A Letter to Liberals by Leo Tolstoy

[Conza88]

An epic article.. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/snyder14.html). a must read in my opinion.

TW can paste the whole article if he wants. :) It's long, so I'll highlight some gems soon. But really, click the link - read it all. :)

The "Liberals" here, he is referring to is classical liberalism I assume. i.e Libertarians. So take note.

So that two methods of opposing the government have been tried, both unsuccessfully, and it now remains to try a third and a last method, one not yet tried, but one which, I think, cannot but be successful. Briefly, that means this: that all enlightened and honest people should try to be as good as they can, and not even good in all respects, but only in one; namely, in observing one of the most elementary virtues – to be honest, and not to lie, but to act and speak so that your motives should be intelligible to an affectionate seven-year-old boy; to act so that your boy should not say, "But why, papa, did you say so-and-so, and now you do and say something quite different?"

This method seems very weak, and yet I am convinced that it is this method, and this method only, that has moved humanity since the race began. Only because there were straight men, truthful and courageous, who made no concessions that infringed their dignity as men, have all those beneficent revolutions been accomplished of which mankind now have the advantage, from the abolition of torture and slavery up to liberty of speech and of conscience. Nor can this be otherwise, for what conscience (the highest forefeeling man possesses of the truth accessible to him) demands, is always, and in all respects, the activity most fruitful and most necessary for humanity at the given time. Only a man who lives according to his conscience can have influence on people, and only activity that accords with one's conscience can be useful.

[Truth Warrior]

A Letter to Liberals
by Leo Tolstoy


Introduction by Jeff Snyder (http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/mailto:jsnyder62@gmail.com)
Introduction by Jeff Snyder


DIGG THIS (http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/snyder13.html&title=Tortuous Justifications&topic=political_opinion)

Now that Barack Obama is backpedaling fast on his promised “change,” many of his supporters may be experiencing a natural disgust with politics and wondering, What do we do now?, or, as the question is more classically posed, What is to be done? For those who are ruled, this, and not “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who will protect us against the protectors?), is the fundamental political question, the latter embodying a plaintive, supplicant, “protect me” mindset that guarantees perpetual subjection. In 1896, Leo Tolstoy wrote a letter to the liberals of his day who were, then as now, laboring unsuccessfully to achieve what he described as a “gradual conquest of rights” through the political process. His letter is the most concise, cogent answer to the question I have discovered. His recommendations have not been widely accepted or practiced, but reading his letter now we see the same government abuses, the same boy emperor who will listen only to advice from self-serving flatterers who tell him what he wants to hear, the same sycophantic hacks, the same acquiescence of polite society, the same attempts at reform and the same failures of reform in his day as in ours. The same.

Tolstoy references the failures of liberalism in Russia for the 70 years preceding his letter, i.e., through virtually the entire 19th Century. For Tolstoy, this was a long enough trial period to draw some conclusions. Far from really changing government, “both reason and experience clearly show” that a “gradual conquest of rights [through the political process] is a self-deception which suits the government admirably” and “actually tend[s] to strengthen the power and the irresponsibility of government” (emphasis added). A striking claim! Could it be true? Well, consider the preferred American method: implementing the “reform” in a way which oligopolizes benefits for and control by moneyed interests, thus further strengthening the “partnership” between government and those interests to exploit the rest of us. For example, Americans by and large want universal health care. The proposals under consideration, however, are variants of mandating universal medical insurance. Who are the beneficiaries of that?

Tolstoy proposes a third alternative to revolution and reform. I have asked Lew to reprint Tolstoy’s letter (set forth below) in the hope that some of those now feeling the sting of disappointment over Obama’s backpedaling may be receptive to pondering Tolstoy’s advice. I recommend it as a starting point, to help dust off the cobwebs. Those wishing to follow up with a more modern and comprehensive treatment would be well rewarded by reading Vaclav Havel’s The Power of the Powerless, certainly one of the greatest political works of the 20th Century. Havel’s extended essay provided both a theoretical understanding and practical recommendations for the non-violent resistance that helped end communist rule in Eastern Europe. It contains invaluable insight and lessons for anyone confronting monolithic power.

Let’s briefly review where we are. Congress no longer affects even a pretense of responding to the “will of the People.” At least 70% of Americans have consistently wanted this country out of Iraq for some time, yet the Democrats who were elected in 2006 to extricate us from the war and who control the House of Representatives – the only place where revenue bills may originate – continue to appropriate funds for our wars, and have now provided funding well into next year. Despite controlling the purse-strings, men, women and children suffer, die and are dislocated while Democrats posture that their hands are tied because they are not filibuster- and veto-proof, offering the hope – and note that it is only hope, because they are certainly making no definite promises – of ending the war if only Americans will give them a Democratic president and more than 60 percent of the seats in Congress. Americans, Iraqis, all are held hostage to delivery of unopposable control of the country to the Democrats. Since November 2006 they have had the power, they have had the mandate, and they have done nothing to end the war. In fact, they gave us The Surge. With the exception of Dennis Kucinich, who voted against the war and appropriations for the war, the House Democrats are accessories to an illegal war, morally bankrupt and despicable. (I trust you can infer the claim I would make about Republicans.)

Yet this absence of any desire to change course and calculated inaction are not the worst of it. Far from even beginning to extricate us from the Middle East, Congress is busy committing us further. They spiked a provision that denied the President authority to attack Iraq. Seymour Hirsch recently reported that last year the Democratic-controlled Congress authorized $400 million for covert operations against Iran, purportedly to destabilize that country’s religious leadership. House Resolution 362, which has 220 co-sponsors, a majority of the entire House, calls on the President to create a naval blockade of Iran, a clear act of war against that nation. Should Iran attempt to break the blockade or otherwise retaliate, American blood-lust will almost certainly take care of the rest, and military action against Iran will be inevitable. Clearly it does not bother large numbers of Americans that they are manipulated into providing the desired response – they voted for George Bush by the tens of millions after it was clear he lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, and millions still support him. The dictates of party identity, the pleasures of party solidarity, the welcome distraction from the conditions of one’s own life and opportunity to give free reign to anger and hatred against those who, we are told, are our enemies apparently more than compensate any possible outrage at being played for fools and conned into supporting outright murder and plunder.

