Classic Liberalism V.S. Progressivism.

[Intense]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

The dangers you just stated gave rise to a huge bi-partisan movement in the early 20th century. It was called the progressive movement. Yet you try to portray social Darwinism, survival of the wealthy, as some moderate stance. It is not.

Progressive economics is primarily concerned with striking a proper balance between private and public action to ensure greater stability and equitable growth in the economy and better achieve national goals.

The contours of progressive economics emerged in the late 19th century as a pragmatic attempt to deal with the realities of frequent depressions, workplace dangers, low wages, assaults on labor rights, mass unemployment, environmental negligence, public health issues, and political corruption at all levels of government. As with the transformation of philosophy and constitutional theory during this period, the original progressives charted a new and more realistic path in economics that preserved a market-based society and private enterprise while strengthening democratic control over the economy and employing the positive power of the state to advance human welfare and national prosperity.

In contrast to a free-market approach of minimal state involvement in the economy and little to no social protections promoted by classical economists, and a state-controlled approach of extensive planning and public ownership of the major means of production favored by socialists, progressive economists embraced the concept of a “mixed economy”—essentially private economic freedom coupled with government regulation, social protections, and the main- tenance of public goods.

Progressives challenged the laissez-faire argument most associated with Adam Smith and David Ricardo that markets are self correcting, that wages must remain at subsistence level, and that the state should do very little to intervene in the natural rhythms of the economy or to address problems such as inequality, poor working conditions, or financial crises. At the same time, these progressives rejected a more radical collectivism that essentially replaced the problems of excessive private control with problems of excessive state control.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

Still, Everyone is Entitled to Their Own Unique Perspective. Try not pissing all over those that are not in agreement with yours.


You are imagining and projecting. Check your premise. No wait, reason does have no place in your accusation or argument. Never mind.


At least you admit to Government Corruption. So do I. The difference between us, is that I don't subscribe to giving the Government Total control over my life, as being the fix to Government corruption. Here is an idea, let's try Enumerated Powers, and Government by the consent of the Governed for a change, as opposed to people like you trying to impose your tainted views of up and down, on the rest of us. I get why you would be afraid of people making up their own minds, coming to their own conclusions, on matters of importance. There is no such thing as a Totalitarian Utopia on Earth. Get a grip, already.



Waste not, want not. So what virtue do you want to punish next? There is no control worthy without both defined purpose and limitation. Whatever you embrace with the fuel of other peoples money, without consent and due process, is theft. No matter how many co-conspirators you recruit. We are not arguing about justifiable, supported controls, based in reality, but those that breach the trust. You act like you can just decree with impunity, like you are above account. Both Nature and Man, see through the hypocrisy of your position.



Maybe in your dreams. You need a reality check. Again, playing with other peoples lives and money. Maybe, just maybe, providence is something you need to pray on. It is for Government to establish and maintain a fair playing field, not to determine the outcome of the game, or introduce rules arbitrarily without foundation. Progressives need to reestablish the Defense of Justice for each Individual, and stop with the collateral damage in the name of expediency and what is convenient, for you. No Structure is of more value , worth, or importance, than it's purpose for being, in the first place.

As a middle way between these economic alternatives, progressives built the modern administrative and social welfare state to help regulate the economy and provide Americans with greater economic security from unemployment, injury, old age, disability, and health problems that frequently left individuals and families desolate and poor. Progressives also championed the rise of labor unions and the not-for-profit sector as effective nongovernmental institutions that could help temper some of the excesses and problems rising from a capitalist economy.

Or Progressives, tampering with original intent, built a Welfare State Structure, putting it's own ranks, above the people, it claimed to serve, insuring that whatever befalls us, because of mismanagement, incompetence, and corruption, would be best insulated and the last to feel the bite. You had no Constitutional Authority or Consent to do that. Let me know when the realization sinks in.

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

SO typical of the right wing mind. Thank you for proving that the right uses ZERO human capital in their solutions. It is survival of the richest, social Darwinism. And the right wing Monica Lewinsky's for the opulent just continue to parrot the agenda of their handlers.

So the ONLY entity we need to fear is government. And, if mean old government would just get out of the way, polluters would stop polluting, Wall Street would stop swindling and we can restore the proper order in this world; the beloved and virtuous elite and the lowly and lazy surfs.

