What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[Agit8r]

Incidently, the economic views of John Stuart Mill are also quite sublime

"The laws of property have never yet conformed to the principles on which the justification of private property rests. They have made property of things which never ought to be property, and absolute property where only a qualified property ought to exist. They have not held the balance fairly between human beings, but have heaped impediments upon some, to give advantage to others; they have purposely fostered inequalities, and prevented all from starting fair in the race. That all should indeed start on perfectly equal terms, is inconsistent with any law of private property: but if as much pains as has been taken to aggravate the inequality of chances arising from the natural working of the principle, had been taken to temper that inequality by every means not subversive of the principle itself; if the tendency of legislation had been to favour the diffusion, instead of the concentration of wealth—to encourage the subdivision of the large masses, instead of striving to keep them together; the principle of individual property would have been found to have no necessary connexion with the physical and social evils which almost all Socialist writers assume to be inseparable from it."
-- from 'Principles of Political Economy' Book II, chapter I, sect. 16

Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Book II, Chapter I | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[bripat9643]

Nowhere does the bible say that Jesus wanted us to give to each other via individual choice either. Jesus preached that helping the poor, sick and less fortunate was a Christian obligation.



So it is Christian for individuals to help the poor, sick and unfortunate but Marxism when a government comprised of We the People does the exact same thing? As a Judeo-Christian nation isn't one of the guiding principles the welfare of the people themselves? Why does the means to the end transform from a Christian Principle into a Marxism tenet simply because it is being done by the more perfect union of we the people?

Did Jesus steal to help the poor? Did Jesus ask that people steal to help the poor? Did Jesus mandate that a government that steals from one man to give to another is just? No, Jesus never advocated force nor theft. He advocated charity, and charity does not come from a group of people deciding whose property should be sacrificed by force in order to provide for the poor in a manner only they see fit.

So your position is that a government of We the People are stealing?

All taxation is theft, but especially the kind where government takes from 'A' so it can give to 'B'

 

[bripat9643]

So your position is that a government of We the People are stealing?

My position is that for someone who believes in the principle of self-ownership, or the no harm principle, it is an ideological contradiction to say at one end that I am the owner of myself, and at the other, a mob has the right to determine where the fruits of myself ownership goes. Indeed, if a mob can take away your property for anything other than to maintain the right of self-ownership, then slavery becomes a viable option. The only question then becomes to what extent is slavery implemented?

Do you follow or is this over your head?

So your clarification is that the government formed by a more perfect union of We the People is a mob? Does this mean that Constitution does not give We the People the right to impose taxes and tariffs? How about the right to regulating commerce, enacting laws and defending the nation? Are those also nothing more than mob rule too?

Government has no right to do anything that a private individual has no right to do. That leaves government the authority to defend that nation and defend citizens from predators. It also authorizes the courts for settling disputes.

That's it. Everything else is plunder and oppression.

 

[Publius1787]

We post because the liberals on this forum will never expose themselves for what they truly are. Liberals HATE to be exposed and have their hypocrisy and two faced arrogance put on display for everyone to see. They like to hide it and pretend it doesn't exist. They like to dupe those who we would consider the low information voters.

But we know what they are, so why let them play their games. Just expose them, and then laugh as they respond with some BS psychobabble liberal mumbo jumbo.

It is amazing. I gave them the opportunity to debate the very essence of their ideology but they couldn’t do it. Not only do they not know what I was talking about, they don’t know what they advocate. This is literally the fall of Western Civilization!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rytC4QsIiG8]PJTV: #1 Public University Producing Idiots - YouTube[/ame]

Certainly brings back memories of college. I spent most of my time face palming myself in class while listening to all of the jewels of liberal knowledge contribute to class discussion.

 

[Agit8r]

It is amazing. I gave them the opportunity to debate the very essence of their ideology but they couldn’t do it. Not only do they not know what I was talking about, they don’t know what they advocate. This is literally the fall of Western Civilization!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rytC4QsIiG8]PJTV: #1 Public University Producing Idiots - YouTube[/ame]

Certainly brings back memories of college. I spent most of my time face palming myself in class while listening to all of the jewels of liberal knowledge contribute to class discussion.

Well, actually Lincoln did serve in congress as a Whig. And in 1864 he ran on the National Union Party ticket. So who's the dummy now?

 

[007]

I would say that the teachings of liberalism can be traced to the words and teachings of Jesus.

Is that why so many liberals hate Christianity, and proclaim to be atheists?

