Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Sallow]

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, don’t 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 hasn’t 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.

Exactly.

Hence the made up term.."Classical Liberal".

 

[midcan5]

"But Goldberg is not interested in anything so quotidian as actual governance."

"According to R.J. Pestritto, author of American Progressivism...." and according to Midcan5 this is a bunch of the usual straw man BS. Who is right? The DI's were right about that opinion stuff - articles like this are proof positive.

The right wing fights words as if the words contained some substance, it makes it easy and because of the constant repetition of certain words, it comes to replace thought with cliche. Today's NYT has a perfect example and one that fits this meaningless OP. I wanted to use it in response to another righty on USMB who engages in the same substanceless debate but will post it here as well. In the end it is what happens that has meaning, and while the right requires a foe to exist, the progressive moves the nation a bit forward. Consider the accomplishments of FDR or LBJ if you doubt that, and consider too the right's need always to dismiss them while ignoring the failures of their own empty republican leaders. I give you W if you doubt that too.

"Does Goldberg really believe this stuff? Or is he just being tendentious for rhetorical effect? In the end, his vindictive thrashings have very little to do with the actual practice of politics; the idea that political clichés are banal isn’t exactly a blinding insight, either. Sadly, Goldberg has intellectual resources that might be put to grown-up use. But then, as the liberal cliché has it, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste." Joe Klein http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/books/review/the-tyranny-of-cliches-by-jonah-goldberg.html

Our other resident word fighter, lacking too substance and results. http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/224170-what-liberals-believe.html

 

[Foxfyre]

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, don’t 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 hasn’t 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.

Exactly.

Hence the made up term.."Classical Liberal".

Not a made up term. It is one necessitated by the corruption of the original definition of 'liberal'. Many progressives are fond of describing the Founders as liberals. And they were in their day. But over time 'liberal', at least in the United States, has become synonymous with statism, authoritarian government, authoritarian intrusion into the affairs of the people, the nanny state, class warfare, and victimization mentality. It no longer even remotely resembles the liberalism of the Founders.

Hence the new term: "Classical liberalism" was necessary to differentiate their view of the world from the modern day American statist/progressive/political class/liberal.

 

[Intense]

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, don’t 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 hasn’t 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.

Exactly.

Hence the made up term.."Classical Liberal".

Not a made up term. It is one necessitated by the corruption of the original definition of 'liberal'. Many progressives are fond of describing the Founders as liberals. And they were in their day. But over time 'liberal', at least in the United States, has become synonymous with statism, authoritarian government, authoritarian intrusion into the affairs of the people, the nanny state, class warfare, and victimization mentality. It no longer even remotely resembles the liberalism of the Founders.

Hence the new term: "Classical liberalism" was necessary to differentiate their view of the world from the modern day American statist/progressive/political class/liberal.

Ever important to distinguish the Warriors of Unalienable Rights from the Totalitarian Statist. True Rational people have no problem there.Sadly the world is not populated with enough Free Thinkers. The Totalitarians want to do the thinking for the rest of us, as if that isn't obvious enough.

 

[Intense]

"But Goldberg is not interested in anything so quotidian as actual governance."

"According to R.J. Pestritto, author of American Progressivism...." and according to Midcan5 this is a bunch of the usual straw man BS. Who is right? The DI's were right about that opinion stuff - articles like this are proof positive.

The right wing fights words as if the words contained some substance, it makes it easy and because of the constant repetition of certain words, it comes to replace thought with cliche. Today's NYT has a perfect example and one that fits this meaningless OP. I wanted to use it in response to another righty on USMB who engages in the same substanceless debate but will post it here as well. In the end it is what happens that has meaning, and while the right requires a foe to exist, the progressive moves the nation a bit forward. Consider the accomplishments of FDR or LBJ if you doubt that, and consider too the right's need always to dismiss them while ignoring the failures of their own empty republican leaders. I give you W if you doubt that too.