The country proceeds to possible world war, desolation and incalculable loss while the media and the politically active are consumed with the cult of personality and group symbolic identification that we call elections, convinced that that way lies Hope and Change. But now, to the increasing dismay of some of his staunchest supporters, Barack Obama, the very Candidate of Hope and Change, has moved with breath-taking speed right-ward to what, really rather amazingly, is now described as “the middle” (empire and the warfare-surveillance-police-state thus being presented as an accepted given and norm), and is saying and doing many things that seem a lot more like “staying the course” than “change.” Arianna Huffington has counseled him that moving to the middle is for losers, but it’s too late. The fact that he is doing it demonstrates that he will say and do whatever he believes he needs to say and do for the sake of his ambition and power. It’s no longer clear which, if any, of his erstwhile principles are merely tactics, and whether it’s anything but tactics all the way down.

Obama has said that “we have to be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless in getting in.” Not only does this position have a completely open-ended time-frame, but it also embodies the same hubris, the same presumption we made going in, namely, that we Americans have the wisdom, knowledge and power to socially engineer a stable solution for the different peoples residing in the artificial geographic construct called “Iraq” that will withstand outside and internal forces and is favorable, or at least not hostile, to our interests. The rhetoric sounds thoughtful and impressive, but belies the hope that we will be getting out of Iraq anytime soon.

He has told AIPAC that he “would do everything – and I mean everything” to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Thus he is committed to war with Iran as a means of stopping it from developing the nuclear bomb, and apparently willing to use the nuclear option. After all, it’s certainly part of “everything.”
He has lamented his rhetorical excesses and backed away from his promise to renegotiate NAFTA and, in a move that was highly distressing to many progressives, he reversed his opposition to granting retroactive immunity to telecoms and supports the latest FISA bill. He plans to expand Bush’s faith-based initiative program and to elevate the program to a “moral center” of his administration! Obama’s “new politics” is beginning to look a lot like “politics as usual.” It appears that the only thing the Candidate of Hope really is offering is hope.

And so it is dawning on Democratic activists that the hopes for ending the war they placed on the outcome of the 2006 elections, which were dashed by a supine Democratic Congress and so postponed and re-focused on the 2008 elections, may not be fulfilled regardless of who wins. The way is left wide open for things to get worse, and it does not appear that they are going to get appreciably better soon.

It’s pretty amazing. We have the worst, most unapproved President of our lifetimes and possibly in American history, a war that at least 70% of the people want out of, the dollar is plummeting, the economy is in a shambles and no one knows where the bottom is. And still the candidates hedge and waffle, and build escape hatches into their speeches. What would circumstances have to be, exactly, to get a firm commitment to a complete change in direction out of these people? Instead, we are forever offered “better managerialism.”

So this is it? Is this as good as it gets? Must we forever play the losing game of accepting the lesser of two evils? Is this our fate, to forever labor and work in the hope that, maybe, once in our entire lifetimes we will have the right President and Congress who will for a brief span Do The Right Thing? Is this the role we accept being consigned to? Is this what we cling to?

The Constitution provides us with four peaceable levers with which to move the federal government: freedom of speech and assembly, the right to petition the government, and the vote. As recent events should have confirmed beyond all doubt to all but the willfully blind, in each case the moment arm of these levers is too short, the mass endeavoring to move it too insubstantial, to effect any real change in direction. And this is true for a very obvious but rarely mentioned reason that dooms them to failure: not one of these mechanisms has the power to effect any specific action. None of them can require or compel the elected official to take any particular action whatsoever. None of them can revoke what has been done or terminate any ongoing government activity. None of them can hold any elected official accountable for any action he has taken while in office.

What sort of “principal” is it that cannot instruct his “agent” to take a specific action on his behalf and replace him immediately if he fails to do so? A less euphemistic word for “petitioning” is “begging.” What sort of “principal” has to beg his agent to do something for him and hope that he will carry it out? We will have a better understanding of our predicament and greater clarity of purpose if we stop calling these people “representatives” and describe them as what they truly are – rulers, and if we stop calling ourselves “citizens” and describe ourselves as what we really are – subjects.

There is one way to get what one wants, to be a real principal to real agents. It is neither mentioned nor prohibited by the Constitution, and it is not available to the common citizen but it is, most interestingly, defended by its supporters as part of “freedom of speech.” And that one way, that fundamental freedom to get the law or government action that one wants is: to buy it. In this case the piper does indeed call the tune, and it is, conveniently, beside the point who puts the nominal agent in office.

Why would any voter continue participating in this sham?

If not the vote, if not assembly or petition, where is the lever to move ourselves from the spot? What is to be done? In 1896 Tolstoy answered, “Evidently not what for seventy years past has proved fruitless, and has only produced inverse result.” In his letter, reproduced below, Tolstoy argues that, of the two methods available to change government, revolution and reform, the “gradualist” path chosen by reformers is even less effective and less rational than outright violent revolt (which Tolstoy rejects as immoral, as well as self-defeating). Far from being progressive, the activities of reformers are in fact harmful “because enlightened, good, and honest people by entering the ranks of the government give it a moral authority which but for them it would not possess.” In other words, it is the people who with the best of intentions are trying hardest to make the government “work,” to make the system live up to its ideals (or more accurately, its own PR), that sustain and perpetuate the power that is crushing them and us. The worthy goals that honest and sincere activists in and outside of government seek to achieve, their nobility of purpose, confer legitimacy upon the entire system, while the power it provides is used by those “who form [government’s] core – the violators, self-seekers, and flatterers” for the benefit of the few. If they would cease cooperating, government would lack the moral patina that confers legitimacy upon the entire enterprise and colors – and gives a free pass to – government’s misdeeds as unfortunate, unintended or misguided accidents or excesses rather than what they are – rank criminality.

George Bush may be the most destructive President of our lifetimes, but it is the well-intentioned activists and voters who, by trying to make the system perform “as it should,” sustain the system of belief and social network that confers upon him that absolute power, in the hope and desire that all that power may someday be turned to good account to achieve their desired ends. We stop far short of the problem if we think that the question for us is whether Obama or McCain will be the greater evil. Those who supportmake possible the sweeping power available to the greater and the lesser evil.

Non-cooperation and withdrawal of support is not, however, Tolstoy’s sole counsel. Equally important is that we pursue the activities and goals we care about and desire to bring about independent of government, neither seeking nor seeking its assistance or involvement. Do you want health care for those who cannot afford it? Then instead of working to have government “solve” the problem by mandating that all citizens be covered by medical insurance, work without government to establish, maintain and support independent charitable clinics and hospitals. Once we cease believing that government is “the answer” and accept that the rest of us, acting on the only basis we have at our disposal – voluntary cooperation, is the only “answer” that there’s ever going to be, our field of activity is wide open and there is much to be done.