THAT is what America WAS. IT was called the Gilded Era. The BI-partisan progressive movement confronted and changed America from an oligarchy to a democracy. We certainly can't have any of that shit in opulent America.

THIS is who and what you are... accept it, embrace it. Just don't expect someone like me who does not worship the opulent to get down on my knees.

Could you be more full of shit??? Nah.... Good try though, keep trying to inject your warped view into the conversation. You are so sure of what you think I represent. It is funny. Still, there you go championing Totalitarian control. Who knew. Who do you think was behind this bullshit from the start? Idiot.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just to clarify what Classical Liberalism is (emphasis mine):

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes. . . . .

What Is Classical Liberalism? | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

 

[Intense]

Just to clarify what Classical Liberalism is (emphasis mine):

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes. . . . .

What Is Classical Liberalism? | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

 

[Bfgrn]

Just to clarify what Classical Liberalism is (emphasis mine):

Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.

Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.

People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.

On the left of the political spectrum, things are more complicated. The major difference between 19th century liberals and 20th century liberals is that the former believed in economic liberties and the latter did not. Twentieth century liberals believed that it is not a violation of any fundamental right for government to regulate where people work, when they work, the wages they work for, what they can buy, what they can sell, the price they can sell it for, etc. In the economic sphere, then, almost anything goes. . . . .

What Is Classical Liberalism? | Publications | National Center for Policy Analysis | NCPA

LOL...thank you for providing the world according to your handlers. The TRUTH; our founding fathers would have SHUT DOWN your handlers for causing death and harm to We, the People. (emphasis mine)

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

SO typical of the right wing mind. Thank you for proving that the right uses ZERO human capital in their solutions. It is survival of the richest, social Darwinism. And the right wing Monica Lewinsky's for the opulent just continue to parrot the agenda of their handlers.

So the ONLY entity we need to fear is government. And, if mean old government would just get out of the way, polluters would stop polluting, Wall Street would stop swindling and we can restore the proper order in this world; the beloved and virtuous elite and the lowly and lazy surfs.

THAT is what America WAS. IT was called the Gilded Era. The BI-partisan progressive movement confronted and changed America from an oligarchy to a democracy. We certainly can't have any of that shit in opulent America.

THIS is who and what you are... accept it, embrace it. Just don't expect someone like me who does not worship the opulent to get down on my knees.

MEET your handlers, the aristocracy/oligarchy your WORSHIP Monica:

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a free market think tank primarily funded by private foundations established by wealthy conservative business families and billionaires, including Charles and David Koch. It is a "communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems ... [and] prides itself on aggressively marketing its products for maximum impact by 'targeting key political leaders and special interest groups, establishing on-going ties with members of the print and electronic media, and testifying before Congress, federal agencies, state lawmakers, and national organizations.'" -- NCRP, The Strategic Philanthropy of Conservative Foundations It develops and promotes private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, and encourages reliance on the private sector.

Funding

In 2009, the NCPA had almost $5.2 million in assets and took in about $4.2 million in revenue.

The Armstrong Foundation, $455,000
Carthage Foundation $525,000
Castle Rock Foundation $160,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $7,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust $230,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $380,000
David H. Koch Charitable Foundation $260,000
Dick and Betsy Devos Foundation $4,500
Earhart Foundation $100,000
Exxon Mobil $520,000
Gilder Foundation $265,000
Gordon and Mary Cain Foundation $1,000,000
Hickory Foundation $584,350
JM Foundation $135,000
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $150,000
John M. Olin Foundation $1,069,000
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $1,807,500
Philip M. McKenna Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $12,500
Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation $52,000
Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation $80,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $1,935,000
Scaife Family Foundation $100,000
Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation $20,000
Walton Family Foundation$25,000
William H. Donner Foundation $225,000

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

 

[Intense]

By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism
Very few Americans realize there exists a large network of far left philanthropists and foundations in America dedicated to destroying the American way of life, our Christian-based culture and our free enterprise system. They seek to remove America from its constitutional foundations and move it toward a European-style socialism. Much of this effort is coordinated by a little known group called the Tides Foundation and its related group, the Tides Center.

