DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: XJDenton on July 02, 2012, 05:28:21 PM
-
An honest question, as my historical knowledge of american politics is fairly poor. It seems nowadays that the right wing extremists will hasten to label someone on the left as "liberal" with the same venom as the tabloids reserve for child molesters. However if you look at the classic definition of liberal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) it seems the label liberal really should be something the GOP should be proud to be. So what the hell happened in this regard?
-
- The country has shifted somewhat to the right.
- Karl rove turned politics into a moral struggle between good and evil.
- Political analysts jumped on both of those facts and ran with it.
-
The notion also found fertile ground on post-cold war fear of anything resembling communism. You can see that seemingly most Americans do not distinguish between socialism and communism.
rumborak
-
One thing that's important to keep in mind is that the words "conservative" and "liberal" don't really mean anything at all anymore. In America today, whatever the GOP supports is "conservative", and everything else is "liberal"; it all comes down to the parties. However these words have been defined in the past is inconsequential.
So, to the common fundamentalist American righty, "liberal" calls a bunch of scary images to mind, like socialism and gay rights.
EDIT: Now that I think of it, the use of "liberal" as a dirty word might be curbed if the American approach to politics weren't so contrarian. Instead of actually looking at what the liberals stand for, conservatives might be defining "liberalism" as "the support of everything I hate and the destruction of everything I care about", because there are two parties and their views must be exactly opposite each other. (Obviously, the problem goes both ways.)
-
The notion also found fertile ground on post-cold war fear of anything resembling communism. You can see that seemingly most Americans do not distinguish between socialism and communism.
rumborak
I would go so far as to say even during the Cold War; I've read up on American politics of the early 60s and it was no different than today, with liberals having to tread lightly lest more conservative figures accuse them of being an actual Communist. And because of this, conservative politicians were able to block a lot of public welfare initiatives just like today, for the sake of staving off zombies Communism.
Also what theseoafs said.
-
On a less serious note, here's what the world's most trustworthy conservative online resource has to say about liberalism. https://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal
-
On a less serious note, here's what the world's most trustworthy conservative online resource has to say about liberalism. https://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal
:lol oh wow.
-
I just learned from the very same website that Fred Phelps and Adolf Hitler are, in fact, "infamous liberals". Neat! :lol
-
Not sure what answer the OP is looking for. But you might ask "When did 'conservative' become a dirty word for the american left?" Same coin; different side.
-
The whole section "Liberalism and bestiality" just had me thinking, "this has *got* to be a joke".... It almost feels like an article from The Onion.
Honestly...this *can not* be real...
-
It's not for me. Republican, that's the bad word.
rumborak
-
"Support of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right[7]"
I thought the liberal shtick was anti-videogames?
-
It's not for me. Republican, that's the bad word.
rumborak
:tup
-
It seems like no one has really understood or addressed the OP's question. The term "liberalism" originally meant what we now as libertarianism, which is why libertarianism is sometimes referred to as "classical liberalism." Somewhere in history, the meaning of the word "liberal" shifted. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. had the following to say:
The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.
Modern "liberalism" is really just a buzzword for Marxism. If you look at the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#II._Proletarians_and_Communists) they should smack heavily of modern liberalism. Of course, the Right is delusional is they think they're any more freedom-supporting than the Left. The Left and Right are equally totalitarian and equally flawed in that they distinguish between social and economic freedom.
-
It's not for me. Republican, that's the bad word.
rumborak
:tup
-
It's not for me. Republican, that's the bad word.
rumborak
As it should be. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of conservatives appreciate that "Republican" should be a bad word for them as well.
-
It seems like no one has really understood or addressed the OP's question. The term "liberalism" originally meant what we now as libertarianism, which is why libertarianism is sometimes referred to as "classical liberalism." Somewhere in history, the meaning of the word "liberal" shifted. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. had the following to say:
The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.
Modern "liberalism" is really just a buzzword for Marxism and If you look at the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#II._Proletarians_and_Communists) they should smack heavily of modern liberalism.
Bzzt. Marxism is the belief that in order to solve the perceived oppression of laborers by the ruling class, there must be a violent revolution, after which point the proletariat will rule by dictatorship and phase the world into a classless society. Marxism, therefore, has nothing to do with modern liberalism. Thank you, come again.
It's not for me. Republican, that's the bad word.
rumborak
As it should be. Unfortunately, I don't think a lot of conservatives appreciate that "Republican" should be a bad word for them as well.
We progressives are a sophisticated bunch; we have many dirty words for the many different classes of "conservative." It's way better than having just one word for the whole lot.
-
Bzzt. Marxism is the belief that in order to solve the perceived oppression of laborers by the ruling class, there must be a violent revolution, after which point the proletariat will rule by dictatorship and phase the world into a classless society. Marxism, therefore, has nothing to do with modern liberalism. Thank you, come again.
You're confusing Marxism with Leninism.
-
I will confess I was surprised by the two or three points that were similar between the Marxist planks and some liberal platform points. But come on, is there anyone here who can, in all seriousness, say they're against free public education for children and keeping them out of factory work?
And while I'm at it, #4 sounds more like it belongs on an establishment Republican or a redneck-variety libertarian's platform. So does the "bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally" part of #7; liberals would wanna preserve the marshlands in order to protect the local environment (although liberals would probably advocate soil improvement; green thinking, you know).
The Communist Manifesto is an extreme document even by (I would say especially by) American liberal standards. I've never once heard an elected liberal official say they want to centralize all industry or all means of communication.
-
I will confess I was surprised by the two or three points that were similar between the Marxist planks and some liberal platform points. But come on, is there anyone here who can, in all seriousness, say they're against free public education for children and keeping them out of factory work?
And while I'm at it, #4 sounds more like it belongs on an establishment Republican or a redneck-variety libertarian's platform. So does the "bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally" part of #7; liberals would wanna preserve the marshlands in order to protect the local environment (although liberals would probably advocate soil improvement; green thinking, you know).
This is correct. Liberalism as Americans understand the word today is NOT Marxism, and that's what we're talking about now.
-
Bzzt. Marxism is the belief that in order to solve the perceived oppression of laborers by the ruling class, there must be a violent revolution, after which point the proletariat will rule by dictatorship and phase the world into a classless society. Marxism, therefore, has nothing to do with modern liberalism. Thank you, come again.
You're confusing Marxism with Leninism.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about Marxism as outlined in The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. Leninism and Maoism were adaptations of Marxism.
-
I just had a good long read of some of Conservapedia's articles. I seriously cannot fathom what sort of person actually digests that drivel, it's like a parody of itself.
In fact, it made me think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE_OehRLH3s
-
Not sure what answer the OP is looking for. But you might ask "When did 'conservative' become a dirty word for the american left?" Same coin; different side.
The term "conservative" isn't as dirtied as "liberal" and that's probably why a lot of people boast of being "conservative" as if it's a mark of intelligence and common sense. Liberals have moved to the term "progressive" which actually makes a lot more sense since it's the opposite of conservative. Libertarians are the ones that are the most liberal in terms of social and economic freedom, but they'll never identify themselves as "liberal" either because, well, it's a dirty word.
-
Bzzt. Marxism is the belief that in order to solve the perceived oppression of laborers by the ruling class, there must be a violent revolution, after which point the proletariat will rule by dictatorship and phase the world into a classless society. Marxism, therefore, has nothing to do with modern liberalism. Thank you, come again.
You're confusing Marxism with Leninism.
No, I'm not. I'm talking about Marxism as outlined in The Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. Leninism and Maoism were adaptations of Marxism.
Yes, yes, but what was the other adaptation of Marxism? The reformist Marxism advocated by The Fabian Society, social Democrats, Progressive Movement, etc. This is where modern liberalism traces its origins. The Fabian Society even laid the foundations for the Labour Party in the UK. According to George Bernard Shaw the stated aim of the Fabian Society (https://books.google.com/books?id=M5QgAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA31&dq=fabian+society+emancipation+of+private+property&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lrLyT9_aDcrIqgGSurGJCQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=fabian%20society%20emancipation%20of%20private%20property&f=false) was "the emancipation of land and industrial Capital from individual and class ownership… the extinction of private property in land…” Who does that sound like?
I will confess I was surprised by the two or three points that were similar between the Marxist planks and some liberal platform points. But come on, is there anyone here who can, in all seriousness, say they're against free public education for children and keeping them out of factory work?
And while I'm at it, #4 sounds more like it belongs on an establishment Republican or a redneck-variety libertarian's platform. So does the "bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally" part of #7; liberals would wanna preserve the marshlands in order to protect the local environment (although liberals would probably advocate soil improvement; green thinking, you know).
