Reactionary Liberals

[Skull Pilot]

Haven't I been saying all along that I am liberal in the truest sense of the word and all those that call themselves liberals today are really nothing but authoritarians ?

The American tradition is the "liberal" tradition, but when "liberal" is used to designate the views of Henry Wallace, we are not even aware that the word has been twisted to mean its exact opposite. For some three hundred years the term "liberal" has expressed a philosophy which is in direct conflict with the philosophy of those who, today in the United States, term themselves "liberals." Liberal and liberalism are defined as follows.

Liberal

"One who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters" (Webster's Dictionary)
Liberalism

"A belief in the value of human personality, and a conviction that the source of all progress lies in the free exercise of human energy" (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Liberalism

"Liberalism has advocated … individual liberty in government, economics and religion … In political and economic thought, John Stuart Mill represents English liberalism." (Columbia Encyclopedia)

"Liberalism" in the historic sense is the struggle of man to assert his liberty against authority. In the political field, this struggle is against the authority of the state. Those who, today, call themselves liberals believe in increasing the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty. It is true that they do so for the laudable purpose of advancing the public welfare but, whatever their motives, they have taken their stand against individual liberty and in favor of authority. Whatever they may call themselves, they are not liberals.

"Liberalism" in the historic sense regards government as a necessary evil. It looks upon all governments, including our own, with suspicion. It believes that the only way to safeguard liberty and protect the individual from the tyranny of government is to limit the functions of government. It fears government and seeks to impose restraints upon the power of government.

"Liberalism," as the term is used today, looks upon the citizen with suspicion and upon government with approval. It seeks to build a strong government to control and regiment the individual for the good of society, to prevent the strong from taking advantage of the weak, to offset inequalities in wealth and incomes, and to play the historic role of Robin Hood, who robbed the rich and distributed some of the proceeds to the poor.

The principle of authority, which has enslaved the human spirit during the greater part of recorded history, has been challenged effectively only for a brief period in ancient Greece and again in the last 300 years and only by that concept of life which historically is known as liberalism.

Although the roots of liberalism lie deep in history, liberalism as an organized doctrine begins with the revolt of Oliver Cromwell against constituted authority in England and the rise of the Dutch Republic in Holland. It found eloquent expression in the great essay of John Milton, Areopagitica, which he wrote in 1644, in defiance of law, to uphold the right of free speech and to protest to Parliament against establishment of a censorship.

Nearly a century later, John Locke expounded the principles of liberalism and his writings "became the political Bible of the following century." In the 18th century, the American Revolution established a new type of government based upon the doctrines of Locke, and Adam Smith formulated the liberal doctrine in economic terms. In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, Herbert Spencer, Bentham, Cobden and Bright were the spokesmen of liberalism.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States stem directly from liberal doctrine. The Constitution of the United States expresses the fear of governmental authority which is characteristic of liberalism. It is designed, not for efficiency, but to safeguard liberty. It shows distrust of all branches of government — of the president, of congress and of the courts and makes each a check upon the others.

The statement in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" was not intended to mean that they are equal in intelligence, in physical strength, in character or in any other respects in which individuals differ. On the contrary, that statement means that under a just government, all men are equal under the law.

This new and revolutionary doctrine was a moral pronouncement and an affirmation of political belief in direct conflict with the principle of authority under which men are not equal under the law. Under the rule of authority a man's status in the social structure determines what laws apply to him and what he must obey.

Two examples will illustrate the point:

1.

In France, before the French Revolution, the nobility and clergy were not subject to taxes imposed upon other classes of society.
2.

In England, under the Statute of Artificers enacted in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, a common laborer or a skilled artisan was not permitted to leave his parish without the consent of his last employer.

The special privileges of French nobles and clergy and the discriminatory restraint upon the freedom of English workmen were based on their status in society. This concept of status is in direct conflict with the liberal philosophy of equality under the law.

Today we can note a definite tendency in our law (for which congress is chiefly to blame) to abandon these liberal principles and to substitute for them the old, discredited, reactionary standards of personal justice and of status. This tendency is most marked in some federal administrative agencies, such as the National Labor Relations Board, which act as prosecutor, judge and jury, unhampered by rules of evidence or ordinary principles of law.

Most of our courts try to follow "the rule of law" but a tendency is apparent, chiefly in our highest court, to substitute justice based upon class distinctions for equality under the law. It is no longer the act alone that constitutes the crime but the act in relation to the status of the actor. A striking example of this is found in the 1934 anti-racketeering law which was construed by the United States Supreme Court as not applying to labor unions.

