Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[editec]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


Fucking waste of time

 

[Sallow]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


Fucking waste of time

Actually it isn't.

But one must be vigilant.

These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.

So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.

This might help..

Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

 

[martybegan]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


Fucking waste of time

Actually it isn't.

But one must be vigilant.

These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.

So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.

This might help..

Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

But once a certain point is reached, and one is happy with the current situation, isn't trying to further "progress" a wasted effort?

To a person of my political persuasion, the civil right decsions that removed voter impairment, removed school and public segregation and generally overturned plessy v. fergueson were the right things to do. However, once progressive thought moved forward into forced bussing, and affermative action quotas, my agreement with the civil rights movement stopped. I then become a "conservative", not wanting to go backwards, but not wanting to go forwards either. My base belief in individual liberty was offended by Jim Crow laws, voter imtimidation, and other racist policies, so I was on the side of the civil rights movement. Then, all of a sudden, the push goes to quotas, and forced bussing, and my base beleif in individual liberty then puts me on the other side of the argument, not wanting to undo the original work, but to not continue down the current path, which I do not agree with.

 

[Sallow]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

exactly.

but glen beck says there's such a thing as "classic liberalism", so it must be true, right?

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

Dunno. But I agree with the first part of your post..not so much with the second part of your post.

The US government is basically the sort of government liberals strive for..one where representatives of the people are voted in by the people.

And that's what conservatives have a problem with..they like the Monarchy. And that's why they accuse Liberals of being "statist". Like Ayn Rand, who basically was a product of Russian Aristrocracy, they believe that some people have a "gift" and are naturally better then others. Unlike Rand..the right in this country are mainly theocrats. They believe that the "right" to rule is derived from divinity. Liberals believe that government should serve an "administrative" function and keep services organized. Hence the schism.

 

[Sallow]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


Fucking waste of time

Actually it isn't.

But one must be vigilant.

These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.

So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.

This might help..

Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

But once a certain point is reached, and one is happy with the current situation, isn't trying to further "progress" a wasted effort?

To a person of my political persuasion, the civil right decsions that removed voter impairment, removed school and public segregation and generally overturned plessy v. fergueson were the right things to do. However, once progressive thought moved forward into forced bussing, and affermative action quotas, my agreement with the civil rights movement stopped. I then become a "conservative", not wanting to go backwards, but not wanting to go forwards either. My base belief in individual liberty was offended by Jim Crow laws, voter imtimidation, and other racist policies, so I was on the side of the civil rights movement. Then, all of a sudden, the push goes to quotas, and forced bussing, and my base beleif in individual liberty then puts me on the other side of the argument, not wanting to undo the original work, but to not continue down the current path, which I do not agree with.

Well yes and no. There is no simple answer. I side with progress, but that must be coupled with morals and ethics. While the neutron bomb was an extremely efficient weapon; it was morally and ethically reprehensible; for example.

 

[Intense]

Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.

This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, don’t adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.

The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a ‘one size fits all’ government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasn’t been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.

Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.

Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.

Anti-Dogmatic? Not concerning Court Precedent, whether it is a comfortable fit or not. If reasoning is flawed, and that is established, in principle, it should be enough to overturn a Ruling, ordinarily. After all, A Court Ruling, is not the Equivalent of Moses's Tablets, right?

I fail to see how Conservatives are resistant to change when it is done through the Rule Of Law, by the consent of the Governed. The Process is known as The Constitutional Amendment Process. We are talking of areas of mass concern here, not to be acted on frivolously. Let me know if you need more help on that subject.

This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, don’t adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.

Do Grownup's Hate Children? Don't be silly. Because One may lack understanding or insight does not mean that Others don't. Learn to be your own witness, see through your own eyes, give honest account. It is a steady process.

The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a ‘one size fits all’ government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasn’t been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.

Progressives advocate a Centralized Controlling Government that decides for the People, and will go to endless lengths to convince the people, that they are well intentioned. When the issue is Value, Principle, or Ideal, in the Progressive System, the Interest of the State Must take Precedent over the Interest of the Individual. "One Size Does Fit All" is more the norm, under the banner of "Social Justice", with the exceptions of the Arbitrary Exemptions and Free Passes, given the Privileged Elite and their friends.

By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing ‘beliefs’ from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.

That is so nice to hear that you have not totally abandoned Classic Liberalism and thrown it under the bus. We are allowed to make a little and keep it, as long as we don't accumulate more than you. Thank You so much for that generosity.