Over the course of its 33 year history, the Tides network has given hundreds of millions of dollars to anti-free enterprise groups, gun control groups, anti-private property groups, abortion rights groups, homosexual groups, groups engaged in voter fraud, anti-military groups, and organizations that seek to destroy America’s constitutional basis. All told, over 100 leftist organizations have received funding from one of the two Tides groups.
Not surprisingly, this network of anti-American groups played a key role in electing Barack Obama by using classic propaganda techniques in making false allegations about Bush (he lied regarding WMDs, he stole the election in Florida, he knew in advance about 9/11, etc, etc.) and created the impression that Bush and by extension, the GOP, was corrupt. Obama, of course, was portrayed as the reformer who would save America from this corruption.
Millions of Americans fell for this mythology and so without being openly partisan, this vast network of far left groups, along with its media allies, was able to manipulate American public opinion during the last election cycle. Meanwhile, anyone who tried to reveal Obama’s real agenda, his role in the corrupt Chicago political machine, his socialist political associations, or his soft spot for Middle Eastern terrorists was labeled a kook by this same network.
The amount of funding the Tides Foundation and Tides Center provides the hard left is unprecedented. Indeed, its financial disclosures show that the Tides Center has raised between $48 and $71 million each year since 1998 and the bulk of this revenue is contributed back to far left groups. The closely-aligned Tides Foundation has reported revenues of between $59 and $77 million every year since 2002. The two tax exempt groups are supposed to be non-partisan, but they are certainly extremely political and they push the envelope regarding what non-profit groups are allowed to do politically. All together, both Tides groups have contributed over $500 million to the organized left.

Who Funds the Radical Left In America?

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL, BFGN really thinks another long cut and paste from Sourcewatch hit piece is a valid rebuttal to a definition of NCPA's definition of Classical Liberalism? And he accuses ME of having handlers?????

Just to set the record straight, Sourcewatch is a leftwing hate site dedicated to destroying conservative institutions. NCPA is dedicated to destroying nothing but it IS dedicated to promoting Classical Liberal ideals and concepts.

From their website:

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

We bring together the best and brightest minds to tackle the country's most difficult public policy problems — in health care, taxes, retirement, small business, and the environment. In doing so, we propose reforms that liberate consumers, workers, entrepreneurs and the power of the marketplace.

However if Bfgn objects to using NCPA's very condensed and spot on definition for Classical Liberalism, we can go with Wiki's (that I have adapted to the definition I use myself):

Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke[4], Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law[5], utilitarianism[6], and progress.[7]

There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[8] Some call the modern development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism," which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[9]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[10]

Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase "neo-classical liberalism", leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[11] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[12][13][14]
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Koeller (Then again) definition. (I have a quarrel with him on his interpretation of a couple of fine points here, but he has the basics down:

Def: A political belief in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the state. In its economic form, it advocates a respect for private property and free markets.
As a political belief, its origins can be traced back to both the Ancient Greeks and Ancient Hebrews.
But in its modern form, it begins on the one hand with the urban culture of Italy and the Northern European city-states and on the other with the Reformation, particularly with those dissenting sects which found themselves in opposition to the government.
It is given shape during the Puritan Revolution in England, especially among the Diggers and Levelers.
The first to give the modern view philosophical expression was John Locke, who wrote during the Glorious Revolution in England.
Classical Liberalism was the ideology of the moderate, constitutional monarch phase of the French Revolution, which promoted limited government and was based on principles of natural law.
Classical Liberalism should not be confused with democracy. One can be a liberal and yet be opposed to democracy.
Classical Liberalism should also not be confused with modern, American liberalism, which is a mild variation of socialism.
Classical Liberalism

From WordIQ:

Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights.
Classical liberalism - Definition | WordIQ.com

And an excellent discussion at CATO:

During the nineteenth century the principles of individual liberty, constitutionally limited government, peace, and reliance on the institutions of civil society and the free market for social order and economic prosperity were fused together into a powerful synthesis, known as liberalism. Although the term "liberalism" retains its original meaning in most of the world, it has unfortunately come to have a very different meaning in late twentieth-century America. Hence terms such as "market liberalism," "classical liberalism," or "libertarianism" are often used in its place in America. This module shows how liberalism developed in Europe and America in the nineteenth century. In addition to examining the important debates, such as those between utilitarians and natural rights advocates and between supporters and opponents of state involvement in education, this module traces the rise and the ultimate collapse of liberalism. By the end of the nineteenth century, liberalism had all but died as an intellectual and political movement. It was replaced by various forms of collectivism, such as socialism, fascism, racism, nationalism, imperialism, and corporatism. (The revival and reformulation of liberalism after World War II are covered in the next two modules.) .. . .
Cato University: Module 10

Both NCPA and CATO are devoted to Classical Liberalism concepts, analysis of socioeconomics as evaluated through the prism of Classical Liberal concepts, and proposal of policy based on such concepts.

