NationStates Jolt Archive

We will continue our fight and for me, we are doing better than i thought we would do.

Have more faith in the ability of people to decide for themselves. The whole process of an election is Classic Liberalism at work.

Let's appoint Texpunditistan as Minister of Media Manipulation and Control!

Just kidding. We're not the DSP or RTP, so we won't have one of those! Sorry, Tex.

Let's appoint Texpunditistan as Minister of Media Manipulation and Control!

Just kidding. We're not the DSP or RTP, so we won't have one of those! Sorry, Tex.
Damn... maybe I should switch parties. ;)

I would like to nominate Texaspunditstan as the director of design for his fine graphics. He will be a moderator on the party forum. I think he deserves this honour.

Also, ello Eichen, haven't seen you in a while.

Damn... maybe I should switch parties. ;)

If you don't mind the pay cut, comrade. :p

Let's appoint Texpunditistan as Minister of Media Manipulation and Control!

Just kidding. We're not the DSP or RTP, so we won't have one of those! Sorry, Tex.

That's harsh. We only have one member, I have a lot of jobs to do!

That's harsh. We only have one member, I have a lot of jobs to do!

Oh come on, you have more members than one.

Which is the scary part.

If you don't mind the pay cut, comrade. :p
You're right. SCREW THAT! :D

Oh come on, you have more members than one.

Which is the scary part.

We used to have Saxnot as well, but I think he's left us.... he apologised to Tink and took out the revolution link in his sig *weep*


edit: Splintering with two members: that's gotta be some sort of record, even amongst trotskyist groups

We used to have Saxnot as well, but I think he's left us.... he apologised to Tink and took out the revolution link in his sig *weep*


edit: Splintering with two members: that's gotta be some sort of record, even amongst trotskyist groups
Well, I used to be a Marxist.

Well, I used to be a Marxist.
*wonders what the hell happened to Kervoskia*

*wonders what the hell happened to Kervoskia*
I put down the manifesto and read something else.

What happened to the libertarian manifesto? Did you end up using David Friedman's system of legislation? I believe that just might work. BTW the proper name of that ideology is kritarchy, and it is the only system proposed hitherto that gives the people any real influence on the government.

What happened to the libertarian manifesto? Did you end up using David Friedman's system of legislation? I believe that just might work. BTW the proper name of that ideology is kritarchy, and it is the only system proposed hitherto that gives the people any real influence on the government.

Kritarchy is thae name given to the autocratic rule of the judges over Israel. It has absolutely nothing to do with us. OK.

I can see where you got this idea from given that there are people who misuse the term, for example:

A kritarchy does not have subjects and rulers. It lacks a government in the modern sense of the word, that is an organisation with coercive powers that claims a right to obedience of those who inhabit its realm. Governing and taxing people are not functions of the political system of kritarchy. People are left free to govern their own affairs, either individually or in association with others. Indeed, freedom is the basic law of a kritarchy.
source (http://www.liberalia.com/htm/mvn_stateless_somalis.htm)


but its true meaning is one of complete totalitarinism instead of the freedom we propose.

okay... I'm out of here for the night before I REALLY lose my cool and Frisbeeteria (of whom I'm convinced hates my guts) bans me for life.

If anybody wants to talk to me, I'll be on the NSCL private phpBB board.

I think calling someone a fucking arsehole tends to have that effect.

How about this for a slogan?

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU THE FREEDOM TO SUCCEED

NS CLASSIC LIBERALS - GIVING YOU POWER OVER YOUR OWN LIFENow that is what I call are real persons slogan. Meritocracy at its finest.

Guys, if you want to use any of the posters I created for campaigning, here are the links. I made them for all of us to use.

http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal1.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal2.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal3.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal4.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal5.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal6.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal7.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal8.jpg
http://armageddonproject.com/ftpdrop/nsclassicliberal9.jpg
Hey Tex, I want to copy some of these for the government class I teach, is that a problem?

Hey Tex, I want to copy some of these for the government class I teach, is that a problem?
no problem at all. I'd be honored :)

Also, if you need larger, print quality versions in PDF, let me know and I can email them to you.

I'm in web design/Flash/SEO.

And a card-carrying member of the LP, ACLU and thinking of adding the NRA to the list.
I'm also suprised at the number of freedom-lovers on the board these days. What the hell happened while I was gone? Whatever it was... 'bout fuckin' time! :D

Welcome back, where have you been?

Well guys, the election is officially over. We need to start getting our shit together.

We do indeed. I am still shocked at how the DSP quickly gathered a load of votes to get ahead of us and win the election by a vote. Oh and Spaam, i'm not the only one with a silly name. However, i do not make up wild statistics and claim them to be the truth. :rolleyes:

We need to get our shit together indeed,i'm glad that you (Melkor) got three seats, we have five, the PoWW has three and MRR has two. That's 13 seats, now it depends if we are willing to work with the PoWW and the MRR and if they are willing to work with us.

Well guys, the election is officially over. We need to start getting our shit together.

Totally, as we need to make sure, no one ever makes rules in the parliument that EVER affect the live of other people....at all...be obstructionist.....lol

Well, I am disapointed with the result, but well done on your majority.

http://img292.echo.cx/img292/2269/loser5ku.jpg

Nominations for MPs please.

I still stand with the following

Vittos Ordination (founder)
Alien Born (I don't like nominating myself, but it would be unfair not to)
Texpunditistan
Kervoskia
Wegason

Nominations for MPs please.

Vittos Ordination
Texpunditistan
Kervoskia
Wegason
Alien Born

(Only people I know in the party besides me...)

(I still think our gun arguement is quite scary. Leaving a gun at home is neglegance? Not even the Libertarian Party is THAT extreme.)



BTW, did y'all see the graph that had the parties seperated between libertarianism and totalitarianism? I saw a slight edge towards our side.

http://www.hlj.me.uk/poof.jpg

:D

Vittos Ordination
Texpunditistan
Kervoskia
Wegason
Alien Born

(Only people I know in the party besides me...)

(I still think our gun arguement is quite scary. Leaving a gun at home is neglegance? Not even the Libertarian Party is THAT extreme.)

BTW, did y'all see the graph that had the parties seperated between libertarianism and totalitarianism? I saw a slight edge towards our side.

I agree with those MPs :p I think we do have a slight edge possibly and as for disagreements with party policies, thats bound to happen on some issues. I would agree with you on the gun issue, but personally, being from britain, i favour gun control, but it does not bother me.

I still think our gun arguement is quite scary. Leaving a gun at home is neglegance? Not even the Libertarian Party is THAT extreme.


I acknowledged that I was out voted. It was a discussion point that I argued strongly for, but it is not a point that is central or critical to my beliefs, so I am wiling to concede to the opinions of the others here. (But it was a fun discussion).

I acknowledged that I was out voted. It was a discussion point that I argued strongly for, but it is not a point that is central or critical to my beliefs, so I am wiling to concede to the opinions of the others here. (But it was a fun discussion).

Okay. I was gone Sat. and Sun., so I didn't get to read everything from those days.

What should our strategy be now, or is it best not to discuss here?

What should our strategy be now, or is it best not to discuss here?

We do have a forum for this.

Also, ello Eichen, haven't seen you in a while.
Welcome back, where have you been?
I've moved into a new apartment, got a puppy, laid hardwood floors down, and have tried to keep up with work. Haven't had much free time to post, but it's good to be back.

Damn! When did we (Classical Liberals/libertarians) become so numerous here on NS? :D

Seriously, I remember a time (okay, the whole time) when me and a few others never got any rest arguing reason with the statist liberals and authoritarian conservatives!

Glad to see we came in an uberclose second. Wouldn't have believed it a few months ago, would've believed more like a 3:10 minority, at best.

So when does voting commence?

Right now I think we should be discussing our party strategy on the party forum, and arguing for procedural and administraive procedurtes in the NS Parliament thread.

But do as you will, as always.

I know this is a technicality, but I think if we're going to get into the business of naming MPs now, for the sake of keeping things tidy, a roster of party members ought to be put together.

Lol

I was just about to type that, getting a roster of all the members

Go to http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal.html and register. We will create a register there. Please register under your NS name (saves confusion).

I'm registered NSCL...

ARE YOU?

(Do it now, or I kill a kitten.)

Oh well there go a whole load of kittens.

Fine as long as it's cats... can't stand the little bastards.

You start killing puppies, though, and we'll have an intraparty revolution. :p

Fine as long as it's cats... can't stand the little bastards.

You start killing puppies, though, and we'll have an intraparty revolution. :p

:p I second that one.

Fine as long as it's cats... can't stand the little bastards.

You start killing puppies, though, and we'll have an intraparty revolution. :pAgreed. Although i don't like kittens being killed either

We do indeed. I am still shocked at how the DSP quickly gathered a load of votes to get ahead of us and win the election by a vote. Oh and Spaam, i'm not the only one with a silly name. However, i do not make up wild statistics and claim them to be the truth. :rolleyes:
And I think the newb is merely bitter. Stick around for a couple more years and maybe you won't be.

As for the statistics, and I'm assuming you mean Health Insurance, I am merely going by my experience of the situation. If you assume I'm claiming them to be truth, then you are dimmer than I thought. I asked people to prove me otherwise, because I was sure others knew more about it than I. HOWEVER, most Health Insurance policies I heard of in the US were costing around $10K.

I think it's safe to say that I represent the extreme of the party. I can be moderate if that is needed.

And I think the newb is merely bitter. Stick around for a couple more years and maybe you won't be.

As for the statistics, and I'm assuming you mean Health Insurance, I am merely going by my experience of the situation. If you assume I'm claiming them to be truth, then you are dimmer than I thought. I asked people to prove me otherwise, because I was sure others knew more about it than I. HOWEVER, most Health Insurance policies I heard of in the US were costing around $10K.

Youir flamming and baiting is not appreciated here. I suggest you grow up a little and learn to deal with society rather than just throwing out insults whenever you are challenged to support your absurd claims.

Youir flamming and baiting is not appreciated here. I suggest you grow up a little and learn to deal with society rather than just throwing out insults whenever you are challenged to support your absurd claims.
The 'flame' was in reponse to Wegason's 'shock' that the DS won.

You obviously don't know America well if you think my claims are absurd. Then again, you are both Poms, so what can I say?

The 'flame' was in reponse to Wegason's 'shock' that the DS won.

You obviously don't know America well if you think my claims are absurd. Then again, you are both Poms, so what can I say?
Don't you have somebody in your OWN PARTY'S thread to bother?

So far, you have no facts, no arguments and nothing constructive to say. You do nothing but show up and follow people around and start shit for absolutely no reason.

You're a troll.

Don't you have somebody in your OWN PARTY'S thread to bother?

So far, you have no facts, no arguments and nothing constructive to say. You do nothing but show up and follow people around and start shit for absolutely no reason.

You're a troll.
Faaascinating... you really don't know me.

I don't think I was the one who got the official warning yesterday...

Faaascinating... you really don't know me.
I know enough about you from your posts. Your actions on this forum, especially on this thread, have show you to be a troll. You have been reported as such.

I know enough about you from your posts. Your actions on this forum, especially on this thread, have show you to be a troll. You have been reported as such.

I don't recall trolls ever contributing anything worthwhile to arguments and debates.

I don't recall trolls ever contributing anything worthwhile to arguments and debates.

Which is exactly the point. Spaam has not contributed anything at any time to any of the debates. He has asserted ridiculous claims, refused to show evidence for them, shown more interest in ad hominem attacks than in debate, requested other people to mock posters of his choosing etc. This is a pretty classic definition of a troll. Now if you do not think it is trolling, then I would ask you to find evidence for his claim that, for example, health insurance in the USA costs $10,000 per annum. Do you think you can, or do you think he is trolling?

The 'flame' was in reponse to Wegason's 'shock' that the DS won.

You obviously don't know America well if you think my claims are absurd. Then again, you are both Poms, so what can I say?

Maybe I don't know America well enough either since I've NEVER met anyone who spent 10K on health insurance. That's more than most people's rent.

Maybe I don't know America well enough either since I've NEVER met anyone who spent 10K on health insurance. That's more than most people's rent.
I have. But you might like to note that I ASKED YOU ALL TO TELL ME IF I WAS WRONG! You see, if you happen to come from America, there's a good chance that you might know more than me. Therefore you can go and tell me how much you payed for HI. Now, I DO note that you did in the other thread, Joc, but I am a bit cynical... mind putting up the site of that Insurer for me? Oh and for reference, my HI, for BASIC coverage, and in US dollars, would cost about $500. However, I was talking about Australian dollars, funnily enough, and since I am a teacher, I get lower rates than most. And I'd prefer to have more than basic.

Full coverage for myself (I'm a small biz owner) would cost between $150-200 USD/month (28/male/smoker).

Anyone employed paying more than that probably has a pretty sore ass right now... unless you're paying for a large family as well (which would be moot since that's not what we're discussing).

Full coverage for myself (I'm a small biz owner) would cost between $150-200 USD/month (28/male/smoker).

Anyone employed paying more than that probably has a pretty sore ass right now... unless you're paying for a large family as well (which would be moot since that's not what we're discussing).
I'm assuming month of course. That makes $2500-3000/yr Australian, at least. Thanks Eichen!

In that case the situation isn't so bad as I pointed out, but it is still much worse than here...

I have. But you might like to note that I ASKED YOU ALL TO TELL ME IF I WAS WRONG! You see, if you happen to come from America, there's a good chance that you might know more than me. Therefore you can go and tell me how much you payed for HI. Now, I DO note that you did in the other thread, Joc, but I am a bit cynical... mind putting up the site of that Insurer for me? Oh and for reference, my HI, for BASIC coverage, and in US dollars, would cost about $500. However, I was talking about Australian dollars, funnily enough, and since I am a teacher, I get lower rates than most. And I'd prefer to have more than basic.

You don't get it. The burden of proof is on you, as you are the one speculating. Don't expect anyone to believe that your 1000 to 10000 comparison for the two countries was correct because it simply isn't. In the US, as a teacher it would cheaper as well. Like I said though, I paid 1000 out of pocket with no employer assistance. That's full coverage.

www.acordia.com - that's where I got the insurance through a local branch in Champaign, IL. I was travelling for work and it was valid throughout the US.

Making assertions and telling people they stand until disproven is ridiculous especially when they are not based on any facts whatsoever. Why don't you get a quote for us on what insurance would cost you in the US?

Oh, and by the way the current exchange rate is 1 US dollar to 1.32368 Australian Dollar. If you're wondering that makes your insurance cost more than double in US dollars than what you suggested. Please do a little research before you post unless you wish to be completely and utterly dismissed as a source for useful information.

I'm assuming month of course. That makes $2500-3000/yr Australian, at least. Thanks Eichen!

In that case the situation isn't so bad as I pointed out, but it is still much worse than here...

He should shop around and he's a smoker. Like I said I paid less than half that (two years ago) when I was 28/male/nonsmoker.

He should shop around and he's a smoker. Like I said I paid less than half that (two years ago) when I was 28/male/nonsmoker.
Wow, I'll have to look around. Being a smoker after 25 kinda raises it considerably, but I could probably find better than double.

Thanks! :)

Does Spaam retract his claim now, does he admit that he was wrong. No. Just silence from the troll.

You don't get it. The burden of proof is on you, as you are the one speculating. Don't expect anyone to believe that your 1000 to 10000 comparison for the two countries was correct because it simply isn't. In the US, as a teacher it would cheaper as well. Like I said though, I paid 1000 out of pocket with no employer assistance. That's full coverage.

www.acordia.com - that's where I got the insurance through a local branch in Champaign, IL. I was travelling for work and it was valid throughout the US.

Making assertions and telling people they stand until disproven is ridiculous especially when they are not based on any facts whatsoever. Why don't you get a quote for us on what insurance would cost you in the US?

Oh, and by the way the current exchange rate is 1 US dollar to 1.32368 Australian Dollar. If you're wondering that makes your insurance cost more than double in US dollars than what you suggested. Please do a little research before you post unless you wish to be completely and utterly dismissed as a source for useful information.
Essentials cover is $63.70 a month. That makes $764.40 a year. In American that makes $584.86.

http://www.teachershealth.com.au

And I was going from my experience with the US, I never said otherwise. I accept if I was wrong.


EDIT:

AB? Congratulations. You just earn yourself a report.

AB? Congratulations. You just earn yourself a report.

That is going to be intersting to watch. :)

Essentials cover is $63.70 a month. That makes $764.40 a year. In American that makes $584.86.

http://www.teachershealth.com.au

And I was going from my experience with the US, I never said otherwise. I accept if I was wrong.


EDIT:

AB? Congratulations. You just earn yourself a report.

Huh? Seems you've changed your mind on what it costs you. Interesting.

Don't have time to provide sources. Australia isn't quite that good either - it would cost me $1500 a year for private health insurance, and that is only because I am becoming a teacher. So that is one half of the proof. I'd like to see what the minimum is for the US though, cos it is sure way more than that.

I'd like to note that I am now 30/male/nonsmoker and I have very good insurance at about $35/month at my company. Group insurance (like for teachers) is usually considerably cheaper than individual insurance. I have never at any company paid even $60 a month (it was only more when I had to go outside the company for insurance). For the record, the companies I have worked for (with insurance) varied from 7 people to 1100 people.

The way the Liberals work, private health insurance will cost at least $10000 a year. Socialists? We drop it down to $1000. I wonder which is better....

When asked for a source for this estimate, you said...

America vs Australia.

At which point, most Americans choked on their pepsis at the figures you cited. But AB decided to ask for actual evidence. At which point you could have just said, well, I'm just guessing because I don't know. You didn't. You said the first quote above. You're not very consistent even in your own figures and you are quite literally comparing apples to oranges (a individually-insured smoker vs a group-insurance teacher). How about you show me what it would cost in your country for individual insurance? How about you show me where you could end up paying 200/month USD for group insurance? Cuz I've never seen it and I know you haven't either.

Hey, now that the election's over, shouldn't we decide who our parliament members will be?

Essentials cover is $63.70 a month. That makes $764.40 a year. In American that makes $584.86.

http://www.teachershealth.com.au

And I was going from my experience with the US, I never said otherwise. I accept if I was wrong.


EDIT:

AB? Congratulations. You just earn yourself a report.

Can you tell exactly what coverage and where because I tried getting a quote that low and couldn't. My quote was nearer to $100/month Australian, which is much closer to $1000/year that I paid when I was a private entity. Interesting.

Huh? Seems you've changed your mind on what it costs you. Interesting.



I'd like to note that I am now 30/male/nonsmoker and I have very good insurance at about $35/month at my company. Group insurance (like for teachers) is usually considerably cheaper than individual insurance. I have never at any company paid even $60 a month (it was only more when I had to go outside the company for insurance). For the record, the companies I have worked for (with insurance) varied from 7 people to 1100 people.



When asked for a source for this estimate, you said...



At which point, most Americans choked on their pepsis at the figures you cited. But AB decided to ask for actual evidence. At which point you could have just said, well, I'm just guessing because I don't know. You didn't. You said the first quote above. You're not very consistent even in your own figures and you are quite literally comparing apples to oranges (a individually-insured smoker vs a group-insurance teacher). How about you show me what it would cost in your country for individual insurance? How about you show me where you could end up paying 200/month USD for group insurance? Cuz I've never seen it and I know you haven't either.
Yes, for the cover I want it would cost me $1500 Australian. I don't want basics. There is actually individual which costs less than the $580 I mentioned. Try http://www.hba.com.au
Now, from all the flack I'm getting, I should've just said I'm guessing, but it was pretty obvious, no? I kept on asking others to show me that my guess was wrong, but noone did till you came alone.
$35 is pretty good for company insurance. But again, that is company insurance, not individual, which is what you have to take into account, as I talk about 'poor' people mainly.

Can you tell exactly what coverage and where because I tried getting a quote that low and couldn't. My quote was nearer to $100/month Australian, which is much closer to $1000/year that I paid when I was a private entity. Interesting.
Look at basics essentials and take the 30% rebate into account. Don't forget to choose NSW. The one I want is over $100 a month though.

