So I heard somebody a while back say: "I consider myself to be a Liberal, but I don't always agree with Liberal views. For example, I'm against gun control."
It bothers me the way "Liberals" today (or, at least, people calling themselves "Liberals") misunderstand the semantics of the term "Liberal". Somehow gun CONTROL is now something LIBERALS believe in. Obviously, this makes no sense. Liberalism is for the preservation of liberties, not the enactment of authoritarian controls.
I've also noticed how some of these so-called "Liberals" seem to believe there has been a sort of propaganda campaign to transform the word "Liberal" into a pejorative, and so they feel the need to say something to the effect of "I'm a Liberal and proud of it", or some such nonsense. The irony is that these people have co-opted the term "Liberal" and while they may claim to be advocating for liberties, they are, in reality, groupthink conformists united mostly by what they are told they should be against, and stand for little else.
I know this is nothing new to anybody on this forum, but sometimes the misuse of these terms (elsewhere) really just bug me.
The term was redefined in the progressive era to mean the opposite. It's straight-out-of-1984 doublespeak. The term is not supposed to actually change it's meaning, but to lose it's meaning. If there is no word to describe that you are for individual freedom, then you can't make that argument.
All liberals should uphold liberalised (i.e. a lack of) gun laws as well as greater political freedoms in general but progressive taxation and the welfare state are perfectly consistent with the ideology which was born out of the French Revolution and was associated with ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity. Liberalism in the Hayekian sense is one respective strain of the ideology.
EvilSocialistFellow: but progressive taxation and the welfare state are perfectly consistent with the ideology which was born out of the French Revolution
I can think of a few classical French liberals who would disagree with this statement.
That is the first good argument I have heard for the American usage of the term liberal ever. French revolutionary leftists were statists about taxation and the welfarism. As such the Hayekian usage of the term came later and is not "the original one". But then we would have to change what it says in the dictionary, because liberal no longer means an advocate of individual freedom. You would for example have to admit that the Nazis were liberals. At some point it comes down to what the word means. Authoritarianism isn't liberal, or you are not referring to the word that is defined in the dictionary. Or succumbing to doublethink. Clearly a state monopoly on guns is not "liberalized".
Well it is a very large umbrella term. And though I like the word there is a very real direct link between insane American Revolutionaries (Thomas Paine, etc) and the beyond insane French revolutionaries to the socialists, to every modern political institution we have today. Yesterdays Whigs are todays Progressives I'm afraid, that's just the way the liberal zeitgeist seems flow.
then we would have to change what it says in the dictionary, because liberal no longer means an advocate of individual freedom
No, liberalism is about political freedom; it freely embraces both right and left wing ideologies alike so your terminology is not incorrect.
Right, so not all the early liberals were progressive (I didn't suggest or mean to suggest that).
You would for example have to admit that the Nazis were liberals
I just saw this, and no, I wouldn't say that. Liberalism is about political freedom (though admittedly not individualism) and therefore inconsistent with nazism.
The only exception I can think of would be neoliberalism which emphasises economic liberalism (to a degree) but not political freedom.
filc: EvilSocialistFellow: but progressive taxation and the welfare state are perfectly consistent with the ideology which was born out of the French Revolution I can think of a few classical French liberals who would disagree with this statement.
It is true, though. There is a difference between the French Enlightment - a rationalist discours - that gave birth to all different kinds of rationalist (social) philosophies, amongst which a specific kind of liberalism.
The French revolution, on the other hand, was the glorification of democracy, the striving for material equality and interventionism.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
EmperorNero: That is the first good argument I have heard for the American usage of the term liberal ever. French revolutionary leftists were statists about taxation and the welfarism. As such the Hayekian usage of the term came later and is not "the original one". But then we would have to change what it says in the dictionary, because liberal no longer means an advocate of individual freedom. You would for example have to admit that the Nazis were liberals. At some point it comes down to what the word means. Authoritarianism isn't liberal, or you are not referring to the word that is defined in the dictionary. Or succumbing to doublethink. Clearly a state monopoly on guns is not "liberalized". Frederique Bastiat was a leftist. The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is. | Post Points: 20
Most so called "liberals" (I call them libruls) are only for privileges, not liberties. Liberty is a double speak to fog the masses, like when people talk about heaven and all those wonderful things that awaits us while at the same time making real hell on earth, killing and raping in holy wars.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
There can be no meaningful social freedom without a large degree of economic freedom
AdrianHealey:Frederique Bastiat was a leftist.
