Doesn't liberal mean limited government?

Why would you oppose this? Have you not read Brave New World? 1984?
>inb4 underaged faggots call me a shill and spew the same shit their ecelebs vomit out
Do some thinking for your self for once.

Or just continue your reddit tier circlejerk and ignore anything that challenges your feelings

Yeah you're pretty much right OP. Sup Forums really has turned into an echo chamber as of late

Only rural and suburban retards advocate for small government

All branches of liberalism favor limited government, but each has a different idea what those limits entail.
Also people here will oppose liberalism, because they are poorly educated.

...

"Liberal" means to be "open minded". And part of open mindedness is wanting to help everyone. So freebies for everybody.

TRUE conservatism is Limited Government. The original Conservative party were the ANTI-Federalist party

>Doesn't liberal mean limited government?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Today's liberals aren't liberals at all. They are Marxist socialists. They want the opposite of limited government. They just hide under a different name since no one would vote for them if they knew their main ideology. The closest thing to "liberal" in the true meaning of the word are the libertarians.

>TRUE conservatism is Limited Government.
AHAHAHAHA this is just wrong my man. What is this meme "it's not TRUE communism"

Classical liberalism, sure.

The Democratic Party isn't classical liberalism though.

Only KEKS need other people to make decisons for them like fuck their wife.

Why would you want some fuck with Drama degree or some other bullshit degree make decisions for you?

yes liberal does mean small government, including fewer regulations on the marketplace.

liberalism is not left-wing
the democratic party is far from left wing

American politics is basically right wingers arguing with eachother

>Implying Globalist Neo-Cons are the same thing as Constitutionalists and Nationalists
You might just be retarded son.

>>Implying Globalist Neo-Cons are the same thing as Constitutionalists and Nationalists
S T R A W M A N

Reminder that the "left wing" comprised liberal republicans and jacobins, and liberalism is the only successful left-wing political philosophy.

>Not knowing what strawman means
>Not knowing that conservative is an umbrella term made up of different groups
Yup, you're retarded.

7. Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

You faggot, you forced an implication that was never there. AKA you made and argument against something I never even said. Hence strawman you god damn fool
>Projecting your retardation

>right-wing
>Republicans
wew lad

You're obviously too slow to make implied connections, so I'll spell it out for you:

The "True" conservatives are the nationalists and constitutionalists. The "Fake" conservatives are the globalist neo-cons.

You didn't seem to understand this when the other poster said that the true conservatives were in favor of small government and were staunch federalists.

What makes them "true" conservatives, is that they are more in line with the original republican party ideals; as well as the ideals of the USA's founders; while the fake conservatives are largely just jews and their friends worming their way into the party.

>The "True" conservatives are the nationalists and constitutionalists. The "Fake" conservatives are the globalist neo-cons.
Literally "It's not TRUE communism." Keep changing your definition to suit your views though autismo. Also you're implying that you're not a massive faggot. I said that you implied it so it must be true heh score 1-0 me

>who was Irving Kristol
hint: not a conservative

>Heh, I was just trolling all along

>Leaf reading comprehension
nothing personnel kid, but welcome to hell
Population: You

gas liberals when

are you fucking 12?

get the fuck out of here faggot, you're a literal retard.

>he doesn't think Sup Forums is a circlejerk
Got a little experiment for you brainlet, post anything anti-trump and see what happens

Donald Trump is an insecure, narcissistic baby who was too stupid to axe murder the intelligence agencies when he assumed power.

>haha you guys can just continue your reddit tier circlejerk!
>*gets an actual argument*
>LMAO DUDE STOP BEING UDMB AHHA OH MY GOD XDDD

Please explain how comparing nationalists and conversationalists is the same thing as the not true communism meme?