Hey, now that the election's over, shouldn't we decide who our parliament members will be?

Go to our off site forum at http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal.html

Hey, now that the election's over, shouldn't we decide who our parliament members will be?
I was just asking if anyone had seen you lately on the Classical Liberal's forum...

Hope you've been doing okay, bro.

Look at basics essentials and take the 30% rebate into account. Don't forget to choose NSW. The one I want is over $100 a month though.

Here is a more apt comparison. Notice directly off the site (below) it says the 30% discount has already been given. It dropped to $91/month for group coverage for the top coverage (similar to what I had when I was paying $1000/yr USD) under Essentials. Yours costs $825/year USD in a group coverage situation. Most single people in group coverage would crap on themselves for paying that much in the US. I know I would. You're getting reemed. Thanks for proving the opposite of your point. It was very helpful.

You chose Hospital and Ancillary Cover packages for Singles in NSW, paid Monthly.

The 30% Rebate has already been deducted from these premiums.

You are not affected by Lifetime Health Cover.

Wow. Our thread has turned into a shitty argument over insurance. :rolleyes:

What's next on the agenda, accounting?

Wow. Our thread has turned into a shitty argument over insurance. :rolleyes:

What's next on the agenda, accounting?

I think we should use the ACCA standards rather than the ICMA standards of reporting profits :p

Here is a more apt comparison. Notice directly off the site (below) it says the 30% discount has already been given. It dropped to $91/month for group coverage for the top coverage (similar to what I had when I was paying $1000/yr USD) under Essentials. Yours costs $825/year USD in a group coverage situation. Most single people in group coverage would crap on themselves for paying that much in the US. I know I would. You're getting reemed. Thanks for proving the opposite of your point. It was very helpful.

You chose Hospital and Ancillary Cover packages for Singles in NSW, paid Monthly.

The 30% Rebate has already been deducted from these premiums.

You are not affected by Lifetime Health Cover.
No, I told you Basic. Not the top.

Wow. Our thread has turned into a shitty argument over insurance. :rolleyes:

What's next on the agenda, accounting?

I'm sorry, but I hate it when people make silly assertions that aren't at all based on fact and act like you're being ridiculous if you choose not to disprove them. Spaam has been chasing AB around with this argument on at least two threads.

I declare that Spaam is twelve years old with no proof. Unless he can provide a birth certificate he must treat this as fact from now on, because apparently that is how logic works in Spaamworld.

No, I told you Basic. Not the top.

That would be fine if you didn't actually want to compare it to American coverage that I had/have which you do. If you want the lowest one then that will compare to the disaster coverage I mentioned earlier. That's about thirty USD a month for someone not on group coverage. Pretty much kills your argument. And since you are a reasonable person, we KNOW that this argument will not happen again.

And I think the newb is merely bitter. Stick around for a couple more years and maybe you won't be.

As for the statistics, and I'm assuming you mean Health Insurance, I am merely going by my experience of the situation. If you assume I'm claiming them to be truth, then you are dimmer than I thought. I asked people to prove me otherwise, because I was sure others knew more about it than I. HOWEVER, most Health Insurance policies I heard of in the US were costing around $10K.Newb, thats a good one, you assume i am only three months into the game. I could and maybe i have been here much longer. Someone who makes up statistics and claims them as the truth, which you did is acting more like a newb.
Dimmer than you thought? Lets see, you said "If you assume i'm claiming them to be truth" and then you say "I asked people to prove otherwise"
Asking people to prove otherwise IS claiming them as the truth.

I don't recall trolls ever contributing anything worthwhile to arguments and debates.

Sheer entertainment value?

Why exactly is Spaam here anyway?

Enough of this fighting. Can't we all just, get drunk? :(

Enough of this fighting. Can't we all just, get drunk? :(


Nope. :( I'm only 19, and can't drink til 21. I can go for a smoke though!

Nope. :( I'm only 19, and can't drink til 21. I can go for a smoke though!That's something i find rather silly and conservative about America. You can drive, get married, smoke etc when you are younger but not drink until you are 21. Over here in Britain, you cannot buy alcohol until your 18. Drinking it is fine if at home and the alcohol was bought for you by your parents/guardians

I would like in ... could you please TG me your acceptance when you decide and I'll become an active member if the need arises.

That's something i find rather silly and conservative about America. You can drive, get married, smoke etc when you are younger but not drink until you are 21. Over here in Britain, you cannot buy alcohol until your 18. Drinking it is fine if at home and the alcohol was bought for you by your parents/guardians
I hate how America is such a Evangelical Theocracy ... especially under Bush.

I would like in ... could you please TG me your acceptance when you decide and I'll become an active member if the need arises.

Do the political compass numbers reflect your politicial views. If so., I am not sure that we are the right party for you. The Authoritarian/Libertarian value of around -5 is fine, but the economic left wing value is a mirror image of where we sit. Did you read the manifesto in post 1 of this thread, or did you assume that Liberal means left wing?

AB, sorry about taking over that insurance conversation. We certainly could have hashed it out somewhere else.

I agree with a lot of what your party stands for. I'm interested to see how thinks round out as you guys travel down the road.

What in the wide, wide world of sports is going on around here?

Seriously someone update if anything has come up, its been a hectic last few days.

AB, sorry about taking over that insurance conversation. We certainly could have hashed it out somewhere else.

I agree with a lot of what your party stands for. I'm interested to see how thinks round out as you guys travel down the road.

No problem. I could not prove anything, as I had no idea what the values are in the US as I live in Brazil. Thanks for smacking him down. Are you a member of a specific party here, or just observing. And also, what and where are the differences in your thinking and our manifesto? (Good honest debate helps refine the ideas.)

Enough of this fighting. Can't we all just, get drunk? :(
Nope. I quit drinking almost a year ago. Don't ask why. It's a long story and there's no way I'm posting more ammo for my enemies on this forum.

That's something i find rather silly and conservative about America. You can drive, get married, smoke etc when you are younger but not drink until you are 21. Over here in Britain, you cannot buy alcohol until your 18. Drinking it is fine if at home and the alcohol was bought for you by your parents/guardians
Actually, here in the States, your parents can take you to a bar and buy you a beer if they want...but they have to be there with you if you're under 21.

Do the political compass numbers reflect your politicial views. If so., I am not sure that we are the right party for you. The Authoritarian/Libertarian value of around -5 is fine, but the economic left wing value is a mirror image of where we sit. Did you read the manifesto in post 1 of this thread, or did you assume that Liberal means left wing?
Damn. Are they sending spies over here already?

Nope. I quit drinking almost a year ago. Don't ask why. It's a long story and there's no way I'm posting more ammo for my enemies on this forum.

"ammo for my enemies on this forum" :rolleyes:

You take this too seriously, Tex. I think that may be a big part of your problem.

That's something i find rather silly and conservative about America. You can drive, get married, smoke etc when you are younger but not drink until you are 21. Over here in Britain, you cannot buy alcohol until your 18. Drinking it is fine if at home and the alcohol was bought for you by your parents/guardians

It has to do with that old thing about personal responsibility, if we could get everybody to be responsible about what they do there needn't be such a fight about the drinking age.

"ammo for my enemies on this forum" :rolleyes:

You take this too seriously, Tex. I think that may be a big part of your problem.
No. Bad choice of words. But there are things I'd rather not bring up on this forum.

No problem. I could not prove anything, as I had no idea what the values are in the US as I live in Brazil. Thanks for smacking him down. Are you a member of a specific party here, or just observing. And also, what and where are the differences in your thinking and our manifesto? (Good honest debate helps refine the ideas.)

Actually, I'm not a member of any party. And I would have to say you guys are pretty close to what I believe. I'll give you a couple of examples of what I have a problem with.

You only offer free education up to 12. I think that's a terrible idea. I approve of making trade schools and alternative schooling available to younger children and allowing parents to decide where their stipend for education is spent (vouchers), but making parents pay for it discourages education. Now children born with irresponsible parents will have an additional strike against them. At the same time, you reward people with educations with political office (one of your houses of congress). You've created an elitest society. Realize that without free education at least until high school (uni), you aren't going to have a very educated society which is better for the economy, for crime and for the overall status of a country in the world. That would be my most major problem with the manifesto.

Actually, here in the States, your parents can take you to a bar and buy you a beer if they want...but they have to be there with you if you're under 21.

Not in most states. In fact, I don't know of any, though I'll accept that there may be one or two.

Not in most states. In fact, I don't know of any, though I'll accept that there may be one or two.
You can definitely do it in Texas. Alaska is probably like that, too. Not sure about others, though.

Actually, I'm not a member of any party. And I would have to say you guys are pretty close to what I believe. I'll give you a couple of examples of what I have a problem with.

You only offer free education up to 12. I think that's a terrible idea. I approve of making trade schools and alternative schooling available to younger children and allowing parents to decide where their stipend for education is spent (vouchers), but making parents pay for it discourages education. Now children born with irresponsible parents will have an additional strike against them. At the same time, you reward people with educations with political office (one of your houses of congress). You've created an elitist society. Realize that without free education at least until high school (uni), you aren't going to have a very educated society which is better for the economy, for crime and for the overall status of a country in the world. That would be my most major problem with the manifesto.

When we offer effective zero interest rate loans to continue education to whatever level you choose to go to, I can not see why you find this an elitist proposal that will result in an uneducated population. What we are effectively doing, is filtering out of school at the age of 12 those that have no further interest in education. those that have, and are cogent enough to realise this can go, as they will be able to declare themselves adults.

One of the fundamental problems with compulsory and free education to 16 is that many individuals simply have no desire to receive further schooling. They would prefer to be apprentices learning a trade, or working at manual labour earning a salary. Yes there is a risk of child labour abuse, but this can be controlled legally as an employment contract can only be drawn up with an adult and taking labour from some one without the express contractual agreement of that person is an offence against their liberty. Education from 12 upwards is a differential, and one that will result in higher income, thus enabling the repayment of the loan. (The loan will be inflation adjusted only, no profit made, no loss taken) This loan scheme would continue all the way through to doctorate as far as I understand, though that is not officially stated by the party. What we propose makes education flexible and obtainable for all. There is no political agenda in the curricula as they are not pre defined.

What is suggested, and still being debated at the moment is the idea of evaluative testing at 12. I like this as it will provide comparative information on the schools, however others disagree as it would in some ways define the curricula.

At the same time, you reward people with educations with political office (one of your houses of congress). You've created an elitest society.
AFAIK, the "council of experts" that is proposed is an advisory board ONLY, with no real political power. How is that elitest?

When we offer effective zero interest rate loans to continue education to whatever level you choose to go to, I can not see why you find this an elitist proposal that will result in an uneducated population. What we are effectively doing, is filtering out of school at the age of 12 those that have no further interest in education. those that have, and are cogent enough to realise this can go, as they will be able to declare themselves adults.

One of the fundamental problems with compulsory and free education to 16 is that many individuals simply have no desire to receive further schooling. They would prefer to be apprentices learning a trade, or working at manual labour earning a salary. Yes there is a risk of child labour abuse, but this can be controlled legally as an employment contract can only be drawn up with an adult and taking labour from some one without the express contractual agreement of that person is an offence against their liberty. Education from 12 upwards is a differential, and one that will result in higher income, thus enabling the repayment of the loan. (The loan will be inflation adjusted only, no profit made, no loss taken) This loan scheme would continue all the way through to doctorate as far as I understand, though that is not officially stated by the party. What we propose makes education flexible and obtainable for all. There is no political agenda in the curricula as they are not pre defined.

What is suggested, and still being debated at the moment is the idea of evaluative testing at 12. I like this as it will provide comparative information on the schools, however others disagree as it would in some ways define the curricula.

Have you examined the average reading and writing capabilities of a twelve-year-old? There is almost no job that isn't made more difficult at that level of education. There is simply no reason to make the minimum level of education higher. It shouldn't be aged based. A GED should be respected as exactly the same as a high school diploma and should be obtainable by anyone of any age. However, encouraging students and parents to discontinue education at 12 is absurd and will effect the nation in broad ways including the economy, perception by other nations, the ability to compete in a global market, poverty, etc. Also, whether interest free or not, making people pay for schooling will discourage them from going. I can be thirteen and making money, or thirteen and going into debt. With the average cognitive level of a thirteen-year-old you will be encouraging them to make a life-long mistake. To me that is unacceptable.

Personally, I would prefer to encourage more curricula to move to trade schools at the college level. Most computer science and many types of Engineering, for example. I don't think college is for everyone and I don't like a society that makes people feel bad for not attending. A carpenter is a profession that is equally honorable to a doctor.

By the way, you know what you call a person who doesn't value education at fourteen. A typical teenager. They are also unfortunate. Encouraging those who are already unfortunate to become more unfortunate. That's a crying shame. Currently a fifteen-year-old student who generally wants to learn but falls behind due to inadequacies might be made fun of by other students but continues to attend because it's mandatory. Given the choice, they might just give up, and you are encouraging them to do so. What about the student whose parents are barely getting by and chooses to go out into the world to work rather than finishing their education. This is encouraged by your system. Name me one country in the world where too much education is the problem.

AFAIK, the "council of experts" that is proposed is an advisory board ONLY, with no real political power. How is that elitest?

Do they have more effect on the government than the average citizen?

Do they have more effect on the government than the average citizen?
Only in that they know more than the average citizen about whatever their specialty is.

Why should the government listen to a janitor in matters of quantumn physics? That's why the advisory board would be there. So that the gov't has direct access to a quantumn physicist in case something regarding that comes up.

Currently a fifteen-year-old student who generally wants to learn but falls behind due to inadequacies might be made fun of by other students but continues to attend because it's mandatory. Given the choice, they might just give up, and you are encouraging them to do so.
We neither encourage nor discourage them to quit. It's their choice/choice of the parents. If they are so shortsighted that getting made fun of would make them ruin the rest of their lives...they don't just have issues...they have a subscription.

Personally, I'd raise the age to 16, though. AB states that most "coming of age" rituals are held at 12. That's true, but those cultures are different and people in those cultures are taught to be self-sufficient at a younger age. Their cultures and today's modern "civilized" (and I use that term VERY loosely) cultures are vastly different.

We neither encourage nor discourage them to quit. It's their choice/choice of the parents. If they are so shortsighted that getting made fun of would make them ruin the rest of their lives...they don't just have issues...they have a subscription.

Or they'd just be a typical teenager subject to peer pressure and the pressure that comes from having difficulty reading and writing.

Personally, I'd raise the age to 16, though. AB states that most "coming of age" rituals are held at 12. That's true, but those cultures are different and people in those cultures are taught to be self-sufficient at a younger age. Their cultures and today's modern "civilized" (and I use that term VERY loosely) cultures are vastly different.
Sure, teach them to be self-sufficient, but don't take away free education. Look at this way, for rich families, money would not be the issue and, for poor families, it would have to be considered. You have just effectively made the field less level, which is really not necessary. A high school education is required because it is the minimum necessary to compete on the world market and to interact with the rest of the human population. I understand where you guys are going with it, but the age is clearly too low. The coming of age levels were set by the biology that tends to make people fertile around that age. This was also at a time when people lived to be thirty-five. Lower the age now is backwards movement. I agree with privatising education, but the government has a duty to provide a minimum level of stability for its people in order to give them some level of equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome).

Personally, I'd raise the age to 16, though. AB states that most "coming of age" rituals are held at 12. That's true, but those cultures are different and people in those cultures are taught to be self-sufficient at a younger age. Their cultures and today's modern "civilized" (and I use that term VERY loosely) cultures are vastly different.
I agree, this is the policy of ours i disagree with most. I like vouchers, i like the loan aspect, but i feel the state should provide and/or enforce education until 16. I dont know about you guys, but when i was 12, i was not responsible and we had hardly specialised at all subject wise. I had a good grasp of english and maths but we hadnt gone near complicated maths and science was ok. I say my major educational development occured between 12 and 16.

I would like to see us have a policy of providing education up until 16 but offering parents vouchers equivalent to the cost of a state education and if a private school charges a fee no more than 10% more than the state school fee then they can go there and pay the rest. Of course parents can take their children out of state education at anytime and send them to either much more expensive private schools or homeschool them. I would like a standardised series of tests at 16 to determine academic achievement. Perhaps 3 main ones that everyone does (maths, english and science) plus 7 others from a whole list of other subjects. Meh, just a thought.

Have you examined the average reading and writing capabilities of a twelve-year-old? There is almost no job that isn't made more difficult at that level of education. There is simply no reason to make the minimum level of education higher. It shouldn't be aged based. A GED should be respected as exactly the same as a high school diploma and should be obtainable by anyone of any age. However, encouraging students and parents to discontinue education at 12 is absurd and will effect the nation in broad ways including the economy, perception by other nations, the ability to compete in a global market, poverty, etc. Also, whether interest free or not, making people pay for schooling will discourage them from going. I can be thirteen and making money, or thirteen and going into debt. With the average cognitive level of a thirteen-year-old you will be encouraging them to make a life-long mistake. To me that is unacceptable.

Personally, I would prefer to encourage more curricula to move to trade schools at the college level. Most computer science and many types of Engineering, for example. I don't think college is for everyone and I don't like a society that makes people feel bad for not attending. A carpenter is a profession that is equally honorable to a doctor.

By the way, you know what you call a person who doesn't value education at fourteen. A typical teenager. They are also unfortunate. Encouraging those who are already unfortunate to become more unfortunate. That's a crying shame. Currently a fifteen-year-old student who generally wants to learn but falls behind due to inadequacies might be made fun of by other students but continues to attend because it's mandatory. Given the choice, they might just give up, and you are encouraging them to do so. What about the student whose parents are barely getting by and chooses to go out into the world to work rather than finishing their education. This is encouraged by your system. Name me one country in the world where too much education is the problem.


I am going to reply to this out of sequence, so bear with me OK.

Firstly I can name three countries where too much education is a problem at the moment: Japan, Singapore and the UK. The problems are different in these countries due to the differences in their educational and social systems. In Japan there is way too much emphasis on academic success, leading to suicide, depression and despair for those whoi can't cut the mustard. This is an inhuman system. Not everyone is cut out to be a top class academic. Singapore it is more a problem of what the minimum qualifications are to obtain a job. A basic journalist needs two degrees and a masters degree to have any hope of being emplyed. This is education gone mad. In the UK there is state funded education through 18 or 19 and then loans (at interest, not interest free) for university. However there is also a welfare state that depends upon the taxation of income. Too many people (33% plus) are staying on in education past 20 years of age. Too few people are starting work early enough for their contributions to be able to support the welfare system.

The last of these also addresses your point about the loan endebtiing teenagers. Given the choice, the majority would chose to have a better education and a small debt rather than a por education and a small income. However this is a matter of belief about human nature and the rationality of people. It is also a matter of belief about the cognitive abilities of 13 year-olds. It may be acceptable to shift the age to 14 but these extra two would cost a fortune and that money has to come from somewhere. Beyond 14 there is no reason to make education compulsory.

I strongly believe that our current society delays the cognitive development of our adolescents by refusing them any possibility of considering their future for themselves. We stunt our youth by treating them like infants. If you lok to other societies in the world and through time, you will see that 13 year olds are and were regarded as capable of making mature decisions. Childhood has been overextended, and the adoption of self responsibility pushed so far back that many never acquire it. This, imho, is one of the root causes of youth crime, not poverty per se.

We are not all from the same system so I am not sure what the qualifications you refer to in the first paragraph are or represent. (GED and high school diploma)

There is no encouragement for children and parents to discontinue education at 12. In fact, having a private school system will place a large amount of pressure on them to continue, but with wider options to consider. The schools will want pupils, let them sell the benefits as they will and allow the people the freedom to choose. You are assuming too much in considering an interest free loan a disincentive. Do parents want their kids to go to college in the USA nowadays? Despite having to pay without access to such loans. Yes they do. Look at the evidence from countries where paid schooling exists, it is almost universally seen as a good investment.