@EvilSocialistFellow ..You keep using the phrase "political freedom", I wonder if you might clarify what you mean?
'Left' and 'right' originate themselves in the French parliament.
Bastiat was on the left side. He was a left wing radical.
InFactWeTrust: @EvilSocialistFellow ..You keep using the phrase "political freedom", I wonder if you might clarify what you mean?
Generally freedom from a fascistic government. Some liberals may be progressives who advocate a redistributive welfare scheme (and arguably increased government intervention) but they should also, by name of "liberal" advocate greater social freedoms such as equal rights for women, homosexualities and ethnic minorities and also be opposed to restrictions on social freedoms such as restrictions on drugs, guns, etc. They should also advocate reformed justice systems that advocate rehabilitation rather than punishment and also advocate freedom of speech and secular state/politics. That is the *general gist* of it. So basically they have socially liberal stances (namely liberty, equality and solidarity) but are not *necessarily* economically liberal; the likes of Hayek and Mises, though were both. They are different from socialists, of course who advocate collectivisation of the means of production/workplace democracy; they generally uphold basic market structures and perhaps even elements of free trade. The UK Lib-Dem party are centre-right in their politics.
EvilSocialistFellow:Generally freedom from a fascistic government.
Gun control is fascism, income taxation is fascism, welfare is fascism. It's not a slander, originally the term was positive.
EvilSocialistFellow:Some liberals may be progressives who advocate a redistributive welfare scheme (and arguably increased government intervention)
Which is incompatible, if they support fascistic government they are not liberals.
EvilSocialistFellow:but they should also, by name of "liberal" advocate greater social freedoms such as equal rights for women, homosexualities and ethnic minorities
If it's imposed through the government it's fascistic even if it's in the name of tolerance.
EvilSocialistFellow:They should also advocate reformed justice systems that advocate rehabilitation rather than punishment
If anything it's more authoritarian to have the government meddle with your rehab and impose it's morality than to have objective standards for punishing crimes and get over with it. Would you say that more lenient punishment is generally more liberal?
Gun control is fascism, income...
I specifically stated no gun control. With respect you have a rather one sided view of fascism. In fact fascism is supposed to incorporate a corporatist economic order with a position somewhere between laissez-faire capitalism on one hand and bureacratic state socialism on the other. It is in social realms where fascism becomes authoritarian (though to be fair corporatism is fairly authoritarian as well).
You seem to have a one dimensional analysis as a Left = 100% government control and Right = 0% government control (which I can tell you is an incredibly common [and annoying] perception among rightists). There is a massive distinction between being socially liberal and economically liberal.
EmperorNero: Gun control is fascism, income taxation is fascism, welfare is fascism. It's not a slander, originally the term was positive.
I specifically stated no gun control.
I misunderstood your earlier post on the matter, I thought you referred to liberalized as "free from guns". But then you agree that the term liberal is misused as a reference to the American left on this issue..
With respect you have a rather one sided view of fascism. In fact fascism is supposed to incorporate a corporatist economic order with a position somewhere between laissez-faire capitalism on one hand and bureacratic state socialism on the other. It is in social realms where fascism becomes authoritarian (though to be fair corporatism is fairly authoritarian as well).
That's precisely what I mean by fascism. In state socialism the state outright owns the factories, if it just taxes and regulates them that's fascism. Thus income taxation and regulation of industry is specifically fascistic. As such most policies of progressivism are fascistic.
Actually I didn't mention any left-right paradigm at all. But that is my perception. How would you say this is wrong?