"Does Goldberg really believe this stuff? Or is he just being tendentious for rhetorical effect? In the end, his vindictive thrashings have very little to do with the actual practice of politics; the idea that political clichés are banal isn’t exactly a blinding insight, either. Sadly, Goldberg has intellectual resources that might be put to grown-up use. But then, as the liberal cliché has it, “a mind is a terrible thing to waste." Joe Klein http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/books/review/the-tyranny-of-cliches-by-jonah-goldberg.html

Our other resident word fighter, lacking too substance and results. http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/224170-what-liberals-believe.html

Hint. Words have meaning. Words bind. Contracts bind. Law Binds. Measure twice, cut once.

 

[Bfgrn]

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, don’t 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 hasn’t 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.

Exactly.

Hence the made up term.."Classical Liberal".

Not a made up term. It is one necessitated by the corruption of the original definition of 'liberal'. Many progressives are fond of describing the Founders as liberals. And they were in their day. But over time 'liberal', at least in the United States, has become synonymous with statism, authoritarian government, authoritarian intrusion into the affairs of the people, the nanny state, class warfare, and victimization mentality. It no longer even remotely resembles the liberalism of the Founders.

Hence the new term: "Classical liberalism" was necessary to differentiate their view of the world from the modern day American statist/progressive/political class/liberal.

Liberalism has been attacked by a very well funded and organized right wing propaganda ministry.

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

more

 

[Intense]

Exactly.

Hence the made up term.."Classical Liberal".

Not a made up term. It is one necessitated by the corruption of the original definition of 'liberal'. Many progressives are fond of describing the Founders as liberals. And they were in their day. But over time 'liberal', at least in the United States, has become synonymous with statism, authoritarian government, authoritarian intrusion into the affairs of the people, the nanny state, class warfare, and victimization mentality. It no longer even remotely resembles the liberalism of the Founders.

Hence the new term: "Classical liberalism" was necessary to differentiate their view of the world from the modern day American statist/progressive/political class/liberal.

Liberalism has been attacked by a very well funded and organized right wing propaganda ministry.

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

1 The Main Arguments of Conservatism

From the pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the self-regarding thugs of ancient Rome to the glorified warlords of medieval and absolutist Europe, in nearly every urbanized society throughout human history, there have been people who have tried to constitute themselves as an aristocracy. These people and their allies are the conservatives.

The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use "social issues" as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.

The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.

Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.

more

You are misguided. I'm not bound by Anything or Anyone. You may be in lock step with your handlers, but, I don't have Handlers. Two pitches, two misses. I guess one thing is for certain though, besides your foundation being flawed, it is now clear why you have so much difficulty with what is real.

 

[Foxfyre]

Exactly.

Hence the made up term.."Classical Liberal".

Not a made up term. It is one necessitated by the corruption of the original definition of 'liberal'. Many progressives are fond of describing the Founders as liberals. And they were in their day. But over time 'liberal', at least in the United States, has become synonymous with statism, authoritarian government, authoritarian intrusion into the affairs of the people, the nanny state, class warfare, and victimization mentality. It no longer even remotely resembles the liberalism of the Founders.

Hence the new term: "Classical liberalism" was necessary to differentiate their view of the world from the modern day American statist/progressive/political class/liberal.

Ever important to distinguish the Warriors of Unalienable Rights from the Totalitarian Statist. True Rational people have no problem there.Sadly the world is not populated with enough Free Thinkers. The Totalitarians want to do the thinking for the rest of us, as if that isn't obvious enough.

I have long said that the Classical Liberal/modern day American conservative has a very good instinctive concept of unalienable rights whether or not he or she can actually write a description of what unalienable rights are. Those unalienable rights, as the Founders saw them, were any thought or action of humankind that required no contribution or participation by any other person. Unalienable rights are breathing, living, hoping, dreaming, aspiring, achieving without any artificial limits applied.

But once our actions require participation or contribution from any other person, they are no longer rights but privilege granted by permission and/or custom and/or law and/or social contract.

The modern day conservative aka classical liberal understands this.

I honestly think the modern day progressive/statist/political class/liberal does not.

