Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....

If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 14, 2010, 06:35:27 PM
.....to someone who does not know much about political ideology, what would you say?

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 14, 2010, 06:39:46 PM
Everybody should be allowed to do as they please. It's the "should" and "allowed" that are the centerpieces. Contrast that to a Nietzschean interpretation of conservatism - everybody will do as they can.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 14, 2010, 07:21:31 PM
DERP

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 14, 2010, 07:58:37 PM
I would say it's main defining points are (1) Keynesian economic perspective, (2) secular perspective in contrast to conservatism, and (3) it's mired in the same BS all colors of modern politics are (I include in this category of BS the notion of eliminating practically all taxes, considering it a matter of malevolent intention and/or blissful ignorance rather than as a valid difference of opinion in terms of serious discussion).

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 14, 2010, 08:10:49 PM
Liberalism is a reaction to feelings of inadequacy when individually challenged by established group standards. Such responses selectively take a fight to or a flight from group standards. Statements such as "society is broken" may be a projection of "I do not fit in".

"Turn on, tune in, drop out" - Timothy Leary

peristil

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 15, 2010, 06:42:51 AM
"Turn on, tune in, drop out" - Timothy Leary

this is an entheogenic statement not related to politiking. However, it was misappropriated by fearful gov't entities to mean something it does not.
It is more of a statement about ancient, cellular retuning.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 15, 2010, 07:59:38 AM
I would say it's main defining points are (1) Keynesian economic perspective, (2) secular perspective in contrast to conservatism, and (3) it's mired in the same BS all colors of modern politics are (I include in this category of BS the notion of eliminating practically all taxes, considering it a matter of malevolent intention and/or blissful ignorance rather than as a valid difference of opinion in terms of serious discussion).

Keynesianism is interventionism, so taxation is crucial in this theory. How can a liberal be this AND against all taxes? I mean that in theory, cause politics is, well, opened to anything that does the job.

Both conservatives and liberals are, in theory, complementary political attitudes vis-a-vis state authority. Very often that wich is thought to be conservative action is actually a form of already established unchallenged liberalism, or viceversa, liberalism has strong conservative features when the ex-conservatives bring about a new take against their past accomplishments and actual regulations. In his theory of the state Oppenheimer describes the origins of these attitudes as a phase in state evolution when the class in power is obliged to reinforce their justification to rule when those ruled no longer abide to "sent from above race" stories (first conquest, then religion and morals, then political theory). In this order of things any modern political stand is a form inventing new gods on their predecesors ashes. Nietzsche dicit.




Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 15, 2010, 09:14:36 AM
How can a liberal be this AND against all taxes?

They can't really be. I'm just saying that in my view the notion of eliminating all taxes doesn't represent a difference of points of view between liberals and conservatives, i.e. even (proper) conservatism needs some taxes.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 15, 2010, 03:50:17 PM
"Why should I not be allowed to do *insert retarded behavior*, if I'm not hurting anybody?"

You'll notice that if you compare Modern Liberalism with Classical Liberalism (now called Libertarianism), they actually define liberty in directly opposite terms.  Libertarians define liberty by the responsibilities they are held to for themselves, while Liberals define it by having a lack of responsibility.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 15, 2010, 04:09:06 PM
I'm all for responsible or dutiful liberty. But for a population composed of serfs the two ideals are going to diverge forcing a choice between the one or the other. Modern liberalism is able to sustain some semblance of maintenance because it will transfer most of the responsibility part to one social strata and most of the liberty part to another. This is why modern liberalism can reign, yet keep a society divided against itself with perpetuated "class conflict". Its management bureaucracy then expands like a cancer forcing it into insolvency.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 15, 2010, 10:53:17 PM
"Why should I not be allowed to do *insert retarded behavior*, if I'm not hurting anybody?"

Anyone got any succinct counterarguments for this one? People tend to not be able to grasp the concept of doing indirect damage, so, when contemplating an action, they do a quick, cursory check of their surroundings against their preconditioned "morality," then determine whether the action is acceptable or not. Statements such as, "You're promoting mediocrity," or, "What you're doing is aiding in the decline of society" seem completely lost on such people.

I suppose that if they don't see it, it's going to be fairly difficult to get them to.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 16, 2010, 05:20:18 AM
"Why should I not be allowed to do *insert retarded behavior*, if I'm not hurting anybody?"

Anyone got any succinct counterarguments for this one?

Intrinsic morality.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 16, 2010, 06:57:28 AM
Modern Liberalism is utilitarianism propagated by convenience as opposed to beauty propagated by power.

Quote

Anyone got any succinct counterarguments for this one? People tend to not be able to grasp the concept of doing indirect damage, so, when contemplating an action, they do a quick, cursory check of their surroundings against their preconditioned "morality," then determine whether the action is acceptable or not. Statements such as, "You're promoting mediocrity," or, "What you're doing is aiding in the decline of society" seem completely lost on such people.

I suppose that if they don't see it, it's going to be fairly difficult to get them to.
If they don't get it then they're like most of the population: common.

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 16, 2010, 07:04:58 AM
Let me also ask a question: With an aristocracy, would we prefer 1/10 of us at this forum having access to anything beyond Chandala? If not an aristocracy, how else would a society be structured?

Re: If you had to sum up modern liberalism.....
December 16, 2010, 04:49:38 PM
Quote

...Georges Bataille asserts that, “at the basis of every being, there exists a principle of insufficiency.” Liberal individualism, on the contrary, affirms the full sufficiency of the singular individual. In liberalism, man can apprehend himself as an individual without reference to his relationship to other men within a primary or secondary sociality. Autonomous subject, owner of himself, moved solely by his particular interests, the individual is defined, in opposition to the person, as a “moral, independent, autonomous and thus primarily nonsocial being.” In liberal ideology, the individual possesses rights inherent in his “nature” entirely independent of social or political organization.

http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/critique_of_liberal_ideology.pdf