prove Pyrrhic.

In a world longing for liberty, advanced western liberalism seems to have reached a dead-end. Having promised liberation from any constraint that is not chosen by the consent of the individual, we have created nations of individualists who are now responsible to no-one in particular, but simultaneously subjects of an all-encompassing state and international order. That liberalism has succeeded. It has also visibly failed. Western liberal democracies are in a state of internal crisis: by every measure, they are wealthy, powerful, and unchallenged by any ideological contender. But an internal rot has spread as its citizens feel at once powerless amid their autonomy. Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded.

How can we understand this paradox?

The end of liberalism | Coffee House

The Founding Fathers, such as Ben Franklin, understood that only a moral society can be a free society. As he put it, the Constitution will last only as long as society was moral, but eventually corruption would overwhelm society and we would all fall back into despotism.

It works like this, we give people freedom but eventually they are become unable to restrict their own freedom in favor of moral conduct that does not harm others in society. At that point, society is then faced with government becoming their moral inner voice for them. It then can deteriorate until the morals of society are no better than that in a prison. At that point you simply build a big wall around them and hire a warden.

This is why I'm a conservative. Most sneer at the "God botherers" and demand that the economy is what needs attention and not a moral character.

But in reality, wealth is but a powerful tool that will only exacerbate the evil result of ones lack of moral fiber, which will cause others to suffer.

I don't think government is particularly moral.

I've experienced three of them to come to a conclusion.

Moral to whom?

Government morality may differ from your own, but to them it is just fine.

Government morality is more in trying to control evil behavior. Just have the government take over every aspect of your life so they can regulate you into doing the things you should and not engaging in things you should not.

 

[Mindful]

Conservatives rant about 'liberty' one minute and the next minute they're ranting about morality.

Morality is the restraint of liberty.

Right, tell us again why we need government to help the poor again? Why does government need to pay for everyone's health care and retirement and welfare?

Oh, that's right, your morality is OK, but anyone else who has moral positions contrary to yours should be shouted down.

My bad.

Because a moral society with the means to do so takes care of its poor and sick.

I've noticed in the United States, a natural community spirit, self initiative, self organising help organisations. Encouragement to help unfortunates. Such as the old lady living alone down the street, and it's snowing.

Puts me in mind of something Ronald Reagan said, which resonated. If you want to hear it.

 

[Mindful]

In recent days we’ve seen inspiring demands for liberty from the oppressed citizens of Iran. Our situation in the West today seems the opposite: too much ill-used liberty combined with a soft authoritarianism that we have largely welcomed. We buy what we want, throw away what we no longer desire, and allow the debt to accumulate. We enjoy Caligulaesque sexual liberty but no longer marry nor have children. We eat until we are obese, legalise drugs that take the edge off, consume a degraded popular culture that leaves us stupefied, and alter our brainscapes through unceasing consumption of online ephemera. Amid these seemingly unlimited personal choices, we can see the growth of an encompassing state and transnational institutions that make innumerable decisions in politics and economics over which average citizens exercise no control. If this is the form of ‘liberty’ that protesters in Iran aspire to achieve, then any liberation is likely to prove Pyrrhic.

In a world longing for liberty, advanced western liberalism seems to have reached a dead-end. Having promised liberation from any constraint that is not chosen by the consent of the individual, we have created nations of individualists who are now responsible to no-one in particular, but simultaneously subjects of an all-encompassing state and international order. That liberalism has succeeded. It has also visibly failed. Western liberal democracies are in a state of internal crisis: by every measure, they are wealthy, powerful, and unchallenged by any ideological contender. But an internal rot has spread as its citizens feel at once powerless amid their autonomy. Liberalism has failed because liberalism has succeeded.

How can we understand this paradox?

The end of liberalism | Coffee House

The Founding Fathers, such as Ben Franklin, understood that only a moral society can be a free society. As he put it, the Constitution will last only as long as society was moral, but eventually corruption would overwhelm society and we would all fall back into despotism.

It works like this, we give people freedom but eventually they are become unable to restrict their own freedom in favor of moral conduct that does not harm others in society. At that point, society is then faced with government becoming their moral inner voice for them. It then can deteriorate until the morals of society are no better than that in a prison. At that point you simply build a big wall around them and hire a warden.

This is why I'm a conservative. Most sneer at the "God botherers" and demand that the economy is what needs attention and not a moral character.

But in reality, wealth is but a powerful tool that will only exacerbate the evil result of ones lack of moral fiber, which will cause others to suffer.

I don't think government is particularly moral.

I've experienced three of them to come to a conclusion.

Moral to whom?

Government morality may differ from your own, but to them it is just fine.

Government morality is more in trying to control evil behavior. Just have the government take over every aspect of your life so they can regulate you into doing the things you should and not engaging in things you should not.

That explained it quite well.

I live in a society where the government is more controlling than yours.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government morality may differ from your own, but to them it is just fine.

