It has always been generally assumed that everyone has a faculty to choose what to do or say, by Liberals and non-Liberals, that eludes political speculation. Here the discussion is about an ideology, which can be seen as designing a scheme for people to live together. Now, as long as it’s about petty lies, like if I say that I am fluent in Polish, I may taint my reputation, but I guess that under no form of government I would be persecuted. But when lying becomes cheating, notably against a contract or in front of a judge, or whatever leads to harm someone else, that’s a bit different. It is exactly because individuals are assumed to be free to lie or not, to do right or wrong, that they are held responsible for their deeds before the law.
For what I know about Liberalism, I used to think that all forms of Liberalism (“true”, “classic”, “basic”…) grants freedom of speech, of religion, and of a lot of practical things, such as movement, choosing education and profession, and so on. I have never understood Liberalism implies granting impunity. Is that what you maintain instead? Unfettered freedom to develop means freedom of offence?
Let’s go back for a moment to the OP.
So, in order to help the uneducated to know what they believe in, the ‘liberal’ politician should address his constituency, or the people in general, with something like “We aim at building a place where everyone can take what one fancies by force, definitely if that is in the best interest of one’s children. Economy will thrive through social unrest. The bottom line is: freedom for those who can”?
What’s the point of asking whether water should be privatized when every non-owner can take possession by exerting violence, and keep it as long as the next one comes on? What would be the point of regulating or not if any regulation can’t be enforced?
Freedom implies offense, yes. Libertarianism is an extension of extreme liberalism, that modern people should become “as free as possible” and “as long as they’re not hurting anybody else” as the caveat. This proves to me that liberalism has extended about as far as it can. Without frontier societies, with areas to be “lawless”, humanity becomes repressed and self-constraining. Freedom becomes slavery when trapped in cages. Libertarianism wants modern day people to remain as free as possible too. These “freedoms”, meaning positive benefits, means privileges. One person is “free” to do this or that, or simply, has privileges/rites to do this or that.
I believe the ‘Libertarian’ mindset comes from the new age environment of virtual realities. Young generations are “free” in virtual worlds, games, video games, computer simulations, etc. Because freedom is disallowed physically, and Western monopolies have established (such as oil companies, Exxon-Mobile, etc), then young generations become too introverted and anti-social (autism).
The bottom-line is correct, but, a politician would not be so honest with his message. Liberals are forced into double-standards and hypocrisy quite often. Because freedom and liberation mean different thing to almost every individual. Freeing of what, of which specific values? Should pedophiles be “free”, for example, or other sexual perversions? Yet to speak of freedom and liberty openly, appeals to all humans in this regard, as a recitation to inner desires.
This is why liberalism is so appealing to young people, and their ideals.
Water privatization is the example of advanced Corporatism and Monopolies quickly manifesting and solidifying in the new world and new age. Thus “liberalism” becomes redundant as people, actually, become far less “free” than before. Thus there is talk in some parts of the world, like the third world, to exploit their water or even oxygen (“carbon emissions”), thereby taxing people for clean water and air usage.
Perhaps someday, in some countries, fresh clean water and air will become a luxury that fewer and fewer can afford. This is already partially true.
Liberalism, premised on freedom, is a masculine trait, of rebellion, toward chaos, and destroying order. Destruction of all barriers. All things, all ideals, become possible.
Conservatism then, is feminine. Conservatism focuses on law and order, safety, and security. Females astoundingly favor and amass around structures of orderly power.
Extreme liberalism is childishness in that a person cannot become anything he or she wants. A boy cannot become a woman. A girl cannot become a man. However modern liberalism, neo-liberalism, begs to differ. Neoliberalism advances further, they call “progress”, that anybody can become anything. So neoliberals will claim that, yes, women can be men and men can be women, leading to Transexuality and other perverse forms of indoctrination being taught to children. Can a human become a lizard, a bird, an attack helicopter? Neoliberals feed into such delusions, to advance their chaotic ideology of absolute freedom. It’s complete idealism.
Thus conservatism is premised on realism. Individuals and groups have nature. It is pointless to corrupt and twist one nature, to prove a point. Liberals want to overturn nature. Thus modern liberalism has many Christian and religious elements absorbed into it. Liberal-Christianity is indoctrinated to believe that God overturns Nature. Mankind is more powerful than nature. Thus, they are inclined to prove their Blank Slate Theory, that anybody can become anything. This is the motivation and core drive, of many adherents to liberalism. This can be called a perversion of Nature.
It is not until liberalism is mixed with realism and reality, that it can become a noble aspiration. It is one thing to want to twist and corrupt nature. It is another thing, a different category, to want to express the nature of a thing, body, or organism to its fullest. Therefore, a balance is needed.
To properly educate and nourish an organism, first that organism must be recognized, identified, and classified. Its nature must be exposed. Without knowing the nature of things, without reality first, a thing cannot grow to its fullest potential. It cannot be nurtured efficiently.
Thus, two elements of liberalism are opposed. While liberalism can be noble in attempting to nurture a thing to its fullest potential, it can be misguided when twisting the nature of things, or failing to recognize what a thing is. Liberals, without a solid grasp of Nature, don’t stand a chance.
I will call this difference “Natural Liberalism”, the ideal to bring out the potential of things properly, versus “Artificial Liberalism”, which is to corrupt, twist, and pervert Nature, usually politically motivated, like showboating eunuchs and castrated males in front of a crowd, pretending that they are now females and women because their privates have been cut off and mutiliated. Artificial Liberalism is very perverse, and call it their “Goodness”. Perversion is Good to Artificial Liberals. They are Anti-Nature, a deep seated resentiment and hatred of the lives they are born into. Because they hate their lives so desperately, they believe that most other humans do too, and so it spurns the overall ideology forward.
