Socialist has good connonations too, maybe not to you, but it has. And talking about seeing the world in black & white. Some comments here forget objectivity at the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Printable View
Socialist has good connonations too, maybe not to you, but it has. And talking about seeing the world in black & white. Some comments here forget objectivity at the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You forgot to mention that liberals practice twisted rites by the light of the full moon that almost certainly involve the riual sacrifice of children and the subsequent feasting on their bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
:laugh4:
What difference would it have made? The sum of their already acknowledged defects is worse than "twisted rites by the light of the full moon that almost certainly involve the riual sacrifice of children and the subsequent feasting on their bodies."
The Australia Liberal Party... which has been in charge of Australia for ten years now... is the Conservative party in Australia... the equivalent of the Republicans one may say.
So Liberal in Australia does not mean what it means in the US.
So true -Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
No, the word has been twisted to mean something it most certainly does not mean to fit the goals of others. If you have a problem, express it words that are actually descriptive rather than using political jargon.
Same here more or less. The Danish Liberal Party is the largest party right now and the main party in government. The lesser partner is the Conservative Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I can just imagine a meeting of party representatives coming to a Republican convention. "Hello, we are the representatives of the Danish Liberal Party, you allies in Denmark." Republicans would reel at that notion... And a lengthy and troublesome situation could evolve. And i wouldn't help if the Danes used the main name of the party as that is 'Left' (old name from the creation of the party when they were sitting to the left of the party 'Right', the old conservative party that died around 1900)...
According to F. A. Hayek's Liberalism http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/oldwhig4ever/ :
Quote:
(...)It should be mentioned here that the USA never developed a liberal movement comparable to that which affected most of Europe during the nineteenth century, competing in Europe with the younger movements of nationalism and socialism and reaching the height of its influence in the 1870s and thereafter slowly declining but still determining the climate of public life until 1914. The reason for the absence of a similar movement in the USA is mainly that the chief aspirations of European liberalism were largely embodied in the institutions of the United States since their foundation, and partly that the development of political parties there was unfavourable to the growth of parties based on ideologies. Indeed, what in Europe is or used to be called 'liberal' is in the USA today with some justification called 'conservative'; while in recent times the term 'liberal' has been used there to describe what in Europe would be called socialism. But of Europe it is equally true that none of the political parties which use the designation 'liberal' now adhere to the liberal principles of the nineteenth century.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...int121801.htmlQuote:
At present the defenders of the classical liberal position have again shrunk to very small numbers, chiefly economists. And the name 'liberal' is coming to be used, even in Europe, as has for some time been true of the USA, as a name for essentially socialist aspirations, because, in the words of J. A. Schumpeter, 'as a supreme but unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate the label'.
Quote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/images...berg-print.gif The Libertarian Lie
Responding to Nick Gillespie and Virginia Postrel.
December 18, 2001 3:35 p.m.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Yesterday I responded to Andrew Sullivan. Today I respond to the libertarians, primarily Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie and former Reason editor Virginia Postrel. Virginia, whom I consider a friend, has also linked to numerous other sites taking me to task. I know that many readers are uninterested by these doctrinal squabbles. But others are, and I think they're worthwhile. Regardless, I promise this is the last you will hear from me about such things for a while. I'll be getting back to meat-and-potatoes G-Files starting tomorrow.
Lighten Up, Libertarians
Before we get to the heart of all this, let me address perhaps my biggest peeve about libertarians. Trust me, it's relevant. They are, without a doubt, the most defensive and thin-skinned group on the Right — far more so than Christian conservatives, gay Republicans, whoever. Maybe it's because so many of them became libertarians in the first place in order to escape criticism of any kind, or maybe it's because there's something about libertarianism that excites the region of the brain responsible for religious utopianism, or maybe it's the accumulated resentment at being in the backseat of the right-wing coalition — I don't know. But I am continually amazed by how so many libertarians can maintain a tone and posture of reflexive defensiveness and moral superiority, simultaneously.
Out of the hundreds of e-mails I got from angry libertarians, a sizable majority simply asserted that I didn't understand libertarianism. Not that I was wrong in the application of my analysis, or that I was being unfair or overly broad — but that I simply don't "get" it.
Now, as I conceded yesterday in my response to Andrew Sullivan, last Wednesday's column was not surgical in its argumentation, so I'm open to some thoughtful criticism on that score. But I get these letters anytime I write anything critical of libertarianism. Liberty magazine runs regular squibs mocking me for my obtuseness. Harry Browne, the 2000 Libertarian Party candidate, went out of his way to lecture me — on NRO — to explain how I don't get it.
Virginia Postrel suspects that my "anti-libertarian outbursts" stem from a desire to get her and other libertarians to link to my site. Well, we can put aside the suggestion that it's a web-traffic bonanza to get linked on something called "Libertarian Samizdata" (I actually lose traffic when I indulge my anti-libertarian bent). But Postrel seems to believe my arguments are so silly that they're better explained by some sort of cynical ploy. Hell, I've even got my own Greek chorus at LewRockwell.com, which can barely go a week without singing some tune about how I'm slow on the uptake (or how Abraham Lincoln tempted Eve into taking a bite of the apple).
