Modern Liberalism =- Authoritarianism

[Coyote]

Modern liberalism is socialism lite. Socialism in its infancy. No more, no less.

I might agree with that.

If you believe that the US, in any way, is practicing corporatism, then you need to devote more time to learning what corporatism is. Corporatism is socialism and socialism is always left. In any form it it takes, it is left.

I don’t agree. First of all, because you are looking at only one axis of liberal/conservative in making your determination and that is economic.

Nationalism for example, is considered a trait of “right” (as opposed to the worship of an ideology over nationality, such as communism espouses)
Increased role of Church and religion is a trait of “right”
Conservative social policies is a trait of “right”
Promotion of racial, religious or cultural identity is a trait of “right” (as opposed to promotion of class like the “working class” in the so-called “classless” society of the “left”).

If you have all those traits in a government along with a degree of socialism in the economic make up then it is still more “right” then “left” wing.

Originally Posted by Coyote
Socialist tyrannies - look at that term. The emphasis is not on socialist, but on tyranny. Again - some of the countries today with the greatest standard of living and of civil and political liberties are also heavily socialist. Are they also tyrannies? Are they authoritarian?

Palerider responed:
Of course they are tyrannies and of course they are authoritarian when compared even to the US today. As to civil and political liberties, you better check again. Go and try to voice conservative viewpoints in those "free" socialist countries and see how well it goes for you.

What is a tyranny?

A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a harsh and cruel ruler who places his/her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which they govern or control. This form of government is referred to as a tyranny.

No, it is not a tyranny.

Now I’ll ask – what conservative viewpoints can you not voice in say…Sweden? Do you mean Holocaust denial? If so – I actually do agree with you there. I think that those laws are a bad idea. But – that isn’t exactly a “conservative” issue either. The right of free speech is strongly associated with liberalism – as I believe liberalism to be. Censorship is a tool that is used by both the left and the right depending on what they want to push.

People in all the authoritarian socialist states said that they liked the system because they couldn't imagine not being taken care of. They wore their yoke meekly because they can't imagine being free.

Some people in some authoritarian socialist states (I assume you mean USSR, Cuba, China?). USSR needs to be put into perspective. You went from a controlled state to anarchy ruled by mafia, gangs and cartels. There is virtually no other way to describe it. The break of the Soviet Union was chaotic and terrible for many people involved. People worked but didn’t get paid for months or eratically if at all. The black market thrived. Many people suffered deeply. My mother worked for many years in collaborative medical research with colleagues in the USSR during the 70’s and 80’s. She maintained friendships with many of them after. While living in communist USSR was no bed of roses, living there afterwards was actually worse for many people so is it any wonder they look back at the former USSR with rose-colored glasses? “Democracy” and “freedom” were not kind to them .

I think there is a balance between “freedom” and “being taken care of” that must be maintained to be successful. I think a state has an obligation to take care of it’s less fortunate citizens but care must be taken that that group doesn’t become self-perpetuating or all inclusive.

Which elements are right wing? Keep in mind that conservative ideology calls for small non intrusive government. Any large intrusive government is, by definition, left.

See above.

And you actually believe that is ownership? Come on.

Well, property is taxed and subject to city ordinances but we still believe we own it.

No because the right recognizes the need for constitutional protection of certain rights and recognize government's responsibility to protect them. The right's ideal state has been done and it was not authoritarian. See the US right after the revolution. It did not begin to become authoritarian until modern liberalism began to worm its way into the government.

It was quite authoritarian if you were black or a woman.

Again, see the constitution if you are interested in what right wing carried to its extreme looks like.

Not in practice – the constitution represented an ideal not a reality.

Not to insult you, but on this issue, you are conservative, not liberal.

Tolerance does not mean “letting people do what they want”. That would be anarchy. Tolerance stops when another person’s behavior effects your well being or safety or that of the greater society. Tolerance cannot be mandated by the government without becoming increasingly authoritarian in nature. Yet you must have laws in place to protect vulnerable populations from the effects of intolerance or you end up with the law of the jungle.

Again, you are voicing a conservative view. Liberals tolerate all forms of activity that are clearly bad for society as a whole and coarsen it considerably in the name of "tolerance" and in the process become very authoritarian with regard to anyone who speaks out against these things that are hurting society at large. Modern liberalism simply doesn't believe in anything that trancends the individual and rejects the concept of a greater good.

I disagree. Liberals DO NOT tolerate all forms of activity that are clearly bad for society as a whole. The most accurate way to describe it is that liberals seek to expand the definition of “us” – of what is acceptable and good for society. Liberalism believes in constantly pushing the boundaries. Conservatism believes in protecting the boundaries. At one time the “greater good” justified slavery, forced lobotomies and sterilization of certain groups of people, and the removal of indigenous people to “reservations”. Are you saying these activities were “good” for society at large?

 

[Coyote]

One thing liberals do not argue is the terrible inefficiency of government. It just costs the gov'ment way more to do anything than it does for private citizens to do a similar thing.

That's not necessarily true. While I agree with you that there is huge government waste (and I would personally like to see a smaller government in many areas) - the federal government often takes on things that can not be done profitably by the private sector or should not be in the hands of the private sector (like military, envirnomental protection).

The less government you have, the more efficiently our economy functions and the more goodies we all have.

