Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are hung up on static periods of time. Of course liberal movements have started inreaction to ceratin things and liberal movements have followed certain dogma, but because a movement is labelled a a liberal movement does not make themn liberal in their actions or views.Modern liberalism is closer to progressivism than it is to classical liberalism.
I disagree. Redefining what liberalism is does not make it so. Liberalism as a philosophical stance is what it is. Modern Progressivism is more like populism by another name.
I find that people who hang out on the internet(s) too often get hung up on periphial issues like the exact definitions of the types of liberalism, when in reality those definitoions are anything but exact in definition.
Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt were three of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in the 20th century. Modern day liberalism is of the FDR or Wilsonian progressive sort. As I said before, liberalism came about opposed to statism of any sort, which is clearly not the case any longer.
Liberalism developed as a rejection of any kind of statism, be it monarchy or feudalism, and a respect for personal liberty. Classical liberalism was closer to modern-day Libertarianism rather than modern liberalism. However, in the early to mid-20th century the label of liberal was essentially hijacked by progressives, and that's pretty much where it stands now. Liberalism today is essentially interchangeable with progressivism.
And to reject a monarchy and declare yourself your own sovereign wasn't progressive? You are talking about one of the most progressive acts in the history of Mankind. Liberalism has always been progressive and when it ceases to be so it won't be liberalism but conservatism that we are talking about won't it.
Classical liberalism was very progressive. However, the political ideology of progressivism isn't progressive at all. Progressivism isn't a step forward at all, it's a step towards the old system of statism.
You are hung up on static periods of time. Of course liberal movements have started inreaction to ceratin things and liberal movements have followed certain dogma, but because a movement is labelled a a liberal movement does not make themn liberal in their actions or views.I disagree. Redefining what liberalism is does not make it so. Liberalism as a philosophical stance is what it is. Modern Progressivism is more like populism by another name.
I find that people who hang out on the internet(s) too often get hung up on periphial issues like the exact definitions of the types of liberalism, when in reality those definitoions are anything but exact in definition.
Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt were three of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in the 20th century. Modern day liberalism is of the FDR or Wilsonian progressive sort. As I said before, liberalism came about opposed to statism of any sort, which is clearly not the case any longer.
Reactionary people are not so much liberals as they are progressives or populists
[...Liberalism is an ideology that is 180 degrees to conservatism...
And to reject a monarchy and declare yourself your own sovereign wasn't progressive? You are talking about one of the most progressive acts in the history of Mankind. Liberalism has always been progressive and when it ceases to be so it won't be liberalism but conservatism that we are talking about won't it.
Classical liberalism was very progressive. However, the political ideology of progressivism isn't progressive at all. Progressivism isn't a step forward at all, it's a step towards the old system of statism.
Old statism? We have had a mixed economy as long as we have had an economy and we wouldn't be sitting here chatting as we are chatting if not for old system of statism you seem so afraid of.
Liberalism is an ideology that is 180 degrees to conservatism. You should stop expecting it to be that which it can never be...
that's because we've never seen anything as disastrous as what Reaganomics and Bushonomics and GOP free marketism has done to our economy. Sure there was the Great Depression, but that happened with no safety nets. Thank gawd for what Tip O'Neill and other liberal Democrats were able to save.Classical liberalism was very progressive. However, the political ideology of progressivism isn't progressive at all. Progressivism isn't a step forward at all, it's a step towards the old system of statism.
Old statism? We have had a mixed economy as long as we have had an economy and we wouldn't be sitting here chatting as we are chatting if not for old system of statism you seem so afraid of.
Liberalism is an ideology that is 180 degrees to conservatism. You should stop expecting it to be that which it can never be...
We've never had this much government intervention in the market, it just steadily gets worse and worse.
Liberalism was an ideology that was 180 degrees to conservatism, not so much anymore.
I don't like political labels. Why someone would want to be narrowly confined in a political box, is amazing to me.