The Communist Manifesto is an extreme document even by (I would say especially by) American liberal standards. I've never once heard an elected liberal official say they want to centralize all industry or all means of communication.
Two or three? Try nine, but these especially:
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Tax the rich! The rich are the root of all evil!
Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
This is the Federal Reserve. The central bank advocated by the Keynesians/faux liberals
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
This is bailouts, nationalized businesses etc. The second half sounds a lot like the TVA and other aspects of the New Deal. I'm not going to argue against environmentalism, but it's a very useful tool for the government to seize land and increase its power
Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Social security, affirmative action, the minimum wage, unions, etc.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education with industrial production.
I can't say I'm opposed to these but they were pillars of the Progressive Movement in the early twentieth century.
Centralization of communication exists through the FCC. The "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels" is an exception and something we would associate more with fascism than Marxism. But you can find common threads running through all totalitarian ideologies, especially collectivism and the abolition of private property.
-
Apart from the Post Office, zero nationalized businesses come to mind. I'm sorry but two or three they will remain. I've tried to remain respectful up until now but you seem to be the sort to see demons everywhere, and it's voters like you who are the reason we are now an unexceptional nation.
Look at the article about how we're not number 1 anymore. Look at the countries that do get the number 1 spot. Take a good, careful look because those are countries that would make you hiss and screech "COMMUNISM!!!" (Even though you'd be wrong; they just have big government and some of them are social democracies to a greater extent than us.)
-
Apart from the Post Office, zero nationalized businesses come to mind. I'm sorry but two or three they will remain. I've tried to remain respectful up until now but you seem to be the sort to see demons everywhere, and it's voters like you who are the reason we are now an unexceptional nation.
Look at the article about how we're not number 1 anymore. Look at the countries that do get the number 1 spot. Take a good, careful look because those are countries that would make you hiss and screech "COMMUNISM!!!" (Even though you'd be wrong; they just have big government and some of them are social democracies to a greater extent than us.)
I'm only 19 and I've never voted. How am I to blame for this country going down the toilet? We were #1 when we had a limited government. Unfortunately, some people are naive enough to think that more government is the solution.
-
We were #1 in one of our biggest big government periods in American history.
-
All this talk of "being #1" is precisely the reason the United States is hated around the world. By what standard were we #1? By many standards we have never been #1; by others (e.g. number of prisoners) we still are. But it doesn't matter in the end. Stop worrying about whether "the United States is best at something" and start worrying about the condition of humanity. Think of yourself as a citizen of the world instead of as an "American." There is a name for people who pine for their country's so-called "glory days."
-
I don't think you need to tell even the most conservative member of this board that America isn't #1.
-
Apart from the Post Office, zero nationalized businesses come to mind. I'm sorry but two or three they will remain. I've tried to remain respectful up until now but you seem to be the sort to see demons everywhere, and it's voters like you who are the reason we are now an unexceptional nation.
Look at the article about how we're not number 1 anymore. Look at the countries that do get the number 1 spot. Take a good, careful look because those are countries that would make you hiss and screech "COMMUNISM!!!" (Even though you'd be wrong; they just have big government and some of them are social democracies to a greater extent than us.)
I'm only 19 and I've never voted. How am I to blame for this country going down the toilet? We were #1 when we had a limited government. Unfortunately, some people are naive enough to think that more government is the solution.
Did you start college within the last year or so, and did you discover libertarianism around the same time?
A friend of mine went through a brief libertarian phase not long after he started college, and a lot of your views look really familiar from that. It's natural to want to rebel against the system a bit and back an underdog, but trust me, six months to a year from now, you'll realize that pure libertarianism flat out doesn't work, and that the US incarnation of it is a laughable mess.
-
I've met a whole mess of college libertarians who think they have everything figured out. The truth is though that being cynical and understanding things completely are not the same thing, because then you're missing out on the part that isn't about cynicism.
-
Yeah I was a libertarian in college too. Then I got schizophrenia and went into huge debt over medical bills. It's amazing how much reality can change your carefully thought-out views.
-
That also explains a lot. :lol
-
That also explains a lot. :lol
-
I've met a whole mess of college libertarians who think they have everything figured out.
That's the irony really. Coming from Europe, I know those people. Only in Europe, they become Communists. It's the same allure of a very pure idealism, and the idea of a revolution leading to a utopia.
rumborak
-
Did you start college within the last year or so, and did you discover libertarianism around the same time?
A friend of mine went through a brief libertarian phase not long after he started college, and a lot of your views look really familiar from that. It's natural to want to rebel against the system a bit and back an underdog, but trust me, six months to a year from now, you'll realize that pure libertarianism flat out doesn't work, and that the US incarnation of it is a laughable mess.
I've been a libertarian for about 3 or 4 years. The college I go to is very left-leaning, so that had nothing to do with it. I was raised in a moderate liberal household and strayed into conservatism when I discovered Michael Savage in 10th grade. I eventually realized that liberals and conservatives are equally right and equally wrong, which is why they can both make convincing arguments against one another. Freedom is one big unit. You don't divvy out social freedoms and not economic freedoms or vice versa. This strikes some people as idealistic, but history shows us that the truly unsustainable systems are ones built off of collectivism, coercion, fiat money, and brute force, much like the current system in the United States.
-
This strikes some people as idealistic, but history shows us that the truly unsustainable systems are ones built off of collectivism, coercion, fiat money, and brute force, much like the current system in the United States.
How so? If anything, the totally unstructured ways of living have historically shown themselves as inferior, be that from the barter systems of the Middle Ages to the Western frontier of the US. They were both marked by lawlessness, violence and injustice. To my knowledge, any attempt of true minimum-gov't has failed, mostly because their lack of cohesion made them easy prey for outside forces.
It's easy to point out flaws of existing systems, but I would like to see evidence that the Libertarian utopia is any more feasible than the Communist utopia. To my knowledge any attempt has been quickly reversed by the population because of its adverse effects.
rumborak
-
This strikes some people as idealistic, but history shows us that the truly unsustainable systems are ones built off of collectivism, coercion, fiat money, and brute force, much like the current system in the United States.
(https://www.kirksnosehair.com/Portals/0/images/smilies/tardlol.gif)
-
I've been a libertarian for about 3 or 4 years. The college I go to is very left-leaning, so that had nothing to do with it.
The type of college you go to has nothing to do with it. It's more just hitting that point in your life where you go out on your own more than you ever have, and really start to re-evaluate things for yourself. It's good. It's a time of philosophical exploration. There's no problem with giving different philosophies and ideologies a try. Just always be sure to keep an open mind, get all the facts, and be open to hearing both the pros and cons of any ideology.
(Side note, keep in mind that I'm more familiar with the Canadian notions of 'liberal' and 'conservative', so that may cause some inconsistencies here. Terms like 'liberal', 'conservative', 'libertarian', etc tend to be very distorted in the US).
No ideology is going to be 100% right about everything. Again, it's tempting to abandon the more major ones when you find things you disagree with, and go for an underdog. That period of trying out different ideas and forming your own political beliefs is very important.
Libertarians do tend to have some good talking points, and on a very surface level, it can look very appealing. It does tend to fall apart under closer scrutiny though. Libertarianism tends to not take into account the less fortunate, or even just people born into a life with fewer advantages and opportunities. A society can be judged by how it treats its most helpless and disadvantaged.
The whole 'saving our freedom' thing sounds great, until you realize that it's not really at risk in the first place.
-
How so? If anything, the totally unstructured ways of living have historically shown themselves as inferior, be that from the barter systems of the Middle Ages to the Western frontier of the US. They were both marked by lawlessness, violence and injustice. To my knowledge, any attempt of true minimum-gov't has failed, mostly because their lack of cohesion made them easy prey for outside forces.
It's easy to point out flaws of existing systems, but I would like to see evidence that the Libertarian utopia is any more feasible than the Communist utopia. To my knowledge any attempt has been quickly reversed by the population because of its adverse effects.
The Middle Ages are not comparable to libertarianism, as people were living under monarchy, theocracy, and feudalism- very authoritarian philosophies. And a lot has been written on the not-so-wild West, like this article here (https://www.lewrockwell.com/rep/not-so-wild-west.html).
Countries often heralded as the most libertarian in the world include Switzerland, New Zealand, Estonia, and Lichtenstein. Hong Kong also has the freest market in the world according to the Economic Freedom of the World Index. Are we to believe that Hong Kong would fall apart if they legalized, say, gay marriage and marijuana? Of course not. Anti-libertarians love bringing Somalia into the discussion, just as eagerly as they love smearing libertarians as "Randroids." Somalia is really just an exercise in anarchy and most libertarians promote some form of government. I'm not as extreme as other libertarians and I probably wouldn't even eviscerate the government to the extent that Ron Paul would. I would start by eliminating the most unpopular government institutions and go from there.