Artificial Liberalism, Anti-Nature sentiments, have grown very powerful in recent, modern times. It can be called Nihilism too.
Natural Liberalism, a nobler aspect of Liberal ideology, can also be corrupted and bent. It sounds noble to want to nurture a thing or body to its fullest potential, correct? To produce a magnificent garden, tree, orchard, farm, is Natural Liberalism. You want to grow your crops and vegetables to their fullest potential. Natural Liberalism leads to powerful demonstrations. Giant horses, pigs, dogs are paraded about by farmers. They’ve produced superior organisms through strict and rigid breeding processes, feeding, and constant micro-management. Natural liberalism leads to some extraordinary developments.
Nazism, Hitler, and Germany’s Nietzsche inspiration to “free the willpower” of the nation, is Natural Liberalism. To bring out the best in people. It sounds great, until Nature is reviewed and acknowledged.
What does it mean to “free the will” of a warrior? He will go to War. He will make War. He will spread War over the entire earth. Thus, it is Good to nurture such a warrior completely? Or, ought the will be curtailed and suppressed? Ought the wings of a bird be clipped?
How about the sexual deviant, the pedophile, the necrophile, the child-molesters? Ought their sexuality be nourished to its full potential? Ought the nature of men, to ravage and infiltrate, be nourished to full? Or, do you limit and restrict the feeding? Instead of feeding a child to full, do you intentionally serve 3/4 or 1/2 portions?
To what degree ought you water your garden? Natural Liberalism is about over-watering, with chaotic results.
Excellence for the sake of Excellence, can be evil. You have to first recognize the Nature of a thing. To nourish a criminal, a murderer, a rapist, will produce exactly that.
I can understand a politician would have a problem to speak his mind, if that is what s-he has in mind. By the way, I take your other answer to be: “yes, Liberalism is for granting impunity to offenders”.
In the OP you stated that “politics ought to be much clearer for those institutionalized and still uneducated”. But, if the liberal politician is admittedly a hypocrite, how would you reasonably expect s-he to be clearer? Then, how would people know what they believe in if they are not told it like it is?
I don’t see the answer.
If Liberalism is taking ownership of resources by any means available without meeting consequences by authority, how would clean water or clean air remain free, is ‘free’ means available to anyone and not ready for the taking, not indulging any kind of appetite? How would then any form of regulation subsist?
So, growing to the full potential only with a proper understanding of nature. And who decides what is ‘proper’? Who ‘properly educates’? Hypocrite politicians that admit cheating as a fair practice? Irrational youngsters high on their whims? Nazi gardeners?
I also infer that actually natural Liberalism is not really about freedom of opinion.
What would make the ‘articial’ ideal wrong, if
?
Because they are not ‘masculine’? Because they are corrupted, perverted, ‘unnatural’? Because
?
So that is what this thread is about: Nazism is the true noble Liberalism?
It’s not about impunity. It’s about competition. If people become “free” then what will they do? They’ll immediately start competing, possibly violently.
People ought to at least know these core concepts, the values of groups and ideologies, of politics and politicians, and also the historical and philosophical roots as well. That would be the “proper education” before engaging in politics, arguments, conflicts, diplomacy, etc.
That’s exactly the point. Liberalism leads to Conservatism. Once you gain power, once you acquire, like gaining ownership of resources, then what next except to doll out and divide those resources as a system or government sees fit? It’s not about equality, per se. Liberalism does imply the acquisition of those resources, though. It’s not within the right of the liberal to dictate the conservative ought to be done with his resources. Ownership is critical.
Philosophy is proper education, including those who are authentically and honestly interested in knowledge, and how to apply it.
Not necessarily, the point is this. If it is the nature of German people, the Celtic race of indo-europeans to be industrialists and warriors, then cultivating and freeing their willpower, will result in great industry and also catastrophic warfare. The nature of different races is apparent to those who take off veil of modern thinking. Some people have a superior nature to do different tasks, to have different goals, to perform, to behave, like this or that.
If a society needs scientists, or values science, then the nature of those people, to nurture them, would raise up the natural value.
OK, not necessarily Nazism. Yet neither Liberalism, at least “as we know it”. It is sufficiently clear that you have borrowed an established brand to label something that it is entirely your brew. Well, do as it pleases you, but surely it does not help clarity.
Regardless, I have no major comment on your ‘point’, it rests on assumptions I find problematic, but that’s not necessarily an objection.
It makes sense asserting that impunity is not the goal. Nevertheless the inference that what you call Liberalism grants impunity to offenders (even if it’s only a by-product) is wholly legitimate. By the way, there may be netter words than competition, which normally implies that there are (enforced) rules.
Maybe your ‘Liberalism’… which is quite doubtful anyway. An ideology normally is the background for one of more policies. If there’s anything like a policy in what you have exposed, that would be chaos. Or maybe not, you refer to many ‘open questions’.
Thinking to other acceptions of it, and referring notably to Adam Smith, then I don’t think it is as you put it. On the contrary, this is the great trick of Liberalism: economic growth. Ressouces are ever increasing (even energy), because work makes them so. And work makes them so because is propped by ethic, a special one, which does require respecting contracts as sacred. Weber’s Spirit of Capitalism opens with a letter by Benjamin Franklin to his son, he wished him to be no marauder, quite the opposite. This very law-abiding ethics allows banking on the future and the economy expand. So, in as much as law-abiding is conservatism, then you are right. But that’s not the outcome, it’s the inception, the premisse.
