NationStates Jolt Archive

Liberals did not support war with Afganistan.

On the contrary, we had been campaigning for something to be doen since the Taliban came to power.

Liberals support abortion

No, Liberals are divided on the morality of abortion. However the cheif tenant of liberalism is the freedom to choose.

Liberals donot believe in God

Religion is irrelivant in liberalism, freedom of religion is a liberal ideal.

Liberalism started in the 60s

I donnot know how this started, but Liberalism began much closer to the time of Karl Marx and arguabley predates it.

I'll add more as they come

I've never believed any of those misconceptions, though I do believe that the liberals at some point (I think during the Reagan/Bush years) came to claim the 60s as their own (think Camelot of the Kennedys).

Liberalism started in the 60s

I donnot know how this started, but Liberalism began much closer to the time of Karl Marx and arguabley predates it.



The British Liberal party grew from what was was the Whig party after the Reform Bill of 1832. Just to update your files :¬]

Associating liberalism with Marx is another damaging misconception... you knob!

If you plan to discuss the history of liberalism you should at least engage your lazy arse in a serach under 'liberalism history' at Google or some other web search.

Liberalism started in the 60s

I donnot know how this started, but Liberalism began much closer to the time of Karl Marx and arguabley predates it.


'Arguably'? Try indubitably. John Locke in the C17th seems like the first modern liberal.

Associating liberalism with Marx is another damaging misconception... you knob!

If you plan to discuss the history of liberalism you should at least engage your lazy arse in a serach under 'liberalism history' at Google or some other web search.
I did no such thing you ignorant fool.

Liberalism merely took root around the same time Marx began hammering out what would later become Communism.

Though if we must go there, Liberalism has no economic facit so it tends to lend itself to a kind of socialism. This marriage between the ideolgies leads many to believe that Hobbian Liberalism may have at one time be intertwined with Englian Socialism.

However, it is more important to note again that Liberalism is not an economic ideology and treats the nature of market as being of a political nature which whilst socialist in nature features a capitalist outlook on freedom of trade that uniqiely liberal and not in anyway associative of communism.

Is it true that liberals eat their first born?

Liberalism merely took root around the same time Marx began hammering out what would later become Communism.

~cough~
John Locke
~cough~

Though if we must go there, Liberalism has no economic facit so it tends to lend itself to a kind of socialism. This marriage between the ideolgies leads many to believe that Hobbian Liberalism may have at one time be intertwined with Englian Socialism.

No, such laissez-faire economic models as those beloved of Adam Smith fit into the category of liberalism (and, indeed, predate Marx).

'Arguably'? Try indubitably. John Locke in the C17th seems like the first modern liberal.
There is much dispute, for instance it is beyond a doubt that Classical Liberals, perticually their founders were just as much part of the Liberal movement as Modern Liberals and as such the founding of Classical Liberalism may be much earlier.

Some historians argue it as being after the Frence Revolution and deriving it's name from Les Liber, The Liberty(s).

I would say a distinctive milestone however is the founding of Modern Liberalism, for it is the begining of the liberal influence of socio-political ideals.

I would say a distinctive milestone however is the founding of Modern Liberalism, for it is the begining of the liberal influence of socio-political ideals.

Ok, then can you come up with a name for one of the founders of your Modern Liberalism?

~cough~
John Locke
~cough~



No, such laissez-faire economic models as those beloved of Adam Smith fit into the category of liberalism (and, indeed, predate Marx).
You seem to actually cover my point, which is that Liberalism in itself holds a system of ethics that lends itself to favour a socialist model with vested freedoms.

Whether Liberalism influenced Socialism or Socialism to Liberalism or whether Marx was right and they are the natural by-product of an oppressed people striving for freedom will forever be a focal point for arguement.

I prefer to highlight that whilst Liberalism is not in itself either Socialist of Capitalist, the Liberal mindset fits best with what we have come to term Liberal-Socialism.

Liberalism started in the 60s

I donnot know how this started, but Liberalism began much closer to the time of Karl Marx and arguabley predates it.


Liberalism began when Adam Smith invented the word and means nothing of what you think it means. Ignorant copyright-supporting scum, if Smith was alive today i'd laugh as he sued you banrupt.
EDIT: The philosophy istelf preadtes Smith, though i believe he was the first to directly use the the word 'liberalism', as oppose dot mereley 'liberal'.

