The derogatory use of the word ''Liberals''

[Alassius]

Oh pleeeeeeease.

Nobody changed the meaning of the word to obfuscate anything, and the word in its current context was not created to slander Democrats by some sort of right-wing cabal. It's a descriptor of left-wing politics in America, just as conservative is a descriptor of right-wing politics. Both of those words have different meanings in Europe, because the European political center is decidedly to the left of ours. That's fine... be careful when using the words liberal and conservative on an online forum because you might confuse someone; but neither definition is "wrong."

The connection between liberal and the classical definition of liberalism has long since gone. Political liberalism means something else entirely in American politics.

I'm actually really surprised by this. You'd think leftists would want to claim a word with an etymology like liberal as their own.

Oh yes, the leftists in America did want to claim the word "liberalism" as their own. In fact, they did just that, by claiming "freedom" is about free from want, i.e. everyone is entitled to gain, as opposed to free from intervention, i.e. everyone is not to be prevented from gaining, provided that he did his work. This apparently small change of meaning enabled American liberals to use the government (which was in the obvious position) rather than corporations to provide the perceived need for welfare. The government then grew into an unmanageable monster, more powerful and more abusing than any corporation ever existed, perhaps to the surprise of the well-meaning early American liberals.

Yeah, so what? It's our definition and we can have an asinine one if we want. It's the 21st century and you still have a monarch.

So that the left can use the word to imply they are for "freedom", when they are in fact standing against it.

 

[Bill3000]

Oh yes, the leftists in America did want to claim the word "liberalism" as their own. In fact, they did just that, by claiming "freedom" is about free from want, i.e. everyone is entitled to gain, as opposed to free from intervention, i.e. everyone is not to be prevented from gaining, provided that he did his work. This apparently small change of meaning enabled American liberals to use the government (which was in the obvious position) rather than corporations to provide the perceived need for welfare.

Positive liberty isn't a foundation of modern liberalism. That would be part of American Progressivism, which is a different concept.

 

[Alassius]

Surely you meant to say "American liberalism" instead of "Progressivism"?

 

[Bill3000]

Surely you meant to say "American liberalism" instead of "Progressivism"?

Nope. They are two different concepts. John Rawls is a modern american liberal, but not a progressive. Believing in a minimal form of welfare state (and not for reasons of freedom) isn't what you are attacking.

Besides, you're hating on Theodore Roosevelt.

 

[Alassius]

Are you suggesting that where "liberalism" was used in this thread, people should have used "progressive" instead? This doesn't seem like the way Americans use the word does it?

 

[Bill3000]

Are you suggesting that where "liberalism" was used in this thread, people should have used "progressive" instead? This doesn't seem like the way Americans use the word does it?

Assuming they are talking about centralization, regulation and the welfare state, yes.

 

[GenMarshall]

I want one of those Michael Savage t-shirts: "Liberalism is a mental disorder'.

Hey! Not my fault that I like freedom

So is "neocon." Deal with it.

Gogfys got teeth!!

 

[Alassius]

Assuming they are talking about centralization, regulation and the welfare state, yes.

But that's a problem. You cannot prescribe how people use a particular word. All you can do is to understand why people use it that way. In studying so, you can occasionally find out why certain ideas are perceived in a less than intuitive way, which you can then explain to people, but how they will use the word is entirely their liberty.

As I said, the fact that "liberalism" is used differently is itself an interesting subject. What is the correct usage, or who should change theirs, are different issues.

 

[Princeps]

In fact, they did just that, by claiming "freedom" is about free from want, i.e. everyone is entitled to gain,

Yes, because minimal income security is actually much more meaningful freedom, especially in modern urban industrial society, than simply having negative rights.

as opposed to free from intervention, i.e. everyone is not to be prevented from gaining, provided that he did his work.

Well, uh, so private intervension in ones life is less intrusive?

The thing is that private property regime is just as intrusive as any law or regulation. The difference between the right and the left cannot narrowly be defined in the false diochotomy of "non-interference (right) -- heavy interference (left)", because both the left and the right promote interference, but of a different kind. The right wants to consolidate privilege and concentrated entitlement, whereas the left wants to provide for redistribution.

The government then grew into an unmanageable monster, more powerful and more abusing than any corporation ever existed,

No, it was the Reaganites (which includes the Bushies) that turned US government into the thing it is today with their pro-lobbier and pro-corporate policies which diverted economic power away from the population to concentrated interests.

Also, there are many good examples of public institutions that work much better than corporations and have lower management costs. Corporations are totalitarian institutions that are purely profit-driven and care nothing for the workers or the population -- beyond perhaps polishing the corporate image. Therefore, corporations have to be regulated and they have to be accountable. Conservatives do not only seek to completely deregulate them -- and remove all that pesky accountability stuff -- but to also, they want an autodial connection between the chamber of commerces and the senates. So, whenever corporate interests are threatened, they can turn to the conservative nanny state for protection.

