What are libertarians?

[Pogo]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

But the constituents almost invariably vote another of the permanent political class into office to replace those they vote out. It permeates the entire process from most of what happens in Washington to the state political headquarters and election machines right down to the smallest villages. Powerful forces are at work to ensure that the 'right people' are placed on the ballot and put in a position to win.

Actually I think the people might have won one when Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate--I don't believe he is a member of the permanent political class and would not have been so easily bullied or manipulated. But alas, the political machine was able to sufficiently demonize him that he could not win even against the most inexperienced, incompetent, ineffective, and destructive President this country has ever known.

Interesting spin...

Romney was born to the permanent political class, his father was a Governor and Presidential candidate. He was born with both a silver spoon and limitless political connections

Meanwhile, you consider Obama to be "permanent political class" while he rose from obscurity to become president

Strange world that Conservative Bizarro World

The Permanent Political Class are those, elected, appointed, or hired into the bureaucracy, who serve in public office for mostly no other reason than to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Everything they do is calculated toward that end. It has nothing to do with their background, education, heritage, or personal circumstances prior to them being elected to office. Once there, they play ball with the machine in place, whether Democrat or Republican, or they are ostracized, marginalized, and refused any rank or privileges. They will either quit or the machine will see to it that they are voted out at the next election. Some are better at it than others and rise to prominent positions of leadership where they rule with almost unchallenged power. If they stray off the reservation, there will be hell to pay and they will be punished in some way.

Detailed description and discussion on that here:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Libertarians (little "L") either allow themselves to be 'reformed' by the machine or they have a pretty tough time of it both in the halls of government and in the media.

Good God

And you think that doesn't apply to Romney?

He was born to it

No. I don't believe he was born to it at all, and I believe he is less susceptible to buying into it than most we see running for high office. His record shows that he has used his blessings mostly unselfishly for the common good and his track record is one of genuine public service instead of being self serving. And I say that as one who doesn't agree with him on every issue and who did not support him in the primaries.

Ever heard of George Romney? CEO of American Motors (which ironically made Jeeps), governor of Michigan and serious presidential candidate?

This guy....?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

 

[Foxfyre]

We the people limit their power through the vote. Been working for hundreds of years

We lost that power long ago however when the permanent political class achieved total power in Washington and retains it by keeping at least half the electorate dependent on that same permanent political class, and the President discovered he could legislate without restriction via executive order from the Oval Office and the Supreme Court decided they would rather make law rather than interpret existing law.

I have seen thousands of politicians voted out of office for not satisfying their constituents

Remember Eric Cantor?

But the constituents almost invariably vote another of the permanent political class into office to replace those they vote out. It permeates the entire process from most of what happens in Washington to the state political headquarters and election machines right down to the smallest villages. Powerful forces are at work to ensure that the 'right people' are placed on the ballot and put in a position to win.

Actually I think the people might have won one when Romney was the last GOP presidential candidate--I don't believe he is a member of the permanent political class and would not have been so easily bullied or manipulated. But alas, the political machine was able to sufficiently demonize him that he could not win even against the most inexperienced, incompetent, ineffective, and destructive President this country has ever known.

Interesting spin...

Romney was born to the permanent political class, his father was a Governor and Presidential candidate. He was born with both a silver spoon and limitless political connections

Meanwhile, you consider Obama to be "permanent political class" while he rose from obscurity to become president

Strange world that Conservative Bizarro World

The Permanent Political Class are those, elected, appointed, or hired into the bureaucracy, who serve in public office for mostly no other reason than to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Everything they do is calculated toward that end. It has nothing to do with their background, education, heritage, or personal circumstances prior to them being elected to office. Once there, they play ball with the machine in place, whether Democrat or Republican, or they are ostracized, marginalized, and refused any rank or privileges. They will either quit or the machine will see to it that they are voted out at the next election. Some are better at it than others and rise to prominent positions of leadership where they rule with almost unchallenged power. If they stray off the reservation, there will be hell to pay and they will be punished in some way.