And I still like NCPA's deifnition as a very clear, concise, and spot on definition of Classical Liberalism.

 

[Bfgrn]

By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism
Very few Americans realize there exists a large network of far left philanthropists and foundations in America dedicated to destroying the American way of life, our Christian-based culture and our free enterprise system. They seek to remove America from its constitutional foundations and move it toward a European-style socialism. Much of this effort is coordinated by a little known group called the Tides Foundation and its related group, the Tides Center.

Over the course of its 33 year history, the Tides network has given hundreds of millions of dollars to anti-free enterprise groups, gun control groups, anti-private property groups, abortion rights groups, homosexual groups, groups engaged in voter fraud, anti-military groups, and organizations that seek to destroy America’s constitutional basis. All told, over 100 leftist organizations have received funding from one of the two Tides groups.
Not surprisingly, this network of anti-American groups played a key role in electing Barack Obama by using classic propaganda techniques in making false allegations about Bush (he lied regarding WMDs, he stole the election in Florida, he knew in advance about 9/11, etc, etc.) and created the impression that Bush and by extension, the GOP, was corrupt. Obama, of course, was portrayed as the reformer who would save America from this corruption.
Millions of Americans fell for this mythology and so without being openly partisan, this vast network of far left groups, along with its media allies, was able to manipulate American public opinion during the last election cycle. Meanwhile, anyone who tried to reveal Obama’s real agenda, his role in the corrupt Chicago political machine, his socialist political associations, or his soft spot for Middle Eastern terrorists was labeled a kook by this same network.
The amount of funding the Tides Foundation and Tides Center provides the hard left is unprecedented. Indeed, its financial disclosures show that the Tides Center has raised between $48 and $71 million each year since 1998 and the bulk of this revenue is contributed back to far left groups. The closely-aligned Tides Foundation has reported revenues of between $59 and $77 million every year since 2002. The two tax exempt groups are supposed to be non-partisan, but they are certainly extremely political and they push the envelope regarding what non-profit groups are allowed to do politically. All together, both Tides groups have contributed over $500 million to the organized left.

Who Funds the Radical Left In America?

OMG, your handlers have media outlets too...

But let's break down some of the things YOU are defending ...OK?

Can you imagine a group of people being anti-war? WTF is wrong with these liberals? Don't they know war is a noble patriotic enterprise where men, women and children who look different than we do are incinerated and maimed? War is the epitome of BIG government and BIG industry swapping spit. Ask Ike.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

And who the fuck is this Reagan character?

People do not make wars; governments do.
Ronald Reagan

And WTF is wrong with these whack-o liberals who believe a woman's uterus is her own? Everyone knows the STATE owns a woman's uterus!

And then these gay people who believe they should have the individual right to choose who they fall in love with. That is the providence of the STATE!

Which brings us to a much BIGGER picture. BIG government. When Bush, Cheney and Republicans were GROWING government, starting 3 trillion dollar UN-funded wars, raising the debt ceiling 7 times in 8 years, putting the American people under surveillance and suspending the constitutionally bestowed right of writs of habeas corpus, YOU right wing 'less government' folks were SILENT!

I take that back, because I was on numerous message boards when bush and the Republicans were in charge. YOU right wing 'less government' types were DEFENDING government...BIG government.

A people free to choose will always choose peace.
Ronald Reagan

 

[Bfgrn]

LOL, BFGN really thinks another long cut and paste from Sourcewatch hit piece is a valid rebuttal to a definition of NCPA's definition of Classical Liberalism? And he accuses ME of having handlers?????

Just to set the record straight, Sourcewatch is a leftwing hate site dedicated to destroying conservative institutions. NCPA is dedicated to destroying nothing but it IS dedicated to promoting Classical Liberal ideals and concepts.

From their website:

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, established in 1983. Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.

We bring together the best and brightest minds to tackle the country's most difficult public policy problems — in health care, taxes, retirement, small business, and the environment. In doing so, we propose reforms that liberate consumers, workers, entrepreneurs and the power of the marketplace.

