Liberalism vs Leftist...

[Procrustes Stretched]

How soon we forget federalism. You seem to be picking out the parts you like and forgetting about the parts you don't like...

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The Federalists argued, and won, for a strong central government. Hamilton went so far as to argue that government should intercede in all forms of industrialization and the economy. If you are afraid of statism then you should be terrified at the birth of our nation.

touche!

 

[PeterS]

"Life, liberty, property." - John Locke

Locke believed in private property and didn't believe in redistributing the wealth to those who hadn't earned it.

You should read Locke and not just the nifty little quotes that you like. Locke never argued for a right to unrestrained ownership of property else he would have argued for the Feudalism. If I cut down timber to build my house I have every right to the timber in my house and my house itself. If I cut down the entire forest I still only have a right to the timber used to build my house and my house itself. The rest belongs to society who never surrendered ownership of it. The house and the timber in it are the fruits of my labor because that is what advances the quality of my life not the forest I so foolishly cut down...

I've read Locke, and he was a defender of property rights. Does the man own the forest, because if so he certainly does own all the timber to come from it.

However, I'm not sure what the point of this analogy is. Are you trying to say that someone who has worked for their money and then saves it has no right to their money because they're "hoarding" it?

That is up to society to say. Locke only argued for a right to maintain and advance quality of life. He never argued for rights to that which we would never need or could use. Under Locke society retained the right to eminent domain. It is society that owns the forest not individual man. Locke's philosophy wasn't about a right to unrestrained greed but about preventing the greedy from infringing on the rights of the individual. To take all the timber is to prevent others from using timber to build houses and advance their quality of lives. Yours wasn't an example of 'product of ones labor' but of unrestrained greed to which Locke never argued a natural right...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You should read Locke and not just the nifty little quotes that you like. Locke never argued for a right to unrestrained ownership of property else he would have argued for the Feudalism. If I cut down timber to build my house I have every right to the timber in my house and my house itself. If I cut down the entire forest I still only have a right to the timber used to build my house and my house itself. The rest belongs to society who never surrendered ownership of it. The house and the timber in it are the fruits of my labor because that is what advances the quality of my life not the forest I so foolishly cut down...

I've read Locke, and he was a defender of property rights. Does the man own the forest, because if so he certainly does own all the timber to come from it.

However, I'm not sure what the point of this analogy is. Are you trying to say that someone who has worked for their money and then saves it has no right to their money because they're "hoarding" it?

That is up to society to say. Locke only argued for a right to maintain and advance quality of life. He never argued for rights to that which we would never need or could use. Under Locke society retained the right to eminent domain. It is society that owns the forest not individual man. Locke's philosophy wasn't about a right to unrestrained greed but about preventing the greedy from infringing on the rights of the individual. To take all the timber is to prevent others from using timber to build houses and advance their quality of lives. Yours wasn't an example of 'product of ones labor' but of unrestrained greed to which Locke never argued a natural right...

He argued the right to your own property, and if the man in your example owns the forest then he's allowed to do what he wants with it. Just as the man who has earned his paycheck has the right to do whatever he wants with his own money.

 

[PeterS]

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

The Federalists argued, and won, for a strong central government. Hamilton went so far as to argue that government should intercede in all forms of industrialization and the economy. If you are afraid of statism then you should be terrified at the birth of our nation.

The Federalist Party was a proponent of big government, luckily we had Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Party, the Anti-Federalists, and the spirit of 76.

All of whom lost the battle. The central bank and national debt both were established to further industrialization and the economy. By the time Jefferson had become president there was nothing he could do...to destroy the statism of the time would have been to destroy the country not to mention that without statism there would have been no money for the Louisiana Purchase. You also seem to forget that it was the anti-confederates that formed the confederacy. You aren't going to argue that they won are you?

From it's birth some form of Statism has always been part of this country. You cannot stand there and say that classical liberalism is a rejection of Statism when Statism is central to the success of our country...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Federalists argued, and won, for a strong central government. Hamilton went so far as to argue that government should intercede in all forms of industrialization and the economy. If you are afraid of statism then you should be terrified at the birth of our nation.

The Federalist Party was a proponent of big government, luckily we had Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Party, the Anti-Federalists, and the spirit of 76.

All of whom lost the battle. The central bank and national debt both were established to further industrialization and the economy. By the time Jefferson had become president there was nothing he could do...to destroy the statism of the time would have been to destroy the country not to mention that without statism there would have been no money for the Louisiana Purchase. You also seem to forget that it was the anti-confederates that formed the confederacy. You aren't going to argue that they won are you?

