It's incredibly disappointing how the spirit of Locke's liberalism is getting repeatedly buttraped by libtards. I can find no objective flaws in his philosophy if not for the fact that it was initially conceived to be implemented in a monarchy, which is a really small flaw in that the core principles of liberalism are just as easily applicable in a working democracy. Locke was the greatest advocate for freedom of thought and speech, how did it get to the point that these goddamn socialists have the NERVE to call themselves liberals? Back in the day they at least had the guts to admit that they hate discordant opinions. Ever since the French Revolution when that asshole Robespierre started chopping off heads like it was nothing thanks to what is in my opinion the one philosophy that is the greatest justifier of any kind of censorship, Jean Jacques Rousseau (pity the Brits didn't kill off the French when they could). He basically justified the idea of a vocal minority or even an individual ruling over a silent majority as a representative of what he called the "general will" and he believed naysayers should be killed or thrown in a madhouse. It's not surprising that Marx got half his shit from this guy and basically half of modern day SJWs act in accordance to his philosophy. The funny thing is that he fucking hated my man Locke and now his ideological followers have hijacked his philosophy. Goddamn socialists have been stealing shit since the 17th century.
ITT: Classical liberal rant
Libtards eternally confuse liberalism with radicalism and radicalism is socialism, the root of all evil.
JS Mill and Bentham fucked it up.
True liberals are moderates.
Locke literally makes the framework of which Marx thinks everything is part of the materialist dialectic.
>muh god made me only to work the land
Liberalism was cancer from the start.
Liberalism begets liberalism, proto-cuck.
Someone post the brain chart
Nah the nippo got it right man, the materialistic dialect was Marx turning Hegel on his head, nothing to do with Locke. Liberalism was, and still is in people like me, extremely moderate and open to any and all ideas. Locke theorized the uninaliable rights that make most Constitutions at least somewhat decent,
Implying the good parts in your US Constitution aren't deliberately, directly, rightfully and clearly based on Locke's philosophy. Us "proto-cucks" are the reason you have freedom of thought and speech and all the other nice amendments you probably use all day.
America was a mistake
liberalism is a cancer. Locke was wrong. it is a false ideology based on unproved, naive ideas like blank slate, social contract, equality, natural human rights,...
Btw Locke literally said that the fundations of a functioning society are "Life, Liberty and Property".
Say that PROPERTY is one of the main features of a functioning government and society to any antifa and I guarantee you'll get a molotov cocktail through your window when you least expect it.
Social Contract is Rousseau dude, you're getting confused there. Equality is not necessarily part of liberalism, LIBERTY and FREEDOM are the main concepts.
It became a mistake when you let socialists seize control.
Clarification. When Locke talks about uninaliable rights he is talking about a king not having the right to whoop your ass without a good reason, or raising taxes too much for his own gain endangering your livelihood, freedom and property. It was theorized to stop tyrants, and in no way does it have even a glimmer of what could be considered the start of an authoritarian socialist leftist ideology. It is the polar opposite of that.
You are talking about Locke's political philosophy which is sorta OK. His epistemology and ontology are disgusting just like all the ones from all empricists. Materialism would have never come about without such people. Protestants always want to downplay the hierarchical beauty of things.
You were a mistake
Pre-20th century:
Liberalism = rights of the individual are supreme
Conservatism = rights of the collective are supreme (morality policing)
Post-20th century
Liberalism = rights of the collective are supreme (offensive speech supersedes right to free speech)
Conservatism = rights of the individual are supreme (free market economics)
yes it is, it was always about equality, the "equality" of all "humanity" to do whatever they please, without regards for customs, traditions, hierarchy, authorities.
Locke himself said that all huamns are born equal, and that none ought to harm each other etc
liberalism is based on the moronic idea of the blank slate, is heavily based on the foolish idea of the noble savage (natural state of man etc)
>social contract is Rousseau dude
have you ever read Locke? He, as all liberals clearly advocates for the necessity of a government based on a social contract.
btw, Rousseau was also a liberal m8.
not to mention that the idea of human rights, natural rights, and all that is nonsense, mere wishful thinking, without proof,
>It was theorized to stop tyrants
>what could be considered the start of an authoritarian socialist
well, as they say: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
liberalism is a negating force, a counter ideology, a pernicious progressive doctrine that preaches equality, human rights, based on mere ideology without proof. It can only whine and campaign against perceived tyranny.
read some de Maistre, Filmer etc and see for yourself how degenerate and deficient liberalism is.