The government is not to be involved in determining the market. If there is a shortage of engineers, for example, then engineers will earn more, so engineering schools can charge more so they will appear. Market feedback mechanisms will handle this aspect. And if they don't we have no immigration restrictions remember.

"By the way, you know what you call a person who doesn't value education at fourteen. A typical teenager."
This is to do with the typical teenager feeling like they have no control over their lives. Allow a teenager to decide whether they want to work or study, and most will chose to study, and then they will really study rather than just kill time. You can always stop for a year at 13, experience life outside of school and then decide that you made a mistake. You could decide that you made a mistake at 20, or at 50. There is no age requirement of secondary education. There is freedom of choice being offered. The freedom to try it to see if you like it. OK it comes in year size chunks at the moment, but that is simply to allow private institutions to budget etc.

The fundamental difference is in how we view young adolescents. I for one, having taught them in voluntary classes, recognize that if they are given recognition as people, they are far more mature than they are presented to be by our nursemaid society.

I agree, this is the policy of ours i disagree with most. I like vouchers, i like the loan aspect, but i feel the state should provide and/or enforce education until 16. I dont know about you guys, but when i was 12, i was not responsible and we had hardly specialised at all subject wise. I had a good grasp of english and maths but we hadnt gone near complicated maths and science was ok. I say my major educational development occured between 12 and 16.
That is exactly the reason why 12 was chosen. It is still negotiable though, obviously. What is required to make someone useful rather than a burden on society is basic language and arithmetic skills. More advanced science, maths, humanities etc, are optional extras that benefit the individual. The government was only to provide services that benefittred the society rather than the individual and secondary education gets cut on that basis. You were not responsible at 13 (not 12, 12 is your final year of school)? What did you do in your school holidays? What were your hobbies and interests, what occupied your time? I would suggest that at 13 you were chaffing at the bit to be allowed to decide thingsa for yourself, why? because you had the cognitive dewvelopment to do so. You were an adolescent not a child.
At 13 I was communting 25 miles a day, on the public transport service to get to and from school. If I wer not responsible do you think that this would be a good idea? It was not that i was exceptional, there were hundreds of kids of my age waiting at the stations and bus stops around the school to get home every evening. We undervalue our teenagers abilities.

I would like to see us have a policy of providing education up until 16 but offering parents vouchers equivalent to the cost of a state education and if a private school charges a fee no more than 10% more than the state school fee then they can go there and pay the rest. Of course parents can take their children out of state education at anytime and send them to either much more expensive private schools or homeschool them. I would like a standardised series of tests at 16 to determine academic achievement. Perhaps 3 main ones that everyone does (maths, english and science) plus 7 others from a whole list of other subjects. Meh, just a thought.

Do you not know anyone who was hopeless at school. but when it came to getting that motor to run, or to making something out of some scrap wood, could not be touched by the others around them? Why are you concerned only with academic qualifications? There are many people with many different talents. Formal education is right for some of them, but do you think it helped Wayne Rooney mutch? I don't. Academic achievement can be standardly tested at 16 and 18 if you wish, just it is only applicable to those following an academic path.
I do not see still, any reason why the state should provide academic education only. I also can not see the state training welders or footballers. So the state drops out of the game after giving the basic necessities except to facilitate training/education by providing low cost financing. That seems to me to be the only way to provide the freedom of choice we hold as a central tennet.

Do they have more effect on the government than the average citizen?

All current governments consult experts as needed. All we are proposing is that these experts are selected by the people in their field, rather than by the fact that they happened to live next to the PM's secretary or something. Making transparent a process that already exists behind closed doors.

I am going to reply to this out of sequence, so bear with me OK.

Firstly I can name three countries where too much education is a problem at the moment: Japan, Singapore and the UK. The problems are different in these countries due to the differences in their educational and social systems. In Japan there is way too much emphasis on academic success, leading to suicide, depression and despair for those whoi can't cut the mustard. This is an inhuman system. Not everyone is cut out to be a top class academic. Singapore it is more a problem of what the minimum qualifications are to obtain a job. A basic journalist needs two degrees and a masters degree to have any hope of being emplyed. This is education gone mad. In the UK there is state funded education through 18 or 19 and then loans (at interest, not interest free) for university. However there is also a welfare state that depends upon the taxation of income. Too many people (33% plus) are staying on in education past 20 years of age. Too few people are starting work early enough for their contributions to be able to support the welfare system.

The last of these also addresses your point about the loan endebtiing teenagers. Given the choice, the majority would chose to have a better education and a small debt rather than a por education and a small income. However this is a matter of belief about human nature and the rationality of people. It is also a matter of belief about the cognitive abilities of 13 year-olds. It may be acceptable to shift the age to 14 but these extra two would cost a fortune and that money has to come from somewhere. Beyond 14 there is no reason to make education compulsory.

Ok, I'll start hear. Your first to instances have nothing to do with the populace being too educated. The first caused by a populace that puts to much pressure on young adults to make decisions that will shape their life forever (similar to what your advocating). The second is mostly caused by the amount of control academics and academic institutions have been given within thier countries. Your system does nothing to rectify either problem.

The last instance is a problem of the society not accepting trade school as an reasonable path to success. This is a problem in both the UK and the US and it perpetrated by a government that does too much to incentivise college. But even at this level, you find a MUCH, MUCH higher percentage of rich and middle class in collages than the lower class. Your system will stretch this disparity to high school. I think if you examine the lower class populace and their level of education you'll find that your comparison actually shows that the lower class will begin to have an even lower level of education where the middle and upper classes will see little or no change.

I strongly believe that our current society delays the cognitive development of our adolescents by refusing them any possibility of considering their future for themselves. We stunt our youth by treating them like infants. If you lok to other societies in the world and through time, you will see that 13 year olds are and were regarded as capable of making mature decisions. Childhood has been overextended, and the adoption of self responsibility pushed so far back that many never acquire it. This, imho, is one of the root causes of youth crime, not poverty per se.

You can encourage personal responsibility (partially by privatising education) without taking away the fundamental access to education. Partly, many countries of the world are reducing the level of personal responsibility in adults ("I burned myself with coffee, I'm suing") and this is just spreading to children. Increase personal responsibility across the board and you will see a much greater increase in the behavior and responsiveness of the entire population. Offering education or even requiring it is not treating children like infants. In many of the cultures that you mention with manhood ceremonies at thirteen, children begin their education at this age (learning to hunt, for example).

We are not all from the same system so I am not sure what the qualifications you refer to in the first paragraph are or represent. (GED and high school diploma)

GED is given upon establishing that you have the same skills the average high school graduate would have.

There is no encouragement for children and parents to discontinue education at 12. In fact, having a private school system will place a large amount of pressure on them to continue, but with wider options to consider. The schools will want pupils, let them sell the benefits as they will and allow the people the freedom to choose. You are assuming too much in considering an interest free loan a disincentive. Do parents want their kids to go to college in the USA nowadays? Despite having to pay without access to such loans. Yes they do. Look at the evidence from countries where paid schooling exists, it is almost universally seen as a good investment.

To the bold, you are aware of poverty, yes? When parents can barely afford to put food on the table and children can legally discontinue school and go to work, don't you think that this is also fiscally responsible is further encouragement to do so? In fact, in many truly poor neighborhoods it is commonplace now to pull children out of school to work on farms or to go to work to help support their families. This is with a free education. How does making it cost money not exasperate the problem.

Again, look at the percentage of lower class children that go to college and ask me that question again. In many areas it is accepted that you will either earn a full-scholarship (very difficult) or you will work at McDonald's.

The government is not to be involved in determining the market. If there is a shortage of engineers, for example, then engineers will earn more, so engineering schools can charge more so they will appear. Market feedback mechanisms will handle this aspect. And if they don't we have no immigration restrictions remember.

Exactly why the citizens of your country will be damaged by your policies. Other countries will have better educated citizens. Companies will either move to those countries to work with them or they will import them to yours. Your natives will become something of second-class citizens. Something that is already a small problem in the US.

"By the way, you know what you call a person who doesn't value education at fourteen. A typical teenager."
This is to do with the typical teenager feeling like they have no control over their lives. Allow a teenager to decide whether they want to work or study, and most will chose to study, and then they will really study rather than just kill time. You can always stop for a year at 13, experience life outside of school and then decide that you made a mistake. You could decide that you made a mistake at 20, or at 50. There is no age requirement of secondary education. There is freedom of choice being offered. The freedom to try it to see if you like it. OK it comes in year size chunks at the moment, but that is simply to allow private institutions to budget etc.

I agree that teenagers should be encouraged to be more responsible, but this doesn't make them rational. Teenagers are going through a very traumatic transformation that involves hormone levels that equate to nearly constantly being on drugs. Now, while it's possible to overcome these things in a simpler society, it not so in a society with the amount of complication today's society has. I'm not commenting on which is better, but certainly the expectations on people and the level of knowledge have become far more complicated.

The fundamental difference is in how we view young adolescents. I for one, having taught them in voluntary classes, recognize that if they are given recognition as people, they are far more mature than they are presented to be by our nursemaid society.

In voluntary classes, you are viewing a very select group of adolescents. They are hardly representive of the general population. Also, you wholly ignored my comments that children should be treated as if they are more mature than they are currently. For that matter, so should adults. My problem is that charging for education is limiting choices, not increasing them. I agree with leaving certain things alone, but education should not be one of them.

Ok, I'll start here. Your first to instances have nothing to do with the populace being too educated. The first caused by a populace that puts to much pressure on young adults to make decisions that will shape their life forever (similar to what your advocating). I have to disagree, in that for me it is the academic pressure and lack of choice that is the problem and our system rectifies this. However we could argue all day as this comes down to belief about causes of psychological reactions. Always a complex matter. I would prefer to agree to differ here.

The second is mostly caused by the amount of control academics and academic institutions have been given within their countries. Your system does nothing to rectify either problem.
By removing the compulsory nature of academia as opposed to education. By allowing for technical training, physical training etc to be considered education, we are breaking the government sponsored monopoly that the academic world has on evaluating competence. That we do not make education of any type compulsory in iteself does not solve the problem, no. But by granting the same status to all types of education I believe that we do resolve this problem.

The last instance is a problem of the society not accepting trade school as an reasonable path to success. This is a problem in both the UK and the US and it perpetrated by a government that does too much to incentivise college.
I agree with this to this point. And it is a central point in our education policy (still under discussion as you have probably gathered)

But even at this level, you find a MUCH, MUCH higher percentage of rich and middle class in collages than the lower class. Your system will stretch this disparity to high school.
I believe this to be due to the image of the institutions and their acknowledged goals. It is a lot to ask to expect people from a working class background to want to be linguistic anaysis experts or such like. It is meaningless to them. So there is a disparity in the income categories of those in further education, due to the nature of that education itself in my opinion. If there were to be courses in more practical subjects, technical manual skills and trade based schools, then this disparity would dramatically reduce. This is exactly what we propose.

I think if you examine the lower class populace and their level of education you'll find that your comparison actually shows that the lower class will begin to have an even lower level of education where the middle and upper classes will see little or no change.
Sorry I did not understand this part. If you are claiming that our policies will widen this gfap, I have explained above why I think they will close it. By making secondary and further education less exclusively academic and opening it up to the whole population as an interesting option.

You can encourage personal responsibility (partially by privatising education) without taking away the fundamental access to education.
How? Firstly access is being maintained, but on the basis that you are responsible for what you have chosen to do. A loan system handles this very well as is evidenced by those countries that have state loans for further education. Also if you say to a person: "Do this, we will pay for it for you, but you don't have to finish, care about it, or think it is an advantage", how is that encouraging responsibility. Compare thge responsibility of people who drop our of high school to work to those who are attending the high school prom? Then come back and tell me that free schooling is not bad for the students development as a responsible adult. (I know you will find exceptions, but look on the general case).

Partly, many countries of the world are reducing the level of personal responsibility in adults ("I burned myself with coffee, I'm suing") and this is just spreading to children. Increase personal responsibility across the board and you will see a much greater increase in the behavior and responsiveness of the entire population.
Agreed :D

Offering education or even requiring it is not treating children like infants. In many of the cultures that you mention with manhood ceremonies at thirteen, children begin their education at this age (learning to hunt, for example).
Treating individuals as children by making education of some form compulsory is not acceptable after a certain age. We would all agree on that. The discussion here is about what is an appropriate age for this. Now people vary. We all know this and some people will be relatively mature at 11 others not until they are 15 or 16. Remember there are parents involved here too. Not just the childeren/youngsters. If the child is still a child then the parents can keep them in school through a loan system, or home school them if they prefer, or even send them to charity/religious/volunteer community schools that will exist. Nothing in our policies requires that the education is charged. There are choices there. However if the person is mature enough and does not wish to continue in formal education, then why should they?

The point about people (not children any more) beginning their education after a right of passage (which is why they are no longer a child) is that this education is apprenticeship in non western societies. Prior to this they have education of a more familiar type. they learn to read and write if their culture has these techniques (most do), they learn to do artithmetical operations, they learn the history and folklore of their culture. When they have learnt these things and passd through the rights of passage, tehy cease to be dependents on the adults and become young adults themselves.
The only society, throughout history, that has treated teenagers as children is the post Georgian Western Europe and North American culture. We have exported this around the world. It is time to undo the psychological damge we are causing by holding teenagers back and forcing them to be infants.

GED is given upon establishing that you have the same skills the average high school graduate would have.
Thank you, but it still means little as I have no idea what skills an average high school graduate is expected to have.



To the bold, you are aware of poverty, yes? When parents can barely afford to put food on the table and children can legally discontinue school and go to work, don't you think that this is also fiscally responsible is further encouragement to do so? In fact, in many truly poor neighborhoods it is commonplace now to pull children out of school to work on farms or to go to work to help support their families. This is with a free education. How does making it cost money not exasperate the problem.
I am very aware of this problem (I live in Brazil after all). You insist on thinking that it costs money to the family at the time of the education. It does not. The loan is to be repaid after the education has finished by the student who benefitted from it. However this does not, as you rightly say, address the problem of poverty. One advantage of the private system, that will help in these circumstances is that the supply will match the demand. i.e. if it is a rural area with 12 year-olds being expected to help on the farm, then an intelligent school will offer classes in the evening or in the full heat of the midday sun (depending on the climate) when no work can be done on the farms. These classes will also include useful knowledge, such as crop rotation techniques, soild management, co-operativee start up techniques etc. They will probably not study to much Shakespear. As such the cost/benefit analysis of studying comes down much harder on the benefit side. The result, a better educated population, with more respect for education.

Again, look at the percentage of lower class children that go to college and ask me that question again. In many areas it is accepted that you will either earn a full-scholarship (very difficult) or you will work at McDonald's.
Get a full scholorship which is what we are offering, just it has to be repaid later when you are running your own business.



Exactly why the citizens of your country will be damaged by your policies. Other countries will have better educated citizens. Companies will either move to those countries to work with them or they will import them to yours. Your natives will become something of second-class citizens. Something that is already a small problem in the US.
I think I have already addressed this above. If not ask me to come back to it.



I agree that teenagers should be encouraged to be more responsible, but this doesn't make them rational. Teenagers are going through a very traumatic transformation that involves hormone levels that equate to nearly constantly being on drugs. Now, while it's possible to overcome these things in a simpler society, it not so in a society with the amount of complication today's society has. I'm not commenting on which is better, but certainly the expectations on people and the level of knowledge have become far more complicated.
I am not pre pubescent. I went through puberty myself a fair while ago. Yes it confuses you as to what your immediate desire, you appetite, is at some moments, but it does not, at any time, preclude you from planning for your future. The complication of society is no great problem, as it is pretty much a myth. As we add new problems, we remove old ones. The complexity of life has not changed very much since pre civilization. I would ask you to tell me how your life decisions were any more complex than those of any one of the apostles for example. They are still the same basic decisions. How do I survive, where do I live, who do I like, who do I love, who do I hate?

Expectations are the same: Do well in life and have a successful family. What has been added is the possibility of expicity rejecting these expectations rather than just running away from them. A simplification in my view. Yes there is more knowledge available, but most of it is never going to be needed by you. The basic knowledge that was needed in early history is still needed. How to prepare a meal, where to buy what you need, what she thinks of me.

I know I am exaggerating here, but the claim of complication is also highly exaggerated. Life is so much more complicated that it would make any real difference (unless there is catastrophic curve involved, which I do not believe to be the case)

In voluntary classes, you are viewing a very select group of adolescents. They are hardly representive of the general population. Also, you wholly ignored my comments that children should be treated as if they are more mature than they are currently. For that matter, so should adults. My problem is that charging for education is limiting choices, not increasing them. I agree with leaving certain things alone, but education should not be one of them.

All secondary classes under our system would be voluntary. That is the whole point after all.

I am sorry if I ignored some points as I replied to those where I felt we had significant differences. We agree that people should be treated as more mature and responsible for themselves, the question is to what degree.

I find that charging for education, with loans being provided for this, an option that provides more freedom rather than less. You believe otherwise. That is one of the essential differences

You may want to read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424321)

Get a full scholorship which is what we are offering, just it has to be repaid later when you are running your own business.

This is exactly where you are missing the boat. It IS not a full scholarship. At all. Making them repay it is discouraging education in a group that is already educationally disadvantaged. In case you're unaware it is rather easy in the American educational system to get a non-interest loan to cover your collage education, particularly if you are financially disadvantaged. The enrollment for the lower class is still significantly lower than middle or upper class communities.

When you move towards an education that amounts to apprenticeship for young people you do exactly what populations have spent so much time trying to avoid, you create a population of children whose parents choose their vocation. How much choice are you giving to the rural kid whose school doesn't teach basic skills but instead focuses on farming? How does this child become a physicist when there is no local education system offering the basic skills needed to study physics in college? Certainly, you're not suggesting there will be enough demand for physicists in Rural Town, Rural State that there will be a specialized school for this. This is why we offer a basic education up until children reach the age where they can choose to guide their educations themselves.

In the lower classes it isn't that people don't value education, it's that they value having food more. You're system exasperates the situation by charging them for that education, increasing their debt and poverty. Many high schools (14-18) offer vocational studies which have a nominal effect on the dropout rate.

Children should be educated, for free, up until the age of consent or completion of the twelfth grade. I agree with many of your other suggestions (school alternatives/vouchers, reacting to the needs of students so they can help out at the farm, etc.) but taking away free education from teenagers doesn't encourage personal responsibility, it encourages them to be even more subject to the mistakes of their parents, i.e. my parents are uneducated and poor and I will be too, my parents are educated and rich and they except nothing but that for me.

This is exactly where you are missing the boat. It IS not a full scholarship. At all. Making them repay it is discouraging education in a group that is already educationally disadvantaged. In case you're unaware it is rather easy in the American educational system to get a non-interest loan to cover your collage education, particularly if you are financially disadvantaged. The enrollment for the lower class is still significantly lower than middle or upper class communities.
I addressed these points above, but you insist that there is a financial rather than cultural reason. I disagree. I believe the reason is far more that the lower classes (I do not hold with the financial class system, but I am using your terminology OK) are not represented in higher education is to do with the nature of the education, and not the cost. Their life exprerience, their way of thinking about life simply does not value academic skills, so a loan to obtain something of no apparent value is of no interest to them.

When you move towards an education that amounts to apprenticeship for young people you do exactly what populations have spent so much time trying to avoid, you create a population of children whose parents choose their vocation. How much choice are you giving to the rural kid whose school doesn't teach basic skills but instead focuses on farming?
You are wanting it both ways here. You are wanting to offer free education and then define what type of education the people should want. When I described one possible rural school, I did not say that this is all that would be available. The government is not to decide what is available, the market will decide that. If you feel that the rural community wants schooling to fit their time table that teaches Classics and PPE, then go open a school and teach it. Who defines what is taught are the students themselves. Right now parents choose their childrens vocations or at least their range of choice of vocatioins in the poor rural areas by holding them out of school. We do not have a miracle solution to this, but nor does anyone. We just have an option that is better than the current situation.


