Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Americans secede

Re: Americans secede
August 26, 2011, 01:04:40 PM
To the defenders of liberalism: would you agree that liberalism is essentially: to grant freedom to the citizen as long as this is not bad for other citizens?
If you do not agree with this definition, maybe you could suggest a better one, because I really want to know what liberals' values actually are.

Re: Americans secede
August 26, 2011, 07:40:04 PM
I think that's too loose of a definition as long as you don't explain what you mean by bad. Otherwise, I could find myself supporting that kind of liberalism, and I think most of the most stalwart antiliberals here could as well. I think any definition ought to stress the fact that liberalism considers freedom a virtue to strive for, with more freedom = better. I don't quite feel comfortable enough actually suggesting one though.

Re: Americans secede
August 26, 2011, 07:55:30 PM
To the defenders of liberalism: would you agree that liberalism is essentially: to grant freedom to the citizen as long as this is not bad for other citizens?
If you do not agree with this definition, maybe you could suggest a better one, because I really want to know what liberals' values actually are.

Commonly stated as: my freedom ends where yours begins.

Re: Americans secede
August 26, 2011, 09:05:39 PM
For liberals, it is about what ought to exist. For conservatives, it is about (intolerance/hate) what exists and (reactionary) indicating what will likely come to exist if the present course is taken.

Compare what Popper has to say to how those with power who identify themselves as liberals always end up behaving. The conclusion for us is that liberalism cannot exist in its ideal state and it must be modified into totalitarian humanism as some have put it, or a dictatorship of wellbeing as have others.

Worse, relating the actual results of liberalism in history to them does not seem to deter liberals from persisting in the pursuit of that pure form that they can never create. That's why they are rightly considered mentally ill people.

Re: Americans secede
August 26, 2011, 09:27:19 PM
For liberals, it is about what ought to exist. For conservatives, it is about (intolerance/hate) what exists and (reactionary) indicating what will likely come to exist if the present course is taken.
Yes, and I'd also add that a liberal perspective elevates the individual over all, and holds that humans are not only inherently equal but also inherently good, whereas a conservative perspective elevates movement towards a goal over all  (which inevitably means denying some individual desires) and that the only thing equal in all humans is that they will devolve into uselessness without firm guidance.

Re: Americans secede
August 27, 2011, 01:14:34 PM
For liberals, it is about what ought to exist. For conservatives, it is about (intolerance/hate) what exists and (reactionary) indicating what will likely come to exist if the present course is taken.

that may be.  but if that's the case, then conservative types should also envision their own OUGHTS.  This is my problem with adaptation.  Adapt to what?  adapt to adapt to adapt.  You need an ideal.  You ought to have oughts.  you need the goal, you need the vision, you need the ideal.  Plato's Republic envisioned an ideal and then moved backwards.

I think it helps to divide REALITY from social reality.  Adapt to reality.  Social reality?  Be careful about adapting to it.  Social reality is created by people.  You are a person.  You can shape social reality.  So shape it!

Re: Americans secede
August 28, 2011, 02:28:21 AM
For liberals, it is about what ought to exist. For conservatives, it is about (intolerance/hate) what exists and (reactionary) indicating what will likely come to exist if the present course is taken.

Let me get this straight: You are implying that conservatism is not a normative doctrine, right? That would certainly be a strange thing to say, since it looks pretty clear to me that the various types of conservatism have quite a bit to say about how things ought to be.

This really does not seem like a helpful way of contrasting the two views. It's not as though one doctrine is preoccupied with normativity and the other isn't. The fact is that they are both preoccupied with it, though they obviously differ in their specific normative claims. The contrast you've set up seems to imply that "what exists" and "what will likely come to exist if the present course is taken" are irrelevant within the ideology/theory of liberalism. But I think what you're doing is taking your points of disagreement with liberals on empirical matters and using that to define what the theory is. That's not a question of definition, though; that's a further question about whose empirical claims are true. There's nothing in fundamental liberal commitments, so far as I can tell, that supports the contrast you've set up. I don't even think it's clear that the contrast is generally true of liberal versus conservative behavior. How do you get from "these people disagree with me on certain empirical matters" to "what the world is like and what it's likely to be like given factors x, y, and z are irrelevant to these people"?

Re: Americans secede
August 28, 2011, 06:32:30 AM
Well, normativity is unavoidable.

However the difference he suggested, while clearly biased in conservative favour, does seem legitimate.

Conservatism = conserve what we have, examine the effects of the current state of things, and anything which threatens societal order is to be removed.

Liberalism = do what would lead to the ideally better world. If there's something bad/painful about how things are, try and get rid of it.

Conservatism = avoidance of change, Liberalism = avoidance of pain.

Retrospective pragmatism vs. short-sighted utilitarianism.

A true investigation into what will happen if the current situation persists, and what effects particular changes will have, is something that must transcend any such social boundaries.

Re: Americans secede
September 02, 2011, 08:42:45 PM
Best explanation:

Quote
As we watch the UK and USA come apart in this week’s latest round of hybridized theft and protest, we should get back to basics and ask ourselves: what is the center that holds us together as civilizations?

The UK is a civilization; so is the USA (in fact, it is two: a rural-suburban axis and an urban fringe). Each civilization has some notion that holds it together.

These notions are either organic or administrative. Organic means they arise from the character of the population itself; birds of a feather flock together. If that is not present, the administrative state creates a political culture and imposes it on the population.

The last four decades of preaching liberals have tried to convince us that organic culture is oppression. As we see now, the lack of organic culture is oppressive. Without an identity, society falls into commerce, individual selfishness, and the lowest common denominator.

http://www.amerika.org/politics/the-center-cannot-hold/