Liberalism: What it is and Why it's Bad

[fj1200]

Go.

[tailfins]

You just made a duplicate post from the one entitled:
"Progressivism: What it is and Why it's Bad "
It will be a triplicate post if you start one entitled:

"Socialism: What it is and Why it's Bad "
It will be a quadruplicate post if you start one called:

"Totalitarianism: What it is and Why it's Bad "

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You just made a duplicate post from the one entitled:
"Progressivism: What it is and Why it's Bad "
It will be a triplicate post if you start one entitled:

"Socialism: What it is and Why it's Bad "
It will be a quadruplicate post if you start one called:

"Totalitarianism: What it is and Why it's Bad "

Had to thank you because that's funny and mighty damn incite-full (insightful too) :laugh:-Tyr

[fj1200]

You just made a duplicate post from the one entitled:

Possible, but probably not in the way you're thinking.

[Drummond]

Go.

Is that an order, FJ ? :rolleyes::laugh:

I'm curious, though. You've refrained from directly answering this yourself .. haven't you ? Why is that ?

.. I mean, you could've given your view, then challenged others to debate it. Instead - no actual view supplied.

One way of reading the thread title could be to suggest that you need convincing that it's bad ...

Tell you what. I'll hint at a direct reply by pointing out that Margaret Thatcher thought it was bad. She hated Liberalism (in the sense of its meaning Socialism).

And .. since you assert you're a 'Thatcherite' yourself, one might expect that this would satisfy you ... ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Go.
Modern Liberalism is just socialism cloaked in a term deemed to represent progress and that's why its often called progressivism. Tis why the terms are basically interchangeable. It is just a softer form of tyranny(Totalitarianism) rewrapped, repackaged and sold to modern enlightened fools that wouldn't have a damn clue if a ton of it fell directly on them. Example is Obama , his cronies and most of the modern Dem party.

Liberalism rejects basic truths in favor of feel good fantasy. Fantasy that looks somewhat good ( in theory) and on paper but just like communism fails utterly when put into actual practice. Has no redeeming merits and ends up gifting massive misery to the millions it falsely promises paradise and equality. I reject it just like I would a chance to jump into a pit chocked full of poisonous snakes! Those not running from it are those not bright enough to see more than two feet in front of their ignorant noses IMHO. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Modern Liberalism is just socialism cloaked in a term deemed to represent progress and that's why its often called progressivism. Tis why the terms are basically interchangeable. It is just a softer form of tyranny(Totalitarianism) rewrapped, repackaged and sold to modern enlightened fools that wouldn't have a damn clue if a ton of it fell directly on them. Example is Obama , his cronies and most of the modern Dem party.

Liberalism rejects basic truths in favor of feel good fantasy. Fantasy that looks somewhat good ( in theory) and on paper but just like communism fails utterly when put into actual practice. Has no redeeming merits and ends up gifting massive misery to the millions it falsely promises paradise and equality. I reject it just like I would a chance to jump into a pit chocked full of poisonous snakes! Those not running from it are those not bright enough to see more than two feet in front of their ignorant noses IMHO. -Tyr:clap::clap::clap:

Perfectly said !

[fj1200]

Is that an order, FJ ?

I see that you are incapable of learning.


Modern Liberalism...

See? You had to qualify an answer by defining it. What if this were your definition of 'liberalism'?


Classical Liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism) is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law, private property, and belief in laissez-faire economic liberalism. Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, including ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke,Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on a psychological understanding of individual liberty, the contradictory theories of natural lawand utilitarianism, and a belief in progress.

Are you a liberal?

[DragonStryk72]

Is that an order, FJ ? :rolleyes::laugh:

I'm curious, though. You've refrained from directly answering this yourself .. haven't you ? Why is that ?

.. I mean, you could've given your view, then challenged others to debate it. Instead - no actual view supplied.

One way of reading the thread title could be to suggest that you need convincing that it's bad ...

