Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

[steeliniraq]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.


When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

Yeah this would be correct if only there werent things such as facts, points of view, and common sense involved. Hope your second year of study at Cal-Berkely goes better than your first!

 

[JakeStarkey]

(in conclusion) Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

All liberals, conservatives, and libertarians defend "liberty" when they act as classical liberals. All three groups fail often in this attempt.

 

[Bfgrn]

Ah, it's all about the alleged freedom to hire someone to terminate the life of your unborn baby. Liberals define the stabbing of a full term baby in the back of the head and sucking out it's brain as "reproductive rights" and anybody who is against that type of manslaughter is seen in their minds as being against true liberty.

Medically a baby is not a baby until birth.

Tell that to the people on Death Row. You're against one thing you perceive as murder and for something that everyone else perceives as murder.

It comes down to accepting responsibility and consequences for the choices you make in life. You want to seriously defend the barbaric procedure of a late term abortion to the chosen actions of someone like a serial killer or body mutilator? That's a sick twisted view on the appreciation of an innocent life.

"The course of history shows that as government grows, liberty decreases. Does the government fear us, or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"
- Thomas Jefferson

False Jefferson quote...he never said it.

When governments fear the people, there is liberty...(Quotation) « Thomas Jefferson

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
Variations:
1. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

2. "Does the government fear us? Or do we fear the government? When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory. The federal government is our servant, not our master!"

3. “When the people fear the government, that's tyranny; when the government fears the people, that's freedom.”

Earliest known appearance in print: 1914
Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Thomas Jefferson: 1994
Also sometimes attributed to Samuel Adams or Thomas Paine. neither one of them said it, either.

 

[bripat9643]

My only problem is what happens if somebody invests their own SS funds and loses all or most of it. Who has to pay to help him out?

That's a much smaller problem than the government spending every last dime of it, which is the situation we are in now.

 

[Dragon]

The difference here, is I prefer to take some "personal responsibility" for my life

No, that isn't the difference between us, and now you're advancing a completely different argument against accepting government benefits. What you originally said is that doing so amounts to a loss of liberty, which is not true.

It IS true that when you are supported by someone else, whether it's the government, private charity, or your family or friends, you are not taking personal responsibility for your own survival. Like you, I prefer to take responsibility myself if I can, although that is not going to stop me from drawing Social Security retirement once I'm old enough to do so -- I paid into SS all these years, I'm entitled to the benefits; that's my money that I earned. However, I do regard charity (of any kind, regardless of source) as a last resort. I'm not too proud to accept it when it is needed, though.

 

[Dragon]

To elaborate on the theme of the OP, one may best discover what someone believes by his actions, rather than his words. Judged by the actions of conservatives and by what policies they pursue, it's possible to determine the real, central motivation of conservatism, and it is, as I said, an opposition to liberty.

Conservatism is political sadism. Conservatism is the philosophy described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty Four as "the boot in the face forever." But while Orwell's nightmare world was characterized by an all-powerful totalitarian state, conservatives seem happy to leave the work of putting that boot in the face to the private sector as much as they can. As one often hears, this is more efficient. Only in areas where the private sector shows no interest in stomping on people's freedom and happiness do conservatives want government to step in and do the job.

A lot of liberals seem to think the point of conservatism is to support the rich, but I believe they're wrong. The point of conservatism is to hurt people. The oppression isn't a means to the end of enhancing the fortunes of rich people. It's the other way around: oppressing people and causing pain and suffering is the point, and it's enriching the rich that's the means to the end.

This rather bizarre (to me) motivation may come from more than one source. One possible source is the Christian doctrine that everyone is sinful and deserving of punishment, which is also a common theme among BD/SM afficionados. Another possibility comes from the fact that conservatives are statistically more likely to have grown up in families where children were subjected to harsh discipline and corporal punishment. Wherever it comes from, though, it's clear that conservatives are the sort of people who, in childhood and adolescence, delight in setting kittens on fire, pulling wings off flies, and throwing that geeky kid's glasses into a toilet full of feces. On growing up, they abandon these immature pleasures for the more adult ones of reducing as many people as possible to a condition of abject servitude through government action.

