Author Topic: Can someone (legitimately) explain to me or refer me to a source on liberalism?  (Read 4036 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline arachnyd

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 37
  • Reputation: +0/-7
Where is a good place to learn about liberalism?

Now I am a staunch conservative, and I am very vocal on my conservative stances. I find myself seeing disturbingly clearly that liberalism seems completely irrational, and seems to have little to no basis. However, I also recognize that there are large numbers of intelligent people who are liberals.  (Although most liberals seem incredibly uneducated and have no basis). I am having a hard time understanding their angle, as typically in any discussion both sides have some sort of angle or basis, but the liberal angles seem disbunked in most situations pretty easily, so I felt the need to dig deeper and really understand what they want and how they think they can get there.

Now I met two people, one a college professor in Ecuador, one a PhD Candidate in Africa, who are both intelligent and to their liberal arguments, I can not disagree. They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have. We agreed to the outcome, we just disagree on the preference. They are both socialist or something off, but the viewpoint was that essentially the world would be better if America self-emploded and people around the world were equally dying in the streets.

Now once again, I disagree that that is the preferred outcome, but we all agreed that IS the ultimate outcome. I cannot tell them they are "wrong" because what it comes down to is I prefer a world where people can life, succeed, and make the best of their lives, and they don't. How can you argue with a fundamental differing in the basis of what is good?

American Liberals, even intelligent ones however, don't seem to agree this is the preferred outcome, so I have a hard time understanding their basis

Now when I go back to classical liberalism, the likes of John Locke and traditional liberal arguments, many of them seem to be... well... modern conservative arguments (or more accurately, often libertarian ideals). When I look into modern liberalism, it seems to be based on unalienable rights, however this doesn't seem accurate as the basics of most liberal arguments is the exact opposite- That we should impose on individual rights for the "greater Good". Basics such as "separation of church and state" don't seem to be basics at all, as modern liberalism seems goes against the ability for government to control churches, and freedom of religion clearly isn't a real basis either because liberals believe law should control religion.

Without crude responses, What is their basis? How can I figure this out?

Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
I think liberalism should be in the DSM for a mental disorder.

As for a good source to learn about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Offline arachnyd

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 37
  • Reputation: +0/-7
I think liberalism should be in the DSM for a mental disorder.

As for a good source to learn about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

I've done excessive research into ADHD, Dyslexia, Manic Depressiveness, and other mental disorders, so even if we all believe that, does that mean we shouldnt research it? ;)

ahh... WIKIPEDIA... I tried that, and some other sources, BUT that explicitly does not apply to the us>

I further dig into liberal philosophy... initially the likes of john locke and traditional liberal arguments... I realized what I should have realized a lot earlier, that traditional liberalism is well... conservatism (or libertarianism more precisely).

Now if that was a liberal, They wouldnt bother me so much, But that isn't the stance I see liberals ever taking. So I looked into modern liberalism, and what I've found is on "unalienable rights" except most american liberals are against individual rights (Gov't can impose on individual rights for the "greater good"), and "Separation of Church and State"/ "Freedom of Religion" yet most liberals support laws controlling church and religion. Most researchers seem to then point out that "americans" can't be modern liberals because there was never a strong caste system or Monarch/Dictator system to start with.

My path then went down the direction I was pointed, which is "social liberalism", which is the direction of Richard Ely, John Clark, and Henry Carter, however, they never created a political philosophy and abandoned their socialist thinking in time.

This lead to Lester Ward formalizing the basic tenets of social liberalism, which has lead him to be called the "father of the modern welfare state", which are now recognized as the term "socialism", and John Dewey, who advocated true democracy (yikes, True democracy is the only thing scarier than fascism) . However, Dewey was a Humanist (as an author of the humanist manifesto). Does this mean that modern liberalism is the same as Socialism or Humanism? Most conservatives seem to think so, but It seems like most liberals say they are not socialists or Humanists.

So if American Liberals are not classic liberals, and they are not modern liberals (that would be a libertarian), nor are they Socialists or Humanists, What is a "Modern, American Liberal"?