The "far right" is no government at all. I don't know anyone in the GOP, or in any other party or office, that believes we should have no government at all.
If you want to get technical, most people fall into the "liberalism" category. It is the degree(s) of said "liberalism," that is the distinguishing factor. I don't agree with your post. You project the same mindset that you speak out against. That is usually the case, for those who love to wrap themselves in political labels.
If you could take your head out of your ass for a few minutes you'd see where I use 'liberal' as a philosophical label and not a political label.
reading and comprehension is tough when you're an expert at ecerything but what you're involved in.
Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt were three of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in the 20th century. Modern day liberalism is of the FDR or Wilsonian progressive sort. As I said before, liberalism came about opposed to statism of any sort, which is clearly not the case any longer.
Liberalism is centered around the principle that the individual is their own Sovereign which places the individual as owner of government. Explain how, when government acts to protect the quality of life of those who own it, it is a violation of classical intent.
Because it must violate the right of others to keep the fruits of their labor.
I don't like political labels. Why someone would want to be narrowly confined in a political box, is amazing to me.
The "far right" is no government at all. I don't know anyone in the GOP, or in any other party or office, that believes we should have no government at all.
If you want to get technical, most people fall into the "liberalism" category. It is the degree(s) of said "liberalism," that is the distinguishing factor. I don't agree with your post. You project the same mindset that you speak out against. That is usually the case, for those who love to wrap themselves in political labels.
If you could take your head out of your ass for a few minutes you'd see where I use 'liberal' as a philosophical label and not a political label.
reading and comprehension is tough when you're an expert at ecerything but what you're involved in.
I am not suffering from a cranial rectal infarction. I appreciate your concern though.
I don't have a reading comprehension problem. Your opening post is skewed. I pointed out the flawed points and bias. You don't like it, and you get impudent.
I did not state or infer that I am an expert at everything. The only person to blather on with that line of rhetoric, is you.
Your reply lets me know that you are either not able or willing to have real honest debate. Trying to show me down with childish remarks void of an actual worthy retort, does cut it, except with those who prefer this kind of rhetoric instead of actual debate.
that's because we've never seen anything as disastrous as what Reaganomics and Bushonomics and GOP free marketism has done to our economy. Sure there was the Great Depression, but that happened with no safety nets. Thank gawd for what Tip O'Neill and other liberal Democrats were able to save.Old statism? We have had a mixed economy as long as we have had an economy and we wouldn't be sitting here chatting as we are chatting if not for old system of statism you seem so afraid of.
Liberalism is an ideology that is 180 degrees to conservatism. You should stop expecting it to be that which it can never be...
We've never had this much government intervention in the market, it just steadily gets worse and worse.
Liberalism was an ideology that was 180 degrees to conservatism, not so much anymore.
yeah right, and JFK wqould be a Republican today,
I don't like political labels. Why someone would want to be narrowly confined in a political box, is amazing to me.
The "far right" is no government at all. I don't know anyone in the GOP, or in any other party or office, that believes we should have no government at all.
If you want to get technical, most people fall into the "liberalism" category. It is the degree(s) of said "liberalism," that is the distinguishing factor. I don't agree with your post. You project the same mindset that you speak out against. That is usually the case, for those who love to wrap themselves in political labels.
If you could take your head out of your ass for a few minutes you'd see where I use 'liberal' as a philosophical label and not a political label.
reading and comprehension is tough when you're an expert at ecerything but what you're involved in.
I am not suffering from a cranial rectal infarction. I appreciate your concern though.
I don't have a reading comprehension problem. Your opening post is skewed. I pointed out the flawed points and bias. You don't like it, and you get impudent.
I did not state or infer that I am an expert at everything. The only person to blather on with that line of rhetoric, is you.
Your reply lets me know that you are either not able or willing to have real honest debate. Trying to show me down with childish remarks void of an actual worthy retort does cut it, except with those who prefer this kind of rhetoric instead of actual debate.
