PDA

View Full Version : Legal Liberalism = Radicalism.


Direckshun
08-26-2010, 08:15 PM
Do any conservatives here disagree with that assessment? That liberalism is necessarily radical?

(FTR -- I am referring to modern liberalism, not the classical definition of liberalism.)

petegz28
08-26-2010, 08:27 PM
I think modern day liberalism is just as radical as the far right. There really is very little that is liberal about liberalism. They are a socialist crowd that wants the Fed Gov to provide everything for them at the cost of everyone else. Pure and simple.

Direckshun
08-26-2010, 08:29 PM
I think modern day liberalism is just as radical as the far right. There really is very little that is liberal about liberalism. They are a socialist crowd that wants the Fed Gov to provide everything for them at the cost of everyone else. Pure and simple.

What should liberalism be about, Pete?

petegz28
08-26-2010, 08:52 PM
What should liberalism be about, Pete?

Small government, or should I say freedom from government. Freedom as opposed to a government pawn, robot and burden. Modern day liberalism is not what it means to liberal, imo. They are very intolerant which pretty much contradicts the core of being liberal. The same liberals that seem to support a mosque at ground zero are also the same liberals who cry everytime Santa Clause or a Christmas Tree is displayed. The modern day liberal has turned the definition of tolerance to mean "think like me or the government will make you".

Direckshun
08-26-2010, 08:54 PM
Small government, or should I say freedom from government. Freedom as opposed to a government pawn, robot and burden. Modern day liberalism is not what it means to liberal, imo. They are very intolerant which pretty much contradicts the core of being liberal. The same liberals that seem to support a mosque at ground zero are also the same liberals who cry everytime Santa Clause or a Christmas Tree is displayed. The modern day liberal has turned the definition of tolerance to mean "think like me or the government will make you".

God, I was thinking about trying to turn this into a productive conversation, but there's absolutely nothing I can do with this.

This is like a cartoonish Mark Levin rant or something sportsshrink would say.

Seriously. Wow.

ChiefaRoo
08-26-2010, 08:55 PM
What should liberalism be about, Pete?

Let me try then.

Liberalism should exist within the American Capitalistic system which has always been based upon the concept of American Exceptionalism. It shouldn't be used to social engineer society and lead us away from the opportunity to be great just because some of us are satisfied with merely being comfortable.

petegz28
08-26-2010, 08:57 PM
God, I was thinking about trying to turn this into a productive conversation, but there's absolutely nothing I can do with this.

This is like a cartoonish Mark Levin rant or something sportsshrink would say.

Seriously. Wow.

In other words you can't refute any of it so you cast your standard "radio talk show" attacks.

Do you know what it means to be liberal? It doesn't mean, or at least it didn't used to mean having the government dictate how you will live every step of your life and demanding the government punish you if you don't live the way others want you too. It goes back to that whole tolerance thing I was talking about and the Liberals today seem to lack.

The Mad Crapper
08-26-2010, 08:58 PM
What should liberalism be about, Pete?

Here, I'll answer your question--

You're an asshole.

ChiefaRoo
08-26-2010, 09:01 PM
Here, I'll answer your question--

You're an asshole.

That's not very liberal of you MC.

healthpellets
08-26-2010, 09:21 PM
Do any conservatives here disagree with that assessment? That liberalism is necessarily radical?

(FTR -- I am referring to modern liberalism, not the classical definition of liberalism.)

like any political movement, there are radical elements.

i think the New Deal was a radical position.

but liberalism isn't necessarily radical.

hearing people say that the tax rate on the highest income earners should be 70%-90% is, to me, radical.

i suppose at this point, nationalized HC isn't radical considering the number of major nations that have implemented it. but in terms of the history of this country, you could argue that it is. but i only see it as the next logical step for anyone that supports the logic underlying the New Deal.

i do think true socialists and communists are radicals, and they fall under the umbrella of liberalism.

i don't think that the large majority of liberals support far left, radical positions. just like a majority of the right doesn't support a minimalist government and true state autonomy.

so i guess in summation, i don't think a lot of the positions held by a majority of folks who would label themselves as liberals are radical positions.

patteeu
08-26-2010, 09:23 PM
If by liberal, you mean people who want some sort of progressive tax system and a modest social safety net, no. If you mean the people who want to continue to push us toward massive redistribution, government-run healthcare, and cradle-to-grave entitlements, yes. Most of the people called liberal these days seem to be of the latter sort.

BucEyedPea
08-26-2010, 09:37 PM
Do any conservatives here disagree with that assessment? That liberalism is necessarily radical?

(FTR -- I am referring to modern liberalism, not the classical definition of liberalism.)