 

[Intense]

Not a made up term. It is one necessitated by the corruption of the original definition of 'liberal'. Many progressives are fond of describing the Founders as liberals. And they were in their day. But over time 'liberal', at least in the United States, has become synonymous with statism, authoritarian government, authoritarian intrusion into the affairs of the people, the nanny state, class warfare, and victimization mentality. It no longer even remotely resembles the liberalism of the Founders.

Hence the new term: "Classical liberalism" was necessary to differentiate their view of the world from the modern day American statist/progressive/political class/liberal.

Ever important to distinguish the Warriors of Unalienable Rights from the Totalitarian Statist. True Rational people have no problem there.Sadly the world is not populated with enough Free Thinkers. The Totalitarians want to do the thinking for the rest of us, as if that isn't obvious enough.

I have long said that the Classical Liberal/modern day American conservative has a very good instinctive concept of unalienable rights whether or not he or she can actually write a description of what unalienable rights are. Those unalienable rights, as the Founders saw them, were any thought or action of humankind that required no contribution or participation by any other person. Unalienable rights are breathing, living, hoping, dreaming, aspiring, achieving without any artificial limits applied.

But once our actions require participation or contribution from any other person, they are no longer rights but privilege granted by permission and/or custom and/or law and/or social contract.

The modern day conservative aka classical liberal understands this.

I honestly think the modern day progressive/statist/political class/liberal does not.

They refuse to, they are in denial. To do so would require the acceptance that they do not have power over our lives without our consent. They would have to admit the violation of trust and charge, the abuse of power and authority.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ever important to distinguish the Warriors of Unalienable Rights from the Totalitarian Statist. True Rational people have no problem there.Sadly the world is not populated with enough Free Thinkers. The Totalitarians want to do the thinking for the rest of us, as if that isn't obvious enough.

I have long said that the Classical Liberal/modern day American conservative has a very good instinctive concept of unalienable rights whether or not he or she can actually write a description of what unalienable rights are. Those unalienable rights, as the Founders saw them, were any thought or action of humankind that required no contribution or participation by any other person. Unalienable rights are breathing, living, hoping, dreaming, aspiring, achieving without any artificial limits applied.

But once our actions require participation or contribution from any other person, they are no longer rights but privilege granted by permission and/or custom and/or law and/or social contract.

The modern day conservative aka classical liberal understands this.

I honestly think the modern day progressive/statist/political class/liberal does not.

They refuse to, they are in denial. To do so would require the acceptance that they do not have power over our lives without our consent. They would have to admit the violation of trust and charge, the abuse of power and authority.

Well for those who are unable to process and articulate a rational concept, and/or those who apparently have never had an original thought in their life, are sooooo easy to brainwash by those who reject Classical Liberalism and who embrace progressivism/statism/the political class/liberalism. You usually recognize them by one or both of two identifying characteristics:

1. They cannot express a concept without assigning blame to something or somebody.
2. They cannot express a coherant thought without massive cut and paste.

 

[regent]

Liberalism is based on some core beliefs, the beliefs are constant. The things that change, however, are the means to achieve those beliefs. Jefferson, for example, was against big government based on his concept and experiences with the governments of history. With the entrance of liberals into the ruling class, liberals began slowly changing their concept of evil-governments. In fact, governments, liberals discovered, could help liberals achieve their core beliefs of liberalism.
Another problem is the choices to be made, for example is it better for a people to be free of the fear of sickness or the fear of government dictating a course of action.

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberalism is based on some core beliefs, the beliefs are constant. The things that change, however, are the means to achieve those beliefs. Jefferson, for example, was against big government based on his concept and experiences with the governments of history. With the entrance of liberals into the ruling class, liberals began slowly changing their concept of evil-governments. In fact, governments, liberals discovered, could help liberals achieve their core beliefs of liberalism.
Another problem is the choices to be made, for example is it better for a people to be free of the fear of sickness or the fear of government dictating a course of action.

And yet the modern American liberal is unable to articulate any core beliefs other than it is the duty of government to order the society as the liberal thinks it should be.

