What are libertarians?

[TemplarKormac]

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

I just spent the better part of two hours articulating my point. Seriously dude. Monologuing is a theatrical reference.

I'm not an actor.
I don't even play one on TV.

.

"

Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.

So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?

Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time.

Fine -- explain how Marx could possibly have influenced the founders of this country before his own birth. I'm sure it's much the same as Jefferson founding the Republican Party 28 years after his own death...

Humor is one thing; abject silliness quite another.

You disagree with my post? That you are among my favorite members here? Tsk Tsk. I'm am crushed.

But she did not say that Marx influenced the Founders. If you were reading what she posted as she intended it, she was criticizing the Leftists who accuse the Founders of embracing Marxist principles. She was suggesting that would be something Gipper would agree with as she was responding to his post that the Left HATES the principles that guided the Founders as they put this country together and rather tries to cast them in the Marxist mode that they CAN agree with.

No, I agree wit dat. -- I disagreed that I have a blind spot; I think more the opposite is going on. Unfortunately this system denies us the ability to discriminate.

Yes, he or she did say Marx influenced the founders. If she/he's attributing it to somebody else, then he/she is constructing a strawman. Pick your fallacy poison.

The fact is Marx was not yet even alive, let alone writing, therefore Founders following Marxism is impossible, provided you accept the concept of linear time.

I think the OP is very confused and fatally indecisive, hence this thread. He or she is not even sure what gender it is. You assumed it's a she, as did I, which is understandable, yet he/she took me to task for the female pronoun, while at the same time declining to cop to male. It plays games with words. I prefer to upset that game table.

Sigh, Again she did NOT say that Marxism influenced the Founders. She said that Leftists try to assign Marxist concepts to the Founders in order to use the Founders for the Leftist ideology. I don't know why you can't read her post and see that.

Gipper said:
"Well said and entirely accurate.

Problem is today we are so far removed from what the Founders founded, with the out of control welfare/warfare statist/socialist nation we have, that what the Founders believed is now considered EVIL by many delusional Americans.
Click to expand..."​

Kaz responded:
"So you're not buying the revisionist Democratic history that the Founding Fathers were actually Marxists either?"​

Pogo responded:

Marx wasn't even born yet. Have you been tinkering with Special Ed's anti-linear time machine? ​

Foxfyre responded:
"Pay no attention to Pogo. I love him dearly--he's one of my favorite people at USMB in fact--but he has a real blind spot when it comes to understanding context such as you used it and most especially when it comes to admitting that definitions change with usage over time."​

At which time both Kaz and I explained that she had in no way suggested that Marx was alive at the time the Founders were hammering out the Constitution, but was rather pointing out that the Democrats assign Marxist concepts to the Founders, which they do. The fact that it would be generations after the days of the Founders before we would label those concepts "Marxist' is irrelevant to the point she was making.

And I am right I think that you did and do have a problem with understanding the context as she expressed it. You accused her wrongly.

This.

What about it?
That was also answered way back.

No it wasn't. It was hastily dodged way back. Sorry.

Oh yes it was. The fact that you didn't agree with it is irrelevant. Why don't you just put a nice red X on it if you can't articulate your objections.

You're wasting my time at this point trying to rehash posts already done, and STILL have yet to address the topic in any way at all.

Trollin' trollin' trollin'....

I just spent the better part of two hours articulating my point. Seriously dude. Monologuing is a theatrical reference.

I'm not an actor.
I don't even play one on TV.

There is a very famous one in Macbeth. Act 5, Scene 5. That is a monologue.

Yah me know what a monologue is, mon.

You made it into a gerund.
You're gerunding.

Yes of course. I am the gerunding monster. I took the cookie monster's job. Oops. That means I have a job now.

 

[Ravi]

By saying his argument is fallacious without proving why it is fallacious, yet insisting on its fallaciousness purely by word of mouth means in fact you have erected a strawman of your own. It's easy to see, why can't you see it?