So let me just say once and for all: I'm sorry, but your philosophy ain't that complicated. I think I've got a handle on it: The government uses force, so we should keep it limited; open society; maximize human freedom; respect contracts; free minds, free markets, blah blah blah. I get it. Good stuff. Thanks.
In fact, I thought the whole point of libertarianism was that it's simple. I mean, whenever I hear libertarians trying to convert people, they always make their creed sound so uncomplicated. They begin their sentences with, "We libertarians simply believe X"; or, "Libertarianism is just a partial philosophy of life." Harry Browne says conservatism is worse than libertarianism because it can't give you "one sentence" answers on every political issue. In fact, he makes libertarianism sound like a warm bath you can slip into to melt all your political cares and concerns away.
And that's all fine. Except for the fact that when criticized, all of a sudden libertarianism becomes this deeply complex body of thought with all sorts of Kantian categories and esoteric giggling about "rational fallibility" flying all about (many of my blogger critics actually sound like self-parodies). On offense, you guys are like the "Drink Me" bottle in Alice in Wonderland, or Morpheus's pill in The Matrix. But on defense, you turn on the smoke machines and cloud the room up with faculty-lounge verbiage. You can't have it both ways.
And besides, there's nothing particularly wrong with simple philosophies — which is why I'm pretty much a libertarian when it comes to the federal government. Regardless, please spare me the more-sophisticated-than-thou crap. When smart people (and I've always said libertarians are very smart) — whether they're Marxists, libertarians, whatever — claim that other smart people "just don't get" very simple ideas, they only lend credence to the impression that their intellectual adherence is the product of a religious impulse. Or, they just sound obnoxious.
Gillespie's Pose
Which brings me, inexorably, to Nick Gillespie's response to my column last Wednesday, which Virginia Postrel tells us is "the best so far (of course)." To his credit, Nick doesn't resort to a fog of jargon, merely a typical tone of smirking self-amusement and condescension (but who am I to criticize tone?). We do actually agree on quite a bit. I've long argued that libertarianism will be the real challenger to conservatism, and I've long conceded that I'm — to use his word — "anxious" about it. Nick makes this observation sound like this is some sort of penetrating analysis of the subtext when in fact it's pretty much just the text.
Let's be clear about a few other observations Nick seems eager to pass off as penetrating insights. He chuckles, "It's a funny thing, but conservatives are never so quick to call Rorschach on one of their own: For instance, when it came to light a few years ago that George Roche III, the fabled president of conservative Hillsdale College, had been carrying on with his unstable and suicidal daughter-in-law for years, that twisted scene carried no definitive ideological import."
It's an even funnier thing that Nick uses this example — since it was National Review, specifically my colleague John Miller, who broke the story of George Roche III in the first place. Not only did NR make a big deal about Roche, we did it first and more than once — despite a long association with Hillsdale College and Mr. Roche. If Gillespie cannot find the "definitive ideological import" in National Review's integrity in policing the Right, that's his shortcoming, not ours.
But then Nick has, I think, a much harder time "getting" National Review than I have understanding Reason. "Nothing exercises National Reviewers quite so much as the sense that despite their standing athwart history yelling stop, it still keeps on a rollin' without them," Gillespie writes. He later adds: "[i]t only makes sense that conservatives and libertarians would start to line up on different sides of the barricades that surround the battleground of individual choice and autonomy."
That's all cute and fine, and I'm sure it plays well in letters to subscribers. But it's worth noting that while I am against drug legalization, Bill Buckley and the editors of National Review called for — and continue to call for — an end to the drug war, and for the legalization of drugs, when Reason was little more than an obscure pamphlet.
Nick might read a bit deeper into Hayek as well. Like so many other libertarians, Nick pulls out Hayek's excellent essay "Why I am Not a Conservative" as some sort of grand trump card. I admit this is another peeve of mine, but Hayek did not call himself a "libertarian" in that essay, as Nick gamely suggests. In fact, he explicitly rejected the label, calling it "singularly unattractive." "The more I learn about the evolution of ideas," wrote Hayek, "the more I have become aware that I am an unrepentant Old Whig — with the stress on the 'old.'"
Old Whig just so happens to be the same appellation the founding father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, used for himself — as Hayek approvingly notes several times.
More important, the conservatives in "Why I Am Not a Conservative" aren't even the ones Nick has so many problems with. Hayek was referring to the conservatives of the European tradition (de Maistre, Coleridge, et al), and he was a great deal more generous even to them than the folks at Reason are to the American conservatives of today.
Which is a shame because, as I pointed out in my column last Wednesday, Hayek argued that United States was the one place in the world where you could call yourself a "conservative" and be a lover of liberty — because we want to defend those institutions which preserve it. And that's why — despite a lot of propaganda from the folks at Reason — most conservatives are closer to classical liberals than a lot of Reason-libertarians.