Government morality is more in trying to control evil behavior. Just have the government take over every aspect of your life so they can regulate you into doing the things you should and not engaging in things you should not.

Fuck that shit. I would rather go down fighting against that.

 

[Votto]

Wait. Founding Liberals wanted individual freedom and liberty, right? What happened when "the parties switched sides"? That mean that Modern Liberals now hate individual Liberty and freedom, amiright

Why, yes. Yes they do hate individual liberty

Individual liberty allows for abuse.

Take away individual liberty, and then you have "safety" and "equality"

Jails are the best place for this. There is no inequality. Everyone dresses the same, eats the same things, lives in the same places, etc. Everyone has access to free medical care and free food and free shelter, etc. It is a gun safe zone and every day is gay pride day.

It is a liberal utopia

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives rant about 'liberty' one minute and the next minute they're ranting about morality.

Morality is the restraint of liberty.

Right, tell us again why we need government to help the poor again? Why does government need to pay for everyone's health care and retirement and welfare?

Oh, that's right, your morality is OK, but anyone else who has moral positions contrary to yours should be shouted down.

My bad.

Because a moral society with the means to do so takes care of its poor and sick.

I've noticed in the United States, a natural community spirit, self initiative, self organising help organisations. Encouragement to help unfortunates. Such as the old lady living alone down the street, and it's snowing.

Puts me in mind of something Ronald Reagan said, which resonated. If you want to hear it.

If volunteerism solved our problems, there'd have been no need to seek other solutions.

Before you rant about Reagan, keep in mind that he saved Social Security for 50 years.

 

[Votto]

Conservatives rant about 'liberty' one minute and the next minute they're ranting about morality.

Morality is the restraint of liberty.

Right, tell us again why we need government to help the poor again? Why does government need to pay for everyone's health care and retirement and welfare?

Oh, that's right, your morality is OK, but anyone else who has moral positions contrary to yours should be shouted down.

My bad.

Because a moral society with the means to do so takes care of its poor and sick.

I've noticed in the United States, a natural community spirit, self initiative, self organising help organisations. Encouragement to help unfortunates. Such as the old lady living alone down the street, and it's snowing.

Puts me in mind of something Ronald Reagan said, which resonated. If you want to hear it.

If volunteerism solved our problems, there'd have been no need to seek other solutions.

Before you rant about Reagan, keep in mind that he saved Social Security for 50 years.

Having a moral society is a form of volunteerism. You have people volunteering to monitor their own free power via their own moral code.

Liberals have something similar called PC. Do "the right thing" or society will shun you and you won't be able to find work.
\
PC is the new scarlet "A".

 

[Mindful]

Conservatives rant about 'liberty' one minute and the next minute they're ranting about morality.

Morality is the restraint of liberty.

Right, tell us again why we need government to help the poor again? Why does government need to pay for everyone's health care and retirement and welfare?

Oh, that's right, your morality is OK, but anyone else who has moral positions contrary to yours should be shouted down.

My bad.

Because a moral society with the means to do so takes care of its poor and sick.

I've noticed in the United States, a natural community spirit, self initiative, self organising help organisations. Encouragement to help unfortunates. Such as the old lady living alone down the street, and it's snowing.

Puts me in mind of something Ronald Reagan said, which resonated. If you want to hear it.

If volunteerism solved our problems, there'd have been no need to seek other solutions.

Before you rant about Reagan, keep in mind that he saved Social Security for 50 years.

Rant about Reagan? You have no idea what I was going to say.

And volunteering is something else. I was talking about what sometimes comes naturally.

 

[Mac1958]

This is what would happen with the end of liberalism. I don't think you understand what liberalism is?

I don’t think YOU understand. You are not a liberal. I am. Thomas Jefferson was. You are a chunky hyena semen gargling COMMIE. You goddamn statist authoritarian Bolsheviks have hijacked and grotesquely bastardized the word.

The Regressive Left has distorted the word almost beyond recognition.

They hold some views that are consistent with liberalism, and that has been their entré, their leverage.

But the rest is a mutation, a perversion.
.

 

[Mindful]

The trouble with opinion pieces.

People have a tendency to preempt what you are going to say. Which isn't what you are going to say.

 

[Mindful]

Then we get into morality, and the definition of it. Usually subjective.

Which results in wandering around the Labyrinth.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Baby steps to the stars, Baby!

Liberalism as a label ebbs and flows, but liberal thinking, the kind of liberal thinking that led to the French and American Revolutions that established western democracy is alive and well. Even among many who today label themselves as 'conservative'.

Disgusted With Conservatism, America Was Born Liberal.

But Modern American Liberals reject individual liberty and yearn for an All powerful central government.

The idea of having 50 states with 50 different governments is a failed experiment. A central government couldn`t be worse than the mess we have now with ridiculous institutions like the Senate and the Electoral college.

I said it before, but Fascists and Communists love an all powerful Central government

Which is why The Republicans prosecuted a bloody Civil War to make it happen here in America.