Sounds platonic…
If there is this noble aspiration to unrestricted freedom and even to promote conflict against the resident authority, it is not clear on what ground this people would freely accept a ‘proper’ education designed by someone else, while relativism should be the obvious outcome. My take is that at the end of the day this freedom is only useful as a rebellion against a degenerate morality - ample excerpts of your disgust can be taken out of your posts. Freedom is not the goal. The governing principle is that out of chaos true nature will prevail and restore the ‘proper’ order. And I have formed an opinion about this ‘natural’ too. You appeal to an order in nature so that a supersize pig, which is made by tampering with genetics and/or engineered diet, is good, but transexuality is not. Yet neither of them is ‘natural’. The ‘good potential’ of the pig against the ‘wrong potential’ of the transexual is the outcome of a moral appreciation. As such it would appear that in your ‘proper’ education knowledge is very little involved.
But am I wrong? So far I’ve described the core ideology of Liberalism, and how liberal ideology extends throughout societies, and has other variations. For example, what’s the difference between “Classical Liberalism” and Libertarianism?
Liberalism in the u.s. has resulted in Capitalism, precisely because the “Rights” of the worker were always owned by him. A man is entitled by liberalism to dole out and apply his own labor as he sees fit. In old world nations, european or communist, this is not so. In Socialistic european countries, society owns the labor. In Communism, everybody owns the labor.
Liberalism, in economics, results in the “free market”, and protects workers, and companies, from liability. In the u.s. for example, workers may freely quit and move to different jobs. They are not beholden, by law, to companies, except when entering into legal contracts, and even these can be voided by the supreme court, based on liberal premises of law.
In these contexts, a liberal education necessarily means to raise to the fullest potential of each or any individual. The problem and flaw of this, is identifying the nature of people. Ought this or that nature be raised? This leads into other, deeper question, such that liberals disagree, what is the ‘Nature’ of people or things? Extreme liberalism rejects the idea of Nature altogether, and that anybody can be raised as anything, hence “Blank Slate Theory”.
Extreme Liberalism would argue that Nurturing trumps and overrides Nature itself.
Morality is constraint and slavish. It is rules, laws, order, ethics, that people must abide by. Therefore, morality is Conservative.
A giant pig, or tomato, or apple tree, how is it comparable to the sex acts of transexuals or those wanting to switch gender?
Transexuality proves my points very well. Answer me honestly, can a person change his or her “Nature”? Yes or no?
I don’t agree with your claim to have described the core ideology of Liberalism. I don’t because, if I examine the authors I know, I find that you have conflicting tenets. Actually I think you come nowhere near to Liberalism. And it doesn’t take much science to see that, just check the Liberalism article on wikipedia. (OK, wikipedia is not an unchallengeable authority, but its standard is fairly good; that article can be taken at least as the emergence of a general consensus).
Your attitude to interfere with sexuality, although that would remain in the private life of a person, or the slogan “freedom for those who can”, are fatal flaws for anyone wanting to call himself “Liberal”.
Mainstream Liberals are by no means opposed to rule of law, quite the opposite. They want law to stay out of their opinions, religion, sexuality … but having granted that, Law becomes the best possible compromise to guarantee equality and rights. Where would one find that in your ‘core ideology’?
But if you still think you are right, then just pull out your sources. If what you maintain is anything but your own views styled as “Liberalism”, then point me to those acknowledged liberal thinkers exposing a doctrine encompassing your ‘core ideology’.
That said, what ‘wrong’ would mean exactly? Because if you want to call that Liberalism, it may feel slightly paradoxical, but it’s not a crime. I am not the guardian of liberal orthodoxy, which doesn’t even exist anyway. Ideologies are a sort of collective open work, open also to contradictions. There is no ultimate authority (sure, if one differed from Stalin in the 20’s USSR, that could be dangerous). Then, who knows, maybe there has been a nazi author who stated that Hitler was the most genuine Liberal ever…
I fail to see the relationship between this and what I wrote. Is it an answer, an objection…? Because you now rifer to liberal laws granting rights to workers. That seems quite different from the picture of a liberal ideology that allows all kind of actions, and even approved of them if that was made to develop the potential.
By the way, just out of curiosity, can you name one of those Socialistic European countries where society owns the labor?
OK, let’s not use the word “morality”. I guess you like it better if I use the word “value”. I can live with that.
The answer to your question is not difficult: it depends very much on what you understand by “Nature”.
I guess a transexual would say that changing sex had been the triumph of his/her true nature. That s-he always felt to be a woman/man.
Would s-he be wrong? Uneducated? Maybe… But what would make your anwser ‘honest’ against his/her? Evidence? What is it exactly and who establishes that? The same people who advocate unlimited freedom, even if that takes to the ‘darker side’?
Who asked the pig if it wanted to be a supersized freak? And if the pig was asked, who listened to the answer? May I presume that the answer is: no one?
So the transexual freely choses to change sex, or s-he says so. Yet that is wrong. The superpig asked for nothing, but it’s a triumph of ‘potential’. How is that? Because you have the power to determine the proper nature of both of them? And where would this perfect knowledge come from, given also that identifying the nature is “the problem and the flaw”?
I repeat, in a slightly different way, why I think that the difference between the transexual and the pig is decreed by appealing to values and not to knowledge.
You think the superpig is the fullest expression of its potential, while the transexual can’t be. But both of them are engineerd organisms.
There is not such a thing as the superpig in nature, else the farmers would not parade it. The super pig comes out of selective breeding, or maybe it’s transgenetic. It’s living processed food, possibly also by hormones and a diet designed for supersizing, like a Sumu wrestler. At least transexuals are not breeded… Anyway, there may well be technical differences in how they are obtained, but chosing one over the other can’t rest on knowledge. On the contrary, it may very well depend on some notion of “Nature”. But again, what is that? How can you know what “Nature” is? Or is that what you want it to be? What would be this proper way of development if not what you value as a more desirable outcome?
