Why do people hate Liberals?

[Uncensored2008]

This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.

It's not new, and it's not credible.

Again, that Paul and virtually all Libertarians, myself included, recognize that Southern states had the right to leave the Union, is not an endorsement of Slavery.

The question of whether a state can secede is the difference between a union and occupied territory. IF the USA is an Empire of conquered territory, then the position that a state cannot leave is logical. But if we maintain the fiction that we are a free country, then states have the right to sever the voluntary alliance they have with the Federal government.

This says nothing of support for the Antebellum South, which was a feudal shit hole where a virtual landed gentry ran roughshod on an impoverished populace using corrupt laws to block economic progress by free whites. In many ways, slaves had a better life that the poverty ridden whites did in the Old South. It was miserable place. But none of this alters the facts.

 

[Foxfyre]

This isnt new.... For fuck sake go look yourself! The racist news letters has been known about for well over a decade.

It's not new, and it's not credible.

Again, that Paul and virtually all Libertarians, myself included, recognize that Southern states had the right to leave the Union, is not an endorsement of Slavery.

The question of whether a state can secede is the difference between a union and occupied territory. IF the USA is an Empire of conquered territory, then the position that a state cannot leave is logical. But if we maintain the fiction that we are a free country, then states have the right to sever the voluntary alliance they have with the Federal government.

This says nothing of support for the Antebellum South, which was a feudal shit hole where a virtual landed gentry ran roughshod on an impoverished populace using corrupt laws to block economic progress by free whites. In many ways, slaves had a better life that the poverty ridden whites did in the Old South. It was miserable place. But none of this alters the facts.

Exactly. The fact that some corporations have played and are playing the government like fiddles to the detriment of us all is always important to note, but the fact is that the vast majority of corporations are mom and pop operations who are honest, tax paying citizens doing the best they can with what they have just as most of us are.

The fact that there were evil people in the old South or that racists exist now does not change the fact that MOST even pre-Civil War southerners were not slave owners and would not want to be while there were some northerners who did not want to abolish slavery because they were financially benefitting from it. And in both the north and south there were individuals who would cheat their own grandmothers or kick them to the curb if they thought it would benefit them personally.

Such people exist today among all races and ethnicities, among all walks of life, in all political parties, and among people we see and work and do business with every day.

And yet the vast majority of Americans now and at the time the Constitution was signed into law, never condoned or accepted slavery in any form, never cheated anybody intentionally, never have treated their fellows maliciously or dishonestly or hatefully, and do the best they can to get by with what they have. And throughout history we read or hear of people who were culturally conditioned to one point of view and came to believe they were wrong and threw off a belief system they came to believe was bad or evil.

And because all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs and guilty of all manner of sins and blessed with all manner of virtues exist, it is futile to single out a single group for blame or retribution.

Far better to focus on what principles and concepts we consider acceptable for a free people and what needs to happen to make them the norm. I have come to believe in conservatism/aka classical liberalism/aka libertarianism (little L) as holding the solutions to most problems facing us as a nation, and liberalism as the largest root of what ails us. I am open to being convinced that my belief is flawed or wrong.

 

[dblack]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

 

[thanatos144]

my point proven if you are a PaulBot you will never believe it.

 

[dblack]

my point proven if you are a PaulBot you will never believe it.

You won the thread!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUCF8p3TGcQ]Tim and Eric Awesome Show Great Job!: Success - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Foxy, I'm sorry you went to all that trouble for nothing. Ever hear the expression, "opinions are like assholes"? I couldn't be less interested in dueling links for this term or that one. I'm not even going to bother reading it. It's a waste of time.

My point, I'll have to make it quick, is that floating a term like "classical Liberalism" is an attempt to redefine the word "Liberalism" and dichotomize it into good and evil witches -- you set Liberalism aside as "classical" and claim it for yourself, then you get to demonize the one the other team uses. In other words I'm not interested in who defines it which way -- I'm interested in WHY they're going out of their way to redefine it at all.