My final point is that I'm not promoting a "utopia." It's in fact the statists who get utopian and think the government can root out every single problem in society. There will always be injustice. There will always be inequality. There will always be suffering. Nothing will ever fully erase these problems from the human condition.
Libertarianism tends to not take into account the less fortunate, or even just people born into a life with fewer advantages and opportunities. A society can be judged by how it treats its most helpless and disadvantaged.
You're talking to a vegan here, and someone who's volunteered literally hundreds of hours at nursing homes, homeless shelters, and women's shelters. My family also donates a lot of money to charity. It's a very common misconception that libertarians are just cold, heartless people who care about no one but themselves. The first thing that sets us apart is our realization that charity enforced through the barrel of a gun is not really charity at all. If someone mugged you and gave your money to charity, would you be OK with it? No. It was a fundamental abrogation against your private property. The second thing that sets libertarians apart is that we have a much deeper understanding of why people become victims in the first place. What you often see is the government, through its incompetence or malevolence, creating entire classes of victims, who are not coincidentally the same people who push for handouts and bigger government. Look at health for example. Everyone in this country was relatively healthy until the government started unleashing poisons upon us like fluoride, aspartame, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, MSG etc. We now have a class of people in this country who are ill and rely on tax payer dollars for medical treatment. Does that mean they're bad people or that they shouldn't be helped. Of course not. You just have to understand how they became victims in the place and attack the root problem rather than masking things with welfare. Unfortunately, there are also some in our society who deserve to be disadvantaged. I hate to use anecdotal evidence, but a former homeless man and welfare recipient has been stalking and harassing me since early January. He's terrorized around 7 people recently, including Charlie Dominici. This individual fakes having a disability and games the system to support his fruitless career and voracious marijuana habit. There are many on welfare who are like this, and they most certain deserve a lower status than honest, hard working people and innovators.
The whole 'saving our freedom' thing sounds great, until you realize that it's not really at risk in the first place.
Am I wrong for being concerned about something like The Patriot Act? Did you know that at any time, I could be seized indefinitely, without a warrant, tried without due process, and tortured by the U.S. government? Here's a 16 year old homeschooled boy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm7p_ZSiN54) who was captured using the Patriot Act. It could happen to anyone! Or how about the TSA borderline molesting people in airports? Our freedom's not at risk my ass.
-
Actually, this article provides a little more insight too into Somalia:
https://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880 (https://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880)
-
You're talking to a vegan here, and someone who's volunteered literally hundreds of hours at nursing homes, homeless shelters, and women's shelters. My family also donates a lot of money to charity. It's a very common misconception that libertarians are just cold, heartless people who care about no one but themselves.
I'm not saying you're a bad person. I'm saying the philosophy of pure libertarianism would not work out well for the less fortunate. It's fantastic that you give to charity and do volunteer work.
However, there are things the government can do and provide that just aren't possible through personal charity. Personal charity can't really provide the poor with proper health care, for example.
I'm not saying all libertarians are 'cold, heartless people'. It's usually ignorance or lack of proper perspective, not malice. It's mostly not really thinking the whole thing through.
The government collecting taxes and using it to provide services isn't 'through the barrel of a gun'. It's a social contract that comes with living in a society. Those who can afford to contribute do, and we all benefit.
Look at health for example. Everyone in this country was relatively healthy until the government started unleashing poisons upon us like fluoride, aspartame, trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, MSG etc.
Okay, this is just getting silly. Nevermind that life expectancy over the past half century has skyrocketed, and that quality of life has dramatically improved. Fluoride? Really? Chemicals are used to treat drinking water, because otherwise it would be full of bacteria and numerous contaminants that would make people sick, and in many cases, kill them.
As for health care, most Americans would spend LESS money under a universal system. On average, Canadians pay far less per capita than Americans do for health care when everything is taken into account. It's cheaper, because people don't have to worry nearly as much about outrageous medical bills. As a result, there's more of an emphasis on preventative care and early diagnosis. We live longer, we live healthier lives, and we pay less per person for it, because of our universal health care system.
Also, are you really trying to discredit welfare with the story of one crazy homeless dude? Yes, occasionally someone will try to game or abuse the system. In a massive population, you'll sometimes get a few here and there who do. Those people tend to be statistically insignificant.
There are many on welfare who are like this, and they most certain deserve a lower status than honest, hard working people and innovators.
Nice vague, unsubstantiated statement there. Saying it doesn't make it so.
Also, how does welfare in any way hurt 'working people and innovators'?
-
The Middle Ages as a whole aren't representative of libertarianism realized, no. But that sort of libertarian world is actually the reason for the sharp decline of freemen and the beginning of feudalism in France in the aftermath of Carolingian decline. The power vacuum made way for the rise of individual lords and maiors, creating what we know today as the tyranny of aristocratic class. All from a power vacuum caused by the total obliteration of centralized governance.
-
MML, let me ask you something;
If rather than a concept, the 'social contract' were an actual contract, and you were allowed to opt out, would you? Meaning that you don't have to pay any taxes, but in return, you're not allowed to take advantage of anything that taxes pay for.
-
He'd say yes if it were possible - but then he'd be trapped in his own property since public property I presume cannot be used or touched - like the road outside his house.
This wouldn't happen in a free society, because there'd be money to be made in letting property owners next to your privately owned road use the road, for some kind of a fee or some other voluntary agreement.
And to be honest, this thing with poverty is.. well - maybe it IS better without government welfare and maybe it IS better with private charities:
(https://www.economicsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/poverty-rate-historical1.png)
You may say a thousand other things about this, and there are other factors etc, but it's a fun stat.
-
Yeah I took a look at that website, and...well, I will say one thing: at least their message is consistent.
-
Countries often heralded as the most libertarian in the world include Switzerland, New Zealand, Estonia, and Lichtenstein.
You say that, but if you actually lived in any of those countries your eyes would piss blood at all the "socialism" around you.
-
Oh my god, yes. Seeing that list as a list of libertarian countries only shows complete unfamiliarity with them.
rumborak
-
The government collecting taxes and using it to provide services isn't 'through the barrel of a gun'. It's a social contract that comes with living in a society. Those who can afford to contribute do, and we all benefit.
Of course it is. What happens if you refuse to pay your income tax? The state will knock down your door and imprison you. How do you feel about my robber analogy? Would you be OK if someone stole your money and gave it to charity? Furthermore, what happens if it's a charity that you don't agree with? What if the robber's conception of "charity" is actually paying off the interest on his debt and blowing up innocent civilians in a foreign country?
Nevermind that life expectancy over the past half century has skyrocketed, and that quality of life has dramatically improved.
This is the first generation in 2 centuries where Americans will be sicker and have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. But this couldn't possibly be because of the FDA (https://www.naturalnews.com/035936_FDA_homicide_victims.html) and USDA (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-huehnergarth/pink-slime-beef_b_1350173.html) because they're doing their job just wonderfully.
MML, let me ask you something;
If rather than a concept, the 'social contract' were an actual contract, and you were allowed to opt out, would you? Meaning that you don't have to pay any taxes, but in return, you're not allowed to take advantage of anything that taxes pay for.
No. Again, you come to the idea that use ≠ consent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2359mSCzk). Things haven't gotten bad to the point where I would want to "secede" from the United States. Living here doesn't neccessraily mean that I agree with the income tax, just as pacifists don't "endorse" the War On Terror by living here. We're trying to work within the system to change the system
You say that, but if you actually lived in any of those countries your eyes would piss blood at all the "socialism" around you.
If an atheist visited countries heralded as "secular" they would piss blood at all the religion around them. 70% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden. Churches, religious organizations, and religious schools receive funding from the government. Buddhism still dominates many aspects of life in Japan. The argument isn't necessarily that these countries are "pure," just that they're moving in the right direction. As it stands there has never been a successful country which recognizes atheism as an official ideology. Atheist Russia and China killed hundreds of millions, but does that necessarily invalidate atheism? No.
-
Nevermind that life expectancy over the past half century has skyrocketed, and that quality of life has dramatically improved.
This is the first generation in 2 centuries where Americans will be sicker and have a shorter life expectancy than their parents. But this couldn't possibly be because of the FDA (https://www.naturalnews.com/035936_FDA_homicide_victims.html) and USDA (https://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-huehnergarth/pink-slime-beef_b_1350173.html) because they're doing their job just wonderfully.