In the end, this idea of a given, ‘proper’, order that is “Nature”, it’s a metaphysical notion. And not even that, it’s just your ‘values’ in disguise.
I was educated about Liberalism from many, many sources in my life, from personal experiences with liberal people, philosophy professor lectures on Adam Smith and Locke, from philosophy websites, and then my own wading through the ideas and fundamentals. If you have any specific criticisms of my definitions then you’re always welcome to point them out or correct them. Where, exactly, am I wrong?
Is it me who wants to interfere with sexuality? I don’t think so. When people are educated, and promoted, to “be anything you want”, and mass media promotes and tolerates sexual perversions, then it’s not me interfering with sexuality. Transexuality is a focal point for this. To me, a man who dresses as a woman, and or castrates himself, is not a “woman” despite him or society telling me “she” is. Now you may disagree. But that doesn’t mean I’m “limiting freedom” by not playing into the delusion.
Modern liberalism has advanced so far that it takes political stance about people’s personal delusions. Does one person’s beliefs infringe upon another person, do opinions cross, and does that limit freedom? It sounds like you believe so.
You’re contradicting yourself here.
I disagree completely. Liberals who “use law” to “guarantee rights” are crippling and limiting the fundamentals of liberalism. To enforce behaviors and ideas by law, such as “Rights”, means that they become conservative issues and topics. It’s oxymoronic, using “law” to protect “rights”.
In fact, the philosophers and thinkers who developed liberalism, agree with me on this point. They said that law proceeds from rights, not rights from laws. Thus the idea of “Human Rights” for example, is claimed to be natural, derived from nature, and so from that, laws follow. In fact, that is the process for many or most of u.s. laws and legislature. The u.s. system is heavily influenced by liberalism, especially during the first century of the nation.
To liberals, laws proceed from rights, not the other way around. Therefore a “right” is not a law, per se. It may not be recognized, legally. Hence this entitles and encourages liberals to “rebel against tyranny” despite laws.
I pointed out that Nazism was liberal in such that a core aspect of their movement was rebellion, and freeing the will of the german people, which stems from Nietzschean philosophy, which is “The Triumph of the Will”. If the nature of a people is industry and warfare, a warrior nation, then what will “freeing” them do, except, produce industry and warfare?
Socialism and Nationalism, however, are conservative ideologies. So it’s not one or the other. Rarely do people believe in “pure liberalism”. There’s no point to it. Today Modern Liberalism tends to focus on individuality, and catering to the idealism and fantasies of individual people. Perhaps pure liberalism is individualistic and anti-social then.
Most of them do, society owns labor, as European countries are ethnically focused. Compared to the u.s. most or all European countries are heavily socialistic.
Perhaps Great Britain is least socialistic of the European nations.
That’s much of the problem here. What is the “Nature” of a person, is it open to interpretation, and who decides it?
It’s useful to bring sexuality and gender into discussion because many people would agree that sexuality, being male or female, a man or woman, is simply not up for changing. You can’t change your gender. A woman feeling like a man, or a man feeling like a woman, means nothing. Sexuality is not about feelings. But again, am I wrong?
Extreme liberals would say so. They would say that “anybody can become anything”. I will repeat from before, extreme liberalism believes that Nurture trumps Nature, or that mankind is more powerful, and can overturn “Nature”. And some would say that mankind should overturn nature. These propositions are about as ‘liberal’ as a person can get.
It’s just an example, of raising the nature of a thing to its fullest potential.
Here’s another example. A sprinter breaking world records in 100m dash. Or a world record high jumper. The athlete raises the competition to new levels, fuller potentials of capability.
It’s a bad comparison of examples.
Making a giant pig, and a transexual trying to change gender, both may demonstrate core aspects of liberalism, “to bring out the nature of the thing”. But the transexual, specifically, can be wrong and misguided. If a goal is flawed, if making a giant pig, or changing your gender, does not express the nature of the thing, then both are wrong.
Did you consider that, that people can and do mis-identify the nature of things?
International neoliberalism would be something like PETA and other extremist environmentalists, who claim that natural resources are “owned by the world” and willing to protect “endangered species”, as well as other “social justice” movements demanding “women’s rights”, yet do not dare step foot in the Middle East with their ideologies.
Here are a couple examples of international neo-liberals:
If you actually look at both neoconservatives and neoliberals you will see they have many of the same aspirations more than differences where there is the same group of people that controls or funds both.
So you were lectured on Adam Smith and Locke… Would that mean that your ‘core ideology’ is in fact theirs?
No, I don’t aim at correcting you. I suppose you consider yourself a honest knowledge seeker, so I guess that if you think you are wrong you would readily correct yourself. But, actually, are you wrong? Maybe it’s not you, maybe it’s me. So, let’s see some instances where I do not think wou are compatible with Smith, or Locke.
Can you see why I think they are not compatible with your views? Or do I need to explain? (Remeber that all this began with my question on freedom to use violence).
Then, on whether I have specific criticisms. Seriously? And what have I been doing so far? What do you think all my questions about rule of law, honesty, education, “Nature” were for? And I don’t think you answered to all of that. Then, maybe we should also agree on what qualifies as an answer. Twice I argued that both the transexual and the superpig are engineered organism and the line that sets one apart the other is morality (or appealing to values). Have you addressed this point?
Read the quotes above.
OK, it’s a better example. Frankly, it’s definitely not certain that an athlete is not engineered, also using hormones like transexuals do (the WADA could express a competent opinion about that). Anyway, I guess most people are most likely to prefer a sprinter over a transexual. We can also admit that sprinting has a better value for life - life in general - than changing sex. But, as you’d say, that’s exactly the point. These leanings, even when they belong to the majority, must not interfere with personal choices. The majority shall not dictate people how to live (which is a white lie, but that’s how the theory goes). So, it’s well put that a transexual interferes with his/her own sexuality, but it is exactly that: his/her own. In a Liberal system you ought to have no say on his/her own choices to carry on his/her own life. Sure you may think it is wrong, but when your beliefs are taken as a ground to determine his conduct, then you are no longer a liberal. Now, I can see that you referred to education and not to constraint, yet I do not think that it takes you out of the conundrum.