How does this child become a physicist when there is no local education system offering the basic skills needed to study physics in college? Certainly, you're not suggesting there will be enough demand for physicists in Rural Town, Rural State that there will be a specialized school for this. This is why we offer a basic education up until children reach the age where they can choose to guide their educations themselves.
We do offer a basic education, that has always been there. We do not control the curricula of secondary schools. If you want physics classes, ask your school for them. They will almost certainly have them in most areas anyway. What they may not have are classes in Ancient Greek or Latin, classes in Modern Dance or Fencing. But most schools would offer the normal range of subjects in addition to some that are specific to the region: Metallurgy in Iron producing regions, Meteorology in coastal areas etc. Could you please stop taking every thing that is said and pushing it to a ridiculous extreme. If things that are normally included in education are not specifically excluded, please assume they are meant to be there.

In the lower classes it isn't that people don't value education, it's that they value having food more. You're system exasperates the situation by charging them for that education, increasing their debt and poverty. Many high schools (14-18) offer vocational studies which have a nominal effect on the dropout rate.
Because they offer vocational studies at the times when the kids are working or helping keep food on the family table. The school has to adapt itself to the customer, not the other way around in our system. In the existing system the school sets the agenda and the customers take it or leave it, and they often leave it. If however one, just one intelligent school starts adapting its hours to fit better with the realities of the lives of the students, then they will have a much greater take up rate. A case study for this is the University system here in Brazil. We have state funded universities that are free of charge and private universities that are fee paying. The state universities teach at the hours they feel like, which generally means one class one day at 08:30, another clasas the same day starting at 16:00, two more classes in the evening over the next two days one at 18:00 the other at 19:30 a tutorial at 12:30 on thursday and a Lab session all Friday afternoon. Thes classes are free for those that pass the entrance exams, but all the same the lower classes send their children to private universities, where they have to pay (5 minimum salaries a month is typical) because the classes are all in the evening or all in the morning, so the kids can work as well. They take out bank loans to do this, they get government loans to do it. They do not send the kids to the state universities even if the kid manages to enter, because the kid has to work.

Children should be educated, for free, up until the age of consent or completion of the twelfth grade. I agree with many of your other suggestions (school alternatives/vouchers, reacting to the needs of students so they can help out at the farm, etc.) but taking away free education from teenagers doesn't encourage personal responsibility, it encourages them to be even more subject to the mistakes of their parents, i.e. my parents are uneducated and poor and I will be too, my parents are educated and rich and they except nothing but that for me.
I disagree with the first part, particularly as we allow early enfranchisement on evaluation (at any age). Enfranchisement means obtaining the power of consent, and this could hapen at twelve. I feel we shoulsd assist those that want to educate themselves, but not place this burden on the society at large.
We have a fundamental difference of opinion on the level of decision making ability of teenagers. I prefer to see them as competent and able to decise for themselves. You see them as subject totally to the whims of their parents. While this difference in perspective remains we will be unable to agree on this as individuals.

However. It is becoming clear that there is an internal lobby in our party to extend the free voucher system, and I am just one member of the party, and do not have the power of decision. It has to be an agreed outcome. So I may well be losing this debate anyway. I will argue my case, as I have, nbut if it does not convince others sufficiently then all I can do is ask how do we reach a reasonable compromise.

One suggestion that may work is means testing for educational vouchers between 12 and 16, but I am not too happy with this as the wealthy pay twice then. Once for their own child directly and the second time for the others in taxation. :( However I am open to suggestions.

I thought the Classic Liberals were against welfare. Shouldn't students have to work and pay for their education themselves? I mean, if they don't work hard enough, they don't deserve an education, right?

I thought the Classic Liberals were against welfare. Shouldn't students have to work and pay for their education themselves? I mean, if they don't work hard enough, they don't deserve an education, right?
/me yawns and refuses to feed the troll.

When we offer effective zero interest rate loans to continue education to whatever level you choose to go to, I can not see why you find this an elitist proposal that will result in an uneducated population. What we are effectively doing, is filtering out of school at the age of 12 those that have no further interest in education. those that have, and are cogent enough to realise this can go, as they will be able to declare themselves adults. If I might inquire to ask...why does it matter if someone continues to get schooling or not? In fact in a truely free society can ANYTHING be compulsory? I'm not advocating a stupid society, but again if we let people rise or fall on their own merits, education is part of that rise and fall. I don't think the state should give special props to those who would continue school, as that might prove a dodge to those who can manage to pass tests, but have no actual skills (hell you see this now sometimes with Pell grants). Okay yes it is true that you want a Dr. with an MD for medicine not a Ph.D, but I don't care if a Ph.D made my computer or my car...I just want them to work well and be able to sue if I payed for a lemon.

I agree with privatising education, but the government has a duty to provide a minimum level of stability for its people in order to give them some level of equality of opportunity (not equality of outcome). Why does the government owe people ANYTHING?-- The government exists to provide services paid for, like any business. Nothing that government provides is truly "free". The free education that government provides is paid for by taxes as all well know. It is also the worst education provided in the US, standardized testing has made this come about. If federal schools had to compete against private or even some home schools for money, they would crap out when it comes to giving an actual usable education. I know whereof I speak here as I am a government teacher in a high school and I am one of the only teachers I know who uses the Socratic method of teaching to actually get the kids to use their own thought processes. Parents should teach their kids too....quite abit. When your kids are asking questions it's because they want to know, answer their questions and you have started them on the road to education better than any school, with its over crowded classrooms, low teacher student ratio, and its outdated/politically slanted textbooks could ever do. If parents would take more a lead in their kids lives you wouldn't need half as many after school programs, and the kids we'd turn out would be a hell of a lot smarter.

If I might inquire to ask...why does it matter if someone continues to get schooling or not? In fact in a truely free society can ANYTHING be compulsory? I'm not advocating a stupid society, but again if we let people rise or fall on their own merits, education is part of that rise and fall. I don't think the state should give special props to those who would continue school, as that might prove a dodge to those who can manage to pass tests, but have no actual skills (hell you see this now sometimes with Pell grants). Okay yes it is true that you want a Dr. with an MD for medicine not a Ph.D, but I don't care if a Ph.D made my computer or my car...I just want them to work well and be able to sue if I payed for a lemon.

We are proposing a classic liberal system, not an out and out libertarian system. There are subtle but important differences. One of these differences is that the classic liberal system is concerned about creating the ideal conditions for free market enterprise to function. Libertarianism is more concerned dirtectly about individual freedom and less about the overall economic and social circumstances. There are huge amounts of overlap, which is why we can work together, but there are slightly different emphases which result in slightly different policy decisions. Education is one of the areas where these differences are strongest (monetary policy is the other).

The props I am proposing, but this is being fought against quite strongly, for education are quirte limited, but they are intended to maximize the potential of the population. This is essential for the free market to run, otherwise all that happens is that foreigners arrive, with their state funded education, and take over our economy, leaving just the menial tasks for the native citizens. We have to provide a means by which our people can compete with those that have benefitted by the labour of others in other states. However we have to do this in a way that is not an excessive burden on our people. My solution was for 'rate of inflation' loans to finance secondary and further education for those that wanted it. This places the cost of the education on the shoulders of the person receiving it, not on the parents of that person, butr pushes this cost into the future when they will be able to pay for the benefit they have obtained. The discussions now are about the cut off point for free education rather than loan funded education.

Rather than directly addressing your points, AB and Tex, I'm going to just right what I think here. I think you tend to miss a couple of issues, since it's been suggested I'm inconsistent.

I say that all children should receive education in basic skills (as currently agreed upon by most governments) in reading, writing, history, mathematics, the sciences, language, etc., up until the age of consent (17) or the point where they have level of education required for attending college or trade school (GED or high school diploma, twelfth grade). Those schools are free to offer vocational studies but all students should have available to them the minimums to enter college and/or trade school. Again, I don't think anyone should or would discourage classes that appropriate to the region as well. Also, since schools are funded by reducing their dropout rate or the rate that people leave and take their vouchers to other schools they will have to compete in some of the ways you suggested, e.g. adapting their hours to the local population to allow children to attend when they aren't needed on the farm, helping out in the butcher shop, working, etc.

The government should not hold a monopoly by forcing the tax dollar spent on education goes to them and children should be allowed to attend any alternative school they desire (religious, specialty (e.g. the academy of math and sciences in IL), etc.) so long as they are offered the basic skills required to attend college or trade school. This can be done through vouchers or some similar plan.

The idea that a rural school for teenagers will choose it's own curriculae based on the desires of the locals is ridiculous. It is true there will be far more desire classes the improve and are useful to farming. This will leave a child who wishes to attend college or even many trade schools far behind the curve. No truly rural area is going to have two schools. Many can barely afford to have one. This amounts to tyranny by majority. A standard should be set until the age of majority because that is the point when the child may choose his/her own path.

After majority, the government should offer exactly what you are suggesting. Interest free loans for colleges, trade schools, apprenticeships, or anything else that amounts to life preparation classes.

If your system really encourages the poorer individuals to attend then you will see a rise in enrollment that will eventually translate to an increase in opportunities for people in this economic group in my system as well. At the same time no one will be denied access to college educations or certain trade schools simply by where they grew up, which is a flaw in your system.

The one point that we both certainly agree on is that my system will cost the government more. I think with the reductions that you've suggested in your system that government will, in general, cost the population much, much less. A small rise in sales tax on nonessential items, luxury cars, precooked foods, jewelry, etc., should easily fund the additional schooling. This will affect the poor and the rich equally if they purchase these items equally so you won't have someone eating at McDonalds every day and not paying taxes. This will also collect funds from tourists taking some burden off your taxpayers.

This is one of those issues that make me say "Meh".

I couldn't care less about whether a kid has the option to go to school or not.
I'm more concerned with whether a family has the option to send their children to the schools of their choice. School vouchers are the way to go, for too many reasons to list here, now.

I, for one, dropped out of High School at age 16 immediately after graduating 10th grade.
Got my GED that summer, and finished college with an AA in Commerical Arts shortly after my friends got their diploma. :D
That really pissed some people off, like, "You can't do that! That's not the way it works!"
My response? "I don't give a shit how it's supposed to work, never did."

So I wouldn't put so little faith in anyone to make their own responsible decisions, nor would I stop them from making their own irresponsible decisions either. It's not like they can't grow up and get their damn GED.

We should also have Vocational Schools in lieu of High Schools as options for those who don't give a shit about college (like Europeans do). It's lame to assume that every little Johnny and Suzy is going to be a Doctor or Lawyer. :rolleyes:

If they were, who the fuck will fix my toilet when it breaks, or mow my lawn (since I'm certainly not going to do those things).

Well, all I can go on is my own experience. And liberty worked out just fine for me.

Jocabia.

There is nothing new added in the last post you made. I Likewise have nothing new to add. I think we have reached a point of disagreement based on core beliefs about how the world works. The only way to sort oyt whewther my proposals work is to implement them, which I, not being the dictaqtor of any RL country, do not have the means to do at the moment. What can be known is that your proposals work to a limited degree as they mirror, almost exactly, the European model. What they do not do, is what you most argue that ours does not do, which is to give opportunity to the lower classes in your terminology, to rise in the social structure, with few exceptions.

However we have to agree to differ on these points. Thank you for the intelligent and educated (in all senses of the word) debate. I hope to be validated one day, but until that happens all that is left for me to say is I believe I am right.

:D :eek: and :fluffle:

Jocabia.

There is nothing new added in the last post you made. I Likewise have nothing new to add. I think we have reached a point of disagreement based on core beliefs about how the world works. The only way to sort oyt whewther my proposals work is to implement them, which I, not being the dictaqtor of any RL country, do not have the means to do at the moment. What can be known is that your proposals work to a limited degree as they mirror, almost exactly, the European model. What they do not do, is what you most argue that ours does not do, which is to give opportunity to the lower classes in your terminology, to rise in the social structure, with few exceptions.

However we have to agree to differ on these points. Thank you for the intelligent and educated (in all senses of the word) debate. I hope to be validated one day, but until that happens all that is left for me to say is I believe I am right.

:D :eek: and :fluffle:

Fine. You want my next point? Remember you asked me to point out issues with your charter so you could explain them.

b) Any community may institute its own policing as it so desires. In any conflict between policing agencies the publicly chartered police shall have priority.


I have a question about this. I read this to mean that the police force instituted by the community trumps all other policing authorities. Is that correct?

Fine. You want my next point? Remember you asked me to point out issues with your charter so you could explain them.

b) Any community may institute its own policing as it so desires. In any conflict between policing agencies the publicly chartered police shall have priority.


I have a question about this. I read this to mean that the police force instituted by the community trumps all other policing authorities. Is that correct?

The idea is that there are private security firms available to provide policing. However if a town or political region decides to creatre and fund a local policing unit, then this does trump the private agencies. It would not trump the national security agents however. It is allowing options for communities to act as their members choose, rather than imposing a "Thou shalt not" rule from a distant central government.
The law these agencies enforce can be national, state or local, with National trumping state which trumps local.

The idea is that there are private security firms available to provide policing. However if a town or political region decides to creatre and fund a local policing unit, then this does trump the private agencies. It would not trump the national security agents however. It is allowing options for communities to act as their members choose, rather than imposing a "Thou shalt not" rule from a distant central government.
The law these agencies enforce can be national, state or local, with National trumping state which trumps local.

Makes sense. I just wanted clarification.

The idea is that there are private security firms available to provide policing. However if a town or political region decides to creatre and fund a local policing unit, then this does trump the private agencies. It would not trump the national security agents however. It is allowing options for communities to act as their members choose, rather than imposing a "Thou shalt not" rule from a distant central government.
The law these agencies enforce can be national, state or local, with National trumping state which trumps local.

In other words, situations such as the Federal Government stomping on state's rights wouldn't occur...

Such as the tragedy that's occuring in California? Where the Fed's are pissing on California's voters over the medical marijuana issue. :mad:

In other words, situations such as the Federal Government stomping on state's rights wouldn't occur...

Such as the tragedy that's occuring in California? Where the Fed's are pissing on California's voters over the medical marijuana issue. :mad:

That's inaccurate. The federal government has made it clear that they only get involved when it is over a certain amount and usually at the behest of local authorities. Medicinal users have nothing to worry about.

In other words, situations such as the Federal Government stomping on state's rights wouldn't occur...

Such as the tragedy that's occuring in California? Where the Fed's are pissing on California's voters over the medical marijuana issue. :mad:

As we would be in power, we would not stomp on this issue. Remember the system we are trying to set up is for us to run, with our views. The contrary situation, where the more local the law the higher power it has would allow for all kinds of abuses of local power. Fancy living in Kansas under that system, or Utah?

Al heirarchical systems run the risk of eliminating freedoms somewhere. But we do identify the need for policing, which requires there to be laws to be policed. Either we eliminate more than one level of law. ie. only local or only national exists or we have this potential conflict.

As we would be in power, we would not stomp on this issue. Remember the system we are trying to set up is for us to run, with our views. The contrary situation, where the more local the law the higher power it has would allow for all kinds of abuses of local power. Fancy living in Kansas under that system, or Utah?
That's where I tend to follow the Founding Fathers' vision on states' rights vs federal edict. In the case of Kansas and Utah vs California and Washington, if people do not like the laws in Kansas but like the laws in California, then they are free to move there. In a way, it's the market taking care of itself.

I'm fairly comfortable with the rest of the policies.

May I make suggestions?

I would consider only recognizing Civil Unions (leave marriage for religious institutions to debate over). Civil Unions can be obtained anywhere the local government allows. The federal government should acknowledge Civil Unions for the purposes of guardianship, benefits (i.e. those given by the military), and next of kin rights.

That's where I tend to follow the Founding Fathers' vision on states' rights vs federal edict. In the case of Kansas and Utah vs California and Washington, if people do not like the laws in Kansas but like the laws in California, then they are free to move there. In a way, it's the market taking care of itself.

Yes. I agree with that point.

That's inaccurate. The federal government has made it clear that they only get involved when it is over a certain amount and usually at the behest of local authorities. Medicinal users have nothing to worry about.
Wrong. Read the Supreme Court ruling. It basically says that the outdated "War on Drugs" federal laws trump state medical marijuana laws. Medical marijuana users CAN be tried under federal law.

With that said, I'm vehemently anti-drug, but I think individuals should have the freedom to be as stupid as they want to, overdose and take themselves out of the gene pool. (Yes. Harsh, I know...but that's the way I feel.)

That's where I tend to follow the Founding Fathers' vision on states' rights vs federal edict. In the case of Kansas and Utah vs California and Washington, if people do not like the laws in Kansas but like the laws in California, then they are free to move there. In a way, it's the market taking care of itself.

This presumes a constitution that is superior to all such laws. Without such a constitution how do you deal with a law that states that all residents of the state/town at the time of the law shall pay a tithe of 10% to the governer's pet church, regardless of where they shall live in the future.This is a law that could be created, and leaving the state does not solve the problem.

(By the way did you know that state taxes can be legally enforced even if you live outside the USA at the moment!)

This presumes a constitution that is superior to all such laws. Without such a constitution how do you deal with a law that states that all residents of the state/town at the time of the law shall pay a tithe of 10% to the governer's pet church, regardless of where they shall live in the future.This is a law that could be created, and leaving the state does not solve the problem.

(By the way did you know that state taxes can be legally enforced even if you live outside the USA at the moment!)
If they move to a state that doesn't recognize that law and doesn't allow for extradition, then that law wouldn't apply, no matter how much the original state bitches and moans.

This is why I *do* believe in a codified constitution, because it allows for basic rights to be defined and protected, no matter where you live. It allows for states to set their own laws, but not to trample on the basic rights of the citizens.

Also, I don't have any experience with state income taxes as Texas is generally vehemently anti-state income tax.

Wrong. Read the Supreme Court ruling. It basically says that the outdated "War on Drugs" federal laws trump state medical marijuana laws. Medical marijuana users CAN be tried under federal law.

With that said, I'm vehemently anti-drug, but I think individuals should have the freedom to be as stupid as they want to, overdose and take themselves out of the gene pool. (Yes. Harsh, I know...but that's the way I feel.)

Reread what I said. They CAN be tried, but the federal government has made it clear that they have no interest in doing so. The courts are required to support the constitution and the laws are words as such that they involve interstate trade which falls under federal jurisdiction. It's crap and I think all drugs should be legal, but the court made the right choice here.

Again, medicinal users have nothing to worry about.

If they move to a state that doesn't recognize that law and doesn't allow for extradition, then that law wouldn't apply, no matter how much the original state bitches and moans.

So now where they can move to and avoid the tithe is limited by where they were born. The point still stands.

This is why I *do* believe in a codified constitution, because it allows for basic rights to be defined and protected, no matter where you live. It allows for states to set their own laws, but not to trample on the basic rights of the citizens.

I agree. A codified constitution is necessary to enforce all the things your party has put forth in its edict. Without certain rules against it, why can't I just appoint myself czar? And as you said, you have to protect basic rights. I add that you need a basic framework on which the local governments can base their laws and on which the federal laws can be based. Even codified constitutions can and are amended.

VO, I would like to become a member of your party. Your (the party's framework is solid, your members are reasonable and your policies are very good. I've thoroughly enjoyed discussing the ideals with the members and would love an opportunity to help shape your party into one that would be an example (*grins* hopefully, a good example).

That's inaccurate. The federal government has made it clear that they only get involved when it is over a certain amount and usually at the behest of local authorities. Medicinal users have nothing to worry about.

In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.

Regardless of the amount, regardless of the opinion of local authorities. the majority of justices agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.

I'm not seeing your point, dude. Although, the likelihood of cancer patients getting arrested by the feds is probably slim, it's still a blow to civil liberties.

No way around that.

In a 6-3 decision, the court on Monday said those who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.

Regardless of the amount, regardless of the opinion of local authorities. the majority of justices agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.

I'm not seeing your point, dude. Although, the likelihood of cancer patients getting arrested by the feds is probably slim, it's still a blow to civil liberties.

No way around that.

What the court said is that they support the constitution. Are you shocked by this?

What's important is that the court doesn't arrest people, EVER. The FBI made a statement after the decision that they have no interest in going after medicinal users unless they flaunt the law (large quantities). In other words, nothing has changed. Are you shocked by that?

