Classical liberalism...Is it what you think it is?

edjax1952

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
266
Reaction score
38
Points
16
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."[21] For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.[22] Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[17] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law".[23] Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights.[24]
In the United States, liberalism took a strong root because it had little opposition to its ideals, whereas in Europe liberalism was opposed by many reactionary interests. In a nation of farmers, especially farmers whose workers were slaves, little attention was paid to the economic aspects of liberalism. But, as America grew, industry became a larger and larger part of American life; and, during the term of America's first populist president, Andrew Jackson, economic questions came to the forefront. The economic ideas of the Jacksonian era were almost universally the ideas of classical liberalism. Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold. The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief. In the words of William Jennings Bryan, "You shall not crucify the American farmer on a cross of gold." Despite the common recurrence of depressions, classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.[34] The Great Depression saw a sea change in liberalism, leading to the development of modern liberalism. In the words of Arthur Schlesinger Jr.:
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[35]

 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
A conservative term to get a buy in on the American Revolution.

They still feel bad the conservatives of the time where dead set against it.
 

Liberty

Silver Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
4,058
Reaction score
549
Points
98
Location
colorado
Swallow...Locke was around way before America. idiot.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Swallow...Locke was around way before America. idiot.
And you popped out of the womb, gay.

What the fuck are you such a quifter, boy? Or maybe I am wrong..and you are little girl.

:eusa_whistle:
 
OP
E

edjax1952

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
266
Reaction score
38
Points
16
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[35]
When the depression came around, the liberals of today day 'seized the moment' to redefine the purpose of government:
"and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security"

They refused to release the powerful hold they had on government after prosperity returned so that they could continue to "supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security". Now we have a welfare state in place that cannot financially sustain itself. Now we have government so closely bound to businiss that they "buy out" corporations when they flounder (GM). The madness is that the government insists that it is proper in driving the economy to its current state and insists on its citizens participation to the point of their own financial doom.

The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".
 

onecut39

VIP Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
1,525
Reaction score
141
Points
83
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
 

Moonglow

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2011
Messages
148,083
Reaction score
16,484
Points
2,220
Location
sw mizzouri
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[35]
When the depression came around, the liberals of today day 'seized the moment' to redefine the purpose of government:
"and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security"

They refused to release the powerful hold they had on government after prosperity returned so that they could continue to "supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security". Now we have a welfare state in place that cannot financially sustain itself. Now we have government so closely bound to businiss that they "buy out" corporations when they flounder (GM). The madness is that the government insists that it is proper in driving the economy to its current state and insists on its citizens participation to the point of their own financial doom.

The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".
The US government owns no shares in GM
 
OP
E

edjax1952

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
266
Reaction score
38
Points
16
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[35]
When the depression came around, the liberals of today day 'seized the moment' to redefine the purpose of government:
"and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security"

They refused to release the powerful hold they had on government after prosperity returned so that they could continue to "supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security". Now we have a welfare state in place that cannot financially sustain itself. Now we have government so closely bound to businiss that they "buy out" corporations when they flounder (GM). The madness is that the government insists that it is proper in driving the economy to its current state and insists on its citizens participation to the point of their own financial doom.

The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".
In the current welfare state government refuses to release the powerful hold they had on government after prosperity returned so that they could continue to "....supervise standards of life and labor...."

This supervision is currently requiring citizens to pay up to 40-45% of their wages in taxes. That means that for the year, 5 to 5.5 months of their efforts are due and payable to to the government so that they can supervise 'those less fortunate' than them and protect large businesses from failure. That is almost 1/2 of the return of their efforts turned over to government use. Now it is being considered to raise the amount of taxation.

When this happens they are not protecting the right to property or the 'persuit of happiness'; they are abusing the priveledge of taxation and they are telling the citizens that nearly 1/2 of their efforts are not for their own use but for the 'good of the downtrodden'. This is not protection of our rights this is abuse of governmental privilege.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,249
Reaction score
35,700
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
A conservative term to get a buy in on the American Revolution.

They still feel bad the conservatives of the time where dead set against it.
Now, now....

You've been schooled on this so many times, but retreat to this bogus default positon.

Conservatives are the classical liberals.

Progressive John Dewey, when he saw the disrepute with which progressives were held, had them co-opt the name 'liberals.'

1. Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.The history of European liberalism (1959), Guido De Ruggiero, pp. 155–157

2. In 1883, Lester Frank Ward published the two-volume Dynamic Sociology and formalized the basic tenets of social liberalism while at the same time attacking the laissez-faire policies advocated by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. The historian Henry Steele Commager ranked Ward alongside William James, John Dewey, and Oliver Wendell Holmes and called him the father of the modern welfare state.
. Writing from 1884 until the 1930s, John Dewey—an educator influenced by Hobhouse, Green, and Ward—advocated socialist methods to achieve liberal goals. Some social liberal ideas were later incorporated into the New Deal.
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, be good and stop fibbing.
 

konradv

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
28,514
Reaction score
4,553
Points
280
Location
Baltimore
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
"Natural rights" are a nice rhetorical flourish, but without government they're nothing but a pipe dream. As I've said before,in the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only "right" is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you a few scraps.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
A conservative term to get a buy in on the American Revolution.

They still feel bad the conservatives of the time where dead set against it.
Now, now....

You've been schooled on this so many times, but retreat to this bogus default positon.

Conservatives are the classical liberals.

Progressive John Dewey, when he saw the disrepute with which progressives were held, had them co-opt the name 'liberals.'

1. Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.The history of European liberalism (1959), Guido De Ruggiero, pp. 155–157

2. In 1883, Lester Frank Ward published the two-volume Dynamic Sociology and formalized the basic tenets of social liberalism while at the same time attacking the laissez-faire policies advocated by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. The historian Henry Steele Commager ranked Ward alongside William James, John Dewey, and Oliver Wendell Holmes and called him the father of the modern welfare state.
. Writing from 1884 until the 1930s, John Dewey—an educator influenced by Hobhouse, Green, and Ward—advocated socialist methods to achieve liberal goals. Some social liberal ideas were later incorporated into the New Deal.
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, be good and stop fibbing.
Modern conservatives are certainly the closest to Classical Liberals in the US. The only reason I don't describe myself as a Classical Liberal is the moronic progressives can't deal with that.... :lol:
 

Liberty

Silver Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Messages
4,058
Reaction score
549
Points
98
Location
colorado
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
"Natural rights" are a nice rhetorical flourish, but without government they're nothing but a pipe dream. As I've said before,in the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only "right" is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you a few scraps.
you miss the whole point of natural rights, its a concept that philosophically PROVES that a person can not LEGITIMATELY remove OR give rights to another. This concept PROVES that government is an entity APPROVED and GOVERNED by the masses to ensure protection and security...NOT an entity that has any more rights than the lowest class.

Equal protection under law is an natural rights concept...sure it has been perverted in many cases but the concept is true...the key word is LEGITIMATE...you can not have a LEGITIMATE government unless the people approve of it! Natural rights secures rights for people, while other people in positions of power can only remove them...which is illegitimate because no one has that power...because rights are ordained by virtue of life, not from a position of artificial and in most cases, arbitrary power.

read locke's on liberty or bastiat's the law on books.google.com and educate yourself.
 

Zagg

small el libertarian
Joined
Sep 1, 2011
Messages
208
Reaction score
16
Points
16
Location
Chicago suburbs
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
"Natural rights" are a nice rhetorical flourish, but without government they're nothing but a pipe dream. As I've said before,in the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only "right" is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you a few scraps.
you miss the whole point of natural rights, its a concept that philosophically PROVES that a person can not LEGITIMATELY remove OR give rights to another. This concept PROVES that government is an entity APPROVED and GOVERNED by the masses to ensure protection and security...NOT an entity that has any more rights than the lowest class.

Equal protection under law is an natural rights concept...sure it has been perverted in many cases but the concept is true...the key word is LEGITIMATE...you can not have a LEGITIMATE government unless the people approve of it! Natural rights secures rights for people, while other people in positions of power can only remove them...which is illegitimate because no one has that power...because rights are ordained by virtue of life, not from a position of artificial and in most cases, arbitrary power.

read locke's on liberty or bastiat's the law on books.google.com and educate yourself.
Concepts don't prove anything. Arguments prove things.
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
A conservative term to get a buy in on the American Revolution.

They still feel bad the conservatives of the time where dead set against it.
Now, now....

You've been schooled on this so many times, but retreat to this bogus default positon.

