Topic: Liberalism is under attack from both sides (Read 351 times)

And the glaring irony of the situation is: it's "live & let live" liberalism that gave homosexuals and religious people the freedom to live their lives without others telling them they're doing something wrong, and yet both religious people and now homosexuals too that call for authoritarian treatment of people whose lives they disapprove of!



Right, that's what attracted me to libertarianism, the "3rd choice" part. I was painfully aware that I agreed with some "left" principles, but also with some "right" principles. Anything authoritarian I disliked, and anything liberal I agreed with. But you can't be both left and right? If you're consistently liberal, you can

 

Well, they do. And guess what! They divided themselves into 2 camps: conservative libertarians, and left-libertarians!!! I'm not making this up

Are the "libertarian media" trying to take over libertarianism, to twist it's meaning? Seems like that to me, but of course, that makes me crazzzzzy for saying it, no doubt

This is what is so good about libertarianism... I mean real libertarianism, not the Libertarianism party.

Libertarianism says that you can do whatever you want as long as you don't harm anybody else or his property. This means that if you want to gather in forms of socialism, you have the right to do so. It also means that if you want to want to be a great liar, you have to be really good, because people will see through you if you aren't. In other words, be what you want to be. Just don't harm anybody by being it.

Wikipedia says:
Libertarianism sounds like freedom... a third and better choice, that simply lacks the media of those in the other two camps, who want to take over the world. Why doesn't libertarianism use the media like the others use it? Because they don't want to take over the world like the others do. All they want is freedom.

I just want to metaphorically scratch my head every time tries to mind someone else's business that doesn't hurt anyone else. Like the lgbt, would people suddenly explode if their neighbors are gays? The religious people who try to tell everyone they are evil if they don't believe a god.

It never really existed IMO.

Liberalism is a threat to the authority of the ruling class, who don't feel secure or deserving of their position because the majority of them know they obtained it somewhat fraudulently to begin with. The natural response to this is exactly what my OP is all about: nod your head to liberalism, but never do something so stupid as to actually liberalize anything. You've got a status to protect, and your other high status friends will bring you down trying to protect their own.



It's mostly a problem of liberal ideas not being well exposed in the popular media. All you ever hear are appeals to authoritarianism of different stripes, as a reaction to the authoritarianism of various 'baddies'. This is incredibly convenient to the people in society that make up the top of the hierarchy, as they're the ones making the rules to "protect us from the baddies", and they have a strong tendency to protect themselves in their status with the rules they make to achieve that. And they're smart enough to do this in the most subtle way possible.

I don't see much of that and what I do see does not seem to be so far out that it matters. There's always going to be a religious right of course, but say take the last ten years. They just haven't caused much trouble or disruption.

On the other hand, US Democrats have gone looney-tunes.

If there was a benevolent dictator to maintain such an environment, then it might work OK. But in reality that sort of thing would have to be done through some government institution which would ultimately be controlled by politicians. (Even if you try to make it some independent body, it wouldn't work: look at how well the Supreme Court has been at being politically-neutral and independent...). So for example if campaigns were exclusively publicly-funded, then the system would be either initially designed or eventually corrupted to massively favor incumbents and disfavor third parties, since that's what the people in power would want.

The leftist solution to government problems is to expand government, creating endless oversight positions. But this doesn't address the real problem of politics itself being broken, since every part of government will at some level be determined by politics. The ultimate solution is to minimize the size of government as a whole so that politicians don't have as much opportunity to cause harm, and corporations don't have any incentive to bribe them etc. This is the way I'd like to change the environment.

The American political system is currently not designed to support Liberalism.

The current system is set up as a mass legalized bribery platform.

Politicians are bought by corporations and will always trend towards pushing agenda's that are best for the big corp donors.

Corp and rich donors like Adelson donate hundreds of millions a year to the politicians that gave them a trillion dollar tax cut, that is a great ROI.

US politicians are all placed in a permanent conflict of interest simply by entering the political profession.