I'm not going to play that game, I don't care if you get a link from some wag at every university in the world plus the town librarian in Toledo. That's a pissing contest and it's part and parcel of the decline of discourse. So save your typing fingers. It's irrelevant.

Back later.

Agreed.

No one is going to play that game, it’s pointless.

It’s just as pointless as trying to engage libertarians, extreme rightists, and fringe conservatives as to the original intent of the Framers, the meaning of the Constitution, and the interpretive authority of the courts in the context of judicial review.

Indeed, it’s pointless to attempt any discourse with those who hold the untenable position that every ruling by the Court is ‘wrong,’ up to and including Marbury, that the courts have no interpretive authority, and that the Constitution ‘means’ whatever one wishes it to mean, absent any accepted context, recognized authority, or precedent.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, to refuse to acknowledge that case law – whether one agrees with it or not – compels only silence on the issue, as there exists not even a common judicial language to facilitate discourse.

The Hamiltonian Constitutional paradigm prevailed, inevitable given the advent of a modern industrial America during start of the 20th Century, no other outcome was possible.

Any desire to return to a ‘pre-Lochner’ judicial regime is a pathetic reactionary fantasy.

 

[Pogo]

Geez. I might as well say that I don't believe there was ever a debate on global warming or that a Flat Earth Society ever existed or there is no such thing as quantum physicis so don't bother me with any evidence that any or all exist or ever existed. And how do we know whether Thanatos or anybody else is a liberal if we can't come to an agreement on what the defintion of liberal is? I love you too, Pogo.

Miss me yet?

To wrap up this loose end: what you've got up there with global warming, the Flat Earth Society et al, are actual things. What I was talking about was a terminology. And more importantly, the reason for that terminology.

Here's why it's important to make this point:

There's certainly an element of futility in any discussions of 'liberal' or 'conservative' values without first squaring off against all the confusion regarding what the terms themselves mean. If you want even bigger challenge, try talking to people about 'corporatism'.

I would actually love to discuss corporatism but on a different thread. Dealing with the topic on this one is complicated enough, most especially as you say, we can't get anybody to focus on the definitions. And I'm about to throw in the towel on that for that very reason. When you have people who absolutely are NOT interested in the concepts but are rather interested in blaming or trashing somebody, no producive discussion is going to take place.

Focusing on the definitions is exactly what I've been trying to do. When you try to split the term "Liberal" into a good liberal in the white hats (your side) and the evil liberal in black (the other side), you're engaging in lexicographical revisionism. As noted before you've already lumped them into, respectively, Republicans and Democrats, and that's BS. This is just the kind of Eliminationist tactic that degrades our discourse; paint the world into a good vs. evil dichotomy and proceed to destroy the evil. Wrongheaded.

"Liberalism" means, meant, and will continue to mean, a 'laissez-faire' attitude, that government is like a referee, just there to ensure the playing field is level for the populace to act out its own interests unencumbered by government. As noted before, the word "liberal" has been misused and conflated (I alluded to the 1988 presidential campaign, and I'd add the post-World War II McCarthy days, when the words "liberal" and "communist" were deliberately conflated by dishonest demagogues). But there's no reason we need to continue that tomfoolery today. It's not what "liberal" means and never was.

Take the USSR. Please. Some wags here will cite the Soviet Union as an example of "Liberalism"; it was in reality anything but. It was certainly related to Leftism, at least superficially, though it had far more to do with Authoritarianism. But Leftism isn't the same as Liberalism. Liberalism gets opposed by both the left and the right. Marxism, Fascism, affirmative action and gay marriage laws, to cite easy examples, are all examples from the left and the right that oppose liberalism. Or take the case made in another thread of pornography: the Right opposes it because it's "immoral"; the Left opposes it because it objectifies and exploits women; the Liberal attitude is to simply let it be. That's what Liberal means.

