Liberalism vs Leftist...

[PeterS]

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.

Why? If my quality of life is unaffected by the taxes I pay and those taxes are used to advance the quality of life of others why would the classical liberal be opposed?

 

[Ringel05]

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...

Oops my bad! Need some sleep. For some unknown reason I was mistakenly equating Statism with the actual definition of Conservativism. Sorry, just ignore the post.
Talk about a major brain fart!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Jefferson didn't act as a classical liberal throughout much of his Presidency, however, his philosophy throughout the rest of his life was consistent.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Why? If my quality of life is unaffected by the taxes I pay and those taxes are used to advance the quality of life of others why would the classical liberal be opposed?

Your life is affected, however. Perhaps you're attempting to save up for something and the government simply comes in and taxes you to death to advance the quality of somebody else's life. A classical liberal would never consent to the government stealing from one person to aid another, that would be an invasion of property rights.

 

[Ringel05]

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.

Why? If my quality of life is unaffected by the taxes I pay and those taxes are used to advance the quality of life of others why would the classical liberal be opposed?

You're right he wouldn't. It's the Neo or New Liberalist who would object.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Why? If my quality of life is unaffected by the taxes I pay and those taxes are used to advance the quality of life of others why would the classical liberal be opposed?

You're right he wouldn't. It's the Neo or New Liberalist who would object.

The classical liberal doesn't advocate stealing from one for the benefit of another.

 

[garyd]

Dev if you wish to insist that the Democratic Party has not been hijacked by progressives please explain Obama Care the massive and useless bailout and the even more useless stimulus package wich to date has stimulated little more than the voter's and tax payers gag reflex.

 

[garyd]

The notion that your life is unaffected by the taxes you pay is an illusion of the first water.

1st, any government program is by its very nature inflationary. The very existence of the bureaucrats necessary to administer that program increases demands for goods in services and said bureaucrats contribute not one iota to the production of said goods and services.

2nd the people who get subsidies to allow them to go on existing at everyone else's expense also produce no goods and services meaning at every point the program generates demand while generating not one ounce of supply.

 

[Missourian]

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.

Why? If my quality of life is unaffected by the taxes I pay and those taxes are used to advance the quality of life of others why would the classical liberal be opposed?

I probably don't belong in this thread, as I have not read Locke OR researched the political or sociological tenets of the classic liberal, but I do understand people pretty well, and I can tell you where that philosophy falls down.

Unless you really love what you do for a living...and I mean love it like you would do it for nothing and getting paid is just a bonus, if people cannot keep the fruits of your labor, they are eventually only going to produce the amount they are permitted to keep plus a little more.

Why bother doing the extra, what's the incentive to be more productive?

Better to go fishing instead.

Eventually that system collapses under it's own weight.

 

[Ringel05]

Why? If my quality of life is unaffected by the taxes I pay and those taxes are used to advance the quality of life of others why would the classical liberal be opposed?

You're right he wouldn't. It's the Neo or New Liberalist who would object.

The classical liberal doesn't advocate stealing from one for the benefit of another.

Sorry but re-look up the definition of Classical Liberalism then compare it with Neo Liberalism.
The Classical Liberalism understands and accepts the need for limited government benifit for others derived from the fruits of his labor. If indeed his lifestyle is unaffected by the taxes being imposed then he will not object.

The Neo Liberalist on the other hand believes strongly in minimal government...period.
Essentially Libertarianism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You're right he wouldn't. It's the Neo or New Liberalist who would object.

The classical liberal doesn't advocate stealing from one for the benefit of another.

Sorry but re-look up the definition of Classical Liberalism then compare it with Neo Liberalism.
The Classical Liberalism understands and accepts the need for limited government benifit for others derived from the fruits of his labor. If indeed his lifestyle is unaffected by the taxes being imposed then he will not object.

The Neo Liberalist on the other hand believes strongly in minimal government...period.
Essentially Libertarianism.

I'd suggest looking at some actual classical liberals. Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Bastiat, etc...

 

[Ringel05]

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

Why? If my quality of life is unaffected by the taxes I pay and those taxes are used to advance the quality of life of others why would the classical liberal be opposed?

I probably don't belong in this thread, as I have not read Locke OR researched the political or sociological tenets of the classic liberal, but I do understand people pretty well, and I can tell you where that philosophy falls down.

Unless you really love what you do for a living...and I mean love it like you would do it for nothing and getting paid is just a bonus, if people cannot keep the fruits of your labor, they are eventually only going to produce the amount they are permitted to keep plus a little more.

Why bother doing the extra, what's the incentive to be more productive?

Better to go fishing instead.

Eventually that system collapses under it's own weight.

What you are addressing and what most "conservatives" fear is Social Democracy (Social Liberalism).
This is what many claim Obama and and the "leftist" members of the Democrat party are trying to foist upon America with this health care plan.
If this is indeed the case then if the plan is passed and ratified there will probably be a slew of lawsuits aimed at reaching the Supreme Court to have it declared unconstitutional.
Whether they succeed or not would be a matter of how far they progress within the Judicial system. That alone could potentially tie up it's implementation for years.

 

[Ringel05]

The classical liberal doesn't advocate stealing from one for the benefit of another.

Sorry but re-look up the definition of Classical Liberalism then compare it with Neo Liberalism.
The Classical Liberalism understands and accepts the need for limited government benifit for others derived from the fruits of his labor. If indeed his lifestyle is unaffected by the taxes being imposed then he will not object.

The Neo Liberalist on the other hand believes strongly in minimal government...period.
Essentially Libertarianism.

I'd suggest looking at some actual classical liberals. Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Bastiat, etc...

Kevin, I get your point. My argument is based on the proscribed definition of the term not on the interpretive writings by these authors. (BTW I am a major Hayek fan).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dev if you wish to insist that the Democratic Party has not been hijacked by progressives please explain Obama Care the massive and useless bailout and the even more useless stimulus package wich to date has stimulated little more than the voter's and tax payers gag reflex.

Did I say the Dem party has not been hijacked by progressives? I do think the leadership has been affected by the left progressives, but Obama is hardly a leftist progressive on all things.


The bailout started under Bush and the GOP went along until Obama was in. Damned politics over nation. Health Care needs fixin' and it is not exactly progressive to say we do not need a for profit insurance industry to stand between Americans and their doctors.