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.
Okay, thanks for the response. From what I can tell, what you call "libertarian", we call socially liberal.
Enquirement, what country are you from?
I think that socially liberal person can (but doesn't have to) support liberal PATERNALISTIC laws. Or be politically correct. PCness is definitely not a libertarian thing.
Last edited by Spiritual Leader; 10-31-2015 at 03:29 PM..
For example, Germany's laws allowing the young low drinking age is socially liberal, not libertarian. The 14 year old is only being "allowed" to do something by a benevolent state. To my mind that is totally contradictory. Because he has a law telling him what he can and can't do, that is not freedom, that is only permission. Just like if your dad says you can go outside and play, it doesn't mean you are truly free to go out and play, it only means you have permission. He would only be free if the government didn't "allow" or disallow him to do as he wishes. Which is what I find odd about the Dutch being libertarian in any sense of the word. For example, gays can only marry because they have permission to do so from an overseeing government, the same government that previously banned them from doing so. What we call "liberal".
.
Technically speaking you're right. But we need to put things in a context. Every single country in the world has legal drinking age. So not existing one would be more like anarchist thing.
For me socially liberal as a concept doesn't mean a lot, because many paternalistic progressives consider themselves liberal, too. Do you think that anti-porn feminists consider themselve conservative? haha
IMO, both German prostitution law (legalized and regulated) and New Zealand prostitution law (decriminalized) are 'libertarian'. Liberal in a 'modern liberal' sense, would be "we know better than you, we will protect you" (Nordic model).
Now, you can imply this to any single social issue.
IMO, both German prostitution law (legalized and regulated) and New Zealand prostitution law (decriminalized) are 'libertarian'. Liberal in a 'modern liberal' sense, would be "we know better than you, we will protect you" (Nordic model).
Now, you can imply this to any single social issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enquirement
In Europe, I think the term libertarian is closest to the phrase "freedom of choice" or "pro-choice". So Europe an cultural values are very similar to US values, but economic values aren't restricted to a capitalist philosophy.
So do you agree with my statement above?
In European culture, "liberal" is the opposite of "conservative". But in Europe the term "liberal" tends to be used by parties who aren't afraid to shy away from traditional Christian values.
So...
Conservatives: right-wing and conservative/christian
Socialists: liberal/socialist but conservative/christian
Liberals: liberal/socialist and open to new ideas
I agree Europe is not capitalist, but I'm not sure if I would agree that rest of the values are the same. Same if compared to Asia or Africa, maybe. I find America much more religious. And I find America much more politically correct. I don't think that political correctness in the US comes only from modern liberal/cultural marxist side, but also from puritanism ("Don't offend someone else's religion"). Americans are being offended really easily. Even liberal Americans. For me that's lack of personal responsibility. And personal responsibility and freedom are the two sides of the same coin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enquirement
So...
Conservatives: right-wing and conservative/christian
Socialists: liberal/socialist but conservative/christian
Liberals: liberal/socialist and open to new ideas
If you're thinking about European context, and if you would REALLY simplify it, yes. But I don't see anything conservative/christian in Scandinavian Social-democratic parties.
In European culture, "liberal" is the opposite of "conservative". But in Europe the term "liberal" tends to be used by parties who aren't afraid to shy away from traditional Christian values.
So...
Conservatives: right-wing and conservative/christian
Socialists: liberal/socialist but conservative/christian
Liberals: liberal/socialist and open to new ideas
In Canada, at least, socialists would largely be associated with atheist or agnostic perspectives. This is a generalization, because I'm sure there are left-leaning members of religions who would support socialist political platforms. They'd vote NDP. (New Age religions, some Buddhists, Universal Unitarian churches, United Church, etc.,?)...
Conservatives in Canada: right-wing and stereotypically christian fundamentalist (although you can find Conservative supporters who are non-christian, or christian non-fundamentalists, or even atheist and agnostic libertarian types. Plus some who consider themselves moderate or just slightly right-of-centre)
Liberals in Canada: left-of-centre, or simply "centrist", depending upon how they choose to describe themselves. They've been stereotypically described as "campaigning from the left, then governing from the right". Also there's an old stereotype that they tend to "steal" good ideas from the socialist NDP and implement them while they're in power--"universal health care" (Canadian medicare) being one example.
The quoted post is referencing "Hume's problem" in meta-ethics and how this translates to the framework of liberalism. This has nothing to do with Deconstruction or perspectivism.
What post exactly?
Yousseff said:
"You are either relativistic when it comes to values systems, or you are not. There is no definable grey area in between."
And I replayed:
"...you still can't justify it, because position that 'no value is better than other' is axiom by itself.
...it's not ether or questions like you stated. It's just how many axioms you have. Po-mo-s have their fundamental axiom, too."
I have no problem with contextualization. My problem is with equation of all relative truths 'as the same'
There is a relative and there's an absolute. If we compare two different viewpoints, most likely both will (partly) be true, but one is a bit 'truer'. 'Truer' meaning higher in 'developmental'/'evolutionary' sense.
That's where evolutionary integral perspectivism differs from relativism. It introduces 'developmental'/'evolutionary' perspective. But, most po-mos are cultural Marxist, so they don't like it.
I have no problem with contextualization. My problem is with equation of all relative truths 'as the same'
There is a relative and there's an absolute. If we compare two different viewpoints, most likely both will (partly) be true, but one is a bit 'truer'. 'Truer' meaning higher in 'developmental'/'evolutionary' sense.
That's where evolutionary integral perspectivism differs from relativism. It introduces 'developmental'/'evolutionary' perspective. But, most po-mos are cultural Marxist, so they don't like it.
Didn't we already go over this? With some rare exceptions, it's generally pointless trying to express and resolve an analytic problem using continental discourse, or an epistemological problem using linguistic analysis.
Many have tried this, ultimately to no avail, like with the analytic synthetic distinction under logical positivism.
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.