Not necessarily. Look at how life was before there was any "government interference" in food and medicinal quality, workplace safety, child labor laws, life in the tenaments before there were any government standards to adhere to and so forth.

Socialism/communism failed in the USSR. It has produced societies in N Korea and Cuba that can barely feed themselves. And liberals say they hate the military but the military is the only healthy area of these 2 scoieties.

Liberals don't hate the military. That's nothing more then conservative talking points. Pure socialism and pure capitalism (which can best be represented by the sweatshop industries) both fail. One offers no incentives and removes all economic incentive for success on the individual level, the other has no moral compass and reduces humanity to an expendable lump of flesh.

Western Europe has embraced modern liberalism and socialism and is now paying the price. Europe was run by kings and petty monarchs for close to 100 generations and Europeans appear to be comfortable with "Big Brother" running their lives. At least 2 European socialist states are nearing the breaking point financially, where there is no amount of tax they can collect that will pay the social obligations made. Look for more to be written about this in the near future and for possible collapse in the 2010-2012 window.

The list of the 10 richest countries and the 10 countries with the highest overall standard of living include a large number of western european countries.

The most efficient economic system ever devised by man is free enterprise and socialism/liberalism requires less and less free enterprise and more and more govenrment interference.

Efficient? Yes. Is efficiency everything? No. Look up sweatshops.

The current liberal/socialist scheme is universal heath care. This has been a miserable failure in Canada and liberals, in their tunnel vision, want the same system for us.

Liberals are OK with people being miserable, so long as everyone is equally miserable.

That's another oft repeated misconception: that anything to do withh universal health care will rersemble the model in Canada (which isn't all that bad either if you ask Canadians to compare it to the US). In reality - this country would never accept that model AND that model is not the only one. Other countries (Australia, Germany) have models that offer a blend of government sponsored health care and private health care. In Germany it is very successful for both the private sector, the government and the citizens.

 

[palerider]

Ok, I think we need to be clear here. Are we talking about Liberalism/Conservatism theoretically – or in practice? For example, your definition of conservatism leaves out a great many issues that are included in it in practice.

Such as?

It sounds like you are describing liberalism – in PRACTICE and conservatism – in THEORY. Apples and oranges. Conservatism in practice DOES care – very much. It excludes whatever group is defined as “not us”. In different periods of history that has been blacks, women, native Americans or homosexuals. Look right now at your conservative base. How many of them say they wouldn’t vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Morman and Morman’s aren’t quite “us”.

Individuals can vote for whomever they choose. Again, you are confusing what individuals do with what conservative and liberal governments do.

I could easily make the argument here that liberalism “doesn’t care”. For example: a child can pray in school, bring a bible (but not disrupt classes); a preacher can preach and hand out leaflets on a public street corner, a man and a woman can marry if they choose too, send their children to the school of their choice and, if they can’t afford it take advantage of the public school system.

You could make those arguments, but they would be false. I can point to plenty of instances where the force of government has been wrongly brought to bear on children and preachers and they were not brought back into line by liberals expressing their outrage.

If they don’t like gay people in a parade – they can ignore them. If I don’t like conservative Christian preachers on the street corner, I can ignore them. One of the tenants of liberalism is a strong support for civil and political rights and liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. Both liberals and conservatives revere the Constitution, they just emphasize different portions of it.

Except that isn't how it works in modern liberal land. They are forced to let gay people into the parade and the preachers aren't allowed on any corner they choose and on and on. Modern liberalism dictates what is correct and acceptable social behavior.

Now…you make an interesting distinction: local society and government. Local society IS government – it just isn’t federal government. Conservatives want power in the hands of local governments and liberals want power in the hands of federal governments. Because of that, local society can be just as restrictive and authoritarian in mandating it’s views as the federal government can be. And in BOTH cases – you can leave if you don’t like it. Maybe.

Are you arguing that it is better for federal government to dictate how we all live than for people to simply be allowed to live as they wish so long as they are not violating the property rights of others?

I don’t think I am wrong. If you look at liberalism as changing and expanding what is “us” then the abolitionist movement was very liberal. Abolitionism started during the enlightenment – a period when the traditional forms of government and the traditional role of religion in society and public policy were being questioned and overturned. The Enlightenment brought us our form of government but somehow the idea of abolition did not carry over - or rather, opponents of it held a stronger voice. Our Constitution came out of this but – that does not mean that “constitutionalists” (who advocate a strict interpretation of the constitution) were also. The constitutionalists did not abolish slavery, the abolitionists did. Constitutionalists advocated states rights in the matter of slavery. And that meant each state – not the federal government – could decide whether to legalize it or not.

Of course you don't "think" you are wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that you are. The fact that it became undeniable that blacks were human beings and as such were entitled to the same rights as everyone else had nothing to do with liberalism.

And upon what basis did the abolutionists demand that slavery be abolished? The constitution of course. Abolitionsist were constitutionalist.

You are making “classical liberal” sound like “conservative”. I disagree.p

Disagree all you like. It doesn't change the fact that classical liberals and conservatives are one in the same.