Interesting I literally have the opposite view in terms of the conservatives.  I very much like a socially progressive platform but I also like a lot of what the conservative platform has stood for.  I like fiscal responsibility and this has traditionally been a conservative platform, I was raised in a conservative family (Canadian conservative hehe).  I have voted conservative more often personally than I have liberal, I didn't vote for Trudeau...

The problem I have with American conservatism in this day and age is the hold the evangelicals have and are pushing their agenda through the party.  One of things I think is the most admirable part of the America is the requirement for a separation of church and state I just wish they would actually follow through on that...

Until the system is changed to force politicians to actually make decisions that are good for the majority of people nothing is likely to change.

It's also interesting I have seen you make a comment about preferring to reshape an environment as the best means to solve problems.  Imagine if the political environment was reshaped so the politicians focus was on the constituents best interest as opposed to lying to them while doing what their bosses (corporations) want.

This is why the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. This is also why I am such an ardent supporter of Capitalism, and such an opponent of Socialism. Socialism takes little to no account for bad actors. Capitalism not only accounts for it, but ultimately even the bad actors contribute to its stability (the majority of the time). Much like Capitalism, Bitcoin was designed to take mutual greed and funnel it into a system that craps out gold.

I find it really frustrating that I usually find myself agreeing more with conservatives nowadays even though at heart I really believe in (classical) liberalism. The left is so screwed up; they used to at least sometimes say good things, but now they're more like a crazy cult. Democrats' opposition against Trump is a good example: I don't like Trump at all, and you could fill whole libraries with books on how his views&actions are immoral, anti-freedom, and low-utility; however, the Democrats barely ever attack him on actual policy, and instead just jump on him for daring to defy the left-cult's dogma.

Politics just doesn't work. The whole idea of having to convince a bunch of idiots that you're right is a bad one; even if you succeed, the costs are too high and the end result too fragile. To the greatest extent possible, I recommend changing the world through methods where you don't have to convince anyone of anything in order to start moving forward. (Satoshi's creation of Bitcoin being the best example.)

Becoming Socialist or conservative is one's own choice.  It depends upon the circumstances under which one person is born and brought up.  What type of teachings have been given to him.
But whatever the person may be ; one must be responsible towards the society.  My freedom is not unlimited.  It ends at the point where other person's freedom gets affected by my acts.

This just plain does not jive with the advanced progressive attitudes of authoritarian perverted social controllers.

Reading this ensures me that this basic and pure liberalism has been extinct for a long time. No government will ever allow for it to be something more than a goal of a small minority. Should we stand against the government? As much as like the idea it would be against the second part of your definition.

What always got me thinking was why do people like it the way it is? They must like it if they're ok with it, right? If you ask in the street if they would protect their freedoms they'll all give a positive answer, yet people get arrested for selling on localbitcoins, or downloading a torrent and nothing happens. We shake our heads in disapproval and go back to checking what's new on social media.

doesn't matter.

Liberalism is easy to explain. Do what you want, but don't harm other people. That's all there is to it.

How many people today do you think even know who John Lock and Adam Smith are, let alone have read them?

Liberalism (the John Lock/Adam Smith type) is being undermined by Orwellian bullshit, and powerful people in the conservative and socialist contingents are leading the charge

Socialists are in full on brain washing mode:

"So hey, d'you believe we should cooperate in a team to make society greater than the sum of it's parts? Congrats, you're a liberal, just like us!!!"

What they really mean: let's use group pressure to be really intolerant of anything we wouldn't choose for ourselves, and try to force everyone to choose what we think will work, and call it liberalism.


Conservatives are in full on brain washing mode:

"So hey, d'you believe individuals should make their own choices, and that the good deserve good things and the bad deserve bad things? Congrats, you're a (classical) liberal, just like us!!!"

What they really mean: let's keep powerful liars in the same place they are now (because being the best liar means you deserve good things), use power to stop competition because "responsible freedom", then call it liberalism


Whatever happened to the actual idea of liberalism? Powerful people do not like it, hence why they try so hard to distort what it is.