From it's birth some form of Statism has always been part of this country. You cannot stand there and say that classical liberalism is a rejection of Statism when Statism is central to the success of our country...

Jefferson paid off most if not all of the debt and he abolished the first Bank of the United States. The Confederacy didn't win the Civil War, the tyrannical Lincoln did.

Classical liberalism is the rejection of statism and a respect for individual and economic freedom.

 

[PeterS]

I've read Locke, and he was a defender of property rights. Does the man own the forest, because if so he certainly does own all the timber to come from it.

However, I'm not sure what the point of this analogy is. Are you trying to say that someone who has worked for their money and then saves it has no right to their money because they're "hoarding" it?

That is up to society to say. Locke only argued for a right to maintain and advance quality of life. He never argued for rights to that which we would never need or could use. Under Locke society retained the right to eminent domain. It is society that owns the forest not individual man. Locke's philosophy wasn't about a right to unrestrained greed but about preventing the greedy from infringing on the rights of the individual. To take all the timber is to prevent others from using timber to build houses and advance their quality of lives. Yours wasn't an example of 'product of ones labor' but of unrestrained greed to which Locke never argued a natural right...

He argued the right to your own property, and if the man in your example owns the forest then he's allowed to do what he wants with it. Just as the man who has earned his paycheck has the right to do whatever he wants with his own money.

But man does not own the forest-Man does. Locke was not an individualist. This seems the position you are arguing not classical liberalism or anything written by Locke...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That is up to society to say. Locke only argued for a right to maintain and advance quality of life. He never argued for rights to that which we would never need or could use. Under Locke society retained the right to eminent domain. It is society that owns the forest not individual man. Locke's philosophy wasn't about a right to unrestrained greed but about preventing the greedy from infringing on the rights of the individual. To take all the timber is to prevent others from using timber to build houses and advance their quality of lives. Yours wasn't an example of 'product of ones labor' but of unrestrained greed to which Locke never argued a natural right...

He argued the right to your own property, and if the man in your example owns the forest then he's allowed to do what he wants with it. Just as the man who has earned his paycheck has the right to do whatever he wants with his own money.

But man does not own the forest-Man does. Locke was not an individualist. This seems the position you are arguing not classical liberalism or anything written by Locke...

Classical liberalism is a defense of individual rights.

 

[PeterS]

The Federalist Party was a proponent of big government, luckily we had Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Party, the Anti-Federalists, and the spirit of 76.

All of whom lost the battle. The central bank and national debt both were established to further industrialization and the economy. By the time Jefferson had become president there was nothing he could do...to destroy the statism of the time would have been to destroy the country not to mention that without statism there would have been no money for the Louisiana Purchase. You also seem to forget that it was the anti-confederates that formed the confederacy. You aren't going to argue that they won are you?

From it's birth some form of Statism has always been part of this country. You cannot stand there and say that classical liberalism is a rejection of Statism when Statism is central to the success of our country...

Jefferson paid off most if not all of the debt and he abolished the first Bank of the United States. The Confederacy didn't win the Civil War, the tyrannical Lincoln did.

Classical liberalism is the rejection of statism and a respect for individual and economic freedom.

You are making up your own definitions and ignoring the actual events of the time. You cannot stand there and say we rejected Statism when clearly we used it to create our nation.

 

[Ringel05]

The Federalists argued, and won, for a strong central government. Hamilton went so far as to argue that government should intercede in all forms of industrialization and the economy. If you are afraid of statism then you should be terrified at the birth of our nation.

The Federalist Party was a proponent of big government, luckily we had Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Party, the Anti-Federalists, and the spirit of 76.

All of whom lost the battle. The central bank and national debt both were established to further industrialization and the economy. By the time Jefferson had become president there was nothing he could do...to destroy the statism of the time would have been to destroy the country not to mention that without statism there would have been no money for the Louisiana Purchase. You also seem to forget that it was the anti-confederates that formed the confederacy. You aren't going to argue that they won are you?

From it's birth some form of Statism has always been part of this country. You cannot stand there and say that classical liberalism is a rejection of Statism when Statism is central to the success of our country...

By definition Classical Liberalism is a rejection of Statism. In this country we have had some form of compromise between the two through out our history, sometimes Statism has prevailed and sometimes Classical Liberalism has prevailed. The problem with that equilibrium today is Modernist and Neo Liberalism have been thrown into the mix over the last 50 + years lending their precepts to the social tension and divisions that we are experiencing now.