Detailed description and discussion on that here:
BOOK REVIEW EXTORTION How Politicians Extract Your Money Buy Votes and Line The US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Libertarians (little "L") either allow themselves to be 'reformed' by the machine or they have a pretty tough time of it both in the halls of government and in the media.

Good God

And you think that doesn't apply to Romney?

He was born to it

No. I don't believe he was born to it at all, and I believe he is less susceptible to buying into it than most we see running for high office. His record shows that he has used his blessings mostly unselfishly for the common good and his track record is one of genuine public service instead of being self serving. And I say that as one who doesn't agree with him on every issue and who did not support him in the primaries.

Ever heard of George Romney? CEO of American Motors (which ironically made Jeeps), governor of Michigan and serious presidential candidate?

This guy....?

And chalk up one more red herring for your record and one more post showing that you don't have a clue about what is being discussed.

 

[Pogo]

I'm inclined to say that too. Though I've seen the term bandied about a lot.
It belongs to a bygone era

It's certainly an attempt to revise history that way.

Don't know if you saw but I went over all this in 891 (here).

 

[Mindful]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

 

[Mindful]

I'm inclined to say that too. Though I've seen the term bandied about a lot.
It belongs to a bygone era

It's certainly an attempt to revise history that way.

Don't know if you saw but I went over all this in 891 (here).

No I didn't. Or I wouldn't be asking.

 

[Pogo]

No. I don't believe he was born to it at all, and I believe he is less susceptible to buying into it than most we see running for high office. His record shows that he has used his blessings mostly unselfishly for the common good and his track record is one of genuine public service instead of being self serving. And I say that as one who doesn't agree with him on every issue and who did not support him in the primaries.

Ever heard of George Romney? CEO of American Motors (which ironically made Jeeps), governor of Michigan and serious presidential candidate?

This guy....?

And chalk up one more red herring for your record and one more post showing that you don't have a clue about what is being discussed.

Ahem...

No. I don't believe he was born to it at all

As the Zombies would say,
What's your name
Who's your daddy
Is he rich like me?

 

[Pogo]

I'm inclined to say that too. Though I've seen the term bandied about a lot.
It belongs to a bygone era

It's certainly an attempt to revise history that way.

Don't know if you saw but I went over all this in 891 (here).

No I didn't. Or I wouldn't be asking.

Lemme know what you think.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

The American tradition. The beliefs and concepts put forth by the Founders of what liberty is and what government should and should not be--probably more in alignment with the anti-federalists in more ways than the federalists. But they were all influenced and well read in all those philosophers named in the definitions I posted as well as a number of others.

 

[Mindful]

It sounds too complicated to me. I met a group of people at a wedding in NC once. Two libertarians, the rest being a cocktail of left leaning conservatives, and right leaning democrats. I couldn't get my head round it.

 

[Mindful]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

The American tradition. The beliefs and concepts put forth by the Founders of what liberty is and what government should and should not be--probably more in alignment with the anti-federalists in more ways than the federalists. But they were all influenced and well read in all those philosophers named in the definitions I posted as well as a number of others.

What liberty did you not have when you were British colonials?

 

[kaz]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

God instituted government to rule over people who think they are god.

But the ... men ... in Government when they make our choices for us are not being Gods, but we are when we make our own choices over our own lives and our own wallets. Was that supposed to make sense?

Representative government is better than what we have now, but has that really ever been common?

What does that have to do with your contention that people who think they should make their own decisions think they are Gods?

 

[kaz]

I wrote an ebook, Libertarianism, the UK Big Bang, and How They ruined America. Libertarianism is evil in the underside of its assumptions. Its god is self. And its liberty is dark and exclusive.

I'm not sure I'm clear exactly what you are arguing, but the highlighted point is what liberals say that is just a yawn to me because it's inane. My choices are that I am God, or the Government is? If my making my own choices means I think I am God, clearly then if they think government should make our choices, by that logic, government is God. That's just stupid. It's not an argument and it's not satire, it's a strawman.

