Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Mare Tranquillity]

Fascists were socialists mare. Again, get a grip of the basics before you jump in. We have already been through this and the facts are what the facts are and modern liberalism is socialism. If you want to see the end result of socialism in the US, then look at the end result of socialism every where it is tried. It didn't work out for hitler, stalin, lenin, pol pot and it isn't going so great for the EU either.

Are you really saying that Lenin was a liberal? Pol Pot? You have the strangest definition of liberal of any person I've ever met. For the record I'd like to note that you have never defined "liberal" vs "conservative" or whatever you see as the polar opposite.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

amen brother. and i had no idea mare was a girl.

I didn't mean to keep it a secret, I was hoping the "Mare" part would tip people off.

 

[palerider]

Are you really saying that Lenin was a liberal? Pol Pot? You have the strangest definition of liberal of any person I've ever met. For the record I'd like to note that you have never defined "liberal" vs "conservative" or whatever you see as the polar opposite.

Familiarize yourself with my original argument. Lenin, stalin, pol pot, mao, etc., etc., etc., are all prime examples of the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism. Do you deny that they were all political leftists? They represent the logical end result of modern liberalism given free political power.

I described the differences in my original post. Leftism is modern liberalism is socialism is authoritarian.

Feel free to take on any point that I made in the original post. Picking nits, however does not constitute rational debate. And for your information, liberal person has no particular power to carry out their tendencies while liberal government does. In your own debate with me, you certainly expressed a degree of hatred that indicated a willingness to go to what ever measure was necessary to shut me up. Perhaps alone, you would not go so far, but given the political power of numbers, your sort of hatred certainly would translate into authoritarian political action.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Feel free to take on any point that I made in the original post. Picking nits, however does not constitute rational debate. And for your information, liberal person has no particular power to carry out their tendencies while liberal government does. In your own debate with me, you certainly expressed a degree of hatred that indicated a willingness to go to what ever measure was necessary to shut me up. Perhaps alone, you would not go so far, but given the political power of numbers, your sort of hatred certainly would translate into authoritarian political action.

Judge me not by your standards, my Pale friend, I would not vote for any law that would deny to you a privilege or right that I claim for my own. Your casual use of the word "hatred" is unwarranted, we don't like each other very much, but I would not harm you. I would try to keep you from being in a position of power over me or any other woman since I think you are a misogynist who believes far too much patriarchal Bible philosophy.

While you decry the "leftist" end of the political spectrum you conveniently leave off any comment about the extreme "right" end of the spectrum. Your definitions are convenient to your thesis but not even vaguely germane to most of the people who consider themselves socially liberal.

Since you have been so good as to list the evil leftist types, will you now give us some examples of the other end of the spectrum please?

 

[palerider]

Judge me not by your standards, my Pale friend, I would not vote for any law that would deny to you a privilege or right that I claim for my own. Your casual use of the word "hatred" is unwarranted, we don't like each other very much, but I would not harm you. I would try to keep you from being in a position of power over me or any other woman since I think you are a misogynist who believes far too much patriarchal Bible philosophy.

We are not talking about a law that would deny you a privilege that I have, we are talking about writing a law that grants special privileges based on sexual preference.

While you decry the "leftist" end of the political spectrum you conveniently leave off any comment about the extreme "right" end of the spectrum. Your definitions are convenient to your thesis but not even vaguely germane to most of the people who consider themselves socially liberal.

Off the top of my head Pinochet comes to mind. He was certainly to the far right, but then he only killed a few thousand. Maybe you can name some far rightists who have killed millions.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

We are not talking about a law that would deny you a privilege that I have, we are talking about writing a law that grants special privileges based on sexual preference.

You are correct, the law already exists and heterosexuals are allowed to marry those that they find attractive and thereby benefit in ways denied to all those who are not heterosexual or willing to pretend to be heterosexual to gain the many legal rights and privileges you currentl enjoy.