For example, one primary tenant of conservatism that does not fit the liberal model is the social agenda of conservatives. That social agenda wants to mandate: its idea of marriage on everyone. It would like to see sodomy and adultery laws enforced. It would like to see people denied jobs or housing on the basis of sexual orientation. It would like to see one entire class of people relegated to de-facto second class citizenship. It would like to promote a greater role of “the Church” (and only the Christian church at that) in the political and social lives of all Americans and it is willing to use both federal and local levels to attain this.

Because of good faith laws, rules regarding marriage must be at the federal level to prevent people being married in one state but not being married in another. The church has nothing to do with it.

And again, is it better to force people to interact against their will or allow them to interact or not interact at their own discretion?

Nationalism for example, is considered a trait of “right” (as opposed to the worship of an ideology over nationality, such as communism espouses)

Who considers it a trait of the right? Academics who are trying to make a point? All of the leftist governments have been nationalist to the extreme and yet, you want to call it a trait of the right. Interesting.

Increased role of Church and religion is a trait of “right”

Is it? Since secularism can rightly be called a religion, it is the left that uses the force of government to enforce their religion.

Conservative social policies is a trait of “right”

Right. Letting people live as they choose rather than mandating what is and isn't acceptable.

Promotion of racial, religious or cultural identity is a trait of “right” (as opposed to promotion of class like the “working class” in the so-called “classless” society of the “left”).

All men are created equal. (conservativism) Leftist governments talk classless societies, but in reality there are the elites, and everyone else.

 

[Coyote]

Are you arguing that it is better for federal government to dictate how we all live than for people to simply be allowed to live as they wish so long as they are not violating the property rights of others?

Property rights? Are those the only rights that matter?

Palerider: Of course you don't "think" you are wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that you are. The fact that it became undeniable that blacks were human beings and as such were entitled to the same rights as everyone else had nothing to do with liberalism.

Liberalism is what forced that undeniable reality upon an unwilling audience. And further, liberalism is what ended the whole "seperate but equal" segregation that followed abolition. Otherwise it would have all remained a state's rights issue.

Palerider: And upon what basis did the abolutionists demand that slavery be abolished? The constitution of course. Abolitionsist were constitutionalist.

The abolition movement preceded the constitution.

Palerider: Disagree all you like. It doesn't change the fact that classical liberals and conservatives are one in the same.

I really don't understand the differences in your political classifications. What you are describing as conservative for example sounds to me like libertarian - not like what I understand conservative to be.

Coyote: For example, one primary tenant of conservatism that does not fit the liberal model is the social agenda of conservatives. That social agenda wants to mandate: its idea of marriage on everyone. It would like to see sodomy and adultery laws enforced. It would like to see people denied jobs or housing on the basis of sexual orientation. It would like to see one entire class of people relegated to de-facto second class citizenship. It would like to promote a greater role of “the Church” (and only the Christian church at that) in the political and social lives of all Americans and it is willing to use both federal and local levels to attain this.

Palerider: Because of good faith laws, rules regarding marriage must be at the federal level to prevent people being married in one state but not being married in another. The church has nothing to do with it.

Oh yes it does. It has role in defining it as a heterosexual monogamous mating of one male and one female and that's Christian "morality". And sodomy laws come right out of the church's mouth.

Palerider: And again, is it better to force people to interact against their will or allow them to interact or not interact at their own discretion?

So what you are saying is they have the right to drive out of their community any one or group of American citizens that they don't like for any reason? That they can refuse to hire a qualified person because of his color and for no other reason? What happens when the majority feel this way? Where can they go? Isn't the constitution supposed to protect minorities in order to prevent a tyranny by the majority?

Coyote: Nationalism for example, is considered a trait of “right” (as opposed to the worship of an ideology over nationality, such as communism espouses)

Palerider: Who considers it a trait of the right? Academics who are trying to make a point? All of the leftist governments have been nationalist to the extreme and yet, you want to call it a trait of the right. Interesting.

Well lets see....Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands...all leftist, none particularly nationalist. Most of the leftist extremist governments - communism - have used Marxism as their rallying focus rather than ethnicity to promote a national identify. I've previously listed rightwing dictators who used ethnic nationalism to justify their crimes.

Palerider: Is it? Since secularism can rightly be called a religion, it is the left that uses the force of government to enforce their religion.

According to who? Rightwing Christian talking points? "Secularism" is no more or less then the view that religious considerations should be excluded from government affairs and public education. Render unto Ceasar and all that.

Coyote: Conservative social policies is a trait of “right”

Palerider: Right. Letting people live as they choose rather than mandating what is and isn't acceptable.

Right. And if they choose to segregate people into seperate but "equal" jobs, schools, housing and waterfountains - well, that's ok too?

Coyote: Promotion of racial, religious or cultural identity is a trait of “right” (as opposed to promotion of class like the “working class” in the so-called “classless” society of the “left”).

Palerider: All men are created equal. (conservativism) Leftist governments talk classless societies, but in reality there are the elites, and everyone else.

All men are created equal is (liberalism). We get to define who we consider "men" (conservatism).

But I agree with you on "classless" societies - that's the myth of communism. Human nature won't allow for it. Equality is an ideal to strive for.
__________________

 

[palerider]

Property rights? Are those the only rights that matter?

No. The right to live is one that matters but modern liberalism is perfectly willing to deny that one to a million human beings a year in this country alone. Don't talk to me about rights until you get that one worked out.