This of course threatens government with marginalization as well as loss of prestige and legitimacy, and that threat may pressure government to curb certain excesses or reform, but Tolstoy did not recommend it as a tactic to bring government to heel. He believed this to be the proper way to act. His goal was not to “bring government around” to better serving humanity but to discover how we should live. True to form, then, Tolstoy closes the letter by counseling that one must have clarity of purpose based on a spiritual understanding of life to truly carry out his second recommendation. This may seem to us extraneous or overblown, but Tolstoy is trying to tell us something important here. It is the reason he counsels against focusing on seeking “small practical ends,” such as universal health care. Such activities do not challenge or even begin to address the fundamental basis of the political power that commands vast resources with which to exploit the weak and wage war on a scale unimaginable to the monarchs and tyrants of the past More importantly, they also indicate that one is missing the heart, and true beginning, of the matter – the question of how one is to live.

The vote is easy and costs nothing because it means nothing, because it is pure fantasy and self-deception. As Arthur Silber has just said in connection with a discussion of the myth of the earlier achievements of the Progressive Era in American history and those who mistakenly place their hopes in a “miracle” called Obama, if we really want to alter this country’s course before complete collapse we’re going to need “more understanding, and much, much more courage” than we have now. The necessary desire, and that courage, will never arise as long as we think that our role is to express our opinion and select those who agree with us, and will not arise out of hope or desire for more and better government benefits or the cessation of the latest war. If change and not the illusion of change is what we want, then many of us are going to have to find within ourselves a quite different conception of who we are and what we will dedicate ourselves to than we now possess.



< Edited: Complete content too long per RPF post length restrictions. Click the link below for access to the rest, please >



July 10, 2008






Jeff Snyder [send him mail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/mailto:jsnyder62@gmail.com)] is an attorney who works in Manhattan. He is the author ofNation of Cowards – Essays on the Ethics of Gun Control (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1888118075/lewrockwell/), which examines the American character as revealed by the gun control debate. He occasionally blogs at The Shining Wire (http://shiningwire.blogspot.com/). Read this interview with him (http://lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro2.html).





Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Jeff Snyder Archives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/snyder-arch.html)


http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/snyder14.html

[Conza88]

Thanks :)

[Conza88]

bump for an epic read.

[Conza88]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/i_can_has_prezidency.jpg


:D

[Conza88]

bump for a very good read... skip the preface if necessary

[Conza88]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v58/PixelMagic/i_can_has_prezidency.jpg


:D

:cool:

[Kade]

An epic article.. (http://www.lewrockwell.com/snyder/snyder14.html). a must read in my opinion.

TW can paste the whole article if he wants. :) It's long, so I'll highlight some gems soon. But really, click the link - read it all. :)

The "Liberals" here, he is referring to is classical liberalism I assume. i.e Libertarians. So take note.

So that two methods of opposing the government have been tried, both unsuccessfully, and it now remains to try a third and a last method, one not yet tried, but one which, I think, cannot but be successful. Briefly, that means this: that all enlightened and honest people should try to be as good as they can, and not even good in all respects, but only in one; namely, in observing one of the most elementary virtues – to be honest, and not to lie, but to act and speak so that your motives should be intelligible to an affectionate seven-year-old boy; to act so that your boy should not say, "But why, papa, did you say so-and-so, and now you do and say something quite different?"

This method seems very weak, and yet I am convinced that it is this method, and this method only, that has moved humanity since the race began. Only because there were straight men, truthful and courageous, who made no concessions that infringed their dignity as men, have all those beneficent revolutions been accomplished of which mankind now have the advantage, from the abolition of torture and slavery up to liberty of speech and of conscience. Nor can this be otherwise, for what conscience (the highest forefeeling man possesses of the truth accessible to him) demands, is always, and in all respects, the activity most fruitful and most necessary for humanity at the given time. Only a man who lives according to his conscience can have influence on people, and only activity that accords with one's conscience can be useful.

Good read. And no, he is talking to Liberals.

[Conza88]

Good read. And no, he is talking to Liberals.

Before / after the label was corrupted? :confused:

;)

[Kade]

Yeah, the old school type who don't want the state to be super duper ghey. >.< :D

You do a great disservice to your cause by demonizing modern liberals. That liberals have invoked new rights, does not equate them to Socialists, or Democrats.... this is your creation and your propagation. Outside of Conservative circles, this isn't even understood... I didn't realize that I was suppose to be a socialist until I spent time on these boards...

Getting angry and mocking liberals and equating them to socialists is not helping bring people.

Trust me when I say that you want liberals on your side... Today's liberals..

If you want to understand more about liberalism go to these places and read for yourself...


http://www.dailykos.com/
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

[Conza88]

You do a great disservice to your cause by demonizing modern liberals. That liberals have invoked new rights, does not equate them to Socialists, or Democrats.... this is your creation and your propagation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

From your source. :D

Social liberals argue that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens.

They believe that real freedom can only exist when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty.

They generally favor the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a minimum wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.[4]

Sounds mighty socialistic to me. Nice progressive tax... didn't they; err, get that from Marx's Communist Manifesto? ;)

Sorry, but those modern liberals (aka bastards who stole the term from Classical Liberals) can go take a fken hike & go jump off a bridge. ;)

Tell me, what rights have modern liberals achieved, that classical liberals didn't? :confused: - that are worthwhile.

:)

[Kade]

From your source. :D

Social liberals argue that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens.

They believe that real freedom can only exist when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty.

They generally favor the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a minimum wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.[4]

Sounds mighty socialistic to me. Nice progressive tax... didn't they; err, get that from Marx's Manifesto? ;)

Sorry, but those modern liberals (aka bastards who stole the term from Classical Liberals) can go take a fken hike & go jump off a bridge. ;)

Tell me, what rights have modern liberals achieved, that classical liberals didn't? :confused: - that is worthwhile.

:)

You can't possibly think those things you bolded are "socialism" on the level of Cuba... and it also clearly states that is "some" of them..

You skipped the most important part...

[G]enerally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government

[Conza88]

You can't possibly think those things you bolded are "socialism" on the level of Cuba... and it also clearly states that is "some" of them..

You skipped the most important part...

[G]enerally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government

See no, classical liberals are qualified under that as well.

We're talking specifically about Social Liberals... now aren't we. ;) (The bastards who have corrupted the label) So you're above quote is largely irrelevant. :p

I ask again, cus you skipped over the most important part.