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1292/-1116
  • Rule 39
Where is a good place to learn about liberalism?

Now I am a staunch conservative, and I am very vocal on my conservative stances. I find myself seeing disturbingly clearly that liberalism seems completely irrational, and seems to have little to no basis. However, I also recognize that there are large numbers of intelligent people who are liberals.  (Although most liberals seem incredibly uneducated and have no basis). I am having a hard time understanding their angle, as typically in any discussion both sides have some sort of angle or basis, but the liberal angles seem disbunked in most situations pretty easily, so I felt the need to dig deeper and really understand what they want and how they think they can get there.

Now I met two people, one a college professor in Ecuador, one a PhD Candidate in Africa, who are both intelligent and to their liberal arguments, I can not disagree. They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have. We agreed to the outcome, we just disagree on the preference. They are both socialist or something off, but the viewpoint was that essentially the world would be better if America self-emploded and people around the world were equally dying in the streets.

Now once again, I disagree that that is the preferred outcome, but we all agreed that IS the ultimate outcome. I cannot tell them they are "wrong" because what it comes down to is I prefer a world where people can life, succeed, and make the best of their lives, and they don't. How can you argue with a fundamental differing in the basis of what is good?

American Liberals, even intelligent ones however, don't seem to agree this is the preferred outcome, so I have a hard time understanding their basis

Now when I go back to classical liberalism, the likes of John Locke and traditional liberal arguments, many of them seem to be... well... modern conservative arguments (or more accurately, often libertarian ideals). When I look into modern liberalism, it seems to be based on unalienable rights, however this doesn't seem accurate as the basics of most liberal arguments is the exact opposite- That we should impose on individual rights for the "greater Good". Basics such as "separation of church and state" don't seem to be basics at all, as modern liberalism seems goes against the ability for government to control churches, and freedom of religion clearly isn't a real basis either because liberals believe law should control religion.

Without crude responses, What is their basis? How can I figure this out?







That's a pretty good start right there.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
I've done excessive research into ADHD, Dyslexia, Manic Depressiveness, and other mental disorders, so even if we all believe that, does that mean we shouldnt research it? ;)

ahh... WIKIPEDIA... I tried that, and some other sources, BUT that explicitly does not apply to the us>

I further dig into liberal philosophy... initially the likes of john locke and traditional liberal arguments... I realized what I should have realized a lot earlier, that traditional liberalism is well... conservatism (or libertarianism more precisely).

Now if that was a liberal, They wouldnt bother me so much, But that isn't the stance I see liberals ever taking. So I looked into modern liberalism, and what I've found is on "unalienable rights" except most american liberals are against individual rights (Gov't can impose on individual rights for the "greater good"), and "Separation of Church and State"/ "Freedom of Religion" yet most liberals support laws controlling church and religion. Most researchers seem to then point out that "americans" can't be modern liberals because there was never a strong caste system or Monarch/Dictator system to start with.

My path then went down the direction I was pointed, which is "social liberalism", which is the direction of Richard Ely, John Clark, and Henry Carter, however, they never created a political philosophy and abandoned their socialist thinking in time.

This lead to Lester Ward formalizing the basic tenets of social liberalism, which has lead him to be called the "father of the modern welfare state", which are now recognized as the term "socialism", and John Dewey, who advocated true democracy (yikes, True democracy is the only thing scarier than fascism) . However, Dewey was a Humanist (as an author of the humanist manifesto). Does this mean that modern liberalism is the same as Socialism or Humanism? Most conservatives seem to think so, but It seems like most liberals say they are not socialists or Humanists.

So if American Liberals are not classic liberals, and they are not modern liberals (that would be a libertarian), nor are they Socialists or Humanists, What is a "Modern, American Liberal"?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't research it.

As for social liberals, I am sure you already know what they are: People who agree with abortions and gay marriage is a start.

Modern, American liberalism:

Quote
Modern American liberalism is a form of liberalism. It includes Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism with support for social justice and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1] Modern liberalism stands in opposition to Conservatism in the United States on most issues, but its relationship to progressivism is debated

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

You can go a google search for 'Modern American Liberalism' and get a ton of hits.