How can the principle of private property be reconciled with the fact that individuals spending money has an impact on the lives of other individuals?
He was an empirist, which is as Kant said like ants building a mound but getting to nothing whatsoever. Materialism would have arisen anyway because it is NOT an ontological philosophy, but rather a political and social philosophy. I personally am a positivist on basically all ontological issues so I accept some core values of empirism but reject the use of philosophical assumptions such as categories and transcendentals. They're just mental fabrications with no counterpart in reality.
I really don't see what's wrong with materialism in itself anyway, unless you believe there is some higher value in the unprovable, but then we would delve in a discussion about religion, faith and spiritualism which is not the issue at hand. But I will say I disagree with you, as it is the concrete, observable nature of things that gives them beauty and value in my opinion.
Wow a leaf actually added something instead of ruining the post, good job.
Calling Rousseau a liberal is absolutely mental. He rejected Locke's ideals in every way possible very directly in his speeches. The idea of the noble savage is also Rousseau's. Locke believed that no man is born naturally good or evil. Yes, I did read his work. His social contract, again, does not talk about the equality relations between people but the freedom of people against oppression from tyrants. Looks like you're the one who hasn't done any research.
Locke strongly believed in the free market, which admittedly is sometimes flawed but works for the most part. In capitalistic society everyone has at least the chance to make financial gains and it stands to them to seize it and ensure their own livelihood regardless of how other people may act with their own money. Of course this has to be strongly policed against unlawful actions such as monopolies or unfair treatment.
and it is very stupid to say Lockean liberalism is good, but that Mill, Bentham, Paine or other liberals were wrong. they all are individualistic, rationalistic, amoral philosophers who were deeply influenced by and built on the work of Locke.
In any case, even if Locke was right, but liberalism as he saw it was immediatly destroyed into false liberalism, than that means he merely gave way to progressive degeneracy.
not to mention that liberalss, throughout the ages, without failure were always pro new ideas, pro progress (liberals supported abolition, liberals supported female suffrage, liberals supported democratization of society, no fault divorce, globalism, open borders,....)
liberals have always been on the front of degeneracy, "progress",...
not to mention that the idea of civic nationalism, without regard to birth, race, ... is another liberal invention.
and a quick refutation of the liberal idea of people being free and with natural rights is simply the authority of parents over their children. according to liberal dogma, children are born free, but evidently this is not so. and if this is a mere "exception", than why should we not look for other exceptions?
>I really don't see what's wrong with materialism in itself anyway, unless you believe there is some higher value in the unprovable, but then we would delve in a discussion about religion, faith and spiritualism which is not the issue at hand
Actually it is, especially for the things you said like political and social philosophy. Why would a materialist society not eventually have people who just want free stuff, like the antifa you hate. I don't see how one doesn't come with the other. If there is not hierarchy(in a world only full of matter, there is no hierarchy in-itself) coming from a irrational, idealist or religious sense, why the fuck should people give a damn about your constrained liberalism and not just go full marxist and socialist.
>Pre-20th century:
>Liberalism = rights of the individual are supreme
>Conservatism = rights of the collective are supreme (morality policing)
How about French doctrinaires, Spanish moderados, and english victorian individualists who called themselves liberal conservatives?
what's more today I have LibDem Party described as conservative and even in anglosphere, australians have conservative-oriented Liberal party. though I'd admit they are in fact social democrats as much as murican republicans.
The mere concept of you considering things such as universal suffrage, democratization and no fault divorce as regressive stuns me. There is literally no harmed party in those scenarios.