Liberalism is centered around the principle that the individual is their own Sovereign which places the individual as owner of government. Explain how, when government acts to protect the quality of life of those who own it, it is a violation of classical intent.
Because it must violate the right of others to keep the fruits of their labor.
The fruits of our labor? Did Locke argue that we had the right to keep all the fruits of our labor or only those that maintained and advanced quality of life with the rest belonging to society? Individual sovereignty isn't violated when that for which you have no use is used by those who need it.
Are you sure you are arguing Classical Liberalism?
OK,yawn.Nice try at obfuscation and misdirection. First identify that both extreme sides are narrowminded and bigoted (in this you are absolutely correct). At the same time provide a brief but skewed description of liberalism and leftism (look up classic, modern and neoliberalism & the progession of these definitions up to modern times). Finally (now that readers think you are fair minded and unbiased) using a subtile form of fear mongering (America has more to fear from the Fear Brokers) accuse one side of being worse than the other(conservatives in this case).
Of course you tipped your hand when you wrote:
So maybe leftisms is just a strawman/boogyman created by the far right to keep you average joes and janes all wet and stupid.
try harder next time.
And BTW, last time I checked there were far more than two "leftist" politicians in Washington. I am an old JFK style democrat (which by todays standards makes me either a Blue Dog Democrat or a moderate Republican) and I have watched the "leftists", (calling themselves Progessives now - nice way to hide what one truly is, don't you think?), slowely take control of the Democratic party over the last couple of decades.
Like I said, nice try, rather amaturish but nice try anyway
style JFK democrat? hahahahahahaha... you still support agendas like the Space Ppogram and Vietnam war...both huge revenue drains? what about JFK's social agenda? are you clueless?
PAy attention, I am on record despising most progressivism (right and left...populism too) and have n-e-v-e-r called myself a progressive.
Liberal Republicans used to run the GOP and more than a few of them were supporters of \JFK. I used to admire the GOP.
You are hung up on static periods of time. Of course liberal movements have started inreaction to ceratin things and liberal movements have followed certain dogma, but because a movement is labelled a a liberal movement does not make themn liberal in their actions or views.Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt were three of the biggest proponents of classical liberalism in the 20th century. Modern day liberalism is of the FDR or Wilsonian progressive sort. As I said before, liberalism came about opposed to statism of any sort, which is clearly not the case any longer.
Reactionary people are not so much liberals as they are progressives or populists
Classical liberalism wasn't simply a reactionary movement, it was opposition to statism in all its forms going back to John Locke and the enlightenment.
You are hung up on static periods of time. Of course liberal movements have started inreaction to ceratin things and liberal movements have followed certain dogma, but because a movement is labelled a a liberal movement does not make themn liberal in their actions or views.
Reactionary people are not so much liberals as they are progressives or populists
Classical liberalism wasn't simply a reactionary movement, it was opposition to statism in all its forms going back to John Locke and the enlightenment.
How soon we forget federalism. You seem to be picking out the parts you like and forgetting about the parts you don't like...
My point is that the argumenst today's conservatives (fiscal ones) use against almost all of today's proposed social and government programs would dictate one being against the thinsg listed; Vietnam war and Space Program.OK,yawn.Nice try at obfuscation and misdirection. First identify that both extreme sides are narrowminded and bigoted (in this you are absolutely correct). At the same time provide a brief but skewed description of liberalism and leftism (look up classic, modern and neoliberalism & the progession of these definitions up to modern times). Finally (now that readers think you are fair minded and unbiased) using a subtile form of fear mongering (America has more to fear from the Fear Brokers) accuse one side of being worse than the other(conservatives in this case).
Of course you tipped your hand when you wrote:
So maybe leftisms is just a strawman/boogyman created by the far right to keep you average joes and janes all wet and stupid.
try harder next time.