Yes, all drugs should be legal, as should euthanasia and stabbing yourself in the eye with pencils. It's not and it sucks. But it's been this way for a long time, so it's not a blow to civil liberties. It's the status quo.

VO, I would like to become a member of your party. Your (the party's framework is solid, your members are reasonable and your policies are very good. I've thoroughly enjoyed discussing the ideals with the members and would love an opportunity to help shape your party into one that would be an example (*grins* hopefully, a good example).

Yea. We have our own forum where we keep track of membership

http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal.html

Please register under your NS name. (Jocabia)

and welcome on board. We are, as you may have gathered by my replying instead of Vo rather informal in leadership style (ie. we don't really have one). It is very much a case of if you want to do it, go ahead.

But it's been this way for a long time, so it's not a blow to civil liberties. It's the status quo.
Everything else you said was reasonable and actually eased my mind a bit, but this statement seemed too defeatist, and you don't come off that way at all usually.

Just becuase somethings "been that way for a long time" hardly passes as an excuse for any infringement on our civil liberties.
Many, many things have been the status quo that were anything but civil, and were the antithesis of liberty (and it's ideal).

C'mon, you know you're not buying what you just said yourself Jocabia!

Status quo is no excuse for denying freedom to anyone, providing they aren't harming anyone else. Ever.

Everything else you said was reasonable and actually eased my mind a bit, but this statement seemed too defeatist, and you don't come off that way at all usually.

Just becuase somethings "been that way for a long time" hardly passes as an excuse for any infringement on our civil liberties.
Many, many things have been the status quo that were anything but civil, and were the antithesis of liberty (and it's ideal).

C'mon, you know you're not buying what you just said yourself Jocabia!

Status quo is no excuse for denying freedom to anyone, providing they aren't harming anyone else. Ever.

Oh, no, don't take it that way at all. I just meant that the effect shouldn't be exaggerated. They voted to leave things the way they are and 'a blow to civil liberties' makes it sounds like it got worse (which many believe occurred). I am in no way accepting that the federal government should accept money from Tabacco and Alcohol sales but make other drugs illegal to consume whenever one wants (assuming that consumption will not infringe on the rights of others). This includes medication of all types.

EDIT: By the way, I love it when people imitate the syntax of a person they are debating with. You did it very well and in an appropriate way and it made me smile.

Oh, no, don't take it that way at all. I just meant that the effect shouldn't be exaggerated. They voted to leave things the way they are and 'a blow to civil liberties' makes it sounds like it got worse (which many believe occurred). I am in no way accepting that the federal government should accept money from Tabacco and Alcohol sales but make other drugs illegal to consume whenever one wants (assuming that consumption will not infringe on the rights of others). This includes medication of all types.

EDIT: By the way, I love it when people imitate the syntax of a person they are debating with. You did it very well and in an appropriate way and it made me smile.
Oh, okay. Sorry to dwell on that, but it just stuck out as not belonging at all with your previous posts (because I took it the wrong way.)

BTW, I wasn't trying to imitate you at all! :D
This is just the way that I post. Maybe we have a similar style?

BTW, I wasn't trying to imitate you at all! :D
This is just the way that I post. Maybe we have a similar style?

You shouldn't have told me. I was impressed. It's a very effective debating strategy.

For the record, contrary to popular belief the MOST effective debating strategy isn't being right, it's knowing why you think you're right and communicating it effectively. Being right just makes that strategy easier to adhere to.

You shouldn't have told me. I was impressed. It's a very effective debating strategy.
Well, you would've figured it out eventually! :p

For the record, contrary to popular belief the MOST effective debating strategy isn't being right, it's knowing why you think you're right and communicating it effectively. Being right just makes that strategy easier to adhere to.
Wise words, indeed.

Regardless of the amount, regardless of the opinion of local authorities. the majority of justices agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.

I'm not seeing your point, dude. Although, the likelihood of cancer patients getting arrested by the feds is probably slim, it's still a blow to civil liberties.

No way around that.

If I were dying of Pancreatic Cancer or some equally horribly painful fore of cancer, where conventional drugs don't work....I would definately toke up and break the law. Getting lit up just to be stupid well thats plain ignorant (and you can't save people from ignorance...but you can make them pay individual damages...hehehehehe) But I currently think each and EVERY supreme court judge in the US should have a family member with pancreatic cancer (this is the most painful and hardest to medicate) and see if they don't change their minds.

If I were dying of Pancreatic Cancer or some equally horribly painful fore of cancer, where conventional drugs don't work....I would definately toke up and break the law. Getting lit up just to be stupid well thats plain ignorant (and you can't save people from ignorance...but you can make them pay individual damages...hehehehehe) But I currently think each and EVERY supreme court judge in the US should have a family member with pancreatic cancer (this is the most painful and hardest to medicate) and see if they don't change their minds.

I certainly hope they wouldn't. They aren't there to change the law. Activist judges are raping the constitution. What you wish is that every congressman would have a relative with some form of terminal cancer. That would actually make a difference. Remember who makes the laws. It's not the USSC.

Besides we can't have people who are terminally ill doing something that might have some tenuous link to bodily harm just so they can feel much, much better. They must suffer so they stay healthy until they die. :rolleyes:

I certainly hope they wouldn't. They aren't there to change the law. Activist judges are raping the constitution. What you wish is that every congressman would have a relative with some form of terminal cancer. That would actually make a difference. Remember who makes the laws. It's not the USSC.



Does SCOTUS not have an obligation though to protect the citizens from malicious law making. In this case surely they could rule this law unconstitutional in some way. (I am not a legal expert to know how). I thought the idea was that the branches acted as checks against each other.

I would have thought that 'the prursuit of happiness' would have had some relevance here.

Does SCOTUS not have an obligation though to protect the citizens from malicious law making. In this case surely they could rule this law unconstitutional in some way. (I am not a legal expert to know how). I thought the idea was that the branches acted as checks against each other.

I would have thought that 'the prursuit of happiness' would have had some relevance here.

Their job is to uphold the US Constitution. Unfortunately, the law is constitutional. They are not in the business of amending the constitution, no matter how much it offends you. I would like to see something added to the constitution that specifically prevents the government from interfering in private decisions, but I don't see that happening in the near future. For now, I'm happy that some states have decided to flip the federal government the bird and allow medicinal marijuana use. As stated by both the federal and state governments, medicinal users are safe in their use as long as they don't go crazy with quantities.

VOTE for your NSCL MPs

Voting procedure Here: http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal-about20-15.html

A small _ _ _ _ in the road.

Bumpity, bump, bump

For Technottama

Visit our forum and ask some questions. http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal.html

The whole party thing is Arridias idea, we had a NS general election for a parliament for NS with 25 seats. The Classic Liberals and the Democratic Socialists got 5 seats each

For Technottama

Visit our forum and ask some questions. http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal.html

The whole party thing is Arridias idea, we had a NS general election for a parliament for NS with 25 seats. The Classic Liberals and the Democratic Socialists got 5 seats each
For Technottama:

Join MOBRA (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=418621) All the other parties pale in comparrision! Especially the Classic Liberals! (http://img194.echo.cx/img194/5504/ratattack7zk.jpg)


PS we have an ever better site for loyal members!

the Coconut Island The Libertarian Party won 7 seats in our Parliament Election.

A building site, by any chance?

I just want to keep this on page one for a while. Aka. Bump

Come on people. You know who you are, vote already huh.

VOTE for your NSCL MPs

Voting procedure Here: http://s2.phpbbforfree.com/forums/classicliberal-about20-15.html

the Coconut Island The Libertarian Party won 7 seats in our Parliament Election.
They did indeed, and i lead that party :p

You are invited to be an MP again Tiricias

Yes I would like that

Did someone manage to pin down such a precise set of meanings for "classic liberalism" while I wasn't looking?

It's just weird... because I know the classic liberals rather well, and plenty of them would disagree with many -- if not most -- of the points discussed in this thread.

But maybe we don't consider Jefferson a liberal anymore... or Rousseau... or Hobbes or Mill, for that matter.

From what I can tell, you are not describing the loose set of assumptions that unite these theorists into a somewhat coherent set. Rather, you are describing Lockean liberalism, and trying to pass it off as "the" classic liberalism.

Funny. Or at least, it would be funny if it didn't stink so badly of propaganda.

Did someone manage to pin down such a precise set of meanings for "classic liberalism" while I wasn't looking?

It's just weird... because I know the classic liberals rather well, and plenty of them would disagree with many -- if not most -- of the points discussed in this thread.

But maybe we don't consider Jefferson a liberal anymore... or Rousseau... or Hobbes or Mill, for that matter.

From what I can tell, you are not describing the loose set of assumptions that unite these theorists into a somewhat coherent set. Rather, you are describing Lockean liberalism, and trying to pass it off as "the" classic liberalism.

Funny. Or at least, it would be funny if it didn't stink so badly of propaganda.


Please take your arrogance and put it somewhere else.

Classic liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with Rousseau (being a socialist he hated the concept) or Hobbes (an authoritarian if there ever existed one) or Mill (rule utilitarianism is not exactly liberal is it.)

Classic Liberalism is the political views supported by the Whigs in England and expressed very clearly by Adam Smith. It is basically free market economics and freedom of belief. There are provisions to create a socially viable society, but no more than are necessary.

Now take your pretensiousness, and your attitude that you know what we are talking about (when it is apparent that you do not) and go address the Trotskyists or the communists who are proposing a central state or something worthwhile.

Classic liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with Rousseau (being a socialist he hated the concept) or Hobbes (an authoritarian if there ever existed one) or Mill (rule utilitarianism is not exactly liberal is it.)
I haven't read this thread, but I suspect you're right in the part that I snipped. Most of the things you said are kind of historical facts.

I respond only because I just read an interesting passage claiming Mill was one of the first socialists. He was the first person to come up with the idea of redistribution of wealth as an economic theory. The book is The Worldly Philosophers, by Robert Heilbroner. I think it's reasonably famous.

[/threadjack]

I haven't read this thread, but I suspect you're right in the part that I snipped. Most of the things you said are kind of historical facts.

I respond only because I just read an interesting passage claiming Mill was one of the first socialists. He was the first person to come up with the idea of redistribution of wealth as an economic theory. The book is The Worldly Philosophers, by Robert Heilbroner. I think it's reasonably famous.

[/threadjack]

I think it is fair to say that utilitarianism has always had strong socialist tendencies. It considers the society as a whole to be more important than any individual person, which I take to be a fundamental definition of socialism. I do not know the book you refer to, but it seems a reasonable claim, except perhaps historically. I would have to dig, but I am sure that the idea had been bandied around in the early 18th century.

Is the NSCL forum down?

I think it is fair to say that utilitarianism has always had strong socialist tendencies. It considers the society as a whole to be more important than any individual person, which I take to be a fundamental definition of socialism. I do not know the book you refer to, but it seems a reasonable claim, except perhaps historically. I would have to dig, but I am sure that the idea had been bandied around in the early 18th century.
I suggest you check out the book, even if just to read this one sub-chapter. The book is extraordinarily well written, particularly for a text on economics. It also does a great job in explaining the impact and applications of disparate economic theories. The chapter on Marx is one of the most accurate descriptions of Marxism to be written during the Cold War, on either side - it gives credit where due (much of what Marx wrote actually played out in the real world), but criticizes him where he deserved it (ie, the theory doesn't really end up working). I'm tired now, and I'll cease stealing your thread. Just really like this book.

*snip*

Wow, talk about arrogance!!

I wonder how worthwhile it is to argue with you, when you have clearly already decided to ignore the actual history of philosophy in favor of your own narrow version (which, conveniently for you, tends to support your equally narrow view of politics).

Anyway... It almost goes without saying that the roots of modern liberalism should be traced to Hobbes. (See C.B. MacPherson, The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke, esp. chapters 1-4.) Moreover, I suggest you actually read the man before you go throwing about big words like "authoritarian."

Rousseau, while he has been described as a proto-Marxist (as well as a proto-Freudian; see Asher Horowitz, Rousseau, Nature, and History), at worst occupies a grey area along the edges of liberalism and socialism.

Mill's On Liberty, finally, is undisputably among the truly classic liberal texts. There is simply no room for argument here.

I look forward to your mindlessly arrogant response.

SNIP drivel

Keep waiting

Wow, talk about arrogance!!

-snip-

I look forward to your mindlessly arrogant response.
Go read the forum rules and then come back and respond when you can be civil. FLAMES are a no-no.

Keep waiting

Ah, even better than expected. BRAVO!

Some friendly advice: If you're going to pretend to be a philosopher, first make sure there aren't any real intellectuals around.

Go read the forum rules and then come back and respond when you can be civil. FLAMES are a no-no.

I'm sorry; I fail to see how my reply is any worse than what Alien Born wrote to me.

I'm sorry; I fail to see how my reply is any worse than what Alien Born wrote to me.
I didn't see his post. I only saw yours.

After reading back a little, maybe you wouldn't have been called "arrogant" initially if you hadn't come into this thread trolling and acting so smug and condescending.

You'll get no sympathy from me.

I didn't see his post. I only saw yours.

After reading back a little, maybe you wouldn't have been called "arrogant" initially if you hadn't come into this thread trolling and acting so smug and condescending.

You'll get no sympathy from me.

I never asked for it.

How was I trolling?

If I was "condescending," it is because I am sick of seeing libertarians and strictly Lockean liberals parading about with the term "classic liberal" as if it belongs exclusively to them. So... I condescend to anyone who so arrogantly boasts a knowledge of liberal philosophy while simultaneously getting it so blatantly WRONG.

Ah, even better than expected. BRAVO!

Some friendly advice: If you're going to pretend to be a philosopher, first make sure there aren't any real intellectuals around.

Uh oh! It's a real intellectual, and he thinks he'll get across his real intellectual ideas by berating other people! And don't forget to pat yourself on the back again for being a "philosopher," because that comes across as peacable humility and reason.

Uh oh! It's a real intellectual, and he thinks he'll get across his real intellectual ideas by berating other people! And don't forget to pat yourself on the back again for being a "philosopher," because that comes across as peacable humility and reason.

Was I trying for peacable humility? No. Reason? Yes... and I have yet to be shown an instance in which I was irrational or unreasonable. Insulting, maybe...

Moreover, I actually don't think I'll "get across" my -- yes real intellectual -- ideas by berating other people... but my experience on these forums is that I won't "get across" my ideas at all, because no one is willing to listen. Thus, there is no reason to employ tactics that I expect to work... and therefore, to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, I must post -- and, I suspect, other people must post -- for some reason other than the desire to "get their ideas across"... unless, of course, I am the only one who has realized that this is impossible.

So that other reason... whatever could it be???

You people are so talented at attacking the style of my post... anyone care to take on its substance???

Tex and SB. Forget it.

AnarchyeL knows she is right, and nothing that anyone ever says will prove otherwise to her. However I am going to disregard my own advice, not because I hope it will have any effect on him/her (I always forget) but because other readers of this thread may like to have some background to the complaint.



AnarchyeL

Did you bother to go and object in the UDCP thread where they are suggesting setting up a communist state. Or is that contradiction OK with you as they happen to have similar, if equally misguided, political views to yours.

I did reply to the content of your post,and all you could do was to quote one rather biased and unjustified opinion for two of your erroneous claims, and simply repeat the third.

Let us get this straight. A liberal is a person who believes in the primacy of personal freedoms. If you wish to use a different definition, fine, but then do not come whinging that we are not right.

Hobbes is the political theorist of the father figure state, The strong man to whom you submit your freedoms in return for protection. He was not a liberal as security, not freedom was of primary concern to him.
Rousseau discusses the concept of contracting away your freedoms for the benefit of the society. He was not a liberal as equality not freedom was of primary concern to him
John Stuart Mill was the founding father of rule utilitarianism, a political theory if ever there was one. He was not a liberal as utility was of primary concern to him.
Also, On Liberty being written in 1869, nearly a century affter the liberal ideals were expounded upon in 1776 by Adam Smith, can hardly have been the influence it was if it were to be a liberal text, as those ideas had been around and in use for a considerable time prior to its publication.

You, yourself however have chosen to ignore the positive claims I made, and as such appear to have conceded the point that the father of classic liberalism is regarded, in political philosophy, political science, moral theory and in all othe relevant aspects that I have ever encountered as being Adam Smith.

AnarchyeL knows she is right.

"He," actually... but otherwise correct.

and nothing that anyone ever says will prove otherwise to her.

That's not true at all. You just have to provide some contrary evidence to match and beat the evidence I have for my belief. I believe, for example, that the roots of liberalism lie in Hobbes' Leviathan. I believe this for two reasons: 1) I have read Hobbes, and I can see where liberal ideas appear in his text. 2) I have read well-respected secondary sources -- I named MacPherson -- who re-inforce my belief.

Now if you would like to contradict my belief, you will have to provide similar evidence for your case. I should think this would be obvious.

EDIT: So far, no one has actually tried... You have all been too busy criticising the manner in which I post to bother with the post itself. Oh well... I guess that's my fault, too.

You people are so talented at attacking the style of my post... anyone care to take on its substance???
You make the assumption that any of us give a damn about you, your post or what you have to say.

I, personally, don't.

You lost ANY credibility when you came in throwing your "intellectual" (I use that term VERY loosely) weight around and treating everyone that doesn't agree with you like mentally-disabled plebes.

Now, don't you have a bridge to get back to? *flicks hand dismissively*

You make the assumption that any of us give a damn about you, your post or what you have to say.

I, personally, don't.

You spend an awful lot of time scolding me for someone who doesn't care.

You lost ANY credibility when you came in throwing your "intellectual" (I use that term VERY loosely) weight around and treating everyone that doesn't agree with you like mentally-disabled plebes.

Ah, so one builds credibility as an authority around here by pretending not to be one... I guess that fits with the other behavior I've seen. And if people want to act like mentally-disabled plebes, then that is how I shall treat them. If they want to grow up and have an adult discussion, in which we forego all the mutual verbal hand-jobs and tell the honest truth, then they will find my treatment of them likewise improves.

*flicks hand dismissively*

---> A very accurate representation of the level of argumentation around here.

Your analsis of Hobbes is severely lacking as 99% of the secondary texts would show you. I would recommend Richard Tuck by the way, and why do you have this idolising attitude toward MacPherson? Just throwing in the name of an author of a few of the thousands of philosophy texts published every year does not make you an intellectual, nor, by the way, does your overbearing attitude.

I think you could do with studying a little of what makes a man great. I would recomend Aristotle on this, as his approach of being self confident without deliberately belittling the common man seems to have worked well over the last 2500 years. But that does seem to have escaped either your notice or your self vaunted intellectualism.

Was I trying for peacable humility? No. Reason? Yes... and I have yet to be shown an instance in which I was irrational or unreasonable. Insulting, maybe...

To be insulting is irrational, unless it is your purpose to anger others and alienate yourself. Is that it?


Moreover, I actually don't think I'll "get across" my -- yes real intellectual -- ideas by berating other people... but my experience on these forums is that I won't "get across" my ideas at all, because no one is willing to listen. Thus, there is no reason to employ tactics that I expect to work... and therefore, to follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, I must post -- and, I suspect, other people must post -- for some reason other than the desire to "get their ideas across"... unless, of course, I am the only one who has realized that this is impossible.

So that other reason... whatever could it be???

Well, of course if you're willing to admit that your posting here has no purpose, that it's only incouraging flames on both sides, and that you have no intention of actually communicating anything, by all means do so.

I myself do not, however, automatically assume "no one is willing to listen" and that getting ideas across is "impossible." So from my perspective, yes you may very well be the only person who gives in to such defeatism, sadly I know you're not.

Maybe instead of berating us for having a name of the party that doesn't conform to your expectations, you could form your OWN party! That'd be a lot more fun, and then we could come flame in YOUR thread for it not conforming to what we ordinarily expect. How about that?

Your analsis of Hobbes is severely lacking as 99% of the secondary texts would show you.