Globalization would be fine as well with me if it was implemented correctly and not with some countries or cultures leeching off of other, which in itself goes against the core concepts of liberalism in which it is harming the providing nation's livelihood. Moderate liberals need to have the clarity of mind to see the situation as a whole and only endorse decisions with no harmed party, or that only marginally harm a party that has UNIVOCALLY AGREED to accept some harm for the greater good, without forcing even one single individual to partake in it unwillingly. Children are very clearly not born free, but it is a necessary process in their upbringing as thinking, free men and women until they develop the sufficient skillset to form opinions of their own, and discern the best possible outcome for the situation at hand.
I dont deserve the bill of rights because some autists arguef about philosophy and concluded Locke was wrong?
I dont understand. Why I gotta give up my freedom and liberty.
Because materialism doesn't equal entitlement. If things have value you should work for them, and earn them. People who do not comprehend that concept are not materialists, they are mentally disabled.
Rousseau; believes human are born equal and free
Locke: believes humans are born equal and free
Both advocate religious tolerance
Both advocate a society based on social contract, an agreement between government and individual
what difference is there then? I actually respect Rousseau more, since he atleast understood the necessity of homogeneity,unity, civil order and duty.
meant for
No mention of based Hobbes.
The point is that you shouldn't. You should embrace what's left of the core principles of liberalism embedded in your constitution and reject who wants to take them away, adding insult to injury by defining themselves as liberals.
>If things have value you should work for them, and earn them
Sounds like morals based on something that is higher than brutal nature and matter. Not very materialist.
Liberals don't exist anymore. They've been infiltrated and overwhelmed by "progressives". Classical liberalism lives on, to some extent, in libertarianism.
Can someone teach me about Roseau's philosophies?
Rousseau: Believes all humans are born equal and free but should GIVE UP their freedoms in his SOCIAL CONTRACT in order to have access in society. The general will controls the contract and it is not clear who represents it. Most of the times it was dictators like Robespierre.
Locke: Believes all men are born equal and free with INALIENABLE RIGHTS that not even a tyrant should be able to strip them of. The social contract is what gives the GOVERNMENT its power and the CITIZENS control the contract and can strip the government of its power with a simple insurrection.
How can you even BEGIN to compare the two? Rousseau put the focus on the will of the collecive, or rather what he believed was the collecive, while Locke believed the rights of the individual should come before all! They fucking hated each other for this reason man! And I don't see the problem with religious tolerance as long as it goes both ways.
Just read
>equal and free
>religious tolerance
> social contract
equivocal.
Benjamin Constant invent liberalism and he fiercely destroyed Rousseau, praising Locke.
Doesn't it make any difference?
>There is literally no harmed party
you are just a degeneracy-peddling lolbertarian who wants to have his cake and eat it too. don't complain that with that attitude you get aids epidemics, masses of single mothers who can't raise their children right, elfare voted in thanks to pleb voting, open borders thanks to financial lobbying behind the scenes, openly flaunting of effeminacy, sodomy, pornography,...
btw, are you an atheist? Because you should now that the entire idea of Locke, of natural human rights, stands or falls with believing in God. if there is no god, who gave these rights to mankind (tm) , then there is no ground on which you can prove these rights exist, and if they do what exactly these rights are.
Anyone that truly believes we are born equal is fucking high. No such thing exists.
Not really, economic value is materialistic and it is still indubitably a value. You should work and earn that as well because all things that have value are the result of someone else's efforts. Farmers grow wheat, you pay farmer, you get wheat. Get wheat, make bread. Sell bread, get money for more wheat and other food too and shit. It's called the market, it's existed since human civilization came to be.
>re: private property infringing on the rights of others
That type of compromise seems pragmatically necessary and makes sense, but it still feels like an unsatisfactory falling short of the ideal. There is a problem in that the full realization of ideal individualism would mean everyone lives in an isolated box from birth without any exposure to the fact that others exist in even the most minute ways. I don't see an alternative that could supplant the need for the right to private property, but it is still an unsatisfactory compromise.
Ok I was clearly wrong in that regard, apologies.
they merely agree on the necessity of a social contract, but there is indeed a big difference what that contract constitutes.
in a sense, Rousseau is better though. no one ever has enjoyed unlimited "natural rights", whatever those may be. better to acknowledge that, and impose some form of unity, collectivism, nationalism, instead of going full retard and proclaim every man is an Island, a rootless individual without regard to the society, culture, race, nation,... where he lives.
pic related. the nameless, rootless, "individual" doesn't exist, and neither does "mankind".