Americans are going to have a shorter life expectancy because 2/3 of them are fat fucks. Not much to puzzle out there. And that has everything to do with how cheap and available junk food is (making it extremely attractive to the urban poor), the move towards high-fructose corn syrup and salt as the major constituents of our diet, a lack of exercise for all age groups (fostered by the overwhelming focus on the automobile for transportation) and a lack of knowledge (or people willing to care) about the problems. You could just as easily blame the "free market" for America's obesity problems.
You say that, but if you actually lived in any of those countries your eyes would piss blood at all the "socialism" around you.
If an atheist visited countries heralded as "secular" they would piss blood at all the religion around them. 70% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden. Churches, religious organizations, and religious schools receive funding from the government. Buddhism still dominates many aspects of life in Japan. The argument isn't necessarily that these countries are "pure," just that they're moving in the right direction. As it stands there has never been a successful country which recognizes atheism as an official ideology. Atheist Russia and China killed hundreds of millions, but does that necessarily invalidate atheism? No.
Sorry, what? I don't know what this is about. Atheism isn't a positive belief system; people, or countries, being atheist has no inherent implications about the rest of their demographics/politics/government/etc. Saying a country is libertarian, or the "most" libertarian, does. Yeah, Switzerland has low tax rates, but the government also has conscription, requires people to buy health insurance, has a transportation system built primarily upon public transport and cycling, has extremely stringent environmental regulations, and a well-funded public school system.
-
The robber analogy is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sadly I've heard it a lot.
-
No. Again, you come to the idea that use ≠ consent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2359mSCzk). Things haven't gotten bad to the point where I would want to "secede" from the United States. Living here doesn't neccessraily mean that I agree with the income tax, just as pacifists don't "endorse" the War On Terror by living here. We're trying to work within the system to change the system.
So you agree, then, that you are indeed consenting to live in the States, which makes your robber analogy quite invalid and irrelevant.
-
MML, Canada has much more regulation and government involvement when it comes to food, medicine, etc, than the US, and Canada also has a higher average life expectancy and higher quality of life. Plus, as has been pointed out, a lot of health problems in the US come from people shoving excessive amounts of terribly unhealthy food into their fat faces; something they have the freedom to do. The market has decided in the US that people want to be fat and unhealthy. So I guess that worked out well.
Seriously, you REALLY can't blame government regulation for that.
Oh, and just as an aside, Canada also has a much more regulated banking system, which allowed us to avoid most of the worst of the economic crisis that the US faced. Currently, we have one of the strongest banking systems in the world thanks to that government regulation. Again, no ideology works for everything 100% of the time. You need a mix of philosophies.
As for the 'robber' analogy, it doesn't work, because I can choose to live elsewhere. If I wanted to, I could go live in the libertarian paradise of Somalia. However, in exchange for my taxes here, I have access to roads, public education, subsidized post secondary education, clean drinking water and safe food, access to quality health care, emergency services, telecommunications infrastructure, sanitation services, and so much more. For a bunch of private citizens to get together and just buy what they needed at the time, it would cost so much more, and be far less efficient. Even if some of it goes toward things I don't need or want, it's still a great deal overall.
-
MML, Canada has much more regulation and government involvement when it comes to food, medicine, etc, than the US, and Canada also has a higher average life expectancy and higher quality of life. Plus, as has been pointed out, a lot of health problems in the US come from people shoving excessive amounts of terribly unhealthy food into their fat faces; something they have the freedom to do. The market has decided in the US that people want to be fat and unhealthy. So I guess that worked out well.
Seriously, you REALLY can't blame government regulation for that.
Oh, and just as an aside, Canada also has a much more regulated banking system, which allowed us to avoid most of the worst of the economic crisis that the US faced. Currently, we have one of the strongest banking systems in the world thanks to that government regulation. Again, no ideology works for everything 100% of the time. You need a mix of philosophies.
As for the 'robber' analogy, it doesn't work, because I can choose to live elsewhere. If I wanted to, I could go live in the libertarian paradise of Somalia. However, in exchange for my taxes here, I have access to roads, public education, subsidized post secondary education, clean drinking water and safe food, access to quality health care, emergency services, telecommunications infrastructure, sanitation services, and so much more. For a bunch of private citizens to get together and just buy what they needed at the time, it would cost so much more, and be far less efficient. Even if some of it goes toward things I don't need or want, it's still a great deal overall.
And now that you mention it, I can think of another "libertarian paradise." It's called Amish land.
-
If an atheist visited countries heralded as "secular" they would piss blood at all the religion around them. 70% of Swedes belong to the Church of Sweden. Churches, religious organizations, and religious schools receive funding from the government. Buddhism still dominates many aspects of life in Japan. The argument isn't necessarily that these countries are "pure," just that they're moving in the right direction. As it stands there has never been a successful country which recognizes atheism as an official ideology. Atheist Russia and China killed hundreds of millions, but does that necessarily invalidate atheism? No.
70% of Sweden being in the Church of Sweden means nothing. I probably even am, yet I do not affiliate with them otherwise - don't attend or anything. Everyone born before 1996 or something in Sweden was automatically a member, it was state religion. Most people are agnostics I'd say in Sweden. It's HIGHLY secularized.
And atheism is not an ideology.
-
To drive the case home, I am Roman Catholic, and it says so on just about any official German document associated with me.
I believe that should seal it.
rumborak
-
Sorry, what? I don't know what this is about. Atheism isn't a positive belief system; people, or countries, being atheist has no inherent implications about the rest of their demographics/politics/government/etc. Saying a country is libertarian, or the "most" libertarian, does. Yeah, Switzerland has low tax rates, but the government also has conscription, requires people to buy health insurance, has a transportation system built primarily upon public transport and cycling, has extremely stringent environmental regulations, and a well-funded public school system.
I guess what I'm trying to say (and this should have been my initial argument against rumborak) is that it's a fallacy to say that something won't work because it hasn't been fully implemented yet. That's an argument from ignorance is it not? By the way, I actually consider environmental regulation to be a part of libertarianism because pollution is a form of aggression.
The robber analogy is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sadly I've heard it a lot.
Then refute it.
And now that you mention it, I can think of another "libertarian paradise." It's called Amish land.
Amish land? Since when was being a libertarian the same as being a Luddite?
70% of Sweden being in the Church of Sweden means nothing. I probably even am, yet I do not affiliate with them otherwise - don't attend or anything. Everyone born before 1996 or something in Sweden was automatically a member, it was state religion. Most people are agnostics I'd say in Sweden. It's HIGHLY secularized.
So according to theseoafs, you consent to the Church of Sweden simply by your refusal to revoke your membership.
-
So I can only assume that MML is preparing a response to my points. It would be a bit silly to just ignore it, which is why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
-
BTW, one very important thing to point out regarding that list of Liechtenstein etc.
I can totally see how a casual Libertarian could think that Liechtenstein is the libertarian utopia. It has very low taxes, and its residents are rich.
You will however notice one thing: Liechtenstein is tiny. It has 30,000 inhabitants. And now it becomes obvious why Liechtenstein does so well. It doesn't provide anything really, all it does is be a tax loop hole where non-Liechtensteinians can illegally keep their money. Given how huge the EU is, this provides a massive influx for Liechtenstein, thus being able to luxuriate its 30k citizens very well with a 1.2% tax rate.
Now imagine most EU countries doing such a low tax rate. Poof, there goes that concept of wealth. Now this stream from rich people's money distributes across the whole EU, and all is left is the countries being bankrupt because of the low tax rate.
In summary, I think Libertarian thought often preys on the ignorance of the listener.
rumborak
-
So according to theseoafs, you consent to the Church of Sweden simply by your refusal to revoke your membership.
According to me, he consented to living in the state, and "membership" in the church was one of the consequences to that consent.
The robber analogy is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sadly I've heard it a lot.
Then refute it.
It's been refuted. You can choose to live elsewhere, so being taxed is nothing like being mugged.
-
(https://www.economicsjunkie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/poverty-rate-historical1.png)
Basically, sans other information, that graph is using the post hoc fallacy. The decline in the poverty rate could have come to a halt shortly after the legislation (and let's not forget social security was already in effect) for many other economic reasons.
I'm sure this graph and it's numbers could be used slightly differently to make the opposite point.
-
And I'd like to know for sure whether that information actually comes from census.gov. For all we know, it's all made up.
So according to theseoafs, you consent to the Church of Sweden simply by your refusal to revoke your membership.
According to me, he consented to living in the state, and "membership" in the church was one of the consequences to that consent.
The robber analogy is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. Sadly I've heard it a lot.