What percentage of them "hate Christianity and proclaim to be Atheists"? what study are you quoting? Do you realize that the new Pope is a Jesuit and comes from the Latin American Liberation Theology mindset?

By and large, on this board right here as an example, you liberals waste no time showing your hatred and bigotry towards Christians and the Bible. We "cling to them," remember?

I doubt the new Pope is a liberal.

 

[Agit8r]

Is that why so many liberals hate Christianity, and proclaim to be atheists?

What percentage of them "hate Christianity and proclaim to be Atheists"? what study are you quoting? Do you realize that the new Pope is a Jesuit and comes from the Latin American Liberation Theology mindset?

By and large, on this board right here as an example, you liberals waste no time showing your hatred and bigotry towards Christians and the Bible. We "cling to them," remember?

I doubt the new Pope is a liberal.

You know that he's a Jesuit, right? And from South America, no less

 

[Publius1787]

Is that why so many liberals hate Christianity, and proclaim to be atheists?

What percentage of them "hate Christianity and proclaim to be Atheists"? what study are you quoting? Do you realize that the new Pope is a Jesuit and comes from the Latin American Liberation Theology mindset?

By and large, on this board right here as an example, you liberals waste no time showing your hatred and bigotry towards Christians and the Bible. We "cling to them," remember?

I doubt the new Pope is a liberal.

The new pope is a social conservative and hates socialism which is the cause of inequality in Latin America.

 

[007]

PJTV: #1 Public University Producing Idiots - YouTube

Certainly brings back memories of college. I spent most of my time face palming myself in class while listening to all of the jewels of liberal knowledge contribute to class discussion.

Well, actually Lincoln did serve in congress as a Whig. And in 1864 he ran on the National Union Party ticket. So who's the dummy now?

Evidently you are... moron...

With the Whig Party in ruins, Lincoln joined the new Republican Party--formed largely in opposition to slavery's extension into the territories--in 1858 and ran for the Senate again that year (he had campaigned unsuccessfully for the seat in 1855 as well).

Abraham Lincoln ? History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

 

[Agit8r]

Certainly brings back memories of college. I spent most of my time face palming myself in class while listening to all of the jewels of liberal knowledge contribute to class discussion.

Well, actually Lincoln did serve in congress as a Whig. And in 1864 he ran on the National Union Party ticket. So who's the dummy now?

Evidently you are... moron...

With the Whig Party in ruins, Lincoln joined the new Republican Party--formed largely in opposition to slavery's extension into the territories--in 1858 and ran for the Senate again that year (he had campaigned unsuccessfully for the seat in 1855 as well).

Abraham Lincoln ? History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

As the final time he ran on the National Union Party ticket, obviously Whig is just as valid an answer as Republican. Not rocket science there

 

[Vandalshandle]

Anyone who proclaims that liberalism=Marxism, is just an troll looking to stir up dissension, who has no interest in discussing the real world. I have only read half of this thread, and we are being called Marxists, and communists by several posters. These charges do not deserve the dignity of a response. I have never met a communist personally in the 68 years of my lifetime. It is the equivelent of us calling conservatives "fascists". I do not do that, and I expect posters to be mature enough not to call me a communist.

 

[Publius1787]

Anyone who proclaims that liberalism=Marxism, is just an troll looking to stir up dissension, who has no interest in discussing the real world. I have only read half of this thread, and we are being called Marxists, and communists by several posters. These charges do not deserve the dignity of a response. I have never met a communist personally in the 68 years of my lifetime. It is the equivelent of us calling conservatives "fascists". I do not do that, and I expect posters to be mature enough not to call me a communist.

Hey fella, I have given you guys plenty of time to explain the core of liberalism to me. The response I got most was (anything goes so as long as the people demand it). Oh, and we all know that fascism is socialisms little sister; whereas one is the ownership of the means of production by regulation/government and the other is ownership of the means of production via government coercion. It is no wander Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist.

 

[Vandalshandle]

...and I respond by posting 9 quotes by Jesus about the poor:

9 Jesus Quotes About The Poor

And, I am not impressed by your spinning , whereby you claim that the word "taxes"=""theft", or the word, "charity"="forced welfare". Christains believe that the priciples of Christianity should guide the relations of men. A liberal does not have to be a Christan in order to believe in His teachings regarding brotherhood, compasion, and selflessness.In fact, if you were down and out, you would be one of those to whom we would advocate compassion.

