Classical Liberalism

[reverendjeremiah]

WOW. Lets stop for just one second. This is obviously becoming a hot topic Void, and I want to do the topic justice. Let me address your first post so you can see why I am coming to the conclusion that I am:

TOPIC: Classical Liberalism

We are talking about classical liberalism in the MODERN world right? I mean, right here, right now. Right? If not then many of my posts are void (pardon the pun) and nill.

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.

Okay, you are really focusing on strawmen here. Lets try to clarify so I dont make strawmen, okay? Regardless, you say the libertarians are NOT the teabaggers. I disagree. They ARE the teabaggers. I agree that they arent following the social aspects of it, but that does not rule out that the ranks of the teabaggers are libertarians. You can toss that strawman claim up all you want, but show me one libertarian politican that ISNT rooting for the teabaggers. Allow me to show you my proof:
Libertarian US Senate candidate Alex Snitker speaks to around 5000 members of 11 tea party groups at the Tea Party Network
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5I5cAC4u9E
Now, say what you want about the politician, but listen to the teapartiers response to his proposals. They love him. The tea party applauds everything he says. If the teaparty is NOT libertarian backed, as you try to say, then WHY are they applauding all of the libertarian things he is saying? I guess this is where you say he isnt a libertarian. I expect you to brush over this.

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.

Then we have the libertarians setting up corporations, where profit is "the common good". Go ahead, and say it isnt. Say that corporations dont have a collective where profit is the common good. What happens if you are a chemical corporation who makes huge profits from a chemical that breaks down tree pulp for paper and someone says "Hey, marijuanna is cheaper, stronger, and doesnt need as many expensive chemicals to make into paper!"? Well, these libertarians deicde to get congress to make marijuanna illegal. Go ahead, say that they are no longer libertarians. Its okay, I agree. They have now become corporatists. They argued libertarianism to get them where they are at, and now that they have the power they no longer are libertarian. Its all about being selfish. Once a libertarian has the power he wants he ceases being a libertarian and then becomes an authoritarian, just like the libertarian Glenn Beck. Now that he has mad money he becomes "conservative" all of a sudden.

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.

Yup, that is exactly what they say until they get corporate power, then they keep saying it, but dont act it. Churches can be incorporated. They act to preserve their profit flow. Are you trying to tell me that a libertarian would allow his profit margin to sink in the name of OTHER individuals rights? Honestly? If a libertarian is making money off of religion, then he is going to try and get as much power to him as possible. Money = social power. Money = power period. Because when they mean "the individual", they mean "me", not "you". The libertarian will be libertarian for himself, but not for others. A libertarians social beliefs are eclipse by his economic beliefs. If that isnt true, then ask a Libertarian if monopolies are supported by libertarians. They will say "yes". Look at how you brush a monopoly off Void. That speaks VOLUMES about your lack of economic morals. A person who takes a monopoly lightly should not be trusted on what they say about society, for it is all subject to change via the economic circumstances. If slavery becomes greatly profitable, the libertarian will consider it. Ask our libertarian (Classic liberal) founding fathers in America.

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.

How did evolution get tossed into an ideology that started before the birth of Darwin? By the time Darwins theory started to get well spread the shift between classic and modern liberals was forming. And who do you think you are fooling with this bottom up organization? So the libertarian companies ask their people "what price would you like for this Pepsi?" They say "free" The top of the organization says "no way". Well, I guess that settles it, the top of the organization had their say. It is now $1.00 a bottle, unless you are in a theme park, in which it becomes $5.00 a bottle. And the libs keep saying that "No need for government to control business..you little people are in control..no...really! Scouts honor!" So the Libertarian company creates its own environmental laws (none), its own watch dogs (none), its own insider trade bans (none), its own sheild against artificial inflation (none), etc, etc.. You mean to tell me you HONESTLY expect me to believe this? You honestly believe a libertarian will police itself at the expense of a quick profit?

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.

Yeah, that sounds great..until the greed sets in. And who else to be the victims of greed than the libertarians? Oh no. Libertarians never only think of themselves. they think of the community, and how great it will be to dedicate their spare time to help people in need. Damned be to profit. Libertarians are always social minded creatures. [/sarcasm] There is a reason why they say "individual" so much. It means "me", not "you".

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.

Really? So if I buy a car then I OWN that car? I can backward engineer it and start my own car company using that model? What? Copyrights? But the libertarians said I owned this software! How come I cant make derivitives of it? It cuts into company profit margins? But I own this program! I bought it!
So I take it that you are against copywrights then?

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.

Something that is quickly forgotten when a libertarian becomes a wealthy corporate exec. Greed is intolerant.

So basically a libertarian is libertarian when he isnt rich. Libertarians are upper middle class and downward. Once they get into power they become like Glenn Beck, and are no longer Libertarian...they are "conservative" libertarians ( I call them corporatist scum bags)...but they still push the libertarian stuff. Thats why they usually vote Republican. Because their economic views eclipse their social views.

Now tell me I am wrong.