'Liberal' in America

[The Progressive]

McBigski was on the right track.

The U.S. was born as almost the idealized classic liberal state in the Lockian sense. It had minimal government and maximum liberty with the exception of the peculiar institution of slavery.

Listen flow and mcbiski,

Hey could remind the rest of us when did women got the right to vote in the US again?

You two really should really stop posting on this thread because apparently your grasp on American history is quite shitty. ;)

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The Founding Fathers clearly held different opinions on various issues. But the end result of their debates was a federal Constitution that was as close to a libertarian, or "classic liberalism" ideal as we've been it terms of the lack of government control over the individual. That was the American starting point.

And it generally has been the left in the U.S. that has tried to dismiss the relevance and importance of their and writings principles as simply being the self-serving opinions of a bunch of "dead white men.". Those who want to conserve the minimalist government with which we began are the "conservatives". Those who want those principles to "change and adapt with evolving societal norms" are the liberals, with the focus on the openess to change from the status quo implied in the word, as opposed to being tied to a particular 350 year old philosophy,

[Brienne the Beauty]

Hey could remind the rest of us when did women got the right to vote in the US again?

Well, compared the the rest of the world at the time it was pretty free. That doesn't reflect well on the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world was still monarchies.

[TerraPrime]

And it generally has been the left in the U.S. that has tried to dismiss the relevance and importance of their and writings principles as simply being the self-serving opinions of a bunch of "dead white men.". Those who want to conserve the minimalist government with which we began are the "conservatives". Those who want those principles to "change and adapt with evolving societal norms" are the liberals, with the focus on the openess to change from the status quo implied in the word, as opposed to being tied to a particular 350 year old philosophy,

The way you described it makes me really glad that I never once came close to sympathizing with conservatism.

[Brienne the Beauty]

The founding fathers clearly wanted Change, and masses of it, or else they'd have remained loyal to the Crown.

[Asarlai]

Well, compared the the rest of the world at the time it was pretty free. That doesn't reflect well on the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world was still monarchies.

Many of which abolished slavery before the US.

[TerraPrime]

The founding fathers clearly wanted Change, and masses of it, or else they'd have remained loyal to the Crown.

And it was damn lucky that they had groups like ACORN to commit frauds with, else we'd still be under the British tyrannical rule.

[Asarlai]

And it was damn lucky that they had groups like ACORN to commit frauds with, else we'd still be under the British tyrannical rule.

Don't forget the political pundits with ridiculous accusations running counter to the facts.

[DanteGabriel]

I never claimed it to be 100% true. I never said I was right. I do believe they were more on the socialist side of what we consider it to be today. A large message board post count doesn't make you right, either, but your attitude does make you sound like a complete dick.

Any first year Political Science college course goes over this.

I never claimed credibility based on my large message board count. Once, I was as fresh and naive as you. I simply have the historical knowledge to realize that statements such as the ones you proferred about the "founding fathers" are hornswogglingly simplistic and do a disservice to a pretty diverse group of individuals.

I am a dick, though. Especially in the face of the dumbing-down of history.

But wait, if you made a claim that you never intended to claim as true or right, then why did you make the claim? Is it your general pattern to make blanket, oversimplified statements and then walk them back when someone is a dick to you?

[Galactus]

The Founding Fathers clearly held different opinions on various issues. But the end result of their debates was a federal Constitution that was as close to a libertarian, or "classic liberalism" ideal as we've been it terms of the lack of government control over the individual. That was the American starting point.

That's not really true, depending on exactly what you mean. Remember that originally the prohibition on religious tests and such only applied to the federal government for instance. And if such a (basic) institution as *freedom of religion* was not extended to everyone, how can you call it even close to classical liberalism?

And if you discount political and civil liberties, tons of places have had less economic regulation than the US at the time. (Which wasn't even that low, considering tariffs, support for infrastructure projects and such, traditionally the US government actually ran a relatively interventionist economy or the most of the 19th century)

I think americans have a tendency to hide behind the federal government occasionally, not realizing that the federal government is only a fraction of what government in the US is and does.

EDIT: A lot of the more laissez-faire aspects of the US economy hails from the post-Civil War era, when the Supreme Court used the 14th amendment to strike down all sorts of state and local regulations.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

Why should my age matter? I can assure you that I doubt our disparity in ages would make a substantial difference, assuming it would as a variable. I certainly learned much of what you linked, but it was not taught in my uni poli sci courses. Most of this was covered in my high school US history and US civics courses.

right. it is entry level. I took econ and a us gov/poli sci class at the university instead of the AP4 classes. mainly because it meant more time at the beach surfing, for the same amount of coursework.

[Jon Sprunk]

The blindingly obvious failure of 'liberals' is that they think that people in general are too broken to function happily without massive government intervention.

One of the most incorrect statements I've yet encountered online, and that's saying a lot.

