Liberal Forum

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:24 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:24 pm

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'.

your definition of liberalism is in no way consistent with anybody else’s.  

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/

See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun

1. 1. 
   willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
   •  
   •  
2. 2. 
   a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

 It says nothing about having a default position of opposing everything the government does.  You have conflated liberalism totally with anarchism, when they are different
 
 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:29 pm

your definition of liberalism is in no way consistent with anybody else’s.  

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/

See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun

1. 1. 
   willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
   •  
   •  
2. 2. 
   a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

 It says nothing about having a default position of opposing everything the government does.  You have conflated liberalism totally with anarchism, when they are different

2.2 dude. 
 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:29 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:29 pm

your definition of liberalism is in no way consistent with anybody else’s.  

lib·er·al·ism
/ˈlib(ə)rəˌlizəm/

See definitions in:
All
Theology
Politics
noun

1. 1. 
   willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas.
   •  
   •  
2. 2. 
   a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

 It says nothing about having a default position of opposing everything the government does.  You have conflated liberalism totally with anarchism, when they are different

I believe he is referring to 'classical liberalism' back in 1800, which was supplanted and overwhelmed by populist movements in the mid 1800s that called for more state reforms.

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:30 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:30 pm

2.2 dude.

2.2 DEMOCRACY 


last I checked that is a form of government

Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:28 pm

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.

Orange man bad isn't liberalism, lol. Such people call themselves liberals...but that is just an accident of semantics that you should not be confused by. 

I say that there exists a political philosophy called liberalism.

Orange man bad is not a political philosophy.
 
 

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:28 pm

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?

How do I act like there is difference between private and public power?  Policies can come from a giant corporation or a giant government, and they can still be liberal or conservative.  

Censorship is not liberal, whether it comes from FB and Twitter, or from the state.  Yes, there are so called liberals applauding when Trump is kicked off Twitter.  They are not liberals, but some kind of confused mutant neoliberals

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:35 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:35 pm

2.2 DEMOCRACY 

last I checked that is a form of government

Lol...and if there was no government then who would have the most power, if not the majority of people? 

Within the proper philosophical paradigm, anarchy and democracy intersect quite well

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.

going back to this... NO, it is not liberal policy to censor people, EVER.  Even in the most dire situations, like when Hutus took over the radio stations in Rwanda and used the airwaves to organize the mass killing of Tutsis, by giving coded signals and whatnot... even the most extreme hate speech must be allowed.  That is liberal, to me.

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:38 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:38 pm

How do I act like there is difference between private and public power?  Policies can come from a giant corporation or a giant government, and they can still be liberal or conservative.  

Censorship is not liberal, whether it comes from FB and Twitter, or from the state.  Yes, there are so called liberals applauding when Trump is kicked off Twitter.  They are not liberals, but some kind of confused mutant neoliberals

Well if it is possible for private corporations to provide healthcare then it necessarily must be possible for state power to do so as well.

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:42 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:42 pm

going back to this... NO, it is not liberal policy to censor people, EVER.  Even in the most dire situations, like when Hutus took over the radio stations in Rwanda and used the airwaves to organize the mass killing of Tutsis, by giving coded signals and whatnot... even the most extreme hate speech must be allowed.  That is liberal, to me.

Fine...but you are running into contradictions with liberalism if you grant that the state should be allowed to dictate the policies of private corporations. 

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:40 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:40 pm

Lol...and if there was no government then who would have the most power, if not the majority of people? 

Within the proper philosophical paradigm, anarchy and democracy intersect quite well

If there is no government, local warlords arise and create neighborhood “gangs” keeping caches of weapons and protecting their strongholds.  Endemic warfare is continual in that situation.

see:  Nigeria, Congo or Somalia.

Democracy does not just spontaneously break out in the absence of organized government lol

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:46 pm

If there is no government, local warlords arise and create neighborhood “gangs” keeping caches of weapons and protecting their strongholds.  Endemic warfare is continual in that situation.

see:  Nigeria, Congo or Somalia.

