I Am Proud To Be A Liberal

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Skull Pilot, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,831
    Thanks Received:
    4,503
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,113
    That's right. I said it.

    I am a liberal.

    I am a liberal in the classical sense not the modern.

    I believe in liberty and that people have inherent rights, natural rights and that government exists because of those rights and for the sole purpose of protecting those rights not the converse.

    I, unlike modern liberals, believe economic liberty is a civil liberty. In fact, they are one in the same. There is no discernible or important difference between economic and civil liberty.

    What Is Classical*Liberalism?

    An important distinction between rights and needs is necessary before we continue.

    Modern liberals are not of this mind however. Modern liberals are of a collectivist mind. Where needs become valid claims.

    FDR in his 1944 State if the Union Address called for a "Second Bill of Rights" in an attempt to redefine the meaning of rights. This attempt included the following "new" rights:

    Sound familiar?

    Now the redefining of rights as FDR defines them differs from the classical view of rights in that:

    The above link goes on to describe the source of rights in classical terms but I will end here.

    The question this post poses to you "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

    Are economic liberty and civil liberty one and the same with common defining characteristics of mentioned above or are economic liberties unrelated to civil liberties?

    If different, what characteristics of rights mentioned above do and do not apply to economic liberty?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I think it very obvious that civil liberties and economic liberties are sympatico, and that without economic liberty one cannot truly have civil liberty.

    In theory, these ideas are easily understood and both modern liberalism and modern conservatism can agree on that in principle.

    But in practice, those theories are not so clear as I suspect you think they are.

    Is there ANY point where one's economic right to private property can be morally superceded by the needs of others?

    If you tell me NO, then we are at an impasse.

    In that case we simple do not have enugh common ground to even have a rational discussion.

    If you tell me YES, then please define what benchmarks you think a moral society should use to justify (what we can both agree will be a) VIOLATION of that individual's fundamental economic right.
     
  3. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    I suspect that the lack of common ground is a lack of common moral ground.
    "It is self-evident that no number of men, by conspiring, and calling themselves a government, can acquire any rights whatever over other men, or other men's property, which they had not before, as individuals. And whenever any number of men, calling themselves a government, do anything to another man, or to his property, which they had no right to do as individuals, they thereby declare themselves trespassers, robbers, or murderers, according to the nature of their acts."
    --Lysander Spooner​
    "The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: 'Your money, or your life.' And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a 'protector,' and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to 'protect' those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you. He does not keep 'protecting' you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."
    --Lysander Spooner
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  4. johnrocks
    Offline

    johnrocks Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    West Monroe, La.
    Ratings:
    +279
    I used to call myself a "staunch conservative" so when I was told I was a liberal a few years ago, I almost had a cardiac arrest. I too am a proud classical liberal!:cool:
     
  5. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,300
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,307
    So you're a Liberal, not a Libtard.

    Famous Libtards: Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Boxer, Kennedy, Frank, etc.
     
  6. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    To add to editec's post:

    From my perspective, the good of the whole is the good for the invidual, but not vice versa. Is that collectivism? From the classic liberal point-of-view, if you're granted liberty to the limit that it doesn't infringe on others' rights, what do you think of the following:

    Rocky Mountain National Park's northeastern boundary has passed along the border of an old ranch. To access this secluded and undeveloped area of RMNP, the owners' of the ranch had previously allowed an easement where the public could drive along the road that runs through their prpoerty to a parking lot just inside the park boundary. Recently, however, the ranch owners' or new owners' have revoked the easement. The NPS had to reroute a road around the ranch, close the old parking lot, and build a new one, further impacting the wilderness of this area. The ranch owners' rights of private property superceded the public's interest in protecting wilderness. A few people benefit by not allowing traffic on their road (which really isn't that big of a deal in reality), and all of us who believe in protection of wildlands and who wish to visit that corner of RMNP were adversely affected. And millions of tax dollars, of which too few are budgeted for the NPS, were used to continue to meet the mission of the NPS.

    What do you think about this:
    Global warming is generally, scientifically accepted. Whether or not it is man-made is not the issue. Whether or not humankind is accelerating natural global warming is the issue. The burning of carbon-based fuels most likely is accelerating global warming. If so, and we don't slow global warming, then the quality of life for all of us and our offspring could be considerably and permanently lowered in the future. And I think, all of us agree that foreign oil consumption reduces the US's security. And I think it is well acknowledged that no amount of domestic oil production is going to alleviate our dependence on foreign oil. Conservation of oil, then, it would seem, should be a priority in an effort to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and attempt to slow global warming. So, should you be allowed to drive a hummer? Should companies be allowed to use styrofoam?

    As a so-called liberal, it is my opinion that we should institute a ban on styrofoam because, not only are there ecological alternatives, it isn't recyclable and adds to the acceleration of global warming. And all vehicles should meet stricter emission and fuel economy standards. If it isn't possible for some vehicles to meet those standards (which I think is subjective), then those vehicles shouldn't be allowed to be operated or manufactured in the US. In this case, to me, the interests of the public supercede those of a much smaller number individuals. Some people's livelihoods would be negatively affected, but in the end, its better for us all and the subsequent generations.