Of course, the right here in Europe wants to emulate the neocons in the US.

perhaps to the surprise of the well-meaning early American liberals.

Ah, so it's no longer "dirty democrats" or "pinko commie libruls" or whatever, it's merely the Reagan sounding "our well-meaning liberal friends".

Also, while it't true that many classical liberals were skeptical of state power -- probably because of the flagrant abuses of power by private monarchial states -- and indeed asserted support for free movement of goods and strong views of "natural rights", but whenever in power, few of the classical liberals had any qualms with using the state for national gain and for populist programs, such as land reform and protectionism (which seem to be in violation of at least two of the tenets of classical liberalism, at least when narrowly defined).

I believe that modern American liberalism is the extension of classical liberalism to the modern urban industrial society. And unfortunately, it has also inherited at least some of the self-contradictory aspects.

 

[Cutlass]

I want one of those Michael Savage t-shirts: "Liberalism is a mental disorder'.

Conservatism is a disease. It is the AIDS of nations. Like AIDS, it's a diseases spread by contact with the affected. Once it infects the victim, conservatism does the same things to the body politic that AIDS does to the human body: It progressively weakens it and destroys it's ability to fight infections and heal from wounds.

 

[Cutlass]

Yeah, because those "classical liberals" were all about "small government" and "personal responsibility" and so on so on.

It's a tired and utterly debunked myth. The classical liberals, whenever in power, had no qualms with using the state for national interests and populist programs.

Classical conservatives never did either

 

[Alassius]

Yes, because minimal income security is actually much more meaningful freedom, especially in modern urban industrial society, than simply having negative rights.

But minimal income also reduces the incentive of improving oneself, if the minimal income is so "minimal" that they could have afforded to drink all the day anyway. Why do you think the children in the States don't work hard? They don't have the same pressure as, say, a kid from China, whose reward for hard working could be ten times what he would get if he was lazy.

Freedom from hard working is not a freedom that we need.

Well, uh, so private intervension in ones life is less intrusive?

Exactly. When a supermarket wants to keep a record of everything you buy, you can switch to another supermarket, or you can just use cash. When a government wants to keep a record of everywhere you go, it's far harder for an individual to evade.

The thing is that private property regime is just as intrusive as any law or regulation.

Nope, private companies could never be as intrusive as laws, simply because any contract will be consensual whereas any law is non-discriminatingly binding. If you would argue that monoply is binding too, it's not, because let's admit it, no company has ever managed to be that monopolistic.

The difference between the right and the left cannot narrowly be defined in the false diochotomy of "non-interference (right) -- heavy interference (left)", because both the left and the right promote interference, but of a different kind. The right wants to consolidate privilege and concentrated entitlement, whereas the left wants to provide for redistribution.

That's the problem with America. The left stands for big government and the right stands for big government, too! That does not however mean there is not a third way different from what's on offer. Government interference has not always been there. It has been reduced before. It's not meant to stay there forever.

No, it was the Reaganites (which includes the Bushies) that turned US government into the thing it is today with their pro-lobbier and pro-corporate policies which diverted economic power away from the population to concentrated interests.

If the US government is pro-corporate, how do you explain that it taxes about 40% of the income of everyone? That it spends half of that money on health and social security? A real pro-corporate government would have done neither.

Also, there are many good examples of public institutions that work much better than corporations and have lower management costs. Corporations are totalitarian institutions that are purely profit-driven and care nothing for the workers or the population -- beyond perhaps polishing the corporate image. Therefore, corporations have to be regulated and they have to be accountable. Conservatives do not only seek to completely deregulate them -- and remove all that pesky accountability stuff -- but to also, they want an autodial connection between the chamber of commerces and the senates. So, whenever corporate interests are threatened, they can turn to the conservative nanny state for protection.

Of course, the right here in Europe wants to emulate the neocons in the US.

You talk about regulating the corporations but not regulating the government, while there is already a natural and effective way of "regulating" corporations.

The hardest thing to understand about economy is exactly that the fact that corporations are totalitarian institutions doesn't matter. The power of competition is sufficient to make them do what is utimately good for everyone. When a corporation turns bad, someone smarter starts a competition, you stop buying bad guys' stuff and start buying good guys', and the bad guys go out of business.

There is no corresponding mechanism in politics that is as effective. Election serves that purpose, but the choice you can have in an election is far too limited, and the change you can make takes too long. However evil corporations maybe, it's much easier to change where you buy your grocery than to change the president.

Ah, so it's no longer "dirty democrats" or "pinko commie libruls" or whatever, it's merely the Reagan sounding "our well-meaning liberal friends".

