Classical Liberalism

[theVOID]

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.

There is no difference, Classical Liberalism is an ideology with fairly robust definitions, just like Progressivism, it means the same thing now as it did to begin with - As you know however, there are many who use the label who simply don't fall within or even near what was meant by the creation of the term - I am defending the position that I defined in the first post, not what some people somewhere at some time have said and done wile calling themselves "libertarians" or "classical liberals".

I will do you the curtsey of addressing your own positions of Progressivism as conceived of and will not attack supposed "progressives" like Obama or other people who use the term but do not fall within the boundaries - I of course expect the same from you.

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.

Let me be VERY clear: "Libertarianism" as understood in America, is vastly different to how the word is understood both elsewhere and historically.

Only some people who identify as "libertarians" support or are similar to the tea party (and it's largely an American phenomenon, the party I support here - Libertarianz, DO NOT like the tea party) and not all members of the tea party consider themselves "libertarian" I think far more of them consider themselves "small government conservatives" being socially AND fiscally conservative.

You would not consider Trey Parker and Matt Stone as "teabaggers" but they are certainly (self-defined) Libertarians, nor would you consider Noam Chomsky to be a Teabagger, and He defines himself as a Libertarian too. I assure you the ideology of Classical Liberalism is NOT that espoused by the Tea Party (with very few exceptions), call them some form of "libertarian" if you like, I fail to see how it is possible to be authoritarian AND Libertarian as the word is defined, they are mutually exclusive terms, absolute antithesis of each other, but there are those who insist upon it - That is why I use the Label "Classical Liberal" - I see no point in using the banner "libertarian" (in conversations with Americans mostly) when it's so thoroughly tainted by both abusers (a good portion of the tea party) and those who attack them and decide somehow that they represent the Libertarian ideology. The word plainly means but a fraction of what it once did.

This is one excellent post that sums up the concerns:

http://quakerfox.blogspot.com/2008/01/cl...anism.html

Another thing to Illustrate my point, the "Tea Baggers" are around the same political geography as Sarah Palin, whom is a MILE away:

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.

The social aspect of it is quite seriously the single most important aspect of it, if you are non-interventionist in the markets and not socially you simply are not a libertarian as the word was conceived to mean and has been historically and internationally used.

Libertarians who aren't for the Tea Party? I already named 3. Here's the President of the Libertarian Party:

"Our fear is that Tea Partiers might say 'This time it will be different.' No it won't. If you vote for Republicans this time, it will just reinforce the message that they can lie to you and grow government with impunity."

"Anger toward the Tea Party is directed at Christian conservatives like Sarah Palin: unlike libertarians, who support gay marriage, abortion, and legalizing drugs and prostitution, Palin does not. Many libertarians say because Palin is not liberal on social issues they are fed up with the Tea Party, calling it a right-wing NeoCon Republican propaganda machine that lost its libertarian values."

""Libertarians have much in common with Tea Party goals of reducing government spending and taxes. While many Tea Party supporters will admit that George W. Bush's administration grew government, Libertarians want to remind Tea Partiers about previous Republican administrations that loved big government." (They already have)

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/li...a-partiers
http://firedoglake.com/2010/02/08/palin-...tea-party/

I can find you TONS more arguments between Libertarians and the tea party ideas or their rape of the word Libertarian.

Allow me to show you my proof:

*Video*

So he's for:

1. Removing central controls on education and putting power back to more local levels, using vouchers to subsidise education for the poor - I can generally agree with that, As I don't consider children to be fully responsible I do believe that local or national governments should provide education for at least those children from poor families who cannot afford it, I could go as far as full public education for reasons based on children not being responsible for themselves and not being able to fully trust the parents to take responsible care of their children's education, but I'm fine with this point.

2. Repeal Healthcare and stop government forcing people to manage their health in the way they think is best - I absolutely agree with this, again with the exception of Children, who should their parents be unable to pay, should get full coverage for free. I am also for some care for those who truly cannot afford it, though I would much rather use persuasion and the moral tools I have available to convince people to be more generous with public charity so the infringements on private property as the state takes it for welfare is reduced.

3. ??? I have no idea what the issue is or what the law is - No comment.

4. No welfare for illegal immigrants, punish corporations that intentionally hire illegal labor - Absolutely support that, I don't think that it is particularly moral for anyone to take the resources of another for their own ends, let alone the government taking it to give to people who aren't citizens.

5. Stop government manipulation of the free market, especially for their agenda sold as the "common good". Again, agree completely, government should stay the fuck out of the economy, supply and demand, interest rates etc and ONLY police it.

6. stop trying to create jobs through tax manipulation and subsidies You already know my position on this one.