This explains not only why conservatives oppose government intervention where they oppose it, but also why they advocate it where they do that. Unlike libertarians, conservatives don't oppose big government across the board. For example, conservatives are quicker than either liberals or libertarians to support foreign wars. Foreign wars allow the infliction of suffering and death on many people without the restraints of law and due process that can be so frustrating in a peaceful environment. It allows the imposition of military rule on the conquered, at least for a while, which again is something that conservatives seldom find opportunities to do at home.

It also explains why conservatives, who pretend to be against government expansion (of course, only libertarians really are against this across the board; neither liberals nor conservatives truly oppose it), are perfectly fine with expanding the power of government to investigate people for crimes, or even to detain people without charges or due process indefinitely as "enemy combatants." It explains why conservatives see nothing wrong with the U.S. having the biggest prison population (per capita) of any advanced nation in the world. It explains why conservatives so often want to punish sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and drug use and commerce, and to re-outlaw abortion. In all of these areas, the private sector cannot or will not suffice to put the boot in the face, because there is usually no money to be made doing so. Just like everyone else, conservatives are happy to call on government to do those things that people in their individual capacity cannot do, or cannot do as well as government -- but, just like everyone else, only to do those things that are really valued.

For conservatives, what is really valued is pain, suffering, degradation, humiliation, and the reduction of as many people as possible to a posture on their knees, groveling to their betters.

 

[Si modo]

To elaborate on the theme of the OP, one may best discover what someone believes by his actions, rather than his words. Judged by the actions of conservatives and by what policies they pursue, it's possible to determine the real, central motivation of conservatism, and it is, as I said, an opposition to liberty.

Conservatism is political sadism. Conservatism is the philosophy described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty Four as "the boot in the face forever." But while Orwell's nightmare world was characterized by an all-powerful totalitarian state, conservatives seem happy to leave the work of putting that boot in the face to the private sector as much as they can. As one often hears, this is more efficient. Only in areas where the private sector shows no interest in stomping on people's freedom and happiness do conservatives want government to step in and do the job.

A lot of liberals seem to think the point of conservatism is to support the rich, but I believe they're wrong. The point of conservatism is to hurt people. The oppression isn't a means to the end of enhancing the fortunes of rich people. It's the other way around: oppressing people and causing pain and suffering is the point, and it's enriching the rich that's the means to the end.

This rather bizarre (to me) motivation may come from more than one source. One possible source is the Christian doctrine that everyone is sinful and deserving of punishment, which is also a common theme among BD/SM afficionados. Another possibility comes from the fact that conservatives are statistically more likely to have grown up in families where children were subjected to harsh discipline and corporal punishment. Wherever it comes from, though, it's clear that conservatives are the sort of people who, in childhood and adolescence, delight in setting kittens on fire, pulling wings off flies, and throwing that geeky kid's glasses into a toilet full of feces. On growing up, they abandon these immature pleasures for the more adult ones of reducing as many people as possible to a condition of abject servitude through government action.

This explains not only why conservatives oppose government intervention where they oppose it, but also why they advocate it where they do that. Unlike libertarians, conservatives don't oppose big government across the board. For example, conservatives are quicker than either liberals or libertarians to support foreign wars. Foreign wars allow the infliction of suffering and death on many people without the restraints of law and due process that can be so frustrating in a peaceful environment. It allows the imposition of military rule on the conquered, at least for a while, which again is something that conservatives seldom find opportunities to do at home.

It also explains why conservatives, who pretend to be against government expansion (of course, only libertarians really are against this across the board; neither liberals nor conservatives truly oppose it), are perfectly fine with expanding the power of government to investigate people for crimes, or even to detain people without charges or due process indefinitely as "enemy combatants." It explains why conservatives see nothing wrong with the U.S. having the biggest prison population (per capita) of any advanced nation in the world. It explains why conservatives so often want to punish sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and drug use and commerce, and to re-outlaw abortion. In all of these areas, the private sector cannot or will not suffice to put the boot in the face, because there is usually no money to be made doing so. Just like everyone else, conservatives are happy to call on government to do those things that people in their individual capacity cannot do, or cannot do as well as government -- but, just like everyone else, only to do those things that are really valued.