EmperorNero: That's precisely what I mean by fascism. In state socialism the state outright owns the factories, if it just taxes and regulates them that's fascism. Thus income taxation and regulation of industry is specifically fascistic. As such most policies of progressivism are fascistic.
Using common words in new and controversial meanings, doesn't help communication.
You are familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty? Stop doing that, please.
Please keep adhering to the difference between corporatism, fascism, interventionism and socialism (and syndicalism). It'll make conversations easier.
Yep, so liberals should, in general support political freedom and yes, I agree that liberalism is misunderstood by the American Left (but only in social terms, not economic terms).
Corporatism isn't the same as state socialism.
Actually I didn't mention any left-right paradigm at all. But that is my perception. How would you say this is wrong
You didn't mention it but I can tell that is your accepted model from things you keep saying. And I disagree with your one dimensional political spectrum because I consider myself a libertarian socialist.
Using common words in new and controversial meanings, doesn't help communication. You are familiar with the story of Humpty Dumpty? Stop doing that, please. Please keep adhering to the difference between corporatism, fascism, interventionism and socialism (and syndicalism). It'll make conversations easier.
I don't think those are new or incorrect meanings. They may be controversial, but the terms are often misused. Is what I described above not accurate? Fascism is state 'engineering' of a propertarian society. Therefore it is corporatist, big corporations need a private property system to exist, but they also need government regulation to not be swept away by competition.
Fascism is national, corporatism and a strong authoritarian state rolled into one. Liberalism is about political freedom and has progressive strains as well as propertarian strains. Socialism is about workplace democracy; state socialism advocates a state as a transitional phase while libertarian socialism does not. Yeah, you need to differentiate between these terms.
You don't disagree with what I stated. Fascism is, as you say, the middle ground between bureaucratic state socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
Right, but nothing to do with liberalism, therefore.
Although classical liberals were more libertarian than modern day liberals it is playing 'no true scottsman' to claim that modern liberals and Progressives are not descendents from classical liberalism which is, itself, largely descendended from dissenters and republicans of earlier centuries. Just because they disagree with libertarians does not mean that modern liberals do not embody many elements present in classical liberalism, to claim classical liberalism as though we are the only 'true' heirs is disingenuous in the extreme and displays an ignorance of intellectual history.
The French Revolutionaries were, yes, classical liberals - as were the American 'founding fathers'. As has been pointed out by many sources, including a recent Lew Rockwell podcast, the 'founding fathers' were quite simply not libertarian; even the most libertarian among them had a streak of what we would recognize as 'modern' liberalism.
As upsetting as it may be that modern liberals have the same origin as libertarians it is the truth and to deny it is nonsense. The moralizing, managerial, statist, popular government element has been present in classical liberalism since before it was classical liberalism.
Logan Ferree's 'The Constitution as Libertarian Myth' is excellent on this point:
To equate libertarianism with the classical liberalism that influenced our Founding Fathers is a philosophical error. While no doubt many classical liberals call themselves libertarians today, the modern movement has been heavily influenced by Austrian economics and Murray Rothard and takes a far more negative view of the state than the old men with wigs who wrote the Constitution. Even the minarchists who stop short of outright anarchism and the abolition of the state would have been seen as the most radical of radicals in the early Republic; they would have made the Locofocos look mainstream. John Locke, Adam Smith and the rest of the classical liberal gang did express a mistrust of state power and its granting of monopolistic privilege, but they also supported a state for the maintenance of law and order in the face of natural anarchy. A quick glance at the Constitution reveals that the Founding Fathers, far from consistently favoring a system that viewed the state as a necessary evil, saw a role for government to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." ... Libertarianism is something new, there is nothing classical about it. As I illustrated above, the classically liberal constitution granted Congress the explicit ability to grant patents and lay tariffs, two of the four cornerstones of privilege and statism according to Benjamin Tucker. And it left unchallenged the system of privilege in the land and money monopolies, although the period of free banking in the antebellum republic probably did come close to breaking the latter. By opposing the statist status quo, the libertarian movement no doubt appeals to those that still have a classically liberal view of politics. But the libertarian movement is larger than just that, it holds a radically skeptical view of government's ability to promote the general welfare without creating privilege and inequality. Following through this critique of government to its natural ends arguable will result in