Actually I did that several days ago. You just got here. I suggest you read back.

Actually, Foxfyre nailed you pretty good. When she accuses someone of not understanding the context of the argument, you know you're wrong. No, you did not in fact establish anything three days ago, this is nothing but grandstanding on your part.

So you cannot explain how a strawman is not a fallacious argument.

And here you're saying Foxfyre is always right? That's what it says here.

why that right there is him making an appeal to authority fallacy. Though of course she isn't always right, rather she confirms his bias.

I wonder ft Tk things the founders were Marxist

 

[Youch]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

 

[gipper]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

At it's essence, the Tea Party was a group of average Americans advocating limited government. For this, they have been heavily demonized, marginalized, and silenced. These anti-American actions were promoted by both parties and the statist press.

The power elite is not about to let the people have a say in their government. In a nation founded on limited government, this is amazing and frightening.

In addition, many average Joe's on the left, HATE the TP. Further proof they can be counted on to be duped and hoaxed by the media and Ds, over and over again.

 

[Youch]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

At it's essence, the Tea Party was a group of average Americans advocating limited government. For this, they have been heavily demonized, marginalized, and silenced. These anti-American actions were promoted by both parties and the statist press.

The power elite is not about to let the people have a say in their government. In a nation founded on limited government, this is amazing and frightening.

In addition, many average Joe's on the left, HATE the TP. Further proof they can be counted on to be duped and hoaxed by the media and Ds, over and over again.

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

At it's essence, the Tea Party was a group of average Americans advocating limited government. For this, they have been heavily demonized, marginalized, and silenced. These anti-American actions were promoted by both parties and the statist press.

The power elite is not about to let the people have a say in their government. In a nation founded on limited government, this is amazing and frightening.

In addition, many average Joe's on the left, HATE the TP. Further proof they can be counted on to be duped and hoaxed by the media and Ds, over and over again.

Agreed!!!!

 

[kaz]

You admit you have no argument. Normally, when you say someone is fos, you have no argument and are conversely fos. Sorry.

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

Moving the goal posts, LOL. What has been established is that you take everything literally. It's childish. You must have been a hoot in school, I bet people made fun of you all the time for that.

 

[kaz]

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

You two spent more time pointing out his fallacies than making your own argument. Known as the fallacy fallacy. Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

My "fallacy" was that what I said was not literal and he took it as literal. Foxfyre explained it to him, I explained it to him, he didn't get it. Obviously Marx lived after the founding fathers. He hasn't shown me the source of his cosmic belief that it's wrong, just wrong, to use terms to describe people in the past that hadn't been coined yet. And actually, I was just pointing out there are a bunch of liberals arguing they were Marxists. Ravi never made any argument at all, she just walked up and stuck her hand down his pants.

 

[kaz]

That's good. Very PC. SIngular should be "strawperson" or may I suggest, "person of straw".

Backstory: I refer to Kaz as he/she/it because that poster refuses to disclose his/her/its gender. When he/she/it was sporting a female avatar I assumed female and used a female pronoun. He/she/it took me to task for doing that so I asked for clarification. He/she/it refused to admit to male either. So being uninformed on what other genders exist I am left to type he/she/it or find another way to phrase the sentence that sidesteps pronouns altogether.

I might add, Foxfyre made the same assumption (still does) and the poster has not corrected her, so it's some kind of game he/she/it plays.

You are so full of shit. Show that post, liar. I never take anyone to task for what gender they call me, and I always answer when asked. I never correct people unless it's relevant to the discussion.

You are a butt hurt, idiotic liar and I am calling ... you ... out. Back up your crap for once in your history on this board and show me where I took you to task or didn't answer if you asked me.

And also liar, we have discussed my gender many times. You're an acne faced teenager struggling with your gender identity. When you figure out your orientation, life will get a lot simpler for you. You're obsessed with the gender thing. I don't care, and gay boy you're assigning your own obsession with gender identity to me. I'm comfortable with who I am and it's a message board, I don't need to correct people in discussions where it's irrelevant.

