amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
Don’t you even DARE, call yourself a Liberal!
I repost the following as I think it holds some importance and was virtually ignored by the ‘usual suspects’, for indeed they are the guilty parties.
The term, ‘Liberal’, was originally a word describing those who based their philosophy upon individual human rights and liberties, codified eventually into the founding documents of the United States of America.
One can accept those wishing to identify themselves as Socialists, or Social Democrats, as most Left Wing European intellectuals prefer in modern times; but the last thing they are is ‘Liberal’, in the classic sense and meaning of the word, for they and you , are certainly not.
~~~
Classical Liberalism
I read and enjoyed this entire thread and wish to state that this exchange is indicative of the reasons I have remained on this forum for about three years, here and there. I have experienced no better quality of mental agility anywhere online or in college at any late night collegiate wine, cheese and candlelight confrontation between first rate minds.
While all the posts have import and some anecdotal replies are vivid and meaningful, far beyond the pale is the confrontation between Roxanne and Pure…for it exemplifies the continuation, from my experience alone, of a half century, yes, fifty years of intellectual opposition.
The issue of ‘tolerance in society’, paraphrased, which I believe is the thread starters intent, is a crucial and seminary matter of import. It has been addressed from many angles, many directions, save one…that of the classical ‘Liberal’ position which Roxanne presented and was pounced upon by the ‘social liberal’, Pure, and others.
To digress for just a moment and direct you to Post #61, by Pure, who references an aspect of classical liberalism to his own ends…let me say that Pure, is most likely of ‘genius’ IQ, adept and facile in his role as devil’s advocate and ‘spoiler’, and has way too much spare time on his/her/its hands and displays that by meticulous research/copy and paste/ of relevant articles…usually not supporting his position( as he has none) but attacking any positive position taken by anyone…a gadfly…as I have mentioned before.
Pure represents, at least in this genre, a fading, degenerating remnant of moldy Utopianists, who believe, (as in faith) that if only mankind could be controlled, we could reach a higher plain of existence.
That is what modern or ‘social’ liberals are all about; that within the parameters of their doubts, mankind could truly be homogeneous and peaceful. A rather silly and sophomoric ‘belief’ at best.
An almost effortless avenue of understanding this thread and a solution to the difficulties discussed, is simply this. Acknowledge that the only legitimate function of government is to protect and preserve those innate and unalienable rights of the individual human being. Nothing more…just that…this is and ought to be the only function of those we empower to represent us…that they protect and preserve our basic rights to exist as individuals, as unique human beings, possessed at birth by the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I would say ‘property’, but that is implied by ‘liberty’.)
On a more mundane and pragmatic level, if government totally withdrew from ‘public education’ and left people free to educate their children as they chose or could afford, there would be no conflict with school issues unless they violated the basic rights of an individual.
On the same vein, if government acted only to ‘protect and defend’; the acts of trade, exchange, would be private matters and not influenced, directed, or regulated and controlled by acts of government.
This includes the 1964 laws, the ‘equal opportunity’ laws, the all inclusive efforts by social liberals to ‘mold’ society to reflect their ‘beliefs’ as to how men should live.
It is not possible for me and perhaps not possible for anyone save to write a volume addressing each issue put forward on this thread, to deal with each anomaly in social action and interaction. The solution is, as I purported , to leave people to their own devices, let them be free, to translate laissez-faire…let them be free.
I hope you will read carefully the pastes below and extend your search on each category to get an understanding of just what the issues are in this thread…and they pertain to much more…those who wish to use force to control your life, the social liberals, such as Pure, and those who wish to set you free, such as Roxanne…a really easy choice in a way; but since it takes courage to stand up and demand your freedom, it is not so easy.
~~~
Classical liberalism (also called laissez-faire liberalism[1]) is a term used by various groups to describe the following:
the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill [2]
the revived economic liberalism of the 20th century, seen in work by Friedrich Hayek[3] and Milton Friedman.[4]
Libertarianism
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.
The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants.[5] It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism[1] which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Immanuel Kant, and their precursors, like Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza.
Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. The early liberal figures now described as "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance.[6]. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution.
The qualification "classical" was applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism.[7]
~~~~~~~~~
Social liberalism (also new liberalism,[1] [2], radical liberalism[3] or sometimes modern liberalism[4]) is a development of liberalism stemming from the late 19th century. It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.
Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic oligopolies, regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws, intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.
Rejecting both the most extreme forms of capitalism and the revolutionary elements from the socialist school, social liberalism emphasizes what it calls "positive liberty", seeking to enhance the "positive freedoms" of the poor and disadvantaged in society by means of government regulation (ie. Americans with Disabilities Act, Affirmative Action) and wealth redistribution (taxation of individuals and corporations).
Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. However, they are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to their conception of liberty.[2] Social liberals are outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties, and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with a state providing public services that so, but social liberals intend to ensure that people's social rights as well as their civil liberties are upheld.
~~~~~~~~~
(unsaid in this article is the inherent necessity of social liberals to use police powers of the state, {force and mandatory taxation}, to carry out their reforms, and in doing so, the overt violation of the individual rights 'liberals' have always championed)
(by the way, I think that was an Wikipedia entry, but feel free to google as you may for a definition of Classical and Social Liberalism)
Amicus…
I repost the following as I think it holds some importance and was virtually ignored by the ‘usual suspects’, for indeed they are the guilty parties.
The term, ‘Liberal’, was originally a word describing those who based their philosophy upon individual human rights and liberties, codified eventually into the founding documents of the United States of America.