Now, say what you want about the politician,

I like what I've seen so far.

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.

You mean they support the small government economic portion of libertarianism? No shit That's a well established commonality, the tea party voters seem sincerely for small government and truly free markets, unlike some of their politicians *cough* Bachman *cough*

Now, if he'd said "No religion in government" or "women can chose to get an abortion" do you think they would have been applauding? What about "Smoke yourself silly, it's not my right to tell you otherwise"? or "have as much gay sex and marriage as you like"? That is where he would have lost a great deal of their support, and those things are all CORE to the Classical Liberal ideology.

So yeah, Tea Party and Libertarian ideologies overlap often on economic issues, does that make them Libertarians? Fuck no it doesn't, they overlap with the GOP on social issues, does that make the tea party big government republicans? Fuck no, they're some breed of socially and fiscally conservative authoritarians, at least the people in the tea party movement, their handlers seem to me more like fat cat corporatists.

Then we have the libertarians setting up corporations, where profit is "the common good".

You do know what the "common good" is, right? Profits are good only for those who profit. The common good is more like "we can take half your profits to buy everyone cars because we believe it is in the common good". Profits are fine so long as they are not obtained by force or fraud. Nothing what-so-ever to do with the "common good". Profits that do not impose on the individual freedoms of others are absolutely fine, the common good is an idea that necessarily carries such an imposition.

No person is morally obligated to care about others, let alone obligated to part with their private property because some collective thug machinery tells them that they'll go to prison if they don't. We should use our moral tools of praise, condemnation and reward to promote the ideals that we espouse, such as providing food and shelter for poor people, but to do it via force is not something we have the right to do.

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.

Is "libertarian" just your pet word for "bad men" like Min uses "rich cocksuckers" for all of his short comings? It certainly seems like it, though that isn't nearly as dumbfounding as how starkly your use of the word is in contrast to what it means.

Statists/Corporatists were the ones who got Marijuana outlawed, for the "common good", to extenuate their/their buddies profits and to impose their social values on everyone else, this is one of the examples of the absolutely horrific damage that is done to 1. Consumers, 2. Individuals and 3. Societies by "Private-public partnerships" - This sort of action is entirely contradictory to the values in Classical Liberalism.

Go ahead, say that they are no longer libertarians.

No longer? When were they ever?

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.

Are you finished with your generalizations and assertions? You want to look at the corporatist of the last century? How many of them ever identified as "libertarians" or Classical Liberals? I think you'll find that in your country they were mostly all associated with the GOP and Dems, Here they were all associated with the formerly socialist Labor party and the big business arm of the National Party.

Classical liberals want to put in place measures to prevent the government from interfering with the economy or imposing their values on others by completely revoking their powers to do so - If you doubt that a greedy government will have to go through far more hurdles and efforts, in front of the opposition, the media and the public to get their rich buddies tax deals and subsidies under this system you are plainly deluded. A government with no power over the market or the freedoms of individuals has to pass entire political axioms through government to do so, in your system it's just another piece of legislation snuck into the existing framework of expected and even supported government control and BAM big corporations have cushy subsidies and government guaranteed loans.

It is MUCH easier for legislation favoring corporations to take place in your system and in the one that exists now.

Yup, that is exactly what they say until they get corporate power, then they keep saying it, but dont act it.

And to change it they have to pass axiomatic legislation! To impose on others in your system and the one that exists at present it's but one folder in the pile!

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?

Yeah, because to impose on the rights of others gets you arrested, do you think some "Libertarian" is going to want to lose his company because he couldn't respect individual rights? Honestly?

You think greedy people are all Libertarians? No fucking way, not even the majority, the greedy people don't want barriers to power erected and that is exactly what Libertarianism espouses, remove all power for the government to legislate commerce, that's precisely what they don't want - As I recall you agree to where convenient.

If a libertarian is making money off of religion, then he is going to try and get as much power to him as possible.

You single out Libertarians? Is this some pathetic debate tactic? What about the Neo cons making money on religion, which I can assure you is a FAR bigger slice of the pie, there are more Democrats making money on religion than Classical Liberals. Classical Liberalism has a strong tradition of being non-religious, many many deists, atheists and non-religious theists - The vast majority of Libertarianz is atheistic. You can thank the Classical Liberals for church-state separation.

Money = social power.

Sure, how is that DIFFERENT in any other system? In Capitalism greedy people seek wealth, in communism they seek high profile government positions. We can't get rid of greed through legislation, if you think that's the case you're bonkers, there won't be less greed under a progressive system, there will however be far more power at state. All acts in capitalism are voluntary, so at best a greedy person has to persuade other people to buy products to remain within the law, in a bigger government system they just go for politics/politicians, you think a greedy person with money is bad? Well a greedy person with POWER over your rights and finances is a fucking million times worse!