Then refute it.
It's been refuted. You can choose to live elsewhere, so being taxed is nothing like being mugged.
Oh, I was just gonna say that Amish land is the refutation. They don't pay taxes, but they don't buy into the society either. If you don't want the government poking into your life, just become Amish. They have their own hospitals and everything.
-
Excellent. I shall hereby combine the two refutations into one mega-refutation:
"Being taxed is nothing like being robbed because you can choose to live elsewhere, including at least one place where you are not taxed at all."
Lovely.
-
To MML, because I was rereading the older posts: just because you want economic equity (i.e. a progressive tax or otherwise) doesn't make you a Marxist or mean you hate the rich. Heck, I'm what most would consider part of the 1%, and I can see that shit be fucked up.
-
So I can only assume that MML is preparing a response to my points. It would be a bit silly to just ignore it, which is why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.
There's a lot I could dissect from your initial post. Do you even know that Canada has more regulation and government intervention than the United States? Are you sure that your quality of life and healthcare system are really all that great? There's evidence that quality of life varies wildly across Canada and your healthcare system isn't all it's cracked up to be. How are those Inuits doing? Wasn't it you who said you can judge a society by how well it treats it most underprivileged? Is your standard of excellence merely how a country stacks up to the United States? Did you know that the U.S. NEVER manifested anything as bad as the Great Depression or current recession before central banking? And finally, where would Canada be without the immense prosperity and culture generated by capitalism in the United States?
"Being taxed is nothing like being robbed because you can choose to live elsewhere, including at least one place where you are not taxed at all."
a) It's not fair to have to move to secure a fundamental right (in this case, the right to your money which is private property)
b) Most people, myself included, wouldn't have the money to move and it would be difficult adjusting to a new culture.
c) As I already stated, I don't find taxation to be sufficiently bad enough that I would want to move.
-
Pretty much started when Liberals started calling the right bigots, racists and uncivilized. name calling has been around for a while but you start throwing around the bigot and racist words, you know the shit is going to hit the fan.
-
Do you even know that Canada has more regulation and government intervention than the United States?
Yes. A LOT more. This is pretty common knowledge, and any amount of research will back it up.
Are you sure that your quality of life and healthcare system are really all that great? There's evidence that quality of life varies wildly across Canada and your healthcare system isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Again, yes. Note, I never said our system or standard of living were perfect. It is substantially better than in the US though. Most of the countries that are doing better than Canada have far more socialism in their governments.
On average, we live longer than Americans, those longer lives are much healthier, a far greater percentage of our population has access to excellent care, the care they receive is among the best in the world, and people don't break the bank visiting the doctor, the ER, or receiving medication they need.
There's certainly room for improvement, but between Canada and the US when it comes to healthcare, it's no contest.
How are those Inuits doing? Wasn't it you who said you can judge a society by how well it treats it most underprivileged?
Most of the Inuit population in this country choose to live outside of the system. In fact, you'd probably love it. No taxes, and they still receive some government services.
Yes, there are dealings from our history with our native population that we're less than proud of, but none of it had to do with how much or little socialist policy or regulation there was. It's a completely separate matter. Plus, again, coming from the US, you don't exactly have any high ground to speak from there.
Is your standard of excellence merely how a country stacks up to the United States?
For the sake of this discussion, the comparisons are largely between Canada and the US because it's a clear side by side comparison of a country that has more regulation and socialist policies vs a country with less. On the world stage, Canada does well across the board. There's room for improvement, but by any metric you choose, we're doing quite well.
Did you know that the U.S. NEVER manifested anything as bad as the Great Depression or current recession before central banking?
Are you... are you actually using the Great Depression in favor of your argument? One of the top causes of the Great Depression was a lack of regulation.
Again, what you're not getting is that no one is saying we should get rid of capitalism entirely. We're just saying it isn't a magic fix-all. Every developed country in the world has a mixed-market system that combines capitalism and socialism to varying degrees, and it's like that for a reason. Neither system should be applied 100%. It has been said over and over. It's all about balance, rather than blindly following one ideology.
-
Yes. A LOT more. This is pretty common knowledge, and any amount of research will back it up.
This is still an unsubstantiated statement on your part. The United States Code of Federal Regulation (CFR, not to be confused with the globalist shills) is enormous (https://extent-of-regulation.dhwritings.com/). Can you prove that more regulations exist in Canada than this?
A One of the top causes of the Great Depression was a lack of regulation.
Myth. Total myth. This article (https://www.freedomworks.org/blog/jborowski/debunking-myths-of-the-great-depression) gives you some insight into the government intervention prior to the Great Depression, but doesn't even cover some of the nuttier stuff like Hoover paying farmers to destroy their crops and kill livestock.
-
Pretty much started when Liberals started calling the right bigots, racists and uncivilized. name calling has been around for a while but you start throwing around the bigot and racist words, you know the shit is going to hit the fan.
That was pretty much "it" for me. This idea that conservatives are bigots or racists is completely absurd.
-
Pretty much started when Liberals started calling the right bigots, racists and uncivilized. name calling has been around for a while but you start throwing around the bigot and racist words, you know the shit is going to hit the fan.
That was pretty much "it" for me. This idea that conservatives are bigots or racists is completely absurd.
I don't think it's that conservatives are bigots or racist, but that bigots and racists tend to be conservatives.
-
It's not that Muslims are terrorists, it's just that terrorists tend to be Muslim.
:footloose:
-
It's not that Muslims are terrorists, it's just that terrorists tend to be Muslim.
:footloose:
Not sure what that has to do with anything. Only idiots assume muslims are terrorists and only idiots assume conservatives are bigoted racists.
-
The facts tell the truth about terrorism, that only an extremely small percentage of all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims. So to even say that terrorists tend to be Muslim is undeniably false.
I'm showing by that statement that I'm not completely sure all bigots and racists are conservatives, maybe it's only a small amount. But whatever, I don't know. I'm just questioning the merits of that generalization.
-
The facts tell the truth about terrorism, that only an extremely small percentage of all terrorist acts are committed by Muslims. So to even say that terrorists tend to be Muslim is undeniably false.
I'm showing by that statement that I'm not completely sure all bigots and racists are conservatives, maybe it's only a small amount. But whatever, I don't know. I'm just questioning the merits of that generalization.
In America? Every racist and bigot I've met or heard from (and being from the midwest, it's a good amount) are all conservatives. Are they all? Probably not. But I doubt too many racists and bigots are out voting for Obama, you know?
-
Doubting many racists voting for Obama
-> inferring that only white people are racists?
Could there be black people who are racist and bigoted too perhaps? Just a fair question. But in America, it might be so that most are conservatives, I don't have any stats.
((Either way, no matter how much one thinks racism is a part of the equation, race is a huge factor when people go vote... sadly. The impression of the candidate means so much more than substance.))
-
Doubting many racists voting for Obama
-> inferring that only white people are racists?
Could there be black people who are racist and bigoted too perhaps? Just a fair question.
((Either way, no matter how much one thinks racism is a part of the equation, race is a huge factor when people go vote... sadly. The impression of the candidate means so much more than substance.))
Black people can't be racist. Only white people, and in some rare cases purple people. But let's face it, they're purple, they have every right to be mad.
-
Pretty much started when Liberals started calling the right bigots, racists and uncivilized. name calling has been around for a while but you start throwing around the bigot and racist words, you know the shit is going to hit the fan.
That was pretty much "it" for me. This idea that conservatives are bigots or racists is completely absurd.
I don't think it's that conservatives are bigots or racist, but that bigots and racists tend to be conservatives.
Partly because of the way we define the terms, by the way. In fact, if you're a racist or a bigot, I think you are, by definition, not a liberal. And if you support many of the things conservatives support, you're still technically a liberal. Or pragmatically, at least.
I'd also want to make a distinction between the right-wing media, which often peddles racist undertones, and conservatives.
-
Doubting many racists voting for Obama
-> inferring that only white people are racists?
Could there be black people who are racist and bigoted too perhaps? Just a fair question.
((Either way, no matter how much one thinks racism is a part of the equation, race is a huge factor when people go vote... sadly. The impression of the candidate means so much more than substance.))
Black people can't be racist. Only white people, and in some rare cases purple people. But let's face it, they're purple, they have every right to be mad.
They'll discriminate till they're blue in the face. :neverusethis:
-
Pretty much started when Liberals started calling the right bigots, racists and uncivilized. name calling has been around for a while but you start throwing around the bigot and racist words, you know the shit is going to hit the fan.
That was pretty much "it" for me. This idea that conservatives are bigots or racists is completely absurd.