Cultural Libertarians, Again
And that gets us, finally, to the meat of our disagreement. I say "cultural libertarians" are people unwilling to draw value judgments between various personally defined lifestyle choices, or "personal cultures." In response, legions of libertoids cry: "Not fair!" "You're talking about 'libertinism,'" say some. "Libertarians are just unwilling to use the state to coerce others into subscribing to our value judgments," say all.
Again, fine, fine — I get it. But I'm also not talking about most of the people who read my column and refer to themselves as libertarians. Most of these folks are fairly conservative people; they want a smaller government, and, hey, so do I. That's why I put the word "cultural" in front of the phrase in the first place. I'm beginning to think we should simply call such people " anti-state conservatives" and let the Reason types have the "singularly unattractive" label of "libertarian" all to themselves.
The people I am talking about are people like Nick Gillespie and the chirping sectaries on these various blog sites. These people quite proudly proclaim that maximizing individual liberty, and minimizing coercion by the state or the culture, is their mission. It's shouted from the rooftops in just about every issue of Reason. In fact, it's odd that Virginia cites Nick's rejoinder as the best so far — for a number of reasons, among them that he more or less concedes the lion's share of my argument. Nick concedes that he wants to maximize the "right to exit from systems that serve them poorly."
Porn Versus Christianity
Take this porn thing. Virginia is fighting mad at me for writing that she won't draw distinctions between pornography sales and Christian-bookstore sales. But she admits that she has no opinion on the issue, and concedes that many of my libertarian critics think Christianity, even in a liberal order, is a "bad thing." Meanwhile she also raves about this fellow Will Wilkinson who, according to Virginia, "makes the good (and obvious but not to Jonah) point that 'If you ask whether porn or Christian books are better, you have to ask "better in what respect?"'" "Goldberg owes us moral arguments against porn… if he wants to be taken seriously."
Touché, I suppose. But doesn't this make my point? Cultural libertarians are uncomfortable with, and quite defensive about, drawing distinctions between such bedrock components of Western civilization — in this case a little thing called "Christianity" — and the latest installment of On Golden Blonde. According to these guys, the burden is on me to explain why and how porn is worse than Christianity. I'd be glad to do it sometime (though I'm hardly an anti-porn zealot); it doesn't sound too tough.
Meanwhile, let's stay on track. Cultural libertarians, as Nick readily concedes, don't "blindly respect 'established authority' the way conservatives tend to." The "blindly" is, of course, a cheap shot, but we'll let it go. That's my point. We're not talking about the state here; we're talking about the culture — the thousands of ingredients which, in various amounts, combine to form the recipe for Western civilization generally and American culture specifically.
Virginia even faults me for not making the positive case for Western civilization in the same column — which, aside from being a fairly high standard for any argument, also seems to underscore the point that these folks don't see its superiority as a given. To the cultural libertarian, all authoritative cultural norms should be scrutinized again and again.
But just to be clear, some of the ingredients for Western civilization I have in mind are such categories as Christianity and religion in general, sexual norms, individualism, patriotism, the Canon, community standards of conduct, democracy, the rule of law, fairness, modesty, self-denial, and the patriarchy. Obviously, all cultures have these things (or their equivalent). But it is the combination of ingredients — and their relative potency toward one another — that make the recipe for Western civilization unique.
The Libertarian Dodge
It's also obvious that — just like conservatives, liberals, and the unaligned — cultural libertarians like some of these things a great deal, and some only a little, and others not at all. We all have our own suggestions for how we should improve the culture. But when criticized on their cultural priorities, they get all defensive and claim they aren't making a subjective cultural argument. "We're just neutral. We just want the state out of things." But then they go right along mocking the cultural choices of conservatives, and of anyone who respects the established cultural authority more than they do. Nick makes it sound like it's a concession to allow cultural conservatives to make their arguments at all, though I doubt he would be so grudging about allowing a polygamist make his arguments.
Because I won't brag about my past experiences with drugs or extrapolate from those experiences a pro-drug stance, Nick grandiosely says that my hypocrisy is "the vice virtue pays to tyranny" (taking, in effect, the position that current or former gluttons should always proclaim that gluttony is good for everybody). Well, if hypocrisy is such a crime, what about the persistent hypocrisy of those libertarians who say that they are "neutral" on cultural questions while they constantly make undeniably cultural arguments?
Nick is on record denouncing America as a "grotesquely prohibitionist society" when it comes to drugs, and he's nigh upon orgiastic about the spread of pornography. If the anti-state conservatives who prefer the label "libertarian" want to tell me that the editor of Reason is unrepresentative of libertarianism, fine. But maybe you should consider the possibility that it's you who are unrepresentative of libertarianism.