And if you want to call liberals "sociolists", you are again spinning, because every dictionary defines the words differently. But, it is, at least, not as inflamatory as calling us "communists"

 

[Agit8r]

Anyone who proclaims that liberalism=Marxism, is just an troll looking to stir up dissension, who has no interest in discussing the real world. I have only read half of this thread, and we are being called Marxists, and communists by several posters. These charges do not deserve the dignity of a response. I have never met a communist personally in the 68 years of my lifetime. It is the equivelent of us calling conservatives "fascists". I do not do that, and I expect posters to be mature enough not to call me a communist.

Hey fella, I have given you guys plenty of time to explain the core of liberalism to me. The response I got most was (anything goes so as long as the people demand it). Oh, and we all know that fascism is socialisms little sister; whereas one is the ownership of the means of production by regulation/government and the other is ownership of the means of production via government coercion. It is no wander Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist.

um, really?

which is which in this theory?

 

[Publius1787]

...and I respond by posting 9 quoters by Jesus about the poor:

9 Jesus Quotes About The Poor

And, I am not impressed by your spinning , whereby you claim that the word "taxes"=""theft", or the word, "charity"="forced welfare". Christains believe that the priciples of Christianity should guide the relations of men. A liberal does not have to be a Christan in order to believe in His teachings regarding brotherhood, compasion, and selflessness.In fact, if you were down and out, you would be one of those to whome we would advocate compassion.

And if you want to call liberals "sociolists", yiou are again spinning, because every dictionary defines the words differently. But, it is, at least, not as inflamatory as calling us "communists"

Taxes, for the purpose of charity, is theft. I don’t know how you can define it any other way. If you don’t pay your taxes you lose your liberty, i.e. some guy with a gun comes to your house and throws you in jail. Thus, you are forced into charity. You don’t agree? I would love to hear why, but lemme guess, you’re going to tell me that a majority of people determined that my money was not mine and that I should pay for charity. Therefore, the theft is legal because the majority says so. By that same reasoning, killing me would be legal if a majority said so. Thus, you’ll need to look elsewhere for your philosophical foundation. Nor does the claim, “Jesus likes charity so we have the right to force you into charity” hold an ounce of validity. So where is the liberal foundation? Where is the liberal principle? Where is the liberal philosophy? You don’t know do you? Indeed, it is “anything goes” so as long as we make the determination it is good. Right?

 

[Publius1787]

Anyone who proclaims that liberalism=Marxism, is just an troll looking to stir up dissension, who has no interest in discussing the real world. I have only read half of this thread, and we are being called Marxists, and communists by several posters. These charges do not deserve the dignity of a response. I have never met a communist personally in the 68 years of my lifetime. It is the equivelent of us calling conservatives "fascists". I do not do that, and I expect posters to be mature enough not to call me a communist.

Hey fella, I have given you guys plenty of time to explain the core of liberalism to me. The response I got most was (anything goes so as long as the people demand it). Oh, and we all know that fascism is socialisms little sister; whereas one is the ownership of the means of production by regulation/government and the other is ownership of the means of production via government coercion. It is no wander Mussolini was a socialist before he was a fascist.

um, really?

which is which in this theory?

I love it when people ask me to post the responses of others as opposed to reading the thread themselves. But then again, if reading was your strong suit you wouldn't have misunderstood Locke. If writing was your strong suit you wouldn't have written "um" for effect and stayed on the merits. Feel free to answer the op at any time now. I can lead you through it if you want. Liberal Ideology = the value of a man’s life is equal to his usefulness to the state. In other words, the principle of self ownership does not apply so as long as others need his support. That is modern day liberalism and it is a bad joke to real liberalism.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Let's assume that Jesus did agree:

Separation of Church and State.

Don't tell me I can't be gay

Don't tell my wife she can't have an abortion

Don't tell me I need to give charity.

 

[rightwinger]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

Here ya go.....

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." JFK 1960

 

[Publius1787]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

Here ya go.....

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." JFK 1960

I find it funny that liberalism means none of those things. I means "Of or pertaining to freedom." It has only recently been construed to mean the opposit as advocated by socialists/democrats/progressives/etc..

 

[rightwinger]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

Here ya go.....

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." JFK 1960

I find it funny that liberalism means none of those things. I means "Of or pertaining to freedom." It has only recently been construed to mean the opposit as advocated by socialists/democrats/progressives/etc..

Gotta love ya when you debate with yourself

Ask for a definition then say.....no, that's not it

Fun thread...but you lose