Classical Liberalism

[LastPoet]

To be honest I don't understand politics, mabe its me being dumb(strong possibility in there). I have tried to understand by reading here and on the politics forum, but the more I try the less I know...

Now, what I do see is idealisms going around the political spectrum, some are so heavily defended they seem dogmatic, to say the least...

I give up, this politics shit ain't for me, I'm better off with physics, math or other sciences, at least those (although hard) I can understand.

[Zenith]

---

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.

---

If those are your principles, then I'm curios more about "tolerance" and "freedom of speech" and the "freedom of the individual":
1. Freedom of speech:
How does it conform with instigation to hatred (e.g. vs a particular group), or deceiving (e.g. end of the world in 21st may, perhaps give me money and you'll go to heaven), manipulation of the masses (through false history, twisted news to fit a desired effect ,etc.), dirty words (in public places, perhaps hearing the president/king talking with his fellows stuff like "I don't give a shit about your crap, ya bitches!", now "bitches" being used to male men, whom they are used with such words, and don't find it as an insult).

2. Freedom of the individual:
How far should it go? For instance, if some women go in the park (which is with, well, a lot of people) and get naked and get on their knees, with their elbows on the ground, and their own dogs start to fuck them, should this freedom be allowed to them? If you say "as long as my freedom does not do evil to somebody", then, in this particular case, perhaps the only thing would be that most people don't like doing such things, and therefore, don't like seeing such things. And if you go further and deny any freedom of man that the majority does not like, how is this different than forcing all to be as the main group is? (which is, against the freedom of the individual)

3. Tolerance:
"it is not our business to tell them how to think and feel": you mean it is evil to say to people "be nice people! try to be good! do good!"? And, how does the education of the society go if no-one is allowed to tell them (e.g. in schools) how to think and how to feel?
"Because you think something is a good thing, the right thing, is no reason to interfere with the actions of others. " - so you mean that it is wrong to say "what you do is evil"? You know, it may have a good effect sometimes, like convincing/helping somebody to be a better person.
"it is immoral to force your opinions on others" - so, if you could establish a rule/law, you would never say "we should not allow anybody naked in the park being fucked in his ass by his own dogs"? Because, that is your opinion: there may be others that see things differently, though only a few.

[Violet]

Freedom of speech:

Is actually a restriction of speech, which is inherently free.

Freedom of the individual:

Is actually a restriction of the individual, who is inherently free.

Tolerance:

Is actually a question of what is not tolerable, as tolerance is inherently all inclusive until one does not tolerate a thing.

[reverendjeremiah]

Well Void.. how about it? How exactly would you work the Austrian market into the American socio-economic structure?

[Zenith]

---

Freedom of speech:

Is actually a restriction of speech, which is inherently free.

Freedom of the individual:

Is actually a restriction of the individual, who is inherently free.

Tolerance:

Is actually a question of what is not tolerable, as tolerance is inherently all inclusive until one does not tolerate a thing.

---

In other words, "freedom" is an illusion. And it's odd to have "freedom" and "tolerance" (among others) as supreme objectives, because they always need limits. ESPECIALLY because we live in a society (in the jungle one can do whatever he wants, in the limits of what can be done).

[Violet]

In other words, "freedom" is an illusion. And it's odd to have "freedom" and "tolerance" (among others) as supreme objectives, because they always need limits. ESPECIALLY because we live in a society (in the jungle one can do whatever he wants, in the limits of what can be done).

Not an illusion... but as the state of no rules. It is simply false that we are granted 'freedom of speech' when what it does is deny us the freedom of speech. It is a restriction and nothing more. You will notice that the law does not give us the freedom to eat... and yet we are entirely free to do so.

There is a limit (that which is possible). There need be no legal limit placed upon speech and some number of other things they use 'freedom of' to restrict it.

Even with no laws, it should be clear that you will be jailed or slain for murdering someone without a good reason. Anarchy might claim no rule of law... but in reality: most laws are written in the minds of the lawmakers.