Look, the libertarian critique of the state is useful, valuable, important, and much needed. But, in my humble opinion, the libertarian critique of the culture — "established authority" — tends to be exactly what I've always said it was: a celebration of personal liberty over everything else, and in many (but certainly not all) respects indistinguishable from the more asinine prattle we hear from the Left. (The great compromise between libertarians and conservatives is, of course, federalism see " Among the Gender Benders").
Personal liberty is vitally important. But it isn't everything. If you emphasize personal liberty over all else, you undermine the development of character and citizenship — a point Hayek certainly understood.
Kids are born barbarians, as Hannah Arendt noted. Without character-forming institutions which softly coerce (persuade) kids — and remind adults — to revere our open, free, and tolerant culture over others, we run the risk of having them embrace any old creed or ideology that they find most rewarding or exciting, including some value systems which take it on blind faith that America is evil and, say, Cuba or Osama bin Laden is wonderful. That's precisely why campuses today are infested with so many silly radicals, and why libertarians in their own way encourage the dismantling of the soapboxes they stand on. For cultural libertarians this is all glorious, or at least worth the risks. I just wish more libertarians had the guts to admit it.
Harald, sorry but...
...the many massive links you posted all referred to something I presume most of us here are aware: all your sources refer to liberalism in its tradition--before modern--term known in its full name (to distinguish from the modern "liberalism" known in the American Deragatory Dictionary of Partisan Terms :P) often as classical liberalism. This is a product of the Enlightenment generation, as you probably are aware. I sometimes heard it referred to as Republicanism but that was not exactly the same thing, despite many overlapping grounds--Republicanism is not, of course, the Republican party, but something else, and was more communal--liberty meaning something different than what we know, more like political liberty or the unit's liberty than social or individual--than libertarian, the radical form of classical liberalism.
As of my position, I am a living conflict between what you called neo-communism, a deragatory term of no meaning, and classical liberalism--not taking into account social conservatism, which I adamantly oppose.
I've posted earlier in this thread arguing against Byzantine Prince's position that liberalism only means something Bentham and Mills want them to mean, which I disagree. This term is extremely dynamic.
And your, I apologize, rant against modern liberalism is really not worth responding to. It shows your position to be carved into the stone, and whatever I say will not convince you to the Dark Side.
By the way, welcome to the Backroom. ~:) And I think The Konservative Klub wants to recruit you. :2thumbsup:
This is the most intelligent statement I've read in this thread (except for the misspelling).Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
The most liberal document I have ever read is the Declaration of Independence. That's pure earnest liberalism. I can't think of anything to add or in need of a slightest adjustment. The terms are unequivocal. That thing is perfect. Do you agree Antiochus? Or your conflictual state of mind doesn't allow you to take a stance on this?
The very purpose of liberalism is to keep the government out of my life&property, to limit its capability of coercing me to make certain decisions and to provide the individual with the greatest amount of economical, social and religious freedom as long as the state does not degenerate into anarchy. This is what the classical liberalism states and I agree with it 100%.
The modern liberalism aka social liberalism is quite different as it doesn't stick to the criterias listed above. They couldn't have possibly stuck to them as long as their doctrine have been gradually perverted by socialist ideas. They no longer crave for equal rights, now they shout out loud that equal rights are not enough, and the people should be provided with equal resources too...This sounds like...you know...1917...Russia...
Modern liberalism (social liberalism), the way it exists in US, is not accepted anywhere in Europe (excepting France perhaps). In Europe socialists are Social-Democrats, liberals are Liberals (mostly classic), conservatives are Christian-Democrats. It is true that a social-democrat government might be forced to act liberal and a liberal one to act in a socialist fashion. This fact spawns some confusion indeed...but, eventually, in Europe, most parties are what they claim to be.
First of all, modern liberalism has nothing to do with the liberal doctrine anymore. The doctrine has been twisted so bad that it's beyond any recognition. Some would say F.U.B.A.R. Why don't the american liberals simply call themselves socialists? It would be fairer. Because, the americans utterly reject everything related to communism (you have to acknowledge that social democracy is a sort of evolved perestroika; it's just the way a neadhertal man is to his older fellow H.sapiens; a bit more evolved, yet a caveman). So why wouldn't they lie themselves? Why wouldn't they call the old, red, clumsy, retarded bear, a liberal? Huh? Just because it looks the way it looks, just because it sounds the way it sounds and there are some 30 milion alleged to have dissapeared in its insatiable belly? Come on...This would be discrimination. Obese anonymous, Retards anonymous, Greenpeace plus a smart gay lawyer and you have a revolution. Dare to disagree and you'll be mocked as conservative, religious fundamentalist, homophobe, narrow-minded, antiprogressist, imperialist prick, war-junkie, neo-nazi, not worthy answering to and so on...
Liberalism here isn't as much a political movement as it is a social one. Consequently, their political agenda comes on the second place. That's a shame because they really do have some issues there.... And I must agree with some issues they hold to. Healthcare System, for example, sucks big time. It requires an urgent and serious reform. What do they do about it? Nothing much I'd say. Why? Because they're already wearied by their social agenda wich comes first.