Offline catsmtrods

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2216
  • Reputation: +229/-24
Come to Woodstock NY and hang out for a week on the green. You'll learn more that you ever wanted to know if you can keep your sanity!

I can explain them simply, they are hippies that are stuck in the 70's!

[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8RncWyIOcw[/youtube]
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 12:23:24 PM by catsmtrods »
"Liberalism is an essentially feminine, submissive world view. Perhaps a better adjective than feminine is infantile. It is the world view of men who do not have the moral toughness, the spiritual strength to stand up and do single combat with life, who cannot adjust to the reality that the world is not a huge, pink-and-blue, padded nursery in which the lions lie down with the lambs and everyone lives happily ever after."


~ Dr. William Pierce


 

"How many more times are we going to cower under tables and chairs, whimpering like mindless dogs, thinking that someone else has the responsibility to save and protect us?"

Offline NHSparky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24431
  • Reputation: +1280/-617
  • Where are you going? I was gonna make espresso!
That could just as easily have been Woodstock, VT--just as many hippies, but with a shitload more cash to blow.
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.”  -Henry Ford

Offline Undies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2515
  • Reputation: +309/-54
It is very basic and simple.  There are two types of liberals.  Type Ones are the evil ones who know exactly what they are doing to destroy society - and how to lie about it.  Type Twos are the lazy, socially inept, emotionally retarded, mentally unbalanced, completely non-intellectuals who follow the Type Ones without question (your classic DUmmies, Cher etc.).

That's it.

Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
It is very basic and simple.  There are two types of liberals.  Type Ones are the evil ones who know exactly what they are doing to destroy society - and how to lie about it.  Type Twos are the lazy, socially inept, emotionally retarded, mentally unbalanced, completely non-intellectuals who follow the Type Ones without question (your classic DUmmies, Cher etc.).

That's it.

Hi5 .....

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
It is very basic and simple.  There are two types of liberals.  Type Ones are the evil ones who know exactly what they are doing to destroy society - and how to lie about it.  Type Twos are the lazy, socially inept, emotionally retarded, mentally unbalanced, completely non-intellectuals who follow the Type Ones without question (your classic DUmmies, Cher etc.).

That's it.
I'll go you one better. Marx used to refer to non communists that were useful to advance the communist agenda "Useful Idiots". All libs are idiots on some usefulness scale, depending on if to their own self, they are true.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline Northern_Tory

  • Probationary (Probie)
  • Posts: 79
  • Reputation: +1/-5
I'd imagine that A Theory of Justice by John Rawls might be a good start into liberal ideology.

Offline obumazombie

  • Siege engine to lib fortresses
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21814
  • Reputation: +1661/-578
  • Last of the great minorities
I'd imagine that A Theory of Justice by John Rawls might be a good start into liberal ideology.
Saul Alinsky.
There were only two options for gender. At last count there are at least 12, according to libs. By that standard, I'm a male lesbian.

Offline Jasonw560

  • Is a Juke Box
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2032
  • Reputation: +143/-42
  • PhD from Sarcastic State
Try to find the writings of Woodrow Wilson. Also, research Margaret Sanger, and the "Progressives" of that era.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle

"Metaphors needn't be explained to educated people"-Ted
Nugent

"Life ain't fair. Get over it or wear a helmet" -diesel driver

Offline MrsSmith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5977
  • Reputation: +466/-54
Quote
They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have.

Because America and most of Western Civilazation is "rich," we have enriched the entire world.  Thanks to our generosity and the values instilled through Jewish and Christian faith, we have invented ways to end slavery, raised the standard of living for the vast majority of people world-wide, and have carried the word of eternal blessings to all the corners of the earth.  Liberalism seeks to destroy America, which will in turn reduce the wealth of the entire world.  It's a sad statement on a profoundly selfish group that they are so envious of those with much that they will cause great destruction to even those with nearly nothing.  The group that supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn infants covers its wish to destroy humanity with a facade of "caring."
.
.


Antifa - the only fascists in America today.