I don't think it's that conservatives are bigots or racist, but that bigots and racists tend to be conservatives.
Partly because of the way we define the terms, by the way. In fact, if you're a racist or a bigot, I think you are, by definition, not a liberal. And if you support many of the things conservatives support, you're still technically a liberal. Or pragmatically, at least.
I'd also want to make a distinction between the right-wing media, which often peddles racist undertones, and conservatives.
That's very "No True Scotsman"-y.
-
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?s=t
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
You can't be a bigot, and simultaneously free from bigotry. To say that you are a liberal bigot, is to say that you are an atheist who believes in God.
If I had to make any point, it would be that the words liberal and conservatives are unfortunately opposed to each other, even though the theories and ideas backing them up are actually usually in agreement.
-
Guinea Pig...
Be fair. You throw that "No True Scotsman" thing around quite a bit...but for as much as I've seen you bring it up in several different threads (and if I'm mistaking you for someone else, I apologize in advance) I think you're missing the *most important* point of the "no true Scotsman" illustration.
The "No True Scotsman" argument only works for something for which *there are no defined parameters* and some joe shmoe is just making up *his own* definition.
But you often try to apply this argument to situations in which there *DOES* exist written, and clearly defined parameters of the subject at hand.
-
I'd also want to make a distinction between the right-wing media, which often peddles racist undertones, and conservatives.
What about the liberal media, which seems to have a clear, engrained bias against white people? How many horrendous black on white crimes get ignored in favor of bullshit like Tawana Brawley and Trayvon Martin? And what about liberal programs like affirmative action and quotas which are "reverse racism" against whites?
I'm not a racist. It's absurd that I would even have to bring that up, but I think the point stands that it is possible to be a liberal (at least a self-identifying one) and a bigot. And if you look at most of the early progressives (John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, William Beveridge, Marie Stopes etc.) they were all ardent racists and eugenicists.
-
Pretty much started when Liberals started calling the right bigots, racists and uncivilized. name calling has been around for a while but you start throwing around the bigot and racist words, you know the shit is going to hit the fan.
That was pretty much "it" for me. This idea that conservatives are bigots or racists is completely absurd.
I don't think it's that conservatives are bigots or racist, but that bigots and racists tend to be conservatives.
Oh God do I wish that this statement can be understood by those who see religion is intolerant and irrational.
-
Just to clarify, since I foresee an ensuing shitstorm. I'm not sleighting the fact that Trayvon Martin died. It's a tragedy when anyone, especially a young kid, ends up being shot and killed. My point of contention is simply the liberal media's eagerness to portray the shooting as a white on black hate crime- to the point of doctoring the 911 call- when Zimmerman wasn't even white and eyewitness testimonies seemed to confirm that Zimmerman acted in self defense.
-
Oy gevalt.
-
It's absurd that I would even have to bring that up, but I think the point stands that it is possible to be a liberal (at least a self-identifying one) and a bigot.
Yes, I think it's silly to think that political ideology could entirely preclude someone from bigotry or prejudice. And no, I'm not being sarcastic.
-
Trayvon Martin had its own thread, and its share of debates. And I can recall both sides being taken.
-
https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal?s=t
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
You can't be a bigot, and simultaneously free from bigotry. To say that you are a liberal bigot, is to say that you are an atheist who believes in God.
If I had to make any point, it would be that the words liberal and conservatives are unfortunately opposed to each other, even though the theories and ideas backing them up are actually usually in agreement.
Bullshit. There are so many elements to modern liberalism, that disagreeing to a minor point of it (the fucking 7th in your dictionary definition, by the way) doesn't prevent you from being a liberal. That's absolutely a "No True Scotsman." Guinea Pig...
Be fair. You throw that "No True Scotsman" thing around quite a bit...but for as much as I've seen you bring it up in several different threads (and if I'm mistaking you for someone else, I apologize in advance) I think you're missing the *most important* point of the "no true Scotsman" illustration.
The "No True Scotsman" argument only works for something for which *there are no defined parameters* and some joe shmoe is just making up *his own* definition.
But you often try to apply this argument to situations in which there *DOES* exist written, and clearly defined parameters of the subject at hand.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. The whole basis of the name of the fallacy involves clearly defined parameters; i.e., someone claiming that someone is not actually a "true" Scotsman based on their actions.
-
I'd also want to make a distinction between the right-wing media, which often peddles racist undertones, and conservatives.
What about the liberal media, which seems to have a clear, engrained bias against white people? How many horrendous black on white crimes get ignored in favor of bullshit like Tawana Brawley and Trayvon Martin? And what about liberal programs like affirmative action and quotas which are "reverse racism" against whites?
Red herring. One giant red herring.
For starters, I don't know what media you're watching (the "liberal" media is more the sensationalism media), but the one I watch is hardly biased against white people. The fact that you bring up Trayvon Martin, to me, shows you misunderstanding the heart of the issue, and the facts of how racist our legal system is - overall.
Also, I'd say you should make a distinction between someones personal motivations, and the actual effects of their actions, and the legislation they might pass. Someone could do something technically bigotted, etc, but the reason for that may not be bigotry, but ignorance, humor, etc.*edit* If you see the definition of bigotry, it's not doing something in a prejudiced manner, it's more, not dealing with your own prejudices if and when you overcome them.
It's absurd that I would even have to bring that up, but I think the point stands that it is possible to be a liberal (at least a self-identifying one) and a bigot. And if you look at most of the early progressives (John Maynard Keynes, Margaret Sanger, George Bernard Shaw, William Beveridge, Marie Stopes etc.) they were all ardent racists and eugenicists.
I just linked to the current definition of liberal, and am accurately pointing out that you are not a liberal if you are bigoted, and it doesn't matter if you "self-identify" as one. If I get married, I cant' still "self-identify" as a bachelor, nor still be considered a bachelor. If you want to argue for a different definition of liberal, I'm all ears, but what seems more absurd to me is to so blissfully ignore the definition of a word.
-
Bullshit. There are so many elements to modern liberalism, that disagreeing to a minor point of it (the fucking 7th in your dictionary definition, by the way) doesn't prevent you from being a liberal. That's absolutely a "No True Scotsman."
Just because there's a lot of parts to the definition doesn't mean that all those parts lose significance. The different definitions are for differing contexts, as in, why and how you are using the word liberal. I'm going to the definition of the word that most aptly applies to the conversation at hand. Furthermore, the issue of bigotry also has overtones in many of the other definitions of the word, and for someone to be a bigot, requires one to be numerous other things which a liberal is not.
That, is not bullshit. That is logic. Now, what's bullshit, is what you're doing:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/broad-minded
So tell me, how can one be simultaneously, "obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices," and at the same time be "broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms" where broud-minded is defined as, "tolerant of varied views"?
-
Maybe it's important to distinguish between prejudice and discrimination. People tend to have an ingrained bias towards their own race, but certain people's ideologies prevent them from acting on that bias. So while liberalism doesn't necessarily preclude someone from prejudice, the case could be made that anyone who favors discrimination is not a liberal.
-
@Scheavo
Liberalism is a broad philosophy. One's adherence to it does not hinge upon one element, no more than does supporting a tax hike not make one a conservative, or being tolerant of gays not make one a Christian. It's absolutely a NTS to say "if you're a bigot, you're not a liberal," just as it is to say "if you commit a crime, you're not a Christian."
-
Maybe it's important to distinguish between prejudice and discrimination. People tend to have an ingrained bias towards their own race, but certain people's ideologies prevent them from acting on that bias. So while liberalism doesn't necessarily preclude someone from prejudice, the case could be made that anyone who favors discrimination is not a liberal.
If we got into it, we all have prejudices, and they're a basic part of our world. But the difference between a liberal and a bigot, is that a liberal will challenge their biases, work against their prejudices, while a bigot will not. And it doesn't mean everyone's a bigot or a liberal, but it's an oxymoron to say someone is a liberal bigot.
@Scheavo
Liberalism is a broad philosophy. One's adherence to it does not hinge upon one element, no more than does supporting a tax hike not make one a conservative, or being tolerant of gays not make one a Christian. It's absolutely a NTS to say "if you're a bigot, you're not a liberal," just as it is to say "if you commit a crime, you're not a Christian."
No, it's more like saying, if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your personal savior, you're not a Christian. I'm pointing to something very fundamental through out liberalism. Where I would agree with you, is if I were somehow saying if you don't support social safety nets, then you're not a liberal. But I'm not talking about something like that, I'm talking about what liberalism is, how it is defined, and what it means for something and someone to be liberal.
