The defects of Liberal Thought

[Didymos Thomas]

Ruthless Logic - Either find something to contribute to this thread, or stay out. A discussion of liberal though would be wonderful. But comments which do nothing but insult some perspective need not be made in the first place.

As a liberal, I welcome critical discussion of liberal politics, and would be more than happy to entertain your thoughts if those thoughts are something more substantial than slander just as easily thrown at any other perspective.

Notice how easy this is: The leading edge of enlightenment only welcomes the inherent methodical discipline of articulate thought, and thoroughly dismisses the plodding cadence of Ruthless Logic's ideas.

Ready to move on from this silliness?

[Ruthless Logic]

[quote=Didymos Thomas;11226]Ruthless Logic - Either find something to contribute to this thread, or stay out. A discussion of liberal though would be wonderful. But comments which do nothing but insult some perspective need not be made in the first place.

As a liberal, I welcome critical discussion of liberal politics, and would be more than happy to entertain your thoughts if those thoughts are something more substantial than slander just as easily thrown at any other perspective.

Notice how easy this is: The leading edge of enlightenment only welcomes the inherent methodical discipline of articulate thought, and thoroughly dismisses the plodding cadence of Ruthless Logic's ideas.

Ready to move on from this silliness?


Your right, my sentence can certainly be construed as a negative attack on liberal ideology, but it is nicely written ( I see that you stole my words) with the intention of thought provocation by utilizing descriptive language that juxaposed two main ideologies.


P.S. besides it was fun and easy.

[Didymos Thomas]

I did not steal your words, I made it perfectly clear why your words were of no value to any discussion regarding liberalism, or any other topic.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

They were certainly classical liberals. But Mill was not "a liberal" in that he was prepared to temper his views to the situation. But, in these days, and in America, Mill would have been thought to be conservative, although, of course, not "a conservative". Rush Limbaugh is not only conservative, but he is a conservative. The same kind of distinction, I imagine, can be made between being a libertarian, and being a libertarian.

But do you see the difference between "a X" and just someone who is X?

I understand what you are saying, I just don't think the division is so neat. I would say that the definition of "a liberal" is would be "someone who is liberal", unless, as it is in American politics, common usage takes it away from its actual definition or renders it so vague as to be useless.

As for my own affiliations, it is true that I am a libertarian and I am libertarian but I am not Libertarian. This is because, despite similar opinions, I am opposed to the Libertarian Party as a political movement and I don't believe political movements change anything.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

DT,

If you are wanting a critique of modern American liberalism, I think that Hayek provides the best.

As I have admitted to being a libertarian, you may have guessed that I am particularly concerned with property rights. (It should be noted, however, that while I do draw much of my opinion of market provision of social structures and institutions from the Austrian tradition, my viewpoint is tinged with a more traditional anarchist [or even nihilistic via Stirner] position on property and what is natural and or just) I think freedom is only protected through property, and only when property is protected can other freedoms be protected (indeed I take the Rothbardian position that all rights are property rights that stems from the ultimate right of self-ownership). In modern liberalism, I see this obsession with democratic political movement, civil liberties, and guarantees of equality and freedom through positive government action as not only an abandonment of the original core principles of liberalism, but a direct attack on them.

Modern American Liberalism has managed to create greater dependency and standardization upon the state by stealing a moral argument from people who valued nothing greater than liberty and individualism and cut the heart out of it.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Modern liberalism in the US has been borne of really just a few major historical figures and events. First, the international liberalism as espoused (really idealized) by Woodrow Wilson, with a sense that the US should be concerned about the well-being and freedom of people outside our country. Second, the environmental movement was politically legitimized by Teddy Roosevelt, more than anyone else. Third, social liberalism took modern form under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, but really extends back through the labor crises of the early 1900s and all the way back to the abolitionist movement. Finally, economic liberalism was a phenomenon largely led by FDR during the Depression and WWII, then supplemented by Johnson in the 1960s (i.e. with Medicare).

All of these are historical phenomena that are largely the interests of self-identified liberals, and they constitute the major themes in modern American liberalism.