God instituted government to rule over people who think they are god.

The devil instituted government for evil people who think they are god to make other people's choices for them.

What about those of us who don't think we are God and don't want other people making our choices for us? We're just screwed? Or do we need to pick, we think we are God, or we want other people to make our choices for us, those are our only options?

I'm glad you clarified it, it makes sense now...

The Devil can influence government to be sure. That is why it will all come to an end at Christi's Second Coming. There is plenty of evil in government.

But you said God gave us government and if we think we should make our own choices, we think we are Gods. So, God gave us government, which is full of evil corruption. But the people who are making our choices for us don't think they are Gods.

Hmmm

Do you want to think this one through and get back to me when you figure it out?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

The American tradition. The beliefs and concepts put forth by the Founders of what liberty is and what government should and should not be--probably more in alignment with the anti-federalists in more ways than the federalists. But they were all influenced and well read in all those philosophers named in the definitions I posted as well as a number of others.

What liberty did you not have when you were British colonials?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

The American tradition. The beliefs and concepts put forth by the Founders of what liberty is and what government should and should not be--probably more in alignment with the anti-federalists in more ways than the federalists. But they were all influenced and well read in all those philosophers named in the definitions I posted as well as a number of others.

What liberty did you not have when you were British colonials?

Are you not American Mindful? If you are, have you not read the Declaration of Independence or any of the other founding documents that ultimately coalesced into the U.S. Constitution?

The signers of the Declaration of Independence, among other things, were responding specifically to the fact that the English government denied them taxation without representation, denied them free trade, subjected them to unlimited search and seizure, interfered with their ability to form their own government groups, punished poltical protesters, refuse do discipline corrupt and abusive British overseers, imposed the English judicial system upon the colonists, were subject to accusations of guilt by Parliament with no means to defend or absolve themselves of charges, were forced to quarter British soldiers upon demand, and were subjected to British control of ports and being punished by British closure of ports.

The libertarian aka classical liberal wants the people to assign specific limited authority to the central government and then otherwise be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have. That is not at all complicated and should be pretty easy to wrap one's mind around. I have found, however, that most modern American liberals/statists/leftists/and/or political class are unable to do so.

 

[Pogo]

It sounds too complicated to me. I met a group of people at a wedding in NC once. Two libertarians, the rest being a cocktail of left leaning conservatives, and right leaning democrats. I couldn't get my head round it.

Indeed, that just underscores the übersimplification the demagogues who would drive our discourse would visit upon us, with the complicity of some of our friends here. As we noted earlier, "left", "right", "conservative" and "Democrat" are four different things, not two as they would reduce it to. One look at the obviously hyperconservative Democrats who dominated the pre-1964 South makes that clear.

 

[Mindful]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

The American tradition. The beliefs and concepts put forth by the Founders of what liberty is and what government should and should not be--probably more in alignment with the anti-federalists in more ways than the federalists. But they were all influenced and well read in all those philosophers named in the definitions I posted as well as a number of others.

What liberty did you not have when you were British colonials?

Are you not American Mindful? If you are, have you not read the Declaration of Independence or any of the other founding documents that ultimately coalesced into the U.S. Constitution?

The signers of the Declaration of Independence, among other things, were responding specifically to the fact that the English government denied them taxation without representation, denied them free trade, subjected them to unlimited search and seizure, interfered with their ability to form their own government groups, punished poltical protesters, refuse do discipline corrupt and abusive British overseers, imposed the English judicial system upon the colonists, were subject to accusations of guilt by Parliament with no means to defend or absolve themselves of charges, were forced to quarter British soldiers upon demand, and were subjected to British control of ports and being punished by British closure of ports.

The libertarian aka classical liberal wants the people to assign specific limited authority to the central government and then otherwise be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have. That is not at all complicated and should be pretty easy to wrap one's mind around. I have found, however, that most modern American liberals/statists/leftists/and/or political class are unable to do so.

