Classical Liberalism

[theVOID]

Because there is a completely absurd amount of false equivocation on these boards I thought it apt to state the position clearly and let it be contended for what it is, rather than through the typical straw men that are in equal parts the responsibility of those who claim to be of this position when they are not "The tea party" and those who care not for the differences because they find it easier to attack the straw man.

Classical Liberalism encompasses the basic ideals.

1. The freedom of the individual is paramount:

The main consideration for all actions, namely politically is this "Does the action promote or thwart the freedoms of the individual"? Classical liberalism states that the government should only act to ensure that the freedoms of consenting adults, making sure that they are free from force, fraud, coercion or negligence. We should not sacrifice the freedoms of individuals for any collective agenda, commonly called "the common good".

Any person should be free to do whatever they like so long as their actions do not involve using force, fraud, coercion of neglecting their responsibilities to others. People with power will often say "we are going to force you to do x because we believe it is in your own best interest to do x". Classical liberals maintain that individuals not only are generally the best at establishing what is in their own best interests, they should have complete responsibilities over their own interests.

2. Establishment of principles.

This is the idea that the principles of individualism should be established and maintained despite what any collective, namely the government, wants to do otherwise. The courts should have the power to strike down any piece of legislation that violates the established principles or rule in favor of the individual who has done what the collective otherwise deem illegal if it is supported by the fundamental principles.

3. Bottom up organization

Structures in reality, from evolution to lives to languages to fashions to markets, are best organized spontaneously and from the bottom up based on the preferences of the individuals. There is no need for a top down approach to markets, no "hand of god/government" to tweak all the settings and rules.

4. Free Markets / Civil Charity.

All economic exchanges should be left to the voluntary actions of individuals, government should not be telling you where to work, how much to save, what needs produced, what companies need your money, who needs healthcare, where to give aid. It should be left entirely to individuals to allocate their productivity where they see fit or where they have agreed to trade.

5. Private property.

Those things obtained by the individual through consensual means are entirely the property of the individual and nobody else. The individual has the full rights and responsibilities for where this property is used and nobody, other individuals or governments, may forcefully remove it.

6. Tolerance

You should not interfere with anyone else simply because you disagree with it. Because you think something is a good thing, the right thing, is no reason to interfere with the actions of others. Simply thinking that something is wrong is not a sufficient reason for action, it is immoral to force your opinions on others. Free speech is an example, we should tolerate speech of which we strongly disagree because it is not our business to tell them how to think and feel.

[Violet]

I'll try to write in purple at least once

Because there is a completely absurd amount of false equivocation on these boards I thought it apt to state the position clearly and let it be contended for what it is, rather than through the typical straw men that are in equal parts the responsibility of those who claim to be of this position when they are not "The tea party" and those who care not for the differences because they find it easier to attack the straw man.

But I love setting straw men on fire. It's my revenge on that damned scarecrow from the wizard of oz. Don't worry, he didn't have a brain ^_^

Classical Liberalism encompasses the basic ideals.

1. The freedom of the individual is paramount:

The main consideration for all actions, namely politically is this "Does the action promote or thwart the freedoms of the individual"? Classical liberalism states that the government should only act to ensure that the freedoms of consenting adults, making sure that they are free from force, fraud, coercion or negligence. We should not sacrifice the freedoms of individuals for any collective agenda, commonly called "the common good".

Why not though? I mean... surely you can think of exceptions to this (such as situations where sacrificing individual freedom is necessary for anyone to have freedom in the future).

Any person should be free to do whatever they like so long as their actions do not involve using force, fraud, coercion of neglecting their responsibilities to others. People with power will often say "we are going to force you to do x because we believe it is in your own best interest to do x". Classical liberals maintain that individuals not only are generally the best at establishing what is in their own best interests, they should have complete responsibilities over their own interests.

Then shall we release children and pets from their slavery?

I don't know about you... but my knowledge of children is that they only know what is best for them in some cases. Teenagers aren't so much children anymore, so I'll avoid talking about such if you please

And adults really don't know what is best for them often. Nor does a government. Hence laws against things that we can be relatively certain are not the best for them (ie: driving while drunk).

2. Establishment of principles.

This is the idea that the principles of individualism should be established and maintained despite what any collective, namely the government, wants to do otherwise. The courts should have the power to strike down any piece of legislation that violates the established principles or rule in favor of the individual who has done what the collective otherwise deem illegal if it is supported by the fundamental principles.

I'm against this archaic understanding of legality honestly... would rather people be tried on a case by case basis accordingly to how a jury and a few judges/judge see fit.