From what we can witness on this message board, they can't express the concept of self-governance promoted by the Founders. It is an alien concept to them and is apparently beyond their ability to grasp. Ask a modern day American liberal what unalienable rights are and it seems that they are pretty consistent in ignoring the question or immediately changing the subject.

When you ask a modern day American liberalism to provide a definition for what modern day progressivism/liberalism is, they cannot express it in anything other than a rejection of Classical Liberalism and criticism of other concepts.

How do you have a comprehensive discussion with people who cannot articulate what they believe or why?

 

[Intense]

Liberalism is based on some core beliefs, the beliefs are constant. The things that change, however, are the means to achieve those beliefs. Jefferson, for example, was against big government based on his concept and experiences with the governments of history. With the entrance of liberals into the ruling class, liberals began slowly changing their concept of evil-governments. In fact, governments, liberals discovered, could help liberals achieve their core beliefs of liberalism.
Another problem is the choices to be made, for example is it better for a people to be free of the fear of sickness or the fear of government dictating a course of action.

One can only corrupt principle so much, before losing one's bearings. Human Nature has not changed, it may go through cycles, based on the lies we feed each other. There is nothing new under the Sun. Oppression leads to more oppression, regardless of the label. Each has the Right to See through our own eyes.Liberalism as you paint it, is not immune to corruption.

 

[Bfgrn]

Not a made up term. It is one necessitated by the corruption of the original definition of 'liberal'. Many progressives are fond of describing the Founders as liberals. And they were in their day. But over time 'liberal', at least in the United States, has become synonymous with statism, authoritarian government, authoritarian intrusion into the affairs of the people, the nanny state, class warfare, and victimization mentality. It no longer even remotely resembles the liberalism of the Founders.

Hence the new term: "Classical liberalism" was necessary to differentiate their view of the world from the modern day American statist/progressive/political class/liberal.

Ever important to distinguish the Warriors of Unalienable Rights from the Totalitarian Statist. True Rational people have no problem there.Sadly the world is not populated with enough Free Thinkers. The Totalitarians want to do the thinking for the rest of us, as if that isn't obvious enough.

I have long said that the Classical Liberal/modern day American conservative has a very good instinctive concept of unalienable rights whether or not he or she can actually write a description of what unalienable rights are. Those unalienable rights, as the Founders saw them, were any thought or action of humankind that required no contribution or participation by any other person. Unalienable rights are breathing, living, hoping, dreaming, aspiring, achieving without any artificial limits applied.

But once our actions require participation or contribution from any other person, they are no longer rights but privilege granted by permission and/or custom and/or law and/or social contract.

The modern day conservative aka classical liberal understands this.

I honestly think the modern day progressive/statist/political class/liberal does not.

First of all...only ONE human being that EVER walked this earth could have survived without 'participation or contribution from any other person'...his name was Jesus Christ. You are as far from His teachings as any human could get.

Second, you have every right to profess your sick, self-centered, haughty narcissism, but don't try to apply your sickness to our founding fathers.

What you are professing is Ayn Rand libertarianism, NOT liberalism.

Our founding fathers were NOT libertarians. Libertarianism is very much a movement of post-1945 affluent society America, a society that has developed birth control and drug rehab, antibiotics and antidepressants. We are a society abounding in second chances. 18th century America was a society in which a personal misstep could easily lead to premature and unpleasant death. Self-actualization through self-expression was a concept not imaginable in 1776.

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Less elite Americans of the Founding generation were shaped less by Addison and the Latin classics than by religious traditions heavily tinged by Calvinism.

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

 

[Foxfyre]

Ever important to distinguish the Warriors of Unalienable Rights from the Totalitarian Statist. True Rational people have no problem there.Sadly the world is not populated with enough Free Thinkers. The Totalitarians want to do the thinking for the rest of us, as if that isn't obvious enough.

I have long said that the Classical Liberal/modern day American conservative has a very good instinctive concept of unalienable rights whether or not he or she can actually write a description of what unalienable rights are. Those unalienable rights, as the Founders saw them, were any thought or action of humankind that required no contribution or participation by any other person. Unalienable rights are breathing, living, hoping, dreaming, aspiring, achieving without any artificial limits applied.