However if Bfgn objects to using NCPA's very condensed and spot on definition for Classical Liberalism, we can go with Wiki's (that I have adapted to the definition I use myself):

Classical liberalism is the philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.[1][2]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke[4], Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law[5], utilitarianism[6], and progress.[7]

There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[8] Some call the modern development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism," which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[9]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[10]

Libertarianism has been used in modern times as a substitute for the phrase "neo-classical liberalism", leading to some confusion. The identification of libertarianism with neo-classical liberalism primarily occurs in the United States,[11] where some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.[12][13][14]
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Koeller (Then again) definition. (I have a quarrel with him on his interpretation of a couple of fine points here, but he has the basics down:



From WordIQ:

Classical liberalism is a political and economic philosophy, originally founded on the Enlightenment tradition, that tries to circumscribe the limits of political power and to define and support individual rights.
Classical liberalism - Definition | WordIQ.com

And an excellent discussion at CATO:

During the nineteenth century the principles of individual liberty, constitutionally limited government, peace, and reliance on the institutions of civil society and the free market for social order and economic prosperity were fused together into a powerful synthesis, known as liberalism. Although the term "liberalism" retains its original meaning in most of the world, it has unfortunately come to have a very different meaning in late twentieth-century America. Hence terms such as "market liberalism," "classical liberalism," or "libertarianism" are often used in its place in America. This module shows how liberalism developed in Europe and America in the nineteenth century. In addition to examining the important debates, such as those between utilitarians and natural rights advocates and between supporters and opponents of state involvement in education, this module traces the rise and the ultimate collapse of liberalism. By the end of the nineteenth century, liberalism had all but died as an intellectual and political movement. It was replaced by various forms of collectivism, such as socialism, fascism, racism, nationalism, imperialism, and corporatism. (The revival and reformulation of liberalism after World War II are covered in the next two modules.) .. . .
Cato University: Module 10

Both NCPA and CATO are devoted to Classical Liberalism concepts, analysis of socioeconomics as evaluated through the prism of Classical Liberal concepts, and proposal of policy based on such concepts.

And I still like NCPA's deifnition as a very clear, concise, and spot on definition of Classical Liberalism.

I know two things:

1) I know what classical liberalism is.

2) YOU and the rest of the right wing conservatives are NOT liberals, in any way, shape or form.


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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives are in essence authoritarian, they demand conformity, despise diversity.

The evidence of this is clear and abundant:

Authoritarian Conservatism

No one familiar with the findings of social scientists who study authoritarianism relating to the social-dominating leaders was surprised when they became the leaders in control of the Republican Party, nor when they demanded strict adherence to their conservative political, religious and economic worldview. Nor was there any surprise among social scientists when the right-wing authoritarian followers went along with their leaders, not to mention aggressively pushing the message and turning against those who were not believers.

As one sifts through the conservative philosophy of the religious right and of the neo-conservatives, the Maistrean philosophy is conspicuously present. Unlike traditional conservatives who embrace varying degrees of libertarianism - drawn from the core beliefs of classic Nineteenth Century liberalism - the authoritarian conservative wants an all-powerful chief executive who runs a mighty military that implements his will.

Authoritarian conservatism was growing in force in Washington for a decade before Bush and Cheney arrived at the White House, but their administration has taken it to its highest and most dangerous level in American history. It is doubtful they could have accomplished this, had authoritarian conservatism not already taken hold in Congress and the federal judiciary.

The GOP's Authoritarian Reconception of the Presidency

Nixon was an authoritarian president. So was Reagan. Indeed, it was during the Reagan years that conservatives made a complete change in their thinking about the American presidency. This change -- not coincidentally, I believe -- occurred as authoritarian conservatives began to dominate the GOP.

The authoritarian conservative philosophy was fully articulated by Terry Eastland, a former Reagan Justice Department Director of Public Affairs, in his 1992 book Energy in the Executive: The Case for the Strong Presidency. This is a book that was studied closely by then-Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney, and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush and his staff, long before they arrived in Washington in 2001.

"Reagan demonstrated that the strong presidency is necessary to effect ends sought by most conservatives," Eastland wrote. For conservatives, Eastland's book made clear, a strong president is one who wears his commander-in-chief uniform every day, and tells Americans how they should think and act, rather than one who responds to the wishes of the voters. It is a Father-Knows-Best presidency, one that considers Americans to be children who do not know what is best for themselves.

