Liberalism, "True Liberalism", "Classical Liberalism"

Liberalism, “True Liberalism”, and “Classical Liberalism” ought to be a noble endeavor and ideal, something worth striving for. The ideology of liberalism is founded on the premise of Growth, that any organism can “grow to its potential”. A “true liberal” wants to see the things, creatures, and people s/he cares for expand and thrive. Thus liberalism has a natural component, like caring for one’s own children, or even caring for one’s own society, culture, country, nation, race, etc. In order to grow, though, “freedom” is required. Growth cannot have restrictions, constraints, and suppression.

These are the basics of “liberalism”, as basic as it can get. Liberals then see Conservatism, by definition, as that Suppression, restriction, and constraint against thriving. However Conservatism is also the other natural component. Because life has limits and constrictions. Nobody has absolute power. Nobody can grow indefinitely. Eventually, any individual will reach the limit of his power.

Conservative is more “realistic”, practical, and safe. Conservatism is the principle that admits there are limited resources, and such resources need to be controlled and maintained (by the State), hence “Conservative”. Liberals want to liberate those resources (for themselves, and perhaps for others who they admonish “for justice”).

Liberalism is an ideology corresponding to Age. Young people tend to be liberal, because young people grow and want/demand more resources. Thus it is natural for those who lack power and resources, craving it, to demand the conservative institutions to “give them up”. However, in reality and nature, resources are competed and fought for, hard won. Thus liberals tend to be instigators of violence, to fight for the resources that conservatives claim and defend.

Economically, liberalism and conservativism can be reduced to Assets. Liberals have little or nothing to lose, and everything to gain (by fighting and violence). Conservatives have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. Thus it is the natural compulsion and interest of liberals (young people) to fight for power, control, and resources that older generations retain. The more at stake (Modern politics), the more ferocious the fights become.

Modern liberalism and conservatism are called “Neo-liberalism” and “Neo-conservatism” to denote how the Modern world is shaping, changing, and shifting the classical ideologies. Is the liberal attitude good, convenient, or just in this or that situation and circumstance? For example, should water be privatized and corporations allowed to regulate it? To what degree ought humanity protect the environment (technically a conservative value)? Should markets remain “free” or closed, to make bigger profits for a society instead of particular corporations?

Big questions with lots of answers, waiting to be defined and won. However, few people seem to even know what they believe in. Liberals calling themselves so, but are they? And are the conservatives actually conservative?

Using these premises, politics ought to be much clearer for those institutionalized and still uneducated.

One should ideally have elements of both liberal and conservative philosophy in
order to avoid dogmatism so I am socially liberal and economically conservative

I view it as percentage. Maybe somebody is 33% liberal and 67% conservative. Everybody has different sets, and they can change. For example, over time, with age and experience, maybe the person shifts to 38% liberal and 62% conservative.

A liberal person can quickly become conservative when they fall into owning assets. A distant relative dies and leaves you everything. Assets are responsibilities. You have taxes to deal with and pay for. The liberal may shift in value, then.

I do not think that one can measure it in exact percentages because it is too clinical
but one can certainly know whether they are more one or the other or roughly equal

Urwrongx1000: Liberalism, “True Liberalism”, and “Classical Liberalism” ought to be a noble endeavor and ideal, something worth striving for. The ideology of liberalism is founded on the premise of Growth, that any organism can “grow to its potential”. A “true liberal” wants to see the things, creatures, and people s/he cares for expand and thrive. Thus liberalism has a natural component, like caring for one’s own children, or even caring for one’s own society, culture, country, nation, race, etc. In order to grow, though, “freedom” is required. Growth cannot have restrictions, constraints, and suppression.

K: I was with you until the last sentence here…Growth, all growth does have restrictions and
constraints…Freedom is part of liberalism but only part and there is not such thing as
absolute freedom… Freedom itself is restricted and has constraint… that is part of freedom…

UR: These are the basics of “liberalism”, as basic as it can get. Liberals then see Conservatism, by definition, as that Suppression, restriction, and constraint against thriving. However Conservatism is also the other natural component. Because life has limits and constrictions. Nobody has absolute power. Nobody can grow indefinitely. Eventually, any individual will reach the limit of his power.

K: Yes and no…Conservatives search for security and liberals search for justice… this
defines liberalism and conservatism a bit better…

UR: Conservative is more “realistic”, practical, and safe. Conservatism is the principle that admits there are limited resources, and such resources need to be controlled and maintained (by the State), hence “Conservative”. Liberals want to liberate those resources (for themselves, and perhaps for others who they admonish “for justice”).