Ok, then can you come up with a name for one of the founders of your Modern Liberalism?
Locke is argued by many as Modern Liberalism founder (circa 1690), however Spinoza (sp?) is alternatively given credit. I prefer to believe that Liberalism is not the product of one man's mind but the inebitable conclusion of the minds of thinking (wo)men.

EDIT: You'll have to forgive any minor errors in this as I'm working off the top of my head, since I failed to take Shakespear's advice and leant out most of my political history books.

While you are at it, please also note that the attempt to constantly equate social liberalism with fiscal liberalism and package them up into one neat bundle is a silly thing to do.

For example - I am a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative. Which is probably why GW annoys me so much in that we have completely opposing views on both of these issues.

And no, before the Republicans come out to call me on that, just cutting taxes does not equate to fiscal conservatism. Not while increasing both the size of government and it's spending (GW is the first President in the history of the US never to veto a spending bill).He may talk the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. Which, incidentally, he will probably also not do for you on social issues either.

The Republicans have had the Congress, Senate, and White House for the past four years (and, arguably, the Supreme Court). Exactly how many of your "moral" issues have they tackled for you so far?

None?


I hope that you expect more of the same this time around.... because all they seem to do is give it lip service to get themselves elected. They never actually do anything about these issues... primarily so they can complain about them again in four years so that you will elect them again.

So they can do nothing about them again....

Locke is argued by many as Modern Liberalism founder (circa 1690), however Spinoza (sp?) is argued by many to be it's founder. I prefer to believe that Liberalism is not the product of one man's mind but the inebitable conclusion of the minds of thinking (wo)men.

So, you agree that your initial claim that the birth of liberalism was around the time of Marx was misleading?

EDIT: You'll have to forgive any minor errors in this as I'm working off the top of my head, since I failed to take Shakespear's advice and leant out most of my political history books.

Just saw this edit: yeah, fair enough, I won't leap down your throat, but it seemed like a very strange time to credit with the birth of liberalism.

Liberalism began when Adam Smith invented the word and means nothing of what you think it means. Ignorant copyright-supporting scum, if Smith was alive today i'd laugh as he sued you banrupt.
EDIT: The philosophy istelf preadtes Smith, though i believe he was the first to directly use the the word 'liberalism', as oppose dot mereley 'liberal'.
Liberalism is an ideology which encompasses a borad spectrum of beliefs all of which share one common thread, which is at it's simplist form the belief in liberty.

I support copyright yet would be sued for it's violation because I used a public domain expression differently to a missconception? Please leave the grown-ups to talk dear.

Liberalism has no founding date because it is a concept which originated no doubt around the dinner table in the conversation of intellectuals. We can guess at the date of the founding of Modern Liberalism, however.

And no, before the Republicans come out to call me on that, just cutting taxes does not equate to fiscal conservatism. Not while increasing both the size of government and it's spending (GW is the first President in the history of the US never to veto a spending bill).He may talk the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. Which, incidentally, he will probably also not do for you on social issues either.
....
As the token Republican on NS I promise you will not be flamed because you are correct.

As far as Rotovia's argument about liberalism having no economic facet - than suggesting it is most compatible with socialism is a baseless point. It is comparable to saying liberalism has no color and is best associated with teal.

he then pukes up something about 'the nature of market as being of a political nature' - which I find odd considering that he just essentially said liberal politics have no economic facet. Then name drops as if he thinks it will impres us.

I suppose that if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance you can always baffle them with your BS.

It is sad that the liberal party has been hijacked with the likes of these.

So, you agree that your initial claim that the birth of liberalism was around the time of Marx was misleading?



Just saw this edit: yeah, fair enough, I won't leap down your throat, but it seemed like a very strange time to credit with the birth of liberalism.
The birth of liberalism can never be proved, however I choose what I term the "Karl Marx Era" because it is one of the best times in history to witness liberalism being birthed into something entirely tangable. However, as a date for the founding of liberalism anything would be inaccurate.

And as much as I love arguements over political ideology, it's nearly 12:30 and I can't afford to be late for work.

Liberals are socialists

Wrong. Liberals as understood in the modern sense (particularly in America) are to the left of conservatives, but they are not socialists. Socialists are ideologically opposed to business. Liberals merely want to restrain corporations from hurting people and communities.