 

[Missourian]

You should read Locke and not just the nifty little quotes that you like. Locke never argued for a right to unrestrained ownership of property else he would have argued for the Feudalism. If I cut down timber to build my house I have every right to the timber in my house and my house itself. If I cut down the entire forest I still only have a right to the timber used to build my house and my house itself. The rest belongs to society who never surrendered ownership of it. The house and the timber in it are the fruits of my labor because that is what advances the quality of my life not the forest I so foolishly cut down...

This quote is terrifying. If the man owns the timber, he can do whatever he wishes with it...if he cuts it and mills it and sells it, he has earned the procedes of that sale, not 'society'.

 

[PeterS]

He argued the right to your own property, and if the man in your example owns the forest then he's allowed to do what he wants with it. Just as the man who has earned his paycheck has the right to do whatever he wants with his own money.

But man does not own the forest-Man does. Locke was not an individualist. This seems the position you are arguing not classical liberalism or anything written by Locke...

Classical liberalism is a defense of individual rights.

Classical Liberalism and Liberalism are all centered around the right of the individual to be their own sovereign. It didn't and doesn't defend rights but defines rights with government, through our legal system, the defender. Liberalism, Classic or not, is not the rejection of government you want it to be...

 

[oreo]

The terms left or liberal to me are 2 feathers from the same bird.

A poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly consider themselves to be conservative--60%. How we got this President & congress? 20% of these conservatives were'n't paying attention & ended up voting anyway.

 

[PeterS]

You should read Locke and not just the nifty little quotes that you like. Locke never argued for a right to unrestrained ownership of property else he would have argued for the Feudalism. If I cut down timber to build my house I have every right to the timber in my house and my house itself. If I cut down the entire forest I still only have a right to the timber used to build my house and my house itself. The rest belongs to society who never surrendered ownership of it. The house and the timber in it are the fruits of my labor because that is what advances the quality of my life not the forest I so foolishly cut down...

This quote is terrifying. If the man owns the timber, he can do whatever he wishes with it...if he cuts it and mills it and sells it, he has earned the procedes of that sale, not 'society'.

But man does not own the timber but Man does. You guys really need to read Locke before trying to build an ideology around his teachings.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All of whom lost the battle. The central bank and national debt both were established to further industrialization and the economy. By the time Jefferson had become president there was nothing he could do...to destroy the statism of the time would have been to destroy the country not to mention that without statism there would have been no money for the Louisiana Purchase. You also seem to forget that it was the anti-confederates that formed the confederacy. You aren't going to argue that they won are you?

From it's birth some form of Statism has always been part of this country. You cannot stand there and say that classical liberalism is a rejection of Statism when Statism is central to the success of our country...

Jefferson paid off most if not all of the debt and he abolished the first Bank of the United States. The Confederacy didn't win the Civil War, the tyrannical Lincoln did.

Classical liberalism is the rejection of statism and a respect for individual and economic freedom.

You are making up your own definitions and ignoring the actual events of the time. You cannot stand there and say we rejected Statism when clearly we used it to create our nation.

I'm not saying we did anything. I'm very much aware that our Constitution was created by statists. However, I acknowledged Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Party, the Anti-Federalists, and the spirit of 76 which gave us a small decentralized federal government under the Articles of Confederation.

 

[Ringel05]

But man does not own the forest-Man does. Locke was not an individualist. This seems the position you are arguing not classical liberalism or anything written by Locke...

Classical liberalism is a defense of individual rights.

Classical Liberalism and Liberalism are all centered around the right of the individual to be their own sovereign. It didn't and doesn't defend rights but defines rights with government, through our legal system, the defender. Liberalism, Classic or not, is not the rejection of government you want it to be...

It does? Uuuummmm.

In contrast to classical liberals who supported a free market economy, modern liberals instead favor a mixed economy. Modern American liberals support a mixed economy, with free enterprise except in those cases where, in their view, it becomes a threat to the economic well-being of the country. In this they differ from those who call themselves classical liberals and libertarians, who claim freedom as their primary goal. American liberals insist upon the right of all citizens to the necessities of life, oppose massively unequal distributions of wealth, and destruction of the environment. While the development of modern American liberalism may be traced to the late 19th and early 20th century, it may also be viewed as the modern version of the classical liberalism upon which America was founded. Following the Great Depression, it became the dominant ideology in the U.S., until the late 1970s, when it was challenged by supporters of American conservatism, whose political philosophy combines religious conservatism, support for a strong military, laissez-faire economics, and a belief in conservative social values.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But man does not own the forest-Man does. Locke was not an individualist. This seems the position you are arguing not classical liberalism or anything written by Locke...