Modern liberals, as the term is currently used in the United States, are faced with an inescapable moral and intellectual dilemma. This dilemma arises from the fact that they are trying to go in two different directions at once and to follow two wholly conflicting and opposite philosophies of life.

Sincere, modern liberals do not deliberately desire to set up an authoritarian government. All they want to do is to improve the lot of mankind. They want everyone to be decently housed, decently fed, decently clothed, and they are willing to give government unlimited authority to accomplish desirable ends. They wish to override individual liberties only when individual liberties hinder government in accomplishing results which they approve. They want government to be powerful to do good without being powerful to do harm.

The weakness of a benevolent despotism is that there is no guarantee that it will remain benevolent. The Social Welfare State, the modern liberals' goal, is essentially a Germanic concept. Bismarck was a pioneer in providing social security benefits in 1884 and fostered state-guaranteed insurance for workmen against sickness, accidents, old age and disability. Karl Marx and Bismarck had much in common.

 

[MarcATL]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For EXAMPLE, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For exanoke, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

You assume I claim to be a conservative?

I have said over and over that I am a true liberal.

You believe health care should be free but Dimocrats aka today's "liberals" are crafting a bill that forces people to buy health insurance and not just any health insurance but the health insurance government tells you to buy or else be slapped with punitive taxes.

That is lessening my freedom is it not?

 

[rightwinger]

.


What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]



.

 

[dilloduck]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For exanoke, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

ie:
Other people should be forced to pay for your healthcare.

 

[California Girl]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For exanoke, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

I'm pleased that you still have basic functions such as the ability to type, even if you are brain dead.

 

[Skull Pilot]

.


What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

HAH

JFK would be called a neocon today.

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

 

[California Girl]

.


What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then ... we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." [JFK September 14, 1960]

.

JFK would not be a member of today's DNC.

If liberal meant what it used to mean, if the DNC was the DNC of old, I would probably be a member.

 

[MarcATL]

Conservatives are so concerned with NOT paying for other people's healthcare or whatever that they hurt themselves in the process.

Listen, we all know its not perfect, HOWEVER it is a START in the right direction. No other President in decades has been able to get anything done concerning the COMPLETELY BROKEN healthcare system.

Why don't you people forget about who is "getting over on your dime" and worry about helping the sytem as a whole...concentrate on what is to be gained.

I just don't understand this absolutely selfish attitude coming from the party that PROFESSES to be the party of Christians and Christianity.

It absolutely boggles my mind, as this attitude is the anti-thesis of Christ's teachings.

The Scripture states, to the least of these...if you treat them well, you treat Me well. (paraphrasing a little bit for modern translation)

 

[California Girl]

Conservatives are so concerned with NOT paying for other people's healthcare or whatever that they hurt themselves in the process.

Listen, we all know its not perfect, HOWEVER it is a START in the right direction. No other President in decades has been able to get anything done concerning the COMPLETELY BROKEN healthcare system.

Why don't you people forget about who is "getting over on your dime" and worry about helping the sytem as a whole...concentrate on what is to be gained.

I just don't understand this absolutely selfish attitude coming from the party that PROFESSES to be the party of Christians and Christianity.

It absolutely boggles my mind, as this attitude is the anti-thesis of Christ's teachings.

The Scripture states, to the least of these...if you treat them well, you treat Me well. (paraphrasing a little bit for modern translation)

We are all aware that the current system needs fixing, however, some of us are not stupid enough to fall for the manufactured crisis by this Administration to push through this ridiculous bill. This bill does not address the problems. This is not about healthcare, it is about government control.

 

[MarcATL]

You assume I claim to be a conservative?

I have said over and over that I am a true liberal.

You believe health care should be free but Dimocrats aka today's "liberals" are crafting a bill that forces people to buy health insurance and not just any health insurance but the health insurance government tells you to buy or else be slapped with punitive taxes.

That is lessening my freedom is it not?

You insist that you not be categorized as conservative, yet you use the terms that are renkowned in the con-world..."Dimocrats."

Interesting.

Anyway, we believe that healthcare is a right, just like its a right to a good education, clean water, clean air, safe streets, etc. All these things have one thing in common...the LACK of them RESTRICTS freedom.

When you consider that, you will get a better understanding of how TRULY LIBERAL we are.

You seem to be advocating PAYING for these FREEDOMS.

I vehemently disagree.

 

[MarcATL]

California Girl, why don't you and your ilk conencrate on IMPROVING the problems vs. FIGHTING those trying to fix it.

If we ALL agree its broken, then lets WORK TOGETHER to FIX it.