I know what your argument is, Pale, and I know that it was used by racists who argued that laws forbidding interracial marriage were not discriminatory since any black man could marry any willing black woman and vice versa for white people. It was clever when it was thought up, but it's an old, discredited sophistry now. I think it would be very refreshing for me to hear something truthful from you about why you hate/fear/despise/reject/or whatever gay people. Even if you quote scripture I will respect you more for that than for your oft-used, insipid sophistry.

Off the top of my head Pinochet comes to mind. He was certainly to the far right, but then he only killed a few thousand. Maybe you can name some far rightists who have killed millions.

Below are the dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Conservatism, neither one plays well into your thesis. If you are allowed to define all words you use to make them fit your thesis, then you can prove your point, but if you have to use real, honest-to-God dictionary definitions, then your thesis lacks substance. When you, as the OP, get a real definition (other than the somewhat disingenuous Liberal = bad,evil, insane, stupid, violent, etc.) then we can continue this as a discussion--until then, what's the point?

Conservative: 1 a : the disposition in politics to preserve what is established <twentieth century politics of New Jersey has continued to be dominated ... by the natural conservatism of the industrial and business interests -- American Guide Series: New Jersey> b : a political philosophy based on a strong sense of tradition and social stability, stressing the importance of established institutions (as religion, property, the family, and class structure), and preferring gradual development with preservation of the best elements of the past to abrupt change <political conservatism in the United States ... has become identified with the business interests

: the tendency to accept an existing fact, order, situation, or phenomenon and to be cautious toward or suspicious of change : extreme wariness and caution in outlook <acquired conservatism which normally increases with increasing age and sagacity -- H.G.Armstrong> <conservatism in banking practices> <conservatism in interpreting data> b : strong resistance to innovation : relative freedom from change <the conservatism of the area ... has helped to preserve the evidences of its past -- R.W.Southern>; specifically : the tendency of certain plants or animal groups (as the brachiopods) to remain narrowly adapted to a particular environment and undergo minimal evolutionary change or differentiation

Liberal:1 : the quality or state of being liberal : as a : lack of strictness or rigor <treats his children with a certain liberalism> b : BROAD-MINDEDNESS, OPEN-MINDEDNESS, an outlook marked by liberalism and tolerance

: principles, theories, or actions that are liberal : as a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity <nineteenth century Liberalism ... introduced historical method in the interpretation of the gospels -- C.H.Moehlman> -- compare FUNDAMENTALISM, MODERNISM b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint especially by government regulation in all economic activity and usually based upon free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard <the decline of mercantilism produced a period characterized notably by the ideas and policy of liberalism> -- called also economic liberalism;

: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life especially by the protection of political and civil liberties and for government under law with the consent of the governed --the touchstone that enables us to recognize liberalism is the question of toleration -- (My unlining emphasis in both cases.)

: an attitude or philosophy favoring individual freedom for self-development and self-expression <a positive and noble impulse ... of intellectual liberalism was its immanent zeal for truth --

 

[palerider]

Below are the dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Conservatism, neither one plays well into your thesis. If you are allowed to define all words you use to make them fit your thesis, then you can prove your point, but if you have to use real, honest-to-God dictionary definitions, then your thesis lacks substance. When you, as the OP, get a real definition (other than the somewhat disingenuous Liberal = bad,evil, insane, stupid, violent, etc.) then we can continue this as a discussion--until then, what's the point?

Old argument mare, and already discredited. The first thing I note is that you don't know enough about liberalism to differentiate between modern liberalism which is what this thread is about and classical liberalism which, in essence, is modern conservativism.

I noted that in your own definition liberalism is defined as BROAD-MINDEDNESS, OPEN-MINDEDNESS, an outlook marked by liberalism and tolerance.

I thought I covered liberal tolerance adequately in the initial thread on this post. In short, it really doesn't exist. You claim liberals (modern liberals) are tolerant, borad minded, and open minded and yet, in the most liberal bastions in this country, (universities) some of the most restrictive speech codes exist. Modern liberalism has given us mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes. Modern liberalism has given us the literal thought police. Exactly how do those things mesh with a political philosophy founded on open mindedness tolerance?