BTW, Foxfyre is great, but she knows my name, which is very gender clear. I've told her several times. I know her name too. But she doesn't have the best memory now. That's OK with me. She's a dear.

 

[kaz]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

Thanks Youch! BTW, on your last comment, it's just a discussion point. I know exactly what I believe, it doesn't "confuse" me. I like to laugh at liberals for their stupidity. Liberals are just incapable of grasping "small" government. They call me a Republican or an anarchists, that is all they can grasp. This would be the liberals who blast Republicans for being so "black and white," LOL.

Republicans are smarter than Democrats, they as a whole don't have a problem grasping small government libertarians other than some socons.

 

[Pogo]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.

To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.

"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that. They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital ( ) 'conservatism' meant, as it does now, keeping the old order, which at that time was the hierarchy of clergy and nobility on top, proletariat on the bottom. That was the cart that Liberalism upset with the then-revolutionary concept that "all men are created equal".

Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.

 

[Pogo]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

At it's essence, the Tea Party was a group of average Americans advocating limited government. For this, they have been heavily demonized, marginalized, and silenced. These anti-American actions were promoted by both parties and the statist press.

The power elite is not about to let the people have a say in their government. In a nation founded on limited government, this is amazing and frightening.

In addition, many average Joe's on the left, HATE the TP. Further proof they can be counted on to be duped and hoaxed by the media and Ds, over and over again.

Actually I'd say the TP was hoaxed and hawked by that same corporate media. You can't astroturf without that avenue.

 

[Pogo]

You admit you have no argument. Normally, when you say someone is fos, you have no argument and are conversely fos. Sorry.

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

Moving the goal posts, LOL. What has been established is that you take everything literally. It's childish. You must have been a hoot in school, I bet people made fun of you all the time for that.

Ad hom goes past tense.
.At least that's creative.

 

[Pogo]

It's already established, TK. Kaz got busted moving his/her own strawman to different movable goalposts, not to mention flouting the laws of linear time. And frankly with "your side of the aisle" you're adding a blanket statement overcoat to that strawman without even addressing the topic.

You two spent more time pointing out his fallacies than making your own argument. Known as the fallacy fallacy. Just because he commits an argumentative fallacy does not in fact invalidate his argument.

My "fallacy" was that what I said was not literal and he took it as literal. Foxfyre explained it to him, I explained it to him, he didn't get it. Obviously Marx lived after the founding fathers. He hasn't shown me the source of his cosmic belief that it's wrong, just wrong, to use terms to describe people in the past that hadn't been coined yet. And actually, I was just pointing out there are a bunch of liberals arguing they were Marxists. Ravi never made any argument at all, she just walked up and stuck her hand down his pants.

-- which is a strawman.

 

[Pogo]

That's good. Very PC. SIngular should be "strawperson" or may I suggest, "person of straw".

Backstory: I refer to Kaz as he/she/it because that poster refuses to disclose his/her/its gender. When he/she/it was sporting a female avatar I assumed female and used a female pronoun. He/she/it took me to task for doing that so I asked for clarification. He/she/it refused to admit to male either. So being uninformed on what other genders exist I am left to type he/she/it or find another way to phrase the sentence that sidesteps pronouns altogether.

I might add, Foxfyre made the same assumption (still does) and the poster has not corrected her, so it's some kind of game he/she/it plays.

You are so full of shit. Show that post, liar. I never take anyone to task for what gender they call me, and I always answer when asked. I never correct people unless it's relevant to the discussion.

You are a butt hurt, idiotic liar and I am calling ... you ... out. Back up your crap for once in your history on this board and show me where I took you to task or didn't answer if you asked me.

