Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.
You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative
Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.
Fucking waste of time
In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.
You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative
Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.
Fucking waste of time
Actually it isn't.
But one must be vigilant.
These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.
So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.
This might help..
Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.
exactly.
but glen beck says there's such a thing as "classic liberalism", so it must be true, right?
Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.
Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.
As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.
Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.
You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative
Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.
Fucking waste of time
Actually it isn't.
But one must be vigilant.
These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.
So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.
This might help..
Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
But once a certain point is reached, and one is happy with the current situation, isn't trying to further "progress" a wasted effort?
To a person of my political persuasion, the civil right decsions that removed voter impairment, removed school and public segregation and generally overturned plessy v. fergueson were the right things to do. However, once progressive thought moved forward into forced bussing, and affermative action quotas, my agreement with the civil rights movement stopped. I then become a "conservative", not wanting to go backwards, but not wanting to go forwards either. My base belief in individual liberty was offended by Jim Crow laws, voter imtimidation, and other racist policies, so I was on the side of the civil rights movement. Then, all of a sudden, the push goes to quotas, and forced bussing, and my base beleif in individual liberty then puts me on the other side of the argument, not wanting to undo the original work, but to not continue down the current path, which I do not agree with.
Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.
Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.
This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, dont adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.
The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a one size fits all government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasnt been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.
By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing beliefs from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.
In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the wrong political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.
Understandably, as with most conservatives, Pestritto fails to understand that progressivism is fundamentally anti-dogmatic; that there is a static component of pragmatism which allows progressives the ability to adapt and change as society changes.
Progressives are opposed to reactionaryism and advocate embracing change rather than futilely resisting it, as is common with most conservatives.
This is the basic reason why conservatives hate progressives: it has nothing to do with the positions progressives take on the issues per se, but the fact that progressives, unlike conservatives, dont adhere blindly to sanctioned dogma.
The intrinsic pragmatic nature of progressivism, therefore, renders false the accusation that progressives advocate a one size fits all government approach to addressing national issues. In fact, this hasnt been a staple of progressive thought for over 50 years.
By the end of the 20th Century, progressivism had evolved into a synthesis of pragmatic doctrine representing beliefs from across the political spectrum. Progressives are advocates of free markets, for example, but also realize that some government regulation is necessary.
In essence, progressives believe that no idea or solution should be rejected out of hand simply because that idea or solution comes from the wrong political camp, as practiced by conservatives. Solutions should be based on the facts and evidence, indicating what will work, regardless its political origin.
"from a government permanently dedicated to securing individual liberty"
Is that all our goverment was designed to do?
I didn't know that.
Why did they even bother then?
George III had all the personal liberty one could ask for.
Why didn't they duplicate THAT kind of government?
Oh wait, you mean everybody's personal liberty>
Well that a whole 'nother thing isn't it?
Yes the goal of our government is to insure everybody's personal liberty.
No wait...that doesn't make sense....does it?
If everybody had personal liberty how does that work, exactly?
I think I'm not exactly sure I know what the professor actually means.
Doesn't one's personal liberty rub up against everybody else personal liberty?
How does all this personal liberty work, exactly?
Who arbitrates where my personal liberty ends and everybody else's begins?
When my personal liberty infringes on your personal liberty, who wins?
exactly.
but glen beck says there's such a thing as "classic liberalism", so it must be true, right?
Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.
Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.
As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.
Dunno. But I agree with the first part of your post..not so much with the second part of your post.
The US government is basically the sort of government liberals strive for..one where representatives of the people are voted in by the people.
And that's what conservatives have a problem with..they like the Monarchy. And that's why they accuse Liberals of being "statist". Like Ayn Rand, who basically was a product of Russian Aristrocracy, they believe that some people have a "gift" and are naturally better then others. Unlike Rand..the right in this country are mainly theocrats. They believe that the "right" to rule is derived from divinity. Liberals believe that government should serve an "administrative" function and keep services organized. Hence the schism.
The republican party bears little or no resemblance to what they were, either.
Yet The Tea Party so much like the Founders support those very Classic Liberal Values and Ideals. Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau. Lions and Tigers and Bears.
The Progressives who worked to get us Sealed Ballots in Voting, now want to eliminate them in Union Elections. The Progressives did some good in history, I see that, it's just not the stuff they would want to take credit for now. The Progressive View that Modern Government is not the exact Threat that Our Founders warned us about, thinking somehow that they would not be subject to the same corruption that we fought against in the Revolution, is delusional, it also contradicts our Founding Principles. The corruption is deep rooted. It is a total denial of Limited Power and the Government existing to Serve the Society. The rule here is that Society Must bend to What Government dictates, and Only Government can gets to decide. Piss them off and you are toast.
The issue to me is that progressivism has morphed into statism. During the heyday of the "progressive" era, the prime goal was to eliminate the influence of organizations that were seen as limiting the free market, railroads, grain silos, large conglomerates. The original progressives were anti-trust oriented, and union organizers. Back then unions were needed, and were better than the alternative of revolution, as working conditions were truly horrendous.
The key problem with progressivism as we see it is that it doesnt know when to stop. Even if the then progressives morph into conservatives once thier goals were met, other people are always around to take up the mantle of the progressive, and push the envelope further.
A good example of this is the civil rights movement. Back in the 60's republicans were supporters of most civil rights legistation in concert with northern democrats. Once the legislation was in place, however, the republicans met thier goals and stopped. It was then those northern demorcats that took up the next progressive cause, affermative action, reparations, etc.