Nixon created the "imperial presidency." After the public rejected that concentration of power, in the aftermath of Watergate, Reagan restored the imperial presidency in another guise. Now, Bush and Cheney have created the post-imperial presidency. Using the threat of terrorism as their justification, Bush and Cheney have embraced the so-called "unitary executive theory" - which, in truth, is merely another term for an authoritarian presidency.

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party Authoritarians Have Taken Control

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservatives are in essence authoritarian, they demand conformity, despise diversity.

The evidence of this is clear and abundant:

Authoritarian Conservatism

No one familiar with the findings of social scientists who study authoritarianism relating to the social-dominating leaders was surprised when they became the leaders in control of the Republican Party, nor when they demanded strict adherence to their conservative political, religious and economic worldview. Nor was there any surprise among social scientists when the right-wing authoritarian followers went along with their leaders, not to mention aggressively pushing the message and turning against those who were not believers.

As one sifts through the conservative philosophy of the religious right and of the neo-conservatives, the Maistrean philosophy is conspicuously present. Unlike traditional conservatives who embrace varying degrees of libertarianism - drawn from the core beliefs of classic Nineteenth Century liberalism - the authoritarian conservative wants an all-powerful chief executive who runs a mighty military that implements his will.

Authoritarian conservatism was growing in force in Washington for a decade before Bush and Cheney arrived at the White House, but their administration has taken it to its highest and most dangerous level in American history. It is doubtful they could have accomplished this, had authoritarian conservatism not already taken hold in Congress and the federal judiciary.

The GOP's Authoritarian Reconception of the Presidency

Nixon was an authoritarian president. So was Reagan. Indeed, it was during the Reagan years that conservatives made a complete change in their thinking about the American presidency. This change -- not coincidentally, I believe -- occurred as authoritarian conservatives began to dominate the GOP.

The authoritarian conservative philosophy was fully articulated by Terry Eastland, a former Reagan Justice Department Director of Public Affairs, in his 1992 book Energy in the Executive: The Case for the Strong Presidency. This is a book that was studied closely by then-Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney, and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush and his staff, long before they arrived in Washington in 2001.

"Reagan demonstrated that the strong presidency is necessary to effect ends sought by most conservatives," Eastland wrote. For conservatives, Eastland's book made clear, a strong president is one who wears his commander-in-chief uniform every day, and tells Americans how they should think and act, rather than one who responds to the wishes of the voters. It is a Father-Knows-Best presidency, one that considers Americans to be children who do not know what is best for themselves.

Nixon created the "imperial presidency." After the public rejected that concentration of power, in the aftermath of Watergate, Reagan restored the imperial presidency in another guise. Now, Bush and Cheney have created the post-imperial presidency. Using the threat of terrorism as their justification, Bush and Cheney have embraced the so-called "unitary executive theory" - which, in truth, is merely another term for an authoritarian presidency.

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party Authoritarians Have Taken Control

My turn?

1. For most, religion provides that meaning. But the fulcrum of history, the Enlightenment, and, subsequently, the French Revolution, weakened the influence of religion in Europe.

2. The collapse of Christianity in Europe opened the door for Leftism, Liberalism, fascism, Nazism, and, ultimately, socialism, feminism, environmentalism, and the permutations of egalitarianism. Instructive, that so many versions were needed to fill the hole left by the decline of Christianity.

3. The religion of Leftism has its search for Utopia…albeit of this sphere…and two famous statements encapsulate the search:

a. There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not ?Attributed to Robert Kennedy.

b. The other is from the words of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” One is asked to imagine that there is no heaven or hell, that everyone lives for today; that there are no countries, nothing to kill for, and no religion; there are no possessions- therefore no greed nor hunger.

4. Conservatives don’t dream of things that never were nearly so much as Liberals do. We usually dream the same dream that our forefathers did: an America that is identified by the “American Trinity” of “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum.” And, judging by history, we have seen that ‘utopian dreams’ are more likely to end up as nightmares.
Prager, "Still The Best Hope"

 

[Intense]

By Steve Baldwin, Exclusive to Western Center for Journalism
Very few Americans realize there exists a large network of far left philanthropists and foundations in America dedicated to destroying the American way of life, our Christian-based culture and our free enterprise system. They seek to remove America from its constitutional foundations and move it toward a European-style socialism. Much of this effort is coordinated by a little known group called the Tides Foundation and its related group, the Tides Center.