And also liar, we have discussed my gender many times. You're an acne faced teenager struggling with your gender identity. When you figure out your orientation, life will get a lot simpler for you. You're obsessed with the gender thing. I don't care, and gay boy you're assigning your own obsession with gender identity to me. I'm comfortable with who I am and it's a message board, I don't need to correct people in discussions where it's irrelevant.

BTW, Foxfyre is great, but she knows my name, which is very gender clear. I've told her several times. I know her name too. But she doesn't have the best memory now. That's OK with me. She's a dear.

Ad Hom gone wild doesn't impress me any more than the subtle variety..

My explanation was for TK explaining my conclusion process. I don't need to "document" it, and why in the blue fuck would I have saved something that trivial? Do you actually think I saved wherever it was that, say, Foxfyre revealed her gender? What kind of OCD meltdown does that?

Suffice to say you're STILL playing the same word game, so you've affirmed my entire reasoning, QED. Even if it hadn't existed in the past, you're repeating it right here.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am a small government libertarian. Here is how I defined it already.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Yet, I'm still regularly called a liberal, a conservative, an anarchist. So what am I? What say you? What are small government libertarians really?

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

Welcome to USMB Youch. I think you and I are going to get along just fine.

Not only is there a vast wasteland of bad information re definitions of words and philosophies, but there is a failure to teach logic and critical thinking about those words and philosophies. Both language and definitions of words change over time and with usage. "Gay" meant something entirely different to me as a young girl than it means when people use the word now for instance.

And 'liberal' as an ideology in the 18th and 19th Centuries was something almost the polar opposite of what 'liberal' as an ideology is in modern day America. There are even subtle differences in how 'left' and 'right' are used as political descriptions. It was commonly taught to all of us that Nazis and Fascists are rightwing while Communism is leftwing.

From Wikipedia (not my choice of sources but the one I found the quickest that sort of pulled it all together):

There is general agreement that the Left includes: progressives, communists, social-liberals, greens, social-democrats, socialists, democratic-socialists, left-libertarians, secularists, feminists, autonomists, anti-imperialists, anti-capitalists, and anarchists.

There is also general consensus that the Right includes: conservatives, reactionaries, neoconservatives, traditionalists, capitalists, neoliberals, right-libertarians, social-authoritarians, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists and fascists.​

But if you also understand that modern day American liberalism are the big government and authoritarian government advocates and modern day Conservatism are the small government, individual liberty advocates, it doesn't make sense to include social-authoritarian, monarchists, theocrats, nationalists, or fascists on the right. And it doesn't make sense to include autonomists, anti-imperialists, or anarchists on the left.

The Founders for instance, were to a man libertarian (small "L") or as defined in their day simply 'liberal'. They were advocates of no more government than was absolutely necessary to bind the various states together as one nation and secure our rights. And then the government was to leave the people strictly alone to live their lives and form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have. They were 100% opposed to any form of monarchy, theocracy, or any other form of authoritarian government at the federal level.

So were they left or right?

 

[Pogo]

Neither.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.

To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.

"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that. They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital ( ) 'conservatism' meant, as it does now, keeping the old order, which at that time was the hierarchy of clergy and nobility on top, proletariat on the bottom. That was the cart that Liberalism upset with the then-revolutionary concept that "all men are created equal".

Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.

That only holds true if you ascribe to the completely incorrect and asinine idea that language is a fixed concept. You are well aware that it is not but you default to this concept whenever you have lost an argument. Liberal does not mean what it did 200 years ago and conservative does not mean what it did 200 years ago. No one in their right mind would walk around insisting that gay meant happy today yet 30 short years ago that was the standard accepted meaning. Language is a fluid concept and will always be weather or not you like it.

 

[Pogo]

It's ridiculous to conclude that what people know came from "school". Mine sure didn't.

To the topic -- I've seen posters on this very board suggest that the difference between "liberal" and "conservative" is, literally, the "size" of government, whatever that's supposed to mean. Presumably once government grows either side of size 7 it becomes one or the other.

