A Conservative Wakes Up

[Diuretic]

I suspect that the mutation of the word "liberal" and its associated meanings is down to US politics. I can't remember right now any such denigration in Europe but that doesn't mean it didn't happen of course. In Europe they tend to be a little more specific when using political terms and "liberal" means too many different things to be useful now.

What we call "conservative" today is really closer to "liberal" in the classic sense. It tends to emphasize the unique nature of man, his dignity and rights and independence.
What we call "liberal" today is really closer to "fascist" in the classical sense. It tends to emphasize the needs of society (i.e. the state) over the individual.

And this is the problem when words begin to lose their meanings. I realise that the meanings of words change over time, it's natural that they do. But with respect I differ with your interpretations.

“Conservative” outside of the US has a particular meaning, particularly in British politics where it's the name of a party. The US “Conservative” is , as you say, economically a laissez-faire 19th Century economic liberal such as J.S.Mill but can sometimes be seen as socially conservative as well, which Mill definitely wasn't.

I have to disagree with your use of the term “fascism” and American “liberal” though. I doubt strongly if any American “liberal” is comfortable with the idea of the individual being totally subsumed in the state. I remember reading many descriptions of the Bush Administration taking America into fascism and the opponents of that tendency were American “liberals”. They were aghast at the amount of power the Bush Administration were trying to amass, the opposition in particular to VP Cheney is an example.

Your description of American “liberals” as close to fascist I think is an exaggeration. I think that “liberals” may see the state (government) as being able to contribute to the reduction of misery in society but don't see the state or government as an ends in itself as a true fascist does. To them government is merely a means to an end, the end being a reduction in overall misery in society. The reduction of individual freedom (at least to me and I'm left of centre) is a contributor to misery in society and should not be done without extremely good reasons and within the accepted democratic legislative framework. Acts of fiat by government would be opposed by “liberals”. So I don't agree with your characterisation of American “liberals” as being close to fascists.

 

[The T]

I suspect that the mutation of the word "liberal" and its associated meanings is down to US politics. I can't remember right now any such denigration in Europe but that doesn't mean it didn't happen of course. In Europe they tend to be a little more specific when using political terms and "liberal" means too many different things to be useful now.

What we call "conservative" today is really closer to "liberal" in the classic sense. It tends to emphasize the unique nature of man, his dignity and rights and independence.
What we call "liberal" today is really closer to "fascist" in the classical sense. It tends to emphasize the needs of society (i.e. the state) over the individual.

Fascist/Marxist and a smattering of Communists But in any case? They're ALL Statists.

 

[Diuretic]

I suspect that the mutation of the word "liberal" and its associated meanings is down to US politics. I can't remember right now any such denigration in Europe but that doesn't mean it didn't happen of course. In Europe they tend to be a little more specific when using political terms and "liberal" means too many different things to be useful now.

What we call "conservative" today is really closer to "liberal" in the classic sense. It tends to emphasize the unique nature of man, his dignity and rights and independence.
What we call "liberal" today is really closer to "fascist" in the classical sense. It tends to emphasize the needs of society (i.e. the state) over the individual.

Fascist/Marxist and a smattering of Communists But in any case? They're ALL Statists.

What's a "Statist"?

 

[CommonSensor]

Your description of American “liberals” as close to fascist I think is an exaggeration.

Don't hold back Di! It's an out and out ignorant statement. The unfortunate thing is, idio....(dangit, I promised myself I wouldn't...) "mentally challenged" people have the right to vote too

-s

 

[Harry Dresden]

Yours is isolation and the destruction of any philosophy that doesn't agree with you.

Yes, there are some liberals who think like you. They are also small minded bigots who wear blinders in their life.

we have a lib here Ray who is just like this....his handle ....Midcant.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

The pre-conditions set forth in the OP's "thought experiment" are too absurd to make the effort useful.

"Services are free."

Uhm huh. Free lunch. Who pays? How?

The system invisioned cannot work. Absolutely impossible.

Lord! Not one conservative was able to give a coherent answer, and they still wonder why they are politcal failures?

Liability, the answer is given in the TE and there are places today that are close to the premise.

Once more, this is a thought exercise, what does the woman do and why?

wow....a THOUGHT EXERCISE ....from the most closed minded individual in this forum....unfucking believable....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Interesting the conservatives are totally stumped.

Do any of you even know what a thought experiment is? It is an intuition pump, a scenario or vignette that creates thought. Both nations I mention exist today in slightly moderated form. This has nothing to do with feelings, except that humans have feeling, so I guess all things are then feelings.

