Liberalism in the US

[seebs]

I think a lot of people do not distinguish between "leftism" and "liberalism".

This is a grave error.

Since the dawn of our nation, it has been founded on principles of liberty. Liberalism, in the classical sense, refers precisely to such principles; as Voltaire put it, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Liberalism implies the right to do, or even be, something other people don't like. What it does not imply is the right not to be offended! Some modern groups have begun to champion a variety of "diversity" in which people who do not like a given thing are prohibited from saying so. This is not liberalism! A classical liberal would defend fervently the right of others to speak negatively of him.

What makes this interesting is that, on many issues, we end up with both the conservatives and the liberals adopting positions hostile to classical liberalism. For every person demanding that gay people be prohibited from kissing in public spaces, another demands that people not be allowed to say bad things about gays. Classical liberalism is opposed to both, defending both the right to publically display affection, and the right to tell people what you think of them.

People interested in learning more about the history of this much-misused word might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

 

[nvxplorer]

Good post.

I agree that people misuse the terms leftist and liberal. Ironically, those on the right who support free market economics are liberal, economically. A leftist supports socialism/communism.

 

[Pseudonym]

I agree, good post. And I can't help but agree with Classical Liberalism.

 

[k]

"Liberal" is a word often used to brush aside facts and credible arguments. It is an excuse to not actually engage in explorative dialogue capable of enabling people from all spectrums to learn something new.

Many Feminists are against Liberalism, and many people do not understand why because they do not know what it means to be a Liberal.

 

[ElvisFan42]

People in the US do not even distinguish between Democrat and liberal, how do you think they'll get this?

The largest factor I see lately that get's a label put one is their level of tolerance. You could dislike <insert moral issue of the day here> but still not be willing to outlaw it, because you let each to his own, and you are a liberal, lefty Democrat.

 

[variant]

I think a lot of people do not distinguish between "leftism" and "liberalism".

This is a grave error.

Since the dawn of our nation, it has been founded on principles of liberty. Liberalism, in the classical sense, refers precisely to such principles; as Voltaire put it, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Liberalism implies the right to do, or even be, something other people don't like. What it does not imply is the right not to be offended! Some modern groups have begun to champion a variety of "diversity" in which people who do not like a given thing are prohibited from saying so. This is not liberalism! A classical liberal would defend fervently the right of others to speak negatively of him.

What makes this interesting is that, on many issues, we end up with both the conservatives and the liberals adopting positions hostile to classical liberalism. For every person demanding that gay people be prohibited from kissing in public spaces, another demands that people not be allowed to say bad things about gays. Classical liberalism is opposed to both, defending both the right to publically display affection, and the right to tell people what you think of them.

People interested in learning more about the history of this much-misused word might find this interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Well said.

I have been trying to get this message through to people for years, but it seems that their televisions says something different, and it is hard to argue with people when they saw something on TV.

The problem is that both parties take portions which bear similarity to the kind of liberalism our country was founded upon, and both parties take positions that are hostile to classical liberalism.

When in power these parties tend to forget about their liberalism because their authoritarian stands allow them to gobble up more power and expand the government.

I think such a tendency to "forget" is convenient, and it has left us with a ever expanding, and more authoritarian government via incrementalism.

 

[seebs]

The essential thing at issue is that many people preach liberalism only when it's useful to them. When a Christian girl gets in trouble for breaking a promise not to use her school as a platform for preaching, many Christians rush to defend her, but when non-Christians promote their own beliefs, the same people often condemn them.

Liberalism is an uncomfortable philosophy, because the fact is, a majority of people disagree with you about at least something, so at any given time, you're most likely to be stuck defending something you don't like.

I'm okay with that. In the long run, I think open discussion is the best chance we have of finding truth.

 

[64kSim]

Well said.

I have been trying to get this message through to people for years, but it seems that their televisions says something different, and it is hard to argue with people when they saw something on TV.

The problem is that both parties take portions which bear similarity to the kind of liberalism our country was founded upon, and both parties take positions that are hostile to classical liberalism.

When in power these parties tend to forget about their liberalism because their authoritarian stands allow them to gobble up more power and expand the government.

I think such a tendency to "forget" is convenient, and it has left us with a ever expanding, and more authoritarian government via incrementalism.

Totally agree the western population is to far caught up in the talking heads on TV.
We as a society have stopped thinking for our selves and traded in our minds and let them be replaced by what the major banks want.
I guess the first and most important thing for any person, liberal or other wise is to reject this Rothschild control of practically everything.
I for one will keep my mind and use it how I darn well please.

 

[nvxplorer]

Totally agree the western population is to far caught up in the talking heads on TV.

So what? Americans have always sought entertainment.

We as a society have stopped thinking for our selves and traded in our minds and let them be replaced by what the major banks want.

What do you mean "what the major banks want?"

I guess the first and most important thing for any person, liberal or other wise is to reject this Rothschild control of practically everything.

What is "Rothschild control," and how do we reject it?

I for one will keep my mind and use it how I darn well please.

I see you don't include yourself in your overgeneralization of the American public.

 

[64kSim]

[/size][/font]

What is "Rothschild control," and how do we reject it?

Nx if you don’t know about the Rothschild banks then we have a huge problem I’ll post something once I can dig it up for you but I might take a few mins/hours for me to find it aging.
The short of this is when someone uses the term “corporate interest” or “military industrial complex” they are speaking not to what benefits that company or defense contractor but the fiscal backing of the bank which they are indebted to.