    Do you think that is collectivism?
     
  7. LOki
    Offline

    LOki The Yaweh of Mischief

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    4,020
    Thanks Received:
    350
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +585
    If good is served for each individual, "the good of the whole" (whatever the fuck that might be) doesn't have to be considered.

    Absolutely.

    This sems rather generous; or did they charge a toll?

    This is their right.

    No they didn't. They couls have just left it alone.

    Cutting off public access to that wilderness served the "public's interest" (whatever the fuck that is) in protecting wilderness.

    Nobody wishing to protect wildland were affected in the least, and those who wished to visit the RMNP were inconvenienced.

    Now fewer tax dollars are needed to clean up after and support a bunch of freeloaders.

    Also, if we don't burn carbon-based fuels, then the quality of life for all of us and our offspring could be considerably and permanently lowered in the future.

    Yep.

    So says you. If it's really in each of our best rational interest to not use styrofoam, then we can all act in our rational self interest and stop using it.

    But so long as the benefits of styrofoam use outweigh the speculative harm posed by the practice, you have no business pointing a gun at someone and telling them that hemp styrofoam is illegal.

    Only if that's what we all want.

    Since it's subjective, you have no business tellling me whatto drive, and more than I have any business telling you what to drive.

    I demand that this "public interest" be produced so that i can ascertain for myself exactly what it is. I want no propaganda contibutions from the likes of you; I want guarantees that you don't coach this "public interest" in the responses to questions regarding what "the public interest" is. Do this, and we'll discuss the merits of "the public interest."

    HOLD ON a minute there Jasper! you said, and I quote: ". . . he good of the whole is the good for the invidual, but not vice versa."

    Except, of course, those you, and those like you, choose to be . . . ahem . . ."negatively affected," yes?

    Yes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  8. Skull Pilot
    Offline

    Skull Pilot Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Messages:
    31,831
    Thanks Received:
    4,503
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +10,113
    Procedural rights often do set aside one civil rights. the obvious example is the legal search and seizure of an innocent persons property and/or person in the attempt to arrest a guilty party.

    So yes, at times, with sufficient legal cause, one's economic rights may be set aside. But I would add that any person whose right of property ownership be denied by the government's seizure of said property be given remuneration equal to the market value of said property and also an amount reasonable to cover any and all costs incurred due to the loss of his rights and possibly loss of income due to the loss of property if applicable.

    http://www.ncpa.org/pub/what-is-classical-liberalism

     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
  9. johnrocks
    Offline

    johnrocks Silver Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,919
    Thanks Received:
    279
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    West Monroe, La.
    Ratings:
    +279
    NCPA is a great site!:clap2:
     
  10. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    In response to Loki:

    So, to put it in my own words, the first remark you made is basically: The good of the whole doesn't matter as long as each individual has it good? Do you think that is the current situation in our government/society/economy now? An honest question, not an attack.

    In regards to the National Park comments: The NPS's mission is to preserve land, but also to make those lands accessible to all Americans. In order to meet their mission guidelines they did have to continue to provide access to the Lumpy Ridge section of the park (a popular place for tourists, rock climbers, outdoors enthusiasts, etc.). Considered wilderness under the Wilderness Act, all national parks are "preserved", but not for their inherent value, but for wilderness value for Americans. Although I ethically agree with you in the preservation of wildlands is best done through it being completely left alone, national parks don't follow that philosophy completely. But that is beside the point.

    I think our misunderstanding comes down to: What is the public interest? Is one definable? Who designates it, if it is? Upon what should these public interests be based? What do you think? I haven't really considered this question, but would appreciate your input.

    You wrote that we should stop using styrofoam if the public wants to, that we shouldn't ban certain vehicles which don't meet agreed upon standards (currently hypothetical) unless the public wants to. My coming question is convoluted in the least: If it can never be determined that the acceleration of global warming is human caused, or that there is nothing humankind to do to slow a natural acceleration of global warming, but, that it IS happening (meaning the public can't be convinced that global warming is happening and that there is a concrete need to do something about it), and that dependence on foreign oil poses a risk to national security, but the public doesn't WANT to conserve oil by banning styrofoam (and other petroleum products) and enforcing stricter feul efficiency standards, what should we do as a society? Accept that life sucks, we screwed up the world, now deal with it? Or, have the government tell us: "Hey, sorry everyone, no more styrofoam, gas guzzlers, etc. etc. Its for your own good."?

    What are the ramifications of each answer? We all pay $20 a gallon for water in the future? Widespread famine? Increased wars over natural resources? Or, we live in a semi-authoritarian republic (Or do we already?) but with a potentially less-impacted environment? Are there other, better alternatives? I'd rather the governments of the world ban carbon-based fuels and non-reusable products that allow us to conserve our dwindling natural resources, but I'm hardly a wise man or an expert.
     

Share This Page