Modern liberalism has mandated that business owners can't allow smoking on their own property, modern liberalism has mandated to restauranteurs what sort of oil they may prepare thier food in and thus, mandated to society what sort of cooking we can have when we go out to eat and PAY for it with our own money. Hell, the modern liberals in europe have actually banned very thin models from the catwalk in some countries by law and are threatening to do so in others. Which part of those things mesh with the idea of open mindedness, broad mindedness, and tolerance?

The list goes on and on but I believe I have proved my point. Modern liberalism in reality can tolerate little except modern liberalism. Look at yourself mare, you certainly don't fit the definition of tolerance. Your big issue is homosexual marriage. Personally, I could care less what homosexuals do but that isn't good enough for you. As with all modern liberal wants, you demand law that forces your wants upon everyone and can punish those who don't obey. The very essence of modern liberalism.

Liberalism as your definition is written actually describes the principles upon which this nation was founded. It defines classical liberalism. From your own definition : the autonomy of the individual and standing for tolerance and freedom for the individual from arbitrary authority in all spheres of life . Which part of modern liberalism do you think actually protects the automomy of the individual and assures the individual freedom from arbitrary authority? Modern liberalism is about nothing but arbitrary authority and the power to enforce the principles of modern liberalism in every aspect of our lives. Did you catch the key word in the definiton of classical liberalism? It is "FROM". Freedom FROM arbitrary authority. Modern liberalism is all about the freedom "TO" which is an entirely different philosophical and political mindset.

Definitions only have meaning if you use the right ones. The definition of liberalism that you provided certainly doesn't describe the modern liberal. A proper definiton of modern liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism) should speak to idealistic social reform and reconstruction to create a more egalitarian society through the use of applied government power. Do you deny that describes modern liberalism more accurately than the definition you provided?

Modern liberalism is socialism lite and it is lite because it is still opposed quite heavliy by classical liberalism (conservativism). Remove some more opposition and you see modern liberalism move further to the left and you will see more government power brought to bear on the citizenry as in the case of the european union. Tip the balance even further and you will see modern liberalism wielding unchecked politcal power in an attempt to reform society into an egalatarian paradise which invariably comes to look like the soviet union, the people's republic of china, pol pot's cambodia, or hitler's germany because modern liberalism can't tolerate the inherent differences in people. Modern liberalism unchecked is unable to accept that ethnic loyalties, and religious and sexual distinctions form the structures by which all people organize their lives and as a result will find that it must, in fact, be intolerant of all real ways of life and must, by force of law, reconstruct them. This new tolerance as found in the modern liberal state means that no one, with the exception of a few elite ideologues gets to carry out his or her life by their own design. .

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Trying to lower the level of vitriol and reduce the personal attacks, so, from your definition George Bush is a liberal? And the government we have now is also basically liberal? In fact any and every authoritarian government--except Pinochet--is liberal?

There are aspects of this discussion that I find truly intriguing and would discuss with you if the tenor of the interchange can be levelled out a bit--you as well as me. I think your use of the word "liberal" is incorrect, in much the same way that I have taken to dividing up Christendom into Christians and Bible-beaters based on their actions, too I think that "liberal" as you use it covers too much ground and denies the existence of classical liberals. We need a new term.

As far as gay marriage goes, we have a Constitution in this country that guarantees equal protection under the law and gay people do not have that any more than black people had it before slavery ended and civil rights were granted to them BY LAW so that private property owners could not discriminate. You seem to be advocating an extreme form of caveat emptor or at least laissez-faire approaching (maybe encompassing anarchy?). Is this correct, or am I misunderstanding you? Yet at the same time you are arguing for the government to outlaw abortions, which is social engineering and an invasion of a woman's privacy in the use of her own body that is more extreme than the regulation of poisonous cooking oil products or the restriction of the wanton dissemination of airborne toxins into the common air we all have to breathe (smoking).