Practicality is their first enemy. Being practical wouldn't allow them to pose as elitist intellectuals whose enlightened ideas are mocked, despised and ultimately rejected by the barbaric narrow minded crowds. If they would choose to make things happen, they would be forced to do politics. It's not what they really want. Politics is the art of compromise, and compromise is not exactly what they're after. The overwhelmingly noisy stance they assume over juicy topics like racism, gay rights and minorities is a prerequisite for legitimizing their very reason to be, and the dissent they cause is actually the acknowledgement of their martyrdom as modern Jesus Christs. Doing draws criticism, shouting draws attention. Hysteroid frustrated individualls desperatly trying to convince themselves and the world that they do matter. This is what they are. Or, at least, this is what they let me see they are.
You know what I think Antiochus? I think a lot of dorks in this country claim to be liberals just because its "cool", it's trendy "cool shit" to be envolved in...I mean, suddenly they're special, they're against the main stream, they're pissing against the wind. It gives them a sense of usefullness and accomplishment.
What do you mean by this?
Did you want to show me that you got it right? Wow! Smart boy ...So what were you aiming to? Were you sneering at my redundancy or you were just reasserting my eloquence?Quote:
...the many massive links you posted all referred to something I presume most of us here are aware: all your sources refer to liberalism in its tradition--before modern--term known in its full name (to distinguish from the modern "liberalism" known in the American Deragatory Dictionary of Partisan Terms :P) often as classical liberalism. This is a product of the Enlightenment generation, as you probably are aware. I sometimes heard it referred to as Republicanism but that was not exactly the same thing, despite many overlapping grounds--Republicanism is not, of course, the Republican party, but something else, and was more communal--liberty meaning something different than what we know, more like political liberty or the unit's liberty than social or individual--than libertarian, the radical form of classical liberalism.
And here comes the dorky "liberal" side of you:
So you had to twist it a bit huh? You had to prove that you, a pure bred intellectual, distinguish the shades, as opposed to those rudimentary conservative apes whose awareness is only of black or white.Quote:
As of my position, I am a living conflict between what you called neo-communism, a deragatory term of no meaning, and classical liberalism--not taking into account social conservatism, which I adamantly oppose.
What do you mean by living conflict? Are you french mate? French are a living conflict between stupidity and frustration. They just can't make up their mind...And if you're in a conflictual state, wouldn't it be wiser to wait until the conflict concludes? You'd offer me a clearer target to shoot at: a lingering socialist or a perverted interpreter of classic liberalism.
This fact, that you're able to spot the shades in-between black and white, is a "great leap forward". Now that you've earned my respect, could you answer me a question if you please?
How many shades or intermediary states do exist in-between reason and total lack of it?
PS-The latest "liberal" subversive idiocy I have heard, reffers to the cruelty and the savagery of lethal injection. A greatest evidence of hypocrisy I have never seen. Why not say simply "I'M AGAINST DEATH PENALTY"? I would have understood and respected that. But to say that the convicts are dying in extreme pain after being injected with penthothal, this is bloody insane....I mean how stupid do they think I am? Or maybe one of those liberal "doctors" that have come to this staggering conclusion may want to rewrite the barbiturate sedatives& intravenous anaesthetics chapter in the pharmacology books. This one was low...really low.
All that has been said already thousands of times. Is that the purpose of the thread?
Well, don't expect yourself to be taken seriously.Quote:
Any proof, as in links to reputable sources?
Links ? from me ? you have got to be joking .
Big Oil is in violation of no laws. Leftists simply want to tax them more.Quote:
P.S. I don't remember all the leftists whining about big oil when a barrel was $25 several years ago. But, oh noes!, they're making a profit because of the millions they risked and invested, and that just can't be had. We have to subvert their property and rights for the good of the people.
Read what is written , it isn't that hard , or are you not able to ?
Yes , as long as it is manufactured and sold in accordance with the law then there is no problem , when they are in violation of the law it is a problem .
You'd do better to worry about your own understanding of English first.Quote:
Would you like it in bigger letters ?
Are there some words there that are too complex for you to understand ?
No, it is the liberals (American version, AKA leftists) who have twisted its meaning. It is they who proclaim that they are liberals, even though their polices have no attachment to true liberalism.Quote:
Conservatives in the US have mutated the word into something that is just contra their positition.
Not that I know of.Quote:
Erm...isn't it traditionally the right that whines about oil prices ?