Lacking in what way? Vague arguments are worth about as much as they say. I have Tuck's edition of the Leviathan, by the way, and I fail to see where he disagrees with me. If you want to continue the argument, perhaps you could point it out?

why do you have this idolising attitude toward MacPherson?

Where did you get the idea that I have an "idolising" attitude toward him? I merely recommended his widely-respected text, as you did Tuck's introduction to the Leviathan (at least that's what I'm assuming you recommend, since you did not specify). MacPherson invented the term "possessive individualism," by the way, the use of which is by now very common in discussions of Hobbes, Locke, liberalism and capitalism.

Just throwing in the name of an author of a few of the thousands of philosophy texts published every year does not make you an intellectual, nor, by the way, does your overbearing attitude.

No, but reading those texts does, as does being able to back up the attitude with substantive discussion... which, so far, you have failed to do.

I think you could do with studying a little of what makes a man great. I would recomend Aristotle on this, as his approach of being self confident without deliberately belittling the common man seems to have worked well over the last 2500 years. But that does seem to have escaped either your notice or your self vaunted intellectualism.

Blah blah blah... If you had actually read Hobbes, you would have done the clever thing and criticized me on the grounds that he hated intellectuals, and praised the common man. Ah, your ignorance astounds me only slightly less than your pretense.

;)

This seems more like NS's Libertarian party more then anything else.

Anyway. You've got my vote. We focus on the economy and the rights of the people.

To be insulting is irrational, unless it is your purpose to anger others and alienate yourself. Is that it?

Maybe... sometimes you only really get to know a person when you see how they behave when they are angry. Some people sublimate their anger into a forcefully rational attack on their opponent's ideas. Others whimper about their hurt feelings.

I myself do not, however, automatically assume "no one is willing to listen" and that getting ideas across is "impossible."

Why do you assume that I "automatically assume"? My conclusion is based on long-run inductive research. That is, no one has ever listened -- yes, even when I was at my most pacifying and placating -- therefore I reasonably expect them not to listen in the future. You are welcome to provide the negating contradictory instance.

Maybe instead of berating us for having a name of the party that doesn't conform to your expectations,

The problem, if you would have read my post, is not that your name does not conform to my expectations... but that the particular discourse serves an ideological function that I attempt to criticize. This is important because its occurrence here is merely one instance of an increasing trend in mistaking the classic liberals for some sort of libertarians, which they were certainly not.

we could come flame in YOUR thread for it not conforming to what we ordinarily expect. How about that?

If you were doing it as part of a legitimate political critique... well, who knows? I might like it very much. But for now, we have your thread to deal with.

This seems more like NS's Libertarian party more then anything else.

THANK YOU!!

That, in a nutshell, has been my point.

This party does espouse much of the thinking of the Classic Liberalism movement.

Most of my political beliefs are centered around Kant's Categorical Imperative, whereas government can only be immoral when it inacts inconsistent behavior and policies, and around Locke's opinions on individual natural rights and the duty of the individual to respect the rights of others. My economical approach comes from Smith's and Ricardo's views on Labor and the free market.

Rousseau was certainly a member of the Enlightenment and Liberalism movement and much of this party's ideas are not directly counter to his thinking. While I agree that men are born free and that society can work to make them subservient, I find his idea that the individuals should submit themselves to the collective will to be very contradictory.

As for Hobbes, he was an authoritarian. He did argue for individual self-interest, but he also argued that it was in the interest of the individual to hand over power to a soveriegn. He believed in political extortion, where in order to leave the brutal environs of the natural State, the individual must be compelled to submit himself/herself to a soveriegn.

This seems more like NS's Libertarian party more then anything else.

Anyway. You've got my vote. We focus on the economy and the rights of the people.

I assure you, as this party's founder, that I am not Libertarian and am trying to avoid a Libertarian swing to the party. This party does attract a good deal of Libertarians, however, as it does have a good deal of consistency with libertarian views.

"The consequence of this theory was thet Hobbes handed the sovereign unlimited ideological authority, over morality and religion as well as day-to-day politics, and it is this power which has most alarmed his readers. But there were limitations on t, and it has often proved possible to read Hobbes as a suprisingly liberal author." (Tuck R. - Introduction to Hobbes' Leviathan CUP, 1991, p. xviii)

You can read this as meaning that Hobbes is a Liberal if you are very stupid. What Richard Tuck is clearly saying is that Hobbes is not as hard a line totalitarian authoritarian thinker as he is naïvely considered to be. It does not though, make him a Liberal thinker by any stretch of the imagination, unless liberal sudenly means handing over moral and political ideological power to a sovereign.

Now show me how we differ in substance from the theories of Adam Smith.

Maybe... sometimes you only really get to know a person when you see how they behave when they are angry. Some people sublimate their anger into a forcefully rational attack on their opponent's ideas. Others whimper about their hurt feelings.


Some people just write you off as an egotistical prat and say no more.


Why do you assume that I "automatically assume"? My conclusion is based on long-run inductive research. That is, no one has ever listened -- yes, even when I was at my most pacifying and placating -- therefore I reasonably expect them not to listen in the future. You are welcome to provide the negating contradictory instance.

You assume no one listens. You implied this was the universal case on these forums, but now I see you were just describing the fact that they generally don't listen to you, which is different. (And has more to do with your "style" in which you can never seem to hide your superiority complex.)


The problem, if you would have read my post, is not that your name does not conform to my expectations... but that the particular discourse serves an ideological function that I attempt to criticize. This is important because its occurrence here is merely one instance of an increasing trend in mistaking the classic liberals for some sort of libertarians, which they were certainly not.

Who says we're not insisting that libertarians are "some sort of" classic liberals instead? Anyway, ideas change, even 'classical' ones, there aren't many people I know who listen to 'classical' music who only listen to the likes of Mozart and his contemporaries. The definition has expanded.

But you'll have to argue with others on the specifics. I admit I know little about the personal beliefs of the classic liberals themselves.

If you were doing it as part of a legitimate political critique... well, who knows? I might like it very much. But for now, we have your thread to deal with.

I challenge you to start your own party, though. You seem motivated enough. And it'd be better than having only the... Trotskyites to oppose.

Maybe... sometimes you only really get to know a person when you see how they behave when they are angry. Some people sublimate their anger into a forcefully rational attack on their opponent's ideas. Others whimper about their hurt feelings.

I suggest you check this for the definition of TROLL.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023

Trolling: Posts that are made with the aim of angering people.

Ah, Vittos... Always a voice of relative reason, and someone with whom I can exchange ideas on a more equal level. (For this reason, I found it somewhat surprising that you started this thread under the pretexts of "classic liberalism."

Let us see what we can make of this mess.

This party does espouse much of the thinking of the Classic Liberalism movement.

Nevertheless, it is almost purely Lockean, and it is therefore misleading (usefully misleading, I think, for its supporters) to call it anything other than the "Lockean liberal" or the "classic American liberal" party (which would be essentially the same thing).

Rousseau was certainly a member of the Enlightenment and Liberalism movement and much of this party's ideas are not directly counter to his thinking. While I agree that men are born free and that society can work to make them subservient, I find his idea that the individuals should submit themselves to the collective will to be very contradictory.

Then you clearly do not know that Kant's categorical imperative was heavily influenced by Rousseau's notion of the general will! (You can feel free to check me on this.)

As for Hobbes, he was an authoritarian. He did argue for individual self-interest, but he also argued that it was in the interest of the individual to hand over power to a soveriegn. He believed in political extortion, where in order to leave the brutal environs of the natural State, the individual must be compelled to submit himself/herself to a soveriegn.

I suggest you read (or re-read) Hobbes. The bulk of the Leviathan is a justification of political authority per-se, not any particular system... He is much like Locke in this respect. (Go ahead... just try to show me where Locke proves himself as a democrat.) The "liberal" aspect of Hobbes is that he thought the Leviathan should have a very limited jurisdiction... he was the first modern philosopher to define a realm of "private" -- personal and economic -- life that NO sovereign (monarchy, democracy, or otherwise) could violate.

Hobbes also had better things to say about democracy than did Locke. He thought the great advantage (although it also had great disadvantages) of democracy is that the people would very easily identify with the sovereign Leviathan.

Part of the problem here is that people mistakenly equate "liberalism" with "democracy." Liberalism predates modern democracy, does not inherently require it, and in some ways runs contrary to democratic thought. (Liberalism, after all, specifies certain things that the democracy MAY NOT do.)

THANK YOU!!

That, in a nutshell, has been my point.

But you could not say it, could you? Someone else had to say it for you.

@Pyrostan
We are essentially a group that are centered around a concept of providing the maximum individual feedom that is compatible with the same freedom being extended to others. In this we are very similar to the Libertarians (not social libertarians) . However we do see a role for the government in providing more than basic security, so here we disagree with the Libertarians. We also disagree with the socialists in that we see no benefit in wealth redistribution measures.

So what do we call ourselves. Well as the proposals are those raised by the classical liberal policies of the late 18th century onwards in the UK, we adopted the name classic liberals.

"The consequence of this theory was thet Hobbes handed the sovereign unlimited ideological authority, over morality and religion as well as day-to-day politics, and it is this power which has most alarmed his readers. But there were limitations on t, and it has often proved possible to read Hobbes as a suprisingly liberal author." (Tuck R. - Introduction to Hobbes' Leviathan CUP, 1991, p. xviii)

I wonder... Does the 1991 edition have the footnote that appears by 1996?

The equivalent passage, by the way, in 1996 reads:

"But in Hobbes's case, it is not always clear that his theory points unequivocally in the direction of tyranny; it has often proved possible to read Hobbes as a surprisingly liberal author." (xxxiv)

Footnote 47, to this passage: "It is notable that many early nineteenth-century English liberals expressed great admiration for him -- see for example the short essay on Hobbes in John Austin's The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. H.L.A. Hart (London 1955) p. 276 n. 25 -- p. 281."

You might also want to read the pages that follow in Tuck's introduction. He goes on for another four pages to elaborate on Hobbes' liberalism. The very next line after the one you quote reads: "The liberal interpretation of Hobbes begins from his theory of the sovereign as the representative of the citizens." Later, on page xxxvi: "In a sense, the Leviathan was working towards a theory rather like some later discussions of democracy and voting (for example, the theory in Rousseau -- who was aware of some similarities between himself and Hobbes), in which he was trying to answer the puzzle about how someone can be said to be our 'representative', or how (in a direct democracy) we can be said to have 'consented' to the decision of our assembly, when we were outvoted and our apparent wishes were ignored."

I suggest you read whole texts rather than just skimming for passages that support your views.

Now show me how we differ in substance from the theories of Adam Smith.

I never said you did, did I?

The definition has expanded.

On the contrary, in your case it has apparently narrowed.

I suggest you read (or re-read) Hobbes. The bulk of the Leviathan is a justification of political authority per-se, not any particular system... He is much like Locke in this respect. (Go ahead... just try to show me where Locke proves himself as a democrat.) The "liberal" aspect of Hobbes is that he thought the Leviathan should have a very limited jurisdiction... he was the first modern philosopher to define a realm of "private" -- personal and economic -- life that NO sovereign (monarchy, democracy, or otherwise) could violate.
You are the one introducing John Locke, not us. You are right that the bulk of the Leviathan is about the justification of political authority, but it is not just any political authority that is justified, it is only total ideological authority that is justified. There can be no plurality of ideology under Hobbes' view of society. His definition of private life was much more limited than you are claiming here. He allowed for the concept of autonomy, one of the first to admit this idea, true. But he declared that this autonomy had to be subjected to the will of the leviathan to establish civil society.

Part of the problem here is that people mistakenly equate "liberalism" with "democracy." Liberalism predates modern democracy, does not inherently require it, and in some ways runs contrary to democratic thought. (Liberalism, after all, specifies certain things that the democracy MAY NOT do.)
You are the only one even bringing the subject of democracy into the discussion. We are not concerned with that false equivalence.

But you could not say it, could you? Someone else had to say it for you.

But I did, didn't I?

I am sick of seeing libertarians and strictly Lockean liberals parading about with the term "classic liberal" as if it belongs exclusively to them.

Well as the proposals are those raised by the classical liberal policies of the late 18th century onwards in the UK

Then why didn't you call yourselves the "Classic ENGLISH Liberals?" That would be (slightly) more accurate.

You are the one introducing John Locke, not us.

I know, that's what's so weird about it! You are spouting Lockean rhetoric almost word-for-word, yet you seem not to know it... Tell me, have you ever heard of the famous "Hartz thesis"?

You are right that the bulk of the Leviathan is about the justification of political authority, but it is not just any political authority that is justified, it is only total ideological authority that is justified.

See my other post in which I destroy your skewed version of Tuck's reading. Then get back to me.

You are the only one even bringing the subject of democracy into the discussion. We are not concerned with that false equivalence.

Then why are you complaining about forms of government?

Then why didn't you call yourselves the "Classic ENGLISH Liberals?" That would be (slightly) more accurate.
Because we're not quite that anal rententive...which is more than I can say for *ahem* some around here.

Because we're not quite that anal rententive...which is more than I can say for *ahem* some around here.

I'm not talking about your little manifesto... I'm talking about claims that some theorists I've mentioned are not "liberal" on the grounds that they are not faithful democrats.

And when it comes to making theoretical sense, anal retentiveness might not be such a bad quality.

;)

I'm not talking about your little manifesto... I'm talking about claims that some theorists I've mentioned are not "liberal" on the grounds that they are not faithful democrats.
Where in God's name did you get the idea that we think we're democrats? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Where in God's name did you get the idea that we think we're democrats? :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:


I gathered as much from such lines in your "manifesto" as:

6. The Judicial system shall be completely independent of the Legislative and Executive systems. Judges shall be elected by a limited suffrage of citizens that have completed degree level education. The Judges themselves shall nominate members of a supreme court from among their number but these shall be confirmed by national vote of this limited suffrage.
7. The executive shall be directly elected by the entire adult suffrage.

Am I wrong to think these are democratic measures?

Ah, Vittos... Always a voice of relative reason, and someone with whom I can exchange ideas on a more equal level. (For this reason, I found it somewhat surprising that you started this thread under the pretexts of "classic liberalism."

Let us see what we can make of this mess.

Even when you tone it down you are horrible condescending. I think the only reason you find it dificult to have a reasonable discussion on here is that you are obnoxiously abrasive and arrogant.

Nevertheless, it is almost purely Lockean, and it is therefore misleading (usefully misleading, I think, for its supporters) to call it anything other than the "Lockean liberal" or the "classic American liberal" party (which would be essentially the same thing).

It is very Lockean, but it entails much of the ideas of Smith and Ricardo. As for the alternate titles, both would be too specific and would cause us to turn off potential members.

Then you clearly do not know that Kant's categorical imperative was heavily influenced by Rousseau's notion of the general will! (You can feel free to check me on this.)

I feel that it is impossible for the society to act on the general will without breaking Kant's first formulation. I find it hard to reason out many government actions that don't break the first formulation.

I suggest you read (or re-read) Hobbes. The bulk of the Leviathan is a justification of political authority per-se, not any particular system... He is much like Locke in this respect. (Go ahead... just try to show me where Locke proves himself as a democrat.) The "liberal" aspect of Hobbes is that he thought the Leviathan should have a very limited jurisdiction... he was the first modern philosopher to define a realm of "private" -- personal and economic -- life that NO sovereign (monarchy, democracy, or otherwise) could violate.

Hobbes also had better things to say about democracy than did Locke. He thought the great advantage (although it also had great disadvantages) of democracy is that the people would very easily identify with the sovereign Leviathan.

Part of the problem here is that people mistakenly equate "liberalism" with "democracy." Liberalism predates modern democracy, does not inherently require it, and in some ways runs contrary to democratic thought. (Liberalism, after all, specifies certain things that the democracy MAY NOT do.)

I actually do agree with Hobbes a good deal on this issue. I believe the Liberal paradise would be under a benevolent soveriegn. My NS nation reflects that.

The problem with this is that it is nearly impossible to have a soveriegn with the power to insure that liberal actions are always taken, and to also insure that he will stick to liberal policies. Freedom can only be maintained by the individuals and they must be given the power to maintain it.

Am I wrong to think these are democratic measures?
They might be considered "democratic" only in that we give the populace their CHOICE over their representatives. But by whatever vague test you're using, we'd actually be closer to "republicans" in that we propose a representative (albeit VERY limited) government.

That said, the vast majority of our manifesto is diametrically opposed to modern "liberal" or "democrat" thought.

EDIT: I just went back and read this and I don't think I even make sense to myself...except for the last line.

I seriously need sleep. :headbang:

I wonder... Does the 1991 edition have the footnote that appears by 1996?
No. No footnotes in the 1991 edition which is what I have available.

The equivalent passage, by the way, in 1996 reads:

"But in Hobbes's case, it is not always clear that his theory points unequivocally in the direction of tyranny; in has often proved possible to read Hobbes as a surprisingly liberal author." (xxxiv)

Footnote 47, to this passage: "It is notable that many early nineteenth-century English liberals expressed great admiration for him -- see for example the short essay on Hobbes in John Austin's The Province of Jurisprudence Determined, ed. H.L.A. Hart (London 1955) p. 276 n. 25 -- p. 281."
The text from Tuck says the same thing. The footnote simply expresses that some liberals had an admiration for his work that is not out of place with being liberal, but this does not make his work the basis of liberal thinking. I, for example, can admire Rousseau's work, while still believing him to have made some fundamentally false assumptions concerning human nature.

You might also want to read the pages that follow in Tuck's introduction. He goes on for another four pages to elaborate on Hobbes' liberalism. The very next line after the one you quote reads: "The liberal interpretation of Hobbes begins from his theory of the sovereign as the representative of the citizens." Later, on page xxxvi: "In a sense, the Leviathan was working towards a theory rather like some later discussions of democracy and voting (for example, the theory in Rousseau -- who was aware of some similarities between himself and Hobbes), in which he was trying to answer the puzzle about how someone can be said to be our 'representative', or how (in a direct democracy) we can be said to have 'consented' to the decition of our assembly, when we were outvoted and our apparent wishes were ignored."
Actualy in the 1991 edition the next line starts "An interpretation of Hobbes as a kind of liberal begins with the passage I have just quoted" (emphasis added). Tuck then goes on through section III of his introduction to show how this is not exactly liberal. (The 1991 edition contains no mention of democracy or voting, and page xxxvi refers to the support he gave to the Whigs on the issue of Exclusion.) However I will concede that it is possible to misread Hobbes as representing aspects of liberal thought as he stressed the individual nature of the subject. His political ideology though allows no room for this interpretation. Power is to be taken by the sovereign and it is power to be wielded. Hobbes defende only that the individual had the right to defend his own life against the sovereign. The individual had no right to defend their property or wealth, if this were required to defend his life. "'[E]very-one is obliged' to help with 'the defence of the Common-wealth'" (p. xx) Or "Hobbes stressed that these individual rights of resistance applied only to situations where the person's survival was in question" (p. xxi)


I suggest you read whole texts rather than just skimming for passages that support your views.
Stop talking down to people.
You have just done exactly what you criticise me for, so don't be hypocritical. It makes you seem stupid.
I have clearly read the whole text, I was not going to copy it complete here was I? Also I had reason to believe that you had the text available.



I never said you did, did I?
In that case why the snide comments in your opening post. Classic liberalism is normaslly defined as being derived from the political, ecomnomic and above all moral thinking of Adam Smith.

Even when you tone it down you are horrible condescending. I think the only reason you find it dificult to have a reasonable discussion on here is that you are obnoxiously abrasive and arrogant.

Whereas I think I come off as obnoxiously abrasive and arrogant because, in contrast to most others here, I actually know what I'm talking about.

It is very Lockean, but it entails much of the ideas of Smith and Ricardo.

I never said it didn't. They were both Lockeans.

As for the alternate titles, both would be too specific and would cause us to turn off potential members.

Ahhh, so you admit to the propagandistic nature of your titling!

I feel that it is impossible for the society to act on the general will without breaking Kant's first formulation.

Then you disagree with Kant -- a most unfortunate position in which to find yourself.