-
I'm been so flipping busy with work and traveling that I've been away a while (love making that money though!). However, I decided to check out the forum again and wanted to immediately respond to the thread's title:
Liberal used to essentially mean classically liberal; libertarian... meaning freedom/liberty loving. Freedom from big government = maximum individual freedom...not collectivist.at.all.
Modern liberalism = statism = what the American right essentially despises. (The exception is those social conservatives always bickering about marriage/abortion).
I blame the 60s... "free love" and hippies. :rollin
It's funny now that I think about it.. many atheists that I know label themselves as liberal.. but when I point out that they are not atheists (that they worship government).. it sets them into a rage. :biggrin:
-
Liberal used to essentially mean classically liberal; libertarian... meaning freedom/liberty loving. Freedom from big government = maximum individual freedom...not collectivist.at.all.
Err, no. That is your personal, very narrow interpretation of the word "liberal". In general it means "open", "generous", "not strict".
rumborak
-
I'm been so flipping busy with work and traveling that I've been away a while (love making that money though!). However, I decided to check out the forum again and wanted to immediately respond to the thread's title:
Liberal used to essentially mean classically liberal; libertarian... meaning freedom/liberty loving. Freedom from big government = maximum individual freedom...not collectivist.at.all.
Modern liberalism = statism = what the American right essentially despises. (The exception is those social conservatives always bickering about marriage/abortion).
I blame the 60s... "free love" and hippies. :rollin
It's funny now that I think about it.. many atheists that I know label themselves as liberal.. but when I point out that they are not atheists (that they worship government).. it sets them into a rage. :biggrin:
Oh you. :heart
-
Liberal used to essentially mean classically liberal; libertarian... meaning freedom/liberty loving. Freedom from big government = maximum individual freedom...not collectivist.at.all.
Err, no. That is your personal, very narrow interpretation of the word "liberal". In general it means "open", "generous", "not strict".
rumborak
When did it turn into "gimme your money"?
-
It didn't. It turned into, "here's some of my money, go build roads with it, and keep my grandmother in her home, with health care."
-
Americans are going to have a shorter life expectancy because 2/3 of them are fat fucks.
FINALLY, I'm in the majority on something! :victorydance:
-
August 8th, 1964.
-
I guess if you're counting from when the Dixiecrats changed sides, yeah.
-
maximum individual freedom...not collectivist.at.all.
And you are not an anarchist how? Why not go all the way to being solitary animals?
The entire success of humanity rested SOLELY on its ability to work together. Nomadic tribes thrived because of organization and planning. Civilizations flourished because of one's mans acceptance to help another who he may never meet. "Taking your money" to build roads or "taking your money to create a government body to protect people thousands of miles away from food-born illnesses" is not impinging on your "freedom." Its your natural requirement as member of a collective group of people working together. If you don't feel that way, you have no right to be part of the group.
It sucks my taxes are being raised; but knowing some Jack Schmo in Nevada might have health care consoles me.
-
maximum individual freedom...not collectivist.at.all.
And you are not an anarchist how? Why not go all the way to being solitary animals?
The entire success of humanity rested SOLELY on its ability to work together. Nomadic tribes thrived because of organization and planning. Civilizations flourished because of one's mans acceptance to help another who he may never meet. "Taking your money" to build roads or "taking your money to create a government body to protect people thousands of miles away from food-born illnesses" is not impinging on your "freedom." Its your natural requirement as member of a collective group of people working together. If you don't feel that way, you have no right to be part of the group.
It sucks my taxes are being raised; but knowing some Jack Schmo in Nevada might have health care consoles me.
He's a well known libertarian around these parts, actually. Not that I'm disagreeing with you or anything.
-
The second biggest problem with libertarianism is that it only considers "freedom" from a (limited) financial point of view.
-
It also considers freedom to be the be-all, end-all of positive human experience and political life.
-
It also considers freedom to be the be-all, end-all of positive human experience and political life.
"freedom" discussed today is such a cliched line its hard to know what it actually means anymore. Does the right even realize that evil socialist Europe has, in fact, more "Freedom" than the US?
-
It also considers freedom to be the be-all, end-all of positive human experience and political life.
I'm sure most of us were very happy as a kid, when we had very little freedom.
-
Yeah, I thought it was pretty obvious from my post that I don't think it's the most important thing ever. :P
-
The second biggest problem with libertarianism is that it only considers "freedom" from a (limited) financial point of view.
That's not true at all. Libertarians tend to be very in favor of social freedom, in fact moreso than many liberals who support things like gun control and hate speech laws. I think it's been established by now that the anti-libertarians on this board are really just anti-capitalists.
-
I'm very much a proponent of capitalism, just not the hard and fast 'pure' capitalism you crave.
-
Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe in a limited federal government which strictly protects our borders (not invades other countries under false pretenses) and our individual liberties; most importantly, our PROPERTY RIGHTS. Every thing else you leave to the states and let them do their own thing. Bordering states can partner up if they feel some policy will provide an economic/social benefit. If it succeeds, it can move on to other states and eventually (if the particular idea/plan continues to work well), you can amend the Constitution to make it a federal policy. However, if something fails, then it becomes that state's problem, and not every American taxpayer's issue. Plus, we're broke!...and so is Europe!!
As for Europe more free than US? BS. Higher income taxes, with VATs on top of that!? No thanks! Strict gun control (great way to control the population), no thanks! $9-10/gal gas? No thanks! Oh wait, they have "free" healthcare. :o
It IS essentially a "survival of the fittest" mindset, but that's how this country was formed; self-reliance. Any collectivism was voluntary, not forced. :)
Remember the Libertarian motto.. we're going to take over and LEAVE YOU ALONE!
-
Remember the Libertarian motto.. we're going to take over and LEAVE YOU ALONE!
Didn't realize libertarians had a rocket ship, and a planet to colonize.
The second biggest problem with libertarianism is that it only considers "freedom" from a (limited) financial point of view.
That's not true at all. Libertarians tend to be very in favor of social freedom, in fact moreso than many liberals who support things like gun control and hate speech laws. I think it's been established by now that the anti-libertarians on this board are really just anti-capitalists.
There's freedom on the books, and there's freedom in actuality. Force is sometimes requires to ensure freedom.
And would do you mean by capitalism? What Adam Smith came up with? Or what Von Mises surmised?
-
Libertarians are not anarchists. We believe in a limited federal government which strictly protects our borders (not invades other countries under false pretenses) and our individual liberties; most importantly, our PROPERTY RIGHTS.
Uhm. Lol? I guess you're right, because being libertarian doesn't mean your an ancap, but ancaps are always libertarians.
There is no consensus, so saying "we believe" and making a statement for every libertarian doesn't work either. Plus, not every libertarian believes a government ought to exist at all.
The second biggest problem with libertarianism is that it only considers "freedom" from a (limited) financial point of view.
Absolutely not true. Many libertarians arrive at their stances from deontological ethics, i.e. the non-aggression principle. Basically, every act of aggression is deemed unethical and everything must be done voluntarily.
-
As for Europe more free than US? BS. Higher income taxes, with VATs on top of that!? No thanks! Strict gun control (great way to control the population), no thanks! $9-10/gal gas? No thanks! Oh wait, they have "free" healthcare. :o
Because gas prices and income tax are certainly the best measures of freedom.
-
As for Europe more free than US? BS. Higher income taxes, with VATs on top of that!? No thanks! Strict gun control (great way to control the population), no thanks! $9-10/gal gas? No thanks! Oh wait, they have "free" healthcare. :o
Ah finally; so THAT is Libs' definition of freedom.
-
Does the right even realize that evil socialist Europe has, in fact, more "Freedom" than the US?
Please. Every "enlightened" liberal makes this argument. It may even be true that, depending on how you define it, Europe is more free than America. I can't say it's not. But the way you categorically say this makes it completely removed from any notion of reality. I would never in a million years want to deal with Britain's insulting excuse for libel laws. As for this:
Because gas prices and income tax are certainly the best measures of freedom.
They're maybe not the best measures, but they do matter. Low gases prices effectively equal freedom of movement without having to rely on public transportation. Any money being taken from you in taxes is money you don't have the freedom to keep for yourself to spend as you like.
I know that, depending on how you look at it, choice doesn't equal freedom. You'd probably rather have two good choices than four shitty ones. But no one ever talks about how any service provided by the government creates a situation where the citizens become dependent on that government for their basic livelihood. Dependency absolutely is one of the opposites of freedom. And it seems to me that Europe has the notion of dependency on government far more culturally ingrained into it than America does. How is that a more free society?
-
They're maybe not the best measures, but they do matter. Low gases prices effectively equal freedom of movement without having to rely on public transportation. Any money being taken from you in taxes is money you don't have the freedom to keep for yourself to spend as you like.