K: Now we are starting to drift off the ranch a bit…in the U.S for example, the drive for
conserving resources has been driven by the left…a “tree hugger” for example is usually
considered a liberal…the left wants to save resources for our children and grandchildren
whereas the right is driving the attack on the environment…who wants to “drill baby drill”
it is those on the right, the conservative… and who is tying to sell our national parks to
big corporations? it ain’t the left…

UR: Liberalism is an ideology corresponding to Age. Young people tend to be liberal, because young people grow and want/demand more resources. Thus it is natural for those who lack power and resources, craving it, to demand the conservative institutions to “give them up”. However, in reality and nature, resources are competed and fought for, hard won. Thus liberals tend to be instigators of violence, to fight for the resources that conservatives claim and defend.

K: and we are getting much farther off the ranch…young people can be liberal and young people
can be conservative… I am 58 and I am as liberal as they come…and I know others my age who
are getting more conservative by the minute…you are making resources and power as the driving
force of liberalism but I think you are missing the point of both liberalism and conservatism…
you have a set idea of both and that set idea misses the real nature of liberalism and conservatism…
to say, liberals tend to be “the instigators of violence” is just flat wrong…

UR: Economically, liberalism and conservativism can be reduced to Assets. Liberals have little or nothing to lose, and everything to gain (by fighting and violence). Conservatives have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. Thus it is the natural compulsion and interest of liberals (young people) to fight for power, control, and resources that older generations retain. The more at stake (Modern politics), the more ferocious the fights become.

K: once again, you are missing the actually idea behind both…you are assuming that conservatives
have the money and power and liberals have none, whereas that is simply not true…
the fight is over how the money is spent, not if we have the power/money but how is it spent…
do we spend it on security like defense or the already huge military industrial complex or do we
spend it on helping people eat and get educated and have shelter? that is the question…
the idea is on what do we spend the money we have on? who benefits? those who already have
or those who need? that is the real debate between liberals and conservatives…

UR: Modern liberalism and conservatism are called “Neo-liberalism” and “Neo-conservatism” to denote how the Modern world is shaping, changing, and shifting the classical ideologies. Is the liberal attitude good, convenient, or just in this or that situation and circumstance? For example, should water be privatized and corporations allowed to regulate it? To what degree ought humanity protect the environment (technically a conservative value)? Should markets remain “free” or closed, to make bigger profits for a society instead of particular corporations?

K: should water be privatized and corporations allowed to regulate it? NO, absolutely no…
water is a resource that is everybody’s, not just the corporation that has paid for it…
and that is the difference between the liberal and the conservative… we think the larger
picture and conservatives think the smaller picture…

UR: Big questions with lots of answers, waiting to be defined and won. However, few people seem to even know what they believe in. Liberals calling themselves so, but are they? And are the conservatives actually conservative?

K: and I suspect that liberals have a better sense of who they are and what their goals are…
conservatives and conservatism is struggling and changing before our eyes…
conservatives have lost their soul and their understanding of who they are when
they (conservatives) sold their soul to the devil for money and that is the conservative
value today, money, not on principles like they used to, but on making and keeping money…
money drives the GOP and conservatives today and therein lies the conservative
path to failure…

UR: Using these premises, politics ought to be much clearer for those institutionalized and still uneducated."

K: simplified and wrong… rethink what your premise is for it is based on assumptions that
are wrong…

Kropotkin

And also another reason is that no one single ideology has a monopoly on wisdom

There is no absolute freedom hence there is no absolute liberalism, and that end runs into conservatism.

Justice doesn’t have anything to do with it. Liberals and Conservatives both justify existence from opposite sides of the spectrum.

I mentioned in the OP how environmentalism, wanting to conserve resources and preserve natural areas, is actually a conservative drive and not a liberal one.

You could call it left-conservatism.

You could call it “instigator of change”, but violence is always the means to change in the end. Forces must be overcome. Arguments must be won. Sometimes even fistfights or wars must be had.

Hence the popular phrase: “A liberal is only good at spending other people’s money”. The stereotype rings true. It’s easy to (vote to) spend other people’s money. But conservatives tend to be rich and asset-wealthy. Conservatives, by definition, have something (like property) worth protecting. Liberals tend to dictate to land-owners and asset-holders how, what, and why they should do with their own, what liberals dictate. Conservatives reject this outright.

If you want to stop deforestation, then buy the property yourself. Don’t tell another what he should do with his land.

Liberalism is associate with “social justice”. It’s easier to be ‘independent’ and carefree, when you don’t own assets. Because assets are responsibilities. Liberalism operates from the “free”, free-from-responsibilities, perspective. It’s easy to dictate and be an ideologue when you are not beholden to others or society. Owning land changes everything. Most liberals do not own land, hence much the reason and cause that shapes liberal ideologies.

Go on, make your points then.