Tell you what. I'll hint at a direct reply by pointing out that Margaret Thatcher thought it was bad. She hated Liberalism (in the sense of its meaning Socialism).

And .. since you assert you're a 'Thatcherite' yourself, one might expect that this would satisfy you ... ?

Actually, he supplied quite a bit of his view in the debate with me on Progressivism, so you're just wrong. And oh, the Thatcher comes out again. God that strawman has seen a lot of action of late. So basically, you're doing another troll run, cause you can't actually have a debate.

[jimnyc]

Liberalism is bad as it creates liberals. :poke:

[DragonStryk72]

Go.

Well, Liberalism is basically a political run of belief that espouses liberty and equality. It came out of the Age of Enlightenment, from a group of scholars and philosophers founded by John Locke, who believed that people had an inherent right to life, liberty, and property.

Yes, this was somewhat what inspired our Founders, although the face of liberalism has changed greatly since their times, especially since the 60s and 70s.

Of late it seems to be solely fixated on equality, but doesn't seem particularly concerned over liberty. The problem with fixating on equality is that there is a tendency, a strong one, to get tunnel-vision, and attack the wrong target. Nowhere can we see this more than in the manner in which welfare is applied.

Now, anyone would tell you that the worst thing you could do with an unemployed person is to keep throwing money at them, and hope for the best, but that's pretty much how the system works of current. Sure, you have to go to interviews, but you don't lose your benefits if you purposely tank the interview, purposely get yourself fired, and your benefits can be cut out from under you the second you get employment, even if the new job still doesn't cover as much as the unemployment.

Meanwhile, the other big focus is income disparity, but even there, we see a lack of cogent thought beyond the most basic thing: The minimum wage. The minimum wage increases, and employment decreases, both in positions available, as well as in hours available. It fails to understand that businesses must make a profit, and therefore must account for the increased wages. Wage increases also drive the Cost of Living up, and thus works against any gain made by the increase wage.

It also has the side effect of increasing all the other wages, as many unions' tie their worker's wages to Minimum Wage+X, whether it be a percent, or flat amount over. This, in turn, leads us right back to where we were.

So the essential problem is, much like with Progressivism, that Liberalism of current is well-meaning, but doesn't actually pay attention to the realities of the world around it.

[tailfins]

I read somewhere that socialists began referring to themselves as liberals in the 1940s because of the stigma attached to the word socialist.

[Drummond]

I see that you are incapable of learning.

????????

... Ahem. YOU are the one effectively rehashing another thread !!


Are you a liberal?

This from a contributor who disdains a Conservative who 'parrots' (.. your term) the words of an especially fine and inspirational Conservative world Leader ?

[Drummond]

I read somewhere that socialists began referring to themselves as liberals in the 1940s because of the stigma attached to the word socialist.

It figures.

A reference to a certain 'National Socialist' .. ?

[tailfins]

It figures.

A reference to a certain 'National Socialist' .. ?

The early users of the word liberal in this manner were International Socialists (e.g. Communists).

[Drummond]

Actually, he supplied quite a bit of his view in the debate with me on Progressivism,

Indeed he did. I agree.

Some of it curiously lacking in the context one might expect from a (.... now FORMER .. ?) 'ultimate Thatcherite' .. ?


And oh, the Thatcher comes out again.

Excellent !! One simply cannot have enough of Thatcherism !


God that strawman has seen a lot of action of late.

Hardly ! Margaret Thatcher was never a man, and she was about as UN-'strawlike' as you could imagine from any political figure.


So basically, you're doing another troll run, cause you can't actually have a debate.

To me, the question is settled -- but what I don't understand is why it isn't ALSO settled from FJ's point of view. He either subscribes to Margaret Thatcher's philosophies, or, he doesn't. If he does - then why the debate ?

Or, why not start one - as I'd expected a 'Thatcherite' FJ to 'do' - by offering Lady Thatcher's own thoughts, positions, opinions, as the basis itself for debate ?

[aboutime]

To me. It no longer matters what Democrats want to call themselves. Be it Liberal, Leftist or Progressives.

They can choose to HIDE behind whatever name they like. But at the end of the WASH CYCLE. They are still EASILY-LED, EASILY-CONVINCED, PERPETUALLY UNINFORMED FOLLOWERS OF FELLOW Easily Led, Easily Convinced, Perpetually Uninformed, generally False Fact Believers.
LIBERALISM is...whatever Liberals Insist...it is not.

[DragonStryk72]

Indeed he did. I agree.

Some of it curiously lacking in the context one might expect from a (.... now FORMER .. ?) 'ultimate Thatcherite' .. ?



Excellent !! One simply cannot have enough of Thatcherism !



Hardly ! Margaret Thatcher was never a man, and she was about as UN-'strawlike' as you could imagine from any political figure.



To me, the question is settled -- but what I don't understand is why it isn't ALSO settled from FJ's point of view. He either subscribes to Margaret Thatcher's philosophies, or, he doesn't. If he does - then why the debate ?

Or, why not start one - as I'd expected a 'Thatcherite' FJ to 'do' - by offering Lady Thatcher's own thoughts, positions, opinions, as the basis itself for debate ?

When you develop a word or opinion other than "Thatcher", I might. Until then, you're nothing but another troll. The strawman is your argument, since apparently, you need it spelled out for you. Ms. Thatcher does not need a parrot, she managed to have her own opinions. You should follow that example.

So, you can quit with the biased, loaded questions to try and lead us down the path of your trolling, and either join the debate, or step out of it. Clearly, you still have no other opinion on the matter at hand, so the only conclusion is that you're hear to be a bully using the specter of Ms. Thatcher again, and again. It's old, tired, and spineless.

[gabosaurus]

If you are a "liberal," then that is what you believe in. You think that "conservatives" and all their beliefs are crap.
If you are a "conservative," then that is what you believe in. You thnk that "liberals" and all their beliefs are crap.

No kind of argument is going to change what you believe. So why argue about it? Especially since 95 percent of you are "conservatives" and are unlikely to change your opinion based on what you read here.

[DragonStryk72]

If you are a "liberal," then that is what you believe in. You think that "conservatives" and all their beliefs are crap.
If you are a "conservative," then that is what you believe in. You thnk that "liberals" and all their beliefs are crap.

Wow, so basically: you are whatever objective term you feel you are, regardless, and words just don't mean shit. You work in a school, right?

No kind of argument is going to change what you believe. So why argue about it? Especially since 95 percent of you are "conservatives" and are unlikely to change your opinion based on what you read here.

Because this isn't an argument, it's a debate.

[fj1200]

No kind of argument is going to change what you believe. So why argue about it? Especially since 95 percent of you are "conservatives" and are unlikely to change your opinion based on what you read here.

Riddle me this, why don't you ever defend your position when someone shows the errors of your one-liners? Is it because you're unlikely to change your opinion based on what you read here?

[fj1200]

????????

... Ahem. YOU are the one effectively rehashing another thread !!

Um, nooooo. There is an important distinction. If you could stop yourself from being blinded by your bitterness you might see it.


This from a contributor who disdains a Conservative who 'parrots' (.. your term) the words of an especially fine and inspirational Conservative world Leader ?

I asked a question based on a proffered definition. What has confused you so?

[fj1200]

Well, Liberalism is basically a political run of belief that espouses liberty and equality. It came out of the Age of Enlightenment, from a group of scholars and philosophers founded by John Locke, who believed that people had an inherent right to life, liberty, and property.

Yes, this was somewhat what inspired our Founders, although the face of liberalism has changed greatly since their times, especially since the 60s and 70s.

...

So the essential problem is, much like with Progressivism, that Liberalism of current is well-meaning, but doesn't actually pay attention to the realities of the world around it.

Again, thanks, and that seems to be the problem with labels as labels change. It's not the face of liberalism that is changing it's the same faces that desire an ever increasing role of government that just take on a different name. It would be interesting to see in more depth the whys and hows of groups changing their labels, "hey who doesn't like progress so we're Progressives..."

We can have discussions around here because everyone understands the basic labels, well most anyway, but sometimes you just need to talk about say... the early Progressives... and realize that definitions and times and circumstances change. Heck, almost everyone here is a classical liberal but if you dare call anyone that well... the knives come out. ;)

[gabosaurus]

Because this isn't an argument, it's a debate.

It's not a debate when you are all in agreement.


Riddle me this, why don't you ever defend your position when someone shows the errors of your one-liners? Is it because you're unlikely to change your opinion based on what you read here?

Because no one has pointed out any of my "errors." You just think you have.
You can't "debate" anyone who refuses to believe there are two sides to every discussion.

[fj1200]

Because no one has pointed out any of my "errors." You just think you have.
You can't "debate" anyone who refuses to believe there are two sides to every discussion.

:laugh: Oh, plenty of times. And of course there are two sides to every discussion but usually one best answer.

[DragonStryk72]

It's not a debate when you are all in agreement.

Well, it's not my fault you choose only to troll, and not to debate, but really, there's little I can do about that. You could take the time, but that would mean seeing another person's point of view, and you're to "tolerant" for that.

You can't "debate" anyone who refuses to believe there are two sides to every discussion.

Oh wow.... do you get what you just wrote there? The whole point of a debate is discussing two sides to a thing, that's the core basis of debate. Here, we're debating politics, but you both refuse to join the debate, and chide us for choosing to debate in the same breath.

Well, put up or shut up, basically. Either join in the debate, present your case, or just walk away, and stop jumping into threads you don't want any actual part of.

[aboutime]

It's not a debate when you are all in agreement.



Because no one has pointed out any of my "errors." You just think you have.
You can't "debate" anyone who refuses to believe there are two sides to every discussion.


Well said Gabby. NOW...read what you said, and tell yourself to follow exactly what you said.

The mere fact you come here with that kind of thinking IS....the ERROR you refuse to believe.

[Drummond]

When you develop a word or opinion other than "Thatcher", I might. Until then, you're nothing but another troll. The strawman is your argument, since apparently, you need it spelled out for you. Ms. Thatcher does not need a parrot, she managed to have her own opinions. You should follow that example.

So, you can quit with the biased, loaded questions to try and lead us down the path of your trolling, and either join the debate, or step out of it. Clearly, you still have no other opinion on the matter at hand, so the only conclusion is that you're hear to be a bully using the specter of Ms. Thatcher again, and again. It's old, tired, and spineless.

Having fun ?

Before we go any further – to the extent that ‘going further’ is even a realistic goal !! – I have two points to make.

One – it is just possible that you do not understand the lack of familiarity I generally have with the term ‘Strawman’. Possibly it’s escaped your understanding that ‘Strawman’ is an Americanism .. a term not used in my part of the world.

I have found a British equivalent of that term. We’d call an argument such as this an ‘Aunt Sally’.

Two – I do not accept your point is valid in any case. Check out the title of this and its remarkably similarly-named thread, both started by FJ. You will find that both are in the PRESENT TENSE, meaning, that pertinent discussion of the subject matter as presented by its title restricts discussion to present-day meaning, relevance, and current criticality.

‘LIBERALISM – WHAT IT IS AND WHY IT IS BAD’

-- That's to say .. NOT .. what it WAS, and why it was ONCE bad' ... !!!

Since Margaret Thatcher addressed both ‘Progressivism’ and ‘Liberalism’ in terms of their modern-day meanings and relevances, it is wholly appropriate to see her views as highly relevant and arguably central to all that we need to discuss here.