[Zenith]

Not an illusion... but as the state of no rules. It is simply false that we are granted 'freedom of speech' when what it does is deny us the freedom of speech. It is a restriction and nothing more. You will notice that the law does not give us the freedom to eat... and yet we are entirely free to do so.

There is a limit (that which is possible). There need be no legal limit placed upon speech and some number of other things they use 'freedom of' to restrict it.

Even with no laws, it should be clear that you will be jailed or slain for murdering someone without a good reason. Anarchy might claim no rule of law... but in reality: most laws are written in the minds of the lawmakers.

I meant something a bit different. Besides of the fact that I should have said "alone in the jungle" rather than simply "in the jungle" (that's because a society can exist in a jungle too).

You know, there are a lot of things you are not allowed to do (which is called, restricted freedom). As an extreme example we know that "if you kill, you will be punished". So, do you have the freedom to kill? No, It's prohibited! So you don't have the freedom to do what you want. (Don't understand me wrong, I don't want to kill anybody).

There are also more important things than that above: First off, there is the "spirit of the crowd" - i.e. every man has the strong tendency to behave and believe the same as the main group does (which goes against individualism) - the same way fashion works too. And what happens if somebody does not want to follow the crowd? He is regarded as an alien at best - the worst case is when he's surrounded by idiots - idiots are, by 'nature', intolerants.

Also, many times, for many persons - perhaps it also depends on the region you live in - you cannot manifest yourself the way you are, but only among friends - because there are idiots that listen carefully to what everyone is saying and everyone is doing and say it to all others, many even twisting how things are - and you don't desire somebody making you a bad reputation based on crap; there are also people that seek weak spots in others and try to exploit them, people that for no reason seek to do evil to others, people that have foolish reasons for hating you (many times, envy - even if the cause of envy is that you're doing fine and they don't) and therefore seek to do evil to you, and all kinds of things.

And the things get to be as the saying: "One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves."
That's a kind of... staying among potential enemies, people whose purpose in life is not necessarily (or, quite) to do good to everybody else and to treat nicely everybody and to help others, etc.

One also has the prohibition to speak his mind: many times you can't say to an imbecile: "You're an imbecile!" because he may do to you a lot of trouble afterwards (in real life, I'm not speaking about forums and stuff). And people love you if you agree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do) and dislike you (some even hate you) if you disagree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do). To a drunk man or a very angry man you cannot speak reason. To idiots you can't speak reason, either, because they despise it and are only attracted by mockery, basic needs, fashion and their idols (idols = people that they overly appreciate and see their words as divine words - of absolute truth and authority).

So where the HELL is the freedom of speech, if you must watch every word you say?

Where is tolerance, if the idiots hate anybody that is different than themselves (and as a result, they do not tolerate them)? If some people see thing X as evil and disgusting and other people see the same thing X as good and pleasant, how can there be tolerance among them? well, if all people were good-intended, nice, kind, and wise, there could be tolerance, or a resolution of how thing X really is, but most people are not so at all.

Where is the freedom of individual, if the society attempts to make people be in the same way (to believe the same things, to do the same things, etc.) and when the "spirit of the crowd" is pushing every individual to the main group, to be just like all the rest (where he loses his individualism)?

[Violet]

I meant something a bit different. Besides of the fact that I should have said "alone in the jungle" rather than simply "in the jungle" (that's because a society can exist in a jungle too).

Alone in the jungle, you still rule all of that which you have power over. And you cannot be alone in a jungle.

You know, there are a lot of things you are not allowed to do (which is called, restricted freedom). As an extreme example we know that "if you kill, you will be punished". So, do you have the freedom to kill? No, It's prohibited! So you don't have the freedom to do what you want. (Don't understand me wrong, I don't want to kill anybody).

One could say that I infact do have the freedom to kill. Is it a restriction of movement to shoot someone after they move? No, it is a consequence of movement. Restriction is prevention. I was inaccurate above when I used it to mean 'consequence'. Anyway, this is pedantry on my part, I'm moving on...