Democracy does not just spontaneously break out in the absence of organized government lol

You seem to be rejecting the idea of the innate goodness of men, which is another one of the priors of liberalism, and why individual rights are so important 

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:45 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:45 pm

Fine...but you are running into contradictions with liberalism if you grant that the state should be allowed to dictate the policies of private corporations.

All I am saying is that my understanding of “liberal” is not synonymous with “rebel” or “dissident”


If it was, then the guys who stormed the capital would be liberals, and I don’t think they were

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:49 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:49 pm

All I am saying is that my understanding of “liberal” is not synonymous with “rebel” or “dissident”

If it was, then the guys who stormed the capital would be liberals, and I don’t think they were

Actually they were. But I'm not saying liberalism is the same as rebel either. It is a political philosophy.

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:46 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:46 pm

If there is no government, local warlords arise and create neighborhood “gangs” keeping caches of weapons and protecting their strongholds.  Endemic warfare is continual in that situation.

see:  Nigeria, Congo or Somalia.

Democracy does not just spontaneously break out in the absence of organized government lol

Thomas Hobbes was a liberal philosopher overall...but he DID reject the concept of the innate goodness of man. That is the one liberal axiom he rejected. 

Therefore his philosophy led him to endorse monarchism. Not democracy.
 

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:52 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:52 pm

Thomas Hobbes was a liberal philosopher overall...but he DID reject the concept of the innate goodness of man. That is the one liberal axiom he rejected. 

Therefore his philosophy led him to endorse monarchism. Not democracy.

I think it was Ben Franklin who said every Democracy eventually devours itself.

Still liberalism is about Democracy, not revolt or rebellion

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:37 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:37 pm

Orange man bad isn't liberalism, lol. Such people call themselves liberals...but that is just an accident of semantics that you should not be confused by. 

I say that there exists a political philosophy called liberalism.

Orange man bad is not a political philosophy.

Yes, that was a tongue in cheek...regardless it seems modern liberalism is defined by a passing observance/lip service to "democratic" institutions and status quo policies that benefit the oligarchs and ownership class (which liberals claim to oppose but not in reality).

Liberal regimes "manage" social dissent by instigating BLM-type "protests" and allowing ppl to vote for mouthpieces every [X] years.

Liberals ARE the establishment. That is my central thesis.
 

SJConspirator » 20 Jun 2021, 8:56 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:56 pm

I think it was Ben Franklin who said every Democracy eventually devours itself.

Still liberalism is about Democracy, not revolt or rebellion

Nobody here has claimed that liberalism is about revolt.

FOS » 20 Jun 2021, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:57 pm

Nobody here has claimed that liberalism is about revolt.

well the notion that liberalism is always in opposition to any governing body kind of leads into the idea that they would try to overthrow said government.  Which is more like Lenin’s idea of “perpetual revolution” which Mao went crazy with.  Again, not a liberal stance IMO

Polar1ty » 20 Jun 2021, 8:56 pm » wrote: ↑

20 Jun 2021, 8:56 pm

Yes, that was a tongue in cheek...regardless it seems modern liberalism is defined by a passing observance/lip service to "democratic" institutions and status quo policies that benefit the oligarchs and ownership class (which liberals claim to oppose but not in reality).

Liberal regimes "manage" social dissent by instigating BLM-type "protests" and allowing ppl to vote for mouthpieces every [X] years.

Liberals ARE the establishment. That is my central thesis.

And yet every time you allow people to vote in referendums, they seem to prefer fascist policies lol.

So I dunno. Is the establishment liberal? It is clearly self aware in its need to suppress the will of the people in order to maintain the liberal paradigm...which already contradicts the paradigm. 

There are so many internal contradictions in modern politics, and the web of deciet has grown so large...that I would prefer to frame the situation thusly: liberalism is a thought control device that the current oligarchy uses to manipulate the general public. 

It ceased to be a political philosophy that any of the elite believed in good faith following the first world war.