I submit to you that the concepts "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative" are four different things, not two. Trying to hitch one to ride with another is just not accurate. But to paraphrase Jerry Lee Lewis, there's a whole lot of conflatin' goin' on, and it goes on for the express purpose of, again, painting the world into that black-and-white dichotomy so that the evil side, once identified, can be summarily eliminated and the protagonist side -- the one that created this false dichotomy -- gets to walk away with the world. Or so they would dream.

That's not the way it should work; we need as noted before a balance between the right and the left, checking each the other, exerting only the minimal regulations on our Liberalist-derived government. Not a bunch of demagogues trying to paint each other as evil monsters in an endless selfish game of political football just to "win" some personal points on political message boards.

Sorry, I'm more tired than I expected and I have a very distraught patient on the phone. I think I'm repeating myself, but I hope it's at least clear why I feel these terms should not be taken as lightly as we've been doing. And that's why I won't accept the revision of Liberal into "classical liberal" so that we can morph the term into its own opposite.

And like it or not, Liberalism... meaning the movement that founded this country in the 18th century... originated from the left, i.e. the populist opposition to the then-status quo power channels of Church/State/Aristocracy. Had it not, we'd still be living in a theocratic feudalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

I wish I had seen this thread sooner -- 1500 posts is more than I can digest.

Suffice to say (just to jump in midstream as a pretext to put the thread on my watch list), this last paragraph has it exactly backwards as far as what Liberalism actually is. (Btw it's laissez-faire, "to let it happen").

Methinks there's a lot of wags confusing Liberalism with Leftism, or in this case with Authoritarianism. That's quite a stretch. Perhaps the question is why we want to poison a political term, let alone that it's the very philosophy that birthed this country.



Ah, somebody's prolly already covered this on pages 4395 and 73469...

True and unfortunate. But for most people, 'liberal' means Democrat and 'conservative' means Republican. Neither of these is accurate, so it makes these discussions confusing at best. Are we talking about real 'liberal' values, or the authoritarian/corporatist ideology of the Democrats?

That is why, in my opinion, being able to define the terms is so critical. Most modern conservatives aka classical liberals can define the terms. Very few, maybe none, of the modern American liberals can or will even try.

I have asked, begged, offered, goaded our liberal friends here to provide a coherant definition of modern American liberalism, and so far not one has been able to do so. They throw out vague terms and fuzzy feel good phrases, but not a single thing that could be a guiding principle for what laws and regulation should apply and what should not. (Or perhaps they actually can write a description, but would be embarrassed at how it would look written down?)

If the goal is to return to a set of fundamentals of liberty, it is not necessary to trash other groups or individuals or political parties or whatever. You know what you want to accomplish and the Founders gave us the prnciples to use to do that and to measure every function and action of government against. Conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians want to return to those principles. Most liberals ignore them and/or shrug them off as irrelevent or unimportant.

If the goal is to force everybody into a prescribed preconceived mold of what society is supposed to be and demand that everybody toe specific acceptable language, mindset, and fuzzy concepts of collectivism under the authority of an authoritarian central government, then you are describing a liberal. The American liberal/leftist is the statist, the political class, that demands strict controls on what society must and must not tolerate, and looks to a monarch or other authoritarian government to enforce it. It is the antithesis of liberty. And that is why the conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians abhore liberalism.

But I wonder if Pogo can write a reasonably short and coherant definition of the differences he sees between the American left and the American liberal? I figure if anybody can, he can.

You get pretty haughty as YOU deride and trash liberals. You are so self absorbed and full of hot air it gets sickening.

You can keep chanting "modern conservatives aka classical liberals" until the cows come home, that is a blatant LIE. There is not a liberal cell in a conservative's body. And liberals are the antithesis of authoritarians. You don't comprehend what authoritarianism REALLY is.

Maybe a small, 1%, of the left would follow authoritarianism. Probably the far left. As far as widespread testing, it's overwhelmingly a conservative orientation.