"Tell me, what rights have modern liberals achieved, that classical liberals didn't? :confused: - that are worthwhile. "

All those "rights" are not rights, nor should they be. They remind me of the UN Bill of Human Rights... "RIGHT TO WORK" etc.
Nooo, their a god damn privilege if anything. "Ohh you're violating my rights, you must hire me, or face prosecution." :rolleyes:

[Kade]

See no, classical liberals are qualified under that as well.

We're talking specifically about Social Liberals... now aren't we. ;) (The bastards who have corrupted the label) So you're above quote is largely irrelevant. :p

I ask again, cus you skipped over the most important part.


All those "rights" are not rights, nor should they be. They remind me of the UN Bill of Human Rights... "RIGHT TO WORK" etc.
Nooo, their a god damn privilege if anything. "Ohh you're violating my rights, you must hire me, or face prosecution." :rolleyes:

Classical Liberals have their own definition.

They are more focused on the economy, where as modern liberals are more focused on civil rights, which translates to who Tolstoy was talking to...

The examples you give are debatable... the problem with liberalism is that it requires thinking and debating... and discussion. Simply saying that someone must hire someone is not very liberal... saying that you were not hired because of something is a little more liberal language... do you see the difference?

It's hard to prove.. I know, which is why liberals tend to side against things such as affirmative action.

[mediahasyou]

They generally favor the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a minimum wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.[4]

Modern liberals grant additional liberties while compromising other's liberty.

Right to education and health care means others have to pay. Right to minimum wage means slackers make more money, while the hard workers make less.

Modern liberal laws against discrimination actually discriminate further instead of providing equality under law.

Welfare laws, unemployment benefit, and homeless housing all steal money from society. Stealing is not a human right.

[Kade]

Modern liberals grant additional liberties while compromising other's liberty.

Right to education and health care means others have to pay. Right to minimum wage means slackers make more money, while the hard workers make less.

Modern liberal laws against discrimination actually discriminate further instead of providing equality under law.

Welfare laws, unemployment benefit, and homeless housing all steal money from society. Stealing is not a human right.

I wonder what your sentence would look like without rhetoric.

[Conza88]

Classical Liberals have their own definition.

They are more focused on the economy, where as modern liberals are more focused on civil rights, which translates to who Tolstoy was talking to...

The examples you give are debatable... the problem with liberalism is that it requires thinking and debating... and discussion. Simply saying that someone must hire someone is not very liberal... saying that you were not hired because of something is a little more liberal language... do you see the difference?

It's hard to prove.. I know, which is why liberals tend to side against things such as affirmative action.
Classical liberals; were there FIRST. They had the name, it got stolen / corrupted, because it became so popular to call yourself a liberal.

@ bold... Well you obviously don't see the difference. If it is a RIGHT, which is what Social Liberals want / strive for - or any of those other retarded things they consider as "rights" - means if I have the right to it, regardless of anything. If you get in my way of achieving it, you are violating my rights. Quit trying to defend the name, social libs have taken it over - i,.e the modern liberal you like to refer to. They fail epically.

Modern liberals grant additional liberties while compromising other's liberty.

Right to education and health care means others have to pay. Right to minimum wage means slackers make more money, while the hard workers make less.

Modern liberal laws against discrimination actually discriminate further instead of providing equality under law.

Welfare laws, unemployment benefit, and homeless housing all steal money from society. Stealing is not a human right.
Winner... :)

I wonder what your sentence would look like without rhetoric.
I wonder what yours would look like as some kind of coherent rebuttal. Pity there won't be. How is any of that rhetoric, and not the actual truth? :rolleyes:

[Conza88]

bump for the win. :cool:

[Kade]

Classical liberals; were there FIRST.

Congratulations on the most idiotic statement in all of RPF. Epic Obvious.


The truth is that liberalism is a philosophy built around the core principle of freedom of thought. All else follows. Nobody grants rights but the individual... if the individual can argue for a right... so be it. It must be rationalized, and it must not stomp out of the rights of another.

[Truth Warrior]

Congratulations on the most idiotic statement in all of RPF. Epic Obvious.


The truth is that liberalism is a philosophy built around the core principle of freedom of thought. All else follows. Nobody grants rights but the individual... if the individual can argue for a right... so be it. It must be rationalized, and it must not stomp out of the rights of another. :rolleyes: http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

[Conza88]

Congratulations on the most idiotic statement in all of RPF. Epic Obvious.

That's a compliment coming from you mate. I LOVE how you take it out of context; it's pretty much all you can do. Classical Liberals - FIRST i.e = BEFORE Modern Liberals. How fucken hard is that to understand? :confused: The point was about your psychological obsession with considering your self a "liberal" no matter what. Modern / Social "Liberals" as we've previously stated what they consider rights; some of them coming right out of the Communist Manifesto - means these ASS clowns fucken fail.


http://www.neonlite.ca/retard-cat.thumbnail.jpg


The truth is that liberalism is a philosophy built around the core principle of freedom of thought. All else follows. Nobody grants rights but the individual... if the individual can argue for a right... so be it. It must be rationalized, and it must not stomp out of the rights of another.

Here we go, the whole society determines what "rights" are bullshit?... That's what it comes down to though doesn't it? I fail to see how an individual gets to determine his own rights and put them into law... do all individuals get to decide what their own rights will be? :confused: Could you enlighten me on how that would work? :rolleyes: Why does the individual need to argue for a right anyway? You've never heard of Natural Law, or even Natural Rights for that matter? Who determines what is rational right, and what is not? Are others allowed to forgo their rights? Or can I individually... grant myself the "right to work", making sure it's "rationalized" :rolleyes: & then confer with another individual who owns a shop, who also believes that people should have a "right to work" - so it's not violating his set of rights, so he reluctantly has to hire you.

Kade you lack total depth mate. You only ever say a bit; then run for the hills. Your forever lack of details makes me think, you in fact - have none.

What are your rights Kade? What rights have you given yourself? List them all. Shouldn't be too hard. ;)

[Conza88]

Appendix

2. On the Term "Liberalism" - Ludwig Von Mises (http://mises.org/liberal/append2.asp)(1929)

Those who are familiar with the writings on the subject of liberalism that have appeared in the last few years and with current linguistic usage will perhaps object that what has been called liberalism in the present volume does not coincide with what is understood by that term in contemporary political literature. I am far from disputing this. On the contrary I have myself expressly pointed out that what is understood by the term "liberalism" today, especially in Germany, stands in direct opposition to what the history of ideas must designate as "liberalism" because it constituted the essential content of the liberal program of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Almost all who call themselves "liberals" today decline to profess themselves in favor of private ownership of the means of production and advocate measures partly socialist and partly interventionist. They seek to justify this on the ground that the essence of liberalism does not consist in adherence to the institution of private property, but in other things, and that these other things demand a further development of liberalism, so that it must today no longer advocate private ownership of the means of production but instead either socialism or interventionism.