But the question holds and no one seems capbable of an answer - no guts or no thought? Does she stay or go. Please don't reply with more diversions, if you don't have the brains or balls to give an answer, go home.

theres the exit asshole.....i think i hear your mother calling you....your computer time must be up....

 

[midcan5]

Let's think of a coherent answer then... she moves.

She woke up again from a dream after the coma and realized wonderfully, that none of that terrible nightmare was even possible. It's not that your thought experiment is bad, matter of fact i like thinking like that... the problem is I can't get past the inconsistencies with the story's background. I would definitely go somewhere else then be told that things are now equal.

What is equal anyways? How and who judges that? There would always be the have and the have nots, because power corrupts. Look at government now. The more control citizens give their government, no matter the intentions for good, the easier it is to get tyranny.

That's a bit off the point, this is not about extremes but about a society in which things are a little nicer for everyone. Equality is the same as freedom, they are ideals and as such unreachable. But equality as a goal means a bit more than freedom which really can go anywhere. And maybe she likes this new nation and feels it fits her.

"Where freedom is real, equality is the passion of the masses. Where equality is real, freedom is the passion of a small minority." Eric Hoffer

 

[midcan5]

Yes, there are some liberals who think like you. They are also small minded bigots who wear blinders in their life.

we have a lib here Ray who is just like this....his handle ....Midcant.....

Harry, are your meds wearing off? "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." Eric Hoffer

 

[midcan5]

Excellent but incomplete article. I was refering to the "modern" rise of the term liberal. The transformation started in the 30s/40s, this does not mean reached it's fruition. One can argue it didn't reach it's current "discription" until the 1970s/80s and that discription didn't become vogue until the late 90s.

The foundations did start then with the backlash against FDR. But Eisenhower and Nixon were liberals compared to today. Liberalism as bad in America was later with the right wing labeling of democrats. I think the sixties were the real staring point as a backlash started against all the things that cause issues in modern society. Drugs, civil rights, Nam, protests, woman's movement, Black rights, voting rights, great society, birth control and abortion rights.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247845984&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame]

"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."

 

[The Rabbi]

And this is the problem when words begin to lose their meanings. I realise that the meanings of words change over time, it's natural that they do. But with respect I differ with your interpretations.

“Conservative” outside of the US has a particular meaning, particularly in British politics where it's the name of a party. The US “Conservative” is , as you say, economically a laissez-faire 19th Century economic liberal such as J.S.Mill but can sometimes be seen as socially conservative as well, which Mill definitely wasn't.

I have to disagree with your use of the term “fascism” and American “liberal” though. I doubt strongly if any American “liberal” is comfortable with the idea of the individual being totally subsumed in the state. I remember reading many descriptions of the Bush Administration taking America into fascism and the opponents of that tendency were American “liberals”. They were aghast at the amount of power the Bush Administration were trying to amass, the opposition in particular to VP Cheney is an example.

Your description of American “liberals” as close to fascist I think is an exaggeration. I think that “liberals” may see the state (government) as being able to contribute to the reduction of misery in society but don't see the state or government as an ends in itself as a true fascist does. To them government is merely a means to an end, the end being a reduction in overall misery in society. The reduction of individual freedom (at least to me and I'm left of centre) is a contributor to misery in society and should not be done without extremely good reasons and within the accepted democratic legislative framework. Acts of fiat by government would be opposed by “liberals”. So I don't agree with your characterisation of American “liberals” as being close to fascists.

You're right. I exaggerated. A little anyway.
But today's liberals are all about central planning and state control. For the children, of course.

 

[Si modo]

And this is the problem when words begin to lose their meanings. I realise that the meanings of words change over time, it's natural that they do. But with respect I differ with your interpretations.

“Conservative” outside of the US has a particular meaning, particularly in British politics where it's the name of a party. The US “Conservative” is , as you say, economically a laissez-faire 19th Century economic liberal such as J.S.Mill but can sometimes be seen as socially conservative as well, which Mill definitely wasn't.

I have to disagree with your use of the term “fascism” and American “liberal” though. I doubt strongly if any American “liberal” is comfortable with the idea of the individual being totally subsumed in the state. I remember reading many descriptions of the Bush Administration taking America into fascism and the opponents of that tendency were American “liberals”. They were aghast at the amount of power the Bush Administration were trying to amass, the opposition in particular to VP Cheney is an example.

