The Philosophy of Liberalism

This philosophy of liberalism has had devastating effects on America.

It is not done yet. Some think it is increasing the level of hatred in America.

Here is some evidence of that.

https://americanmanifestobook.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-left-teaching-people-how-to-hate.html

 

Evidence? Chortling, chortle! When did "they're worse than scum" become anything more than rant?

Liberalism is the dominant political economy and the great defender of capitalism. Its therefore ironic that right wingers blubber that it is somehow left wing. Apparently if you're not rabid, and you realise Fox News isn't reality, you're some sort of Marxist...

 

They are continuously practicing the season of misinformation for their base.

 

The Founding Fathers were liberal thinkers, breaking with the conservative viewpoint of the time.
The father of your computer was a liberal thinker living a liberal lifestyle.
The Wright Bothers were liberal thinkers.
Leonardo Divinci was a liberal thinker. And gay.
Breaking from the conservative "norm" is what lies at the base of every great discovery throughout history.

 

Projectile, rightwing poopdoodle is not "evidence."

 

The connection between what we call liberals today and the founding fathers is essentially nil. In fact, most liberals today have more in common with Louis XIV than they do with men like Adams and Jefferson.

There is no truth in advertising today not in politics at any rate. What are called liberals in this country today are, in fact. the statist left or progressives if you prefer. The only progress they are interested in is ever increasing power to the state. They almost literally hate people like the Wright brothers the petite bourgeisie, the small business community from which most real progress over the years has actually come.

In short sir progress in expanding the role of government in people's lives is not progress it is retreat.

 

That would be classical Liberalism, not the current neo-Liberalism that is on the opposite spectrum of classical Liberalism.

 

Sure, but he is referring to the term in the political sense. Liberals are those who view government as a solution to problems that go beyond its appropriate role. It is a conservative view of government. Conservatives (excluding conservative politicians) want less government and more freedom and are therefore more liberal in that sense.

 

Not really. The Founders in part were upset they were denied the rights of Englishmen, deriving from Natural Law.

 

No it isn't. Its modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is just a corpse abused by fake libertarians reading dodgy online sites paid for by big business (and pushing the neoliberalism agenda)

 

The Framers were classical Liberals. The closest to that now would be Libertarians. Today's neo-Liberals are closer to Marx than to the Framers.

 

LOL, sure thing. Got a peer reviewed paper on that? That you don't know the difference is telling.

 

You would imply that "Conservative" somewhat akin to stupid- but it actually means what it says. Cautious, skeptical about anything until proven, careful about jumping to conclusions and taking stupid actions you will regret later. It's not too different from growing up and putting aside the careless and know-everything attitude of a teenager in favor of the responsible thinking of manhood.

The left will talk with disdain about the "old white guys". White has nothing to do with it, any person can mature and act responsibly. Life is a teacher- and those who have been in school longer are invariably wiser on average. Most societies around the world recognize that the older people have learned from experience that the younger ones have no grasp of, so they respect that and try to learn from them That is why most people in leadership positions have been older people- time has taught them what youth does not know because they have not yet been exposed to it.

Nothing wrong with being brilliant and young- but you are damn sure not brilliant if you think those who have already been where you are going learned nothing, and you don't need to consider their advice.

 

That you didn't realise neoliberalism refers to market fundamentalism and it's an agenda pushed by the right wing was a bit of a give away...

 

RE: The Philosophy of Liberalism
※→ spiritgide, Daniel Light, et al,

I think you might find (an alternative view) that there is a false correlation between the Political Labels (Conservative - Liberals) to that of the Technical and Engineering abilities that advance society as a whole. Political Labels and Technology Developers have no correlation.

(COMMENT)

IMO, Conservatives do not oppose change as a policy, but the become very critical and skeptical of the inducement to build a more perfect nation; whatever that model of a perfect society might be.

In this era, we tend to scale the political Positions with a spectrum line, with Conservatives at one end of the scale and Liberals at the other end.

​

THEN, from that scale, we tend to evaluate and place the characteristics on the scale in comparison to others.

​

But when you look at these clusters, you find that the have something in common. Every single one of the uses the technology of the day to advance their political image and position.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Neo as in new and abnormal. Liberal as in what the left calls itself today.

 

You obviously don't know the meaning of liberal.

 

It's true as some have said, that the things we share are usually more important than those we don't. Seems we forget that too often.
The idea of building a better nation for example should be common- but what constitutes better goes all over the place. Some people think of us as individuals who cooperatively work for it (conservatives) and other think of us as a socialistic society where everyone should work for every one, and everyone should benefit regardless of contribution.

Bees, ants, termites and a few others creatures have totally socialistic structure. However- the queen breeds once, and lays eggs for a lifetime that are all the equivalent of clones, meaning they all are the society. The difference in worker and defender bees for example is created in the larval stage by chemical alteration. There is no independence, like the "Borg", it is a central being with all members being components.

This is perhaps the big conflict of the moment- people thinking that a socialist society can somehow run that way. But humans are, to a person, unique individuals with vastly different talents and tendencies. We are not clones, and will never be satisfied to take that position- in any degree. The left is moving toward that- the right is going the opposite way.
Your chart tends to label each level of person- but obviously the person who conceived it still was influenced by his own bias. Hannity for example is listed just past the "crazy line". And while Hannity if rock solid in his views, he also backs up what he says with documentation and sound logic. I see very little of that on the left, at any level. Mark Levin is not on the list, but few men are his equal in the knowledge of political insider history or the constitution- and if you listen to him for a while, it's obvious he is not only a brilliant man, but a very wise and balanced one. It is very difficult to dispute what he says. He is solid conservative, he is fully aware of all the aspects of the big picture- and in some ways, a stronger conservative and Trump supporter than Hannity.

Personally, I dismiss anyone who loses track of the core objectives of improving the nation- and especially so when the person is oblivious to the damage their ideas create. I would put AOC in that position; a dingbat that got some spotlight and has convinced herself that whatever comes to her mind is somehow superior thought.... and belongs on a funny farm. I would much prefer we had logical people on both sides, so actual, meaningful discussion of goals could replace the pissing match we see now.

 

Neoliberalism is well understood. For us it can be traced back to Thatcherism. That you don't know any of this stuff is a tad surprising! Have you been locked away in a nuclear bunker since 1979?

 

OK, you choose to stay dense. Not my problem.

 

.

 

Today's "liberal thinkers" would, when using their polite voices, denounce the founding fathers as racist right wing extremists.

 

Neoliberalism, or progressivism. Nearly opposite of the liberalism of Thomas Jefferson. And as with nearly every other ism, the perception of it is dominated by a loud and extremist minority.

 

Liberal and Conservative are always relative and so not useful terms without the context of the time and environment they're being used in. Jefferson and many of the other Founders were liberal because they opposed monarchy (the status quo of the day) and advocated a revolutionary new kind of society. There is an argument to be made that the people called liberal today are functionally conservative because they want to keep the status quo of big government interventionism. People who reject new or different innovations in government or society are the effective equivalent of the Tories of Jefferson's time, claiming that a democratic republic could never work and monarchy was the only viable system of government.

 

One point-

"People who reject new or different innovations in government or society are".... I would change reject to "fail to consider". Lots of things need to be rejected, especially things that if allowed to begin are hard to reverse. Consideration results in wiser, considered choices, where trial and error (giving any idea try) is a guarantee of disaster. Examining an idea in full light is proper; accepting it at face value... not so much.