In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the ‘wrong’ political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.

On the Contrary, I agree with Separating the Message from the Messenger. Fact's Evidence, are parts of the equation, that is true, but there is more to add to the perspective. Circumstance, need, reason, and weight. It's all in how the cards are shuffled in the end isn't it? The illusion that is created.

You do make interesting points, and yes, Progressivism, raises legitimate argument. I prefer to hear it's argument and weigh the value of it in context, issue by issue, point by point, than to be subject to It's Ultimate Control over free will. There is a balance between the Right's of the Individual and the Right's of Government. It is not a given that Government is always right because a Progressive wants it to be so. Think on that.

 

[Intense]

"from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty"

Is that all our goverment was designed to do?

I didn't know that.

Why did they even bother then?

George III had all the personal liberty one could ask for.

Why didn't they duplicate THAT kind of government?

Oh wait, you mean everybody's personal liberty>

Well that a whole 'nother thing isn't it?

Yes the goal of our government is to insure everybody's personal liberty.

No wait...that doesn't make sense....does it?

If everybody had personal liberty how does that work, exactly?

I think I'm not exactly sure I know what the professor actually means.

Doesn't one's personal liberty rub up against everybody else personal liberty?

How does all this personal liberty work, exactly?

Who arbitrates where my personal liberty ends and everybody else's begins?

When my personal liberty infringes on your personal liberty, who wins?

Parliament = Congress

House of Commons = House of Representatives

House of Lords = Senate
----------------------------------------------
Individual Liberty is a Fundamental Right.
What do we do with it?
We Establish and maintain the cause of Justice, by the consent of the governed. Constructive Liberty.

Only a predator, an idiot, or a fool, does not recognize or care when wrongfully imposing on others.

In civilized society, Justice wins, if not in the present, in time, because of our nature. It is in us to overcome injustice.

 

[martybegan]

exactly.

but glen beck says there's such a thing as "classic liberalism", so it must be true, right?

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

Dunno. But I agree with the first part of your post..not so much with the second part of your post.

The US government is basically the sort of government liberals strive for..one where representatives of the people are voted in by the people.

And that's what conservatives have a problem with..they like the Monarchy. And that's why they accuse Liberals of being "statist". Like Ayn Rand, who basically was a product of Russian Aristrocracy, they believe that some people have a "gift" and are naturally better then others. Unlike Rand..the right in this country are mainly theocrats. They believe that the "right" to rule is derived from divinity. Liberals believe that government should serve an "administrative" function and keep services organized. Hence the schism.

Yes, the people vote in the representatives, but the government has gotten so bloated (to me as a small "l" libertarian" that your connection to most goverment employees via your elected officals is pretty much gone.

I am no fan of monarchy, but what you have with all the federal agencies is closer to the Kings court than anything the founders of our consitution intended. Where is the electoral responsibility for the FDA? the EPA? the DOE(s)? Part of the problem is the agencies are so massive and self supporting that chaning the person in charge (the president" doesnt really change the organization.

Where is the direct representation between a citizen and the 2nd regional manager of OSHA responsible for toe injuries?

 

[Intense]

The republican party bears little or no resemblance to what they were, either.

Yet The Tea Party so much like the Founders support those very Classic Liberal Values and Ideals. Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau. Lions and Tigers and Bears.

The Progressives who worked to get us Sealed Ballots in Voting, now want to eliminate them in Union Elections. The Progressives did some good in history, I see that, it's just not the stuff they would want to take credit for now. The Progressive View that Modern Government is not the exact Threat that Our Founders warned us about, thinking somehow that they would not be subject to the same corruption that we fought against in the Revolution, is delusional, it also contradicts our Founding Principles. The corruption is deep rooted. It is a total denial of Limited Power and the Government existing to Serve the Society. The rule here is that Society Must bend to What Government dictates, and Only Government can gets to decide. Piss them off and you are toast.

The issue to me is that progressivism has morphed into statism. During the heyday of the "progressive" era, the prime goal was to eliminate the influence of organizations that were seen as limiting the free market, railroads, grain silos, large conglomerates. The original progressives were anti-trust oriented, and union organizers. Back then unions were needed, and were better than the alternative of revolution, as working conditions were truly horrendous.

The key problem with progressivism as we see it is that it doesnt know when to stop. Even if the then progressives morph into conservatives once thier goals were met, other people are always around to take up the mantle of the progressive, and push the envelope further.