Liberals believe in a balance between government power and corporate power. This way, one can stop the other from becoming a tyranny.

As the token Republican on NS I promise you will not be flamed because you are correct.

As far as Rotovia's argument about liberalism having no economic facet - than suggesting it is most compatible with socialism is a baseless point. It is comparable to saying liberalism has no color and is best associated with teal.

he then pukes up something about 'the nature of market as being of a political nature' - which I find odd considering that he just essentially said liberal politics have no economic facet. Then name drops as if he thinks it will impres us.

I suppose that if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance you can always baffle them with your BS.

It is sad that the liberal party has been hijacked with the likes of these.
I'll seperate this into points because it really is getting late/early for me.

1) Liberalism lacks an economic facet, much like boiling water lacks flavour. Liberalism is arguably best compatable with socialism, much like boiling water is arguably best when mixed with coffee.

I realise it's a poor analogy, however it will have to do, at some point in runnig a nation under a liberal ideology a government must realise that liberalism lack an economic facet and they need choose an economic system. At this point communism, facsism, capticalism are counter-productive and so the best choice become socialism.

2) Liberalism essentially can only examine matter from a socio-political standpoint and so if forced to do so will veiw economics as a socie-political issue. Thus being politically natured entity, which is why applying an economic ideology is so important.

3) I shudder to think anyone would be impressed or baffled by "Hobbian Liberalism" or "Englian Socialism". I stand behind the choice of words.

Liberals are socialists

Wrong. Liberals as understood in the modern sense (particularly in America) are to the left of conservatives, but they are not socialists. Socialists are ideologically opposed to business. Liberals merely want to restrain corporations from hurting people and communities.

Liberals believe in a balance between government power and corporate power. This way, one can stop the other from becoming a tyranny.
This will definately need to be my last reply guys.

I never claim for Liberalism to be Socialism. The fact you missed this point does not speak highly on your behalf. I have repeatedly mentioned that liberalism has no economic side and therefore cannot be socialism.

I'll seperate this into points because it really is getting late/early for me.

.


I will be kind since I understand you are sleepy. I'll pick up another time (provided I can find the thread). Siljhouettes had a good point.

For now, go mix your boiling H2O with some cocoa and have a good sleep.

Good night.

Socialists are ideologically opposed to business.

or, more acurately, private ownership thereof

The American Founding Fathers were "liberal"... though with alot of the deregulational views you could argue closer to "libertarian" liberalism...

At any rate, US Founding Fathers would give little help to present day conservatism.

I like normal liberals perfectly fine. I like conservatives perfectly fine. I don't like authoritarian liberals or authoritarian conservatives. Because they demand you believe the same thing as them.

I don't like militant people either, if you're militant about anything you are clearly way too sure of your beliefs and you need to step back and re-evaluate.

re: Afghanistan... I don't recall anyone other than the stupidest conservative ever saying that liberals were against our going in there, and I don't recall anyone but the most extremist pacifist ever saying that we shouldn't.

While you are at it, please also note that the attempt to constantly equate social liberalism with fiscal liberalism and package them up into one neat bundle is a silly thing to do.

For example - I am a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative. Which is probably why GW annoys me so much in that we have completely opposing views on both of these issues.

And no, before the Republicans come out to call me on that, just cutting taxes does not equate to fiscal conservatism. Not while increasing both the size of government and it's spending (GW is the first President in the history of the US never to veto a spending bill).He may talk the talk, but he doesn't walk the walk. Which, incidentally, he will probably also not do for you on social issues either.

The Republicans have had the Congress, Senate, and White House for the past four years (and, arguably, the Supreme Court). Exactly how many of your "moral" issues have they tackled for you so far?

None?


I hope that you expect more of the same this time around.... because all they seem to do is give it lip service to get themselves elected. They never actually do anything about these issues... primarily so they can complain about them again in four years so that you will elect them again.

So they can do nothing about them again....

Social liberalism is the valuing of individuals' civil rights, protection of minorities from the tyranny of the majority, etc. Fiscal liberalism is the support of the idea that government can solve problems by spending money to deal with them. Corporate liberalism is the upholding of the idea that business should be regulated minimally, if at all.