I agree that having some of these "fundamental principles" might be a good thing, but I worry that they wouldn't be quite so 'fundamental' principles at all

3. Bottom up organization

Structures in reality, from evolution to lives to languages to fashions to markets, are best organized spontaneously and from the bottom up based on the preferences of the individuals. There is no need for a top down approach to markets, no "hand of god/government" to tweak all the settings and rules.

Sure... no way to say 'monopolies' and 'corruption' quite like 'the people control the market with zero government interference'... hehe...

4. Free Markets / Civil Charity.

All economic exchanges should be left to the voluntary actions of individuals, government should not be telling you where to work, how much to save, what needs produced, what companies need your money, who needs healthcare, where to give aid. It should be left entirely to individuals to allocate their productivity where they see fit or where they have agreed to trade.

An entirely free market is a market with no laws, no rules, and a gut your neighbor before they gut you mentality.

Slave trade is open, of course. Somehow I prefer it when it is hidden behind a semblance of gain present in wage slavery.

If government is the organization that oversees the populace... precisely why should it not say what needs produced? I mean... say you are in a war... and it needs more guns/tanks/whatever... and this market is void of anyone producing it because it isn't making them enough money. Your country loses the war and is taken over by people with guns and tanks, who stop your creation of guns and tanks semi-permanently.

I largely agree with the sentiment about where to work, how much to save, what companies need your money... but healthcare needs to function as a socialistic system and increasing budgets/cutting them is a job of management, which is the government.

5. Private property.

Those things obtained by the individual through consensual means are entirely the property of the individual and nobody else. The individual has the full rights and responsibilities for where this property is used and nobody, other individuals or governments, may forcefully remove it.

And can this individual protect their claim?

And yes, anyone using force may remove it if they so deem to do so. Laws preventing them from doing this that are enforced by the government mean that the government owns the house and is letting you use it.

6. Tolerance

You should not interfere with anyone else simply because you disagree with it. Because you think something is a good thing, the right thing, is no reason to interfere with the actions of others. Simply thinking that something is wrong is not a sufficient reason for action, it is immoral to force your opinions on others. Free speech is an example, we should tolerate speech of which we strongly disagree because it is not our business to tell them how to think and feel.

Action of other will lead to their death (ie: standing where they are standing). Yes, let's not interfere with that... they clearly know best.

We do not have free speech, but we should certainly tolerate it no matter what it is People should have thicker skin anyway.

I failed to write in purple

[Minimalist]

Void you are an idealist. The fuckheads who are running around under the 'libertarian' banner ( which you are trying to rescue) are simply fascists who think that "libertarian" sounds better.

What they want to is to crush the poor and working classes and make life safe for rich fucks.

Their model of the ideal society is France in 1788....and you know what happened in 1789.



You - unfortunately..have no model that you are willing to share apparently.

[theVOID]

Min, I don't give a shit what you think of the American right, either address the actual position or go take your "woe is me" and "the rich cause all my problems" bullshit somewhere else.

[Violet]

Min, I don't give a shit what you think of the American right, either address the actual position or go take your "woe is me" and "the rich cause all my problems" bullshit somewhere else.

Excepting that the rich do cause just about everything in the united states? :

[theVOID]

Bullshit, someone getting rich isn't necessarily to your detriment, it's not a zero sum game, someone being rich does NOT mean that they took it from someone else, you can get rich by creating wealth from sources of no or lesser value without the expense of someone else.

Your lazy borrow and spend culture is far more damaging than rich people.

[Minimalist]

You don't get it Void. Idealists ( and religious fuckwits) never do.

I would hate to live in the country you envision. What a shithole that would be. Maybe you'd like to crawl around addressing your betters as "Your Lordship?" Certainly sounds that way.

[Violet]

Bullshit, someone getting rich isn't necessarily to your detriment, it's not a zero sum game, someone being rich does NOT mean that they took it from someone else, you can get rich by creating wealth from sources of no or lesser value without the expense of someone else.

Where does their money come from if not from us? I mean... we "make" money that all funnels into them. They literally cannot be rich without us funneling money into them. Ever tried to make a business that doesn't get money from anywhere? Riiight... do we really need to discuss the logistics of that?

Your lazy borrow and spend culture is far more damaging than rich people.

Than the rich people who caused it to become our culture? Yes... so much more damaging indeed. Please keep in mind that it was rich people who founded this country. Our entire culture has been shaped by rich people.

[reverendjeremiah]

Can I PLEASE tell him that you cant have Social equality without economic justice?!

He will think you are a socialist asshole Asshole.

But what about back in the day when even matches were monopolised?