One can accept those wishing to identify themselves as Socialists, or Social Democrats, as most Left Wing European intellectuals prefer in modern times; but the last thing they are is ‘Liberal’, in the classic sense and meaning of the word, for they and you , are certainly not.
~~~
Classical Liberalism
I read and enjoyed this entire thread and wish to state that this exchange is indicative of the reasons I have remained on this forum for about three years, here and there. I have experienced no better quality of mental agility anywhere online or in college at any late night collegiate wine, cheese and candlelight confrontation between first rate minds.
While all the posts have import and some anecdotal replies are vivid and meaningful, far beyond the pale is the confrontation between Roxanne and Pure…for it exemplifies the continuation, from my experience alone, of a half century, yes, fifty years of intellectual opposition.
The issue of ‘tolerance in society’, paraphrased, which I believe is the thread starters intent, is a crucial and seminary matter of import. It has been addressed from many angles, many directions, save one…that of the classical ‘Liberal’ position which Roxanne presented and was pounced upon by the ‘social liberal’, Pure, and others.
To digress for just a moment and direct you to Post #61, by Pure, who references an aspect of classical liberalism to his own ends…let me say that Pure, is most likely of ‘genius’ IQ, adept and facile in his role as devil’s advocate and ‘spoiler’, and has way too much spare time on his/her/its hands and displays that by meticulous research/copy and paste/ of relevant articles…usually not supporting his position( as he has none) but attacking any positive position taken by anyone…a gadfly…as I have mentioned before.
Pure represents, at least in this genre, a fading, degenerating remnant of moldy Utopianists, who believe, (as in faith) that if only mankind could be controlled, we could reach a higher plain of existence.
That is what modern or ‘social’ liberals are all about; that within the parameters of their doubts, mankind could truly be homogeneous and peaceful. A rather silly and sophomoric ‘belief’ at best.
An almost effortless avenue of understanding this thread and a solution to the difficulties discussed, is simply this. Acknowledge that the only legitimate function of government is to protect and preserve those innate and unalienable rights of the individual human being. Nothing more…just that…this is and ought to be the only function of those we empower to represent us…that they protect and preserve our basic rights to exist as individuals, as unique human beings, possessed at birth by the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (I would say ‘property’, but that is implied by ‘liberty’.)
On a more mundane and pragmatic level, if government totally withdrew from ‘public education’ and left people free to educate their children as they chose or could afford, there would be no conflict with school issues unless they violated the basic rights of an individual.
On the same vein, if government acted only to ‘protect and defend’; the acts of trade, exchange, would be private matters and not influenced, directed, or regulated and controlled by acts of government.
This includes the 1964 laws, the ‘equal opportunity’ laws, the all inclusive efforts by social liberals to ‘mold’ society to reflect their ‘beliefs’ as to how men should live.
It is not possible for me and perhaps not possible for anyone save to write a volume addressing each issue put forward on this thread, to deal with each anomaly in social action and interaction. The solution is, as I purported , to leave people to their own devices, let them be free, to translate laissez-faire…let them be free.
I hope you will read carefully the pastes below and extend your search on each category to get an understanding of just what the issues are in this thread…and they pertain to much more…those who wish to use force to control your life, the social liberals, such as Pure, and those who wish to set you free, such as Roxanne…a really easy choice in a way; but since it takes courage to stand up and demand your freedom, it is not so easy.
~~~
Classical liberalism (also called laissez-faire liberalism[1]) is a term used by various groups to describe the following:
the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill [2]
the revived economic liberalism of the 20th century, seen in work by Friedrich Hayek[3] and Milton Friedman.[4]
Libertarianism
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.
The "normative core" of classical liberalism is the idea that in an environment of laissez-faire, a spontaneous order of cooperation in exchanging goods and services emerges that satisfies human wants.[5] It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism[1] which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Johann Wolfgang Goethe and Immanuel Kant, and their precursors, like Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza.
Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. The early liberal figures now described as "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance.[6]. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution.
The qualification "classical" was applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism.[7]
~~~~~~~~~
Social liberalism (also new liberalism,[1] [2], radical liberalism[3] or sometimes modern liberalism[4]) is a development of liberalism stemming from the late 19th century. It has been a label used by progressive liberal parties in order to differentiate themselves from classical liberal parties, especially when there are two or more liberal parties in a country. Unlike classical liberalism which embraces a strictly laissez-faire philosophy, social liberalism sees a role for the State in providing positive liberty for individuals.
Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic oligopolies, regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws, intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.
Rejecting both the most extreme forms of capitalism and the revolutionary elements from the socialist school, social liberalism emphasizes what it calls "positive liberty", seeking to enhance the "positive freedoms" of the poor and disadvantaged in society by means of government regulation (ie. Americans with Disabilities Act, Affirmative Action) and wealth redistribution (taxation of individuals and corporations).
Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. However, they are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to their conception of liberty.[2] Social liberals are outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties, and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with a state providing public services that so, but social liberals intend to ensure that people's social rights as well as their civil liberties are upheld.
~~~~~~~~~
(unsaid in this article is the inherent necessity of social liberals to use police powers of the state, {force and mandatory taxation}, to carry out their reforms, and in doing so, the overt violation of the individual rights 'liberals' have always championed)
(by the way, I think that was an Wikipedia entry, but feel free to google as you may for a definition of Classical and Social Liberalism)
Amicus…
Last edited:
