Roosevelt: Stupidity or Mendacity?

[Bfgrn]

So, now you're trying to say that FD-scumbag-R was a conservative? You and the guy you are plagiarizing are all kinds of wrong in all kinds of ways.

I understand you right wingers hate everything about liberals and Democrats. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not a 'scumbag'.

What FA Hayek aptly points out is that your right wingers don't hate government. You ONLY hate government when a liberal or Democrat is in power. When a right wing authoritarian like Bush and Cheney is in power, you LOVE government and vehemently defend despots like Bush and Cheney.

It is all because you really, REALLY hate democracy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You don't seem to understand that classical liberalism was a term used starting in the 18th century to describe a belief in individual rights, small government and a laissez-faire view of economic policy. None of which were apparent during FDR's time in office.

FDR was in fact the first president to understand the power of mass media and his 'fire-side chats' were masterful in portraying FDR as a man of the people. He also very quickly understood that making government the solution to all problems and creating dependency on his benevolence was a fool-proof way of staying in office.

FDR provided the roadmap for the politics we enjoy today. Really sad that anyone would want to thank the man for that.

.

And as classical liberal FA Hayek aptly points out, any form of liberalism has nothing in common with conservatism.

It is always so revealing of the conservative mind when you folks start applying 'motives' to what liberals do. Because the only framework you have for motives is your own.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

 

[Decus]

I understand you right wingers hate everything about liberals and Democrats. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not a 'scumbag'.

What FA Hayek aptly points out is that your right wingers don't hate government. You ONLY hate government when a liberal or Democrat is in power. When a right wing authoritarian like Bush and Cheney is in power, you LOVE government and vehemently defend despots like Bush and Cheney.

It is all because you really, REALLY hate democracy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

You don't seem to understand that classical liberalism was a term used starting in the 18th century to describe a belief in individual rights, small government and a laissez-faire view of economic policy. None of which were apparent during FDR's time in office.

FDR was in fact the first president to understand the power of mass media and his 'fire-side chats' were masterful in portraying FDR as a man of the people. He also very quickly understood that making government the solution to all problems and creating dependency on his benevolence was a fool-proof way of staying in office.

FDR provided the roadmap for the politics we enjoy today. Really sad that anyone would want to thank the man for that.

.

And as classical liberal FA Hayek aptly points out, any form of liberalism has nothing in common with conservatism.

It is always so revealing of the conservative mind when you folks start applying 'motives' to what liberals do. Because the only framework you have for motives is your own.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

So am I to understand that the belief in individual rights, small government and laissez-faire economics ( classical liberalism ) are what present-day liberals believe to be important? If not, what do present-day liberals believe in?

.

 

[Unkotare]

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes.

So, now you're trying to say that FD-scumbag-R was a conservative? You and the guy you are plagiarizing are all kinds of wrong in all kinds of ways.

I understand you right wingers hate everything about liberals and Democrats. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt was not a 'scumbag'.

What FA Hayek aptly points out is that your right wingers don't hate government. You ONLY hate government when a liberal or Democrat is in power. When a right wing authoritarian like Bush and Cheney is in power, you LOVE government and vehemently defend despots like Bush and Cheney.

It is all because you really, REALLY hate democracy.

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

Replace the word "conservative" with "liberal" in every instance of that pointless screed and it would apply as much and mean as much. You are just a mindless hyper-partisan lacking the intellect necessary for self-reflection. You're an empty bobble-head doll for the left just as there are some empty bobble-head dolls on the right. You're the same, and you matter just as little.

As for that scumbag FDR, he was a vile piece of shit if ever there was one. If you've got some other way to describe someone who throws over 100,000 innocent, loyal American citizens into concentration camps then you're a vile piece of shit yourself. The only hope for a thing like you is that you are probably too stupid to be truly evil.

 

[Bfgrn]

You don't seem to understand that classical liberalism was a term used starting in the 18th century to describe a belief in individual rights, small government and a laissez-faire view of economic policy. None of which were apparent during FDR's time in office.

FDR was in fact the first president to understand the power of mass media and his 'fire-side chats' were masterful in portraying FDR as a man of the people. He also very quickly understood that making government the solution to all problems and creating dependency on his benevolence was a fool-proof way of staying in office.

FDR provided the roadmap for the politics we enjoy today. Really sad that anyone would want to thank the man for that.

.

And as classical liberal FA Hayek aptly points out, any form of liberalism has nothing in common with conservatism.

It is always so revealing of the conservative mind when you folks start applying 'motives' to what liberals do. Because the only framework you have for motives is your own.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

So am I to understand that the belief in individual rights, small government and laissez-faire economics ( classical liberalism ) are what present-day liberals believe to be important? If not, what do present-day liberals believe in?

.

Yes, especially to the first two. But unlike conservatives, they are not 'code words' for subverting democracy and doing what conservatives have always done throughout history, create some form of aristocracy (corporatocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy) again as Hayek points out:

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[regent]

You don't seem to understand that classical liberalism was a term used starting in the 18th century to describe a belief in individual rights, small government and a laissez-faire view of economic policy. None of which were apparent during FDR's time in office.