For conservatives, what is really valued is pain, suffering, degradation, humiliation, and the reduction of as many people as possible to a posture on their knees, groveling to their betters.

What is up with your generalizations?

You're wrong. And you know it. As generalizations usually are.

 

[Dragon]

What is up with your generalizations?

You're wrong. And you know it. As generalizations usually are.

On the contrary, what I said above is the only explanation that is consistent with the policies pursued by conservatives.

I'm not saying that everyone who calls himself/herself a conservative is a political sadist, but everyone who correctly calls himself a conservative is. Some people call themselves conservatives who are really libertarians, or even really liberals. Obviously what I said will not apply to them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Everyone pays into SS. That's not the issue. The issue is whether people pay in enough to justify what they take out.

Imagine how much you'd be able to take out, if your contributions were in the market, instead of wasted on government spending.

The answer is generally "no."

Of course, otherwise there'd be no $11 trillion shortfall, IIRC.

I agree. SS should be run like a real pension fund and individuals should have some option to pull out their funds and manage it on their own.

My only problem is what happens if somebody invests their own SS funds and loses all or most of it. Who has to pay to help him out?

When the government spends all or most of the money in the "Trust Fund", who has to pay to help out.

 

[daveman]

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board.

Progressives issue death threats; call for roundup of 'Tea Baggers' - National Conservative | Examiner.com

Do you think conservatives should be rounded up and put in concentration camps to be reeducated? That way we could have a more tolerant and equal society.

Aaronson: Republicans ‘all should be put in jail’ for trying to ‘destroy’ country, Obama | Post on Politics

Actress Janeane Garofalo: Jail all Republicans

The Republicans are TRAITORS - Democratic Underground

Republicans are traitors for failing to help Americans



Sooo...it looks like you're full of crap. Like usual.

 

[bripat9643]

All liberals, conservatives, and libertarians defend "liberty" when they act as classical liberals. All three groups fail often in this attempt.

Modern liberals never act as classical liberals. That's why there is a distinction in terms.

These days the term "liberal" is a euphemism for "socialist." So is the term "progressive."

 

[Dragon]

These days the term "liberal" is a euphemism for "socialist." So is the term "progressive."

You need to add the word "democratic" before "socialist," and even then you'll be exaggerating.

I, personally, am a socialist. Most liberals are not.

 

[bripat9643]

On the contrary, what I said above is the only explanation that is consistent with the policies pursued by conservatives.

What you posted is Orwellian horseshit propaganda. You tried to define government control as freedom. That takes incredible gall.

I'm not saying that everyone who calls himself/herself a conservative is a political sadist, but everyone who correctly calls himself a conservative is. Some people call themselves conservatives who are really libertarians, or even really liberals. Obviously what I said will not apply to them.

what you said applies to no one because it's horseshit.

 

[Si modo]

On the contrary, what I said above is the only explanation that is consistent with the policies pursued by conservatives.

What you posted is Orwellian horseshit propaganda. You tried to define government control as freedom. That takes incredible gall.

I'm not saying that everyone who calls himself/herself a conservative is a political sadist, but everyone who correctly calls himself a conservative is. Some people call themselves conservatives who are really libertarians, or even really liberals. Obviously what I said will not apply to them.

what you said applies to no one because it's horseshit.

Dragon loves his Doublespeak.

 

[daveman]

Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

We can at least say that Liberals have been the greater advocates of individual liberty where conservatives, for the most part, have been advocates of greater government authority with regard to restricting or otherwise preempting Constitutional rights.

We can say that, but we'd be lying.

 

[bripat9643]

These days the term "liberal" is a euphemism for "socialist." So is the term "progressive."

You need to add the word "democratic" before "socialist," and even then you'll be exaggerating.

I, personally, am a socialist. Most liberals are not.

ROFL Socialism doesn't require democracy. In fact, it can't possible work under democracy. Self styled liberals don't give a hoot about democracy. The OWS turds have proven that with their calls for putting conservatives into reeducation camps.

All liberals are socialists. Some just don't know it or admit it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To elaborate on the theme of the OP, one may best discover what someone believes by his actions, rather than his words. Judged by the actions of conservatives and by what policies they pursue, it's possible to determine the real, central motivation of conservatism, and it is, as I said, an opposition to liberty.