anarchist conclusions, but libertarianism still has the perception of being minarchist. I don't think it matters if libertarianism advertises itself as explicitly minarchist or anarchist, the critique of government is the founding principle and it is what distinguishes it from classical liberalism. Much as modern day Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism developed out of radically different Temple Judaism over two millennium ago, modern day liberalism and libertarianism share a similar ancestry. But ancestry does not mean that they are one and the same, libertarianism has expanded on classical liberalism's critique of government while modern liberalism has instead focused on classical liberalism's belief in democracy and the ability to govern with a mind toward the common good. Classical liberalism held both of these seemingly paradoxical principles, with some followers leaning more toward one or the other. Following the abortive attempt by Hamilton and the Federalists to establish a truly conservative society in the Americas, most of our political debate has been within the range of liberalism. While adopting some of the programs of Hamilton, the American System of Clay was designed to encourage broad economic growth and intensification, not a new aristocratic elite. This is illustrated by Clay and the Whigs favoring high tariffs, which would have a widespread impact in benefiting all domestic manufacturers of the protected good, in contrast to Hamilton's support for subsidies and bounties that, like today's agricultural subsidies, would benefit larger producers at the expense of the small independent artisan.
To equate libertarianism with the classical liberalism that influenced our Founding Fathers is a philosophical error. While no doubt many classical liberals call themselves libertarians today, the modern movement has been heavily influenced by Austrian economics and Murray Rothard and takes a far more negative view of the state than the old men with wigs who wrote the Constitution. Even the minarchists who stop short of outright anarchism and the abolition of the state would have been seen as the most radical of radicals in the early Republic; they would have made the Locofocos look mainstream. John Locke, Adam Smith and the rest of the classical liberal gang did express a mistrust of state power and its granting of monopolistic privilege, but they also supported a state for the maintenance of law and order in the face of natural anarchy. A quick glance at the Constitution reveals that the Founding Fathers, far from consistently favoring a system that viewed the state as a necessary evil, saw a role for government to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
...
Libertarianism is something new, there is nothing classical about it. As I illustrated above, the classically liberal constitution granted Congress the explicit ability to grant patents and lay tariffs, two of the four cornerstones of privilege and statism according to Benjamin Tucker. And it left unchallenged the system of privilege in the land and money monopolies, although the period of free banking in the antebellum republic probably did come close to breaking the latter. By opposing the statist status quo, the libertarian movement no doubt appeals to those that still have a classically liberal view of politics. But the libertarian movement is larger than just that, it holds a radically skeptical view of government's ability to promote the general welfare without creating privilege and inequality. Following through this critique of government to its natural ends arguable will result in anarchist conclusions, but libertarianism still has the perception of being minarchist. I don't think it matters if libertarianism advertises itself as explicitly minarchist or anarchist, the critique of government is the founding principle and it is what distinguishes it from classical liberalism.
Much as modern day Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism developed out of radically different Temple Judaism over two millennium ago, modern day liberalism and libertarianism share a similar ancestry. But ancestry does not mean that they are one and the same, libertarianism has expanded on classical liberalism's critique of government while modern liberalism has instead focused on classical liberalism's belief in democracy and the ability to govern with a mind toward the common good. Classical liberalism held both of these seemingly paradoxical principles, with some followers leaning more toward one or the other. Following the abortive attempt by Hamilton and the Federalists to establish a truly conservative society in the Americas, most of our political debate has been within the range of liberalism. While adopting some of the programs of Hamilton, the American System of Clay was designed to encourage broad economic growth and intensification, not a new aristocratic elite. This is illustrated by Clay and the Whigs favoring high tariffs, which would have a widespread impact in benefiting all domestic manufacturers of the protected good, in contrast to Hamilton's support for subsidies and bounties that, like today's agricultural subsidies, would benefit larger producers at the expense of the small independent artisan.
there is a very real direct link between insane American Revolutionaries (Thomas Paine, etc) and the beyond insane French revolutionaries to the socialists, to every modern political institution we have today.there is a very real direct link between insane American Revolutionaries (Thomas Paine, etc) and the beyond insane French revolutionaries to the socialists, to every modern political institution we have today.