"Small" government, if by "small" we mean "non-intrusive", equates with Liberalism. Conservatism as far as I know doesn't really take a position on that. They're not opposites. In the Fouders' days when they jumped in the time machine to read Das Kapital ( ) 'conservatism' meant, as it does now, keeping the old order, which at that time was the hierarchy of clergy and nobility on top, proletariat on the bottom. That was the cart that Liberalism upset with the then-revolutionary concept that "all men are created equal".

Back to the top of your point though -- I agree that (a lot of) people don't have a clue about terms and political philosophies, but that's not because "schooling" mistaught them in the past; it's because media is misteaching in the present.

That only holds true if you ascribe to the completely incorrect and asinine idea that language is a fixed concept. You are well aware that it is not but you default to this concept whenever you have lost an argument. Liberal does not mean what it did 200 years ago and conservative does not mean what it did 200 years ago. No one in their right mind would walk around insisting that gay meant happy today yet 30 short years ago that was the standard accepted meaning. Language is a fluid concept and will always be weather or not you like it.

Oh quite the contrary, language is anything but fixed. That's not in question and you need not go Danth. What's in question is who in the present is trying to morph it and indeed steer it where they would like it to go with word games. You cannot have not noticed the plethora of revisionist history that takes place on the internets. Well, the morphing of political labels -- which is very much in play rather than a fait accompli -- is part of that, along with Foxy's cherrypicked Wikiquote.

Foxy and I have been down that road before, as has that link that nicely explains it. It's usually met with abject denial or more commonly, complete disregard. Those with open enough minds to read into it find it valuable, as I did.

Labels are a crutch for the inarticulate. A textual truncheon to hit one's adversary over the head with with the convenience of never having to explain what the truncheon is made of. A perfect example is "progressive", a term that has no contemporary consensual meaning, plucked out of a century ago, conflated with the adjective as if it's a proper name of some organized group and used solely to beat about the head. A tool of complete rhetorical sloth, which is what describes unilateral definitions.

That is why I said earlier that this intentional muddying of the waters comes from pop media -- and not from "schooling".

Matter of fact I can't think of a single thing I learned about politics in school.

 

[FA_Q2]

That people "call" you anything, speaks volumes about them, not you.

That people don't have a clue about the definitions of words and philosophies is a testament to our utterly failed public school system. Civics isn't even taught anymore (on purpose), so what most people believe (not think) is what they get from popular television shows. Doomed!

If you advocate small government, then at your core you are conservative. That you desire a bit more personal freedom, a less heavy-hand of government, you are still leaning to the political right.....perhaps "social conservatism" largely and mostly promoted by the religious right, isn't your cup of tea. Agreed! At the end of the day, however, you are largely a conservative person. Don't let the maleducated and ideologues confuse you.

No. I would like what you say to be true but it simply is not. The right no longer represents smaller government. When they rerun to the concept of freedom I would love to support the right but things like the PA are the hallmark of the right. While the left demands that they control my fiscal life and any public interaction that I take, the right wants to control my moral life. One is not better than the other. They are both authoritarian in nature and I reject both philosophies.

I once thought libertarians were on the right. I now realize that they are on both sides and line up with neither. There is a reason that libertarian candidates DO NOT split the Republican vote but rather pull from both parties.

 

[Pogo]

No. I would like what you say to be true but it simply is not. The right no longer represents smaller government. When they rerun to the concept of freedom I would love to support the right but things like the PA are the hallmark of the right. While the left demands that they control my fiscal life and any public interaction that I take, the right wants to control my moral life. One is not better than the other. They are both authoritarian in nature and I reject both philosophies.

I once thought libertarians were on the right. I now realize that they are on both sides and line up with neither. There is a reason that libertarian candidates DO NOT split the Republican vote but rather pull from both parties.

Here I think we're much more eye-to-eye.
Except I'm not sure what you mean by "PA".