Liberal Forum

Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 6:35 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 6:35 pm

Well that’s why I said Cannon’s argument is invalid...majority of liberals AFAIK do not oppose the “liberal establishment” (and make no mistake - the USA is liberal ideologically) and I don’t see why they should. Sure they might bitch about how we don’t have UHC under Biden but they, in the end, support Democrat Party sycophants/servants.

They support “the elites.”

Then Cannon might come back and say, “Well then they’re not really liberals,” but that reeks of NTS fallacy. Why should Cannon be the final arbiter of who is a “liberal” and who isn’t a liberal? Solon or Vegas giants can make the same argument about why Cannon isn’t the liberal because he made racist jokes and “liberals can’t be racists” or some BS.

He may find 2021 American liberals’ viewpoints repugnant, but saying “they’re not really liberals” is hefty baggage and requires major substantiation.

I mean it’s the same **** libertarians pull - if you criticize their arguments then they fall back on, “oh well [X] isn’t a free market system so you can’t use that against me.”

I agree with you overall but I think there is a bit of nuance. 

Yes of course the USA is 'liberal'. Indeed both parties are liberal...republicans more than democrats (always have been) 

And the majority of citizens in the usa, brainwashed in our schools, take liberal priors as axiomatic truth. They lack the vocabulary to even challenge liberalism as a political philosophy. 

But at the same time...wheneve somebody like Huey long comes along, they become extremely popular. The people can easily recognize that this is what they actually want. And as long as you do not inform people that Huey long was much more of a fascist than a liberal, nobody will even notice the internal contradictions here. Indeed according to polls, the majority of us voters want a more socialist economy mixed with traditional social values. That sounds a lot like fascism. They just don't know it. 

So is this really a soctsman fallacy? I mean...can you really be a liberal if you do not know what liberalism is? I would argue no. 

You would at least have to have heard of Jesus to call yourself a christian. Ideologies have to actually mean something coherent and definable...they are not defined by whatever mass of people decide to adopt the label.  
​​​​​
 
So yeah...if a person calls themselves liberal but does not agree that 'the best government is one that governs the least'...then I would look at that with the same respect as a black person calling themselves Scottish, or a person who worships Hecate calling themselves christian. 

Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 5:42 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 5:42 pm

What do you mean by “oppose?” Criticizing a government and opposing it are not the same. I would go as far to argue that there really is no opposition today within mainstream US politics since they are all servants of wealthy parasites, oligarchs, & (((certain people))).

There were factions within the Democrat(ic) Party that believed FDR didn’t go far enough regarding SS, MW, and other laws. They were vocal and visceral in their criticisms.

I do not believe these factions “opposed” FDR. He had overwhelming support and the few groups that posed a threat to him (like Huey Long’s followers) were disposed of.

"Few groups"?

There was enormous opposition.  The Rockefellers and DuPonts tried to recruit General Smedley Butler to stage a bloody military coup.  Thats pretty extreme

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 6:59 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 6:59 pm

I agree with you overall but I think there is a bit of nuance. 

Yes of course the USA is 'liberal'. Indeed both parties are liberal...republicans more than democrats (always have been) 

And the majority of citizens in the usa, brainwashed in our schools, take liberal priors as axiomatic truth. They lack the vocabulary to even challenge liberalism as a political philosophy. 

But at the same time...wheneve somebody like Huey long comes along, they become extremely popular. The people can easily recognize that this is what they actually want. And as long as you do not inform people that Huey long was much more of a fascist than a liberal, nobody will even notice the internal contradictions here. Indeed according to polls, the majority of us voters want a more socialist economy mixed with traditional social values. That sounds a lot like fascism. They just don't know it. 

So is this really a soctsman fallacy? I mean...can you really be a liberal if you do not know what liberalism is? I would argue no. 

You would at least have to have heard of Jesus to call yourself a christian. Ideologies have to actually mean something coherent and definable...they are not defined by whatever mass of people decide to adopt the label.  
​​​​​

Then your argument is that more people would support fascism/fascism-lite if it wasn't made into the f word of politics, which is different from people who argue that (subset) isn't liberal because (reasons).

In fact your argument implies that people who oppose the current system CANNOT be liberals or were fooled into supporting liberalism while holding views contradictory to liberalism cuz ppl are stupid/gullible.

 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 7:05 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:05 pm

"Few groups"?

There was enormous opposition.  The Rockefellers and DuPonts tried to recruit General Smedley Butler to stage a bloody military coup.  Thats pretty extreme

I was specifically referring to 'internal' opposition to FDR among his supporters.