If today's liberals represent authoritarianism to you, so would our founding fathers. They didn't believe in corporatism as a way of governing. They created a government to address our problems and methods to redress our grievances. They would NEVER stand for corporatism or corporations crushing the little guy. Do you even know what the Boston Tea Party was all about? I DOUBT you do.

 

[dblack]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

Then why are they both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?

 

[Pogo]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

Then why are them both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?

Yeah, that's why I try to get her (and others) to stop misusing the dumb-down soundbite definition.

 

[Bfgrn]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

FALSE. Conservatism is the antithesis of any form of liberalism. You are a Marketist, the siamese twin of a Marxist.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Here is one of the patron saints of libertarians...

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

I agree with Pogo on the point that there is liberalism - it is neither classical nor modern, it is simply liberalism.

The democrats are not liberals, and haven't been for at least a century. What is falsely termed "modern liberal" is simply leftist. Liberals and leftists have nothing at all in common.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then why are they both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?

Why is China called "The Peoples Republic" when it is neither a republic, nor controlled by the people?

What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."

 

[dblack]

What you call "modern liberalism" is simply leftism. it is authoritarian and collectivist - the polar opposite of "liberal."

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

 

[Foxfyre]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

Well I don't appreciate it it because I don't think classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have ANYTHING in common. Modern American liberalism is as antithesis to classical liberalism as it gets.

Then why are they both called 'liberalism'? Isn't the common nomenclature a hint that they have something in common?

Not at all. To wit:
Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. You would be hard put to find any common ground between 'democractic' in North Korea with 'democratic' in less totalitarian countries.

The term 'classical liberal' was coined precisely because the concept has NOTHING in common with modern day American liberalism while it does reflect the liberalism of its day. And because some here would refuse to acknowledge the differences, it was necessary to differentiate between the two. The Founders, and the great European thinkers they drew many of their concepts from, were the liberals of their day. Modern day American 'liberals' have turned those concepts on their head and reject almost all of them.

Here again are the definitions (and explanations) previous posted:

Definition of Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government. It developed in 18th-century Europe and drew on the economic writings of Adam Smith and the growing notion of social progress. Liberalism was also influenced by the writings of Thomas Hobbes, who argued that governments exist to protect individuals from each other. In 19th- and 20th-century America, the values of classical liberalism became dominant in both major political parties. The term is sometimes used broadly to refer to all forms of liberalism prior to the 20th century. Conservatives and libertarians often invoke classical liberalism to mean a fundamental belief in minimal government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism | Chegg.com

What is Liberalism

What is Liberalism?. It is a political orientation which favors the social progress by implementing law and reform rather than revolution. It is the belief in the importance of equal rights and liberty. This ideology began in the 18th century, which was a movement to self government and away from aristocracy. The ideology includes: The primacy of the individual or the nation, ideas of self determination, opposed to the state, family, economy and politics. Aristocracy is a government form in which the best qualified rule.

What is liberalism fundamental idea?. This political movement supports such fundamental ideas which are the following: Liberal democracy, human rights, constitutionalism, fair and free elections, freedom of religion and free trade. It is known that these ideas are accepted widely and by political groups that do not profess a liberal ideological orientation. An ideological orientation is an orientation which characterizes the thinking of a nation or group. Liberalism includes several traditional and intellectual trends. Its most dominant variants are: Social and Classical liberalism.

What is classical liberalism?. Classical liberalism was developed in the 18th century and became very popular in the Americas and Western Europe. Is defined as a philosophy, which is committed to the ideology of limited government, freedom of speech, religion, assembly, press and free markets. It advocated a specific kind of government, public policy and society required as a result of the urbanization and industrial revolution. Classical liberalism was known to be a dominant political theory on the United Kingdom during the 18th century until the First World War.