Your description of American “liberals” as close to fascist I think is an exaggeration. I think that “liberals” may see the state (government) as being able to contribute to the reduction of misery in society but don't see the state or government as an ends in itself as a true fascist does. To them government is merely a means to an end, the end being a reduction in overall misery in society. The reduction of individual freedom (at least to me and I'm left of centre) is a contributor to misery in society and should not be done without extremely good reasons and within the accepted democratic legislative framework. Acts of fiat by government would be opposed by “liberals”. So I don't agree with your characterisation of American “liberals” as being close to fascists.

You're right. I exaggerated. A little anyway.
But today's liberals are all about central planning and state control. For the children, of course.

And for those less fortunate than those in power who know what is best for them. Spare me the condescension, I say.

 

[JBeukema]

Did anyone ever answer the question off who9 the fuck pays for this shit?

 

[Oddball]

The foundations did start then with the backlash against FDR. But Eisenhower and Nixon were liberals compared to today.

They were considered leftists by people like Taft and Goldwater in thier own time, dipshit.

Liberalism as bad in America was later with the right wing labeling of democrats. I think the sixties were the real staring point as a backlash started against all the things that cause issues in modern society. Drugs, civil rights, Nam, protests, woman's movement, Black rights, voting rights, great society, birth control and abortion rights.

You actually have to be trying, to be this ignorant.

As has been pointed out numerous times on this board, the socialist wing of the Democrat Party stole the term "liberal" way back in the 1920s (which had meant libertarian to that point), to obfuscate their true agenda....If anyone is responsible for besmirching the word "liberal", it's the supposed liberals.

 

[Mister T]

Because I'm sick of their moral equivalence arguments, their moral blindness, their insane desire for power, and their certainty that they really are warm caring people and conservatives are mean cruel and heatless.

studies have shown a strong correlation between religion and crime rates, teen pregnancy, STD transmission, and other undesirables. It seems people who can come to morality based on their own convictions instead of having it forced down their throat with hand waiving and unsubstantiated reasons of "cuz the bible says so" hold better to it.

religious people have lower IQs on average

 

[midcan5]

Follow up note.

When I posted this I thought more of personal ideas, ways of thinking, than of culture. But recently I started reading Nisbet's 'Geography of thought' and realized (again, often you learn things multiple times) that we in the west think (and act) in 'independent' terms while others, especially the Chinese, think in 'interdependent' terms. We like to think we can do it all on our own and criticize anything of a collective or egalitarian impulse. Even here though there are lots of differences with Catholics and Jews being more interdependent than say Protestants. Nisbet's book is one of those 'finding what you are looking for' texts, but still interesting and enlightening.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Geography-Thought-Asians-Westerners-Differently/dp/0743255356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why (9780743255356): Richard Nisbett: Books[/ame]


"The wise man reads both books and life itself." Lin Yutang


Didn't read below but thought I'd note them here. Used books on Amazon is a great place to shop.

Comparative History Of Ideas - Nakamura
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Comparative-History-Ideas-NAKAMURA/dp/071030384X/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b]Amazon.com: Comparative History Of Ideas (9780710303844): NAKAMURA: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Ways-Thinking-Eastern-Peoples-Technical/dp/0824800788/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples: India, China, Tibet, Japan (Revised) (National Foreign Language Center Technical Reports) (9780824800789): Hajime Nakamura: Books[/ame]

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

This whole "thought experiment" reminds me of Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. A society where everyone is "equal".. Anyone read it?

Diana Moonglampers

 

[midcan5]

This whole "thought experiment" reminds me of Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. A society where everyone is "equal".. Anyone read it?

Diana Moonglampers

Curious but the premise has nothing to do with being the same. I think people read that into it. Actually one could find places today, maybe Denmark or Sweden where this TE world exists.

As for Vonnegut's story (below), it is rather sparse and lacks the intelligence of a good short story. Funny because several years ago I tried to re-read a Vonnegut novel and just couldn't do it. But again the story is weak as wearing gear to level you out and just being level are different already. lol

"When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other." Eric Hoffer

Harrison Bergeron

 

[Liability]

This whole "thought experiment" reminds me of Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. A society where everyone is "equal".. Anyone read it?

Diana Moonglampers

Curious but the premise has nothing to do with being the same. I think people read that into it. Actually one could find places today, maybe Denmark or Sweden where this TE world exists.

As for Vonnegut's story (below), it is rather sparse and lacks the intelligence of a good short story. Funny because several years ago I tried to re-read a Vonnegut novel and just couldn't do it. But again the story is weak as wearing gear to level you out and just being level are different already. lol

"When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other." Eric Hoffer

Harrison Bergeron

midcan's only thought experiment was that day he dabbled in the effort to try thinking.

He found he didn't like it much.

 

[Skull Pilot]

AHHH

The descent into mediocrity. How comforting.