I think that I have covered the issue of rights vis a vis you and me fairly carefully: I do not, will not ask for or vote for rights and privileges for myself that I will deny to you, so much of the anger/upset you direct towards me maybe somewhat off target--or not, if you are arguing for anarchy and social Darwinism.

I would address more of your last post, but without input from you on the questions above I wouldn't know how to respond appropriately.

 

[palerider]

Trying to lower the level of vitriol and reduce the personal attacks, so, from your definition George Bush is a liberal? And the government we have now is also basically liberal? In fact any and every authoritarian government--except Pinochet--is liberal?

George Bush is a neo con. Neo cons are liberals who have come to realize that the market is a better means of financing their agenda of social programs. Bush knew that the tax cuts would bring government tax revenues up to record levels. This has happened and he spent the money as quickly as it came in. Nothing conservative about that.

There are aspects of this discussion that I find truly intriguing and would discuss with you if the tenor of the interchange can be levelled out a bit--you as well as me. I think your use of the word "liberal" is incorrect, in much the same way that I have taken to dividing up Christendom into Christians and Bible-beaters based on their actions, too I think that "liberal" as you use it covers too much ground and denies the existence of classical liberals. We need a new term.

Modern liberalism has called itself liberalism. Conservatives didn't make it up. The more accurate term, socialist, was not palatable to the modern left so they went for the term liberal. And I don't deny the existence of classical liberals. I am one in the tradition of the founders of this country.

As far as gay marriage goes, we have a Constitution in this country that guarantees equal protection under the law and gay people do not have that any more than black people had it before slavery ended and civil rights were granted to them BY LAW so that private property owners could not discriminate. You seem to be advocating an extreme form of caveat emptor or at least laissez-faire approaching (maybe encompassing anarchy?). Is this correct, or am I misunderstanding you? Yet at the same time you are arguing for the government to outlaw abortions, which is social engineering and an invasion of a woman's privacy in the use of her own body that is more extreme than the regulation of poisonous cooking oil products or the restriction of the wanton dissemination of airborne toxins into the common air we all have to breathe (smoking).

No matter how you twist it, you are asking for not only a special right based on sexual preference, but law by which anyone who questions the practice, or doesn't accept it whole heartedly may be punished. It is a fine example of the intolerance of modern liberalism (socialism).

Whether you like it or not, conservativism is the side that is genuinely tolerant. I don't care what homosexuals do so long as they don't violate my property rights or any of my personal rights. I am genuinely tolerant and don't care whether you love homosexuals or hate them. Simply leave me alone. Modern liberalism, however, is completely intolerant on the issue. They want law that demands equal respect and the capacity to punish those who don't deliver. That simply is not tolerance. That is using the force of government in an attempt to reshape people into what it wishes and that is exactly what happened in the soviet union, china, and cambodia.

It isn't enough to be left alone, you demand that everyone respect what you believe even if it means that you have to step on what the majority believe and use the government to beat them into submission. Modern liberalism = authoritarianism.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Pale,
Kindly juxtapose your definition of liberal and your definition of conservative please.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No matter how you twist it, you are asking for not only a special right based on sexual preference, but law by which anyone who questions the practice, or doesn't accept it whole heartedly may be punished. It is a fine example of the intolerance of modern liberalism (socialism).

You were doing pretty good up to this point. You need to explain to me how it is that it's "special" right when others get what you have. Tolerance would seem to suggest allowing others to live according to their beliefs without punishment from the law.

Whether you like it or not, conservativism is the side that is genuinely tolerant. I don't care what homosexuals do so long as they don't violate my property rights or any of my personal rights. I am genuinely tolerant and don't care whether you love homosexuals or hate them. Simply leave me alone.

These statements seem to contradict your position in the previous paragraph. Marriage by homosexual people will have no impact on you personally, it won't involve you, or harm you, and since you don't care what they do, then it would seem your previous paragraph is out of step with this one.

