right wing gun nut jobs try to kill NYC mayor

You've committed the classic equivocation fallacy, or a "semantic shift." The modern use of the word "liberal" does not refer to what it meant in previous centuries, or what "classical liberalism" means today. The same applies for the term "conservative" as well. You've spelled out, very accurately, the definitions of those terms from the distant past. The fallacy was committed when you tried to apply those definitions to our present conversation.

Because I don't feel like typing it all out, I'll just paste this chapter of a great audio book by Murray Rothbard, in case your interested, which explains the history in detail:

http://mises.org/media/1691/1-The-Libertarian-Heritage-The-American-Revolution-and-Classical-Liberalism

 

The fact that modern liberals are essentially republicans does not dissuade me from using the term properly, otherwise the "conservatives" (ironically) have essentially been able to delete the only just political stance, by changing liberal to mean something shitty, and being the other choice.

 

I didn't say the modern term for liberalism meant something shitty... just that it no longer means, "advocating civil liberties and political freedom, limited government, rule of law, and belief in free market." Do you disagree?

 

I do. You're talking about "moderate" liberals. They ARE shitty, and they're not liberals - there are only a few liberals who get it, just like there are only a few conservatives who get it.

 

THANK YOU!!

Yes, the is a huge difference between classical liberalism and what we have today.

 

Like I said, the fallacy was committed when you tried to apply those definitions to our present conversation, here:

To sum up the relevant part of the audio: Those resistant to government encroachment during the late 18th and 19th centuries were then considered "liberals." They advocated for individual liberty, laissez faire capitalism, fought against any and all tax increases, supported free trade and detested regulations / state granted monopolies. The "conservatives" of that era were in support of what was then the status-quo, or the British system of mercantilism... which was heavy economic controls, high taxes, trade barriers, wealth redistribution, large governmental expenditures and subsidies, etc.

The modern use of those two terms is entirely detached from their original connotations, and so when you try to apply them to our present conversation, it's a fallacy.

Modern liberals generally support a strong centralized government, a high progressive tax rate, wealth redistribution via a "safety-net," and regulations in all aspects of the economy. They also have a very strong belief in "Positive Law." (They claim that certain goods and services are "rights," such as health care and education, which is a clear violation of Natural Law and what classical liberals used to believe)

All references to liberals before your post have been referencing the modern connotation of the term. Your bit about Classical Liberalism has no bearing on what we were discussing.

 

It would appear that many of the Anti-Federalists arguments relating to the Constitution
have been proven insightful.

Freedom used to be that which the people expected government to protect their right to exercise, while today it seems to be that many people have redefined it to be that which government is expected to provide.

 

I'll agree with you that there are some shared beliefs, perhaps me using "entirely" was too strong a word. In the case of civil liberties for example; the belief that vices are not crimes (drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc), is something classical and modern liberals would agree on. That being said, there are certainly more differences than similarities, and I stand by my statement that talking about classical liberalism has no bearing on the previous conversation.

"humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires.[74] This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty, and property.[74]"

I'm not sure who this is from, it sounds like Thomas Hobbes, who as far as I know was entirely antithetical to classical liberalism. I know many classical liberal thinkers who rejected social contract theory such as Lysander Spooner, and Frederick Bastiat. I do not believe that this line of thinking was ever a main stay of the classical liberal movement, but I will say that even some of the most radical classical liberals believed that some form of governance was necessary, but still nothing like the size and scope of governance that is being advocated by "liberals" today.

I wasn't trying to argue for or against the merits of modern liberalism... I was just pointing out the enormous differences between the meaning of the word "liberal" today, and 200 years ago.

Claiming someone has a right to healthcare and education are violations of natural law. Under natural law, people do not have the right to other people's labor do they? By granting someone an "unalienable" right to a service like healthcare, you are having to force someone to provide them with that service, whether that person wants to provide it or not. How does forced labor not violate natural law?

I have studied the history of the labor movement, the industrial revolution, and the origins of regulation in great detail. I have undoubtedly come to different conclusions than you.

 

My argument could, and indeed has been used as rationale to completely eliminate all government. You bring up this prospect as if it's a bad thing.

Natural law theory is the theory that there are "certain moral truths that apply to all people, regardless of the particular place where they live or the agreements they had make." What "society" comes up with, or what is written on a piece of paper does not change or alter these truths.

If me and you were stranded on a desert island, and we both need food. If you go fishing and I sleep all day, I don't have a right to your fish do I? Would it not be a violation of natural law if I were to steal some of your fish when you weren't looking? Or if I found a a sharp stick and threatened to stab you with it if you didn't give me half your catch, would I be within my rights? If I were to find a piece of a paper and write on it everyone on the island had a "right" to life, would this make these acts any more morally justified? In my view, no.