The turn of progressives to statism is the result of thier getting most of what they wanted for alot of the 20th century. at this point they have the choice to either maintain the status quo, and hence become conservative, or keep pushing. The problem is the ideas they are after, greater state control of individual liberty is not a very popular cause.
Actually it isn't.
But one must be vigilant.
These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.
So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.
This might help..
Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But once a certain point is reached, and one is happy with the current situation, isn't trying to further "progress" a wasted effort?
To a person of my political persuasion, the civil right decsions that removed voter impairment, removed school and public segregation and generally overturned plessy v. fergueson were the right things to do. However, once progressive thought moved forward into forced bussing, and affermative action quotas, my agreement with the civil rights movement stopped. I then become a "conservative", not wanting to go backwards, but not wanting to go forwards either. My base belief in individual liberty was offended by Jim Crow laws, voter imtimidation, and other racist policies, so I was on the side of the civil rights movement. Then, all of a sudden, the push goes to quotas, and forced bussing, and my base beleif in individual liberty then puts me on the other side of the argument, not wanting to undo the original work, but to not continue down the current path, which I do not agree with.
Well yes and no. There is no simple answer. I side with progress, but that must be coupled with morals and ethics. While the neutron bomb was an extremely efficient weapon; it was morally and ethically reprehensible; for example.
Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.
Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.
As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.
"Classic Liberalism" is a made up term by conservatives. "Liberalism" is not "classic". Its a philosophy of growth geared to the betterment of Humanity. It does not adhere to tradition. That's the realm of Conservatism.
lib·er·al   /ˈlɪbərəl, ˈlɪbrəl/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
EXPAND6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
COLLAPSEnoun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, especially in politics or religion.
Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.
Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.
As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.
no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.
this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.
the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.
Yet The Tea Party so much like the Founders support those very Classic Liberal Values and Ideals. Madison, Jefferson, Thoreau. Lions and Tigers and Bears.
The Progressives who worked to get us Sealed Ballots in Voting, now want to eliminate them in Union Elections. The Progressives did some good in history, I see that, it's just not the stuff they would want to take credit for now. The Progressive View that Modern Government is not the exact Threat that Our Founders warned us about, thinking somehow that they would not be subject to the same corruption that we fought against in the Revolution, is delusional, it also contradicts our Founding Principles. The corruption is deep rooted. It is a total denial of Limited Power and the Government existing to Serve the Society. The rule here is that Society Must bend to What Government dictates, and Only Government can gets to decide. Piss them off and you are toast.
the founders would have been made nauseous by today's pretenders at the tea party name. they would have been sickened that the people who think corporations should have unlimited power are usurpers of the history of people who dumped tea into boston harbor because they wouldn't tolerate a monopoly by the east india company.
the reason the piece you posted made your head hurt is because it's nonsense. it's generally a good idea to assume it's nonsense if it's pushed by someone glen beck likes.
and there's no such thing as "classic" liberalism. there is liberal and there isn't. the right has worked so hard to vilify that word, though. as with most goebbels lies, it's been fairly effective as a propaganda tool. the next step in that is trying to usurp the history of liberal accomplishments by pretending a relationship to them where there is none.
what the tea party is ... is not conservative. it's reactionary.
Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.
You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative
Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.
Fucking waste of time
Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.
You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative
Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.
Fucking waste of time
Actually it isn't.
But one must be vigilant.
These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.
So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.
This might help..
Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.
Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.
As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.
no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.
this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.
the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.
Ah yes, the ever fun rhetorical debate.
You're a liberal, not you're socialist no you're a conservative
Meanwhile none of us can even agree what those labels really mean.
Fucking waste of time
Actually it isn't.
But one must be vigilant.
These are people with no interest in moving forward or advancement. They are interested in "tradition" and the retardation of progress.
So they constantly monkey around with Semantics to "weaken" other people's arguments.
This might help..
Allegory of the Cave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the dialogue, Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.
But once a certain point is reached, and one is happy with the current situation, isn't trying to further "progress" a wasted effort?
To a person of my political persuasion, the civil right decsions that removed voter impairment, removed school and public segregation and generally overturned plessy v. fergueson were the right things to do. However, once progressive thought moved forward into forced bussing, and affermative action quotas, my agreement with the civil rights movement stopped. I then become a "conservative", not wanting to go backwards, but not wanting to go forwards either. My base belief in individual liberty was offended by Jim Crow laws, voter imtimidation, and other racist policies, so I was on the side of the civil rights movement. Then, all of a sudden, the push goes to quotas, and forced bussing, and my base beleif in individual liberty then puts me on the other side of the argument, not wanting to undo the original work, but to not continue down the current path, which I do not agree with.
Maybe historical liberalism is a better term? Historical liberalism was an outgrowth of the american french revolutions mostly, looking towards abolition of absolute monarchy, greater extension of sufferage, and a worded declaration of the rights of man vs. the rights of government. They were for limits on what a government could do.
Today's liberals are mostly statists, not liberals in the historical sense. The statists are authoritarian in outlook, seeing government increases as a catch all solution to all of our problems, and individual liberty in some instances as an impedement to the bettering of society.
As with any political position, nothing is 100% X or Y, but a sliding scale, with anarchy on one side, and rigerous authoritariansm on the other.
no. changing the word to "historic" is still disingenuous and false.
this rightwingnut nonsense that the "constitution" limited what government could do when it gave broad powers to government in the areas of general welfare and commerce clause is just that... nonsense.
the anti-constitutionalists like to look at the document without looking at the case law because it doesn't bear out what they say and in fact makes them look silly.
....What is your assessment? Legitimate or Hype? Why? Is the distinction between Classic Liberalism Fair? Accurate?