I find it quite boorish, the regurgitation of interpreted historical benchmarks in an effort to create credibility by hanging on to the coattails of the aforementioned events, but find it exciting when an individual can achieve personal credibility with current and relevant examples describing our dynamic political landscape and the potential political impacts of the newly acquired insight.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

I find it quite boorish, the regurgitation of interpreted historical benchmarks in an effort to create credibility by hanging on to the coattails of the aforementioned events, but find it exciting when an individual can achieve personal credibility with current and relevant examples describing our dynamic political landscape and the potential political impacts of the newly acquired insight.

You would not sound so undeservedly pretentious if you followed your own advice and found relevant examples of your own. Polysyllables do not score points in a debate, considered and supported arguments do.

[Didymos Thomas]

Ruthless Logic - Consider this a warning. Either contribute to the thread, or stay out of it.

================================================== ===========

As I have admitted to being a libertarian, you may have guessed that I am particularly concerned with property rights. (It should be noted, however, that while I do draw much of my opinion of market provision of social structures and institutions from the Austrian tradition, my viewpoint is tinged with a more traditional anarchist [or even nihilistic via Stirner] position on property and what is natural and or just) I think freedom is only protected through property, and only when property is protected can other freedoms be protected (indeed I take the Rothbardian position that all rights are property rights that stems from the ultimate right of self-ownership).

I consider myself a libertarian (like you, without a capital L). My concern is with property rights is from what are they derived? And how far should they extend?

I agree that property rights are fundamental to freedom, and appreciate Rothbard's arguments, but I cannot ignore Proudhon-like criticism.

In modern liberalism, I see this obsession with democratic political movement, civil liberties, and guarantees of equality and freedom through positive government action as not only an abandonment of the original core principles of liberalism, but a direct attack on them.

You mention guarantees of equality and freedom through positive government intervention as abandoning the fundamental principles of liberalism (freedom and equality). While I am sympathetic to the idealized arguments regarding the faults of government intervention, I have a difficult time being so critical of what seem to pragmatic solutions to serious problems.

Take, for example, laws insuring a living wage. Ideally, no such legislation would be necessary and the market would take care of this problem better than the government could. However, the way in which our economy functions is not aligned with the freemarket dreams of Milton Friedman and similar thinkers. Corporations lobby the government and abuse "corporate person hood" to the point that the public, potential employees and customers, can be dragged under the bus by corporations and then be left for dead.

It seems to me that such positive legislation may be necessary given the nature of the economy.

Modern American Liberalism has managed to create greater dependency and standardization upon the state by stealing a moral argument from people who valued nothing greater than liberty and individualism and cut the heart out of it.

In response to corporations and Wall Street having no concern for liberalism and individualism.

[Ruthless Logic]

Quote:
In modern liberalism, I see this obsession with democratic political movement, civil liberties, and guarantees of equality and freedom through positive government action as not only an abandonment of the original core principles of liberalism, but a direct attack on them.


I could not agree more with the above statement. Of the described liberal ideals, I take special offense to the idealistic pursuit of equality(not consistent with the natural world). All my available information flows to me from my empirical environment and I use this information to form my decisions or engage in actions, and I have yet to find the static quality of equality in my rather dynamic natural world. The model of our world is based on the tension of survival and the heart-warming concept of equality (falsehood, consisting of actual component truths) is brutally admonished when it interfaces with Reality. Provide opportunity from self-interest (consistent with the natural world), competition and free markets, and not the pursuit of apathetic equality.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

I find it quite boorish

My apologies, the last thing I'd ever want would be to appear boorish to someone who calls himself "Ruthless Logic".

...the regurgitation of interpreted historical benchmarks in an effort to create credibility by hanging on to the coattails of the aforementioned events

Except insofar as the are the seminal liberal movements in our culture and politics.

but find it exciting when an individual can achieve personal credibility with current and relevant examples describing our dynamic political landscape and the potential political impacts of the newly acquired insight.

You are welcome to lead by example on this account if you so choose.

I stand with Thomas here and underscore his admonitions to you.