But I don’t see how. Please, show me.
Most of them… but you can’t name one.
“Ethnically focused”? Do you have a definition for that?
Maybe in Europe we are heavily socialistic because people are not asked for a credit card at the entry of a hospital. But aside from that…
I guess that there are firm objections about how historically accurate is your rendering of Nazism. Then, I guess that those who taught you about Nietzsche were the same people who taught you about Smith and Locke (and surely they provided abundant references and quotes where Nietzsche higly praises Germans; poor Germans, anyway, sentenced to wear a spiked helmet forever…).
I agree on this. But that would make the rule of law even more required.
I have a liberal upbringing. In general, I was educated, that people could essentially do what they want or become what they want as people, as long as they work and fight for it. No excuses. No blaming others. Your failures are your own. Dependency on others, or society, or welfare, is a form of weakness and slavishness. Granted some people will always be dependent, and some people will always be weak. But a free society means one that allows individuality and also to nurture each generation to fuller and fuller capacity. This has led to my positive reinforcement of liberalism.
My “core ideology” is philosophical. Liberalism has limits, as all things do. Freedom and choice have limits. “Rights” guaranteed by laws, are not Right to me. As I mentioned, what I learned about liberal philosophers and thinkers was that (western) laws proceed from (god-given inalienable) rights. And that’s u.s. history, of the declaration of independence, and the u.s. constitution. They have religious and spiritual connotations. Ultimately, liberals appeal to authoritarianism “god-given” rights “endowed by our creator” when society challenges or infringes upon individuality.
I disagree with what you said earlier. The more laws a country has, the less free it is and becomes. Therefore liberals ought to be opposed to many laws, or pervasive laws, as possible. A “True Liberal” would be against most or all laws imposed by society. However that is not to say crimes should be permitted, but rather that the nature of enacting laws, and punishing criminals, ought to be challenged. Who is truly Righteous? This aspect of liberalism borrows from Christian traditions. Who has the Right to judge and sentence others?
Are you thinking about these ideas and topic deeply enough?
The first paragraph echoes my first point about hard-work paying off. Liberals generally believe that hard-work ought to pay off, and in a capitalistic society, pay off to the highest degree. Thus middle-men cannot cut into the profits of labor, or society, or monopolies, etc. However these things have changed since the colonization of u.s. Over time, monopolies do develop, welfare grows, and society demands the rewards from individuals’ hard labor.
Theh next paragraphs talk about Justice. It was not about “law” per se, but about acting rightly and good among common people. If people were to do such then they do not need laws in the first place. Laws are imposed and carried out when people act wrongly. My points on liberalism do not conflict with this. Let’s say you have a liberal society. One guy wants to steal from another. He does. Doesn’t this then allow others to steal from him? If one person can harm others with impunity, then others will naturally seek retribution. Liberalism does not have a stance on this. It does not say that people should or should not steal from others, rather, how to consider it if and when it does. How to approach law, order, and punishment.
Purer liberalism would still defend as few laws and legal measures as possible, and probably leave it to the hands of individuals, to enact their own justice. In the u.s. the legal system is modeled around liberal ideology, to take disputes between individuals to judges, and to be judged by their community and peers on the jury. Other legal systems around the world, don’t do this the same way. What can be considered conservative or right-leaning societies, are more theocratic, stronger and older laws, stricter punishments, harsher punishments, less forgiving. If a thief steals in Arabia, his hands are cut off.
Appealing to nature or justice, to justify liberalism, are flawed arguments. It’s the same as appealing to god or any other authority. Locke is basically stating that liberalism has limits. And I agreed with that fundamentally as well. If “Pure Liberalism” was as simple as “do anything you want to anyone at anytime” then the effects are obvious. People would harm each-other accordingly. People already do, anyway, even after the imposition of law is affected and carried out historically. There are many laws in place, many criminals already in jail. Thus the point is moot. Whether you have a free society or not, “Nature” wills itself through crimes regardless. So appealing to nature is a contradiction, when, excessive laws, crime and punishment, cannot stop criminals from being as they are. This leads into…
Yes, the nature of some people or animals becomes apparent over time. If it is the nature of a criminal, to be a criminal, then no amount of laws will stop him anyway. He will step over such laws, slip around, or try to break through.
I, personally, don’t care much about what transexuals do. I view them as modern day eunuchs, many are similar to homosexuals, tormented in many regards, and masochistic. I believe that they, like other sexual deviants, are diseased and ill. The natural drive, heterosexual, is corrupted. But modern society wants to promote and encourage them, to “tolerate” such. This is the liberal aspect. Most liberals justify sexual abnormality with “individual rights”. But as you just mentioned, “a transexual interferes with his/her own sexuality”. This is cause for concern because liberal ideology is lacking and limited.
What does it mean to “change one’s nature” and can it be done? Does a human pretending to be a pig, a monkey, a horse, crawling on four, making neighing sounds, make that human a horse? Does pretending to be a thing, make you that thing? That’s what many liberals gloss over. So today the younger generations are displayed that “pretending to be a thing” is equivalent with being that thing. But it’s wrong because there’s a difference between “embracing your nature” versus “twisting or bending your nature”. The latter is called nihilism, self hatred, to detest one’s own nature, and so the desire, appealing to liberalism, to change nature of oneself.