Liberalism is what forced that undeniable reality upon an unwilling audience. And further, liberalism is what ended the whole "seperate but equal" segregation that followed abolition. Otherwise it would have all remained a state's rights issue.

Sorry guy, saying it doesn't make it true. And refer to your history. Constitutionalist republicans made the equal rights amendment happen, not modern liberals.

The abolition movement preceded the constitution.

Once again, saying it doesn't make it true. The abolitionist movement formally began in the 1830's. Prior to that, the only formal opposition to slavery came from religious organizations. (hardly liberal)

I really don't understand the differences in your political classifications. What you are describing as conservative for example sounds to me like libertarian - not like what I understand conservative to be.

Then you have a flawed understanding of what conservativism is. There is as large a gulf between libertarianism and conservativism as there is between libertarianism and modern liberalism.

Oh yes it does. It has role in defining it as a heterosexual monogamous mating of one male and one female and that's Christian "morality". And sodomy laws come right out of the church's mouth.

Anthropologically speaking, that simply isn't true. A nation simply can't go about granting special rights based on the sexual preference of a very small percentage of its population.

So what you are saying is they have the right to drive out of their community any one or group of American citizens that they don't like for any reason? That they can refuse to hire a qualified person because of his color and for no other reason? What happens when the majority feel this way? Where can they go? Isn't the constitution supposed to protect minorities in order to prevent a tyranny by the majority?

I never said a thing about driving anyone out. There is a difference between being driven out and having the option to go somewhere that better suits your values. You are goinig to have to make a very authoritarian argument if you are going to try and convince me that having a choice of what sort of community one lives in is inferior to having no choice.

Well lets see....Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands...all leftist, none particularly nationalist. Most of the leftist extremist governments - communism - have used Marxism as their rallying focus rather than ethnicity to promote a national identify. I've previously listed rightwing dictators who used ethnic nationalism to justify their crimes.

Hardly a valid comparison. Those are very small homogenous populations. Socialism doesn't require an iron fist if everyone agrees. Watch those nations closely as the world becomes progressively smaller and watch them become progressively more authoritarian as immigrants begin to demand change.

According to who? Rightwing Christian talking points? "Secularism" is no more or less then the view that religious considerations should be excluded from government affairs and public education. Render unto Ceasar and all that.

are you denying that secularism can rightly be called a religion or that modern liberalism is forcing it on the population?

Right. And if they choose to segregate people into seperate but "equal" jobs, schools, housing and waterfountains - well, that's ok too?

Do you really believe that could happen today? Do you really believe that we could regress that far? That sounds more like hysterical handwringing than any argument based in the reality of the 21st century.

All men are created equal is (liberalism). We get to define who we consider "men" (conservatism).

Classical liberalism, not modern liberalism. And note that it is modern liberalism that has taken it upon itself to determine who are actually human beings and who has the most fundamental right to live. Modern liberalism has litterally decided that some men are not men at all but nothing more than cells or if they are men, they are the property of their mothers and may be killed as she choses.

But I agree with you on "classless" societies - that's the myth of communism. Human nature won't allow for it. Equality is an ideal to strive for.

There is a stark difference between striving for a thing and having it imposed by government. That is where authoritarianism must come into the picture. If modern liberalism were to drop the demand for equality from its philosophy, then it could avoid its authoritarian nature, but then, it wouldn't really be modern liberalism any more, would it?

 

[Coyote]

No. The right to live is one that matters but modern liberalism is perfectly willing to deny that one to a million human beings a year in this country alone. Don't talk to me about rights until you get that one worked out.

I will still talk about rights – the right to live is first, then are property rights second? Is that all there is?

Sorry guy, saying it doesn't make it true. And refer to your history. Constitutionalist republicans made the equal rights amendment happen, not modern liberals.

You are confusing republicans with conservatives – a party with an ideology. The two are not always the same. The thinking that led to the equal rights amendment was liberal – very liberal. Not conservative. Conservative preserves the status quo.

Once again, saying it doesn't make it true. The abolitionist movement formally began in the 1830's. Prior to that, the only formal opposition to slavery came from religious organizations. (hardly liberal)

First: religion does not necessarily equal conservative. Certain religious organizations were at the forefront of major social changes: expanding the definition of what is “us” and deserving of rights and protections. That is liberal thought in action – not conservative.

Second: Abolition (from Wikipedia)

The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage was the first American abolition society, formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, primarily by Quakers who had strong religious objections to slavery. The society ceased to operate during the Revolution and the British occupation of Philadelphia; it was reorganized in 1784, with Benjamin Franklin as its first president.[2] Benjamin Rush was another leader, as were many Quakers. John Woolman gave up most of his business in 1756 to devote himself to campaigning against slavery along with other Quakers.[3] The first article published in the United States advocating the emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery was written by Thomas Paine. Titled "African Slavery in America", it appeared on March 8, 1775 in the Postscript to the Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser, more popularly known as The Pennsylvania Magazine, or American Museum.[4]
​

Prior to that it the abolition movement in England began around the mid to late 18th century – prior to the US constitution.

Then you have a flawed understanding of what conservativism is. There is as large a gulf between libertarianism and conservativism as there is between libertarianism and modern liberalism.

Spell it out for me then. From your arguments here I see little difference between libertarianism and conservatism. What is the difference?