There are also more important things than that above: First off, there is the "spirit of the crowd" - i.e. every man has the strong tendency to behave and believe the same as the main group does (which goes against individualism) - the same way fashion works too. And what happens if somebody does not want to follow the crowd? He is regarded as an alien at best - the worst case is when he's surrounded by idiots - idiots are, by 'nature', intolerants.

Rather, at first it is the main group that is comprised of the most common set of beliefs and behavior of the individuals. The above only sets in after a enough time passes with that group as the common group.

Also, many times, for many persons - perhaps it also depends on the region you live in - you cannot manifest yourself the way you are, but only among friends - because there are idiots that listen carefully to what everyone is saying and everyone is doing and say it to all others, many even twisting how things are - and you don't desire somebody making you a bad reputation based on crap; there are also people that seek weak spots in others and try to exploit them, people that for no reason seek to do evil to others, people that have foolish reasons for hating you (many times, envy - even if the cause of envy is that you're doing fine and they don't) and therefore seek to do evil to you, and all kinds of things.

I have a reason to do all of these things to people: self interest. You can always 'manifest' yourself as you are... but it would be foolish to dream there would be no consequences for honesty where there is only delusion and lie

And the things get to be as the saying: "One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves."
That's a kind of... staying among potential enemies, people whose purpose in life is not necessarily (or, quite) to do good to everybody else and to treat nicely everybody and to help others, etc.

One need not be a fox to detect danger nor a lion to inspire fear.

One also has the prohibition to speak his mind: many times you can't say to an imbecile: "You're an imbecile!" because he may do to you a lot of trouble afterwards (in real life, I'm not speaking about forums and stuff). And people love you if you agree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do) and dislike you (some even hate you) if you disagree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do). To a drunk man or a very angry man you cannot speak reason. To idiots you can't speak reason, either, because they despise it and are only attracted by mockery, basic needs, fashion and their idols (idols = people that they overly appreciate and see their words as divine words - of absolute truth and authority).

So where the HELL is the freedom of speech, if you must watch every word you say?

I did say that even in anarchy there are laws, did I not?

Where is tolerance, if the idiots hate anybody that is different than themselves (and as a result, they do not tolerate them)? If some people see thing X as evil and disgusting and other people see the same thing X as good and pleasant, how can there be tolerance among them? well, if all people were good-intended, nice, kind, and wise, there could be tolerance, or a resolution of how thing X really is, but most people are not so at all.

There is no tolerance of difference where all must be the same Plenty of tolerance to similarity though...

Where is the freedom of individual, if the society attempts to make people be in the same way (to believe the same things, to do the same things, etc.) and when the "spirit of the crowd" is pushing every individual to the main group, to be just like all the rest (where he loses his individualism)?

Where the individual decides it to be. Are you free to butcher the lot of them? WELL ARE YOU?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_IQ__zwB8

[Zenith]

I meant something a bit different. Besides of the fact that I should have said "alone in the jungle" rather than simply "in the jungle" (that's because a society can exist in a jungle too).

Alone in the jungle, you still rule all of that which you have power over. And you cannot be alone in a jungle.

If you know how to survive in a jungle (or, let's not be extremists... alone in a region, like a mountain, an isle) then you can be alone and live there.
And, in another manner of speaking, you are always free to do whatever you want - as we don't say things like "I don't have the freedom to fly like superman!" - the reason being that everybody allows you to do so. But when we talk about "freedom" I guess we usually refer to things that other people allow us to do.

You know, there are a lot of things you are not allowed to do (which is called, restricted freedom). As an extreme example we know that "if you kill, you will be punished". So, do you have the freedom to kill? No, It's prohibited! So you don't have the freedom to do what you want. (Don't understand me wrong, I don't want to kill anybody).

One could say that I infact do have the freedom to kill. Is it a restriction of movement to shoot someone after they move? No, it is a consequence of movement. Restriction is prevention. I was inaccurate above when I used it to mean 'consequence'. Anyway, this is pedantry on my part, I'm moving on...