Well, then he would have to pay big money to the plutocrats and watch the "free market" get stumped just to light one to clear the air of your breath you freaking a-hole.

[theVOID]

[quote='Aerzia Saerules Arktuos' pid='126617' dateline='1302241421']
[quote='theVOID' pid='126605' dateline='1302239977']
Bullshit, someone getting rich isn't necessarily to your detriment, it's not a zero sum game, someone being rich does NOT mean that they took it from someone else, you can get rich by creating wealth from sources of no or lesser value without the expense of someone else.[/quote]

Where does their money come from if not from us? I mean... we "make" money that all funnels into them. They literally cannot be rich without us funneling money into them. Ever tried to make a business that doesn't get money from anywhere? Riiight... do we really need to discuss the logistics of that?[/quote]

That's not what I said!

I said that someone getting Rich, accumulating wealth, is in no way necessarily at the expense of someone else, in the vast majority of circumstances the rich get rich and benefit those they trade with in the process.

Say someone invents a product, they need people to manufacture this product so they can sell their invention, they hire you to work assembling this device, they then sell the product to others, you get paid a wage and they take the rest. They have not taken anything from you, they have provided you with a means to exchange your time and skill for money and you have agreed, you benefit from it and so do they. Try tell me having a job isn't beneficial, if you dare be so absurd.

Suppose someone has a successful idea and good management skills and manages to make a great amount of money from it, at what point from the initial scenario to this one did they steal from or exploit you? None. They used the labor that workers were willing to trade for money and used it with their idea and management skills to sell goods and services at a profit - No crime done, nothing immoral, no detriment to you, no imposition of values - You have an entrepreneur who is getting wealthy, the motivation for his invention and risks, a worker who is getting the wage they agree to work for and customers who are getting the products they agree to trade for.

The more demand your skills are in, or the more money you will demand, you have to be worth more to more people to make more money, that's just the reality of it. As long as someone makes their wealth without using force, being fraudulent or neglecting their responsibilities to their employees and consumers, like paying what is agreed and treating them equally or providing products and services of the quality and function agreed upon, they can do whatever the fuck they like in my books, their productivity is not mine and I have no right to it and I have no right to impose my values or the government the "collective" values onto their transaction, as long as it is done within the boundaries of the personal freedoms of the individuals.

The government imposing values for causes, taking wealth by threat of imprisonment, is not something I support, it's group thuggery. We all have a tons of personal vales and group values, the government should all ensure these values aren't interfered with so long as that doesn't involve imposing on other values, not establish values at point of force in the name of the "common good" like giving taxpayer money to finance and automotive companies or forcing people to buy healthcare from a corporation.

[quote]Than the rich people who caused it to become our culture? Yes... so much more damaging indeed. Please keep in mind that it was rich people who founded this country. Our entire culture has been shaped by rich people.
[/quote]

That's because without entrepreneurs who have the ability to prosper nobody would have any motivation to build these products, the USA would be at best another backwards socialist nation. American workers have a decent quality of life, that's not despite the motivations for wealth, it's because of it.

Rich people did NOT cause you all to borrow and spend, they may have genuinely persuaded you to do something, or your flash bang media might have had a part in it, it helps them sell stuff, but it's ultimately your decisions and your faults, the rich are a scapegoat for people not wanting to admit their productivity just isn't that valuable or they didn't work hard enough for it or lucked out, Sorry... but that's not an excuse to steal from other people, rich or not, to account for it or to impose your values.

If someone does wrong lock them up, we need harsher sentences for all crimes.

---

[quote='reverendjeremiah' pid='126629' dateline='1302245404']
[quote= Reverend Jeremiah's Asshole ] Can I PLEASE tell him that you cant have Social equality without economic justice?! [/quote]

He will think you are a socialist asshole Asshole.[/quote]

We want quality in what sense? Equal treatment and opportunity or equal outcome?

[quote= Reverend Jeremiah's Asshole ] But what about back in the day when even matches were monopolised?
[quote]
Well, then he would have to pay big money to the plutocrats and watch the "free market" get stumped just to light one to clear the air of your breath you freaking a-hole.
[/quote]

Awww, you want cheap matches? Do you have some right to a particular material product? If I'm the only match game in town I can charge whatever I like, I have no obligation to give you matches for the price you want! - Lets ignore the fact that this price fixing is only the case in rare circumstances, even among "monopolies", Microsoft didn't charge ridiculous amounts for it's products nor did it prevent people from freely competing, it made a ton of money and provided a service that many were willing to pay. Prices will be determined by supply and demand. Nothing to stop you from creating a rival company and trying your luck.