I’ll have to answer the rest later…

 

[Coyote]

Anthropologically speaking, that simply isn't true. A nation simply can't go about granting special rights based on the sexual preference of a very small percentage of its population.

Antropologicaly speaking, there have been cultures that legitimized forms of same sex marriage. Now it may be argued that it wasn't "marriage" but - it was some form of same sex union. Preference doesn't even enter in to it. You and I both agreed on an other thread that it was likely biologically based and inate. The only way I could agree to no "same sex legitimized marriages" would be if the government played absolutely no role in marriage and there were no extra benefits (pensions to survivors, taxes, inheritance issues, the ability to visit a partner in hospital as immediate family etc.) - but that won't happen. I don't see same-sex marriage as anything less then an extension of some very basic humanitarian principles and of equality. It hurts no one - it benefits a small but significant portion of our society.

I never said a thing about driving anyone out. There is a difference between being driven out and having the option to go somewhere that better suits your values. You are goinig to have to make a very authoritarian argument if you are going to try and convince me that having a choice of what sort of community one lives in is inferior to having no choice.

Is there really a difference? I think that argument is dissegenius. Certainly in a "modern liberal" society you could also opt to leave and find someplace that fits your value. But you deny it - you choose to portray "a modern liberal society" as totally authoritarian - not allowing it's citizens to leave while portraying a modern conservative society as open and allowing it's citizens to leave.

But the reality is different.

If you can get no job, no housing, no service or medical care - in any kind of society - what exactly is the difference between choosing to leave and being driven out?

Hardly a valid comparison. Those are very small homogenous populations. Socialism doesn't require an iron fist if everyone agrees. Watch those nations closely as the world becomes progressively smaller and watch them become progressively more authoritarian as immigrants begin to demand change.

Sure it's a valid comparison. It's just as valid as looking at post-revolution early America as the ideal conservative society despite the real black mark of slavery and a limited view of what constituted a "a person". You do make some interesting points however. What WILL happen? They truly are at a crossroads. What IS happening though is in reality a mixture of conservatism (nationalism, xenophobia and an unwillingness to integrate foreigners into "us" by the you can just leave philosophy) and liberalism (governmentally mandated equality and all cultures are equal).

are you denying that secularism can rightly be called a religion or that modern liberalism is forcing it on the population?

Yes, I am denying. It in no way fits the definition of a religion and, as I understand it (not taken from some hysterical rightwing religious propaganda) - it is nothing more then keep religion the hell out of government on the one hand, and allow religions (all of them) freedom to worship where and how they choose to free of government interference and taxation (as long as they don't violate the rights to others). Render unto Ceasor.

Does that mean that secularism isn't taken too far? No. It certainly has been at times. But then again - so has religion in it's attempt to take over government and force it's values on the public in the form of policy. No government has the right to impose it's laws on any church. In fact, there is a court case recently....where employers of religious organizations can be forced to provide birth control to their employees via health insurance policies even though they feel it's wrong. I actually agree with them on that. On the other hand, some pharmacests argue that they should have the right to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions based on personal religious feelings. I disagree with that. You enter the career with certain expectations. If you have a problem with it - do not take on that career.

Do you really believe that could happen today? Do you really believe that we could regress that far? That sounds more like hysterical handwringing than any argument based in the reality of the 21st century.

Yes I do. I believe that those emotions lie dormant in a segment of our society. Look at the ethnic and racial explosions that occured with major political changes such as in the Balkans. They were dormant - repressed - but never addressed.

Classical liberalism, not modern liberalism. And note that it is modern liberalism that has taken it upon itself to determine who are actually human beings and who has the most fundamental right to live. Modern liberalism has litterally decided that some men are not men at all but nothing more than cells or if they are men, they are the property of their mothers and may be killed as she choses.

I have difficulties with your definitions Palerider. On the one hand - I suspect I truly do not agree with some or much of "modern liberalism" but on the other I most certainly disagree with what I see as "modern conservatism" (would that be neo-conservative, paleo-conservative?????? All these terms!)

Just as one example. I always associated conservatism with isolationism - the use of the military only in defense..."peace, commerce, and friendship with other nations, while having no entangling alliances with them...". Certainly NOTHING like the imperialistic and hawkish behavior of modern conservatives.

There is a stark difference between striving for a thing and having it imposed by government. That is where authoritarianism must come into the picture. If modern liberalism were to drop the demand for equality from its philosophy, then it could avoid its authoritarian nature, but then, it wouldn't really be modern liberalism any more, would it?

You are right...but what would it be? It wouldn't exactly be conservatism either.

By the way - this is interesting. I am enjoying it

 

[r0beph]

Such as?
Individuals can vote for whomever they choose. Again, you are confusing what individuals do with what conservative and liberal governments do.

even when the majority of the population supports a single idea, such as this child care funding, here goes the right wing president shooting it down...quaint.

You could make those arguments, but they would be false. I can point to plenty of instances where the force of government has been wrongly brought to bear on children and preachers and they were not brought back into line by liberals expressing their outrage.

The right didn't bring them back in line either...your point?

Except that isn't how it works in modern liberal land. They are forced to let gay people into the parade and the preachers aren't allowed on any corner they choose and on and on. Modern liberalism dictates what is correct and acceptable social behavior.

who stops preachers from being on the corner, it's all fine and dandy with me as long as they aren't risking inciting riot, being libelous, or otherwise causing risk of violence. The same goes for all.