Both modern and classical are radical. Don't forget the idea of a smaller, limited govt was a radical break from what was the past and the status quo—particularly after all those monarchies.

Modern liberalism is just socialism/communism repackaged to sound acceptable or nice. It's just a Fabian label. But yeah, it's radical.....unless it's done incrementally....to hide it. It just doesn't get noticed as much because people can accept gradual changes without seeing where it ends up. By then they love their chains.

notorious
08-26-2010, 09:46 PM
Modern liberalism is just socialism/communism repackaged to sound acceptable or nice. It's just a Fabian label. But yeah, it's radical.....unless it's done incrementally....to hide it. It just doesn't get noticed as much because people can accept gradual changes without seeing where it ends up. By then they love their chains.


Throw a frog into boiling water and it will jump out. Slowly heat the water with the frog in the pan and it will sit in the hot water and cook.


I think the socialists did too much to quickly, and people have noticed. Now they are screwed.

I am happy about all of the Programs that congress and the president have inacted. It exposed all of them, and hopefully people will remember (fat chance).

Taco John
08-26-2010, 10:23 PM
Yes, I think social liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism) (aka "modern liberalism") is radical. I mean, to force poor people to pay for corporate health insurance or face the IRS, wage garnishments, and even jail? That's clearly a radical departure from the founding roots of this country, which is classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism).

alnorth
08-26-2010, 10:25 PM
No. Liberalism is a legitimate non-crazy political ideology that can be intellectually defended. I agree with most of the "social/emotional" issues other than gun control and immigration. I believe the assumptions and goals behind some of the economic policies are unrealistic in the real world (or at least in our society, perhaps it works in other countries), but we're not talking scientology or flat-earthers here.

Taco John
08-26-2010, 10:27 PM
What should liberalism be about, Pete?

"Limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."

healthpellets
08-26-2010, 10:35 PM
FTR, Direckshun...you suck at assigning categories for your OPs.

Mr. Kotter
08-26-2010, 11:09 PM
Liberalism is radical, the same way as conservatism is...reactionary.

The ying and yang of the political world; necessary, if predictable.

Balancing is much easier looking at it, rather than doing it though; mostly, because ideologues and extremists bully lame-brained independents to their side when the political winds for them....are favorable.

Entrenched and real consensus seekers and pragmatic problem solvers....don't get good press, because demagoguery is much more seductive and has better "ratings." Ask Rush, Glenn, and Michael Moore, eh? Heh.

:hmmm:

Taco John
08-27-2010, 01:03 AM
Liberalism is radical, the same way as conservatism is...reactionary.

The ying and yang of the political world; necessary, if predictable.

Balancing is much easier looking at it, rather than doing it though; mostly, because ideologues and extremists bully lame-brained independents to their side when the political winds for them....are favorable.

Entrenched and real consensus seekers and pragmatic problem solvers....don't get good press, because demagoguery is much more seductive and has better "ratings." Ask Rush, Glenn, and Michael Moore, eh? Heh.

:hmmm:


http://www.astrologychick.com/images/phoenix5.jpg

Otter
08-27-2010, 01:23 AM
I have a question; what's the goal of liberals? If all the pieces fell together in your vision of American, what would it be like?

Baby Lee
08-27-2010, 04:05 AM
Liberalism is about intent, conservatism is about results. Liberals say 'we can do better.' Conservatives say 'this might fuck everything up.'

I applaud liberal intent in most cases, I just wish they were as circumspect about consequence as conservatives.

Jenson71
08-27-2010, 07:08 AM
I have a question; what's the goal of liberals? If all the pieces fell together in your vision of American, what would it be like?

Armenia, circa 1938. Or China, during the glorious Cultural Revolution under Chairman Mao.

patteeu
08-27-2010, 07:10 AM
Armenia, circa 1938. Or China, during the glorious Cultural Revolution under Chairman Mao.

LMAO

HonestChieffan
08-27-2010, 07:10 AM
There is no reason to believe that a liberal is or can be more or less radical than a conservative. Im not at all sure what the point of the question is.

The major difference in the left and the right is the view we each have of the system we operate within and the potential of that system to be successful. The left has always seen the system as needing to be constrained and directed from a central power point. The right has always believed in the ability of the people to succeed and make decisions at the lowest levels possible. The left creates limits where the right sees the future as one of opportunity and growth be it individual, societal, or commerce.

Where the right would see issues that face a school board in Butler Missouri as a local issue best addressed locally, the left would prefer to have a overriding set of rules that are delivered by state and the locals need not worry themselves.