[DanteGabriel]

Well, compared the the rest of the world at the time it was pretty free. That doesn't reflect well on the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the world was still monarchies.

The British, monarchists though they were, abolished slavery long before the US did.

WAT

So are you saying you're old?

I can respect a dick. Even an old one with saggy balls. I am at times a total c@nt rag. It's a message board post, not a thesis. I don't know everyone on here. Never underestimate the stupidity of the general public. That includes me. And you. I have no problem dumbing it down. Less is expected and I'm always amazing people when I am able to read a menu.

Claims and opinions are not truths.

More is expected on this board. If you advance a simplistic position, it will be called out. Which is why mcbigski and Smashing Young Man tend to be treated like pinatas in politics threads. They just don't seem to know any better, poor dears.

[Asarlai]

The British, monarchists though they were, abolished slavery long before the US did.

Instead exploiting the indigenous peoples of the many lands they conquered and oppressed.

[DanteGabriel]

Instead exploiting the indigenous peoples of the many lands they conquered and oppressed.

Well, the US hasn't let go of that part yet, so I'd step careful on your comparisons there. Our high standard of living has been bought in part by the misery of the Third World.

ETA: And the near-extinction and misery of the Native Americans.

[Galactus]

Instead exploiting the indigenous peoples of the many lands they conquered and oppressed.

Err... The US can't exactly throw stones while sitting in a glass-house made up of dead indians.

[Asarlai]

Err... The US can't exactly throw stones while sitting in a glass-house made up of dead indians.

I will be throwing my stones at the US, too, thank you very much. I have quite a few of them.

[Shael]

You're going to aggravate your ulcer Dante. But someone has to do it.

[mcbigski]

Did you really just accuse someone else of lazy ad hominem attacks? That's... stuperb. Possibly spupendous.

Conservatives always complain that liberals talk down to them. Well, when someone comes to the table with, "liberals are pro fetus extermination," it's difficult not to. Because it's not honest, and you know that it isn't, but you're saying it anyway.

For the unrestricted right to fetus extermination by the woman who's uterus contains the fetus, is what I meant, (had thought that was obvious, as opposed to desiring that every fetus be instantly terminated regardless of anything else, but I clearly misjudged that it was obvious.)

I gave your dogshit post exactly as much effort as it deserved, but here, I'll give you the substance you requested.

Speaking for the dominant leftists... (that sounds so sexy, but maybe it's just because I'm a Commie pervert)

Indeed. As I type, I am sodomizing an albino dwarf.

Also doing that right now. Using the dwarf's fist in amazingly creative ways.

So far I'm sure these items are sarcasm, and I do find them amusing, so leave it at that.

Word. I am in favor of one wage for everyone, as determined by the government, regardless of individual aptitude and skill.

I think this one may also be sarcasm, but it could also be serious. After seeing the number of lefties on the board who still believed that wealth was a zero sum quantity, I can't really be sure.

That's right! That's why we leftists are trying so hard to stop a mosque from being built near Ground Zero, and are working so hard to alienate Muslims...

Oh, wait.

I'd talk about how much I hate controversial speech except, even in sarcasm, this too fucking vague and asinine a point for me to pretend to be dumb enough to address.

Let me be more specific about free speech. The left is constantly trying to shout over or out right shut down any expression that challenges its authority. Histrionics are the first reaction very often, and in some cases, the second reaction too! The noise to signal ratio on the board in response to even mild critisms of the left tend run extremely high, to be fair, it's usually the same old folks screeching every time. I've come to love you guys in a way for your consistency, I suppose seeing that some things never change appeal to a part of my conservative instincts. :grouphug:

Yes. I don't think anyone should have any weapons, ever, except for criminals, who should be handed government-supplied cudgels to commit their crimes with, and then be given government-mandated hugs by their victims.

Possibly you are pro Second Amendment, though I'd doubt it. Again, the notion that people are irredeemably irresponsible so only the government should control the means to lethal force has a rather fatal and obvious flaw. But it's part and parcel to the left's agenda of increased control and preventing the decentralization of personal freedom, so that flaw might just lie in your blindspot. Consider Syria.

Actually a lot of the government (and Congress) is filled with morons who bought the Reaganite snake oil that "government is the problem" and promptly started governing according to that belief.

If only Reagan had succeeded on that front. How much bigger was the government of 1988 compared to 1980? Power will be abused. It should therefore be decentralized where ever possible, by promoting individual liberty. That's an inherently conservative statement in the USA, even if it makes one a revolutionary in other places or times.

[Asarlai]

Well, the US hasn't let go of that part yet, so I'd step careful on your comparisons there. Our high standard of living has been bought in part by the misery of the Third World.

ETA: And the near-extinction and misery of the Native Americans.

I was objecting to painting Britain in a positive light, I wasn't trying to do so for America. Both have been genocidal and oppressive, it's just that one has done more of it. Personally, I say let the Revolution sweep both of them away.