A good example of this is the civil rights movement. Back in the 60's republicans were supporters of most civil rights legistation in concert with northern democrats. Once the legislation was in place, however, the republicans met thier goals and stopped. It was then those northern demorcats that took up the next progressive cause, affermative action, reparations, etc.

The turn of progressives to statism is the result of thier getting most of what they wanted for alot of the 20th century. at this point they have the choice to either maintain the status quo, and hence become conservative, or keep pushing. The problem is the ideas they are after, greater state control of individual liberty is not a very popular cause.

I think more that rather than eliminate the injustices, they wanted control of the engines of it. They wanted the power transferred, not transformed. From the start, Progressive gave Preference to the interest and agenda of the State, over Individual Rights, blindly. In all fairness, Hamilton appeared that way too, so the concept has been around a while.

 

[martybegan]

Actually it isn't.

But one must be vigilant.

These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.

So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.

This might help..

Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But once a certain point is reached, and one is happy with the current situation, isn't trying to further "progress" a wasted effort?

To a person of my political persuasion, the civil right decsions that removed voter impairment, removed school and public segregation and generally overturned plessy v. fergueson were the right things to do. However, once progressive thought moved forward into forced bussing, and affermative action quotas, my agreement with the civil rights movement stopped. I then become a "conservative", not wanting to go backwards, but not wanting to go forwards either. My base belief in individual liberty was offended by Jim Crow laws, voter imtimidation, and other racist policies, so I was on the side of the civil rights movement. Then, all of a sudden, the push goes to quotas, and forced bussing, and my base beleif in individual liberty then puts me on the other side of the argument, not wanting to undo the original work, but to not continue down the current path, which I do not agree with.

Well yes and no. There is no simple answer. I side with progress, but that must be coupled with morals and ethics. While the neutron bomb was an extremely efficient weapon; it was morally and ethically reprehensible; for example.

progress and progessivism are not the same thing. Hell the progressive standpoint on energy might have us going backwards, to less efficent methods of power generation, at a higher cost. normal progress in technology is more efficient and less costly.

 

[jillian]

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.

this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.

the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.

 

[Intense]

"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.

lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
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.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSEnoun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.

This is looking at the History of Classic Liberalism and Progressivism. It makes sense to me. I'm sure there are parts you both agree and disagree with.

I don't think any of us are opposed to needed change when it is approached and addressed honestly and openly, when it is considered and weighed, before being acted upon. It's part of the Governing Process. Otherwise, why make new Law at all? Why have a Congress, if what you claim is true?

 

[elvis]

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.

this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.

the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.

are you picking on Kevin Kennedy again?

 

[Intense]

Yet The Tea Party so much like the Founders support those very Classic Liberal Values and Ideals. Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau. Lions and Tigers and Bears.

The Progressives who worked to get us Sealed Ballots in Voting, now want to eliminate them in Union Elections. The Progressives did some good in history, I see that, it's just not the stuff they would want to take credit for now. The Progressive View that Modern Government is not the exact Threat that Our Founders warned us about, thinking somehow that they would not be subject to the same corruption that we fought against in the Revolution, is delusional, it also contradicts our Founding Principles. The corruption is deep rooted. It is a total denial of Limited Power and the Government existing to Serve the Society. The rule here is that Society Must bend to What Government dictates, and Only Government can gets to decide. Piss them off and you are toast.

the founders would have been made nauseous by today's pretenders at the tea party name. they would have been sickened that the people who think corporations should have unlimited power are usurpers of the history of people who dumped tea into boston harbor because they wouldn't tolerate a monopoly by the east india company.

the reason the piece you posted made your head hurt is because it's nonsense. it's generally a good idea to assume it's nonsense if it's pushed by someone glen beck likes.

and there's no such thing as "classic" liberalism. there is liberal and there isn't. the right has worked so hard to vilify that word, though. as with most goebbels lies, it's been fairly effective as a propaganda tool. the next step in that is trying to usurp the history of liberal accomplishments by pretending a relationship to them where there is none.

what the tea party is ... is not conservative. it's reactionary.

I'm Tea Party. I would not Condemn Others in the Tea Party for speaking Their mind, Nor would I condemn you. My message would be to think what you have to say through, and give your best pitch. Remember, we are all related, we all give account in the end. You are entitled to your perspective, and each perspective has some degree of value. We all get stuck in the mud, we all get dirty, we all learn to pick ourselves up. We can't give IQ points away. So we do what we can, whatever camp we are in, Right? Have a Safe Holiday, stay well.