Where the right would see this as opportunity of each community to solve problems in disparate but effective means, the left would see this as an opportunity to create one answer that fits all problems in all communities.The left sees answers as best developed centrally and not allowed to be developed by those they see as intellectually inferior or less socially aware.

One size fits all is the answer most often delivered by the left where the right is happy to see creativity in approaches that build upon each other in a form of constant improvement. The left is most comfortable with averages, the right is most comfortable with creation of greater success and building more and new opportunities.

Radical is not really relevant. One can be as radical left as one can be radical right. One can be ill informed regardless of the POV you come from.

The Mad Crapper
08-27-2010, 07:10 AM
I have a question; what's the goal of liberals? If all the pieces fell together in your vision of American, what would it be like?

The Soviet Union.

Garcia Bronco
08-27-2010, 07:13 AM
Liberalism can equal being a radical, but radical is in the eye of the beholder.

Garcia Bronco
08-27-2010, 07:16 AM
The Soviet Union.

Marx himself would tell you socialism is a vehicle to communism. Communism is like the Washington Redskins over the past ten years; They look good on paper but in actual use they are a team that's gonna lose.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2010, 08:38 AM
I have a question; what's the goal of liberals? If all the pieces fell together in your vision of American, what would it be like?
Socialism or communism but with a new fresh label. Fascialism.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2010, 08:40 AM
Liberalism can equal being a radical, but radical is in the eye of the beholder.

Gee! I almost said that. And that depends on where one sits on the spectrum.
I mean they thought Bush was an arch conservative. They think Obama is really different from Bush.
Then there's people who think they're centrist but they're pretty far left even from just 30 years ago.

I refuse to call today's left liberal though. It may be a word but it's something
they stole.

LOCOChief
08-27-2010, 11:19 AM
God, I was thinking about trying to turn this into a productive conversation, but there's absolutely nothing I can do with this.

This is like a cartoonish Mark Levin rant or something sportsshrink would say.

Seriously. Wow.

Pete is right on the money and there is no way in hell anyone can have a productive conversation with you.

Otter
08-27-2010, 11:27 AM
Socialism or communism but with a new fresh label. Fascialism.

I'm just curious what the long term goals are with the Obots because to me it seems like the downfall of the US is on their agenda. They seem to be concerned with the interest of everyone but the tax paying citizens of the United States of America.

Baby Lee
08-27-2010, 11:30 AM
like any political movement, there are radical elements.

i think the New Deal was a radical position.

but liberalism isn't necessarily radical.

hearing people say that the tax rate on the highest income earners should be 70%-90% is, to me, radical.

i suppose at this point, nationalized HC isn't radical considering the number of major nations that have implemented it. but in terms of the history of this country, you could argue that it is. but i only see it as the next logical step for anyone that supports the logic underlying the New Deal.

i do think true socialists and communists are radicals, and they fall under the umbrella of liberalism.

i don't think that the large majority of liberals support far left, radical positions. just like a majority of the right doesn't support a minimalist government and true state autonomy.

so i guess in summation, i don't think a lot of the positions held by a majority of folks who would label themselves as liberals are radical positions.

Daddy, what does incrementalism mean?

BucEyedPea
08-27-2010, 11:33 AM
I'm just curious what the long term goals are with the Obots because to me it seems like the downfall of the US is on their agenda. They seem to be concerned with the interest of everyone but the tax paying citizens of the United States of America.

They destroy the individual economically for the sake of a very tiny minority who are considered dispossessed materially. Their naivete results in bringing everybody else down. So yeah, they hate what America was founded on and which made her great. They want us to be like Europe which just happens to be imploding economically from the same paradigm they seek for us.

My problem with a certain wing of the Rs though including some conservatives, is that they want to make over the world using war. That leads to the same bad results. That mind set destroyed ALL past superpowers.

Jenson71
08-27-2010, 01:54 PM
I'm just curious what the long term goals are with the Obots because to me it seems like the downfall of the US is on their agenda. They seem to be concerned with the interest of everyone but the tax paying citizens of the United States of America.

It's pretty obvious that they hate America and cherish the idea of being destroyed by illegal immigrants, Muslims, and themselves through total taxation and gulags.

BucEyedPea
08-27-2010, 10:30 PM
Here's Why You're Not!

Long but very educational on the of a distinctive culture and particular historical circumstances which occurred in the West:

The Rise, Fall, and of Classical Liberalism. ( And it's coming Renaissance) (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico38.1.html)


Also Pretty good:

What is Classical Liberalism ( The adjective is needed these days.) (http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico37.1.html)

"Classical liberalism" is the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade. Up until around 1900, this ideology was generally known simply as liberalism. The qualifying "classical" is now usually necessary, in English-speaking countries at least (but not, for instance, in France), because liberalism has come to be associated with wide-ranging interferences with private property and the market on behalf of egalitarian goals. This version of liberalism if such it can still be called is sometimes designated as "social," or (erroneously) "modern" or the "new," liberalism.