But once our actions require participation or contribution from any other person, they are no longer rights but privilege granted by permission and/or custom and/or law and/or social contract.

The modern day conservative aka classical liberal understands this.

I honestly think the modern day progressive/statist/political class/liberal does not.

First of all...only ONE human being that EVER walked this earth could have survived without 'participation or contribution from any other person'...his name was Jesus Christ. You are as far from His teachings as any human could get.

Second, you have every right to profess your sick, self-centered, haughty narcissism, but don't try to apply your sickness to our founding fathers.

What you are professing is Ayn Rand libertarianism, NOT liberalism.

Our founding fathers were NOT libertarians. Libertarianism is very much a movement of post-1945 affluent society America, a society that has developed birth control and drug rehab, antibiotics and antidepressants. We are a society abounding in second chances. 18th century America was a society in which a personal misstep could easily lead to premature and unpleasant death. Self-actualization through self-expression was a concept not imaginable in 1776.

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Less elite Americans of the Founding generation were shaped less by Addison and the Latin classics than by religious traditions heavily tinged by Calvinism.

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Jesus was no different than any other baby and needed as much care and long as any other human does in the early years.

How cultural norms, honor, respect, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil develop and manifest themselves in the social contract is a completely different subject that unalienable rights.

Unalienable rights are not the sum total of all that is worth doing, having, or protecting. But protecting unalienable rights was the sole purpose of the U.S. Constitution and, once such rights are acknowledged and secured, the people would then be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

 

[Intense]

I have long said that the Classical Liberal/modern day American conservative has a very good instinctive concept of unalienable rights whether or not he or she can actually write a description of what unalienable rights are. Those unalienable rights, as the Founders saw them, were any thought or action of humankind that required no contribution or participation by any other person. Unalienable rights are breathing, living, hoping, dreaming, aspiring, achieving without any artificial limits applied.

But once our actions require participation or contribution from any other person, they are no longer rights but privilege granted by permission and/or custom and/or law and/or social contract.

The modern day conservative aka classical liberal understands this.

I honestly think the modern day progressive/statist/political class/liberal does not.

First of all...only ONE human being that EVER walked this earth could have survived without 'participation or contribution from any other person'...his name was Jesus Christ. You are as far from His teachings as any human could get.

Second, you have every right to profess your sick, self-centered, haughty narcissism, but don't try to apply your sickness to our founding fathers.

What you are professing is Ayn Rand libertarianism, NOT liberalism.

Our founding fathers were NOT libertarians. Libertarianism is very much a movement of post-1945 affluent society America, a society that has developed birth control and drug rehab, antibiotics and antidepressants. We are a society abounding in second chances. 18th century America was a society in which a personal misstep could easily lead to premature and unpleasant death. Self-actualization through self-expression was a concept not imaginable in 1776.

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Less elite Americans of the Founding generation were shaped less by Addison and the Latin classics than by religious traditions heavily tinged by Calvinism.

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Jesus was no different than any other baby and needed as much care and long as any other human does in the early years.

How cultural norms, honor, respect, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil develop and manifest themselves in the social contract is a completely different subject that unalienable rights.

Unalienable rights are not the sum total of all that is worth doing, having, or protecting. But protecting unalienable rights was the sole purpose of the U.S. Constitution and, once such rights are acknowledged and secured, the people would then be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

I don't think she is ever going to get it, FF. I think for her it's about throwing stones and getting the last salvo. I totally agree with your perspective on the Foundation the Founders did try to set up, with the exception of Hamilton. Madison was the True Federalist, for Hamilton, Federalism was just a tool to set up the Oligarchy Empire that Puppets like Bfgrn are such a part of. Those that run the system get the best perks and are first on the list for the Life Boats and Life Preservers. We should feel honored just being in their presence. Seriously, on Hamilton, study up on the Pre Ratification Hamilton V.S. Post Ratification Hamilton. What he did as a part of the Washington and Adam's Administrations.