 

Such could very well be argued, but in the end I think an adequate majority of the people would agree to retain the areas of government they feel to be beneficial to them all.

Perhaps it's time that the people began to be given a stronger voice in how they will accept to be governed?

I think more people should have had their eyes opened when the Health Care bill was being put to a vote, and Nancy Pelosi said "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.", and when several of our LAWMAKERS were asked about what was in the bill, one of them answered "I'd have to have a team of lawyers explain it to me." My immediate response was, WHO is writing the laws our elected politicians are voting on? and IF our lawmakers cannot explain the laws to us, WHO will, and HOW will the laws they pass be interpreted and applied to us fairly?

Although we are claimed to be a Nation of laws not men, governed by the consent of the people, the Federal government has, as predicted by George Mason and other anti-Federalists, gradually, but quite effectively pre-empted BOTH the people and the States of their Supreme right to exercise self government in many areas which had existed prior to 1913.

As I see it, the issues we argue over are not so much associated with Left or Right, but more so with the extremes of Socialism and Capitalism, each of which cannot be attributed exclusively to the Left or Right. Add to that a world wide monitary system made up of constantly diminishing value fiat currencies, which only promotes a widening gap between the rich and the poor, necessitating a constant government revenue growth along with debt accumulation to fund the social programs and subsidies it provides which only enhances governments ability to assume greater power over the people in the name of "the greater good" as some of the founders predicted.

But what does any of this have to do with the "Right wing nut jobs" mentioned in the OP?

 

To repeat –

“This will be simplistic and be a gross generalisation but I’ll try and explain - there is political liberalism and economic liberalism (even religious liberalism).

Political liberals once supported economic liberalism because they believed it undermined the political authority of the few.

Then many political liberals realised that economic liberalism had led to an economic authority that curtailed ‘liberty’ as much as political authority did and began to turn against economic liberalism just at the point when wealth began to realise that economic liberalism granted them more power in the shape of economic authority.

So political liberals became seen by those on the right as ‘left-wing’ opponents because they wished to undermine the power and wealth of the few.

But many on the left see ‘liberals’ as being right leaning as they are still great champions of capitalism. In the UK at the moment we have a right wing government made up of Liberals and Conservatives.

In an American context ‘liberals’ are seen as left wing only because much of left wing thought has been systematically purged from US society over the last 50+ years.
This is why many outside the US believe that Americans have two right wing parties with a centre right Democratic Party and are more right wing Republican Party.”

 

As to attacks on international regulation of global wealth by sneeringly calling it NWO that is just the rhetoric pushed by right wing conspiracy theorists - it’s only there because such people have fallen for right wing propaganda even more than most people.

As to the rest of the usual suspects I say - come on – you are still pumping out the same right wing bull shit that you’ve never actually been able to defend in any rational or reasonable way.

But time and again you argue that everyone should just accept your ideas as valid even if you can’t defend them.

There are many left wing and right wing ideas and views running from Stalinist communism right through to the extremes of right wing libertarianism. To me the way to separate the wheat from the chaff is by seeing if the ideas stand up to scrutiny, can they be defended, if they can that is great they may be worth pursuing but if they cannot then they are very likely to be dead ends.

 

Thing is that maybe it is only a short step from saying you would kill policemen to stop them from taking away your guns (if a law was passed to limit what guns could be held) to pre-empting that by murdering those that propose such laws?

 

Wrong

As I say the same shit.

This is the perpetuation of a myth, the idea that those that seek assistance are always doing it because they are venal lazy scroungers.

It is wealth’s self serving con game argument of the deserving and undeserving poor. The deserving being those that don’t ask for help and so don’t need any. And the undeserving being those who do ask for help thereby showing that they are scroungers and wasters who don’t deserve any help.

So it was plain - the argument went – that there was no need to give assistance to the disadvantaged.

The problem was that these people were often the same people but just at different stages of life or circumstance.

So in the example the non-fisher has to be lazy and venal who ‘sleeps all day’ while the fisher works.

But what about a situation where one is sick and so cannot help in fishing, do you help them or let them stave and what happens when you get sick and they are healthy?

Or how about an adult and child, the adult fishes, feeds and brings up the kid but in old age cannot fish anymore, does the kid not help the old person?

 

I don't think I said any general statement about those "seeking assistance" ... just a simple of question of what Meagain thought was within my rights in the confines of that scenario.

Can you cite me one example of a successful civilization that has ever existed without rape, murder, or child molestation? Just because something exists within the confines of whatever you'd consider a "successful" society, doesn't mean it's right, nor does it mean that we should not strive towards the elimination of it.

I agree it's theft. As you said, forcibly taking the fruits of someone else's labor is pretty much universally seen as wrong. How is forcing a healthcare worker, or a teacher to give someone else the fruits of their labor any different?