Conservatism is political sadism. Conservatism is the philosophy described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty Four as "the boot in the face forever." But while Orwell's nightmare world was characterized by an all-powerful totalitarian state, conservatives seem happy to leave the work of putting that boot in the face to the private sector as much as they can. As one often hears, this is more efficient. Only in areas where the private sector shows no interest in stomping on people's freedom and happiness do conservatives want government to step in and do the job.

A lot of liberals seem to think the point of conservatism is to support the rich, but I believe they're wrong. The point of conservatism is to hurt people. The oppression isn't a means to the end of enhancing the fortunes of rich people. It's the other way around: oppressing people and causing pain and suffering is the point, and it's enriching the rich that's the means to the end.

This rather bizarre (to me) motivation may come from more than one source. One possible source is the Christian doctrine that everyone is sinful and deserving of punishment, which is also a common theme among BD/SM afficionados. Another possibility comes from the fact that conservatives are statistically more likely to have grown up in families where children were subjected to harsh discipline and corporal punishment. Wherever it comes from, though, it's clear that conservatives are the sort of people who, in childhood and adolescence, delight in setting kittens on fire, pulling wings off flies, and throwing that geeky kid's glasses into a toilet full of feces. On growing up, they abandon these immature pleasures for the more adult ones of reducing as many people as possible to a condition of abject servitude through government action.

This explains not only why conservatives oppose government intervention where they oppose it, but also why they advocate it where they do that. Unlike libertarians, conservatives don't oppose big government across the board. For example, conservatives are quicker than either liberals or libertarians to support foreign wars. Foreign wars allow the infliction of suffering and death on many people without the restraints of law and due process that can be so frustrating in a peaceful environment. It allows the imposition of military rule on the conquered, at least for a while, which again is something that conservatives seldom find opportunities to do at home.

It also explains why conservatives, who pretend to be against government expansion (of course, only libertarians really are against this across the board; neither liberals nor conservatives truly oppose it), are perfectly fine with expanding the power of government to investigate people for crimes, or even to detain people without charges or due process indefinitely as "enemy combatants." It explains why conservatives see nothing wrong with the U.S. having the biggest prison population (per capita) of any advanced nation in the world. It explains why conservatives so often want to punish sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and drug use and commerce, and to re-outlaw abortion. In all of these areas, the private sector cannot or will not suffice to put the boot in the face, because there is usually no money to be made doing so. Just like everyone else, conservatives are happy to call on government to do those things that people in their individual capacity cannot do, or cannot do as well as government -- but, just like everyone else, only to do those things that are really valued.

For conservatives, what is really valued is pain, suffering, degradation, humiliation, and the reduction of as many people as possible to a posture on their knees, groveling to their betters.

Conservatism is the philosophy described by George Orwell in Nineteen Eighty Four as "the boot in the face forever." But while Orwell's nightmare world was characterized by an all-powerful totalitarian state, conservatives seem happy to leave the work of putting that boot in the face to the private sector as much as they can.

How is the private sector stomping you in the face with a boot?
Specifics are better than generalizations.
Let's see your list.

 

[bripat9643]

We can at least say that Liberals have been the greater advocates of individual liberty where conservatives, for the most part, have been advocates of greater government authority with regard to restricting or otherwise preempting Constitutional rights.

We can say that, but we'd be lying.

And intelligent people would laugh if we said it.

 

[daveman]

A baby 39 weeks after conception is a fetus deserving no constitutional protection?

So the conservative ‘solution’ is to violate an American’s privacy rights and authorize the state to dictate to private citizens how they’ll address personal, private matters – doesn’t sound very ‘small government conservative.’

And has it ever occurred to any conservative that there are other more effective ways to end abortion rather than violating privacy rights and expanding the authority of government?

We suggested teaching people personal responsibility and facing the consequences of their actions, but you idiots wet your pants.

 

[The T]

All liberals, conservatives, and libertarians defend "liberty" when they act as classical liberals. All three groups fail often in this attempt.

Modern liberals never act as classical liberals. That's why there is a distinction in terms.

These days the term "liberal" is a euphemism for "socialist." So is the term "progressive."

Or more to the point? Statist.