Over the course of its 33 year history, the Tides network has given hundreds of millions of dollars to anti-free enterprise groups, gun control groups, anti-private property groups, abortion rights groups, homosexual groups, groups engaged in voter fraud, anti-military groups, and organizations that seek to destroy America’s constitutional basis. All told, over 100 leftist organizations have received funding from one of the two Tides groups.
Not surprisingly, this network of anti-American groups played a key role in electing Barack Obama by using classic propaganda techniques in making false allegations about Bush (he lied regarding WMDs, he stole the election in Florida, he knew in advance about 9/11, etc, etc.) and created the impression that Bush and by extension, the GOP, was corrupt. Obama, of course, was portrayed as the reformer who would save America from this corruption.
Millions of Americans fell for this mythology and so without being openly partisan, this vast network of far left groups, along with its media allies, was able to manipulate American public opinion during the last election cycle. Meanwhile, anyone who tried to reveal Obama’s real agenda, his role in the corrupt Chicago political machine, his socialist political associations, or his soft spot for Middle Eastern terrorists was labeled a kook by this same network.
The amount of funding the Tides Foundation and Tides Center provides the hard left is unprecedented. Indeed, its financial disclosures show that the Tides Center has raised between $48 and $71 million each year since 1998 and the bulk of this revenue is contributed back to far left groups. The closely-aligned Tides Foundation has reported revenues of between $59 and $77 million every year since 2002. The two tax exempt groups are supposed to be non-partisan, but they are certainly extremely political and they push the envelope regarding what non-profit groups are allowed to do politically. All together, both Tides groups have contributed over $500 million to the organized left.

Who Funds the Radical Left In America?

OMG, your handlers have media outlets too...

But let's break down some of the things YOU are defending ...OK?

Can you imagine a group of people being anti-war? WTF is wrong with these liberals? Don't they know war is a noble patriotic enterprise where men, women and children who look different than we do are incinerated and maimed? War is the epitome of BIG government and BIG industry swapping spit. Ask Ike.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower

And who the fuck is this Reagan character?

People do not make wars; governments do.
Ronald Reagan

And WTF is wrong with these whack-o liberals who believe a woman's uterus is her own? Everyone knows the STATE owns a woman's uterus!

And then these gay people who believe they should have the individual right to choose who they fall in love with. That is the providence of the STATE!

Which brings us to a much BIGGER picture. BIG government. When Bush, Cheney and Republicans were GROWING government, starting 3 trillion dollar UN-funded wars, raising the debt ceiling 7 times in 8 years, putting the American people under surveillance and suspending the constitutionally bestowed right of writs of habeas corpus, YOU right wing 'less government' folks were SILENT!

I take that back, because I was on numerous message boards when bush and the Republicans were in charge. YOU right wing 'less government' types were DEFENDING government...BIG government.

A people free to choose will always choose peace.
Ronald Reagan

You shouldn't drink and post. Some people can handle Alcohol, you can't. Our Secret.

For the Record, I'm kind of a walk softly and carry a big stick, Guy. War should be the last option when all else fails. You keep swinging at pitches that are not even there. You are no better on any of my other positions. Translation: Ass Hat. If it were not for you trying to force your controls over other peoples lives, you would have nothing to say at all.For the Record, my Position on Abortion is Anti, through Persuasion, not Force, not Legislation. There is nothing to celebrate in the loss of any life. You still, however, remain the Ass Hat that you were born. Maybe, one day, you will try a different tack.

 

[Intense]

Conservatives are in essence authoritarian, they demand conformity, despise diversity.

The evidence of this is clear and abundant:

Authoritarian Conservatism

No one familiar with the findings of social scientists who study authoritarianism relating to the social-dominating leaders was surprised when they became the leaders in control of the Republican Party, nor when they demanded strict adherence to their conservative political, religious and economic worldview. Nor was there any surprise among social scientists when the right-wing authoritarian followers went along with their leaders, not to mention aggressively pushing the message and turning against those who were not believers.

As one sifts through the conservative philosophy of the religious right and of the neo-conservatives, the Maistrean philosophy is conspicuously present. Unlike traditional conservatives who embrace varying degrees of libertarianism - drawn from the core beliefs of classic Nineteenth Century liberalism - the authoritarian conservative wants an all-powerful chief executive who runs a mighty military that implements his will.