We may disagree on how to do so, but we can WORK TOGETHER to improve it. What you and your ilk are doing is nothing short of OBSTRUCTIONISM.

Can you imagine how much better this bill COULD have been if people like you and your ilk would have actually SUPPORTED some POSITIVE change, vs. living in some LaLa Land claiming that "America has the best healthcare system in the world and we shouldn't change it?"
Snap out of your partisan funk and HELP this country get back on track.

SNAP OUT OF IT!!

 

[California Girl]

California Girl, why don't you and your ilk conencrate on IMPROVING the problems vs. FIGHTING those trying to fix it.

If we ALL agree its broken, then lets WORK TOGETHER to FIX it.

We may disagree on how to do so, but we can WORK TOGETHER to improve it. What you and your ilk are doing is nothing short of OBSTRUCTIONISM.

Snap out of your partisan funk and HELP this country get back on track.

SNAP OUT OF IT!!

I don't have an 'ilk', Marc. Unlike liberals, the rest of us are individuals. You keep insisting that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a 'neocon'.... then ask us to 'work together'. Why would I want to work with people who seek to 'fundamentally change' a country that didn't need this 'fundamental change'. Why would I work with an administration that fills itself with socialists, marxists and communists? They are not the ideals my country stands for.

You snap out of your partisan funk and help put this country back on the track that our founders set it on.

You snap out of it.

 

[Vortex]

California Girl, why don't you and your ilk conencrate on IMPROVING the problems vs. FIGHTING those trying to fix it.

If we ALL agree its broken, then lets WORK TOGETHER to FIX it.

We may disagree on how to do so, but we can WORK TOGETHER to improve it. What you and your ilk are doing is nothing short of OBSTRUCTIONISM.

Can you imagine how much better this bill COULD have been if people like you and your ilk would have actually SUPPORTED some POSITIVE change, vs. living in some LaLa Land claiming that "America has the best healthcare system in the world and we shouldn't change it?"
Snap out of your partisan funk and HELP this country get back on track.

SNAP OUT OF IT!!

Yeah, let's all work together to destroy freedom. No thanks.

 

[uscitizen]

California Girl, why don't you and your ilk conencrate on IMPROVING the problems vs. FIGHTING those trying to fix it.

If we ALL agree its broken, then lets WORK TOGETHER to FIX it.

We may disagree on how to do so, but we can WORK TOGETHER to improve it. What you and your ilk are doing is nothing short of OBSTRUCTIONISM.

Can you imagine how much better this bill COULD have been if people like you and your ilk would have actually SUPPORTED some POSITIVE change, vs. living in some LaLa Land claiming that "America has the best healthcare system in the world and we shouldn't change it?"
Snap out of your partisan funk and HELP this country get back on track.

SNAP OUT OF IT!!

Yeah, let's all work together to destroy freedom. No thanks.

You mean we are going to change the way we have been doing things for decades?

 

[gautama]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For EXAMPLE, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

How about: We should be FREE to choose what we want and have our representatives in Govt REPRESENT what we want !!!!

Thus, like the TEA PARTY clamours for: WE WANT TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE WHAT HEALTH CARE WE WANT WITHOUT THE GOVT SHOVING THEIR VERSION DOWN OUR THROATS !!!!!

THE VERSION OF THE GOVT......DECIDED BY OUR REPRESENTATIVES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS .....WITH THE RESULT PREDETERMINED BY one, the Leader of the House, the other, by the leader of the Senate, TWO STOOGES OF A SEMI-BLACK POLITICAL CHARLATAN, THE MARXIST POS Obami Salami.

Howzabout them apples, MODERN DAY LIBERALS ?!?!?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You assume I claim to be a conservative?

I have said over and over that I am a true liberal.

You believe health care should be free but Dimocrats aka today's "liberals" are crafting a bill that forces people to buy health insurance and not just any health insurance but the health insurance government tells you to buy or else be slapped with punitive taxes.

That is lessening my freedom is it not?

You insist that you not be categorized as conservative, yet you use the terms that are renkowned in the con-world..."Dimocrats."

Interesting.

Anyway, we believe that healthcare is a right, just like its a right to a good education, clean water, clean air, safe streets, etc. All these things have one thing in common...the LACK of them RESTRICTS freedom.

When you consider that, you will get a better understanding of how TRULY LIBERAL we are.

You seem to be advocating PAYING for these FREEDOMS.

I vehemently disagree.

I also use the term repudlicans

Do you have any analysis of that?

Excuse me but health care is not a right.