Crazed Rabbit
I'm not a liberal, though I agree with them on some of their political issues, but you are resorting to arguments as devoid of substance as theirs typically are. Being against the use of lethal injection because it may cause extreme pain has legal grounds. As I see it the constitution (which I do not believe you are agruing agaisnt, are you?) provides very generally for two things with regards to the current conversation: A society with equal rights for all and a government, reflecting the will of the people, endowed with the power to protect those rights. The system that was put in place to replicate this model was our legal system. Laws of course limit the actions of people, enforcable with punishment, in order to guarantee that people's rights are protected, but in order for the government to be a machine under the control of the people, it MUST also be limited by a set of laws (initially created, presumably, with the mandate of the people and able to be modified by mandate of the people). One such law has to do with cruel and unusual punishment, and has its basis in classical liberalism, the rationality of which I don't believe you find fault with. It would state that anything delivered by the government other than the exact punishment, say, "imprisonment" or "death", is illegal, including excessive and prolonged pain. Of course there is a vast gray area here, but if the guidelines are kept in mind then a solution in the spirit of the more fundamental law can be arrived at. Thus, if lethal injection was found to cause extreme and prolonged pain, especially if that could be avoided with other methods of execution, then its use should be abandoned.Quote:
PS-The latest "liberal" subversive idiocy I have heard, reffers to the cruelty and the savagery of lethal injection. A greatest evidence of hypocrisy I have never seen. Why not say simply "I'M AGAINST DEATH PENALTY"? I would have understood and respected that. But to say that the convicts are dying in extreme pain after being injected with penthothal, this is bloody insane....I mean how stupid do they think I am? Or maybe one of those liberal "doctors" that have come to this staggering conclusion may want to rewrite the barbiturate sedatives& intravenous anaesthetics chapter in the pharmacology books. This one was low...really low.
Now if YOU want to make an argument against this, which is not at all the point of the thread until somebody else, a liberal perhaps, brings up the issue and makes an attempt to argue for it, you would want to focus on the area of "how much pain does it actually cause". If not then you would want to say that given their limited manpower and limited time, the liberals should be focusing on more worthy issues, which I would agree with. If not that, then a remaining choice is to bring arguments to bear against classical liberalism.
And I've also found that there are dorks a plenty in the conservative realm, just as in the liberal realm, and that they are just as untrustworthy as humans as the latter, in only transparently different manners.
Ahh...you wish to cross swords, then. Much obliged.
Perfection...is false. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
But I agree it is a document I wish to base my society on, for now. At least, it's better than, say, Mein Kampf.
Then that is your opinion. As we happen to agree on, there are many kinds of liberalism. Why are we debating that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
I love the Russian reference, and the "omg socialist" fears. They're so popular as excellent argumentum ad misericordiams. As perhaps you are aware and pretend you do not, Bolshevism is quite a far cry from mainstream American liberalism. And communists of the 1930s were quite excellent people and loyal Americans to boot. And of course, your claim that they "no longer crave for equal rights...with equal resources too" is not based on any real substance. I don't think many modern liberals would want that. Not at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
Ya...Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
Ask our European patrons...
Such generalizations. Europe is a continent of many countries of diverse backgrounds and conditions. And their politicians...Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
Again, ask our European patrons, and yes Britain is European, so Blair (or as he is popularly called around here by a group of prominent British patrons, Bliar) is included. Fire away, my Tory friends. Or better yet, a disgruntled Old Labor if one's around.
So you believe that you can change how millions of Americans identify themselves because you feel the term they used have been "twisted" (what a claim!) from what you believe it is to be. And a nice Red Herring analogy, too, by the way, claiming that social democracy is "caveman." And you also messed it up: Homo Sapiens...are us. Neanderthals? All dead, methinks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
I am beginning to feel your so-called eloquence is not much but an irrational hatred. I would not so much bother to respond to the last part.
Again, you pretty are generalizing an entire political spectrum of the United States. Are these millions of Americans OMG communists? Shall we deport 'em all? Healthcare System, by the way, is both social and political. Those two sometimes are quite well interconnected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
Nice strawman. Let's pretend modern liberalism is at war with pragmatism! Or better yet, freedom!Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
What I love even more than the omg communist allusion is the omg Jesus is a liberal allusion. Excellent form, good sir!
Correction: this is what you see them, not what they are. And if we're gonna play the blame game (I don't really want to...), I guess the grand "Conservative" coalition includes some of the worst bunch of loud evangelists there are. Pat Robertson is a Conservative. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
I've heard this before...Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
...somewhere...
The Cold War? Vietnam? Damn hippies. They will destroy the ozone layer. No seriously, they will. Just read some issues involved in the ozone layer and all those CFCs.
I was doing neither. I was just pointing out that most of us know that, with the knowledge that you are unaware of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
Why are conservatives so rude and hysterically defensive? [/generalization]
Ta da da...personal attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
As I've said, why are conservatives so rude and hysterically defensive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
The other side of Reason is Historicism. And I am proudly a moderate historicist; not a Nietzshean nor a Michel Foucault, neither am I a Plato.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
I am just me; let me be or I'll start typing like Dr. Seuss, whose name I probably spelt wrong.
What a cheap attack. Every idea every guy has in the world against you seems to be now recognized as a bunch of liberal BS, applying it, again, to a very massive crowd of the American population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
Such a long post, and little substance.
Please, sir, try again with true eloquence.