As to just what these "other things" might be, these pseudo liberals have yet to enlighten us. We hear much about humanity, magnanimity, real freedom, etc. These are certainly very fine and noble sentiments, and everyone will readily subscribe to them. And, in fact, every ideology does subscribe to them. Every ideology?aside from a few cynical schools of thought?believes that it is championing humanity, magnanimity, real freedom, etc. What distinguishes one social doctrine from another is not the ultimate goal of universal human happiness, which they all aim at, but the way by which they seek to attain this end. The characteristic feature of liberalism is that it proposes to reach it by way of private ownership of the means of production.

But terminological issues are, after all, of secondary importance. What counts is not the name, but the thing signified by it. However fanatical may be one's opposition to private property, one must still concede at least the possibility that someone may be in favor of it. And if one concedes this much, one will, of course, have to have some name to designate this school of thought. One must ask those who today call themselves liberals what name they would give to an ideology that advocates the preservation of private ownership of the means of production. They will perhaps answer that they wish to call this ideology "Manchesterism." The word "Manchesterism" was originally coined as a term of derision and abuse. Nevertheless, this would not stand in the way of its being employed to designate the liberal ideology if it were not for the fact that this expression has hitherto always been used to denote the economic rather than the general program of liberalism.

The school of thought that advocates private ownership of the means of production must in any case also be granted a claim to some name or other. But it is best to adhere to the traditional name. It would create only confusion if one followed the new usage that allows even protectionists, socialists, and warmongers to call themselves "liberal" when it suits them to do so.

The question could rather be raised whether, in the interest of facilitating the diffusion of liberal ideas, one ought not to give the ideology of liberalism a new name, so that the general prejudice fostered against it, especially in Germany, should not stand in its way. Such a suggestion would be well-intentioned, but completely antithetic to the spirit of liberalism. just as liberalism must, from inner necessity, eschew every trick of propaganda and all the underhanded means of winning general acceptance favored by other movements, so it must also avoid abandoning its old name simply because it is unpopular. Precisely because the word "liberal" has a bad connotation in Germany, liberalism must stick to it. One may not make the way to liberal thinking easier for anyone, for what is of importance is not that men declare themselves liberals, but that they become liberals and think and act as liberals.

A second objection that can be raised against the terminology used in this book is that liberalism and democracy are not here conceived as opposites. Today in Germany "liberalism" is often taken to mean the doctrine whose political ideal is the constitutional monarchy, and "democracy" is understood as that which takes as its political ideal the parliamentary monarchy of the republic. This view is, even historically, altogether untenable. It was the parliamentary, not the constitutional, monarchy that liberalism strove for, and its defeat in this regard consisted precisely in the fact that in the German Empire and in Austria it was able to achieve only a constitutional monarchy. The triumph of antiliberalism lay in the fact that the German Reichstag was so weak that it might be accurately, if not politely, characterized as a "babblers' club," and the conservative party leader who said that a lieutenant and twelve men would suffice to dissolve the Reichstag was speaking the truth.

Liberalism is the more comprehensive concept. It denotes an ideology embracing all of social life. The ideology of democracy encompasses only that part of the realm of social relationships that refers to the constitution of the state. The reason why liberalism must necessarily demand democracy as its political corollary was demonstrated in the first part of this book. To show why all antiliberal movements, including socialism, must also be antidemocratic is the task of investigations that undertake to provide a thorough analysis of the character of these ideologies. In regard to socialism, I have attempted this in my book of that title.

It is easy for a German to go astray here, for he thinks always of the National Liberals and the Social Democrats. But the National Liberals were not, even from the outset?at least in matters of constitutional law?a liberal party. They were that wing of the old liberal party which professed to take its stand on "the facts as they really are"; that is, which accepted as unalterable the defeat that liberalism had sustained in the Prussian constitutional conflict from the opponents on the "Right" (Bismarck) and on the "Left" (the followers of Lassalle). The Social Democrats were democratic only so long as they were not the ruling party; that is, so long as they still felt themselves not strong enough to suppress their opponents by force. The moment they thought themselves the strongest, they declared themselves?as their writers had always asserted was advisable at this point?for dictatorship. Only when the armed bands of the Rightist parties had inflicted bloody defeats on them did they again become democratic "until further notice." Their party writers express this by saying: "In the councils of the social democratic parties, the wing which declared for democracy triumphed over the one which championed dictatorship."

Of course, the only party that may properly be described as democratic is one that under all circumstances?even when it is the strongest and in control?champions democratic institutions.

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

[Kade]

Kade you lack total depth mate. You only ever say a bit; then run for the hills. Your forever lack of details makes me think, you in fact - have none.

What are your rights Kade? What rights have you given yourself? List them all. Shouldn't be too hard. ;)

Nobody has gotten into more details on these boards then myself... that is a fact.

Indeed, it was not taken out of context. I cannot call myself a "classical liberal" because I am a liberal in a modern era. I do not identify with Libertarians, Conservatives, or any political party.

One still retains rights, even when an authority demands that they are taken.

I may not act on those rights, because of physical force, but those rights are still preserved.... and my disobedience to that authority is a willful attempt to retain my rights regardless.

That some people have made strong cases for certain rights is admirable. Our founders were not the first to proclaim the rights of free men in some regards, in others, like property and pursuit of happiness, they made some of the best and first cases...

It never means that those rights are anything but inherent... does a person have an inherent right to property? I don't believe that... but there are good arguments for it. Does a person have an inherent right to privacy? I do believe that. Expression? Thought? Speech? ...yes.

Does a person have an inherent right to healthcare? I don't think so... but the argument is as strong as property.

My rights, personally, exist in a memesphere far above many others... simply because I recognize them.. the memesphere itself should be maximized, as not to stomp out the individuals who exist on it's fringes...

Most people don't need the rights that I believe in... but they should be protected and recognized by the authority... or I reserve my ultimate right to rebel against that authority, regardless of how you collectivist or conformist believe...

[Kade]

Sound familiar? :rolleyes:

Yes, from the book Liberalism: In The Classic Tradition by Mises.