And BTW, last time I checked there were far more than two "leftist" politicians in Washington. I am an old JFK style democrat (which by todays standards makes me either a Blue Dog Democrat or a moderate Republican) and I have watched the "leftists", (calling themselves Progessives now - nice way to hide what one truly is, don't you think?), slowely take control of the Democratic party over the last couple of decades.
Like I said, nice try, rather amaturish but nice try anyway
style JFK democrat? hahahahahahaha... you still support agendas like the Space Ppogram and Vietnam war...both huge revenue drains? what about JFK's social agenda? are you clueless?
PAy attention, I am on record despising most progressivism (right and left...populism too) and have n-e-v-e-r called myself a progressive.
Liberal Republicans used to run the GOP and more than a few of them were supporters of \JFK. I used to admire the GOP.
First off, yes I still support the space program. You know, the program that has contributed billions of dollars to the GNP and quality of life improvements since it's inception. (Commercial off shoots).
I still support funding for the Vietnam War??????
That's like someone telling me I still support slavery because I'm a conservative constitutionalist at heart. Jeeze!
Those Dems became the GOP storm troopers for their Southern Strategy.[JFK's social agenda of racial equality under the law. Uuuum, I guess if one is a 1960s southern democrat holdover one would have a problem with that. (Just for the record not accusing, just responding to a ridiculous statement.)
I like personal attacks as a way of adding color to things. Lighten up Francis.[I believe I was pointing out what progressives were trying to hide and asked if you agreed, not stating you were a progressive.
My intire response to your original post was specifically aimed at your statements highlighted in red. Figured that was obvious. My post was an attack on your tact and premiss, unlike your personal attack on me. Not the best way to get the average joes and jane to listen to you.
[
I find that people who hang out on the internet(s) too often get hung up on periphial issues like the exact definitions of the types of liberalism, when in reality those definitoions are anything but exact in definition.
Here I beg to differ, especially with your off hand negative dismissal of people who use the internet. Once again, not winning over any hearts and minds with that approach. The use of any good dictionary will show that while usages can adapt to cultural changes the root meaning does not change. Classical, Modern and Neo Liberalism still mean today what the meant then no matter how mutch we want them to mean something else.
Because it must violate the right of others to keep the fruits of their labor.
The fruits of our labor? Did Locke argue that we had the right to keep all the fruits of our labor or only those that maintained and advanced quality of life with the rest belonging to society? Individual sovereignty isn't violated when that for which you have no use is used by those who need it.
Are you sure you are arguing Classical Liberalism?
"Life, liberty, property." - John Locke
Locke believed in private property and didn't believe in redistributing the wealth to those who hadn't earned it.
The fruits of our labor? Did Locke argue that we had the right to keep all the fruits of our labor or only those that maintained and advanced quality of life with the rest belonging to society? Individual sovereignty isn't violated when that for which you have no use is used by those who need it.
Are you sure you are arguing Classical Liberalism?
"Life, liberty, property." - John Locke
Locke believed in private property and didn't believe in redistributing the wealth to those who hadn't earned it.
You should read Locke and not just the nifty little quotes that you like. Locke never argued for a right to unrestrained ownership of property else he would have argued for the Feudalism. If I cut down timber to build my house I have every right to the timber in my house and my house itself. If I cut down the entire forest I still only have a right to the timber used to build my house and my house itself. The rest belongs to society who never surrendered ownership of it. The house and the timber in it are the fruits of my labor because that is what advances the quality of my life not the forest I so foolishly cut down...
Classical liberalism wasn't simply a reactionary movement, it was opposition to statism in all its forms going back to John Locke and the enlightenment.
How soon we forget federalism. You seem to be picking out the parts you like and forgetting about the parts you don't like...
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
How soon we forget federalism. You seem to be picking out the parts you like and forgetting about the parts you don't like...
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The Federalists argued, and won, for a strong central government. Hamilton went so far as to argue that government should intercede in all forms of industrialization and the economy. If you are afraid of statism then you should be terrified at the birth of our nation.