Please note that these definitions are my own, and may not conform to commonly held dictionary ones.

In modern american politics, the Libertarian party is liberal on all three fronts. American liberals, by he common parliaence, are social liberals and corporate conservatives. They tend to be regarded as fiscal liberals as well, but just compare the Clinton administrations budget balencing record to that of George W(hiney little girl) "I never met a spending bill I didn't like" Bush. Perhaps both sides are fiscally liberal, but spending government money on their own agendas. However the liberals seem to have a far more healthy and realistic view on the roles of spending and borrowing.

snip

Liberalism started in the 60s

I donnot know how this started, but Liberalism began much closer to the time of Karl Marx and arguabley predates it.


On this note, Liberalism really started with the Enlightenment Philosophers.

Is it true that liberals eat their first born?

Only the first born of Pharoh's Egytptians, as Moses asked us to do.

It is arguable that Machiavelli started the transition to the world's Liberality. Machiavelli was radically liberal for the time, for one main reason: He was the first philosopher (since Ancient times) to explained the basis of government on secular grounds. Before Machiavelli, Kings would say they had divine mandate to rule.

Ironic... it seems like were going backwards now. ~coughBUSHMANDATEcough~

On this note, Liberalism really started with the Enlightenment Philosophers.
that's CLASSICAL liberalism. Today's liberal's, myself included, generally are not lazzes-faire capitalists. Capitalists, yes, but not lazzes-faire. I actually would argue that modern liberalism, that which is found in the Democratic party today, really began with Harry Truman, who integrated the US Army in 1947. The 1948 DNC focused much more heavily on civil rights than before. That's when southern Democrats became more Republican and New England became predominantly Democratic.

that's CLASSICAL liberalism. Today's liberal's, myself included, generally are not lazzes-faire capitalists. Capitalists, yes, but not lazzes-faire. I actually would argue that modern liberalism, that which is found in the Democratic party today, really began with Harry Truman, who integrated the US Army in 1947. The 1948 DNC focused much more heavily on civil rights than before. That's when southern Democrats became more Republican and New England became predominantly Democratic.

Laize-Faire started with Adam Smith. Who's really late in the game when we're talking about "Enlightenment Philosophers." Liberalism is all about liberty.

Communists are for making everyone equal.

Liberals are for is equal opportunity. Major difference.

Liberalism is all about liberty.

Communists are for making everyone equal.

Liberals are for is equal opportunity. Major difference.

i'm not sure that all liberals are for equal opportunity per se. certainly equality before the law, but some stop there - whether or not empirical evidence shows that that creates equality of opportunity.

equal opportunity has been more of a libertarian socialist doctrine. because to have equal opportunity you must destroy all aspects of class privilege.

Liberalism began in theory with Hobbes, Mill, Locke, Montesquieu, Rosseau, and Voltaire, but began in practice with the American Revolution.

i'm not sure that all liberals are for equal opportunity per se. certainly equality before the law, but some stop there - whether or not empirical evidence shows that that creates equality of opportunity.

equal opportunity has been more of a libertarian socialist doctrine. because to have equal opportunity you must destroy all aspects of class privilege.

You don't have to destroy the aspects of class privilege, you jsut have to provide a feasible path for the poor to move up the social ladder. That way, everyone is where they want to be (of course that doesn't mean take the programs away, incase some poor people decide to move up the ladder later on in life or for whatever thing). To provide economic mobility you don't have to destroy classes, for example: a great way to provied economic mobility for single parent familys is to provide childcare for the working parents. This removes a huge burden that would otherwise keep working parents from moving up. And its great because it can be provided specifically for working parents.

You don't have to destroy the aspects of class privilege, you jsut have to provide a feasible path for the poor to move up the social ladder. That way, everyone is where they want to be (of course that doesn't mean take the programs away, incase some poor people decide to move up the ladder later on in life or for whatever thing). To provide economic mobility you don't have to destroy classes, for example: a great way to provied economic mobility for single parent familys is to provide childcare for the working parents. This removes a huge burden that would otherwise keep working parents from moving up. And its great because it can be provided specifically for working parents.

that doesn't amount to equal opportunity, just slightly more equal opportunity. as long as some people can have access to better healthcare, eductation, living conditions, working conditions, etc. for themselves and their children, "equal opportunity" can only be an empty sham.