Are you arguing that it is better for federal government to dictate how we all live than for people to simply be allowed to live as they wish so long as they are not violating the property rights of others?

I'm arguing it's better for the fed to allow gays to marry, since that isn't violating property rights of others, so why are we arguing again? oh yeah, you flip flop more than shoe vendor on the beach.

Of course you don't "think" you are wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that you are. The fact that it became undeniable that blacks were human beings and as such were entitled to the same rights as everyone else had nothing to do with liberalism.

it has everything to do with liberalism, stop muxing the word. the dictionary definition? "An ideology that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion as well as the right to own property. Liberalism evolved during the ENLIGHTMENT and became the dominant political idea of the nineteenth century. ..."

And upon what basis did the abolutionists demand that slavery be abolished? The constitution of course. Abolitionsist were constitutionalist.

and that is no different that those who say the constitution clearly allows homosexual marriage, but then those guys are just left wing nutters right?

Because of good faith laws, rules regarding marriage must be at the federal level to prevent people being married in one state but not being married in another. The church has nothing to do with it.

That's understandable to keep people from being married multiple times, however what does this have to do with gays marrying? It's what they want, and you're arguments here are that "people should live as they want as long as they don't intefere with others property or some such.....eh?

And again, is it better to force people to interact against their will or allow them to interact or not interact at their own discretion?

no one is forced to interact, however you cannot force segregation, that's the key. Sure you can keep whomever you want out of your house and remain legit, but in the workplace intentional segregation should definitely not be espoused. It should be dealt with harshly in fact.

Is it? Since secularism can rightly be called a religion, it is the left that uses the force of government to enforce their religion.

Wrong, there are secular governments that contain within themselves members of various religions, this is paradoxical to state that they now have two religions....it doesn't really work that way.

Right. Letting people live as they choose rather than mandating what is and isn't acceptable.

All men are created equal. (conservativism) Leftist governments talk classless societies, but in reality there are the elites, and everyone else.

Unless of course you're gay and want to get married.

 

[r0beph]

Anthropologically speaking, that simply isn't true. A nation simply can't go about granting special rights based on the sexual preference of a very small percentage of its population.

heterosexuals get special rights.

As what I guess I'll consider myself the resident etymologist, I'll display for you the definition of special as it applies in this case.

"Special(a): unique or specific to a person or thing or category;"

Thus marriage, being solely for heterosexuals, is thus a "SPECIAL" right.

I beg of you also, please, I'm not going to go back and hack your posts to hell, but please stop butchering my beautiful language and misusing words as you do so very often...I thank you.

 

[ArmChair General]

I was recently in a discussion with a member of this forum who presented a study from Stanford that supposedly represented a psychological profile of conservatives. Aside from the fact that no conservatives were spoken to as a part of this “study”, some of the prime examples the “study” held up as examples of conservative thought were among the most notorious leftist tyrants of the 20th century. Joseph Stalin, Lenin, chairman Mao, and Pol Pot were apparently studies in conservativism.

When I challenged this member on the leftist authoritarians the study held up as examples of conservativism, he replied “

"Authoritarian" views are certainly not liberal views, they are a trait of conservative ideology.”

I challenged the member to a philosophical discussion on the merits of that statement but apparently he wasn’t up to it. With, or without him, however, I believe that it is an important topic. Far too few modern liberals (and modern conservatives) expend any appreciable intellectual wattage considering their respective philosophies and what life would be like if they were allowed to proceed to their logical end. I am going to discuss the totalitarian nature of modern liberalism but if any of you “liberal philosophers” cares to offer up a thoughtful discussion of conservativism, by all means, do so.

Consider modern liberalism. It is a political philosophy that claims equality and equal freedom as its ultimate goal. Ask any liberal to describe their philosophy and without fail, you will get some variation of “live and let live. In an effort to achieve this goal, however, liberalism requires supervision of everything. Its multicultural ideal excludes and stigmatizes regular people and in order to enforce its equality, it uses quotas, speech codes, and mandatory sensitivity training in politically correct attitudes and opinions. Clearly, there is little connection between those things and “live and let live”.

Liberals prize tolerance, but what they call tolerance is not tolerance at all. Correct me if I am wrong, but tolerance means letting people do what they want. Modern liberals, however have redefined tolerance (redefinition – a nasty habit of modern liberals) to mean a requirement of equal respect across the social spectrum. True tolerance requires live and let live, but the tolerance of the modern liberal requires an ever more invasive bureaucratic control of every aspect of our social lives. An ideology that “requires” equal respect across the social spectrum must, by definition be intolerant because it must try to control the attitudes that people have towards one another and any real attempt to that end will require means that are both inflexible and tyrannical.

Lets compare two states. One is the conservative ideal and the other is the modern liberal ideal. In the conservative state, you can say and do pretty much whatever you like so long as you do not violate certain established rights. The conservative state doesn’t care whether you are tolerant or intolerant so long as you don’t physically attack others or damage their property. The conservative state, as a result may be very critical of certain social failures, as it would have a very limited social welfare system. In the conservative sate, you would be free to succeed or fail with interference from the state being limited to enforcing those clearly defined rights that were spoken of earlier.