Because when they mean "the individual", they mean "me", not "you". The libertarian will be libertarian for himself, but not for others.

Bull.fucking.shit.

Classical Liberals are just as quick to espouse treating people fairly, altruism, justice, equality and freedom as ANYBODY else, more so for the latter than anybody else, they just DO NOT advocate using force and threat of imprisonment to take resources from people in enforcing their ideals. The tool of the intellectual is persuasion, we advocate using our moral tools to convince others to give and be generous, to promote private altruism.

Am I for good lives for the poor, education and healthcare for needy children, rehabilitation for drug users, contraception etc? Absolutely. Am I for using a police force, collective thuggery, to achieve these ends? NO FUCKING WAY. I have absolutely no right to take from others to promote those things that I value. The collective has absolutely no right to take from individuals to promote what they value.

A libertarians social beliefs are eclipse by his economic beliefs.

No, just the "scary bad man" that you persist on falsely calling a "libertarian" as if it's your pet whipping boy, to those of us who are Classical Liberals there is no boundary between the two, Rights come first and economic and social activity operates strictly without breaching them - Almost all Classical Liberals (and I say almost to avoid the crass and intellectually bankrupt generalizations that you insist on using) advocate much tougher sentences for imposing on others.

I have to hand it to you, either you absolutely lack understanding of what Classical Liberalism is about or you use these pathetic "arguments" to score points, either way you do it to an epic extent.

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.

I don't "support" monopolies, I simply believe I have absolutely no rights to tell someone else what they must charge for their own products! Just because we do not like the price of a product produced by a monopoly is NO REASON to threaten them with spending years locked in a 6x8 cell unless they do what we want. You want to talk about economic morals? how about you look at your own brand of Authoritarianism-where-convenient.

It's plainly hypocritical, you speak out against authoritarianism where it suits your biases but are all for it when it is in your own interests and enforces your own values. I may not benefit from all of my Classical Liberal ideologies, not is that the purpose of holding them, and I do not uphold them because they are necessarily good for me, I uphold them because they are just, fair and strict on rights, they place all individuals as sole owners of their own properties and hold steadfast against ANY violation of such rights, whether or not they are in my own interests.

Monopolies are NOT a major concern, even from a price perspective.

1. Monopolies must not use force or fraud to maintain their monopolistic status, they are shut down/imprisoned for doing such.

2. By keeping prices too high they create enormous opportunities for competition.

And as for this "slave" issue, I have rarely seen such despicable tactics in any discussion anywhere, even including the extremist and fundamentalist Christians and their "Stalin" card, I have made it as clear as I possibly can that individual freedoms are THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and ANYTHING that violates that I am completely opposed to. I might as well find some case of a progressive somewhere raping a child and saying that "Well that's what you get when you can violate individual freedoms for your own ends" though I shudder at the thought of sinking to your level right now.

How did evolution get tossed into an ideology that started before the birth of Darwin?

It was an example used to highlight a similar principle, that of self-organization from the players involved and NOT central planning.

By the time Darwins theory started to get well spread the shift between classic and modern liberals was forming.

Big fucking deal. I applaud you on the red hearing though.

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!"

Are you shitting me? *Holds up Straw man filter*

Self organization means that it is organized by the factors in the market, the consensual trades between the players, the companies set their prices to the highest price they can get while keeping the most customers, the customers chose what to spend their money on, resources are allocated where there is the most demand etc.

People don't decide what they want to pay individually, or what they'd prefer to pay, prices are set at the rate that most people are willing to pay, as in "How much can we charge for this relative to the number of customers we can retain?". The only one of us who wants a system where consumers get everything they want at the price they want is YOU, and you aren't at all shy about using threats of imprisonment to do it, it's nothing more than collective thuggery.

Yeah prices are higher in theme parks, there is less supply and more demand. You want to force people who run theme parks to sell their products at the cost you want too, right? How about fuck you, it's not yours, you have NO RIGHT to tell the owners of the products what price they can charge for them.

So the Libertarian company creates its own environmental laws (none),

1. Can you drop the "Libertarian company" shit? It's a nonsense combination of words, Just say "company", it means the exact same thing. Using "Libertarian company" off the bat just shows how utterly biased you are.