No. I don't want to make an argument against it. I simply don't have an opinion upon (in)appropriateness of death penalty. I'm sure there are a lot of arguments pro and against it. Unfortunately I have never thoroughly pondered them. If they assume a stance against death penalty it's ok with me. It doesn't necessarily have to be wrong just because the "liberals" endorse it.Quote:
Now if YOU want to make an argument against this, which is not at all the point of the thread until somebody else, a liberal perhaps, brings up the issue and makes an attempt to argue for it,
The problem is not them being against death penalty but the way they're putting it. There is no scientific evidence to support their assertion. Not a single MD has endorsed their assertion since then. Nevertheless, they've generated a groundless debate over an imaginary problem.
Answer: NONE. Sodium Thiopental (Pentothal) is a ultra short acting barbiturate used in the induction phase of general anaesthesia or to induce controled comas. It actually puts you asleep. If the dose is big enough, the sleep is so deep that it decreases even the pontine and medular automatisms (respiratory and circulatory center). It actually can do the job all by itself.Quote:
"how much pain does it actually cause"
So...death penalty might be immoral but in no way painful.
I totaly agree.Quote:
And I've also found that there are dorks a plenty in the conservative realm, just as in the liberal realm, and that they are just as untrustworthy as humans as the latter, although in different manners.
Hm I'll have to read up on that. Np then I guess, except for your stuff being same-old and out of place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
Antiochus...the only thing you are right about and I was wrong is the H sapiens and the Neanderthal issue. Indeed, I've flipped the terms in the sentence and I'm deeply sorry.
You still haven't answered my question.
"Historicism" is not an answer. It's an excuse.
If I decide to mate a german shepherd with a caniche, the resulting bastard won't guard the sheep nor will be cute.
I strongly belive that there are things that cannot be mixed.
What makes you belive that mixing equal amounts of liberalism and socialism results in a different breed of liberalism? If you study the doctrines of the two you will undoubtly conclude that the socialist doctrine may be forced to include the liberal doctrine without renouncing to any of its doctrinaire milestones. Unfortunately, the other way around will give the same result: a socialism a bit more liberal than the average. It definitely has some liberal ideas in it. No doubt. Yet it's not liberalism.
It's like comparing Stalin with Gorbachev...One could unmistakably state that Gorbachev is obviously a liberal when compared to Stalin...yet none of them was a liberal.
Whatever.
I'm tired.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=6&e=7
ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,The political description that
fits you best is....CENTRISTCENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding governmentcontrol of the economy and personal behavior. Depending onthe issue, they sometimes favor government interventionand sometimes support individual freedom of choice.Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize whatthey describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 70%.
(Please note: Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)......................................................................
5,775,804.THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES THE QUIZ
HAS BEEN TAKEN SO FAR.(Results are renewed after each submission.)......................................................................
How People Have ScoredCentrist 30.26 %Right (Conservative) 7.56 %Libertarian 34.76 %Left (Liberal) 18.80 %Statist (Big Government) 8.62 %......................................................................
Other Political Philosophies
Right (Conservative)Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequentlysupport laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,while endorsing government action to defend morality and thetraditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strongmilitary, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-marketeconomy, and endorse strong law enforcement.Left (Liberal)Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personalmatters, but tend to support significant government control of theeconomy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulationof business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,defend civil liberties and free expression, support government actionto promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.LibertarianLibertarians support maximum liberty in both personal andeconomic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, opposegovernment bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, toleratediverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.Statist (Big Government)
Statists want government to have a great deal of power over theeconomy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whethereconomic liberty and individual freedom are practical options intoday's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, supporthigh taxes and centralized planning of the economy, opposediverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.US political map (for dummies).
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
“The most liberal document I have ever read is the Declaration of Independence. That's pure earnest liberalism. I can't think of anything to add or in need of a slightest adjustment. The terms are unequivocal. That thing is perfect.” Well, except, of course for the Slaves. Then the Indians…
well...sometimes a man got to do what a man got to do...
Perhaps they were a litlle backward to appreciate it then. But they certainly appreciate it now...I mean, their descendants...There are no more slaves in US, I hope you're aware of that, are you not?
“There are no more slaves in US, I hope you're aware of that, are you not?”
The 4th of July 1776, the declaration of Independence is ratified. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris recognised the US. In 1865, with the end of the Civil War came the abolition of Slavery. 100 years after the Civic Rights Acts of 1964 prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, colour, religion, or national origin (13th amendment of the US Constitution).