 

[Intense]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


Fucking waste of time

That's why you are here, not having read the OP, right?

 

[Intense]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


Fucking waste of time

Actually it isn't.

But one must be vigilant.

These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.

So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.

This might help..

Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

I think the issue is more the balance between Individual Liberty and State Interest and Control. The means to determine what is fair and the process involved. Who gets the final word, based on what authority. Value, Principle, Ideal, are they lived up to by either side, to what degree, before being abandoned.

 

[martybegan]

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.

this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.

the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.

How is it false? Just because you don't like it?

I find it to be nonsense how you just run to the commerce clause and general welfare clause every time somone like you wants to let the federal level of government do something it was never intended to do, doing things that should be handled at the state and local level.

If someone wants the federal government to aquire a given power, do it the right way and go through the amendment process, transferring said power from the states to the feds. Using the courts when intepreting the general welfare and commerce clauses is effectivley an end run borne out of laziness.

Interesting how statists don't like to be called statists.

 

[Intense]

Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.

You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative

Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.


Fucking waste of time

Actually it isn't.

But one must be vigilant.

These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.

So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.

This might help..

Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

But once a certain point is reached, and one is happy with the current situation, isn't trying to further "progress" a wasted effort?

To a person of my political persuasion, the civil right decsions that removed voter impairment, removed school and public segregation and generally overturned plessy v. fergueson were the right things to do. However, once progressive thought moved forward into forced bussing, and affermative action quotas, my agreement with the civil rights movement stopped. I then become a "conservative", not wanting to go backwards, but not wanting to go forwards either. My base belief in individual liberty was offended by Jim Crow laws, voter imtimidation, and other racist policies, so I was on the side of the civil rights movement. Then, all of a sudden, the push goes to quotas, and forced bussing, and my base beleif in individual liberty then puts me on the other side of the argument, not wanting to undo the original work, but to not continue down the current path, which I do not agree with.

A distinction between removing Injustices and Reversing them. True healing comes with removing them.

 

[Intense]

Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.

Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.

As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.

no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.

this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.

the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.

The Constitution did not give broad powers to the Federal Government concerning the general welfare and commerce clause, The Court and Hamilton did. The Limit to Jurisdiction and Authority, was supposed to be dealt with through due process, Amendment. Yes it is for the Court to connect the dots that are there. Construction of new dots was Congresses responsibility. Imaginary dots are beyond the Courts power. If that was not the case, why have a congress at all? Why not have the Court decide everything?

Personally, I like the term Classical Liberalism, because it helps clarify the divide between True Liberalism, and Progressivism. Individual Liberty, State Interest, and who is seen as automatically right, before the process even starts to determine what is just. The Liberal stands for Rights, The Progressive Statists seeks the will of the State over all else. The Government is not always right. There is a balance.

 

[midcan5]

"Adam Smith's position on the role of the state in a capitalist society was close to that of a modern twentieth century US liberal democrat." Spence J. Pack

....What is your assessment? Legitimate or Hype? Why? Is the distinction between Classic Liberalism Fair? Accurate?

You know what the drill instructor used to say about opinions, still holds. I have been reading several books on the evolution of ideas and personalities, and the only evident or obvious conclusion one can come regarding this sort of interpretation is that it is incomplete, and often wrong or biased. Too often when reading history we find what we were looking for or find the sources that agree with what we are looking for.

I was reading Isaiah Berlin and Peter Watson recently and was struck by the complexity and the time frames change requires. But Adam Smith and Thomas Paine, for instance, were modern day liberals when you read deep into their works. If we understand, and I think we can, that liberalism is a changing dynamic, then modern liberalism is simply modern liberalism with its roots in 18Th century enlightenment. See historian below.

"This important shift in Wood’s thinking helped him and the rest of us understand more clearly the emergence of liberalism in 19th-century America, since mere feelings of benevolence proved too weak at that time to restrain the overriding commercial values of individualism and self-interest. Whether the modern virtues of fellow feeling and decency (efficacious in social life) can by themselves constitute a significant force in the political realm is the question Wood’s analysis raises. In other words, one is led to wonder whether politeness alone — without a commitment to shared sacrifice — is sufficient to merit the title of civic virtue, and hence to serve as the foundation of a politics that takes seriously the idea of the common good." Tim Casey http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/books/review/evolving-ideas-of-america.html?ref=todayspaper


"This disposition to admire, and almost to worship , the rich and powerful, and to despise, or, at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions...is...the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments." Adam Smith