2. Companies don't set ANY laws in a Libertarian political system.

3. Environment laws are perfectly consistent, when you pollute the environment you are imposing a cost on other people, the cost to health, property etc of other people. Because it is impractical for people to negotiate their own compensation for environmental damages it is absolutely within the limits of the government to take care of it. If people are polluting the atmosphere the government should fine polluters for their imposition and use the money to remedy the situation or compensate the victims. If people damage the environment in extremely serious ways the government should have the power to shut them down, they cannot continue to impose on other people, doing it through the environment is no different.

its own watch dogs (none)

Private consumer advocacy groups already exists, if there is a demand for them amongst consumers they WILL emerge. Any watch dog work pertaining to the harm of others is done by the police.

its own insider trade bans (none)

Define "insider trading" because it has many meaning and there are many free market and policing solutions depending on what "insider trading" it is.

its own sheild against artificial inflation (none)

What?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? You really need some economics 101 if you are even suggesting something so daft as "corporations cause inflation". Do you even know what inflation is? It is the expansion of the money supply, something that is maintained exclusively by the state - Inflation causes prices to rise because when there is more money in the system there is 1. More money relative to each product meaning each product is worth more dollars, 2. more money to bid up prices on commodities auctions which has a knock on effect for prices.

That you think we need to "shield" against companies causing inflation shows how fucking clueless you are about economics.

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?

No, I don't expect you to believe any of the absolute bullshit you think I espouse because it is often either completely clueless or completely contrary to what I espouse.

And we have yet another example of your outrageous and unwavering biases, saying "You honestly believe a libertarian will police it's self" Rather than "you honestly believe a greedy person will police themselves" is a fucking huge bias.

No, I DO NOT expect greedy people to police themselves, I expect the POLICE to police them. Do you expect greedy people will police themselves in a progressive system? What about a communist one? Do you get how fucking blatant your biases are here?

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.

Most people aren't inherently greedy, we have an evolved sense of altruism and community, we give without threats of force, that's what charity is, if people had more money they would need less and give more, if the world became libertarian tomorrow there would be more people with more of their own money, you really think they wouldn't give more to charity? I'm willing to bet they would.

Sure, we won't be taking by force from greedy people, some people with resources won't want to give to charity, does that mean we have a right to chuck them in a 6x8 if they won't give up their property for causes we value? How the fuck is that moral?

We should use our moral tools of praise and condemnation to convince people to be charitable, give their time and resources to those in need, push for a change in consciousness, ask people to voluntarily give their resources to those in need, we SHOULD NOT use force to take from them in the name of the causes we value, we DO NOT have the right to tell others what to do with their own property whether or not we would use it to benefit others, it is nothing more than the collective thug machine firing up again.

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".

"Individual" means INDIVIDUAL, YOU are an individual I am an individual, We are the only people with a RIGHT to our own property and anyone else for whatever reason telling us what to do with our own property, out possessions, our bodies, our thoughts, our productivity etc is violating our rights. I don't care if you don't like that, I don't care if you would rather take their property to give to the needy, you DO NOT have the right to do so. By all means try and persuade people to be generous, but don't use force.

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?

No, they own the right to their intellectual property. You own the car and can do whatever the fuck you like with it, you can make duplicates but you can not sell them.

What? Copyrights? But the libertarians said I owned this software!

Software is sold in licenses, you do not own the code, you own a right to use it.

How come I cant make derivitives of it?

IP

It cuts into company profit margins? But I own this program! I bought it!

You bought a license If you actually bought the IP you can do whatever the fuck you like with it.

So I take it that you are against copywrights then?

NO.

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

You are PATHETIC. Greed isn't a "libertarian" issue, it's a HUMAN issue, but you ALREADY know that, so why the intellectually bankrupt attempts at cheap shots?

Lets say some greedy person does become a corporate exec, how does that change anything? The law doesn't change to fit them, rights are still rights, they still can't impose their views on others.

So basically a libertarian is libertarian when he isnt rich.

YOU are the only one asserting that. ASSERTING being the key word. How does someone being rich make any fucking difference? Are you really that ignorant of what classical liberalism is? Someone is a classical Liberal if they believe, amongst other things, that the rights of the Individual to their own life, liberty and property are paramount. There is absolutely nothing to stop a rich person holding those views.

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.

You're completely fucking wrong and completely fucking biased.

I don't know Glenn Beck's political history, but I doubt he was ever a fucking classical liberal. Call the tea party whatever the fuck you like, it IS NOT the same position, as I have already pointed out, with reason and evidence, time and time again. If you continue to completely ignore the position that I have been describing for your cheap shot equivocations and little teabagger whipping boys then there is no fucking point in talking to you.

And why is it you can make the distinction between Libertarians and Corporatist when it's convenient and then go ass fucking backwards and equate the two in order to make a cheap point. You never seem to Equate "democrat" or "liberal" with corporatist even though almost every motherfucker in the democratic party is EXACTLY that, and MANY of them claim to be progressives or liberals and "still push the social stuff".