>post something against the narrative
>get banned

oh wait, thats rebbit. fuck off back nigger

>comparing nationalists and conversationalists
HMMMM PLEASE POINT ME TO THE EXACT PLACE WHERE SOMEONE DID THIS

>DUDE BUT DOESNT LIBERAL MEAN LESS GOVERNMENT?


this isn't the 1800s faggot, kill yourself. how are you even working a computer right now you literal nigger

Gj friend now let's wait for all the amazing arguments against this.

Donald Trump isn't a white nationalist.

I'd prefer 1984 over Fahrenheit 451 thank you very much.

classical liberalism is not the same as modern liberalism

modern liberalism is socialism which is big government

not in its contemporary connotation you cuck

based leaf

Why argue against it? It's obviously true. But he's President and you lost, and that makes me happy. :^)

Liberal =! Regressive Left

Literally half the threads made are anti-trump you faggot. There is never a shortage of lefty shills either, but go ahead and call pol a trump circle jerk.

What did I lose exactly? I voted Trump. Sup Forums is a reddit tier circle jerk. The sky is blue

Liberalism is individualism is the managerial state.

Tell me something, do you think there's ever been a time where an anti-trump poster won an argument on Sup Forums?

>Sup Forums is a reddit tier circle jerk.
But where is the proofs :DD

Not everyone on Sup Forums is a Trump bootlicker. Even some of the people that "like" him, will recognize that he is flawed, but also enrages both the neoliberal and neoconservative coalitions that they hate, and his election is causing them to delegitimize their vehicles of institutional power.

...

Proofs: Number of people who reply to me saying inane shit about how I'm wrong.

Make a strong argument against Trump and for an alternative.

What would you call it then?

What are you right about?

Read the thread tell me how many people have genuinely made anti-trump arguments
Protip literally no one.

>HUU HUU WHY U OPPOSE ME
>pose ugly nigger with retarded duck lips
Didn't read. Saged, hidden.

what does that have to do with half the pol postets freaking out on trump every time he farts?

My OP. Sup Forums being a circle jerk.

Jewish anti-white globalism

Just answer the question

Make a strong argument against Trump and for an alternative.

[citation needed]

In the absence of external forces to secure coherence, Sup Forums could only be a circlejerk if opponents opted not to participate.

>lalalalalaalaa I cant hear you

I doubt anyone has made a good argument against Trump because there isn't one to be made.

>post argument
>people dare to have an opposing opinion
>its a circul jerk

REDDIT GO HOME

And where are the opponents? Sup Forums faggots baiting each other with meme anti-trump posts dont count. Point to me the threads that legitately have several anti-trump posters making arguments.

Liberal as in classically liberal is more similar in philosophy than the current left. What you would should be asking is

>Why aren't you a libertarian or a classic liberal, Sup Forums?

And the answer you'll get is

>Because all the freedom in the world won't protect you from those who wish to steal from you.

THERE IT IS EVERYONE. NOW HOW MANY AGREE WITH THIS?

Modern "liberals" are "social liberals", which is socialism-lite.

The liberal you refer to is "classic liberal".

Be the change you want to see in the world.

>more similar in philosophy to lolbertarians

K then argue against my OP.

Are you incapable of making an argument against Trump?

Where the opposition resides is their prerogative. If they choose to avoid Sup Forums then it's their fault that is a circlejerk.
Whether this is this is the case or not is basically yours to prove by demonstrating that there exists no thread in which dissent is present.
Although since I have dissented I think we're done.

classic liberalism and modern liberalism are different. you have confused the two.

>1984
>Brave New World
>Not reading this book

Why would I do that? I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. I'm pointing out that Sup Forums gets tumblr triggered by anything anti trump.

You're equating big government to malevolence. It's corporate interests and dependence that pollute the most developed states. We need to reduce corporate power, not state power.

I mean you aren't wrong that they are different.

Donald Trump's dissemination of anti-vaxxer nonsense and willingness to associate with anti-vaxxers is a clear sign of incompetence.

Liberalism doesn't work with diversity.

>Sup Forums gets tumblr triggered by anything anti trump.
Where's the proof?