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

The American tradition. The beliefs and concepts put forth by the Founders of what liberty is and what government should and should not be--probably more in alignment with the anti-federalists in more ways than the federalists. But they were all influenced and well read in all those philosophers named in the definitions I posted as well as a number of others.

What liberty did you not have when you were British colonials?

Are you not American Mindful? If you are, have you not read the Declaration of Independence or any of the other founding documents that ultimately coalesced into the U.S. Constitution?

The signers of the Declaration of Independence, among other things, were responding specifically to the fact that the English government denied them taxation without representation, denied them free trade, subjected them to unlimited search and seizure, interfered with their ability to form their own government groups, punished poltical protesters, refuse do discipline corrupt and abusive British overseers, imposed the English judicial system upon the colonists, were subject to accusations of guilt by Parliament with no means to defend or absolve themselves of charges, were forced to quarter British soldiers upon demand, and were subjected to British control of ports and being punished by British closure of ports.

The libertarian aka classical liberal wants the people to assign specific limited authority to the central government and then otherwise be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sorts of societies they wish to have. That is not at all complicated and should be pretty easy to wrap one's mind around. I have found, however, that most modern American liberals/statists/leftists/and/or political class are unable to do so.

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

Really. After researching it once? Hmmm. I have researched it for decades now. And yes, the modern day liberal/statist/leftist/and/or political class have earned considerable notoriety for inconsistencies and historical revision, but I have found little or none of that within the founding documents. Thinking out loud? Yes. Disagreements, arguments, debates, criticisms, questions, yes. All adds authenticity to the process as being honest, open, and authentic rather than a preaching of ideological doctrine.

Libertarians aka classical liberals do not march in lockstep. We will disagree on many things. But one thing we are pretty unified on is the concept of self governance as opposed to any form of authoritarian government assigning us a lot of requirements and mandates, each eroding a little more of our rights until the government has it all.

 

[kaz]

Thanks for that example from the echo chamber of Conflationism. It amply describes what the Conflationists wish us to redefine to. I on the other hand laid out WHY they're doing that and what the purpose of that redefinition is.

Language changes when We the People change it -- not when political demagogues fling ad copy at us. And we don't morph words in half a century. Again, there is no reason to merge three (six) different words into one (two) except to dumb down the dialogue in an attempt to control the proletariat in a grand game of dichotomous Angels and Devils.

When I find out better info than I previously had, I adopt and incorporate it. What do you do? Ignore it as inconvenient?

And Foxy if I were you I'd be circumspect about invoking "ignoring posts" considering what you've been ignoring im this thread when I proved you wrong.

Nomsayin'?

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. . . .

Indeed.

I rest my case. You are absolutely incapable of reading and understanding a concept or argument. But you are in good company as few modern day American liberals can. Oh well. I love you anyway.

(I suspect though that you chose not to quote my rebuttal to your statement that there is no such thing as a classical liberal because your statement was blown to hell by my rebuttal. Speaking of who proved who wrong.)

Is anyone here a, what would be considered, classical liberal?

I reject the concept of one definition--was it the Princeton one? But they used wiki that sometimes gets pretty strange--that classical liberalism at the extreme includes social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is antithesis and would be totally foreign to the beliefs of the Founders and what classical liberalism is.

But otherwise, classical liberal aka libertarian (little "L") would be me 100% without equivocation.

The "British tradition" or the "French tradition".

The American tradition. The beliefs and concepts put forth by the Founders of what liberty is and what government should and should not be--probably more in alignment with the anti-federalists in more ways than the federalists. But they were all influenced and well read in all those philosophers named in the definitions I posted as well as a number of others.

What liberty did you not have when you were British colonials?

Self determination

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, I've read all that. I researched it once, and found some glaring inconsistencies in the popular narrative.

That would be the second time that you have mentioned such.

The class is still waiting for you to share though.