Authoritarian conservatism was growing in force in Washington for a decade before Bush and Cheney arrived at the White House, but their administration has taken it to its highest and most dangerous level in American history. It is doubtful they could have accomplished this, had authoritarian conservatism not already taken hold in Congress and the federal judiciary.

The GOP's Authoritarian Reconception of the Presidency

Nixon was an authoritarian president. So was Reagan. Indeed, it was during the Reagan years that conservatives made a complete change in their thinking about the American presidency. This change -- not coincidentally, I believe -- occurred as authoritarian conservatives began to dominate the GOP.

The authoritarian conservative philosophy was fully articulated by Terry Eastland, a former Reagan Justice Department Director of Public Affairs, in his 1992 book Energy in the Executive: The Case for the Strong Presidency. This is a book that was studied closely by then-Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney, and then-Texas Governor George W. Bush and his staff, long before they arrived in Washington in 2001.

"Reagan demonstrated that the strong presidency is necessary to effect ends sought by most conservatives," Eastland wrote. For conservatives, Eastland's book made clear, a strong president is one who wears his commander-in-chief uniform every day, and tells Americans how they should think and act, rather than one who responds to the wishes of the voters. It is a Father-Knows-Best presidency, one that considers Americans to be children who do not know what is best for themselves.

Nixon created the "imperial presidency." After the public rejected that concentration of power, in the aftermath of Watergate, Reagan restored the imperial presidency in another guise. Now, Bush and Cheney have created the post-imperial presidency. Using the threat of terrorism as their justification, Bush and Cheney have embraced the so-called "unitary executive theory" - which, in truth, is merely another term for an authoritarian presidency.

FindLaw's Writ - Dean: Understanding the Contemporary Republican Party Authoritarians Have Taken Control

You are so deep into the Totalitarian Ranks, you just don't see yourself for what you are caught up in. One day, after you speak without sanction, the realization is going to hit you like a ton of bricks, landing on your pea sized brain.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bfgrn and C_Clayton_Jones probably both do have some sort of education and both probably at one time were able to think independently. Maybe they still can, but neither have demonstrated such capacity in this thread.

One of the most telling traits of modern American leftism is the inability to explore and consider a concept separate from their apparent need to trash or demonize something or somebody in a partisan manner. Rather than consider whether the definitions of 'conservative' and 'liberal' have changed, at least here in America, between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries, they continue to demand that nothing but their own or strict dictionary definitions apply. And rather than consider the concept, they continue to try to steer the discussion to anything other than the definitions themselves.

I really think there is something in the water or some other insidious influence that makes modern day leftists/liberals/progressives unable to think of any possibility other than that with which they have been brainwashed. They simply cannot allow themselves to consider the true definition of Classical Liberalism because then the whole house of cards on which they base their philosophy comes crashing down.

 

[Intense]

Letter: 'Occupy' example of Obama's America

Staff Reports

Monday, October 17, 2011

Jack A. Furnari, Knoxville

The current Occupy Wall Street movement is the best illustration to date of what President Barack Obama's America looks like. It is an America where the lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent rule. It is an America where those who have sacrificed nothing pillage and destroy the lives of those who have sacrificed greatly. It is an America where history is rewritten to honor dictators, murderers and thieves. It is an America where violence, racism, hatred, class warfare and murder are all promoted as acceptable means of overturning the American civil society.

It is an America where humans have been degraded to the level of animals: defecating in public, having sex in public, devoid of basic hygiene. It is an America where the basic tenets of a civil society, including faith, family, a free press and individual rights, have been rejected. It is an America where our founding documents have been shredded and, with them, every person's guaranteed liberties.

It is an America where, ultimately, great suffering will come to the American people, but the rulers like Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, liberal college professors, union bosses and other loyal liberal/Communist Party members will live in opulent splendor. It is the America that Obama and the Democratic Party have created with the willing assistance of the American media, Hollywood, unions, universities, the Communist Party of America, the Black Panthers and numerous anti-American foreign entities.

Obama has brought more destruction upon this country in four years than any other event in the history of our nation, but it is just the beginning of what he and his comrades are capable of. The Occupy Wall Street movement is just another step in their plan for the annihilation of America.

Letter: 'Occupy' example of Obama's America : Knoxville News Sentinel