I like it, but - if you care - I disagree on many points.
Regardless, you advocate that Liberalism, one flavour or another, “ought to be a noble endeavour and ideal”, yet you do not provide a definition of it, it seems to be mainly about how it is opposed to Conservatism.
There’s one point I find startling. Let’s assume that Liberals believe in the so-called golden rule, how do you explain

?
Or do you imply that in fact Liberals do not believe in the so-called golden rule, and possibly not even to the rule of law?

Liberalism is noble in valuing liberation, freeing of constraints, and allowing growth (like nurturing a child to his or her fullest potential). However, liberalism is idealistic and can have negative consequences. Ought criminals be freed, allowed to grow? A pervert allowed to express himself to his fullest? Obviously, not. Thus many, who are corrupt, will use liberalism as their means to express their darkest desires. This is another reason why conservatives exile and castigate liberals, for harboring criminals and fugitives among them.

Liberals may preach the Golden Rule, but apply it? Probably not.

It’s easy to preach rules, oughts, and shoulds, when you own nothing. When you have no assets. When you don’t own property, a house, a car, it’s easy then to preach values. It is more difficult to be conservative, to own houses, to safe guard your family, to protect your daughters from rapists and criminals, to maintain the value of your property. Conservatives usually have all the wealth, because “conservative values” are realistic, based on physical property and material interests. This is also why conservatives tend to be older, and liberals younger.

Liberals tend to revolt and rebel, because they don’t own property. They have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, through liberalism itself.

Well… noble and idealistic, OK. Yet not up to the point to live their ideal? Or are you implying that honesty is not part of the ideal?
It’s no scandal to me that ruling elites preach white lies to maintain their status, but in your picture these Liberals tend to subvert order in order to grab resources and expand, so they hardly fit the picture of a ruling elite. The deliberate use (or promotion) of violence and lies make them more similar to a gang or a crime cartel.
Or, maybe, it’s not deliberate, it’s more like a double standard. Is it? That’s a recurrent outcome of many ideologies (I maintain that Liberalsim is just one of them) and it’d be interesting to question how consciously a double standard is applied, but that is not more related to liberalism than to other -ism’s.

Now, I am not an expert on Liberalism, but I question the accuracy of your thesis.
Care for the offspring is not peculiar to Liberalism. Communists as fascist were equally concerned about the wellbeing of their children, they promoted a society and a polcy that was supposedly (unquestionably in their views) the best possible for them.
Then

I can understand that, but I fail to see how it can be labelled Liberalism. That is “Proletarians of the world unite!”, it is perfectly compatible with Marx.
I checked the article on wikipedia. As I expected the characteristic traits of Liberalism would be equality before the law, freedom of speech and trade. How would be freedom (the word Liberalism clearly derives from Liberty) and equality promoted by violence and lies?
In your view Liberalism equates to promote social unrest and revolution in order to improve one’s condition. Which Liberal thinker has ever maintained that?
Jefferson advocated a right to rebel, and even Burke allowed it somehow, but that was when equality and freedom were no longer guaranteed by the sovereign, not to promote one’s own interest.

Freedom doesn’t imply honesty. Freedom to speak, implies that you’re free to lie. Conservatives would be the ones to impose or enforce an honor-society, of demanding honesty and truth from people.

In my experience, liberals tend to be illogical, irrational, and irresponsible. Because they are not used to owning assets, like land, like a house, like cars, like paying taxes and creditors, like having a wife, like having a daughter, like protecting your daughter’s chastity, the list goes on and on and on. And because liberals are “free” from such responsibilities, are often ill equipped in gaining and holding those assets.

So yes there will be plenty of double-standards and backward speaking.

Communism understands that resources are limited, and thus some children will starve. The noble aspect of communism is to feed the whole community, to make sure all children are accounted for. However, communism has limits and flaws too. Obviously, an individualistic and capitalistic society will reject communist ideology.

Liberalism and Marxism-Communism do overlap when it comes to overthrowing Conservatives. Both are rebellious ideologies that promote social unrest and revolt.

Does “freedom” mean peace? No, it means people are free to do good and evil, value order or chaos, defend the system or attack the system. Freedom implies that violence is a very valid and logical choice.

Conservative systems are about restraint, suppression, limiting those choices. Conservatives offer the ideal of a peaceful society. Liberals cannot. Freedom implies choice. And choice implies choosing wrongly.

When common people speak of Freedom, they mean freedom to do illegal and normally evil things. To free or liberate willpower then, is to free the ‘darker’ aspect of human nature. You can’t say that “The Good” is free, because it’s not. It’s not “free” for everybody to obey laws of society. That’s not freedom. Freedom necessarily means relinquishing all bonds.

All options become open.

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.

Natural Liberalism is guilty of producing “Monstrosities”.

Feeding a monster until it becomes too powerful to control, then it turns on its creator and destroys him.

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.