However:
February 27, 1973 Wounded Knee: “ It began as the American Indian’s stood against government atrocities, and ended in an armed battle with US Armed Forces. Corruption within the BIA and Tribal Council at an all time high, tension on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation was on the increase and quickly getting out of control. With a feeling close to despair, and knowing there was nothing else for them to do, elders of the Lakota Nation asked the American Indian Movement for assistance. During the preceding months of the Wounded Knee occupation, civil war brewed among the Oglala people. There became a clear-cut between the traditional Lakota people and the more progressive minded government supporters. The traditional people wanted more independence from the Federal Government, as well as honouring of the 1868 Sioux treaty, which was still valid. According to the 1868 treaty, the Black Hills of South Dakota still belonged to the Sioux people, and the traditional people wanted the Federal Government to honour their treaty by returning the sacred Black Hills to the Sioux people. After 71 days, the Siege at Wounded Knee had come to an end; with the government making nearly 1200 arrests. But this would only mark the beginning of what was known as the “Reign of Terror” instigated by the FBI and the BIA. During the three years following Wounded Knee, 64 tribal members were unsolved murder victims, 300 harassed and beaten, and 562 arrests were made, and of these arrests only 15 people were convicted of any crime: A large price to pay for 71 days as a free people on the land of one’s ancestors.”
I think I know History.:laugh4:
What does it have to do with nowadays liberalism? The debate here is upon the extent by wich social(modern) liberalism may be regarded as (classical) Liberalism.
Anyway...should I sue the Pope for the Inqusition or rather deny the whole Catholic Church because of it?
I'm anxiously waiting for your answer...
My legal counsellors too...
Don't keep me waiting...I'm running out of cigarettes...
It would be a good idea. But you won't sue the Pope, instead you'll sue the entire Catholic Church, as an institution, the result probably: ban it, anc close it, it will be so much good actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by Harald Den BlåToth
That wouldn't be a probable or likely result. A likely result would be a small article in the news and then everybody forgets about the whole thing and the suit is rejected. At least, I would hope so.
The modern Catholic Church does some good, like charity type stuff. Its stopped burning heretics for the most part.
ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
The political description that
fits you best is...
.
STATIST
STATISTS want government to have a great deal of power
over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently
doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom
are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust
the free market, support high taxes and centralized
planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles,
and question the importance of civil liberties.
The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 20%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%.
(Please note: Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)
......................................................................
5,795,125
.
THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES THE QUIZ
HAS BEEN TAKEN SO FAR.
(Results are renewed after each submission.)
......................................................................
How People Have Scored
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrist 30.28 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right (Conservative) 7.58 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libertarian 34.74 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left (Liberal) 18.78 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statist (Big Government) 8.62 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......................................................................
Other Political Philosophies
Left (Liberal)
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
Centrist
Centrists espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control
of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue,
they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes
support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on
keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and
emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
Right (Conservative)
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,
while endorsing government action to defend morality and the
traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong
military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market
economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.
Maybe, Maybe Not. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
“Maybe, Maybe Not.” Something is inexact in the chronology? :sweatdrop:
What a bunch of crap in this topic. People like DA and GC seem to think that the American left (that they call 'liberal') is composed of die-hard socialists allied with some 50's-stalin-like communists.
Get your head out of your *** please. Your bad bad liberal, like I guess, Clinton or the loser that tried to get elected last time and whose name is already lost in History would be seen as quite right-minded in most of Western Europe.
Stop to whine about the leftist taking away your (sometimes silly) constitutionnal rights and your freedom while supporting Bush (a guy who would have no problem with arresting people without charges, putting a FBI agent behind every citizen, invading countries based on crappy assumptions, imposing religious crap as a scientific teaching, fighting abortion, gay rights and so on) in every single topic we can read on this board.
The biggest falacy I ever read on this board, yet I read a whole lot of crap here.Quote:
Modern liberalism (social liberalism), the way it exists in US, is not accepted anywhere in Europe (excepting France perhaps).
Do you think people in Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. are happy to work for low wages, to be possibly fired for 'economical reasons', to have sucky welfare system, and overall, to live in half-poverty, like many people do in the US ? If so, I advise you to speak to someone in Europe (and I'm not speaking about France).
Furthermore, I didn't know Germany, Italy and Spain weren't social democracies anymore. Sure they made some reforms in favor of economic liberalism (reforms that are, ASAIK, quite disliked by the major part of the population), but folks there still have access to some social rights.
As for France, it's different. Although I understand social democracy isn't as effective as a governement system as it was in the 60's, I perfectly understand that people are willing to fight for the rights they acquired during the last century (like, having a minimal wage, a great welfare system, working only ~40 hours a week, having a single job during one's whole life, etc.). If we don't reform my country and get rid of or reform some of these rights, France is doomed, and will likely became the sick-man of Europe (which it kinda already is), but I'd rather fight than simply let my governement claim "Social democracy doesn't work anymore, we're going for die hard liberalism. You all will get low sucky wages, will have to work 60 hours a week, all the rights your parents fought for are trash, and if you're not happy, our companies will move to China, alright ? That's globalization you know, we can't do anything against it, heh :-/".
In the 2nd half of the last century, the western world, and especially Europe, achieved to create the best form of modern governement. Now, some people would like us to forget about it, "because there's China and all that y'know". What a step back in the history of the modern civilization.
Sorry for the thread digging, but since I have been away for a while, I had to rant about something :balloon2: