[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Liberalism, as defined today, is simply a prelude to fascism/communism. The far left is therefore simply taking liberalism to its logical conclusions.
Hitler took socialism to its logical conclusion. Stalin took communism to its logical conclusion.
Every liberal must therefore eventually become totalitarian, for the simple reason that people are INDIVIDUALS. “What if I don’t want to contribute to Katrina victims?” You will be forced to do so. “What if I choose to use steroids?” You will be forced to not use steroids, with fines and imprisonment.
Liberalism does not trust individuals to decide things for themselves. They must therefore resort to force — totalitarianism.
HH[/quote]
…constitutional ban on homosexual marriage…
…anti-drug laws…
…forcing kids in schools to pray…
sounds like the domain of so called conservatives to me… If us dems had our way, drug violations would equate to a slap on the wrist, pretty much only violent criminals would be in jail (saving us a LOT of tax dollars), and people could generally do what they pleased as long as it did no harm to others.
I was actually referring to the fact that Stalin and Mao talked a great deal about freedom and the promise of a great future, and then promptly declared themseves leaders for life.
To imply however that these leaders did nothing for their people would be a great diservice, but they WERE tyrants who used the promise of a communist nation free of tyrrany to inspire their nations, only to squander most of the trust and fate of their people. This is not “leftism”, this is not “liberalism”. Conservatives have used these totalitarian examples as the so-called “logical conclusion” to leftism to frighten people into supporting their silliness. That is my point. It’s not like totalitarians were historically always lefties… What about Napoleon? What about the European Monarchies? What about the Japanese Empire? All Nationalist, but not exactly liberal… if anything, I’d say they were all pretty conservative, and what good came of Napoleon and the Emperor of Japan??
Want an example of what liberalism really means? Sweden. Want to know more about Sweden? go here:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If you had to pick one of the major ‘isms’ to live under, from the past 200 years of history (Communism, Socialism, Capitalism,…), which would you choose?
Realize that these systems have principles that are at odds with one another. They therefore should not be ‘mixed’ or the ‘bad money will drive the good money out of circulation’, so to speak.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The history of liberalism belies everything you’ve written. Since liberal philosophy is based upon the premise of unselfishness, this means that some selves exist to serve the needs of other selves. To be moral is to put the needs of society above one’s own. To put your own needs first, as a rational being, is therefore regarded as immoral and selfish. Since your life is a supreme value to you, this comes into conflict with ‘society’.
[/quote]
Under whose writing is liberalism defined this way? I have not nor have I ever read anything which you describe as liberal philosophy. One of the biggest writers on the idea of cultural liberalism is John Stuart Mill.
Most of the ideas you are implying come from Marx in his explanations of profit motive and exploitation theory and Jean Jaques Rousseau’s “Social Contract”. This was just one piece of social liberalism which only few revolutionaries agreed with and took to extremes. For the most part liberalism follows the economic principles of John Adams that the gov’t should have little to no control over economic policy.
Read “On Liberty” by J.S Mill. I can quite garantee you he was not for a government under totalitarian control and defines quite clearly the idea of liberalism.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The history of liberalism belies everything you’ve written.
[/quote]
HH: I respectfully disagree. Liberalism comes out of the principles of Locke, personal property, and self-interest. That modern “liberalism” is something different is unfortunate, but when we generally speak of “liberal democracies,” we generally mean, more or less, the classical form of liberalism.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The history of liberalism belies everything you’ve written. Since liberal philosophy is based upon the premise of unselfishness, this means that some selves exist to serve the needs of other selves. To be moral is to put the needs of society above one’s own. To put your own needs first, as a rational being, is therefore regarded as immoral and selfish. Since your life is a supreme value to you, this comes into conflict with ‘society’.
Under whose writing is liberalism defined this way? I have not nor have I ever read anything which you describe as liberal philosophy. One of the biggest writers on the idea of cultural liberalism is John Stuart Mill.
Most of the ideas you are implying come from Marx in his explanations of profit motive and exploitation theory and Jean Jaques Rousseau’s “Social Contract”. This was just one piece of social liberalism which only few revolutionaries agreed with and took to extremes. For the most part liberalism follows the economic principles of John Adams that the gov’t should have little to no control over economic policy.
Read “On Liberty” by J.S Mill. I can quite garantee you he was not for a government under totalitarian control and defines quite clearly the idea of liberalism.[/quote]
I have read Mill. One of my degrees is in Philosophy, btw. His premise is that society’s goal and your moral goal is: the greatest good for the greatest number.
“Godless” examines a set of beliefs known as “liberalism.” It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven’t yet found the common ancestor … but like O.J., the search continues.)
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Liberalism class is now in session!
“Godless” examines a set of beliefs known as “liberalism.” It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven’t yet found the common ancestor … but like O.J., the search continues.)
Go Annie!! (Coulter, that is)
[/quote]
No you’re right…children should be taught that if they touch themselves, they will go to hell; gays should be second-class citizens; and evolution is just some bullshit crazy leftists made up.
As for letting murderers out of jail…do you mean parole? Or are you just parroting something from a proven liar.