I know that, depending on how you look at it, choice doesn't equal freedom. You'd probably rather have two good choices than four shitty ones. But no one ever talks about how any service provided by the government creates a situation where the citizens become dependent on that government for their basic livelihood. Dependency absolutely is one of the opposites of freedom. And it seems to me that Europe has the notion of dependency on government far more culturally ingrained into it than America does. How is that a more free society?
I really don't think you're looking at the problem correctly. People have to rely on public transportation in Europe because there's so many god damn people so close together. For most of the US, this doesn't apply. Equating a car with freedom is looking at the question of freedom through highly skewed and biased lenses. To me, you're lumping a whole bunch of societal and population problems into something that is somehow the "governments" fault, and trying to claim people are less free because of it (and at that point, I might partially agree with you).
-
As for Europe more free than US? BS. Higher income taxes, with VATs on top of that!? No thanks! Strict gun control (great way to control the population), no thanks! $9-10/gal gas? No thanks! Oh wait, they have "free" healthcare. :o
The VATs are no different than the state income tax or sales tax that we pay. Wait, it is different. It's fairly applied and unobtrusive.
As for gun control being a means to control the population, that's just ridiculous. None of the people who scream about gun rights will ever rise up against a the government. The Koresh's and Weaver's of the world are few and far between, and usually manage to get themselves killed pretty quickly anyway (and rightly so, IMO). The people who care the most about gun ownership are the people who insist on a MINE! MINE! MINE! mentality.
-
Does the right even realize that evil socialist Europe has, in fact, more "Freedom" than the US?
Please. Every "enlightened" liberal makes this argument. It may even be true that, depending on how you define it, Europe is more free than America. I can't say it's not. But the way you categorically say this makes it completely removed from any notion of reality. I would never in a million years want to deal with Britain's insulting excuse for libel laws. As for this:
Because gas prices and income tax are certainly the best measures of freedom.
They're maybe not the best measures, but they do matter. Low gases prices effectively equal freedom of movement without having to rely on public transportation. Any money being taken from you in taxes is money you don't have the freedom to keep for yourself to spend as you like.
I know that, depending on how you look at it, choice doesn't equal freedom. You'd probably rather have two good choices than four shitty ones. But no one ever talks about how any service provided by the government creates a situation where the citizens become dependent on that government for their basic livelihood. Dependency absolutely is one of the opposites of freedom. And it seems to me that Europe has the notion of dependency on government far more culturally ingrained into it than America does. How is that a more free society?
You depend on the government organizing a military force to protect you. You depend on the government to check food and drug imports free from mal intent. I depend on the government to protect me because of my race from bigots. We depend on the government for anti-trust laws. Europeans depend on the government to give fair health policies that are not functions of business profit-cost balance sheets.
People were once dependent on private interests but increasingly no longer because private interests are NOT DEPENDABLE. Their purpose is profit, not the betterment of society and its people.
It doesn’t help when libertarians paint government programs as evil tax sucking purposeless institutions. This is absolutely clearly not the case.
Also, if you are going to use the mobility argument; then again check out Europe. The people are far more mobile. It costs nearly three times as much to go from Paris to Marseille than it does to take the train. Yet I get there anyway (faster, without the hassle, and with a glass or two of wine) Am I less free?
-
You depend on the government organizing a military force to protect you. You depend on the government to check food and drug imports free from mal intent. I depend on the government to protect me because of my race from bigots. We depend on the government for anti-trust laws. Europeans depend on the government to give fair health policies that are not functions of business profit-cost balance sheets.
Right, but that doesn't mean this is necessarily a great thing. It's just the least worst option we've come up with as a race.
People were once dependent on private interests but increasingly no longer because private interests are NOT DEPENDABLE. Their purpose is profit, not the betterment of society and its people.
Depending on how you look at it, businesses are the most honest they've been in human history. Have you heard of company towns? Have you seen the snake oil that used to be passed off as real medicine? It makes the sexual energizer pills they sell at the gas station seem downright honest by comparison.
Do you really think the purpose of the government is the betterment of society and its people? Because it's a very silly idea.
Why is the argument always presented as government or private business? Why aren't government regulated markets more discussed?
It doesn’t help when libertarians paint government programs as evil tax sucking purposeless institutions. This is absolutely clearly not the case.
Do you think all government programs worth our tax dollars?
And please - I don't think I've ever posted that public roads are a bad idea or anything nutty like that. There's libertarians and then there's the Ron Paul devotees. I don't know if I'd self-identify as Libertarian anywhere other than my Facebook page, but don't lump me in with them without some kind of reason, please.
Also, if you are going to use the mobility argument; then again check out Europe. The people are far more mobile. It costs nearly three times as much to go from Paris to Marseille than it does to take the train. Yet I get there anyway (faster, without the hassle, and with a glass or two of wine) Am I less free?
The government is creating an economic situation that frames the choice in a specific way. You can have the benefits of driving, but they come at a higher cost than just doing it using their train system. There is bias and control inherent to the choice.
-
Right, left, middle doesn't really matter when the country is divided. Nobody can agree on how to run a country because of their own selfish arrogance. To me, all of it is a collection of dirty words until our so-called leaders figure out that we should all be on the same side.
-
Or maybe a country doesn't have to be run. Maybe no one has to be top dog.
-
Only idiots assume muslims are terrorists and only idiots assume conservatives are bigoted racists.
And there are some things I've probably said (and certainly others) that aren't true of liberals as a whole.
-
They're maybe not the best measures, but they do matter. Low gases prices effectively equal freedom of movement without having to rely on public transportation. Any money being taken from you in taxes is money you don't have the freedom to keep for yourself to spend as you like.
I know that, depending on how you look at it, choice doesn't equal freedom. You'd probably rather have two good choices than four shitty ones. But no one ever talks about how any service provided by the government creates a situation where the citizens become dependent on that government for their basic livelihood. Dependency absolutely is one of the opposites of freedom. And it seems to me that Europe has the notion of dependency on government far more culturally ingrained into it than America does. How is that a more free society?
Not dependency. Trust. In any case, dependency is an inherent part of civilization, and the only reason capitalism exists at all. If everyone were completely self dependent, there would be no need for a market, and at the same time nothing of note would be achieved because true progress only happens when people have the freedom to specialize, which is made possible by things like food and shelter are taken care of exclusively by other parts of the society. Gas is an interesting one as, in the US at least, the price and availability is something that is more and more at the mercy of foreign countries that are able to supply it, so if anything gas is a severe restriction on your freedom imo.
Individual freedoms do not exist in a vacuum, every freedom that a populace has can have a positive or negative effect on other freedoms. So it is not a question of "giving up freedoms", but instead "which freedoms do I value most?"
-
The government is creating an economic situation that frames the choice in a specific way. You can have the benefits of driving, but they come at a higher cost than just doing it using their train system. There is bias and control inherent to the choice.
Building tons of highways and not charging user fees isn't biased towards a choice of transport? Subsidizing roads, parking, organizing the building of suburbs, low density neighbourhoods, and single-use development isn't biased towards a choice of transport?
-
Or maybe a country doesn't have to be run. Maybe no one has to be top dog.
And maybe I could win the lottery. Maybe I could get laid tonight. Maybe pigs will fly. There's always going to be some asshole out there who wants power. That's why the rest of us are supposed to come together, protecting ourselves from the assholes, but giving up some freedoms in exchange.
Individual freedoms do not exist in a vacuum, every freedom that a populace has can have a positive or negative effect on other freedoms. So it is not a question of "giving up freedoms", but instead "which freedoms do I value most?"
Pretty much this. Society requires us to make concessions towards each other. A society isn't simply a group of people in a given area, a society is a group of people bound by the same culture.
-
People were once dependent on private interests but increasingly no longer because private interests are NOT DEPENDABLE. Their purpose is profit, not the betterment of society and its people.
Even if we presuppose that all businessmen are just in it for the money, what happens when a businessman makes dumb or unethical decisions? They go out of business. What happens when the government makes dumb or unethical decisions? They often get away with it because the government has a monopoly on force. As counterintuitive as it may seem, private companies actually have more checks and balances to keep them in line.
The real problem is when government and business unite. Some call it fascism, some call it corporatism, some call it crony capitalism, state capitalism, cartelism, protectionism… whatever you call it, this is what really corrupts the private sector. Just as we have a wall of separation between church and state, we need a wall of separation between state and business.
-
Or maybe a country doesn't have to be run. Maybe no one has to be top dog.
We're human.
Someone will always try to be top dog.