Modern liberalism, however, is completely intolerant on the issue. They want law that demands equal respect and the capacity to punish those who don't deliver. That simply is not tolerance. That is using the force of government in an attempt to reshape people into what it wishes and that is exactly what happened in the soviet union, china, and cambodia.

Okay, you're tolerant, but what about gays marrying and abortion, neither of which affects you personally yet you have taken very intolerant stands on both of those subjects. Isn't this just an issue of what each of us has the tolerance for, rather than your sweeping generalization.

It isn't enough to be left alone, you demand that everyone respect what you believe even if it means that you have to step on what the majority believe and use the government to beat them into submission. Modern liberalism = authoritarianism.

It isn't enough to be left alone, you demand that everyone respect what you believe even if it means that you have to step on the minorities and use your vast numerical superiority to beat them into submission with laws.

 

[palerider]

Pale,
Kindly juxtapose your definition of liberal and your definition of conservative please.

conservative = classical liberal

modern liberal = socialist (lite)

The lite is due to the degree to which they are opposed at this time. As more support goes to modern liberals, the (lite) grows smaller and smaller until enough control is held within the government to exercise full power as was the case in the other leftist authoritarian governments already named. I have no doubt that eventually the left will win because it paints a utopian picture and that certainly appears more attractive than actually working one's life out for a living. Of course when the liberal elite gain power, the rank and file lose. Unless of course, their ideal utopia was a society in which everyone is dragged down to an equally miserable level as there will not be money enough to support everyone at the level at which the elites live. Again, history has shown us this over and over.

 

[palerider]

You were doing pretty good up to this point. You need to explain to me how it is that it's "special" right when others get what you have. Tolerance would seem to suggest allowing others to live according to their beliefs without punishment from the law.

Marriage is what it is. It is not a union between men and men or women and women. I have no problem at all with civil unions in which gay couples get all of the tax disadvantages and opportunity to lose half of everythnig they make and pay alimony and child support for decades if that is what they want. But making law and changing marriage into something that it has never been simply to create the illusion of equal respect is tyrany.

These statements seem to contradict your position in the previous paragraph. Marriage by homosexual people will have no impact on you personally, it won't involve you, or harm you, and since you don't care what they do, then it would seem your previous paragraph is out of step with this one.

Marriage is what it is. As I said, I have no problem with civil unions if it is the disadvantages of the married relationship that you want, (as is the case with most true conservatives) but you seek to literally redefine marriage in an attempt to demand equal respect from me and use the force of the law to beat me into submission.

And anything that weakens society personally impacts me. For example, no fault divorce has had a negative impact on all of us even if we have never been divorced. Do you deny this?

Okay, you're tolerant, but what about gays marrying and abortion, neither of which affects you personally yet you have taken very intolerant stands on both of those subjects. Isn't this just an issue of what each of us has the tolerance for, rather than your sweeping generalization.

Toleration accepts intolerance so long as it does not violate property rights or phisically attack someone else. Homosexuals can not marry each other because that simply is not what marriage is. Creating law and bringing the power of government to bear upon joe blow in an attempt to make him respect homosexual couples in the same way as he respects married couples is not the recipe for a settled society. Joe probably could care less if homosexuals are allowed civil unions because that does not bring the force of government to bear on him and does not demand that he give equal respect or face the consequences of the law.

Abortion denies the most basic human right to a human being. I have no tolerance at all for that. If homosexuals are being denied basic human rights (and marriage is not a basic human right) then I would be as strongly opposed to those who are denying their rights as I am to those who deny unborns their rights via abortion. If the government can't assure and protect our most basic human rights, exactly what good is it?

It isn't enough to be left alone, you demand that everyone respect what you believe even if it means that you have to step on the minorities and use your vast numerical superiority to beat them into submission with laws.