Mises is not my keeper 88, nor my muse.

[Truth Warrior]

Yes, from the book Liberalism: In The Classic Tradition by Mises.

Mises is not my keeper 88, nor my muse. We ALL know that. :p :rolleyes:

Karl Marx anyone ............................. else?

http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

[Conza88]

Nobody has gotten into more details on these boards then myself... that is a fact.

Bullllllshit... Prove it. :rolleyes: One example will do.


Indeed, it was not taken out of context. I cannot call myself a "classical liberal" because I am a liberal in a modern era. I do not identify with Libertarians, Conservatives, or any political party.

You don't understand, that ideologies don't necessairly have timelines? Wtf is that shit? :confused: You don't need to be living in that era to support the ideology... You can support "classical liberalism" in this "modern era". So you call yourself a liberal in a modern era..... making you a modern liberal? :rolleyes: right?

Social liberalism, also called new liberalism[1][2] (as it was originally termed), high liberalism[3] radical liberalism,[4] modern liberalism,[5] or in North America and the United Kingdom simply liberalism, is a branch of liberalism which emphasizes individual rights and equal opportunity for all citizens.[6] For social liberals, the lack of education, health, or employment, is seen as as big a threat to individual freedom as state compulsion and coercion.

In circles we go... (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1621465&postcount=11)


One still retains rights, even when an authority demands that they are taken.

I may not act on those rights, because of physical force, but those rights are still preserved.... and my disobedience to that authority is a willful attempt to retain my rights regardless.

That some people have made strong cases for certain rights is admirable. Our founders were not the first to proclaim the rights of free men in some regards, in others, like property and pursuit of happiness, they made some of the best and first cases...

Yeah, you get your rights from Natural Law. Do you know anything about that at all? I asked you before but you ignored it.


http://www.freedomadvocates.org/images/stories/easygallery/resized/24/1199749085_148.jpg


It never means that those rights are anything but inherent... does a person have an inherent right to property? I don't believe that... but there are good arguments for it. Does a person have an inherent right to privacy? I do believe that. Expression? Thought? Speech? ...yes.

Does a person have an inherent right to healthcare? I don't think so... but the argument is as strong as property.

Why don't you believe someone has a right to property? Can you EXPAND or provide DETAILS as to WHY you believe that. I thought it was a "FACT" that "Nobody has gotten into more details on these boards then myself" (Kade)..? :rolleyes: If you are qualifying it with "inherent" as in, or along the lines of - when someone is born they automatically or "inherently" have a right to some form of property - you fail to recognise that someone elses rights would be violated then.


My rights, personally, exist in a memesphere far above many others... simply because I recognize them.. the memesphere itself should be maximized, as not to stomp out the individuals who exist on it's fringes.

What is your point? Memesphere? :confused: wtf are you going on about? I know what it is, just not why you've felt compelled to mention it... How is yours "far above many others"? Also @ "simply because I recognize them." - what good is a RIGHT if you are the only one who recognizes it? Haha....


Most people don't need the rights that I believe in... but they should be protected and recognized by the authority... or I reserve my ultimate right to rebel against that authority, regardless of how you collectivist or conformist believe...

The rights you believe in? :confused: So far you've got:
- Right to Free Speech
- Right to Freedom of thought
- Right to Privacy
- Right to Freedom of expression

You don't think people NEED them? :eek: Well then what other "rights" do you believe in, that you are avoiding mentioning? Or have you just gone insane? :rolleyes:


Yes, from the book Liberalism: In The Classic Tradition by Mises.

Mises is not my keeper 88, nor my muse.

Who would have known? :rolleyes:

So could you now answer the other releveant & important questions you failed to answer & left out in the previous post?

[Kade]

You don't think people NEED them? :eek: Well then what other "rights" do you believe in, that you are avoiding mentioning? Or have you just gone insane? :rolleyes:


Keep rolling your eyes, it's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, and for me to sit here and justify myself to you is an exercise in futility.

That being said, no I am certainly not comfortable extolling liberties and rights I reserve for myself, that ought to be reserved for others as well...not on this board, not on my life. If you personally want a better exercise on what these things might be, you can read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein or something similar. (Anything that Sarah Palin would like banned)

You seem to be utterly confused on what exactly constitutes liberty.

For this, I offer John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty) in it's entirety. There is nothing more "classical" than his work. Cheers.

[Truth Warrior]

Keep rolling your eyes, it's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, and for me to sit here and justify myself to you is an exercise in futility.

That being said, no I am certainly not comfortable extolling liberties and rights I reserve for myself, that ought to be reserved for others as well...not on this board, not on my life. If you personally want a better exercise on what these things might be, you can read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein or something similar. (Anything that Sarah Palin would like banned)

You seem to be utterly confused on what exactly constitutes liberty.

For this, I offer John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty) in it's entirety. There is nothing more "classical" than his work. Cheers.
And you can morph Heinlein and Mill into Marx and "liberal" ( so called )? < ROFLMAO! >

http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

[Mini-Me]

Nobody has gotten into more details on these boards then myself... that is a fact.


Don't tempt me to point to some of my more detailed and lengthy posts... ;)



Indeed, it was not taken out of context. I cannot call myself a "classical liberal" because I am a liberal in a modern era. I do not identify with Libertarians, Conservatives, or any political party.

One still retains rights, even when an authority demands that they are taken.

I may not act on those rights, because of physical force, but those rights are still preserved.... and my disobedience to that authority is a willful attempt to retain my rights regardless.

That some people have made strong cases for certain rights is admirable. Our founders were not the first to proclaim the rights of free men in some regards, in others, like property and pursuit of happiness, they made some of the best and first cases...

It never means that those rights are anything but inherent... does a person have an inherent right to property? I don't believe that... but there are good arguments for it. Does a person have an inherent right to privacy? I do believe that. Expression? Thought? Speech? ...yes.

Does a person have an inherent right to healthcare? I don't think so... but the argument is as strong as property.

My rights, personally, exist in a memesphere far above many others... simply because I recognize them.. the memesphere itself should be maximized, as not to stomp out the individuals who exist on it's fringes...

Most people don't need the rights that I believe in... but they should be protected and recognized by the authority... or I reserve my ultimate right to rebel against that authority, regardless of how you collectivist or conformist believe...

I haven't read this entire thread yet (but it seems like a good discussion, hostility aside). I bolded one of your sentences above, and I do believe this is the crux of your ideological disagreement with those in the libertarian contingent here.