Obviously the Rockefellers and DuPonts don't fall under that category as generally industrialists back in 1933 weren't FDR liberals (or if they were they did it for cynical/self serving reasons and not because they supported a broad coalition of labor groups).

Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:12 pm

Then your argument is that more people would support fascism/fascism-lite if it wasn't made into the f word of politics, which is different from people who argue that (subset) isn't liberal because (reasons).

In fact your argument implies that people who oppose the current system CANNOT be liberals or were fooled into supporting liberalism while holding views contradictory to liberalism cuz ppl are stupid/gullible.

My argument also is based on the fact that words ought to have actual meaning, lol
if you cannot define a political philosophy independently of who labels themselves that philosophy then you can't even talk about politics anymore.

Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 5:42 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 5:42 pm

What do you mean by “oppose?” Criticizing a government and opposing it are not the same. I would go as far to argue that there really is no opposition today within mainstream US politics since they are all servants of wealthy parasites, oligarchs, & (((certain people))).

There were factions within the Democrat(ic) Party that believed FDR didn’t go far enough regarding SS, MW, and other laws. They were vocal and visceral in their criticisms.

I do not believe these factions “opposed” FDR. He had overwhelming support and the few groups that posed a threat to him (like Huey Long’s followers) were disposed of.

A semantic disagreement. I will adopt your terminology.

Props for knowing about Huey Long.

Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 7:12 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:12 pm

Then your argument is that more people would support fascism/fascism-lite if it wasn't made into the f word of politics, which is different from people who argue that (subset) isn't liberal because (reasons).

In fact your argument implies that people who oppose the current system CANNOT be liberals or were fooled into supporting liberalism while holding views contradictory to liberalism cuz ppl are stupid/gullible.

I guess I could say, lol, that you are walking a fine line here between the no true Scotsman fallacy and the argument from popularity fallacy. 

Like no...let's not commit either fallacy. Liberalism should be defined by is philosophical priors. 'government is bad' is indeed one of those priors. 
 

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 7:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:30 pm

Like no...let's not commit either fallacy. Liberalism should be defined by is philosophical priors. 'government is bad' is indeed one of those priors.

If that is true, how does a liberal differ from a Anarchist?

I think liberalism is perfectly in accord with government as long that government has liberal policies, as Dantev pointed out.  
 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:35 pm

If that is true, how does a liberal differ from a Anarchist?

I think liberalism is perfectly in accord with government as long that government has liberal policies, as Dantev pointed out.

There is no such thing as a liberal policy for government. That's the amusing thing about liberalism. 

You can have a liberal policy for the church, say, meaning no government interference...but for government itself?  It becomes a contradiction.

Indeed the majority of people who call themselves liberal will tell you in the same sentence that the government is necessary in order to protect individual rights and that individual rights can only be violated by the government. It is a bit absurd...isn't it? 

Indeed there can be crossover between anarchists and liberalism...an anarchist is usually a person who is simply trying to resolve the internal contradictions of liberalism. 

They might even call themselves liberal rather than anarchist. That is the point it is more like a no true Scotsman fallacy, imo. Because most anarchist are in fact accepting the critical axioms of liberalism...so they could consistently label themselves as such if they like. 
 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 7:35 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:35 pm

If that is true, how does a liberal differ from a Anarchist?

I think liberalism is perfectly in accord with government as long that government has liberal policies, as Dantev pointed out.

consider the 'internet free speech' issue, for example. 

I do not think it is hard to see that there is no difference between the monopoly Corporations that control social media censoring certain speech is in effect no different from the state hypothetically doing the same thing. I.e. you won't see the speech. 

But it is apparently ok for private corporations to do this, cause that is liberal policy...right? 

So what use is the first amendment anyway? If the state is not allowed to enforce free speech as a positive right, why did we bother writing that amendment down? What has it done for us?

I do not believe any liberal could actually answer that question coherently.

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 7:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:46 pm

There is no such thing as a liberal policy for government. That's the amusing thing about liberalism. 

You can have a liberal policy for the church, say, meaning no government interference...but for government itself?  It becomes a contradiction.

Indeed the majority of people who call themselves liberal will tell you in the same sentence that the government is necessary in order to protect individual rights and that individual rights can only be violated by the government. It is a bit absurd...isn't it? 

Indeed there can be crossover between anarchists and liberalism...an anarchist is usually a person who is simply trying to resolve the internal contradictions of liberalism. 

They might even call themselves liberal rather than anarchist. That is the point it is more like a no true Scotsman fallacy, imo. Because most anarchist are in fact accepting the critical axioms of liberalism...so they could consistently label themselves as such if they like.

So universal health care is, to you, a conservative policy?