On Rand I have to question how an Atheist supported Unalienable Right's, Value for Value, Fair Measure, Balanced Scales, and Conscience. Admirable. She did have issues with Fidelity, or respecting commitment in Relationships, and I fault her there. Still, for a girl being born, growing up, and escaping Post Revolutionary Russia, I would think she had some deep scars. "We The Living" is a great read. Selfishness, from the perspective of gain at any cost, doing harm to others, is of course abomination. Selfishness from the perspective of My Conscience is my own, and out of bounds to anyone trying to force feed it or tamper with it, is Unalienable Right. The Ruin of Every Soul starts with Someone Else trying to take the reins, effecting how you do what you do, contrary to Conscience, it starts with the hijacking of Conscious Will. To do that, Self Value must first be thrown under the bus. Translation: 2+2=5 for as long as the Collective says it does.

 

[Bfgrn]

First of all...only ONE human being that EVER walked this earth could have survived without 'participation or contribution from any other person'...his name was Jesus Christ. You are as far from His teachings as any human could get.

Second, you have every right to profess your sick, self-centered, haughty narcissism, but don't try to apply your sickness to our founding fathers.

What you are professing is Ayn Rand libertarianism, NOT liberalism.

Our founding fathers were NOT libertarians. Libertarianism is very much a movement of post-1945 affluent society America, a society that has developed birth control and drug rehab, antibiotics and antidepressants. We are a society abounding in second chances. 18th century America was a society in which a personal misstep could easily lead to premature and unpleasant death. Self-actualization through self-expression was a concept not imaginable in 1776.

Elite Americans of the Founding generation were deeply shaped – not literally by Roman ideas, but by the 18th century understanding of Roman ideas. Here’s a perfect example: George Washington’s favorite play was Joseph Addison’s Cato, published in 1713. Washington adapted words from that play in his famous speech quelling the Newburgh mutiny in 1783. Patrick Henry’s “give me liberty or give me death” was likewise a paraphrase of a speech from Addison’s play. Ditto Nathan Hale’s “I only regret I have but one life to give for my country.” So – influential, right?

And what was the message of that play? That the most precious thing in life is honor. And what is honor? It is the esteem of the wise and the good. Better to die in a way that earns the admiration of others than to live without that admiration. It is hard to imagine a more radical antipode to Ayn Rand’s formula, “I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Less elite Americans of the Founding generation were shaped less by Addison and the Latin classics than by religious traditions heavily tinged by Calvinism.

Why You Wouldn’t Find Any Libertarians in 1776

Jesus was no different than any other baby and needed as much care and long as any other human does in the early years.

How cultural norms, honor, respect, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil develop and manifest themselves in the social contract is a completely different subject that unalienable rights.

Unalienable rights are not the sum total of all that is worth doing, having, or protecting. But protecting unalienable rights was the sole purpose of the U.S. Constitution and, once such rights are acknowledged and secured, the people would then be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

I don't think she is ever going to get it, FF. I think for her it's about throwing stones and getting the last salvo. I totally agree with your perspective on the Foundation the Founders did try to set up, with the exception of Hamilton. Madison was the True Federalist, for Hamilton, Federalism was just a tool to set up the Oligarchy Empire that Puppets like Bfgrn are such a part of. Those that run the system get the best perks and are first on the list for the Life Boats and Life Preservers. We should feel honored just being in their presence. Seriously, on Hamilton, study up on the Pre Ratification Hamilton V.S. Post Ratification Hamilton. What he did as a part of the Washington and Adam's Administrations.

On Rand I have to question how an Atheist supported Unalienable Right's, Value for Value, Fair Measure, Balanced Scales, and Conscience. Admirable. She did have issues with Fidelity, or respecting commitment in Relationships, and I fault her there. Still, for a girl being born, growing up, and escaping Post Revolutionary Russia, I would think she had some deep scars. "We The Living" is a great read. Selfishness, from the perspective of gain at any cost, doing harm to others, is of course abomination. Selfishness from the perspective of My Conscience is my own, and out of bounds to anyone trying to force feed it or tamper with it, is Unalienable Right. The Ruin of Every Soul starts with Someone Else trying to take the reins, effecting how you do what you do, contrary to Conscience, it starts with the hijacking of Conscious Will. To do that, Self Value must first be thrown under the bus. Translation: 2+2=5 for as long as the Collective says it does.

Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
Edmund Burke

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke


First of all Intense, I will set you straight; I am a he, not a she. I supported a wife and family without any help from the government. And my wife was able to be a stay at home mother. My wife and I both believed raising our children was more important than any extra money she could have earned in the workplace.

Second, I continue to quote Edmund Burke, because his beliefs and ideas are classical liberal. Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals in the 19th century. Since the 20th century, he has generally been viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism, as well as a representative of classical liberalism.

What you and particularly FF are espousing is NOT classical liberalism or even conservatism. It is what many on the right have devolved into. There is an illness that FF keeps repeating that was the bedrock of the beliefs of Stalin and Hitler; social Darwinism.

The best definition of selfishness comes from Oscar Wilde: "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live"

You and FF have every right to live the way you wish to live. But a society that is just a bunch of self centered individuals is a dysfunctional society.

So you and FF can continue to embrace your beliefs, just don't try to pass them off as liberal or even conservative. They are based on a person who worshiped a serial killer. Stalin and Hitler would be SO proud of you and FF...

The person Ayn Rand describes as SUPERMAN, is a sociopath personality. A person who has no capacity to empathize or sympathize is Rand's IDEAL citizen.

Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer

There's something deeply unsettling about living in a country where millions of people froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don't have it, or who take pleasure at the thought of privatizing and slashing bedrock social programs like Social Security or Medicare. It might not be so hard to stomach if other Western countries also had a large, vocal chunk of the population that thought like this, but the U.S. is seemingly the only place where right-wing elites can openly share their distaste for the working poor. Where do they find their philosophical justification for this kind of attitude?

It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand, a popular cult-philosopher who exerts a huge influence over much of the right-wing and libertarian crowd, but whose influence is only starting to spread out of the U.S.

One reason most countries don't find the time to embrace Ayn Rand's thinking is that she is a textbook sociopath. In her notebooks Ayn Rand worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismember-er, and used this killer as an early model for the type of "ideal man" she promoted in her more famous books. These ideas were later picked up on and put into play by major right-wing figures of the past half decade, including the key architects of America's most recent economic catastrophe -- former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and SEC Commissioner Chris Cox -- along with other notable right-wing Republicans such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate "entitlement programs" increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru. Sales of her books have soared in the past couple of years; one poll ranked Atlas Shrugged as the second most influential book of the 20th century, after the Bible.

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

 

[Oddball]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

 

[Bfgrn]

Asswipe can't speak for himself, so he has to steal and warp the words of others to fit the situation.

Stealing the words of Christ, Burke and Rand to rationalize authoritarian central control.

You are not dumb, you are fucking evil.

It seems I revealed a truth here. Your reaction (including your neg rep) shows that I am RIGHT ON THE MONEY.

You right wingers are the modern day Pharisee who put mammon before human, fish and foul. You are the lowest life form on earth.

Luke 16:13-15

13 “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon (money).”

14 The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus.

15 He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of man, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valuable in the eyes of man is detestable in God’s sight.

 

[Intense]

Jesus was no different than any other baby and needed as much care and long as any other human does in the early years.

How cultural norms, honor, respect, concepts of right and wrong, good and evil develop and manifest themselves in the social contract is a completely different subject that unalienable rights.

Unalienable rights are not the sum total of all that is worth doing, having, or protecting. But protecting unalienable rights was the sole purpose of the U.S. Constitution and, once such rights are acknowledged and secured, the people would then be free to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

I don't think she is ever going to get it, FF. I think for her it's about throwing stones and getting the last salvo. I totally agree with your perspective on the Foundation the Founders did try to set up, with the exception of Hamilton. Madison was the True Federalist, for Hamilton, Federalism was just a tool to set up the Oligarchy Empire that Puppets like Bfgrn are such a part of. Those that run the system get the best perks and are first on the list for the Life Boats and Life Preservers. We should feel honored just being in their presence. Seriously, on Hamilton, study up on the Pre Ratification Hamilton V.S. Post Ratification Hamilton. What he did as a part of the Washington and Adam's Administrations.