Let me briefly mention the concepts of "negative liberty" and "positive liberty." Isaiah Berlin initially invented the two concepts as a defense of libertarianism. According to his original analysis, negative liberty includes the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property (put simply, freedom from coercion), and positive liberty includes all other privileges which further enable a person to succeed (education, healthcare, living wages, etc.). Initially, he did not consider these instruments of positive liberty to be actual "rights," because recognizing them as such would conflict with the idea that property is an inalienable right. In other words, they cannot simultaneously be inalienable rights. Later in his life, Berlin started seeing some holes in his initial formulation, and he realized he had trouble rigorously justifying it. In the end, he became confused enough regarding his definitions of negative and positive liberty that he ended up leaning more towards the socialist side of the spectrum. He was never able to rigorously justify his new views either, but I guess his confidence was so shattered that he just decided to go with his newer leanings. (Murray Rothbard talks about this in this chapter of The Ethics of Freedom: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyseven.asp)

After thinking a lot about it a few months ago, I found that if you do not include property rights under negative liberty from the beginning, you can perform some mental gymnastics to readjust your definition of coercion and reclassify other privileges (education, healthcare, living wages) as inalienable rights under negative liberty. By going through these mental gymnastics, I could actually reclassify property as a privilege instead. To give a quick example: If property is not defined as a right, you can say that someone coming and taking "your" surplus food is not actually stealing, and that they're only exercising their own "right" to adequate food. Similarly, preventing them from doing so is not defending your rights; rather, it's coercively interfering with their exercise of their own rights. In all seriousness, it's very difficult to argue that this alternative reading is wholly invalid without resorting to subjective value judgments.

I strongly felt (and still feel) that there was something seriously wrong with my mental gymnastics (in the logical sense), but I really could not objectively justify why very easily (kind of like Isaiah Berlin ;)). Interestingly, Murray Rothbard seems to have sidestepped the issue by outright defining negative liberty as, "as the absence of physical interference with an individual’s person and property, with his just property rights broadly defined." If you arbitrarily define negative liberty to include property rights, that will solve the problem of defining negative versus positive liberty, but then it leaves the original question open that the concept of negative liberty was trying to solve once and for all: What are our inalienable rights, and can we rigorously justify property as one of them? To be fair, I haven't read the rest of Ethics of Liberty - it's possible that Rothbard made some extremely strong arguments regarding that in earlier or later chapters...but in any case, his definition does not by itself solve the fundamental question.

Without reading the large body of philosophical work on this topic (I still haven't), I actually started devising an essay arguing why and how life, liberty, and indeed property are the only "true" rights*, starting from the standpoint that all true rights are equal among all human beings (rather than arbitrary and applying more to one class of people than another). I never did finish this, partially because I'm easily distracted and partially because it's just very ambitious and difficult to logically prove the nature of individual rights in a way that's bulletproof and resistant to mental gymnastics-like rebuttals...but anyway, I just wanted to point out that this is indeed the fundamental issue, and it's pretty deep. In fact, the philosophical depth of this argument is why I make primarily practical and consequentialist arguments when it comes to economics.

*As a side note, I've also vaguely wondered if perhaps earned property is an inalienable right and that inherited property may be more of a privilege...but it would be extremely difficult to simultaneously make this differentiation clear and to logically justify any rights others might have that would warrant the confiscation (theft? ;)) of privileged property but not rightful (earned) property. Besides, the question is pretty academic anyway, since enforcing such a distinction in practice (as a matter of public policy) would require further infringements on personal freedom and/or privacy, e.g. people being forced to report various types of income to "authorities" like the IRS...and justifying those would be even harder.

[Kade]

And you can morph Heinlein and Mill into Marx and "liberal" ( so called )? < ROFLMAO! >

http://rexcurry.net/fascism=socialism.html

The rumors of your gender have been greatly exaggerated.

Cloon it.

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/george_clooney.jpg

[Conza88]

Keep rolling your eyes, it's obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about, and for me to sit here and justify myself to you is an exercise in futility.

That being said, no I am certainly not comfortable extolling liberties and rights I reserve for myself, that ought to be reserved for others as well...not on this board, not on my life. If you personally want a better exercise on what these things might be, you can read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein or something similar. (Anything that Sarah Palin would like banned)

You seem to be utterly confused on what exactly constitutes liberty.

For this, I offer John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_Liberty) in it's entirety. There is nothing more "classical" than his work. Cheers.

I DO have an idea what I'm talking about... I'm not entirely sure YOU do. Hence the questions; questioning your logic. They are entirely valid and I consider important. I am opened minded mate & consider myself philosophical; so CONVINCE ME.

Yet, you won't even try. Run for the hills buddy, run for the hills. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5Snehl2bAk)

Anyway; I'm going to take up your reading suggestions... because I am reasonable. So how about you do yourself a favor; go and read, or re-read Socialism by Ludwig Von Mises (http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx). ;)

This masterwork is much more than a refutation of the economics of socialism (although on that front, nothing else compares). It is also a critique of the entire intellectual apparatus that accompanies the socialist idea, including the implicit religious doctrines behind Western socialist thinking, a cultural critique of socialist teaching on sex and marriage, an refutation of syndicalism and corporatism, an examination of the implications of radical human inequality, an attack on war socialism, and refutation of collectivist methodology.

In short, Mises set out to refute socialism, and instead pulled up the socialist mentality from its very roots. For that reason, Socialism led dozens of famous intellectuals, including a young F.A. Hayek, into a crisis of faith and a realist/libertarian political orientation. All the collectivist literature combined cannot equal the intellectual achievement of this one volume.

[SeanEdwards]

Getting angry and mocking liberals and equating them to socialists is not helping bring people.


Modern liberals deserve to be mocked. They're stupid gun-grabbing, racial profiling, meddling assholes.

Nancy Pelosi has as much in common with Thomas Jefferson as I have in common with Paris Hilton.

[Conza88]

Yes, from the book Liberalism: In The Classic Tradition by Mises.

Mises is not my keeper 88, nor my muse.

"The program of liberalism therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read:, property, that is, private ownership of the means of production. . . . All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand."

Liberalism, p. 19

You're not a Liberal Kade. Sorry. Better luck next time aye Champ.

[Kade]

So we keep arguing semantics.

You would prefer I drop the term liberal? Because thieves have usurped it?

Hmm...

Mother do you think they'll drop the bomb
Mother do you think they'll like this song
Mother do you think they'll try to break my balls
Ooooh ahhh mother should I build the wall

Mother should I run for president
Mother should I trust the government
Mama will they put me in the firing line
Ooooh ahhh is it just a waste of time

[Conza88]

So we keep arguing semantics.