Classical liberalism is a defense of individual rights.

Classical Liberalism and Liberalism are all centered around the right of the individual to be their own sovereign. It didn't and doesn't defend rights but defines rights with government, through our legal system, the defender. Liberalism, Classic or not, is not the rejection of government you want it to be...

I didn't say classical liberalism was anarchism. I said it was a rejection of statism, not of government.

 

[PeterS]

The Federalist Party was a proponent of big government, luckily we had Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Party, the Anti-Federalists, and the spirit of 76.

All of whom lost the battle. The central bank and national debt both were established to further industrialization and the economy. By the time Jefferson had become president there was nothing he could do...to destroy the statism of the time would have been to destroy the country not to mention that without statism there would have been no money for the Louisiana Purchase. You also seem to forget that it was the anti-confederates that formed the confederacy. You aren't going to argue that they won are you?

From it's birth some form of Statism has always been part of this country. You cannot stand there and say that classical liberalism is a rejection of Statism when Statism is central to the success of our country...

By definition Classical Liberalism is a rejection of Statism. In this country we have had some form of compromise between the two through out our history, sometimes Statism has prevailed and sometimes Classical Liberalism has prevailed. The problem with that equilibrium today is Modernist and Neo Liberalism have been thrown into the mix over the last 50 + years lending their precepts to the social tension and divisions that we are experiencing now.

Classical liberalism is not based on a negative. You are arguing a fallacy. The classical liberal saw government as property of the individual. Why would you reject your own property in its ability to advance your quality of life? This is what you are arguing...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You should read Locke and not just the nifty little quotes that you like. Locke never argued for a right to unrestrained ownership of property else he would have argued for the Feudalism. If I cut down timber to build my house I have every right to the timber in my house and my house itself. If I cut down the entire forest I still only have a right to the timber used to build my house and my house itself. The rest belongs to society who never surrendered ownership of it. The house and the timber in it are the fruits of my labor because that is what advances the quality of my life not the forest I so foolishly cut down...

This quote is terrifying. If the man owns the timber, he can do whatever he wishes with it...if he cuts it and mills it and sells it, he has earned the procedes of that sale, not 'society'.

But man does not own the timber but Man does. You guys really need to read Locke before trying to build an ideology around his teachings.

In your hypothetical situation did the man legally own the forest or not. We can't continue this discussion unless you make that clear. If the man owned the forest, legally, then he can do whatever he wishes with it. However, if he doesn't own it legally then he has no right to do anything with it in the first place.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All of whom lost the battle. The central bank and national debt both were established to further industrialization and the economy. By the time Jefferson had become president there was nothing he could do...to destroy the statism of the time would have been to destroy the country not to mention that without statism there would have been no money for the Louisiana Purchase. You also seem to forget that it was the anti-confederates that formed the confederacy. You aren't going to argue that they won are you?

From it's birth some form of Statism has always been part of this country. You cannot stand there and say that classical liberalism is a rejection of Statism when Statism is central to the success of our country...

By definition Classical Liberalism is a rejection of Statism. In this country we have had some form of compromise between the two through out our history, sometimes Statism has prevailed and sometimes Classical Liberalism has prevailed. The problem with that equilibrium today is Modernist and Neo Liberalism have been thrown into the mix over the last 50 + years lending their precepts to the social tension and divisions that we are experiencing now.

Classical liberalism is not based on a negative. You are arguing a fallacy. The classical liberal saw government as property of the individual. Why would you reject your own property in its ability to advance your quality of life? This is what you are arguing...

The classical liberal would not believe in the government taking from one person to advance somebody else's quality of life.

 

[PeterS]

Classical liberalism is a defense of individual rights.

Classical Liberalism and Liberalism are all centered around the right of the individual to be their own sovereign. It didn't and doesn't defend rights but defines rights with government, through our legal system, the defender. Liberalism, Classic or not, is not the rejection of government you want it to be...

I didn't say classical liberalism was anarchism. I said it was a rejection of statism, not of government.

I read two definitions for Statism with the first being:

"A major government or state role in the direction of the economy, both directly through state-owned enterprises and indirectly through the state-directed economic planning of the overall economy".

Classical Liberalism is not a rejection of this...or do you think the Louisiana Purchase was not major economic planning by government?

Again, you seem to be taking parts you like and rejecting parts you don't like.