Conservatives are the classical liberals.

Progressive John Dewey, when he saw the disrepute with which progressives were held, had them co-opt the name 'liberals.'

1. Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.The history of European liberalism (1959), Guido De Ruggiero, pp. 155–157

2. In 1883, Lester Frank Ward published the two-volume Dynamic Sociology and formalized the basic tenets of social liberalism while at the same time attacking the laissez-faire policies advocated by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. The historian Henry Steele Commager ranked Ward alongside William James, John Dewey, and Oliver Wendell Holmes and called him the father of the modern welfare state.
. Writing from 1884 until the 1930s, John Dewey—an educator influenced by Hobhouse, Green, and Ward—advocated socialist methods to achieve liberal goals. Some social liberal ideas were later incorporated into the New Deal.
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, be good and stop fibbing.
Modern conservatives are certainly the closest to Classical Liberals in the US. The only reason I don't describe myself as a Classical Liberal is the moronic progressives can't deal with that.... :lol:
Modern Conservativism is like "Classical Conservatism".

All of you await the return of the King.

And not Elvis.:lol:
 

Sallow

The Big Bad Wolf.
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Messages
56,532
Reaction score
6,241
Points
1,840
Location
New York City
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
"Natural rights" are a nice rhetorical flourish, but without government they're nothing but a pipe dream. As I've said before,in the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only "right" is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you a few scraps.
you miss the whole point of natural rights, its a concept that philosophically PROVES that a person can not LEGITIMATELY remove OR give rights to another. This concept PROVES that government is an entity APPROVED and GOVERNED by the masses to ensure protection and security...NOT an entity that has any more rights than the lowest class.

Equal protection under law is an natural rights concept...sure it has been perverted in many cases but the concept is true...the key word is LEGITIMATE...you can not have a LEGITIMATE government unless the people approve of it! Natural rights secures rights for people, while other people in positions of power can only remove them...which is illegitimate because no one has that power...because rights are ordained by virtue of life, not from a position of artificial and in most cases, arbitrary power.

read locke's on liberty or bastiat's the law on books.google.com and educate yourself.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD4zRszg5cQ&feature=related]T[/ame]

Sure you can. Boy are you fucking stupid.
 
OP
E

edjax1952

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
266
Reaction score
38
Points
16
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
When the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state," and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security.[35]
When the depression came around, the liberals of today day 'seized the moment' to redefine the purpose of government:
"and "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security"

They refused to release the powerful hold they had on government after prosperity returned so that they could continue to "supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security". Now we have a welfare state in place that cannot financially sustain itself. Now we have government so closely bound to businiss that they "buy out" corporations when they flounder (GM). The madness is that the government insists that it is proper in driving the economy to its current state and insists on its citizens participation to the point of their own financial doom.

The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".
In the current welfare state government refuses to release the powerful hold they had on government after prosperity returned so that they could continue to "....supervise standards of life and labor...."

This supervision is currently requiring citizens to pay up to 40-45% of their wages in taxes. That means that for the year, 5 to 5.5 months of their efforts are due and payable to to the government so that they can supervise 'those less fortunate' than them and protect large businesses from failure. That is almost 1/2 of the return of their efforts turned over to government use. Now it is being considered to raise the amount of taxation.

When this happens they are not protecting the right to property or the 'persuit of happiness'; they are abusing the priveledge of taxation and they are telling the citizens that nearly 1/2 of their efforts are not for their own use but for the 'good of the downtrodden'. This is not protection of our rights this is abuse of governmental privilege.
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
"Natural rights" are a nice rhetorical flourish, but without government they're nothing but a pipe dream. As I've said before,in the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only "right" is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you a few scraps.
I am not saying that the government is not necessary to protect the rights of men; it is. I am saying that the government is abusing priviledge in the name of social justice and therefore not protecting rights but infringing on the right to property and persuit of happiness through oppressive taxation.

it is becoming now that the government is saying they are going to 'take the kill' (our wages)through taxation and give it to their cubs (the downtrodden and the failing corporations) and we should just sit meekly and take the scraps? I think not. When this happens they are not protecting our rights, they are abusing government priviledge. The more they get, the more they need.
 
OP
E

edjax1952

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
266
Reaction score
38
Points
16
Location
Jacksonville, Fl
Comrade...ooops I mean konradv, once more you perpetrate the very arrogance of aristocracy. America is becoming a country governed by aristocrats through power achieved by money.