You would prefer I drop the term liberal? Because thieves have usurped it?

Hmm...

Mother do you think they'll drop the bomb
Mother do you think they'll like this song
Mother do you think they'll try to break my balls
Ooooh ahhh mother should I build the wall

Mother should I run for president
Mother should I trust the government
Mama will they put me in the firing line
Ooooh ahhh is it just a waste of time

I'd prefer you use the term correctly. And clarify what type of "liberal" you are / referring to. CLASSICAL, MODERN, SOCIAL etc.

Is it that hard a thing to do?

Call yourself a MODERN liberal and I'll be happy. CLASSICAL liberalism i.e what was first called Liberalism is ftw. The rest is bunk, retarded, junk.

Get a grip. Pretty trash attitude depicted in that song.

[Kade]

I'd prefer you use the term correctly. And clarify what type of "liberal" you are / referring to. CLASSICAL, MODERN, SOCIAL etc.

Is it that hard a thing to do?

Call yourself a MODERN liberal and I'll be happy. CLASSICAL liberalism i.e what was first called Liberalism is ftw. The rest is bunk, retarded, junk.

Get a grip. Pretty trash attitude depicted in that song.

There is only one type of liberal. You cannot be a "classical" liberal. You can only be a modern liberal.

Socialism is not endorsed by liberalism. The most modern version of liberalism rejects it entirely. There was a time when it did not... those days are over.

I doubt you are part of these philosophical circles, I doubt you really understand the core principles of liberalism, despite the fact that I have defined it several times for you. Despite every major dictionary, encyclopedia, and societal literature verifying my words, you continue to promote the talking points of lesser people.

Notice that by destroying what it means to be liberal, by comparing them to the likes of Stalin, you have used the same weapon that totalitarians have used before, and you have destroyed a safeguard against tyranny, and you lose an ally.

[Conza88]

There is only one type of liberal. You cannot be a "classical" liberal. You can only be a modern liberal.

Socialism is not endorsed by liberalism. The most modern version of liberalism rejects it entirely. There was a time when it did not... those days are over.

I doubt you are part of these philosophical circles, I doubt you really understand the core principles of liberalism, despite the fact that I have defined it several times for you. Despite every major dictionary, encyclopedia, and societal literature verifying my words, you continue to promote the talking points of lesser people.

The MODERN liberal; which is what we have already covered in this thread - HOW it is UNDERSTOOD by the common people as to be translated, they have socialistic tendencies and propositions to solutions.

When you call yourself a MODERN liberal; you've got to realize that label is being used by practically EVERYONE ELSE; BAR YOU; to represent social liberals in this day & age.

All your neurosis achieves is alienating yourself. WHEN did "those days are over" end Kade? When you go out on the street; and ask 10 people: modern liberals; liberals - what do you stand for? And when the reply is filled with universal healthcare etc etc... ARE THEY REALLY OVER?

You may think them over, but they ain't. MODERN liberals are closer to socialism than the CLASSICAL or OLDSCHOOL liberals.


Notice that by destroying what it means to be liberal, by comparing them to the likes of Stalin, you have used the same weapon that totalitarians have used before, and you have destroyed a safeguard against tyranny, and you lose an ally.

"Nothing links men more closely together than a community of language, and nothing segregates them more effectively than a difference of language."
~ Omnipotent Government, p. 123

Kade; doing what he can to keep the differences alive since god only knows.

"Whoever wants to speak with his fellow men and to understand what they say must use their language. Everyone must therefore strive to understand and speak the language of his environment. For that reason individuals and minorities adopt the language of the majority." ~ Nation, State, and Economy, pp. 27–28

^ That's exactly were your fail commences.

I'm ALL for Liberalism, via Mises terminology etc. BUT I would NOT refer to that as MODERN liberalism. Ideas don't have timelines. Classical is a reference to BEFORE the MODERN useage... Back then, Liberalism was epic. What the MODERN LIBERALISM appears to be; and is UNDERSTOOD to represent by the REST of the Country / World: bar you, contains bits of socialism.

Do you think your little crusade will ever be achieved Kade? Isn't it all rather unnecessary and causes due confusion/irritation to most people here? Your actions cause you to be misinterpreted; and it seems you enjoy it for some fked up reason. You have an opportunity to be crystal clear but you choose to be cryptic instead.

It's like you have a pet dog; who you've named "cat". :confused:


Liberals used to be tolerable. Supporting regulation that limited how bad a government could screw you over. Untimely it led to stupid shit like, "treatment" for a guy that rapes 15, 7 year old boys, in an effort to "break the cycle of crime".

They started to see anyone captured by the system as a victim and did whatever they could to help them. People without a job got unemployment, people without health care got Medicaid, Medicare. People without retirement got Social Security. Eventually people who raped, people that assaulted, armed robbery etc. Were seen in the same light. To them, no longer was there such a thing as self reliance, or self responsibility, there where only those that were victims of the system, or those that benefit from the system.

And so, here we are today, liberals have been turned into neo-national-socialistic, quasi-corporatist, totalitarian Marxists, if there is such a thing. And they will, wether you want it or not, force you to benefit from the system.

The liberal's kade is talking about Are all dead, just like the conservatives we talk about are dead, except one that is.

[Conza88]

Forget the Kade tyriad...

Back on topic...

So anyone like the article; comments etc? :)

[Conza88]

bump... :)

[FunkBuddha]

I just d/l'd The Kingdom of God Is Within You by Tolstoy in audio book format. Although I don't consider myself to be Christian, the idea of Christian anarchism interests me. Apparently this is the book that inspired Gandhi's non-violent resistance of the British Empire.

[Conza88]

I just d/l'd The Kingdom of God Is Within You by Tolstoy in audio book format. Although I don't consider myself to be Christian, the idea of Christian anarchism interests me. Apparently this is the book that inspired Gandhi's non-violent resistance of the British Empire.

I'm reading an article about it as we speak..

http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312&Itemid=36

An atheist reviews it; for the civil disobedience perspective, what Tolstoy said..

Where did you download it from?

Is there a pdf?

[Conza88]

bump :D

[purplechoe]

bump :D

I think this tread deserves another one...

bump :D

[Conza88]

I think this tread deserves another one...

bump :D

Same here. :)

[Conza88]

bump for the emotionally fragile bantard.

[He Who Pawns]

awesome. in for later, when i can get a few minutes to fully read it.