Now I have a right to property which includes the money I earn and if the government would leave all of us more of our own money, we would be able to afford basic health care.

If the government allowed us to keep the 15% of our income it confiscates from us to fund the greatest Ponzi scam of all, Social Security, we would all be better off.

And you so called liberals want all these things at what cost? You fail to realize that the more income that is confiscated from the people, the less free they are.

And education is not a right either. In fact anyone can get a better education at a public library than they can in government run schools.

 

[drsmith1072]

Just like those who profess themselves to be conservatives are really neo-cons.

Tell us though, how do today's liberals restrict freedom?

For EXAMPLE, we beleive we should be FREE to have affordable health-care and not be RESTRAINED by what our employers choose or what the insurance companies dictate...please OP, list your many gripes and complaints.

How about: We should be FREE to choose what we want and have our representatives in Govt REPRESENT what we want !!!!

Thus, like the TEA PARTY clamours for: WE WANT TO BE FREE TO CHOOSE WHAT HEALTH CARE WE WANT WITHOUT THE GOVT SHOVING THEIR VERSION DOWN OUR THROATS !!!!!

THE VERSION OF THE GOVT......DECIDED BY OUR REPRESENTATIVES BEHIND CLOSED DOORS .....WITH THE RESULT PREDETERMINED BY one, the Leader of the House, the other, by the leader of the Senate, TWO STOOGES OF A SEMI-BLACK POLITICAL CHARLATAN, THE MARXIST POS Obami Salami.

Howzabout them apples, MODERN DAY LIBERALS ?!?!?

The choice of representative was made on election day and guess what? YOU LOST. The country decided against you and now the minority right is upset that they are in the minority and crying about how they don't have representation when they didn't seem to care when democrats were in a similar position only a few years ago. Based on what I remember about it they bragged about it and cheered it. Funny how they aren't cheering now. lol

Oh and just have to tell you how much I laugh everytime I hear that parroted talking point about "shoving (insert bs complaint here) down their throats" That is the way government works. Repesentatives are elected and they pass legislation that governs us all.
You act as if some great tragedy is occuring because the MINORITY is against what is being passed by this country's ELECTED REPPRESENTATIVES and PRETEND that it is being shoved down your throats.

That is the way the system was set up and that is the way it works if you don't like it, move.

BTW, did you feel this way when republicans had control of the executive and legislative branches of government and excluded democrats or is this a new thing brought about by losing the election??

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Other people should be forced to pay for your healthcare.

The OP didn't say anything about free healthcare, but AFFORDABLE health care. And you're already paying for poor people's health care - more than you could be. We spend a lot and get very little for health insurance. We have a for-profit private industry earning HUGE profits by denying people the very product that they pay for. Not to mention, their product's cost is far out of reach for an individual buying this product without the help of an employer. Seeing as how one unexpected medical bill can essentially ruin someone in this country, medical insurance is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. Do you agree that someone making $10 an hour should be able to afford some kind of health insurance, or should only the wealthy be able to afford this product - or people lucky enough to have benefits through their job? The status quo sucks for a lot of people, and the only people happy about the current system are those making the huge profits. Why are you defending this backasswards system that is so obviously skewed against the majority of Americans' best interests?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Other people should be forced to pay for your healthcare.

The OP didn't say anything about free healthcare, but AFFORDABLE health care. And you're already paying for poor people's health care - more than you could be. We spend a lot and get very little for health insurance. We have a for-profit private industry earning HUGE profits by denying people the very product that they pay for. Not to mention, their product's cost is far out of reach for an individual buying this product without the help of an employer. Seeing as how one unexpected medical bill can essentially ruin someone in this country, medical insurance is no longer a luxury, but a necessity. Do you agree that someone making $10 an hour should be able to afford some kind of health insurance, or should only the wealthy be able to afford this product - or people lucky enough to have benefits through their job? The status quo sucks for a lot of people, and the only people happy about the current system are those making the huge profits. Why are you defending this backasswards system that is so obviously skewed against the majority of Americans' best interests?

What you don't seem to understand is that medical costs have skyrocketed because of health insurance not in spite of health insurance.

No one has any idea what a check up , blood work, or Xrays cost so there is no ability for the public to apply market forces to medicine.

The government prohibits the sale of insurance across state lines which again keeps prices inflated.

There is no tort reform because trial lawyers run Washington and they make big bucks on outrageous law suits against doctors.

Fix what is wrong with the system before passing laws that force us to buy more expensive health insurance.

If you don't think the insurance mandate will raise costs just look at the once great state of Massachusetts to see what their mandate to to insurance costs in that state.