Extreme liberalism is apparent then. Extreme liberalism does appeal to the young generation, and generations of tomorrow, encouraging such that “yes you can be anything you want!” even when it is a lie, and when it is wrong, and even when it is hurtful to oneself or others. This is one of the main limitations of liberalism I expressed. It fuels delusions and falsity. I believe Locke would agree. He would agree with me that “going against one’s own nature” cannot be supported by liberalism, as it is a contradiction and paradox.
Can the nature of a thing change? Think about it…
Because liberals are opposed to law when they want law to stay out of opinions, religion, sexuality, etc.
My impression of the German folk and history is that it is very conservative and opposed to liberalism.
Liberalism mostly appeals to colonial societies by how laws are not yet formed or enacted. Liberalism is like a new beginning for any society, group, history, civilization, or even individuals. That’s why I connect liberalism with youthfulness and innocence. Liberals value freedom, as the aforementioned groups do too. To be freed from laws and constraints.
The liberal aspect of German and Nazism came from history. World War I imposed heavy restrictions and punishments, fines on Germany, which was breaking them and their spirit. The Nazi party rallied to combat and destroy the “Internationalists”. This was how the Nazi party rose so quickly, and German economy turned around. The German spirit was lifted, and freed, and that is the liberal aspect of what I referred to. However, Germany spoke of society rather than individuality, hence national-socialism, the ideology. So Germany, like other European nations, do not really emphasize the liberty or freedom “of individuals”, but rather of their own ethnic groups and tribes, before others.
Europeans are socialistic for this reason, the group and society > the individual.
Indeed, the American Dream does revolve around “anybody can be anything”.
U.s. liberalism is specific. Liberal-leftists in the u.s. want to educate and nurture young generations to “be anything you want” and so try to stop “racism” the oppression by race and “sexism” the oppression by gender. These are some of the biggest liberal grievances and fights. However I believe they are wrong and misguided. Are races truly oppressed and how? Are women truly oppressed and how? These are rhetorical questions. I’ve already asked them countless times to countless people. Modern liberalism has turned into victim politics. Whoever is the biggest victim, the biggest weakling, the biggest annoyance, receives the most “rights” and compassion from other liberals.
I disagree with this vein of liberalism completely. It is one thing to want to create a “fair ground” for children for the future. It is another to become completely unrealistic about it.
There is no such thing as “fair ground” in life or existence, ever. You can have societies form, but, in the end, parents and elders will always leverage on the behalf of their own kin. Thus there is no “fair ground” for the “unprivileged”. And maybe there shouldn’t be anyway. Liberalism is idealistic in this regard, and does not approach the reality of “privilege” honestly. What is privilege except for the labors of elders, to make easier pathways and lives for their own children?
Liberalism would eventually balk on this point. Liberals are forced to admit that parents favor their own kind, their own biology, and so too their own race or gender, before the others. Thus there is favoritism in life. There are benefits and advantages that some people have, that cannot be done away with, because liberals knowingly or unknowingly ignore their existence and persistence. In other words, liberals generally lie about this. Liberals claim to champion the “rights” of other people, but not really so much, in reality. Not when it comes to sacrifices and costs. Thus liberals are appealing to “Social Justice”, attention seeking, claiming to “do right” by their beliefs, but when those beliefs are empty and hollow.
“Liberals” in name only. They won’t actually sacrifice for what they believe in. They won’t give up their seat on the bus, for example. Thus liberalism entails a kind of selfless, moralistic vein to it. To be “liberal”, and to provide “fair ground” for the next generation, means you have to give up what you work your life away for. It’s contradicting. Because people work for and fight for “privileges”. Liberals then claim that many people who do gain those privileges, must then relinquish them, for political reasons.
Liberalism runs into Capitalism, a conflict of interest. Do you believe that people are entitled to what they make, or, must give up what they make for the next generation to provide “fair ground” for children of tomorrow?
I am not arguing against this. I was rather concerned with allowing deliberate and non-defensive use of violence.
I can understand the distinction you make between “rights” and “law”. I can readily admit that laws per se are not rights. They can be unjust, limit rights instead of preserving them, and then - but only then - rebellion becomes an option. Yet “rights” without a legislative framework would hold only in a society of saints, and generally Liberals tend to think one can’t seriously assume that (and neither you assume that, I guess). The alternative would be “Rights for those who can”, and then it becomes at least equally doubtful those can be considered “rights”.
In fact it is very difficult to set law apart from rights. Constitutions in the free world, and not only, can be generally described as a bill of rights. Laws exist in order to preserve those rights. If you want to argue that rights are faculties to ‘develop potential’ whatever it takes, or that rights cannot obstruct this development of potential, then I no longer see how such a view can be ascribed to Liberalism.
Well, yes - and no. Sure it has religious influences, a lot. The doctrine originates in the context of a bitter civil war fought in England by religious factions. Locke’s First Treatise is mainly the religious confutation of a religious justification of authority. ‘Equality’ has a religious basis, which is also shown in Jefferson’s declaration (as you point out). But that is exactly where the ‘no’ begins, the religious view is against authoritarism, even by the majority of people. Nor this God-given condition of equality and freedom is against indiiduality. Quite the opposite, it’s the divine precondition for the individual to answer the calling, or ‘develop the potential’. In more mundane terms, it is not clear how one would deny legall enforcement of rights while seeing to the fuller development of the next generation, which is most probably in a condition of weakness in its early phase, and hence would succumb to that kind of unregulated civil competition you advocated in your earlier posts.
If I said that, I disagree too. But I guess I never said that, I spoke of rule of law, not of quantity of laws. And, yes, Liberals are opposed to too many laws - but not to the rule of law. That said, in societies that grow an ever complex interaction, internally and externally, sooner or later the legislator has to intervene in order to prevent the creation of loopholes that would infringe the “rights”.