Beware the arrogance of aristocracy! Aristocrats have gained and lost power many times in history. I think maybe it is time for the peons to rise up once more against the oppression of aristocracy. It may be a long battle but keep a lookout over your shoulder. We are gathering our troops as we speak.:salute:
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
101,249
Reaction score
35,700
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
"Natural rights" are a nice rhetorical flourish, but without government they're nothing but a pipe dream. As I've said before,in the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only "right" is to sit meekly by while I eat YOUR kill in hopes that I might leave you a few scraps.
you miss the whole point of natural rights, its a concept that philosophically PROVES that a person can not LEGITIMATELY remove OR give rights to another. This concept PROVES that government is an entity APPROVED and GOVERNED by the masses to ensure protection and security...NOT an entity that has any more rights than the lowest class.

Equal protection under law is an natural rights concept...sure it has been perverted in many cases but the concept is true...the key word is LEGITIMATE...you can not have a LEGITIMATE government unless the people approve of it! Natural rights secures rights for people, while other people in positions of power can only remove them...which is illegitimate because no one has that power...because rights are ordained by virtue of life, not from a position of artificial and in most cases, arbitrary power.

read locke's on liberty or bastiat's the law on books.google.com and educate yourself.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD4zRszg5cQ&feature=related]T[/ame]

Sure you can. Boy are you fucking stupid.
Now, why post this pic??

Oh...

(Sigh)...just another America-hater using that incident to 'prove' how evil America is....

But a bit of context might be informative.

"Then, there was the photo of South Vietnamese general Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing the Vietcong prisoner, taken by AP photographer Adams. Of course, the full story might have given the photo a different cast…

”… which on that day had murdered South Vietnamese National Police officers, or in their stead, the police officers' families; these sources said that Lém was captured near the site of a ditch holding as many as thirty-four bound and shot bodies of police and their relatives, some of whom were the families of General Nguyễn's deputy and close friend, and six of whom were Nguyễn's godchildren.

Photographer Adams confirmed the South Vietnamese account, although he was only present for the execution.” Nguyen Ngoc Loan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

eflatminor

Classical Liberal
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
10,644
Reaction score
1,666
Points
245
It's exactly what I think it is. It's the approach to economics, politics, and society that produced the one nation to avoid, for a while anyway, the failings of central planners, whatever name you want to give them. It also happen to produce the most prosperous nation the world had ever known. That was first 130 years of America. Every since we've been chipping away at what made us great, giving more and more power to central planners. $14.6 trillion dollars of debt later, we're finally ready to take it back. The Progressive experiments of the 20th century have failed like all the attempts to centrally plan before them. Time to restore liberty and limited government once again.
 
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
50,337
Reaction score
10,053
Points
0
Edjax>>>"The current movement of the Tea Party is only a shout to return to classical liberalism which "holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government".

Natural and inherent? Did you forget the part that governments are formed to protect these rights? These rights have never existed outside of government protection. They never will.
Now, now....

You've been schooled on this so many times, but retreat to this bogus default positon.

Conservatives are the classical liberals.

Progressive John Dewey, when he saw the disrepute with which progressives were held, had them co-opt the name 'liberals.'

1. Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes the legitimate role of the state includes addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.The history of European liberalism (1959), Guido De Ruggiero, pp. 155–157

2. In 1883, Lester Frank Ward published the two-volume Dynamic Sociology and formalized the basic tenets of social liberalism while at the same time attacking the laissez-faire policies advocated by Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner. The historian Henry Steele Commager ranked Ward alongside William James, John Dewey, and Oliver Wendell Holmes and called him the father of the modern welfare state.
. Writing from 1884 until the 1930s, John Dewey—an educator influenced by Hobhouse, Green, and Ward—advocated socialist methods to achieve liberal goals. Some social liberal ideas were later incorporated into the New Deal.
Social liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, be good and stop fibbing.
Modern conservatives are certainly the closest to Classical Liberals in the US. The only reason I don't describe myself as a Classical Liberal is the moronic progressives can't deal with that.... :lol:
Modern Conservativism is like "Classical Conservatism".

All of you await the return of the King.

And not Elvis.:lol:
Find your way back to your brain, swallow.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top