What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[Publius1787]

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

I never asked for the definition of classical liberalism but the philosophy behind modern liberalism. Of which you have contributed nothing. This is because when you get down into the philosophical weeds, modern liberals are walking contradictions. Indeed, they find out real quick that they abandon the principle of self-ownership for the principle of state ownership. You find this to be false? Tell me how.

 

[Agit8r]

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..

I'm not sure how you presume that modern liberalism is the opposite of what liberalism has meant classically:

"there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger."
-- James Madison; Note to Speech on the Right of Suffrage (1821)

 

[Publius1787]

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..

I'm not sure how you presume that modern liberalism is the opposite of what liberalism has meant classically:

"there are various ways in which the rich may oppress the poor; in which property may oppress liberty; and that the world is filled with examples. It is necessary that the poor should have a defence against the danger."
-- James Madison; Note to Speech on the Right of Suffrage (1821)

Are you the owner of yourself or are you owned by the state? Or which proportion are you of each? The closer you move to state ownership the closer you are to modern liberalism. Oh, and James Madison wanted land owning as a condition of voting at the Constitutional Convention. In anycase, liberalism is only a relative term. Democrats gave it to themselves as a PR campaign when they were running away from the name "progressive."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Gotta love ya when you debate with yourself

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

Fun thread...but you lose

Answer this or gtfo, these are REAL LIBERAL PHILOSOPHIES:

I've been wondering the same thing myself:

Let me quote what REAL LIBERALS thought at the Founding of our Nation (Thomas Paine, Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

The underlined quote refers to the story of Adam and Eve, not that I care personally, but I thought I'd make it clear for non religious readers.

 

[rightwinger]

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

I never asked for the definition of classical liberalism but the philosophy behind modern liberalism. Of which you have contributed nothing. This is because when you get down into the philosophical weeds, modern liberals are walking contradictions. Indeed, they find out real quick that they abandon the principle of self-ownership for the principle of state ownership. You find this to be false? Tell me how.

JFK 1
Publius 0

 

[Pheonixops]

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.

I don't hate Christianity, I dislike the bigots and haters who pose as "Christians" but act and think like devils.

Educate yourself on the Jesuits and Liberation theology in Central America.

 

[Publius1787]

Gotta love ya when you debate with yourself

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

Fun thread...but you lose

I never asked for the definition of classical liberalism but the philosophy behind modern liberalism. Of which you have contributed nothing. This is because when you get down into the philosophical weeds, modern liberals are walking contradictions. Indeed, they find out real quick that they abandon the principle of self-ownership for the principle of state ownership. You find this to be false? Tell me how.

JFK 1
Publius 0

Well, seing that we are in a spamming mood.

JFK 1
Obama 0

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScMvZinMb6E]Obama vs. JFK on taxes - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

JFK 1
Publius 0

DO you believe these to be your liberal principles or not?

Gotta love ya when you debate with yourself

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

Fun thread...but you lose

Answer this or gtfo, these are REAL LIBERAL PHILOSOPHIES:

I've been wondering the same thing myself:

Let me quote what REAL LIBERALS thought at the Founding of our Nation (Thomas Paine, Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

The underlined quote refers to the story of Adam and Eve, not that I care personally, but I thought I'd make it clear for non religious readers.

 

[Agit8r]

Gotta love ya when you debate with yourself

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

Fun thread...but you lose

Answer this or gtfo, these are REAL LIBERAL PHILOSOPHIES:

I've been wondering the same thing myself:

Let me quote what REAL LIBERALS thought at the Founding of our Nation (Thomas Paine, Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

The underlined quote refers to the story of Adam and Eve, not that I care personally, but I thought I'd make it clear for non religious readers.

by that logic THESE are also REAL LIBERAL philosophies:

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for"
-- Thomas Paine; from 'Common Sense' (1776)


"wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want of it. On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence."
-- Thomas Paine; from 'Dissertation on the First Principles of Government'


"Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator?"
-- Thomas Paine, from 'Age of Reason' ("8th Pluviose, Second Year of the French Republic")


"Admitting that any annual sum, say, for instance, one thousand pounds, is necessary or sufficient for the support of a family, consequently the second thousand is of the nature of a luxury, the third still more so, and by proceeding on, we shall at last arrive at a sum that may not improperly be called a prohibitable luxury."
-- Thomas Paine, 'Rights of Man, Part the Second' (1792)


"There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pullies, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."
-- Thomas Paine; from 'Agrarian Justice' (1797)


I'm sure you must agree completely

 

[rightwinger]

I never asked for the definition of classical liberalism but the philosophy behind modern liberalism. Of which you have contributed nothing. This is because when you get down into the philosophical weeds, modern liberals are walking contradictions. Indeed, they find out real quick that they abandon the principle of self-ownership for the principle of state ownership. You find this to be false? Tell me how.

JFK 1
Publius 0

Well, seing that we are in a spamming mood.