Definitely against all laws alienating “rights” from people. Then, if laws are not all it takes, neither they are necessarily the embodiement of evil. I guess most of us have experienced the effect of some dumb law - one more reason to have as little as possible of them. But even then, the existence of codes of law is brought about by the need to avoid an excessive discretion of the magistrate who, has not a right to judge. Instead that is his/her office. The magistrate would say that his/her judgement is nothing but the application of the law (of course, there’s a well known saying that law is applied against enemies and interpreted in favour of friends). Normally all court’s rulings, the sentence, come with an explanation, referring to what laws are applied, and, notably in the US, how the treatment conforms to what has been already made in cases that display some similarity.
What do you think?
Please consider also that, in fact, I am exposing ideas that are not mine, that I don’t really support either (very little in fact). Yet, if, as you say, philosophy is about honesty in knowledge…
Those excerpts were chosen addressing claims of yours like “Liberals have little or nothing to lose, and everything to gain (by fighting and violence)”.
As for the rest, you can nuance as much as you like and it’s not necessarily wrong. Yet, stealing is tantamount to denying the right to property, hence there is a stance in my view. As for Justice separated from Law, I can easily repeat the same considerations made on “rights”. Justice administered without the mediation of civil authority runs into that “Who has the Right to judge and sentence others?” you have just written (and hence the question about the deep reflection on certain topics may be legitimately asked to you).
In general, I guess that the excerpts support quite well the claim that Liberalism backs the rule of law. (Then, OK, not too many laws, even the absence of laws to regulate certain aspects, such as sexuality, but that has never been the point of contention).
So… how does all this work exactly?
Liberal thinkers used flawed arguments?
So, “Locke is basically stating that liberalism has limits” by writing a sentece like “The state of nature is governed by a law that creates obligations for everyone”? Isn’t your interpretation a bit far-fetched?
Then I have absolutely nothing against “If ‘Pure Liberalism’ was as simple as ‘do anything you want to anyone at anytime’ then the effects are obvious”. I just remind you that it was you who wrote:
You repeatedly warned about this possible excesses (although you seemingly sympathize with the warrior bringing havoc). And I argued that this concern was shared by Locke and Smith. Because of that they advocate the rule of law.
(Stretching words, selective reading, giving priority to one specific meaning overshadowing others, all that it’s kind of current practice. But you are taking it to a whole new level… Besides, you have turned my position into something like “more laws, the merrier”, but, sorry, I have never meant that).
Actually “a transexual interferes with his/her own sexuality” was a reference to what you wrote. Anyway you are missing my point entirely, the interference has to be considered in context:
The remark is sound. I can’t say I totally disagree. Maybe some more reflection is in order on nihilism, because if “Appealing to nature or justice, to justify liberalism, are flawed arguments. It’s the same as appealing to god or any other authority” I don’t see on what ground these nature-twister would be so wrong.
Then, you seem to be exempt from your own question
Because either unlike ‘people’ you never mis-identify nature, or, considering that, you should acknowledge you have no right to judge. Let’s say that at least that it should inspire you more restraint.
Either you are equating Liberalism and Nihilism, or you may consider that it is no longer Liberalism.
No.
You misrepresent my point. Yet, as anyone can see, it’s “rule of law”, not “laws for everything”.
Excuse me, but I have to ask, do you know what “rule of law” means?
Well… OK. At least this time you leave the poor Fritz alone.
I give up on this perception of Europe. Please, just consider that the Warsaw Pact no longer exists. Not even Russia is a Social Republic.
Yes, I guess that this is what lies at the bottom of you overall reflection. And there are genuine points in it.
I guess that the modern liberals you despise would answer that a society based on entitlement is the best possible fair ground. And whether they lie, that can be only a presumption after all.
If “Appealing to nature or justice, to justify liberalism, are flawed arguments. It’s the same as appealing to god or any other authority”, this cuts both ways. It means that the modern liberals are by no means “forced to admit that parents favor their own kind, their own biology, and so too their own race or gender, before the others. Thus there is favoritism in life”. Surely they can acknoweldge that, but not admit it as legitimate. That would only be conservatism, and a mistake anyway in their view. Actually, if (again) “Appealing to nature or justice, to justify liberalism, are flawed arguments” - and surely neither appeal to divinity - where one draws the line? Where rights end to be such and become entitlement? Of course entitlement is not part of the liberal tradition, but as you have contributed and bettered that tradition, why they can’t also think that this is what they are doing?
A “Righteous” society does not need laws, or even a police force, because hypothetically, people cooperate and do not compete violently among themselves.
That means little to no infighting within a community. That almost always means, in nature, a homogeneous organism, dominated by genetic likeness.
Ethnocentricism.
Development, nurturing, unrestrained potential, essentially is the same with regards to “Rights” such as a “Right to Life”, however abstracted and generalized these notions are. Liberalism is idealism, that humans generally deserve such rights for being born. Or that all humanity is created equal. These are the premises shared by liberals and liberalism. Also take note of the “Blank Slate Theory”. Liberalism tends to value: Nurture > Nature. I disagree with this.
I say, Nature = Nurture.
My main point is not that liberalism is only about nurturing future generations or things to their potential. Liberalism, Liberty, is about freedom in general. And that is its core aspect. Thus liberalism is very much centered on modern ideas of “Choice”, but does not go enough into detail how choices are made, and what it means for people to take responsibility for choices, or to pay consequences.
Thus it usually falls to Conservatism to pick up the slack and compensate for democratic liberalism. Conservatives, correctly, link responsibility and consequences with reality and realism. Idealism is whimsical and childish. Assets, property, houses, farms, food, police, military, these are the real things, the things that truly matter. And when liberalism becomes out of touch with reality, then it fails any more so than a dream or ideal can. A bubble bursts.