What is social liberalism?. Also known as Modern liberalism, it is the belief of having social justice included on this ideology. It believes that the legitimate role of the state includes: Unemployment, health care, addressing economic and education. Social liberalism views the good of the community as harmonious with the freedom of all individuals. This ideology parties and ideas tend to be considered centre left or centrist. Centrism also known as centre left is the practice or ideal to promote policies which stands different from the standard political right and political left. This ideal tends to focus on policies such as: Human rights, civil liberties; social and economic liberalism.
What is Liberalism; Modern, Social, Classical and Economic Liberalism Definition and Principles

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes.
What Is Classical Liberalism? | NCPA

In order to assign consistent terms in this study, I must first define classical liberalism. Scholars have offered different interpretations of this term. For example, E. K. Bramsted, co-editor of the monumental anthology Western Liberalism: A History in Documents from Locke to Croce (1978), asserts that the classical liberal champions the rights of individuals (with careful attention to the more endangered rights of minorities), the right of property in particular, the government's obligation to protect property, limited constitutional government, and a belief in social progress (36). John Gray broadens this description in Liberalism (1986) to include philosophies demonstrating individualism, egalitarianism, and universalism (x). In Liberalism Old and New (1991), J. G. Merquior argues that the theories of human rights, constitutionalism, and classical economics define classical liberal thought.

These scholars and others actually agree far more than they differ concerning the philosophy's components. For the purpose of this chronology and analysis, I shall apply a broad set of criteria to determine if an idea or individual fits within this intellectual tradition.

In this context, classical liberalism includes the following:
◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,
◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,
◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and
◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.
The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism

 

[Uncensored2008]

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.

 

[Foxfyre]

At least two of the previously posted definitions illustrate the distinct differences between classical liberalism and the modern American social liberalism in the present day.

Do any of our members who describe themselves as 'liberal' support any of these classical liberal concepts?

◾an ethical emphasis on the individual as a rights-bearer prior to the existence of any state, community, or society,

◾the support of the right of property carried to its economic conclusion, a free-market system,

◾the desire for a limited constitutional government to protect individuals' rights from others and from its own expansion, and

◾the universal (global and ahistorical) applicability of these above convictions.

 

[Pogo]

I do think we often fail to appreciate how much classical liberalism and modern liberalism have in common.

I agree with Pogo on the point that there is liberalism - it is neither classical nor modern, it is simply liberalism.

The democrats are not liberals, and haven't been for at least a century. What is falsely termed "modern liberal" is simply leftist. Liberals and leftists have nothing at all in common.

I wouldn't say "nothing at all", but yes it is unproductive to conflate the terms.

Again, when (e.g.) Democrats oppose laws restricting who can get married and such, they are being Liberals who believe in equality. That's clear. When they start engineering equality with affirmative action programs, they're being Lefists. So there's definitely overlap. Sometimes they're Liberals; sometimes they're Leftists. It's inaccurate to describe Leftists as equivalent to Liberals, but it's equally inaccurate to say they're not related.

My main objection is to people redefining and deliberately obfuscating such terms for the sole purpose of pretending they, or their perceived "opponents" are something they're not. Because that's dishonest.

 

[Foxfyre]

Before you could make such a claim, we'd first have to agree on a definition of 'modern liberalism'. And if this thread has shown, if nothing else, just how difficult that can be.

It is the philosophy and political movement of the American democratic party and their fellow travelers in the Green, American Communist, Socialist, and Peace & Freedom parties.

But can we be more specific? I have teased, cajoled, requested, goaded and begged ANY proponent of modern day American liberalism to give me an example. They give me vague fuzzy concepts but nothing as specific as in the definitions I posted.

In a nutshell I see modern day liberals holding basic Marxist beliefs that it is necessary for just and righteous purposes that a strong central government take control and redistribute the national wealth which liberals think belongs to and should be shared by the collective. Modern day liberals do not trust the people to govern themselves and must be governed by a strong central authority to ensure that righteousness shall preval. Modern day liberals preach a doctrine that it is right and good that the government force the haves to share with the have nots, and that the government require all to accept a society that the liberals see as good, noble, righteous, and just.

It was these kinds of concepts that our classical liberal Founders saw as antithesis to unalienable rights and liberty and sought to free us from.