Although I agree with you that most modern (at least Western) political ideologies and institutions stem from liberalism, I would not characterize Thomas Paine as 'insane'. He had a sound critique of centralized government, including that of Washington, and would have detested the busy-bodies in power today. That being said it is valid to criticize him, for while he was quite perceptive to centralized or 'right wing' tyranny he was, like Orwell, virtually oblivious to left-wing tyranny, or what Sam Francis used to call 'anarcho-tyranny'. Paine put far too much trust in the common man's ability to make sane political decisions.
EvilSocialistFellow:Right, but nothing to do with liberalism, therefore.
If you agree with that meaning of fascism, you agree that what people call liberalism in the US is fascism.
All liberals should uphold liberalised (i.e. a lack of) gun laws as well as greater political freedoms in general but progressive taxation and the welfare state are perfectly consistent with the ideology which was born out of the French Revolution and was associated with ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Liberalism predates the French Revolution. I consider myself a liberal, BTW.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
In terms of chronology and intellectual history the Fascist, National Socialist and Soviet regimes drew heavily and openly open Wilsonian Progressivism, which is a species of liberalism; and in the specific case of Italy many of the 'fascist' policies were derived from the liberal-democratic government previously in control of the country. Thus it is not so much that modern liberalism is fascistic as that Fascism was a liberal ideology.
This should not be surprising. Let's look at some of the main innovations of classical liberalism as a whole:
Have you heard of the political compass?
Progressive Liberalism: http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&newname=Progressive+Liberalism&newec=-5&newsoc=-5
Propertarian Liberalism: http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&newname=Propertarian+Liberalism&newec=5&newsoc=-5
State Socialism, Fascist Corporatism and Laissez-faire Capitalism: http://www.politicalcompass.org/crowdchart.php?showform=&Fascism=2%2C9&State+Socialism=-10%2C10&newname=Laissez-faire+Capitalism&newec=10&newsoc=-10
Liberalism, is by necessity socially liberal; fascist liberalism is a load of rubbish.
Political compasses are hogwash. 'Socially liberal' is also a term which, I suspect, means either 'accepting a left-wing agenda' or nothing at all.
Political compasses are hogwash.
I agree, but probaby for different reasons to you. I only used it to express my point; that liberalism is not the same as fascist liberalism in any shape or form.
'Socially liberal' is also a term which, I suspect, means either 'accepting a left-wing agenda' or nothing at all.
All social liberalism means is rights for oppressed minorities, freedom to drink alcohol, take drugs, etc. Furthermore, none of that has to be imposed by a government. Its not the same as economic liberalism.
If you agree with that meaning of fascism, you agree that what people call liberalism in the US is fascism.Liberalism, is by necessity socially liberal; fascist liberalism is a load of rubbish.
Fascism is an economic position, fascists can be socially liberal.
Double-post, but I will expand my point here:
Both 'conservatives' and 'liberals' in America are descended from Classical Liberalism, they have 90% of all views in common, and both groups are statist, moralizing busy-bodies who love the police and military. Any variation thereof is almost always purely rhetorical. Frankly I find both of them somewhat repulsive.
Its not the same as economic liberalism.
There is no difference between 'economic' and 'social' liberty. All rights are property and contract rights, all actions are economic.
Furthermore there are many modern liberals who promote restrictions on what you are allowed to eat, where and when you are allowed to smoke, taxes on these, restrictions on the comsumptoin and production of pornography, etc. There quite simply is no meaning to your so-called ' social liberalism'.
Bastiat a Leftist? I've herd it all...