Mr. Kotter
08-27-2010, 11:25 PM
How many supposed "educated" azzholes from this joint....don't even know what the difference between RADICAL and REACTIONARY is????

From the posts, thus far....apparently, everyone. :shake:


Though, BL shows potential understanding. But that's it. Wow...just, wow. :rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
08-28-2010, 08:17 AM
How many supposed "educated" azzholes from this joint....don't even know what the difference between RADICAL and REACTIONARY is????

From the posts, thus far....apparently, everyone. :shake:


Though, BL shows potential understanding. But that's it. Wow...just, wow. :rolleyes:

Reactionary, radical, conservative and liberal are relative terms they are not absolutes.

In Russia circa 1989 the radicals and/or liberals were for abolishing their dictatorship of socialism. The conservatives were the socialists.

If anything a BIG GOVT welfare state is reactionary as it's paternal like the Feudal System.
And communism which evolves from socialism is what primitive hunter gather societies practiced. So they're reactionary too.

Absolutes are for authoritarians.

HonestChieffan
08-28-2010, 08:35 AM
NeoRad

patteeu
08-28-2010, 01:10 PM
How many supposed "educated" azzholes from this joint....don't even know what the difference between RADICAL and REACTIONARY is????

From the posts, thus far....apparently, everyone. :shake:


Though, BL shows potential understanding. But that's it. Wow...just, wow. :rolleyes:

Don't be so smug. In modern era politics, the word "radical" is generally used to describe extreme leftists by convention. But the common definition of the word "radical" makes it appropriate for extremists of all stripes (except, I suppose, extreme status quo supporters).

And fwiw, "reactionary" has a more general definition than the one you want to limit it to also.

healthpellets
08-28-2010, 05:05 PM
How many supposed "educated" azzholes from this joint....don't even know what the difference between RADICAL and REACTIONARY is????

From the posts, thus far....apparently, everyone. :shake:


Though, BL shows potential understanding. But that's it. Wow...just, wow. :rolleyes:

because no one responded to your drivel you assume that no one knows the difference between radical and reactionary?

maybe the board doesn't revolve around your contributions.

Brainiac
08-29-2010, 09:26 AM
How many supposed "educated" azzholes from this joint....don't even know what the difference between RADICAL and REACTIONARY is????

From the posts, thus far....apparently, everyone. :shake:


Though, BL shows potential understanding. But that's it. Wow...just, wow. :rolleyes:
I vividly remember my teachers in high school (several decades ago) drawing the chart showing Radical ==> Liberal ==> Center ==> Conservative ==> Reactionary, so I would say that I "know" the difference.

However, I suspect that a strict differentiation between the two terms is more common in academia than in generally accepted usage. People who advocate sudden drastic change are often described as radicals, regardless of whether their political ideologies lean Left or Right. In fact, if you look up the word "radical" at dictionary.com you'll see 14 definitions, none of which contain a reference to being politically left of center.

Chiefshrink
08-29-2010, 11:32 AM
God, I was thinking about trying to turn this into a productive conversation, but there's absolutely nothing I can do with this.

This is like a cartoonish Mark Levin rant or something sportsshrink would say.

Seriously. Wow.

ROFL, The reason why you cannot turn this into a "productive conversation"(i.e. seeing it your way only) and do nothing with this(manipulate truth) is because "TRUTH IS TRUTH".

Like I said awhile back Direckshun, IMO you personally are beginning to see rays of conservative "absolutes" of light shine in on your soul. Whether your ego allows these rays of truth to keep shining and revealing more about "absolute truths" of this world remain to be seen. I'm sure this is not only too "prideful" for you to admit but even moreso emotionally fearful of being wrong. Saying the same thing here I guess.

But then the good book say's "the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord". Basically becoming humble. Can you do it Direckshun?? I say of course you can!!!

Don't let your pride throw you in hell my friend.:thumb:

BucEyedPea
08-29-2010, 03:29 PM
I vividly remember my teachers in high school (several decades ago) drawing the chart showing Radical ==> Liberal ==> Center ==> Conservative ==> Reactionary, so I would say that I "know" the difference.
Oh my, if they drew it that way then they were still using the out-of-date chart that is more appropriate for the French Revolution which had Monarchy/Aristocratic class only and then the peasants.

Brainiac
08-29-2010, 03:41 PM
Oh my, if they drew it that way then they were still using the out-of-date chart that is more appropriate for the French Revolution which had Monarchy/Aristocratic class only and then the peasants.
How should it be drawn?