In the homogenous welfare state that modern liberals favor, however, things would be quite different. In its effort to promote equal respect and tolerance across the social spectrum, the modern liberal state will find that it must necessarily be very intolerant of ways of life that it defines as sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. By establishing quotas, the state will force people to associate with others against their will, literally denying them the right to choose what sorts of people they will live near and work with.

The liberal state will necessarily be uable 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.

The ideology of modern liberalism with regard to tolerance seems to be based on the idea that each person is as good as every other person and whatever a person likes is good for him. In order to believe this, however, one must accept that one way of living is as good as all other ways of living because to suggest that one way was better or worse than another would by definition be an act of intolerance. This is a very peculiar, and very specific moral theory. One must view each person impartially as valuable, but everything else as valuable only as defined by the individual. A society that holds such a moral theory must therefore define anyone who holds a moral code that recognizes any sort of absolute good or bad as intolerant.

Since modern liberalism holds such a narrow and dubious moral theory that very few people indeed actually hold, how then, is it any different from old “theocratic” systems that it labels as intolerant? Is it better, somehow, to be indoctrinated in the dogma and delusion of all inclusiveness than that of one church or another? A panel of civil rights lawyers, after all, is certainly no more forgiving than a panel of robed priests and in all likelihood, less forgiving.

Upon close examination it is evident that modern liberalism does indeed hold all of the elements necessary to become authoritarian and totalitarian and in practice has already exhibited a streak of tyranny ranging from mandatory sensitivity training to the “thought police” mentality of actually punishing criminals more harshly based on what they may have been thinking when they committed their particular crime. In the name of equal freedom and equality for all, modern liberalism is willing to empower government bureaucracy to make us all, by force if necessary, into its image.

I don't believe it is possible to defend the member's statement that "authoritarian views are certainly not liberal views" It may be true that liberals don't see themselves and their philosophy as authoritarian but that, in and of itself, is sad in that it is evidence that they have not invested much thought into thier philosophy and carried it to its logical end. The great leftist tyrants of the 20th century weren't expressing conservative ideals, they were simply men who were able to carry liberal theory to its logical end.

Palrerider come on now. Your smarter than this.

I don't know that I've ever met someone who, when unable to persuade another person of this or that idea, would not want the power to simply MAKE them agree.

The founders of the U.S.---who 'Fled from Religious persecution'---were not against 'Religious Persecution', but only averse to their own persecution. In much the same way, those who speak ill of fascism are not 'against fascism'...when it is them who can call the shots

Who among us knows any Christian, Jew, Muslim or anything else that wouldn't snap their fingers, if snapping them meant that, instantly, everyone else would forever adhere to the tenets of the snapper's religion?

Similarly no liberal/conservative that I can envision would rather 'go back to the drawing board' and figure out a better approach to persuading people of their politics...if they could just snap their fingers and make them coalesce.

Reason, persuasion, honest debate - these things don't mean **** to anyone you know, do they?

Only power

the power to make people act; coercion. 'An Irresistible Will',

or 'Social/Political/Ideological equals'...

Which would you rather have?

 

[Coyote]

PaleRider: I would like to know what the difference is between what you call conservatism and libertarianism.

 

[palerider]

Sorry to take so long to get back to this. Fishing.

You are confusing republicans with conservatives – a party with an ideology. The two are not always the same. The thinking that led to the equal rights amendment was liberal – very liberal. Not conservative. Conservative preserves the status quo.

I am not confusing anything. Constitutionalist republicans were classical liberals.

You clearly have a gross misconception with regard to what conservativism is. Conservativism is not maintaining the status quo. Conservativism, or classical liberalism is willing to see change, and in some areas, eager for it, but not simply change for change's sake or change without deep thought into the consequences of the changes.

Modern liberals don't seem to be able to see that the "torch of progress" all to often turns out to be a devouring conflagration and they don't seem to be able to learn from their mistakes.

First: religion does not necessarily equal conservative. Certain religious organizations were at the forefront of major social changes: expanding the definition of what is “us” and deserving of rights and protections. That is liberal thought in action – not conservative.

Classical liberalism, coyote. Not modern liberalism. You need to do a bit of research so that you will be able to separate classical liberalism (modern conservativism) from modern liberalism. They are two entirely different things. Classical liberalism is freedom "from" while modern liberalism is freedom "to". There is a vast difference.

Spell it out for me then. From your arguments here I see little difference between libertarianism and conservatism. What is the difference?

Haven't I already done this once or twice in other discussions? The differences remain the same no matter what we are discussing.



I’ll have to answer the rest later…[/QUOTE]

 

[palerider]

Antropologicaly speaking, there have been cultures that legitimized forms of same sex marriage. Now it may be argued that it wasn't "marriage" but - it was some form of same sex union. Preference doesn't even enter in to it. You and I both agreed on an other thread that it was likely biologically based and inate. The only way I could agree to no "same sex legitimized marriages" would be if the government played absolutely no role in marriage and there were no extra benefits (pensions to survivors, taxes, inheritance issues, the ability to visit a partner in hospital as immediate family etc.) - but that won't happen. I don't see same-sex marriage as anything less then an extension of some very basic humanitarian principles and of equality. It hurts no one - it benefits a small but significant portion of our society.

There is a difference between accepting same sex relationships and redefining one of the pillars of a society.