The General Will is, by definition, rational and non-contradictory. Remember that for Rousseau, mere majoritarian agreement does not constitute the general will; that is, just because people agree on something doesn't make it the general will -- indeed, it may be directly contrary to the general will.

Kant's categorical imperative was, historically speaking, inspired by Rousseau's general will.

:sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :headbang: :upyours: :mad: LIBERALS SUCK

Some of us, AnarchyeL are not from the USA. Hartz's thesis is of no interest to me OK. Now goodnight as it is 03:30 here and I have work to do in the morning, unlike some.

Ahhh, so you admit to the propagandistic nature of your titling!
No. We admit to being pragmatic as opposed to being pedantic, which you seem to be very adept at being.

They might be considered "democratic" only in that we give the populace their CHOICE over their representatives. But by whatever vague test you're using, we'd actually be closer to "republicans" in that we propose a representative (albeit VERY limited) government.

*sigh* I am not going to get into another drawn-out debate over the proper theoretical definitions of "republican" and "democratic" government. However, I will briefly state the proper case:

The adjective "republican" has historically referred to the character of government, viz. that it serves the "public good." ("Republic" being derived from the Latin "res publica," "things of the public"; see Cicero's text of the same title.)

The adjective "democratic" refers to the form of government. Loosely, it means "government by the people," and applies to any government that derives its authority, directly or indirectly, from an electoral mandate.

Thus, it is possible for a government to be both "republican" and "democratic"... just as it is possible to have a republican monarchy, or a non-republican democracy (that is, a democracy that does not serve the public good -- the sort of "mob rule" feared by, for instance, James Madison).

The two terms became confused during the period of democratic revolutions in the late 18th and early 19th century. Democrats demanded "republican" government -- that is, government that serves the public good -- and they came to the theoretical conclusion that no monarchy can be truly republican, and that only the democratic form can result (reliably) in good republican character.

Whereas I think I come off as obnoxiously abrasive and arrogant because, in contrast to most others here, I actually know what I'm talking about.

No, you come off arrogant when you make comments like this that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Stick to the issues and avoid the condescending remarks and others may actually do the same.

Ahhh, so you admit to the propagandistic nature of your titling!

We are playing politics here. Anyways, I don't think anyone will ever want to claim the Rousseau side of Classic Liberalism, so we should be safe of any naming conflicts.



Then you disagree with Kant -- a most unfortunate position in which to find yourself.

The General Will is, by definition, rational and non-contradictory. Remember that for Rousseau, mere majoritarian agreement does not constitute the general will; that is, just because people agree on something doesn't make it the general will -- indeed, it may be directly contrary to the general will.

Kant's categorical imperative was, historically speaking, inspired by Rousseau's general will.

I guess I shouldn't say that I completely disagree with the General Will or Kant, but that I believe that, by going by their ideas that there can be very few instances of government interference into society, that society can work to determine its own general will.

I am off to bed.

AnarchyeL, I would like to say that it has been nice discussing these topics with you, but it has been as excruciating as ever. Goodnight.

No. No footnotes in the 1991 edition which is what I have available.

Ah. You should get the updated edition. Moreover, arguments about authors work best when you quote them, rather than the introduction to their text. For instance, shall we see what Hobbes has to say about liberty? In what are people to be free?

"The Liberty of a Subject, lyeth therefore only in those things, which in regulating their actions, the Soveraign hath praetermitted: such as is the Liberty to buy, and sell, and otherwise contract with one another; to choose their own aboad, their own diet, their own trade of life, and institute their children as they themselves think fit; & the like" (1996, 148).

He even goes so far as to oppose a military draft, except when necessary for defense. (In other words, you can be drafted to defend your land, but not to invade someone else's.)

Stop talking down to people.

I will talk to people at exactly the level at which they appear. If that happens to mean I'm looking down, so be it.

Classic liberalism is normaslly defined as being derived from the political, ecomnomic and above all moral thinking of Adam Smith.

Only if you are confusing philosophical liberalism with economics. "Classic liberalism" means something very particular to economists, and it is traced to Adam Smith. "Classic liberalism" means something very different to philosophers and political theorists; it is traced to Thomas Hobbes.

No. We admit to being pragmatic as opposed to being pedantic, which you seem to be very adept at being.

No. If I wanted to be pedantic, I would point out that a far better construction for your sentence would conclude, "...at which you seem to be most adept."

No, you come off arrogant when you make comments like this that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Stick to the issues and avoid the condescending remarks and others may actually do the same.

Ahh, but a simple game of "who started it" disproves that theory... My first post was entirely on-topic.

We are playing politics here. Anyways, I don't think anyone will ever want to claim the Rousseau side of Classic Liberalism, so we should be safe of any naming conflicts.

Oh no? I'll point you to my upcoming article (with Rick Matthews), in which we lay claim to a Rousseauean tradition in the person of Thomas Jefferson. (I'll be happy to provide you with a rough draft, if you like.)

I guess I shouldn't say that I completely disagree with the General Will or Kant, but that I believe that, by going by their ideas that there can be very few instances of government interference into society, that society can work to determine its own general will.

There is a very complex argument here, rather tangential to what we have on hand... In some ways I agree with you -- with, however, too many caveats to name in a short space. I think certain societies, organized in certain ways, are capable of determining "their own" general will... (Of course, I am agreeing here with both Kant and Rousseau, although usually people only recognize Rousseau... but recall that Kant warned against the very real possibility that the ability to reason toward the categorical imperative could die out of the world: it needs nurturing. These days, I am afraid it is already dead.)

I am off to bed.

AnarchyeL, I would like to say that it has been nice discussing these topics with you, but it has been as excruciating as ever. Goodnight.

Actually, I find it to be so much LESS excruciating now that I've decided to stop babying posters to this forum in the erroneous belief that if people "like" me I will be more convincing. Henceforth I intend to simply state the case, and if it doesn't speak for itself, then I'll assume nothing I could do for it in terms of "style" is worth the doing.

Goodnight.

No. If I wanted to be pedantic, I would point out that a far better construction for your sentence would conclude, "...at which you seem to be most adept."
You're being pedantic while stating that you're not being pedantic. How droll. *snickers*

Anyway, thanks for the laugh, but this "discussion" became tedious long ago, it's 2:15am here and I need sleep.

/unjacks

None of the above discussion has anything to do with the origin of the word liberal. So I fail to see how it can address what is truly classic and what is not. No-one even mentioned the Pennisula war. :(

None of the above discussion has anything to do with the origin of the word liberal. So I fail to see how it can address what is truly classic and what is not. No-one even mentioned the Pennisula war. :(

The war is tangential, at best, to this discussion. As for the origin of the word, the etymology is so obvious as to make its elaboration redundant... and its explicit use as a description of political ideology predates the Peninsula War by at least seven years, according to the OED.

Moreover, seeing as the Peninsula War follows both the American and the French Revolutions, I find it difficult to imagine how the Peninsula War figures as a necessary element in any discussion of the origins of liberalism.

I invite you to enlighten me.

As for the origin of the word, the etymology is so obvious as to make its elaboration redundant... and its explicit use as a description of political ideology predates the Peninsula War by at least seven years, according to the OED.


Yes, well its origin as a political term is not obvious. And if the OED has it's first use in the english speaking world as a political term seven years before the peninsula war, then the OED is wrong.

Frankly, I don't see how there can be any meaningful discussion of the original meaning of liberalism as a political ideology without discussing the politics of that period.

Some intellectual you are, :rolleyes:

Edit: I just checked the OED, it doesn't say that it was first used in seven years before the pennisula war at all. It does however mention that it was an insult when hobbes was writing. Good job Elric.

Yes, well its origin as a political term is not obvious. And if the OED has it's first use in the english speaking world as a political term seven years before the peninsula war, then the OED is wrong

I find that highly unlikely. (And people call me arrogant for thinking I know more than posters around here? What do we call it when someone thinks they know more than the truly legitimate experts, hmm?)

Frankly, I don't see how there can be any meaningful discussion of the original meaning of liberalism as a political ideology without discussing the politics of that period.

Then why don't you discuss it? Vague generalizations of this sort are... well, very revealing.

Edit: I just checked the OED, it doesn't say that it was first used in seven years before the pennisula war at all. It does however mention that it was an insult when hobbes was writing. Good job Elric.

Did you now?

Looking at the latest edition, it has the first use by H.M. Williams, 1801: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated." As for an "insult" when Hobbes was writing... well, I cannot find that reference at all, and it seems unlikely considering that the earlier meaning of the term, in use during Hobbes' era, was "Originally, the distinctive epithet of those ‘arts’ or ‘sciences’ (see ART 7) that were considered ‘worthy of a free man’; opposed to servile or mechanical. In later use, of condition, pursuits, occupations: Pertaining to or suitable to persons of superior social station; ‘becoming a gentleman’."

I wonder... perhaps someone gave you a fake copy of the OED? Perhaps you would be kind enough to quote from it for me.

Good job. ;)

EDIT: I did find the entry to which you must be referring... "3. {dag}a. Free from restraint; free in speech or action. In 16-17th c. often in a bad sense: Unrestrained by prudence or decorum, licentious."

However, given that you claim to know so much about its origin as a political term, it surprises me that you don't know it takes its lineage from the former use, referring (as in the Latin) to "free men." Thus, to compare it to this other derived (now obsolete) usage is a mere fallacy of equivocation.

Ah, even better than expected. BRAVO!

Some friendly advice: If you're going to pretend to be a philosopher, first make sure there aren't any real intellectuals around.
This is funny. I read this thread starting at the back, and found myself believing that most of the "arrogance" comments were undeserved. I stand corrected.

I even tend to agree with him on the roots of liberalism in part. I'd disagree on Hobbes, but this post really isn't about the substance. If you'd like to have a substantive debate about this topic, I'd do it somewhere that isn't a thread designed for a totally different purpose.

This post is about the style. First, the threadjacking is in bad taste. Second, it's ridiculous to expound on one's qualifications and say "Hey, I learned a lot at one point, so I know a lot more than you do - I'm a real intellectual and you all are just drivel." Make your point - because this is an anonymous internet forum, people are judged by what they say, not on who they say they are. This brings me nicely to my third point - if you're such an intellectual, why are you tooling around on NS General when you could be getting your work published and putting your brilliant mind to work on important philosophical questions? If you're such a hotshot, get back to the important work, and leave this forum for people who care more about the ideas than the petty titular games so often played in academic circles.

This is funny. I read this thread starting at the back, and found myself believing that most of the "arrogance" comments were undeserved. I stand corrected.

Well, you know... After being attacked, I figured I'd just take the ball and run with it.

First, the threadjacking is in bad taste.

What threadjacking? I feel I expressed a legitimate concern about the ideological motives surrounding the way in which this thread frames liberalism.

Second, it's ridiculous to expound on one's qualifications and say "Hey, I learned a lot at one point, so I know a lot more than you do - I'm a real intellectual and you all are just drivel."

Have I mentioned my qualifications? I based the conclusion that I am a real intellectual and you all are just drivel on the relative quality of our posts, not on any knowledge, real or presumed, about our relative qualifications. I don't care if my interlocutors all have multiple Ph.D.s from world-class universities; if they do, they are either undeserved, or earned in unrelated fields.

Make your point - because this is an anonymous internet forum, people are judged by what they say, not on who they say they are.

No, apparently they are not judged by what they say, but by how they say it. Only a very few people have even bothered to discuss the substance of my posts. I'd say you all have a very bad record of judging "what" is said.

This brings me nicely to my third point - if you're such an intellectual, why are you tooling around on NS General when you could be getting your work published and putting your brilliant mind to work on important philosophical questions?

I am doing a fine job of publishing, thank you. But everyone needs a little entertainment now and then. Or are we brilliant intellectual types not "supposed" to be having fun?

If you're such a hotshot, get back to the important work, and leave this forum for people who care more about the ideas than the petty titular games so often played in academic circles.

How mature: "We don't like your kind here, so why don't you move along?"

If you care about the ideas, talk about them. You seem much more interested in talking about the people.

I have not played any titular games, since I have not mentioned any titles. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.

What threadjacking? I feel I expressed a legitimate concern about the ideological motives surrounding the way in which this thread frames liberalism.
Their forum was about party information and recruitment. Thus the threadjacking comment.

Have I mentioned my qualifications?
Implicitly, yes. When you mentioned article publication.

I based the conclusion that I am a real intellectual and you all are just drivel on the relative quality of our posts, not on any knowledge, real or presumed, about our relative qualifications. I don't care if my interlocutors all have multiple Ph.D.s from world-class universities; if they do, they are either undeserved, or earned in unrelated fields.
Perfect example. Not only do I not agree with your antagonists on many substantive issues you raised, but you haven't read any of the posts on intellectual topics I've written. And yet you use "you all."

Practice what you preach.

No, apparently they are not judged by what they say, but by how they say it. Only a very few people have even bothered to discuss the substance of my posts. I'd say you all have a very bad record of judging "what" is said.
People tend to notice things lack that

I am doing a fine job of publishing, thank you. But everyone needs a little entertainment now and then. Or are we brilliant intellectual types not "supposed" to be having fun?
You misunderstand me. I come from a family of academics, and if you'd done some work, would have seen me accused of being an "impractical intellecutal" dozens of times in the past on these threads. My point was simply that if you continue to espouse the ideas of superiority by title that many felt were in your posts, you bring that to a world where it matters.

Where did you get "brilliant" from my post?

How mature: "We don't like your kind here, so why don't you move along?"
Not at all. See above. I'd love to discuss the substantive issues with you, provided that you created a new thread and treated those who disagree with you not as inferior life forms, but people with different opinions.

If you care about the ideas, talk about them. You seem much more interested in talking about the people.
Above. I was piqued.

I have not played any titular games, since I have not mentioned any titles. Stop trying to put words into my mouth.
Above. And stop trying to put words in MY mouth.

Seriously, though, you can end this spat rather quickly. Start a new thread about the philosophical roots of liberalism, and we'll discuss it there.

I find that highly unlikely. (And people call me arrogant for thinking I know more than posters around here? What do we call it when someone thinks they know more than the truly legitimate experts, hmm?)



Then why don't you discuss it? Vague generalizations of this sort are... well, very revealing.



Did you now?

Looking at the latest edition, it has the first use by H.M. Williams, 1801: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated." As for an "insult" when Hobbes was writing... well, I cannot find that reference at all, and it seems unlikely considering that the earlier meaning of the term, in use during Hobbes' era, was "Originally, the distinctive epithet of those ‘arts’ or ‘sciences’ (see ART 7) that were considered ‘worthy of a free man’; opposed to servile or mechanical. In later use, of condition, pursuits, occupations: Pertaining to or suitable to persons of superior social station; ‘becoming a gentleman’."

I wonder... perhaps someone gave you a fake copy of the OED? Perhaps you would be kind enough to quote from it for me.

Good job. ;)

EDIT: I did find the entry to which you must be referring... "3. {dag}a. Free from restraint; free in speech or action. In 16-17th c. often in a bad sense: Unrestrained by prudence or decorum, licentious."

However, given that you claim to know so much about its origin as a political term, it surprises me that you don't know it takes its lineage from the former use, referring (as in the Latin) to "free men." Thus, to compare it to this other derived (now obsolete) usage is a mere fallacy of equivocation.

You don't actually know anything about 19th Century history do you. The adoption of "liberal" as signifiying a political movement in the english speaking world is well recognized, and it is certainly not what you are claiming it is.

As to vague generalizations - which are frankly your stock in trade -; if you were the "expert" you claimed to be, you would know exactly what I am talking about and address why this commonly held belief amongst historians is incorrect. You simply cannot gloss over its genesis as a policital movement because you find it inconvienent. Prior to the peninsula war there was no liberal movement in name, so you cannot ignore it simply because you find it inconvienent to your conceptions regardless of a single quote, which, in any case was not using the word liberal in any particularly definite sense. And almost certainly did not mean to the speaker what the word was to come to mean later in the 19th century when it became a mature political movement.

I notice that despite you protestations however, that you do tacitly admit that at one point it was an insult.

And yes I can look up word roots as easily as you can, and no I am not going to type out a whole definition from the OED. (Fake OED :rolleyes: ).

In any event, your transparent attempt at propaganda for the ultra left bores me. You clearly have little notion of the genesis of the use of the word liberal as applied to partisan politics, nor is subsequent history. Which is why your professors have no doubt been so successful in educating you that any attempt to use the word as per its 19th meaning is right wing propaganda. (And absolutely nothing to do with the cowardice of the left in general).

Also, the whole Hobbes thing is ahistorical. You might as well say Joseph Hutter was one of the intellectual fathers of communism. :rolleyes:

Don't bother replying. I don't particularly care what some academic said about some three hundred year old philoshopher, nor do I wish the tedious refrain that .... " but liberal comes from the latin meaning.....".* If you can't actually explain why you think the penninsula war and its politics is irrelevant, there is no point in furthering this discussion. (Incidently you claimed that your all important quote was from seven years prior to the Penninsula war. It was not .)

Also, you are an extremely ill-mannered young boy. And I would suggest it would behoove you to read a book on etiquette before you waste any more time with the rubbish you seem to be spending your time on. You might learn something useful for a change.

*the word **** comes from the word pocket. doesn't mean I can run around shouting it because I "now" have discovered its "true" meaning :rolleyes:.

Their forum was about party information and recruitment. Thus the threadjacking comment.

And I was criticizing them for recruiting on false pretenses... where, pray tell, should I raise such a concern?

Implicitly, yes. When you mentioned article publication.

That was very late in the game. Moreover, I mentioned it only in direct response to the claim that "no one" would lay claim to the Rousseauean liberal heritage -- I named counter-examples, viz. myself and Professor Matthews.

Perfect example. Not only do I not agree with your antagonists on many substantive issues you raised, but you haven't read any of the posts on intellectual topics I've written. And yet you use "you all."

I was directly quoting the words you put into my mouth... it was meant to be ironically humorous. I'm sorry you missed it.

Practice what you preach.

I'm not the one who tries to win arguments by complaining about my hurt feelings.

You misunderstand me. I come from a family of academics, and if you'd done some work, would have seen me accused of being an "impractical intellecutal" dozens of times in the past on these threads.

How hypocritical. You ask me to engage in discussion based on "what is said," regardless of who says it... and yet you expect me to "do some work" in order to find out "who you are" before I can talk to you. Which is it? Shall we argue the topic, or which one of us has a more interesting back-story?

I'm not going to go looking around for anything you post, unless it is on the topic that interests me. I am not interested in you; I am interested in political theory.

My point was simply that if you continue to espouse the ideas of superiority by title that many felt were in your posts, you bring that to a world where it matters.

"Many felt" that they were in my posts. They were wrong. I espouse ideas of superiority on the basis of the arguments in evidence. I espouse no such ideas with respect to "title" or "degree." I know plenty of Ph.D.s who are morons, and I know even more "uneducated" men and women who are brilliant. Your formal education means nothing unless you show me what it means. I will judge your arguments on their own merits, and I expect you to judge mine in the same way. So far, you in particular have refused to do so.

Not at all. See above. I'd love to discuss the substantive issues with you, provided that you created a new thread and treated those who disagree with you not as inferior life forms, but people with different opinions.

You presume too much. There are many people in this world who disagree with me, yet whom I consider my intellectual equals or superiors. Only fools assume that people who disagree with them are "automatically" stupid. On the other hand, when those who disagree with me repeatedly offer third-grade arguments and prefer to attack my supposed "arrogance" rather than my substantive points, I am more than happy to treat them in accordance with their behavior.

I consider it intolerably immature and narcissistic for people to complain that, whether or not they are capable of supporting their arguments in a suitably intelligent fashion, "their opinion is just as good as mine." Not all opinions are equal. Intelligence still counts for something in the real world.

If you want to start another thread, be my guest. Perhaps I'll participate. For now, however, I am content to provide this thread with a much-needed dose of reality.

I feel no need to continue this discussion, largely for two reasons. First, it's asinine. Second, a lot of what you said in your last post is true. I too am more interested in theory than this sort of thing, but discussion can only take place if there are certain ground rules to set it in.