I am an atheist and I think you should reconsider this last statement because Locke actually was undure whether God was real or not as an empirist. He tried to re-use the ontological proof but ended up refuting it later in life. Rights don't necessatily come to man from God, they are something inherent in human civilization. It's not a hard concept to comprehend.
Btw all those things can and will happen but as they are the result of someone else's bad decisions I see no reason why people should deal with them. You got aids because you had unprotected sex with someone without checking? Too bad, you won't get my money to pay for your medical aid. I won't endager my economic livelihood for your bad decisions.
This mechanism is still within liberal ideals and encourages carefulness with one's decision, as the state only helps people who were victims of unavoidable situations and not the ones who were the victims of their own bad judgmement. You got pregnant and want an abortion? Pay for it. You should have used a condom. Was the condom defective? Ask the company that made it for compensation and if you provide evidence we'll help you force them to do it.
>"Human beings refusing to submit to a communal purpose higher than their own selfish purpose produce nothing beyond egoism, treachery, and greed."
What about the tragedy of the commons? Arrangements like the one described in the quote tend to result in a situation where one altruistically must self-sacrifice and take up more than their share, while the others are content with a subsistence level effort. One-sided altruism is absurd and self-defeating. The only pragmatic solutions don't seem to work without a legalistic fear of the law and repercussions from above, and a life of fear of an impersonal force's condemnation is psychologically unhealthy for an individual to adapt to, and results in neuroses that don't lend well to social life.
The idea that you can work for and earn things is based on the assumption that there is a meritocratic mechanism in society that can work for you, which is not necessarily true in a society full of bureaucrats who distribute resources based on irrational in-preference rather than merit. If you operate in good faith that there is a meritocratic mechanism that will work for you in modern society, you will only be a resource to be worked until you burn out, for the benefit of those who exploit one-sided altruists.
Would you rather refuse the idea of private property? I'm afraid that simply wouldn't work either. Everyone wants to obtain more, it's why crimes exist. If private property doesn't exist you're encouraging strong black markets. Communist societies amply proved this.
This. Just to piggyback slightly:
Rousseau: Discussed the rights of "Man"
Locke: Discussed the rights of "Men"
In other words, Rousseau was referring to an abstract, Platonic ideal of "Man," which allows any dictator to define exactly what the means.
The same is not possible with Locke. Which men? These men. The ones you're about to kill, Robspierre.
>The mere concept of you considering things such as universal suffrage, democratization and no fault divorce as regressive stuns me. There is literally no harmed party in those scenarios.
Just to be clear. And I know this is not Locke but John Stuart Mill, but I won the discussion, women shoud not be allowed to vote.
en.wikipedia.org
""Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same."[11]
"
John Stuart Mill.
One house with everything installed. One soccergame in a full stadium. I can come up with even dumber experiments.
archive.is
Here is a world known ((professor)) admitting John Stuart Mill was wrong and would should not be allowed to vote.
youtube.com
I agree wholeheartedly that it is an imperfect system, but I don't see viable alternatives that provide the same respect for freedoms. As I said, however, I believe in the policing of bureaucratic behaviour in capitalistic economies to ensure that the market really is really entirely free and avert large economic disasters. Meritocracy should be the most highly held value in that system, of course. If you can think of even better alternatives that are viable in modern societies I am happy to listen.
The EU is infecting your brain, Belgium.
Your position leaves any society wide open to dictatorship.
"What rights do you have now, sir, that most of your race is on my side, I've destroyed your family, profession, and country?"
Don't mind the spelling mistake, you get the gist. Even children can understand it.