In another manner of speaking, everybody always had the freedom of speech. Only that some were butchered, burnt at the stake, stoned, etc. when they did that. Yet, because "freedom" mostly (or always) refers to what others allow you to do, many people in many places had not and now have not the "freedom" to speak contrary to the religion of the land (because they were & are killed if they did/do that).

There are also more important things than that above: First off, there is the "spirit of the crowd" - i.e. every man has the strong tendency to behave and believe the same as the main group does (which goes against individualism) - the same way fashion works too. And what happens if somebody does not want to follow the crowd? He is regarded as an alien at best - the worst case is when he's surrounded by idiots - idiots are, by 'nature', intolerants.

Rather, at first it is the main group that is comprised of the most common set of beliefs and behavior of the individuals. The above only sets in after a enough time passes with that group as the common group.

Actually I believe it sets in immediately: once the majority sees their beliefs everywhere. There needn't be a guy shown on TV declaring that "most people believe X". Also, the spirit of the crowd is strictly related to leaders: you have a leader that is idolized by people (by most), and then, whatever that leader declares, the majority (his fans/worshipers) believe and apply, and they also despise, hate and even kill the minorities that do not idolize that leader and do not do the things the majority does.

Also, many times, for many persons - perhaps it also depends on the region you live in - you cannot manifest yourself the way you are, but only among friends - because there are idiots that listen carefully to what everyone is saying and everyone is doing and say it to all others, many even twisting how things are - and you don't desire somebody making you a bad reputation based on crap; there are also people that seek weak spots in others and try to exploit them, people that for no reason seek to do evil to others, people that have foolish reasons for hating you (many times, envy - even if the cause of envy is that you're doing fine and they don't) and therefore seek to do evil to you, and all kinds of things.

I have a reason to do all of these things to people: self interest. You can always 'manifest' yourself as you are... but it would be foolish to dream there would be no consequences for honesty where there is only delusion and lie

If they can harm you if you are honest with everything and talking to everybody as to your close friends, then it means that you are being restricted the freedom of speech by the people around you.

And the things get to be as the saying: "One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves."
That's a kind of... staying among potential enemies, people whose purpose in life is not necessarily (or, quite) to do good to everybody else and to treat nicely everybody and to help others, etc.

One need not be a fox to detect danger nor a lion to inspire fear.

Metaphorically speaking... you know, lion = strong, fearful, leader; fox = uses tricks and stuff, is cunning. By the way, that saying belongs to Niccolò Machiavelli (if you were curios).
And "inspire fear" does not mean "to everybody", but to those that hate you only. For instance, a king can be loved by his friends and by the people and feared by his enemies (they think thrice before attempting anything).

One also has the prohibition to speak his mind: many times you can't say to an imbecile: "You're an imbecile!" because he may do to you a lot of trouble afterwards (in real life, I'm not speaking about forums and stuff). And people love you if you agree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do) and dislike you (some even hate you) if you disagree with them (with what they believe, with what they say, with what they do). To a drunk man or a very angry man you cannot speak reason. To idiots you can't speak reason, either, because they despise it and are only attracted by mockery, basic needs, fashion and their idols (idols = people that they overly appreciate and see their words as divine words - of absolute truth and authority).

So where the HELL is the freedom of speech, if you must watch every word you say?

I did say that even in anarchy there are laws, did I not?

Yeah, and even in anarchy the freedom is restricted - and what kind of "freedom" is that, which is restricted?

Where is tolerance, if the idiots hate anybody that is different than themselves (and as a result, they do not tolerate them)? If some people see thing X as evil and disgusting and other people see the same thing X as good and pleasant, how can there be tolerance among them? well, if all people were good-intended, nice, kind, and wise, there could be tolerance, or a resolution of how thing X really is, but most people are not so at all.

There is no tolerance of difference where all must be the same Plenty of tolerance to similarity though...