Offline zeitgeist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6238
  • Reputation: +429/-44
That could just as easily have been Woodstock, VT--just as many hippies, but with a shitload more cash to blow.


Yup.  Did an overnight there earlier this year ('tween seasons).  We had a good time but it do get a bit $$$ even during the off season.


ETA for OP: You might try "The Worldly Philosophers"  for a bit of background if you have not already read it.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Worldly-Philosophers-Economic-Thinkers/dp/068486214X
« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 05:16:46 PM by zeitgeist »
< watch this space for coming distractions >

Offline formerlurker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9692
  • Reputation: +802/-833

Offline formerlurker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9692
  • Reputation: +802/-833
I think liberalism should be in the DSM for a mental disorder.

As for a good source to learn about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Good and source should never be used when referring to wikipedia.    Also note, never refer to wikipedia.   



Offline Kyle Ricky

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7596
  • Reputation: +614/-1086
Good and source should never be used when referring to wikipedia.    Also note, never refer to wikipedia.   




i used to think the same thing. But recent studies show that Wikipedia is as good a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Offline zeitgeist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6238
  • Reputation: +429/-44
i used to think the same thing. But recent studies show that Wikipedia is as good a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

And you can no longer get a hard copy of Britannica if I remember correctly.
< watch this space for coming distractions >

Offline J P Sousa

  • We Built Our Business - IN SPITE OF GOVERNMENT
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3785
  • Reputation: +310/-19
  • I love the smell of gun powder in the morning
Quote
 They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have.  
This is what Obama believes.  

You may want to investigate Obama's benefactor George Soros.

Quote
The global financial crisis: opportunities for change
Andre Wilkens , 10 November 2008

  Barack Obama's election will re-establish the credibility of the United States in the world but it will not reverse the trend of decline. The challenge ahead is to manage a peaceful decline of the west while rescuing as many of the west's liberal political and economic values as possible. This will only work if the multipolar world is accepted as a reality and as an opportunity for a new style of global cooperation and governance.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-global-financial-crisis-opportunities-for-change
  

Quote
 Andre Wilkens is the director of the Open Society Institute Brussels (OSI-Brussels) and a founding member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) Thought 1: The west is in trouble and has become a potential source of instability for the world  


Quote
 The network of Open Society Foundations or OSF (named Open Society Institute or OSI until 2011), is a grantmaking operation started by George Soros, aimed to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform.

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


Destroying America ? It appears to be so..........

http://articles.aberdeennews.com/2010-12-11/news/26441840_1_economic-theory-george-soros-governance

 .




« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 06:15:16 PM by J P Sousa »
John Wayne: "America Why I Love Her"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5ZGz7h0epU

Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal ~Capt Katie Petronio

Obama Wiretapped The Trump Tower...FACT

The reason there are so many stupid people is because it's illegal to kill them.
~John Wayne

Offline formerlurker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9692
  • Reputation: +802/-833
i used to think the same thing. But recent studies show that Wikipedia is as good a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

Did you read the entire article?   I also can attest to comment made to article that high school teachers will not permit Wikipedia used as a source to papers (nor will college). 



Offline zeitgeist

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6238
  • Reputation: +429/-44
Did you read the entire article?   I also can attest to comment made to article that high school teachers will not permit Wikipedia used as a source to papers (nor will college). 




And there will be no need for book burning in the Brave Net World there will be so few things left in print:

Quote
After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
 
By JULIE BOSMAN
snip...

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/

There are still plenty available on Craig's list if you are packing for Galt's Gulch. 
< watch this space for coming distractions >

Offline Undies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2515
  • Reputation: +309/-54
And there will be no need for book burning in the Brave Net World there will be so few things left in print:
 

In the year 2525.....

Offline formerlurker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9692
  • Reputation: +802/-833
And there will be no need for book burning in the Brave Net World there will be so few things left in print:

There are still plenty available on Craig's list if you are packing for Galt's Gulch. 

I don't think I have seen an encyclopedia for well over 20 years now.    

I read articles (and in my former life, books), lots and lots of articles.   For this topic?   Wikipedia?  for real?