By the way, concerning the humor/personal offense comment: My response was designed to point out a particular flaw in the way you expressed yourself, not to express offense. I got the intended humor but saw how in grammatical context it would be interpreted. Therefore, the comment was designed to point out that sometimes you may overlook certain human elements during the course of discussion. Just something to think about.

Anyway, good luck in the argument itself. As I've said, I agree with much of what you've written - although I do tend to think Hobbes favored an "enlightened monarchy" as the ideal state. I hope there are no hard feelings. You seem to have far too interesting ideas to let that get in the way of intellectual pursuits.

The adoption of "liberal" as signifiying a political movement in the english speaking world is well recognized, and it is certainly not what you are claiming it is.

Yes, but do you think the "liberal" political movement generated its ideas out of thin air? Are you really going to claim that neither John Locke nor Adam Smith were liberals, simply because they both died prior to your precious movement?

As to vague generalizations - which are frankly your stock in trade -; if you were the "expert" you claimed to be, you would know exactly what I am talking about and address why this commonly held belief amongst historians is incorrect.

I do know what you are talking about, but you have done absolutely nothing to explain how it relates to the discussion on hand. The discussion, since you seem to have missed it, relates to the intellectual origins of the very liberal ideas that your movement ultimately took up. The question is not "when did the first group of people call themselves 'liberal'," but "from whom did these ideas originate, and what is the extent of the ideas to be considered 'liberal'." Moreover, since liberal ideas were put in practice well before your Liberal movement -- e.g. in the American and French Revolutions which I have (very specifically) mentioned -- the movement that decided to take up the name is even further removed from historical relevance.

Please, enlighten me. (How many times have I asked this?) What, exactly, is its relevance to this discussion?

Prior to the peninsula war there was no liberal movement in name,

Right. In name. I challenge you to find me a historian, philosopher, or political theorist willing to claim there were not European liberal movements in fact prior to the Peninsula War.

I notice that despite you protestations however, that you do tacitly admit that at one point it was an insult.

Actually, I explicitly -- not tacitly -- admit that at one point the word was an insult. However, that meaning was non-political, and has nothing to do with the etymology of the political term. Like so much of what you have to say, it is irrelevant.

In any event, your transparent attempt at propaganda for the ultra left bores me.

Oh no! I bore you! That's okay, I wasn't posting for your amusement. And "ultra left"? How is defending the broad spectrum of liberal thought against a propagandistic attempt to narrow it "ultra left"?

Which is why your professors have no doubt been so successful in educating you that any attempt to use the word as per its 19th meaning is right wing propaganda.

No, if you are talking about history, that's fine. But politically, "classical liberal" has a different meaning, and there is clearly something wrong in trying to conflate the two. Generally, John Locke is regarded as the first classic liberal, following on a tradition whose theoretical roots lie in Hobbes' Leviathan. To claim that the definition of this school of thought depends on nineteenth-century party politics (which, in fact, depends on this school of thought), is patently absurd.

(Incidently you claimed that your all important quote was from seven years prior to the Penninsula war. It was not.)

When, in your world, does the Peninsula War begin?

I feel no need to continue this discussion, largely for two reasons.

I am very close to agreeing with you. I had hoped that sooner or later the outrage over my personality would die down and we could continue a substantive discussion... facts are beginning to contradict my belief.

Second, a lot of what you said in your last post is true.

I too am more interested in theory than this sort of thing, but discussion can only take place if there are certain ground rules to set it in.

I agree with you entirely. However, I think the "ground rules" must relate to the quality of evidence to which participants must restrict themselves. "I think so, and I have a right to think so," however much it may be true, just does not cut it as part of a rational dialogue.

By the way, concerning the humor/personal offense comment: My response was designed to point out a particular flaw in the way you expressed yourself, not to express offense. I got the intended humor but saw how in grammatical context it would be interpreted. Therefore, the comment was designed to point out that sometimes you may overlook certain human elements during the course of discussion. Just something to think about.

So noted.

Anyway, good luck in the argument itself. As I've said, I agree with much of what you've written - although I do tend to think Hobbes favored an "enlightened monarchy" as the ideal state.

He did favor monarchy, but on very liberal terms. He considered the monarch the "representative" of the people, and he argued for a clearly-defined private sphere that should include economics and the like.

I hope there are no hard feelings.

Of course not. I never let my feelings get involved. (Of course, this seems to be the problem, doesn't it?)

You seem to have far too interesting ideas to let that get in the way of intellectual pursuits.

Thank you. I hope to have the opportunity to encounter more of your ideas. Hopefully in the next instance we won't get so wrapped up in the critique of style.

By the way, Lacadaemon... I am unable to find a source establishing a connection between the words "****" and "pocket."

In all seriousness, would you mind helping me out?

EDIT: Nevermind. It seems you were mistaken. "Pussy" comes from an older word for "pocket." That makes more sense.

I'm not talking about your little manifesto... I'm talking about claims that some theorists I've mentioned are not "liberal" on the grounds that they are not faithful democrats.

;)You said in one of the above posts that we were in some way imprecise......saying that we should be democratic is not exactly faithful to being liberal either. In a truly liberal society we should have a "direct democracy" rather than a representative one. No one can accurately represent a group of people as we all want different things from life. I may only be represented by me, and I tend to be dismissive of any of the "natural philosophers" who argues otherwise.

By the way, Lacadaemon... I am unable to find a source establishing a connection between the words "****" and "pocket."

In all seriousness, would you mind helping me out?

EDIT: Nevermind. It seems you were mistaken. "Pussy" comes from an older word for "pocket." That makes more sense.

**** comes from the old norse kunta (pocket). I was not mistaken. As if. As for pussy, you are yet again incorrect.

Yes, but do you think the "liberal" political movement generated its ideas out of thin air? Are you really going to claim that neither John Locke nor Adam Smith were liberals, simply because they both died prior to your precious movement?


Well considering that the "liberal" political movenment does not have it's origins in the english speaking world, I doubt that those two could be its intellectual fathers. The fact that people can read them now through the lens of political liberalism is no more relevant than trying to understand Joseph Hutter through the lens of Marxism.

After all we are being pedants here.

I also find it interesting that the first people to call themselves liberal politically had a manifesto very similar to the one here.

Your quote is from six years before the peninsula war. Not seven. If you knew any history you would know that. :rolleyes:

Thank you gentlemen. Can we end the thread hijack at this point.

For the NSCL members and supporters, the proposals for the parliamentary rules are up in our forum. Please go and read them and suggest any changes you may want to make.

The intention is to move these proposals as the first item of order in the parliament.

**** comes from the old norse kunta (pocket). I was not mistaken. As if. As for pussy, you are yet again incorrect.

No, "**** is believed to derive from a Germanic root *kunton "female genitalia", which also gave rise to Old Norse kunta (ancestor of Norwegian and Swedish dialectical kunta and Danish dialectical kunte), Old Frisian, Middle Low German and Middle Dutch kunte, and the English doublet quaint."

"Pussy as a slang term for the female pudenda is thought to derive ultimately from Low German puse "vulva" or Old Norse puss "pocket, pouch"."

Try again, soldier.

Your quote is from six years before the peninsula war. Not seven. If you knew any history you would know that. :rolleyes:


Ah, I was under the impression that the war began in 1808. Since then, I have looked around, and I find that there is a dispute over whether to count its beginning in 1807 or 1808.

In any case, the difference of a year is hardly significant here.


And if you continue to maintain that the intellectual history of liberal movement cannot be traced to any earlier than its explicit political usage, then you will simply have to remain alone in that. From what I have read, even most of the self-proclaimed liberals in this thread don't agree with you (as most of them seem to consider Adam Smith a liberal).

I was under the impresion that the nice Mr. Alien Born had asked for an end to the hijack.

As one of the persons following this thread... can't the part that has nothing to do with the Libs be split up? Thank you.

Good intentions notwithstanding, we weren't done with all the issues AB. It might be more convenient if all the Classical Liberals would voice their concerns in the NS Parliament Procedural Rules thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424479). That way we have a direct discussion instead of a stairs-kinda thing.

I was under the impresion that the nice Mr. Alien Born had asked for an end to the hijack.

As one of the persons following this thread... can't the part that has nothing to do with the Libs be split up? Thank you.

Good intentions notwithstanding, we weren't done with all the issues AB. It might be more convenient if all the Classical Liberals would voice their concerns in the NS Parliament Procedural Rules thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424479). That way we have a direct discussion instead of a stairs-kinda thing.

He is annoying that way.

I agree to the proposal that we post direct into the NS Parliament Procedural Rules thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=424479)

No, "**** is believed to derive from a Germanic root *kunton "female genitalia", which also gave rise to Old Norse kunta (ancestor of Norwegian and Swedish dialectical kunta and Danish dialectical kunte), Old Frisian, Middle Low German and Middle Dutch kunte, and the English doublet quaint."

"Pussy as a slang term for the female pudenda is thought to derive ultimately from Low German puse "vulva" or Old Norse puss "pocket, pouch"."

Try again, soldier.

Other way round. ON > German. (You seem to have a real problem with chronology).

And December 1 1807 is hardly in dispute. :rolleyes:

I'll say no more because the thread starter has requested it.
/hijack.

Other way round. ON > German. (You seem to have a real problem with chronology).

Where did my source say otherwise? It said the Old Norse came from a "germanic root," which could refer to Teutonic or any other early germanic language. It didn't say "German."

And December 1 1807 is hardly in dispute.

Ooooh, December 1807, as opposed to 1808. So instead of the irrelevant difference of a year, we are down to the irrelevant difference of a month. Beautiful.

I'll say no more because the thread starter has requested it.
/hijack.

Well, since the thread-starter is God and all....

Where did my source say otherwise? It said the Old Norse came from a "germanic root," which could refer to Teutonic or any other early germanic language. It didn't say "German."

Then, if you are referring to the proto-german, you source is wrong. Female genitalia would be sklitan. Had I wished to be a pedant, I would have pointed out that the root kunta was in fact OWS instead of using the more common - but less accurate - old norse. In any case, given the proto-germanic, OWS is almost certainly the root, and not vice-versa. (And what do you mean by Teutonic? Old english is teutonic if you hadn't noticed).

I stand by pocket, feminist texts with their obsession to prove that Ku, Koo, cu, qu, are some univeral cognate for woman (and one with a bad meaning to boot) notwithstanding.

Ooooh, December 1807, as opposed to 1808. So instead of the irrelevant difference of a year, we are down to the irrelevant difference of a month. Beautiful.

When was that quote from again? You gave no month. Further, you claimed, that the date of the beginning of the peninsula war was a matter of dispute. It is not, and it never has been. Frankly this is typical of you. First you claim the expertise and the mantle of "intellectual." Then when you are caught in blatant and obvious error, attempt to trivialize it, all the while attacking others for their lack of precision. Obviously you have little to no knowledge of the peninsula war, its politics, or its effect upon the english speaking world, other than what you quickly google.

Further, you other posts show the typical anglo-centric chauvanism of modern american self-styled intellectuals. Clearly, political liberalism crystalized during the peninsula war and it was during that period it became a definite ideology. I never suggested that it did so in vacuo, and in fact it drew upon, inter alia, enlightment values and internal political struggles dating back to the war of spanish sucession. It is not surprising therefore, that it shares some commonality with the thinkers you reference, but to suggest that they actually are the main impetus for - or even the intellectual fathers of - it, is facially absurd.(After all, had there been no Locke, no Hobbes, and no Smith, there still would be liberals in parliament in the 19th century :rolleyes:) Obviously, its intellectual pedigree encompasses far more than those found in the anglosphere, and until you can demonstrate that these english speaking philosophers were the main inspiration for it, to suggest otherwise is plainly wrong. Nevertheless, you seem to have no problem arrogantly declaiming that everyone else in the thread is wrong despite your own misconceptions about the genesis of the movement. Further, you accuse them of blatantly engaging in propaganda, as if you are not engaging in exactly the same activity at the same time. It is irksome to say the least, and nothing to be proud of, especially as they at least got it right as to substance as far as the first "liberals" are concerened. (At the very least you could acknowledge that you are not, in fact, the sole authority on the subject of the origin of liberalism and could in fact be wrong about this).

It also belies your claim to being a real intellectual. If you were you would be fascinated by the non-english heritage of the liberalism's political tradition. And because, as an intellectual, you read the foreign press, you would see the advantage of that perspective in the world today; especially in light of current european politics. But you are not. You would rather pull some quotes from texts of uncertain pedigree in order to prove to everyone that you are "right." It sadly confirms my opinion that the modern american education encourages narrow mindedness, and wholesale acceptance of intellectual dogma. If you are studying philosophy just to be "more right" in light of accepted cannon, what's the point? You should put that great brain you claim to have to some use, like casino gambling.


Well, since the thread-starter is God and all....

Yes, it seems I also lack manners. But unlike you, I actually know when I am being rude.

/hijack. (I really mean it this time If you wish to continue this, start another thread, I will be happy to further discuss this if you start with a post describing the influence of Locke et al. upon French and Spanish politics in the 18th and 19th century).

Hmm... I thought you said you were done here...

I just want to be clear on something... Do you still maintain that it is "****" and not "pussy," referring to the female genitalia, that derives from a root meaning "pocket"... in contradiction with every etymological source I can find?

If so, would you please cite a specific source with which I can challenge the apparent error of so many other sources? (You know me... I like to be the pedant, so if I can lord my superior knowledge over my presumptuous etymologically-informed friends, I would be delighted to do so.)


When was that quote from again? You gave no month.

Exactly. So the fact that the Peninsula War began, not in 1808 as I casually believed, but one month earlier really seems to be beside the point. I was not attempting to be that precise. (How precise would you like? "This quotation was written 7 years, 8 months, 12 days and 11 seconds before the Peninsula War?") I was merely demonstrating an explicitly political use of the word "liberal" -- as I said in the original post -- eight (or as the facts would have it, "seven and whatever") years prior to the Peninsula War. Whether I was precise to the month (or even the year, for that matter) was irrelevant to the point itself.

Further, you claimed, that the date of the beginning of the peninsula war was a matter of dispute.

Tell me, when did the fighting begin? While I can find no dispute over the events in question, there does seem to be a problem of definitions over what to call the "beginning" of the war.

Obviously you have little to no knowledge of the peninsula war, its politics, or its effect upon the english speaking world, other than what you quickly google.

It's true I'm no expert on the Peninsula War, although I suspect I know more than most. But then again, I never claimed to be an expert on the war -- hence my casual use of "beginning" dates. (Although I fail to see how this could possibly justify the conclusion that I "obviously" have "no knowledge" of the war... I only remember the year Kant was born about half the time, but I still know a damn good deal about the man and his thought.) I am, however, an expert on the philosophical school of thought known as "liberalism," including the matter of "classic liberalism" under dispute here. As you yourself point out, this school of thought is related to, though not in any way to be identified with, particular movements of the nineteenth century that called themselves "liberal." Given this divide, I require no mastery of the history of these movements in order to understand the philosophical history of classic liberalism.

Again, you seem to be the only poster in this thread who disagrees with this basic proposition: "classic liberalism" refers to a school of thought dating back to at least John Locke, and certainly including such theorists as Adam Smith and Immanuel Kant. It is with this school of thought, and not your movements, that the thread explicitly identifies itself. Thus, again given that you admit a divide between these thinkers and the movements to which you refer, I have yet to understand what the specific relevance of these movements is to this discussion.

Obviously, its intellectual pedigree encompasses far more than those found in the anglosphere, and until you can demonstrate that these english speaking philosophers were the main inspiration for it, to suggest otherwise is plainly wrong.

That has been my point all along, which you would know had you bothered to read my posts! This thread has by-and-large made the mistake of strictly identifying "classical liberalism" as a school of thought involving only such English liberals as Adam Smith and his ilk. (This seems to stem largely from some confusion between the economic and the philosophical definitions of "liberalism.") My protest from the start has been that liberalism, and especially classical liberalism, encompasses a much more diverse set of European thinkers!

(At the very least you could acknowledge that you are not, in fact, the sole authority on the subject of the origin of liberalism and could in fact be wrong about this).

I certainly do admit that I am not, in fact, the sole authority on the subject of the origin of liberalism. However, I am also certainly not wrong about this.

If you were you would be fascinated by the non-english heritage of the liberalism's political tradition.

See above.

And because, as an intellectual, you read the foreign press, you would see the advantage of that perspective in the world today; especially in light of current european politics.

Again, see above.

Other posters in this thread make the mistake of giving liberalism too narrow (i.e. English) an intellectual history. You make the mistake of refusing it any intellectual history at all.

By the way, Lacadaemon....


While I have claimed no expertise in the history of the Peninsula War -- I'm not an historian, after all -- you have.

What puzzles me is that while I have been painfully detailed in my discussions of those matters in which I do claim expertise -- as, for instance, the liberalism of Thomas Hobbes -- you have yet to provide any real insights into the Peninsula War. All you do is spout vague generalizations about how it is impossible to understand liberalism without understanding the War.

What, specifically, should we know? (Since no one else seems to be posting to this thread anymore, I see no point in ending the so-called "hijack." I believe this is, now, the discussion.)

... At least lately you've managed to spell it right. I wouldn't normally stoop to criticizing someone on spelling -- I prefer to tackle ideas -- but if the minor chronological discrepancy of a month's time is worth half a dozen posts, I suppose the difference between "penninsula" and "peninsula", is also fair game, isn't it?

Posting here just to complete the list of parties represented.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=426484

6. The Judicial system shall be completely independent of the Legislative and Executive systems. Judges shall be elected by a limited suffrage of citizens that have completed degree level education. The Judges themselves shall nominate members of a supreme court from among their number but these shall be confirmed by national vote of this limited suffrage.
I loved your list and agreed with it completely untill I got here. Degree level education? I'm sorry but there are plenty of ppl out there that are smarter and better suited for democratic decision making than many degree holders. How is this any different than some of the Jim Crow laws, the ones that were passed to keep blacks from voting. "You must hold land to vote... You must be able to read to vote... etc" And I know that you might say that having a degree shows that you 'know what you are talking about' but tell me what a degree in Geology has to do with electing a judge.

Wow I went off on that... :D Didn't realize that was such a big deal to me...

I would seriously consider joining this party... but I believe in Universal health care. I don't believe in the health insurance solution in the manifesto.

I'm sorry if this counts as grave-digging - but I would argue it's justified.

How do we apply to join the party? I would (obviously) like to do so.

I loved your list and agreed with it completely untill I got here. Degree level education? I'm sorry but there are plenty of ppl out there that are smarter and better suited for democratic decision making than many degree holders. How is this any different than some of the Jim Crow laws, the ones that were passed to keep blacks from voting. "You must hold land to vote... You must be able to read to vote... etc" And I know that you might say that having a degree shows that you 'know what you are talking about' but tell me what a degree in Geology has to do with electing a judge.

Wow I went off on that... :D Didn't realize that was such a big deal to me...

The "Degree Level Education" that is referred to, refers to a degree level education in law. The judges' duties are only to interpret the law, and only those who have formal training in the law should be able to determine who becomes a judge.

I'm sorry if this counts as grave-digging - but I would argue it's justified.

How do we apply to join the party? I would (obviously) like to do so.

There is no formal application.

If you want to get involved, we have a region entitled Classic Liberal that has been pretty dead, and at one time had an off-site forum although it seems to be down.

Actually, Adam Smith made room in "The Wealth of Nations" for certain works that would help the public good, things like lighthouses and roads for example. I don't have the passage with me, so I can't quote it right off, but I think it's a pretty good arguement for some things in the interest of the public good.

Its been awhile since I read Adam Smith but I do remember that. Good point.

Oh... you people have such better threads than us...

Okay, the NSCL are back. Here we are. This is the thread. Behold, and despair!

Santa Barbara, you are now named Igor, you little grave digger, you.

Hi, as a DSP party member, we are open to negotiate a new coalition:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/13/untitled15in.png

Let me know if you're interested. ;)