Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't say that. I'm not a libertarian. Social libertarianism is social liberalism, and so my comments generally hold for both. 20th century liberalism becomes more complicated to understand for most as it devolves into communism, as the czars of communism were efficient at conflating ideals in their propaganda to achieve their goals of a politically dis-empowered populace. Therefore, people have a difficult time in parsing what liberalism actually stands for.
Liberalism is social individualism, just as liberal economics serve individuals or minority groups (not the minority groups that come to mind when you hear "minority"). Soviet communism was individualism with a superficial gloss of ineffectual collectivism, meant to replace the cultural collectivism that before held Russia together. Worker's self interests (aka: easily manipulated economic interests) replaced or attempted to replace the far more effective religious, ethnic, and cultural bonds that before facilitated group political self-interest. It was all gloss and a ruse to fool the people that what was being taken from them was being replaced with something more politically effective. The substitution for effective political bonds was made for an ideology in which no effective political bonds could be maintained, due to the easily manipulated nature of job creation and money supply. Most liberals are so politically misinformed that they don't get that all liberalism is the destruction of group bonds, aka: individualism. As an individual with no group bonds you have no political power and are therefore, by definition, a de-facto slave. with no power to resist politically effective groups with effective intra-group bonds and co-operative / political power.
Libertarianism is merely social individualism without the theater of fake-collectivism cynically added to fool the people that they have any power. Libertarianism is pure liberalism, economic and social, readily accepted by individuals with no power. No man can remain an island and not expect to be exploited and economically or politically enslaved by more politically effective groups.
Every genocide had a perfectly logical reasoning to them based on the inputs. The inputs were usually not grounded in fact, or reality, but logic is the process after inputs are found to be true and correct. Like building a house you have inputs (lumber, shingles, and concrete) that are used during the construction. The construction maybe done by experiance professionals, but if you give them bad inputs they will still produce a terrible result.
Facts are the issue, and making sure they are valid. Saying that I don't like an ideology because their current leader actually went back in time and caused the black plauge makes complete logical sense. It uses inputs that have no basis in reality and would be part of a diagnosis of clinical insanity, but that process makes sense.
I think the one thing liberals always miss in their "moral" thinking is the effect liberal programs have had on children. The fact is children were not starving to death before the Great Society programs, nor were they growing up in fatherless homes at the rate they are today. Subsidize bastards you get more of them. Bastards tend to have a more difficult life than their legitimate peers.
Libertarianism is simply the belief that adults should, with few exceptions, be free to make their own decisions and reap the reward or suffer the consequences that result from those decisions. Modern liberalism is the belief that the masses are too ignorant to be left to their own devices.
Uh huh.
It should also be noted that no political party has a monopoly on blind partisanship.
It should also be noted that no political party has a monopoly on blind partisanship.
Actually, I believe a third of libertarians are nuttier than a fruitcake. My libertarianism is derived from classical liberalism, with Milton Friedman, and a few of the founding fathers being the ones with the strongest influence on me. A logical person may have a basic philosophy guiding him but should recognize the limits of that philosophy.
The fact is there are so many subsets of liberals, libertarians and conservatives that labeling any of them as completely logical or illogical is illogical.
Actually, I believe a third of libertarians are nuttier than a fruitcake. My libertarianism is derived from classical liberalism, with Milton Friedman, and a few of the founding fathers being the ones with the strongest influence on me. A logical person may have a basic philosophy guiding him but should recognize the limits of that philosophy.
The fact is there are so many subsets of liberals, libertarians and conservatives that labeling any of them as completely logical or illogical is illogical.
But none of this stopped you from sticking in a little liberal-bashing in your post.
Modern liberalism is the belief that the masses are too ignorant to be left to their own devices.
Who was talking about self-serving? I said, "self-centeredness" - and to preclude confusion, specifically: The perspective that puts the financial enrichment of one's self above the basic needs of others. The perspectives of personal avarice; money over people; brutalistic opportunism for personal gain without regard to the impact on others.
Anti-liberalism seems to have the market cornered on self-serving self-deception.
Not really. The auto workers in unions had their pensions saved, but the non union workers had theirs cut. The liberal objections to gerrymandering appeared only after Republicans captured most of the state legislatures in 2010. Liberals are very concerned about Islamophobia, but have no problems referring to the "Christian Taliban". Liberals were more than happy to shut down school choice despite its proven successes when the teachers unions complained. Liberals are against obstructionism, but were fine with the Democrat senators fleeing Wisconsin. Liberals were all about conservative rhetoric inciting violence following the Gifford shooting, until it turned out the shooter was himself a liberal. Enhanced interrogation techniques are war crimes to liberals, but when Obama used intellgence gathered from them to get Bin Laden he was a hero. Raising the debt ceiling when Bush was president was irresponsible and unpatriotic, but not raising the debt ceiling under Obama is irresponsible and obstructionist. I could go on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