JFK 1
Obama 0

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScMvZinMb6E]Obama vs. JFK on taxes - YouTube[/ame]

Obama is willing to go with JFKs tax rates

Are you?

 

[Publius1787]

JFK 1
Publius 0

Well, seing that we are in a spamming mood.

JFK 1
Obama 0

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScMvZinMb6E]Obama vs. JFK on taxes - YouTube[/ame]

Obama is willing to go with JFKs tax rates

Are you?

Sorry, I pay enough of your welfare. Indeed, I certainly havent the time to sit on my ass and post here as much as most of the liberals in this forum (Working). You see, you make 37 posts per day on my dime.

 

[rightwinger]

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

JFK 2
Publius. 0

 

[The2ndAmendment]

by that logic THESE are also REAL LIBERAL philosophies:

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for"
-- Thomas Paine; from 'Common Sense' (1776)

First of all, you reinterpreted this phrase by changing the PUNCTUATION. Then you clipped it off. Allow me to fix what you wrote, then present the rest (notice that I didn't just take a small clip from the beginning of Common Sense, I posted everything around it):

You also didn't put the TITLE of the section that it was under

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession [TITLE]:

"MANKIND being originally equal in the orders of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; [semicolon] the distinctions of rich, [comma] and poor, [comma] may in a great measure be account for, [comma] and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

Seeing that you're trying to spin Common Sense into a Marxist narrative by changing punctuation or very short excerpts, and not even discussing the context has VOIDED all of your credibility.

The Corporate Kings of the Republican and Democratic Party are making the rest of us Subjects, one by one.

 

[Agit8r]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_0tRVYs-Rw]JFK versus U.S. Steel - YouTube[/ame]

um, what is that score now?

 

[Publius1787]

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

JFK 2
Publius. 0

Wasn’t Woodrow Wilson a racist and didn't he segregate the military? Didn’t FDR kill off thousands of sharecroppers with the AAA? I guess thats why "progressives" had to change their name to "liberals." Foward?

 

[Agit8r]

by that logic THESE are also REAL LIBERAL philosophies:

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for"
-- Thomas Paine; from 'Common Sense' (1776)
First of all, you reinterpreted this phrase by changing the PUNCTUATION. Then you clipped it off. Allow me to fix what you wrote, then present the rest (notice that I didn't just take a small clip from the beginning of Common Sense, I posted everything around it):

You also didn't put the TITLE of the section that it was under

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession [TITLE]:

"MANKIND being originally equal in the orders of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; [semicolon] the distinctions of rich, [comma] and poor, [comma] may in a great measure be account for, [comma] and that without having recourse to the harsh, ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice. Oppression is often the consequence, but seldom or never the means of riches; and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor, it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy. But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS. Male and female are the distinctions of nature, good and bad the distinctions of heaven; but how a race of men came into the world so exalted above the rest, and distinguished like some new species, is worth enquiring into, and whether they are the means of happiness or of misery to mankind.

Seeing that you're trying to spin Common Sense into a Marxist narrative by changing punctuation or very short excerpts, and not even discussing the context has VOIDED all of your credibility.

the context does not change the meaning of what he expressed there. Nor does it change all the subsequent endorsements of redistribution and welfare-statism, and his dislike for the Christian religion. You should do some research before you claim an historical figure and expose your folly in Glenn Beck fashion

 

[Publius1787]

JFK versus U.S. Steel - YouTube

um, what is that score now?

Nothing like a monopoly created by years of being in bed with liberals raising their prices. Indeed, the only ones who made it out of the New Deal alive were the politically favored corporations.

 

[Publius1787]

by that logic THESE are also REAL LIBERAL philosophies:

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for"
-- Thomas Paine; from 'Common Sense' (1776)
First of all, you reinterpreted this phrase by changing the PUNCTUATION. Then you clipped it off. Allow me to fix what you wrote, then present the rest (notice that I didn't just take a small clip from the beginning of Common Sense, I posted everything around it):

You also didn't put the TITLE of the section that it was under

Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession [TITLE]:


Seeing that you're trying to spin Common Sense into a Marxist narrative by changing punctuation or very short excerpts, and not even discussing the context has VOIDED all of your credibility.

the context does not change the meaning of what he expressed there. Nor does it change all the subsequent endorsements of redistribution and welfare-statism, and his dislike for the Christian religion. You should do some research before you claim an historical figure and expose your folly in Glenn Beck fashion

His support for the French Revolution (The first large scale class war socialist failure). Of course, so did Jefferson, but he later realized the difference in the American and French ideologies.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

JFK 2
Publius. 0

What will you do when the dollar crashes? How will Social Security be of any use when hyperinflation hits? Will they be mailing senior citizens gold instead?

 

[Publius1787]

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

JFK 2
Publius. 0

What will you do when the dollar crashes? How will Social Security be of any use when hyperinflation hits? Will they be mailing senior citizens gold instead?

60 years of Democrat "liberal" rule:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hhJ_49leBw]Detroit in RUINS! (Crowder goes Ghetto) - YouTube[/ame]