I know, and that's the BIG problem. Tolerance will always and only be when people are the same - which is done by indoctrination, extermination of the minorities, etc. and minorities (which are different) will ALWAYS appear. So "tolerance" is yet another foolish dream: there can never be tolerance among people. You always tolerate people that do the things that you agree with, and there are always things you do not agree with, so you are always intolerant to people that do things that you do not agree with.

Where is the freedom of individual, if the society attempts to make people be in the same way (to believe the same things, to do the same things, etc.) and when the "spirit of the crowd" is pushing every individual to the main group, to be just like all the rest (where he loses his individualism)?

Where the individual decides it to be. Are you free to butcher the lot of them? WELL ARE YOU?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_IQ__zwB8

I am not free to butcher the lot of them. BUT, if there was a button that, if pressed, would destroy the whole earth with all of its inhabitants, and I would be physically capable of pushing it, then I would have the freedom to kill everybody (but, as about them, they would not have the freedom to live, in this way). But, as things are currently, I cannot say that "I do not have the freedom to kill everybody", because it's improper. The correct words are "I'm incapable of killing everybody".

And that panda was not free to eat, because he was not allowed by his 'master' (his master could have denied it from him any time he wanted).

[Violet]

In another manner of speaking, everybody always had the freedom of speech. Only that some were butchered, burnt at the stake, stoned, etc. when they did that. Yet, because "freedom" mostly (or always) refers to what others allow you to do, many people in many places had not and now have not the "freedom" to speak contrary to the religion of the land (because they were & are killed if they did/do that).

It's only a colloquial use of freedom.

Actually I believe it sets in immediately: once the majority sees their beliefs everywhere. There needn't be a guy shown on TV declaring that "most people believe X". Also, the spirit of the crowd is strictly related to leaders: you have a leader that is idolized by people (by most), and then, whatever that leader declares, the majority (his fans/worshipers) believe and apply, and they also despise, hate and even kill the minorities that do not idolize that leader and do not do the things the majority does.

They have to recognize it before it sets in, so it takes at least that long.

If they can harm you if you are honest with everything and talking to everybody as to your close friends, then it means that you are being restricted the freedom of speech by the people around you.

Or you restrict yourself, which many of us do. We can't speak because we won't speak, only if we would could we.

Metaphorically speaking... you know, lion = strong, fearful, leader; fox = uses tricks and stuff, is cunning. By the way, that saying belongs to Niccolò Machiavelli (if you were curios).
And "inspire fear" does not mean "to everybody", but to those that hate you only. For instance, a king can be loved by his friends and by the people and feared by his enemies (they think thrice before attempting anything).

I taught Machiaveli, and that's so like him I've always been the literalist though

Yeah, and even in anarchy the freedom is restricted - and what kind of "freedom" is that, which is restricted?

No freedom at all.

I know, and that's the BIG problem. Tolerance will always and only be when people are the same - which is done by indoctrination, extermination of the minorities, etc. and minorities (which are different) will ALWAYS appear. So "tolerance" is yet another foolish dream: there can never be tolerance among people. You always tolerate people that do the things that you agree with, and there are always things you do not agree with, so you are always intolerant to people that do things that you do not agree with.

The reverse can happen though, where similar things are taken to be a challenge to one's position. I don't care what different jobs you have or what all you can manage... so long as you are not taking mine from me

I am not free to butcher the lot of them. BUT, if there was a button that, if pressed, would destroy the whole earth with all of its inhabitants, and I would be physically capable of pushing it, then I would have the freedom to kill everybody (but, as about them, they would not have the freedom to live, in this way). But, as things are currently, I cannot say that "I do not have the freedom to kill everybody", because it's improper. The correct words are "I'm incapable of killing everybody".

And that panda was not free to eat, because he was not allowed by his 'master' (his master could have denied it from him any time he wanted).

You kidding? He kicked his master's ass for that last dumpling. Afterwards he says "I'm not hungry", which is significant if you've watched the movie.

Your inability to kill everyone belies your lack of freedom to do so. You cannot because you will not.