As is public funded contraception and abortions, government funded sex change operations for military personnel, and government subsidies for pregnant women and children and solar energy?  All of which require government muscle to enforce, but none is part of the liberal agenda, huh?  Final answer?

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:01 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:01 pm

consider the 'internet free speech' issue, for example. 

I do not think it is hard to see that there is no difference between the monopoly Corporations that control social media censoring certain speech is in effect no different from the state hypothetically doing the same thing. I.e. you won't see the speech. 

But it is apparently ok for private corporations to do this, cause that is liberal policy...right? 

So what use is the first amendment anyway? If the state is not allowed to enforce free speech as a positive right, why did we bother writing that amendment down? What has it done for us?

I do not believe any liberal could actually answer that question coherently.

I will go to an extreme and take the very polar opposite position from you.  ALL liberal positions REQUIRE government to implement, while all conservative positions are in opposition to organized government.

 
still waiting for you to explain the difference between liberal and anarchist.
 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:11 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:11 pm

So universal health care is, to you, a conservative policy?

As is public funded contraception and abortions, government funded sex change operations for military personnel, and government subsidies for pregnant women and children and solar energy?  All of which require government muscle to enforce, but none is part of the liberal agenda, huh?  Final answer?

Your question makes no sense. Universal health care is a socialist policy. It is neither liberal nor conservative.

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:14 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:14 pm

I will go to an extreme and take the very polar opposite position from you.  ALL liberal positions REQUIRE government to implement, while all conservative positions are in opposition to organized government.

still waiting for you to explain the difference between liberal and anarchist.

Lol...what on earth do you consider to be conservative? 

And yes I did answer your question.
 

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:15 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:15 pm

Your question makes no sense. Universal health care is a socialist policy. It is neither liberal nor conservative.

universal health care was not possible until a few decades ago.  The medical technology, centrally organized hubs of information and ability to store and retrieve vast data (medical records) did not exist until very recent.

conservatives, always opposing changes, seeking to uphold the status quo, hate the idea of universal health care because it require drastic change, an overhaul of the entire health care system.  That is why it is NOT a conservative position.

are you saying that liberal policies can never be socialist, and vice versa?

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:19 pm

Lol...what on earth do you consider to be conservative? 

And yes I did answer your question.

conservatives seek to halt or thwart change in any form.  They had invested in horseshoes, so they hated the invention of the automobile.  They cling to past traditions that are tried and true, rather than rushing into new territory tampering with laws, customs, economics, etc.

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:19 pm

universal health care was not possible until a few decades ago.  The medical technology, centrally organized hubs of information and ability to store and retrieve vast data (medical records) did not exist until very recent.

conservatives, always opposing changes, seeking to uphold the status quo, hate the idea of universal health care because it require drastic change, an overhaul of the entire health care system.  That is why it is NOT a conservative position.

are you saying that liberal policies can never be socialist, and vice versa?

Socialism is intrinsically at odds with liberalism because, of course, liberalism opposes government involvement in anything. 

But a liberal could hypothetically support universal healthcare so long as they frame it as a 'necessary evil'.

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:21 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:21 pm

conservatives seek to halt or thwart change in any form.  They had invested in horseshoes, so they hated the invention of the automobile.  They cling to past traditions that are tried and true, rather than rushing into new territory tampering with laws, customs, economics, etc.

Well one american tradition is liberalism so you seem to be contradicting yourself lol

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 7:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 7:30 pm

I guess I could say, lol, that you are walking a fine line here between the no true Scotsman fallacy and the argument from popularity fallacy. 

Like no...let's not commit either fallacy. Liberalism should be defined by is philosophical priors. 'government is bad' is indeed one of those priors.

Well here's what the "philosophical priors" had to say about liberalism:

1700s + prior: Monarchy is bad. We need constitutional republics and secularism.
1800s: We need labor unions and government reform of industry while still opposing socialism. Liberal nationalism is good.
Early to mid 1900s: We need to oppose Communism and fascism while extending capitalist reforms.
1960s - present: Racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia are bad. Nationalism bad. White man bad. Orange man bad.
 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:19 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:19 pm

universal health care was not possible until a few decades ago.  The medical technology, centrally organized hubs of information and ability to store and retrieve vast data (medical records) did not exist until very recent.

conservatives, always opposing changes, seeking to uphold the status quo, hate the idea of universal health care because it require drastic change, an overhaul of the entire health care system.  That is why it is NOT a conservative position.

are you saying that liberal policies can never be socialist, and vice versa?

And again...you still seem to be falling for the liberal mind trap of acting like there is any difference between private and public power. 

If it wasn't possible for an organization to store records until recently...then wtf is a hospital?