Is there really a difference? I think that argument is dissegenius. Certainly in a "modern liberal" society you could also opt to leave and find someplace that fits your value. But you deny it - you choose to portray "a modern liberal society" as totally authoritarian - not allowing it's citizens to leave while portraying a modern conservative society as open and allowing it's citizens to leave.

Where would that be without leaving your country?

Yes, I am denying. It in no way fits the definition of a religion and, as I understand it (not taken from some hysterical rightwing religious propaganda) - it is nothing more then keep religion the hell out of government on the one hand, and allow religions (all of them) freedom to worship where and how they choose to free of government interference and taxation (as long as they don't violate the rights to others). Render unto Ceasor.

Then some research is due on your part. Even the supreme court has stated that secularism is a religion. Read the secularist manifesto. They even call themselves religious humanists. Secularism is a religiion and modern liberalism does use the power of government to enforce it on the population beginning with indoctrination in the religion from the earliest school years.

Yes I do. I believe that those emotions lie dormant in a segment of our society. Look at the ethnic and racial explosions that occured with major political changes such as in the Balkans. They were dormant - repressed - but never addressed.

And you believe that forcing relationships will make things better? Forcing only drives the emotions below the surface where they can not be adequately processed and dealt with. Modern liberalism does not allow the issues to be addressed. Anyone who attempts to address them in public is labled intolerant, racist, homophobic, etc.

I have difficulties with your definitions Palerider. On the one hand - I suspect I truly do not agree with some or much of "modern liberalism" but on the other I most certainly disagree with what I see as "modern conservatism" (would that be neo-conservative, paleo-conservative?????? All these terms!)

I don't believe that you really have a grasp of what conservativism is. It certainly isn't neo conservativism. Neo conservativism is free market liberalism. Neo conservatives are ex liberals who have come to realise that the free market is better than the authoritarian economics of modern liberalism. They have not given up their nanny state ideals which are modern liberal holdovers.

Just as one example. I always associated conservatism with isolationism - the use of the military only in defense..."peace, commerce, and friendship with other nations, while having no entangling alliances with them...". Certainly NOTHING like the imperialistic and hawkish behavior of modern conservatives.

Again, you don't have a good grasp of what conservativism is. You are confusing much of it with neo conservativism. Conservativism is classical liberalism and it isn't diffidult to research classical liberalism. The issue of the use of military, however, has changed. When one has an enemy that hides within the population, and is willing and eager to kill civillians to make a point, and is willing to kill them in the millions if they are able, common sense dictates that one take pre emptive action rather than waiting to be attacked before one responds.

You are right...but what would it be? It wouldn't exactly be conservatism either.

It would be adrift. Without the demand for equality, what exactly would liberalism stand for?

 

[palerider]

even when the majority of the population supports a single idea, such as this child care funding, here goes the right wing president shooting it down...quaint.

Demonstrate that the majority believes that childcare should be paid for out of the public purse. And if you can do that, demonstrate that it should be paid for out of the public purse.

The right didn't bring them back in line either...your point?

I made my point. Do you have a rebuttal or not?

who stops preachers from being on the corner, it's all fine and dandy with me as long as they aren't risking inciting riot, being libelous, or otherwise causing risk of violence. The same goes for all.

The law. And we aren't really discussing what is alright with you, this is about the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism.

I'm arguing it's better for the fed to allow gays to marry, since that isn't violating property rights of others, so why are we arguing again? oh yeah, you flip flop more than shoe vendor on the beach.

Allowing gays to marry involves actually redefining a word and granting special rights to a small group of people based on nothing more than their sexual preference.

I am the most consistent person you are ever likely to encounter. If you believe that I flip flop, then you have a reading comprehension problem. But feel free to bring some examples of flip flops on my part forward if you believe they are out there.

it has everything to do with liberalism, stop muxing the word. the dictionary definition? "An ideology that rejects authoritarian government and defends freedom of speech, association, and religion as well as the right to own property. Liberalism evolved during the ENLIGHTMENT and became the dominant political idea of the nineteenth century. ..."

Clearly, this discussion is over your head. I have made the case that modern liberalism can't help but become authoritarian and have given example after example. And you come here with a dictionary definition and expect it to support your position?

Learn the difference between modern liberalism and classical liberalism. They are as different as night and day. You are a modern liberal. I am a classical liberal.

and that is no different that those who say the constitution clearly allows homosexual marriage, but then those guys are just left wing nutters right?

The constitution doesn't grant anyone the right to marry.

no one is forced to interact, however you cannot force segregation, that's the key. Sure you can keep whomever you want out of your house and remain legit, but in the workplace intentional segregation should definitely not be espoused. It should be dealt with harshly in fact.

Of course they are. Quotas do exactly that. Modern liberalism does, in fact, force people to interact and you, yourself, have just suggested that anyone who does not capitulate should be dealt with harshly. You have just demonstrated the reality of the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism.

Wrong, there are secular governments that contain within themselves members of various religions, this is paradoxical to state that they now have two religions....it doesn't really work that way.

Secularism is a religion and no less than the supreme court has stated as much.

 

[palerider]

or 'Social/Political/Ideological equals'...[/B]

Equality only exists at the lowest common denominator. The authoritarian nature of modern liberalism derives directly from that fact.