On Rand I have to question how an Atheist supported Unalienable Right's, Value for Value, Fair Measure, Balanced Scales, and Conscience. Admirable. She did have issues with Fidelity, or respecting commitment in Relationships, and I fault her there. Still, for a girl being born, growing up, and escaping Post Revolutionary Russia, I would think she had some deep scars. "We The Living" is a great read. Selfishness, from the perspective of gain at any cost, doing harm to others, is of course abomination. Selfishness from the perspective of My Conscience is my own, and out of bounds to anyone trying to force feed it or tamper with it, is Unalienable Right. The Ruin of Every Soul starts with Someone Else trying to take the reins, effecting how you do what you do, contrary to Conscience, it starts with the hijacking of Conscious Will. To do that, Self Value must first be thrown under the bus. Translation: 2+2=5 for as long as the Collective says it does.

Among a people generally corrupt liberty cannot long exist.
Edmund Burke

If you can be well without health, you may be happy without virtue.
Edmund Burke

Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.
Edmund Burke

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke


First of all Intense, I will set you straight; I am a he, not a she. I supported a wife and family without any help from the government. And my wife was able to be a stay at home mother. My wife and I both believed raising our children was more important than any extra money she could have earned in the workplace.

Second, I continue to quote Edmund Burke, because his beliefs and ideas are classical liberal. Burke was praised by both conservatives and liberals in the 19th century. Since the 20th century, he has generally been viewed as the philosophical founder of modern Conservatism, as well as a representative of classical liberalism.

What you and particularly FF are espousing is NOT classical liberalism or even conservatism. It is what many on the right have devolved into. There is an illness that FF keeps repeating that was the bedrock of the beliefs of Stalin and Hitler; social Darwinism.

The best definition of selfishness comes from Oscar Wilde: "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live"

You and FF have every right to live the way you wish to live. But a society that is just a bunch of self centered individuals is a dysfunctional society.

So you and FF can continue to embrace your beliefs, just don't try to pass them off as liberal or even conservative. They are based on a person who worshiped a serial killer. Stalin and Hitler would be SO proud of you and FF...

The person Ayn Rand describes as SUPERMAN, is a sociopath personality. A person who has no capacity to empathize or sympathize is Rand's IDEAL citizen.

Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer

There's something deeply unsettling about living in a country where millions of people froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don't have it, or who take pleasure at the thought of privatizing and slashing bedrock social programs like Social Security or Medicare. It might not be so hard to stomach if other Western countries also had a large, vocal chunk of the population that thought like this, but the U.S. is seemingly the only place where right-wing elites can openly share their distaste for the working poor. Where do they find their philosophical justification for this kind of attitude?

It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand, a popular cult-philosopher who exerts a huge influence over much of the right-wing and libertarian crowd, but whose influence is only starting to spread out of the U.S.

One reason most countries don't find the time to embrace Ayn Rand's thinking is that she is a textbook sociopath. In her notebooks Ayn Rand worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismember-er, and used this killer as an early model for the type of "ideal man" she promoted in her more famous books. These ideas were later picked up on and put into play by major right-wing figures of the past half decade, including the key architects of America's most recent economic catastrophe -- former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and SEC Commissioner Chris Cox -- along with other notable right-wing Republicans such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate "entitlement programs" increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru. Sales of her books have soared in the past couple of years; one poll ranked Atlas Shrugged as the second most influential book of the 20th century, after the Bible.

The best way to get to the bottom of Ayn Rand's beliefs is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten with Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation -- Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street -- on him.

What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

Only Dictator's should know Liberty, Right, got it.

I cannot explain Rand's obsession with Hickman any more than I can explain Your's with Totalitarian Government. I do pray for you both though. If only you could transfer that devotion to God, that and take the blinders off.