BucEyedPea
08-29-2010, 05:26 PM
How should it be drawn?
With crayons.

Type the word "spectrum" into the search function with my name. There was more than one extensive debate on this as I recall.
I don't feel like reposting.

Brainiac
08-29-2010, 05:28 PM
With crayons.

Type the word "spectrum" into the search function with my name. There was more than one extensive debate on this as I recall.
I don't feel like reposting.
I'll get right on that.

BucEyedPea
08-29-2010, 05:29 PM
I'll get right on that.

Awesome. You Rock! :D

tiptap
08-30-2010, 07:20 AM
Are suffragettes liberal? Are gold vs silver or federal reserve currency liberal? Are Progressives liberal?

tiptap
08-30-2010, 07:25 AM
Liberalism is about intent, conservatism is about results. Liberals say 'we can do better.' Conservatives say 'this might **** everything up.'

I applaud liberal intent in most cases, I just wish they were as circumspect about consequence as conservatives.

I can live with this. It is overstating to say conservatism is about results since the hallmark of 20th Century Liberalism has the Civil Rights movement as a pillar and comparing the opportunities of minorities in the 50's to now is night and day as far as results.

The liberal set is about setting intent and goals collectively knowing that individual actions DO NOT NECESSARILY ADD up aggragately to results that are in general interests. And including values beyond economic choices alone. Capitalism in rising markets is the wind in the sail. Liberal agenda is the tiller to move society in an equitable direction for the society.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2010, 08:30 AM
Are suffragettes liberal?
Yes. That's a good example of Classical Liberal.

Are gold vs silver or federal reserve currency liberal?
I don't even see this as relevant to the issue by themselves.

What would not be liberal ( BIG govt) is a central bank that inflates for govt spending....and that's what central banks do. So politicians love them because it can fund their pet projects. That would not be classical liberal. It is BIG govt though—mercantilism, fascism, socialism.

Are Progressives liberal?
No because their policies, except for a few, don't progress us. The FREE enterprise system does most of that.

Liberal today is activist govt which requires more and more govt to socially engineer cookie-cutter outcomes for parity. That's the opposite of classical liberalism which is limited govt ( not NO govt) to ensure liberty with outcomes varying. Liberal today is some sort of control ideology.

BucEyedPea
08-30-2010, 08:38 AM
I can live with this. It is overstating to say conservatism is about results since the hallmark of 20th Century Liberalism has the Civil Rights movement as a pillar and comparing the opportunities of minorities in the 50's to now is night and day as far as results.
I think you give that more credit than it deserves. There's some older prominent blacks that are classical liberals who are glad they made it before Civil Rights movement. Read Carver to see it. I fail to see how it was a step forward for property rights. I fail to see how being forced to serve someone a plate of pork chops improves race relations or improves conditions for blacks economically. It's just force. When it's govt institutions violating their true rights....then it's a right move.

The liberal set is about setting intent and goals collectively knowing that individual actions DO NOT NECESSARILY ADD up aggragately to results that are in general interests. And including values beyond economic choices alone.
Like I said a cookie-cutter uniform approach to socially engineering outcomes for parity. Some of it was okay but like alcohol too much is not a good thing. You guys don't know when to quit but keep piling it on until we're completely controlled. So don't call it liberal because that means liberty which means different outcomes and variety. Collectivist=aggregates. Socialism=aggregates. Anti-Individual. Every is the same.

Capitalism in rising markets is the wind in the sail. Liberal agenda is the tiller to move society in an equitable direction for the society.
Socialism. Collectivism. Egalitarianism. Like we've been saying—an anti-liberty agenda. Only you make it sound like a good thing.

Lastly, intentions aren't enough. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. That's because govt is force and that's the inherent danger hiding under the good intentions mantra.

Baby Lee
08-30-2010, 09:12 AM
I can live with this. It is overstating to say conservatism is about results since the hallmark of 20th Century Liberalism has the Civil Rights movement as a pillar and comparing the opportunities of minorities in the 50's to now is night and day as far as results.

The liberal set is about setting intent and goals collectively knowing that individual actions DO NOT NECESSARILY ADD up aggragately to results that are in general interests. And including values beyond economic choices alone. Capitalism in rising markets is the wind in the sail. Liberal agenda is the tiller to move society in an equitable direction for the society.

Read up on any account you can find on the work of Everett Dirksen in the CRA.

And I'm not saying that liberal initiatives CAN'T produce results, it just that the emotional salve of 'addressing' a problem is often as important as actually solving said problem. Re: listening tours, national conversations.