 

[64kSim]

http://www.christianforums.com/t3220318-the-answer-to-thoes-really-big-questions.html#post25639049

NX the bold and underlined will give you quite an insight to what I am talking about

 

[SolomonVII]

But, how compatible is modern liberalism with the tenets of classical liberalism? If the rights of the state ultimately trump individual rights, as they often do in modern liberalism, then just how much of classical liberlaism is left?

And what about the 'special rights' of modern liberalism? When the affirmative actions of special groups come into play, does modern liberalism side with the rights of an individual or the rights of a group to have their own special laws just for them?

Property rights are another special category. In many ways the backbone of Classical Liberalism, do modern liberals any longer have any use for these.

There is also the question of how multiculturalism and classical liberalism fit. Given that Classical liberalism was the product of a definite time and place of mainly western history, and can conflict with the traditional values of other cultures just as much as it clashed with the traditional values of the ancien regime that Classical Liberalism displaced, what would be the role of the modern liberal in defending the Classical Libera foundations of the free world?

And then there is the question of whether or not modern liberals are willing or not to make what is politically incorrect illegal. From the peepee-Christ to Mohammed cartoons, to the anti-Semitic hate speech that has been successfully persecuted in Canada, just how far will the modern liberals go to ensure that hateful and distasteful expressions remain legal?

Certainly, Classical Liberalism ahs as many detractors on the right as it does on the left side of the political spectrum.

 

[burrow_owl]

But, how compatible is modern liberalism with the tenets of classical liberalism?

On the whole, I don't think the problems you cite are fatal. Obviously, modern liberalism and classical liberalism are different, but I think the former maintains the spirit of the latter.

And what about the 'special rights' of modern liberalism? When the affirmative actions of special groups come into play...

It would be ideal if affirmative action weren't needed, but it is a special right for a special problem: slavery & subsequent Jim Crow. It can certainly be argued that AA is no longer needed, or that the remedy is too distant in time and in effectiveness from the problem, but I don't see AA as a dealbreaker. It is a narrow exception for truly extraordinary circumstances.

Property rights are another special category. In many ways the backbone of Classical Liberalism, do modern liberals any longer have any use for these.

Liberals aren't breaking into homes and stealing TVs. What they generally favor is targeted regulation to force property owners to internalize the negative externalities they create. So, for example, if I own a house downwind from you, and you decide to build a giant pig farm and don't properly dispose of the fecal waste, the stench substantially impairs my ability to enjoy my property. Regulation, then, is properly seen as a way of protecting the property rights of others.

Given that Classical liberalism was the product of a definite time and place of mainly western history, and can conflict with the traditional values of other cultures just as much as it clashed with the traditional values of the ancien regime that Classical Liberalism displaced, what would be the role of the modern liberal in defending the Classical Libera foundations of the free world?

Simple. Liberalism is the true political philosophy. That liberalism arose in a certain time and place doesn't change that, no more than the fact that Jesus was born at a particular time and place means that he isn't Truth.

just how far will the modern liberals go to ensure that hateful and distasteful expressions remain legal?

There's no movement in America to criminalize speech.

 

[SolomonVII]

....
There's no movement in America to criminalize speech.

(I've read the rest, but will jsut respond to this).

America is very different than my native Canada when it coems to this. The hate laws in Canada were brought in by the party on the left, and supported by the so-called liberal establishment.
This has tainted my perception of liberalism ever since, especially now that the Canadian right is finding its voice and making some pro-freedom noises that it hadn't made in the past

But I have seen that American liberals are very different in that regard, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. I can ppreciate that.

 

[variant]

(I've read the rest, but will jsut respond to this).

America is very different than my native Canada when it coems to this. The hate laws in Canada were brought in by the party on the left, and supported by the so-called liberal establishment.
This has tainted my perception of liberalism ever since, especially now that the Canadian right is finding its voice and making some pro-freedom noises that it hadn't made in the past

But I have seen that American liberals are very different in that regard, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. I can ppreciate that.

Liberalism that silences speech would go against the core of classical Liberalism.

It is an authoritarian stance to greatly expand censorship, which is a stance many modern "liberals" agree with.

 

[burrow_owl]

I don't know of any liberals in America that want to strengthen censorship.

 

[SolomonVII]

Neither do I.

 

[variant]

I don't know of any liberals in America that want to strengthen censorship.

It is however, a very popular stance of so called liberal states in Europe, where it is often say, illegal to deny that the holocaust happened.

 

[Sleeker]

We as a society have stopped thinking for our selves and traded in our minds and let them be replaced by what the major banks want.
I guess the first and most important thing for any person, liberal or other wise is to reject this Rothschild control of practically everything.

The banks are brainwashing us? Of all people...

 

[NCStein]

It's interesting to note that classical liberalism originally was "leftism" - that is, it was the left wing, coming from the physical arrangment of members of the National Assemby after the French Revolution. It has necessarilly had to move over because

a.) Something to the left of the original left emerged in the mid-19th century (Socialism)




​

and

b.) The original right wing (supporters of monarchy, aristocratic nobility) has been all but obliterated




​

That being said, I wish more people would really just take a few moments to familiarize themselves with some of the basic political philosophies before whittling them all down to two terms. In reality, I think that it's become too engrained in the heads of Americans (and now other Western nations) that "liberal" and "conservative" are the be-all end-all of politcs. If you don't fit into either of these two categories, there must be something wrong with you.

A "conservative" classmate of mine who prided himself in being very knowledgeable about politcs couldn't understand why I laughed so much when he told me that I was "so liberal that [I was] communist."