Your two favorite authors are Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter. That pretty much says it all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Liberalism class is now in session!
“Godless” examines a set of beliefs known as “liberalism.” It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven’t yet found the common ancestor … but like O.J., the search continues.)
Go Annie!! (Coulter, that is)
[/quote]
Liberalism…? as taught by a conservative? Now I’ve heard it all. Quick, I am going to teach you about christianity! Ha!
You’re joking, right?! She is as reliable to teach the values of liberalism as Michael Moore is to teach objective journalism. Please, don’t waste our time with this rubbish.
Obviously Annie is just fitting into the toxic political environment that exists these days.
Let’s villify the other side and everyone on our side can pat themselves on the back and feel good about increasing the inability for the country to govern itself effectively.
Your critique is EXACTLY why Constant criticized the use of the term, since most people would miss the subleties of Mill’s Utilitarianism.
The “greatest good for the greatest number” means that the individual must be protected, especially the one who challenges conventions and is exceptional.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I have read Mill. One of my degrees is in Philosophy, btw. His premise is that society’s goal and your moral goal is: the greatest good for the greatest number.
[/quote]
Sorry, you are wrong about this interpretation. For utilitarianism to work Mills required that the “liberty principle” be satisfied. This means that individual liberty must be satified and at the same time not interfere with the liberties of the whole.
By contrast Marxists bilieve more in “socialism” where individual liberty does not matter when compared to the welfare of the whole unit.
It never has happpened. The left took the right to pray away.
[/quote]
I didn’t mean to say that it HAS happened - of course it hasn’t. Thank GOD for the democrats and that thing called the constitution!
The RIGHT to pray has never been questioned, and obviously never taken away. Kids can pray in school all they like… Totally legal. But teacher-led forced prayer? Totally illegal, and for good reason.
I don’t think the Buddhist kids would appreciate being forced to pray to Jesus, just as I don’t think that the Christian kids would appreciate being forced to pray to any god BUT Jesus. It’s best to leave their prayers (or lack thereof if they so desire) up to them and their families, that way we’re not forcing anyone to do anything they find objectionable.
Conservatives are facists, and the worst KIND of facists - the kind that pour the honeytalk of freedom in your ear while handcuffing you with a bible (and probably the “revised new standard american edition”) behind your back.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
Conservatives are facists, and the worst KIND of facists - the kind that pour the honeytalk of freedom in your ear while handcuffing you with a bible (and probably the “revised new standard american edition”) behind your back.[/quote]
"Please don’t judge me as a liberal based on the insane few like this lady I met. Don’t generalize!
Btw, all conservatives are fascists, and I hear you really like to screw your mothers. And God sucks.
I didn’t mean to say that it HAS happened - of course it hasn’t. Thank GOD for the democrats and that thing called the constitution![/quote]
ROFLMAO; “It hasn’t happened, but if it did, we have the Constitution and the Democrats to thank!”
Sounds a lot like; “We haven’t been attacked again and we have the DHS, W, and the GOP to thank!”
That’s funny, I’ve been described as a conservative anarchist. Didn’t you and vroom just ‘educate’ everyone about how Stalin and Mao did the same thing with liberalist ideas? It’s funny to watch people ascribe liberals or conservatives as evil or power hungry. Evil knows no political party.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Liberalism class is now in session!
“Godless” examines a set of beliefs known as “liberalism.” It is the doctrine that prompts otherwise seemingly sane people to propose teaching children how to masturbate, allowing gays to marry, releasing murderers from prison, and teaching children that they share a common ancestor with the earthworm. (They haven’t yet found the common ancestor … but like O.J., the search continues.)
Go Annie!! (Coulter, that is)
No you’re right…children should be taught that if they touch themselves, they will go to hell; gays should be second-class citizens; and evolution is just some bullshit crazy leftists made up.
As for letting murderers out of jail…do you mean parole? Or are you just parroting something from a proven liar.
Your two favorite authors are Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter. That pretty much says it all.
[/quote]
I also like Aristotle. Guess I like people with ‘A’ in their first letters.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
HH: Mill does not teach simple utilitarianism.
Your critique is EXACTLY why Constant criticized the use of the term, since most people would miss the subleties of Mill’s Utilitarianism.
The “greatest good for the greatest number” means that the individual must be protected, especially the one who challenges conventions and is exceptional.[/quote]
The problem with philosphers is that they unleash ideas upon the world, not realizing that evil people can use those ideas for immoral purposes. If the common man sees the phrase ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, how would they interprete that? For this reason, it is my belief that Mill should be criticized: he did not see how his philosophy would be used by men.
It is not enough to simply spit out a theory and hope for the best. (Think of Hegel, Fichte, Schopenhauer.) Someone will use those ideas for evil, as they did. It must be clear TO EVERYONE precisely what is being said, so no one can be tricked, abused and so forth.
This is the beauty of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. It (her political philosophy) can be summed up in two words: “Hands Off!!” All relationships between people must be voluntary on ALL sides. Simple and clear.
This also is one reason she’s attacked, btw. “Oh, she’s to simplistic! All philosophy must be obscure!” Nope. And that’s why her philosophy of common sense will one day conquer the world.