I don't demand anything from anyone except that they respect my property rights and not assault me. Being conservative, I am interested in freedom "FROM". Freedom from government intrusion into my life is freedom. Modern liberalism is much more interested in freedom "TO". This involves making law that intrudes into people's lives. It involves making law that makes demands upon people and the willingness to punish those who don't deliver. Freedom "TO" eventually becomes authoritarianism which in its course, denies everyone both freedom from and freedom to. All tyranys start out promising everyone everything but the fact is, they simply can't deliver.

You can't use the force of government to restructure society and you can't successfully mandate respect.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

conservative = classical liberal

modern liberal = socialist (lite)

The lite is due to the degree to which they are opposed at this time. As more support goes to modern liberals, the (lite) grows smaller and smaller until enough control is held within the government to exercise full power as was the case in the other leftist authoritarian governments already named. I have no doubt that eventually the left will win because it paints a utopian picture and that certainly appears more attractive than actually working one's life out for a living. Of course when the liberal elite gain power, the rank and file lose. Unless of course, their ideal utopia was a society in which everyone is dragged down to an equally miserable level as there will not be money enough to support everyone at the level at which the elites live. Again, history has shown us this over and over.

I think your definitions are arbitrary and far too sweeping, it seems that except for Pinochet you taken every bastard in human history lined them all up along side everyone who is,might be, looks like, or identifies themselves as "liberal" (inclusive of all the ways that all those people use the word "liberal") and you have dumped all of this vast diversity of human thought and action into on pile and blamed them for practically everything. I don't like much of what the larger Christian community does, nor much of what passes for the practice of Christianity in today's world, but even I never swept up all the garbage in human history and reversed the definitions of words so that I could condemn all of them without exception.

I'm really glad you're tolerant, I can't imagine what you'd be like if you weren't. Maybe that isn't what you meant, but it sure sounds like it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Marriage is what it is. It is not a union between men and men or women and women. I have no problem at all with civil unions in which gay couples get all of the tax disadvantages and opportunity to lose half of everythnig they make and pay alimony and child support for decades if that is what they want. But making law and changing marriage into something that it has never been simply to create the illusion of equal respect is tyrany.

Change is not tyranny, change is inevitable as the human race learns and matures. Marriage is not now, nor has it ever been just one thing. Marriage has had so many meanings and definitions down through history that your contention of man/woman is narrowly confined to our kind of society. It's like heteros get Driver's Licenses but queers have to get Operator's Permits, there is no reason for two separate classes IF the two classes are equal, the point I think you desire to make is once again a relgious one in that homosexual's in committed relationships are still not as good as REAL people in committed relationships. If there is some functional reason why we should have to rewrite all the laws to include the words "civil unions" instead of just calling all legally sanctioned loving relationships "marriage" I haven't heard it yet.

Would you be willing to use the European pattern? Every couple gets a civil union license that guarantees all the legal rights and privileges and then if they want to get some religion troweled on, they can go to the church of their choice for a ceremony that will have all the pomp and circumstance they desire with promises to God and ... whatever, but that ceremony will have no more legal force than a christening. This would seem to address your concerns about maintaining the sanctity of marriage (or whatever it is that YOU are trying to maintain since you have continually refused to address this issue openly) and it would still give equality to all. Lots of churches will have no problem marrying gay people--many would right now if it was not illegal.

Marriage is what it is. As I said, I have no problem with civil unions if it is the disadvantages of the married relationship that you want, (as is the case with most true conservatives) but you seek to literally redefine marriage in an attempt to demand equal respect from me and use the force of the law to beat me into submission.

I don't want your respect, you certainly don't have mine, why should I desire yours? I want equality under the law, I want the beatings and killings to end, I want the legal discrimination to end.

And anything that weakens society personally impacts me. For example, no fault divorce has had a negative impact on all of us even if we have never been divorced. Do you deny this?

No, not being a Catholic, I think that no-fault divorce has prevented a HUGE amount of pain and agony. What's your problem with it? As far as weakening society, I think that's a buzz-term with little real meaning, mostly people use it when they want to object to the way society is changing because they don't like the changes. You need to provide more information about your position if we are going to discuss this intelligently. What is your problem with ending marriages without court battles?