Also, while it't true that many classical liberals were skeptical of state power -- probably because of the flagrant abuses of power by private monarchial states -- and indeed asserted support for free movement of goods and strong views of "natural rights", but whenever in power, few of the classical liberals had any qualms with using the state for national gain and for populist programs, such as land reform and protectionism (which seem to be in violation of at least two of the tenets of classical liberalism, at least when narrowly defined).

I believe that modern American liberalism is the extension of classical liberalism to the modern urban industrial society. And unfortunately, it has also inherited at least some of the self-contradictory aspects.

You are making a serious accusation without anything to back up. Do you have an argument that Adam Smith or Milton Friedman would "go for populist programs", or are you just imagining it?

American liberalism is the opposite of classical liberalism. It was an extension, but being an extension does not necessarily suggest they are still similar. I'm sure a lot of socialists would argue Stalinism is completely different from Marxism, won't they?

 

[JollyRoger]

I want one of those Michael Savage t-shirts: "Liberalism is a mental disorder'.

It will go comfy with the straight jacket.

 

[Arwon]

Call it whatever you want, I mean the Liberals are the right wing party in Australia... I just find the idea that America has a real left wing utterly wacky.

 

[GenMarshall]

Conservatism is a disease. It is the AIDS of nations. Like AIDS, it's a diseases spread by contact with the affected. Once it infects the victim, conservatism does the same things to the body politic that AIDS does to the human body: It progressively weakens it and destroys it's ability to fight infections and heal from wounds.

I would say that about Extremism. Irregardless of Party and Political Ideology.

 

[Arwon]

You are making a serious accusation without anything to back up. Do you have an argument that Adam Smith or Milton Friedman would "go for populist programs", or are you just imagining it?

Smith and Friedman were politicians?

 

[Princeps]

But minimal income also reduces the incentive of improving oneself,

No, it doesn't. If you earn, say roughly, (I have little idea of the actual numbers, but let's imagine) 11.000 dollars yearly from unemployment benefits and you could earn twice as much for working in the mall or something, of course you're going to pick the mall job.

if the minimal income is so "minimal" that they could have afforded to drink all the day anyway.

You have such an esteemed view of Americans. Whenever I say that all that those Yankees and rednecks do is drink, I get accused of stereotyping and bigotry.

Why do you think the children in the States don't work hard?

They shouldn't- they should be in the school and with their parents and friends.

Freedom from hard working is not a freedom that we need.

Compassion and collective support does not necessarily lead to laziness.

Exactly.

No. I'm sorry, but private property is just as intrusive as any law. And it's the property regime that entitles the few over the many, and thus creating inequality if left unregulated by democratic government. Public regulation of private activities is important because it's the only realistic way for the working class to restrain the excesses of concentrated private wealth.

Now, since you mention "malls" in your argument, it just goes to show that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Furthermore, no liberal in the USA or social democrat in Europe is against private retailers.

Nope, private companies could never be as intrusive as laws, simply because any contract will be consensual whereas any law is non-discriminatingly binding. If you would argue that monoply is binding too, it's not, because let's admit it, no company has ever managed to be that monopolistic.

This is the usual libertarian fallacy: contractual agreements are always supposedly consensual and voluntary no matter how vast the disparity of wealth and power between the two enacting sides in the agreement. An unregulated property regime privileges the few to the degree that it’s irrelevant whether contractual agreements are functionally voluntary because the rabble will work for them no matter what and accept diminishing wages and nonexistent work security.

That's the problem with America. The left stands for big government and the right stands for big government, too! That does not however mean there is not a third way different from what's on offer. Government interference has not always been there. It has been reduced before. It's not meant to stay there forever.

Well, no. The democrats (at least in theory) support public intervention in markets for the benefit of the working class, the republicans do so to support the privileged and big business at the expense of the working class. The libertarian solution, “let’s be pretend that the working class and business are really equal” is more favourite of big business, because the workers and the people who fire them, are not equal.

If the US government is pro-corporate, how do you explain that it taxes about 40% of the income of everyone?

That’s not relevant. Furthermore, big corporations in the US increasingly avoid paying their taxes.

That it spends half of that money on health and social security?

Such welfare programs tend to entitle capitalists more than the recipients. The medical business makes big (and largely unnecessary) profits from necessary social services.

You talk about regulating the corporations but not regulating the government,

We in Europe and you Americans are privileged with democratic government.

while there is already a natural and effective way of "regulating" corporations.

No, there’s no “natural” way to do anything. Grass-roots campaigning and consumer activity is a very inefficient way of keeping companies accountable.

The hardest thing to understand about economy is exactly that the fact that corporations are totalitarian institutions doesn't matter.

Of course it matters.

The power of competition is sufficient to make them do what is ultimately good for everyone.

Competition is absolutely not profitable. Therefore the companies avoid it.

Also, companies are totally secretive and therefore without public accountability, they would be free to do anything.

When a corporation turns bad, someone smarter starts a competition, you stop buying bad guys' stuff and start buying good guys', and the bad guys go out of business.

Yeah, right. Not when the bad guys can provide cheap goods with child slaves and polluting factories. They can always buy the services of totally unregulated PR-mills and think tanks (intellectual mercenaries).

But minimal income also reduces the incentive of improving oneself,

No, it doesn't. If you earn, say roughly, (I have little idea of the actual numbers, but let's imagine) 12.500 dollars a year from unemployment benefits and you could earn twice as much for working in the mall or something, of course you're going to pick the mall job.

if the minimal income is so "minimal" that they could have afforded to drink all the day anyway.

You have such an esteemed view of Americans. Whenever I say that all that those Yankees and rednecks do is drink, I get accused of stereotyping and bigotry.

Why do you think the children in the States don't work hard?

They shouldn't- they should be in the school and with their parents and friends.

Freedom from hard working is not a freedom that we need.

Compassion and collective support does not necessarily lead to laziness.

Exactly.

No. I'm sorry, but private property is just as intrusive as any law. And it's the property regime that entitles the few over the many, and thus creating inequality if left unregulated by democratic government. Public regulation of private activities is important because it's the only realistic way for the working class to restrain the excesses of concentrated private wealth.

Now, since you mention "malls" in your argument, it just goes to show that you have no idea what I'm talking about. Furthermore, no liberal in the USA or social democrat in Europe is against private retailers.

Nope, private companies could never be as intrusive as laws, simply because any contract will be consensual whereas any law is non-discriminatingly binding. If you would argue that monoply is binding too, it's not, because let's admit it, no company has ever managed to be that monopolistic.

This is the usual libertarian fallacy: contractual agreements are always supposedly consensual and voluntary no matter how vast the disparity of wealth and power between the two enacting sides in the agreement. An unregulated property regime privileges the few to the degree that it’s irrelevant whether contractual agreements are functionally voluntary because the rabble will work for them no matter what and accept diminishing wages and nonexistent work security.

That's the problem with America. The left stands for big government and the right stands for big government, too! That does not however mean there is not a third way different from what's on offer. Government interference has not always been there. It has been reduced before. It's not meant to stay there forever.

Well, no. The democrats (at least in theory) support public intervention in markets for the benefit of the working class, the republicans do so to support the privileged and big business at the expense of the working class. The libertarian solution, “let’s be pretend that the working class and business are really equal” is more favourite of big business, because the workers and the people who fire them, are not equal.

If the US government is pro-corporate, how do you explain that it taxes about 40% of the income of everyone?

That’s not relevant. Furthermore, big corporations in the US increasingly avoid paying their taxes.

That it spends half of that money on health and social security?

Such welfare programs tend to entitle capitalists more than the recipients. The medical business makes big (and largely unnecessary) profits from necessary social services.

You talk about regulating the corporations but not regulating the government,

We in Europe and you Americans are privileged with democratic government.

while there is already a natural and effective way of "regulating" corporations.

No, there’s no “natural” way to do anything. Grass-roots campaigning and consumer activity is a very inefficient way of keeping companies accountable.

The hardest thing to understand about economy is exactly that the fact that corporations are totalitarian institutions doesn't matter.

Of course it matters.

The power of competition is sufficient to make them do what is ultimately good for everyone.

Competition is absolutely not profitable. Therefore the companies avoid it.

Also, companies are totally secretive and therefore without public accountability, they would be free to do anything.

When a corporation turns bad, someone smarter starts a competition, you stop buying bad guys' stuff and start buying good guys', and the bad guys go out of business.

Yeah, right. Not when the bad guys can provide cheap goods with child slaves and polluting factories. They can always buy the services of totally unregulated PR-mills and think tanks (intellectual mercenaries).

There is no corresponding mechanism in politics that is as effective.

Officials can be voted out in democratic societies.

However evil corporations maybe,

No, they are not. They are amoral.

You are making a serious accusation without anything to back up. Do you have an argument that Adam Smith or Milton Friedman would "go for populist programs", or are you just imagining it?

Milton Friedman was a late 20th century intellectual so he’s not what I was referring to. Adam on the other hand, advocates various social democratic programs, including public education and pro-labour policies.

I'm sure a lot of socialists would argue Stalinism is completely different from Marxism, won't they?

Stalinism isn’t completely different from Marxism, but it’s not a form of socialism. Marxism is not the only brand of socialism out there.

 

[Patroklos]

Princeps got rocked

 

[Princeps]

Rocked?


I seem to have pasted that post twice. I wrote it on word.

 

[Patroklos]

Eh, it happens, especially with long posts like that. Usually when I post something like that, whether I was wrong or right, I look back at it and realized I just wasted a good 15-30 minutes of my life. It happens a lot. DAMN THESE FORUMS!!!