The French and American revolutions were both liberal revolutions but they were based on opposite notions of rights. If you believe rights are fundamentally negative, you believe that government cannot infringe upon them. That's why the bill of rights limits government power. But if you believe that rights are fundamentally positive, you believe you are entitled to things which the government must supply. Every one is owed some basic standard of living.

Both are liberal views because they consider the individual as autonomous and and all individuals as equal in their rights. "Liberal" has nothing to do with the size or role of government. Libertarians are technically speaking liberals, as are most Americans who call themselves "conservatives" (constitutional, individualist types).

You must limit both. The United States at present can invade and subjugate any non-nuclear power on a whim, while this power is increasingly at the discretion of corporations that have been permitted to consolidate power due to neoliberalism.

This I agree with

Marxists.

Read the thread my god

>implying classical liberalism is the exact same thing as progressive liberalism

Because Americans are fucking retards and have ruined the English language time and time again.

Proud liberal here, been on Sup Forums for 5 years.

>You must limit both.
Why? The US should be killing all nonwhites on the planet and strip-mining the Solar System to make interstellar colony ships.

Which posts are you upset about? Be specific.

>leftists choose not to post here almost entirely
>start crying that big bad Sup Forums is a circle jerk

Every time. You weak ass pussies are so goddamn fragile.

Liberal used to mean centrist.

Now everything is a varying degree of left wing faggotry.

/thread.

It's a natural incentive for corporations to attempt to influence and seize control of the State as much as possible.

A limited state would then be ideal, because it would have less influence to peddle, thereby disincentivizing corruption and bribery, which are massive problems in many countries, including the US (inb4 its not bribery, it's "lobbying")

As for the OP, the modern American definition of the word is not limited government, it's large government. The biggest expansions of government in the US have occurred under liberals, be they Democrat or Republican. And yes, I'd consider Nixon a liberal.

The classic definition of liberal that is still somewhat used in Europe today is of a free-market focus and limited government, whereas in the US that is the bread and butter of the "conservative" Republican Party. Also, 1984 and Brave New World were very different perspectives on dystopias, they have little to do with another other than totalitarianism (in brave new world's case, it's a "soft" totalitarian state), so I don't think you've actually read or understood these books. They were both ideas on the left-wing gone wild, although 1984's dictatorship could easily be perceived as right-wing, even though their "official" policies were anything but. However, more than that, it's what happens when a political entitity consolidates too much power and manages to destroy all opposition, and nightmare scenarios like this can occur regardless of ideology.

>If he disagrees he's a leftist
Underaged eceleb cuck detected

>The United States at present can invade and subjugate any non-nuclear power on a whim

Yes, it has the means but it offers literally zero benefit to them. I have the means to destroy my house but that doesn't mean I need to dispose of all my hammers.

>while this power is increasingly at the discretion of corporations that have been permitted to consolidate power due to neoliberalism.

You're still assuming that a large state is inherently malevolent, and yet you are claiming that the main danger of that is the corporations. If you do believe this, then the logical solution would be to reduce corporate power, not state power.

The notion of positive rights is probably the biggest foundational reason for the Goliath governments we have today.

The idea of positive rights is inherently opposed to a government protecting negative rights as a government must violate property rights to provide these positive rights to people.
Positive rights are much more accurately described as government privileges.
I'd also argue that positive rights are precisely illliberal because the individual cannot be an autonomous sovereign if their rights are derived from government as claimed

>not just banning lobbying on pain of death and killing any judges who want to grandstand on muh principles

Man what are you talking about. Read my posts and there's your proofs. But here I'll spoonfeed you
start with this one

>promoting liberalism
>not a leftist
pls

>A limited state would then be ideal, because it would have less influence to peddle, thereby disincentivizing corruption and bribery

But then the corporations just fill the power vacuum.

Ok kiddo think whatever you want go back to watching pewdiepie

10/10 argument frendo