Conservatism retaliates against most Liberals with consequences, costs, and prices. Who pays the costs of life? Who bears the burdens for society’s “Rights”? Are Rights free? No, they’re not free. They’re the opposite of Free. And so liberalism is proved to be hypocritical. How can freedom be based on “Rights” when rights are not free? When they have costs?
The Jefferson quote is relevant: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
So what is the cost of Liberalism, Rights, and Western Democratic Freedom? Blood, blood sacrifice. Isn’t it ironic then that Western Democratic Liberalism is founded on a religious notion, a pagan and ancient one, that blood-sacrifice is required to sustain the ideology? Therefore, Western “Freedom” comes at the cost of somebody’s lives, probably, innocent lives.
Of course the Supreme Court interprets Western laws and rights.
“It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” And when you know the judge, people can be surprised what can be gotten away with, under the cover of law. Laws can be corrupted and are not perfect by any means. Law is always theoretical and idealistic. But the grey area is the “higher laws” and “natural laws”.
I think there are mountains more work to be done about these topics, and am unsatisfied by most. But it’s refreshing to find people with enthusiasm, contemplation, and knowledge about all of it.
Some liberals do back the rule of law, others do not. Young people tend to rebel against law. Anarchists, marxists, and communists, are these groups more liberal or conservative? How about socialism and socialists, liberal or conservative?
I would say that liberals generally agree on “Rights” but not on laws. Laws are man-made and contrived, except when referring to “higher laws” or “natural laws”, which are exceptions. For example, liberals and conservatives argue consistently and expectantly about laws, just look to Congress and the Senate.
Liberal thinkers use flawed arguments when appealing to Nature, without going in depth as to what Nature is, and its context with regard to laws, such as “Natural Law”. What is a Natural Law? What is a Right? How are Rights other than entitlements? Don’t white people have “white privilege”? Don’t males have “male privilege”? Etc.
“Obligations for everyone” is very, very far removed from “Rights endowed by The Creator”. Don’t you agree?
But yes it is a contradiction. Aren’t obligations opposite of rights?
Should people be born into debt, owing, or “free”? Liberalism makes it obvious. Liberals believe people are, or should be, born free, and from this comes their “Rights”.
In a liberal system, nobody ought to interfere with somebody harming themselves or committing suicide?
Then we need to understand the nature of things and people. That’s part of the process, underlying the larger ideas such as liberalism. For example, liberal thinkers cannot appeal to nature, natural law, without demonstrating first a deep, correct, and truer understanding of nature. So what then is the nature of some people versus other people? And can nature be changed, ever? To which degrees?
I believe wisdom and knowledge lead to restraint and tolerance. But “no right to judge” is another matter. Because who then has the “right to judge”?
Nihilism and Liberalism cross over in some areas. Sexual deviancy, for example, are usually defended by liberal ideologies. For example, “no legislature in other people’s homes or to what they consent among themselves”. Homosexuality is the primary example, defended by liberalism and liberals. But I want to clarify, by nihilism, I mean specifically, when individuals or societies go against their own nature.
You can’t have it both ways though. Liberals support the “rule of law” but not when it interferes with opinions, thoughts, and ideas? And not when it interferes with sexuality and privacy? Yes the topic of “rule of law” needs extrapolated and explained. Some countries and societies are very strict, others not so. Western law and history is relatively short. However, there are more and more laws with each passing decade and century, in the u.s. So the rule of law of one group is not the same as for others. What is tolerated in one society, is not in another.
By rule of law I mean the pervasiveness of laws, to which extent in general a group or society goes to enact order and enforce stricter laws. What are “thought crimes” to one group, a theocracy for example, are not so to others.
I personally have a difficult time separating Rights from entitlements, by the way people use, speak about, and defend their “Rights”. Then there are the notions of “White Privilege” and “Male Privilege” and such, modern topics of “social justice”. However I ascribe all of these to general liberal ideology, to liberalism.
I believe modern liberal ideology has a contradiction within it. You can’t fight for “Rights”, god-given or naturally derived, and then claim to “Be Free”. Most liberals, I presume, would argue that “we are free because of our rights”. But that doesn’t make sense. Because what are those Rights? Where and when do they come from, exactly? From whom? Did we ask for them? What do rights grant, except entitlements? And what’s the point anyway, when laws and rights can be manipulated by court systems, when corruption sets in?
Rights maybe obligations. If that is true then “Rights” are the opposite of freedom, thence the opposite of liberty. Because that would mean that Rights are another form of Debt, something owed to another. That’s my main contention with Liberal ideology, and would pose that against any liberal champion or thinker.
I forewarn that I am going to reply only to a few points. As for what I leave with no comments, either I think that I have already commented on it and I don’t want to repeat myself, or I do not understand. It’s often difficult for me to challenge your views, because I don’t see how you get to those, the origin of some assertions is puzzling, the analysis and the logical links are not clear, the bottom line is that I think that you are not wholly consistent. (I am not being agressive, you can comfort yourself with “consistency is the playground of dull minds”, but I am kind of old-fashioned and dull in this respect). If you have received a liberal upbringing, it seems to me that you are definitely no longer in that mold (and it looks like you are making that breakthrough), but, besides academic taxonomy, that does not mean much in the end.
Yes, I do. Yet you have zoomed in the Declaration to a quite fine granularity in order to bring that out.
Transexuals are not committing suicide. On the other side, you have the right or leisure to have a cavity cured, even if it may become painful. If one thinks to be of the wrong sex…
If there are no laws regulating private life (but only laws protecting it), then they can’t interfere.
It looks to me as another notion that comes out of your own pocket - and nowhere else. I referred to something like this.