FDR was in fact the first president to understand the power of mass media and his 'fire-side chats' were masterful in portraying FDR as a man of the people. He also very quickly understood that making government the solution to all problems and creating dependency on his benevolence was a fool-proof way of staying in office.

FDR provided the roadmap for the politics we enjoy today. Really sad that anyone would want to thank the man for that.

.

And as classical liberal FA Hayek aptly points out, any form of liberalism has nothing in common with conservatism.

It is always so revealing of the conservative mind when you folks start applying 'motives' to what liberals do. Because the only framework you have for motives is your own.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

So am I to understand that the belief in individual rights, small government and laissez-faire economics ( classical liberalism ) are what present-day liberals believe to be important? If not, what do present-day liberals believe in?

.

There are core beliefs to liberalism and the size of government is not one of the core beliefs. Governments can be, and often are, however, used a means to achieve some liberal or conservative belief. It also might depend on who has been in charge of government and for how long. Another problem is that we often use an individual to prove a belief, for example, Jefferson was a liberal, but that does not mean every Jefferson belief or act was liberal.

 

[Decus]

And as classical liberal FA Hayek aptly points out, any form of liberalism has nothing in common with conservatism.

It is always so revealing of the conservative mind when you folks start applying 'motives' to what liberals do. Because the only framework you have for motives is your own.

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

So am I to understand that the belief in individual rights, small government and laissez-faire economics ( classical liberalism ) are what present-day liberals believe to be important? If not, what do present-day liberals believe in?

.

Yes, especially to the first two. But unlike conservatives, they are not 'code words' for subverting democracy and doing what conservatives have always done throughout history, create some form of aristocracy (corporatocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy) again as Hayek points out:

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

There seems to be a stepping off point where FDR is concerned and of course that is the subject of this thread. You don't deny that the values surrounding classical liberalism include:
- individual rights
- small government
- laissez-faire economics

If you look at FDR's State of the Union speech in 1944 he clearly lays out his belief in a "Second Bill of Rights". In that he advances the following "rights":

"- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

-The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

-The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

-The right of every family to a decent home;

-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

-The right to a good education."

FDR?s Second Bill of Rights: ?Necessitous Men are not Free Men? | Roosevelt Institute

All of these points seem very much a part of the Democratic agenda of "a chicken in every pot" that was FDR's rallying cry to enjoy the benefits of big government.

Sorry but classical liberalism has given way to a term (liberal) which shares nothing more than a name with the present liberal philosophy. The truth is that Democrats have nothing in common with the tenets of classical liberalism.

.

 

[Bfgrn]

So am I to understand that the belief in individual rights, small government and laissez-faire economics ( classical liberalism ) are what present-day liberals believe to be important? If not, what do present-day liberals believe in?

.

Yes, especially to the first two. But unlike conservatives, they are not 'code words' for subverting democracy and doing what conservatives have always done throughout history, create some form of aristocracy (corporatocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy) again as Hayek points out:

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

There seems to be a stepping off point where FDR is concerned and of course that is the subject of this thread. You don't deny that the values surrounding classical liberalism include:
- individual rights
- small government
- laissez-faire economics

If you look at FDR's State of the Union speech in 1944 he clearly lays out his belief in a "Second Bill of Rights". In that he advances the following "rights":

"- The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

-The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

-The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

-The right of every family to a decent home;

-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

-The right to a good education."

FDR?s Second Bill of Rights: ?Necessitous Men are not Free Men? | Roosevelt Institute

All of these points seem very much a part of the Democratic agenda of "a chicken in every pot" that was FDR's rallying cry to enjoy the benefits of big government.

Sorry but classical liberalism has given way to a term (liberal) which shares nothing more than a name with the present liberal philosophy. The truth is that Democrats have nothing in common with the tenets of classical liberalism.

.

LOL!

Well you can argue what classical liberals don't share with modern liberals, but one thing is clear. They have much more in common with liberals of all stripes than they have with conservatives. Our founding fathers were not "laissez-faire" capitalists.

I am quite sure Thomas Jefferson would support FDR's second bill of rights. When I read them, I have a hard time understanding HOW they are not something any human being would support. They really just give concrete definition to Jefferson's 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

 

[regent]

Can anyone name the countries on this planet that have laissez faire economic systems, or even a nation that has no system for redistributing the wealth? If no responses, how about when did the United States, in its past have either of those economic practices?

 

[Metzor]

The United States was that way pretty much from it's inception until the early 1900's when Woodrow Wilson, racist king of the progressive movement, came along and completely fucked the nation. Think Federal Reserve and income tax.

 

[regent]

The United States was that way pretty much from it's inception until the early 1900's when Woodrow Wilson, racist king of the progressive movement, came along and completely fucked the nation. Think Federal Reserve and income tax.

Think, Hamilton's Bank of the United State and aid to business. Think, Lincoln and income tax. Think of FDR and the bank holiday.

 

[Moonglow]

All of these points seem very much a part of the Democratic agenda of "a chicken in every pot" that was FDR's rallying cry to enjoy the benefits of big government.

A chicken in every pot was coined by another president, his name was Herbert Hoover...

 

[Moonglow]

The reasons for income taxes in the 1900's was due to the implementation of the progressive movement to make alcohol illegal and the funds lost in that progressive conservative movement were to be replaced by income taxes....