And .. since I, for one, am a GENUINE ‘Thatcherite’ … I value all she had to say on these subjects (to the extent that they’re at all divergent, which in fact I do not accept).

I have every imaginable right to represent those views here, to be loyal to them, to not diverge from them without VERY good cause. I call this freedom of belief, and freedom of expression, to express what I choose to express. Surely .. a ‘Libertarian’ would back me in that, not attempt to instill the opposite ??

I have – correctly – questioned FJ’s lack of reverence and consideration for Margaret Thatcher’s stances, because, after all, he called himself an ‘ultimate Thatcherite’. AS SUCH, he should’ve surely been totally loyal to all she stood for.

So, where is that loyalty ?

DragonStryk .. you say that Lady Thatcher didn’t need a parrot. Indeed, I agree, she did not. However, she would never have achieved much, nor fully got her message across, had she not had supporters, people willing to – if you will – ‘parrot’ her viewpoints as and when necessary. She needed her Cabinet, she needed her Government, she needed her Party, and perhaps most of all, she needed people such as myself, part of a loyal electorate, keeping her in her position as PM.

One would’ve imagined that an ‘ultimate Thatcherite’, at least, a genuine one, would’ve been the most loyal and committed of all these people, and not missed any chance to further disseminate Lady Thatcher’s position … amply served by the title of this and its ‘sister’ thread. However … we see what we do, and we further see your defence of the divergence running throughout this thread.

So I ask: do you insist upon diverging from the present-day reference to ‘Liberalism’, as expressed by the thread title ? And … does this not itself constitute troll activity, by trying to insist that its participants observe such divergence ??

[fj1200]

Present tense. :laugh: Classical liberalism still is. Progressivism with varied definitions still is; see current British conservative progressives as example. The questions aren't really hard, it's like an open book test where you get to look up whatever definition you want to use and describe how it's bad.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

See? You had to qualify an answer by defining it. What if this were your definition of 'liberalism'?
I had to define it in terms of its current definition. The old time classic liberal had almost nothing in common with the socialist minded "liberals" of today. For they are actually not liberal at but rather totalitarians masquerading as classic liberals. The word has been co-opted by really sick and bad people== Socialists, Communists , Marxists and lets not forget --- the Dems. -Tyr

[fj1200]

I had to define it in terms of its current definition. The old time classic liberal had almost nothing in common with the socialist minded "liberals" of today. For they are actually not liberal at but rather totalitarians masquerading as classic liberals. The word has been co-opted by really sick and bad people== Socialists, Communists , Marxists and lets not forget --- the Dems. -Tyr

You didn't have to but you chose to and that was fine. It's not like I gave many instructions. :) Anyway, your definition doesn't apply to all liberals. As I mentioned before I go to church with plenty of liberals and there isn't a totalitarian among them.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The current ideology that is masquerading as liberalism is actually a devious and deliberate agenda being promoted and cared for by primarily leftists that took over the old Democratic party. What is particularly insidious about it is they succeed because people refuse to see the totalitarianism built cleverly into that agenda. When any good look at the large cities such people(Dems/liberals) controlled for 40 to 60 years presents a stark revelation of corruption and massive failure. They have reached their height of success with Obama. And this nation suffers ever so greatly for it. As it should!! Vote to live under a lying bastard and you deserve to get exactly what you voted for. Trouble is we that were not fools suffer as well. Even worse is that our kids and grandkids will suffer massively because of the ignorance and abject blindness of the sell outs, the drop outs, the scum of society being bought and united under the banner of a false savior!! When it comes to hooks in a scam Salvation rates in the top three every time.

I am 60 years old and I will suffer my remaining days on earth because of the mis-education of the last couple generations. Myself, I actually hope that justice makes a very necessary correction and the current "liberal" groups suffers the same fate as did their compatriots the Nazi's. Shoot a rabid dog, cut the head off a poisonous snake. Either works for me just as long as liberty and freedom survives to give hope to future billions yet to be born..-Tyr

[fj1200]

Uh huh.

[Drummond]

Present tense. :laugh: Classical liberalism still is. Progressivism with varied definitions still is; see current British conservative progressives as example. The questions aren't really hard, it's like an open book test where you get to look up whatever definition you want to use and describe how it's bad.

Classical liberalism may exist as a concept. Surely, though, the point is that, in this day and age, and in the real world, FJ, liberalism / Progressivism is taken to be something different to that .. and I make the point again, your thread titles address the PRESENT.

I didn't get where I am today ;) (on this forum) by being less than realistic.

What you observe to be a phenomenon of 'current British conservative progressives' is explainable in two ways. One .. bear in mind that the Conservatives are in a Coalition Government with our Liberal Democrats, which means that the LibDems have a hand in policy making. This cannot help but have its overall effect. Added to this is the great sway PC thinking has in my society, and HAS had, for decades. You forget that outright Socialism has had a far greater chance to make its mark over the past few decades than is true for the US. The Conservative who defies all that plays Russian Roulette with his or her electoral chances .. sadly.

Take gay marriage. As from a few days ago, outright gay marriage was legalised here. Cameron was and is in favour of it. Nonetheless, there was a sizeable contingent of our own Conservative Party who found that hard to stomach.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/401218/Conservative-MPs-rebel-against-David-Cameron-s-gay-marriage-plans


Some 150 MPs, many thought to be Tory backbenchers, voted in favour of an amendment which would allow registrars to opt out of carrying gay marriages.

They also tabled an amendment which would have allowed teachers and schools to reject teaching children about gay marriage on religious grounds.

It represents a significant opposition to the Government's plans, but the rebels were defeated in the House of Commons by 340 MPs who voted against the amendment - a majority of 190.

In the aftermath of the vote Tory MP David Burrowes said there was a 'chill wind blowing in the country for those who back 'traditional marriage'.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/467540/First-same-sex-marriages-take-place-in-Britain


GAY couples last night raced to tie the knot in Britain’s first ever same-sex wedding ceremonies in what David Cameron called “an important moment for our country”.

Several vied to be the first to say “I do” as the clock struck 12 and gay marriage became law in England and Wales.

Mr Cameron’s spokeswoman said: “It will be a happy day for all those who can have their ceremonies because of the reforms that the Prime Minister has got through this Parliament.”

Laws allowing gay marriage passed last summer with strong support from Mr Cameron despite dismay in many sections of the Conservative party.

But Mr Cameron said he supported it because he believed passionately in the institution of marriage.

[fj1200]

Classical liberalism may exist as a concept. Surely, though, the point is that, in this day and age, and in the real world, FJ, liberalism / Progressivism is taken to be something different to that .. and I make the point again, your thread titles address the PRESENT.

I didn't get where I am today ;) (on this forum) by being less than realistic.

What you observe to be a phenomenon of 'current British conservative progressives' is explainable in two ways. One .. bear in mind that the Conservatives are in a Coalition Government with our Liberal Democrats, which means that the LibDems have a hand in policy making. This cannot help but have its overall effect. Added to this is the great sway PC thinking has in my society, and HAS had, for decades. You forget that outright Socialism has had a far greater chance to make its mark over the past few decades than is true for the US. The Conservative who defies all that plays Russian Roulette with his or her electoral chances .. sadly.

Take gay marriage. As from a few days ago, outright gay marriage was legalised here. Cameron was and is in favour of it. Nonetheless, there was a sizeable contingent of our own Conservative Party who found that hard to stomach.

Actually you are incorrect, it doesn't exclude the present but is not limited to the present. My thread, my rules. ;)

Nevertheless, all ideas exist as a concept. Classical liberalism is currently expressed by Libertarians as Progressivism is currently expressed by Democrats; on this side of the pond anyway. Of course if you want to use gay marriage as a stance of conservatism you'll have to explain the government's compelling interest in meddling with interpersonal relationships.