I'm not at all advocating abolishing private property, I know that trying to force some hyper-progressive break from tradition like that would result in chaos that's detrimental to society. But it still isn't a viable long-term solution in a society where there are no viable frontiers to continue to develop, infinite growth models aren't sustainable once the system becomes closed. The increasing concentration of wealth in few individuals is another issue that complicates the principle of private property once a society has developed to the point we're at now. I am not a radical who advocates revolution, but I still believe that private property isn't the fundamental principle that philosophies of individual liberalism can be founded upon.
well, that is where righteous authority comes into play I imagine. there will always be an elite, no matter how egalitarian the society. so we must create this elite through concepts that are best, such as chivalry, noblesse oblige, valour, honor, piety, confidence, racial acknowledgement, long term preference, ....
in a sense, I believe a return to old aristocratic values is a necessity. It sure beats today's farce of equality, democracy, national sovereighnty or whatever concepts they make up to hide behind.
and ofcourse, the old saying, "he who does not work, neither should he eat" still rings true. some people just need violent force to be bothered to cooperate. the threat of law, social ostracism,... is necessary. some people are slimy, lazy assholes, and should be reminded of that
Dude wanna bromarry me?
Call me when those studies have been peer reviewed successfully by the scientific community and not entirely disregarded. There are plenty of intelligent,educated women whose voice in society is much more worthy of being heard than even mine or yours.
Fuck off libtard.
>Call me when those studies have been peer reviewed successfully by the scientific community and not entirely disregarded. There are plenty of intelligent,educated women whose voice in society is much more worthy of being heard than even mine or yours.
T. Woman.
I believe it is, if implemented correctly. The market evolves constantly and companies that do really well one day fail completely the next if the market is completely free and they aren't allowed to find legal loopholes to save themselves from bankruptcy. Wealth redistributes itself. Not evenly, but everyone with the right idea can get his turn to become rich and have some really wealthy generations in his family until his grandson with no grasp of how to run the company ruins everything and it becomes somebody else's turn.
>Call me when those studies have been peer reviewed successfully by the scientific community and not entirely disregarded.
This reeks of newly appointed assistant professor in the political science department.
Guys, stop arguing with women.
Still a woman.
lmao, what rights do you have good mr 56%? mr obesity? mr. hollywood degeneracy? mr. israel greatest ally? mr. income tax. mr. can't drink until I am 21. etc
believe it or not, but Belgium, as practically any country, has a written , comprehensive constitution.
human rights, social contract, constitution, freedom, democracy, voting, equality are all fake worthless concepts, which are molded as clay by whoever wishes to do with them whatver he wants.
pic related. a nation is it's people, not it's consitution.
Aristoratic values sound a bit too close to Nietzsche's philosophy for my tastes, and that one is notoriously authoritarian, which I think by now you know is something I cannot stand. I disagree with you, but let us accept our disagreement peacefully.
I can show you my dick but I'm afraid you'd feel too emasculated to respond after that.
>This reeks of newly appointed assistant professor in the political science department.
No. Every man gets my picture right away. Even the biggest loser men in real life gets it. I know, because I talked to a total loser cuck in real life, and he could not understand my essay, but as soon as I mentioned the stadium experiment I could see his eyes light up, he got it. You are a woman are you not?
No by all means do it. With a timestamp. If you need a peer review to fathom this picture.
You are a woman. Never met a man who is that dumb.
>the policing of bureaucratic behaviour in capitalistic economies
This just generates another additional class of bureaucrats that require more resources to monitor the other class of bureaucrats. This also sets a precedent that can continue building more layers or different varieties of monitors based on abstract justification. This is happening more frequently now in Western nations, everyone wants to keep and justify their job and show how essential their contributions are, and if you allow one based on abstract merits then any other can make equivalent abstract arguments that justify the expenditure on themselves. I don't believe in lack of oversight on free markets, but beginning the process of oversight starts an unstoppable trend towards ever-increasing bureaucracy, which drains a society of it's ability to progress by depriving them of their resources. Unnecessary involvement in foreign affairs follows the same trend.
The only real style of government that seems to avoid this is a streamlined dictatorship or facism, but these models tend towards extreme instability very quickly (within a century), and aren't viable options for long-term stability in a society, since they are based on special cases rather than principles.
I'm a 24 year old dude. I study physics but have a background in philosophy as well due to pure passion. Say what you will but I have met women that are much more worthy of having their opinions heard than someone who would even considering using the poster's gender as an ad hominem attack, which is a logical fallacy.
No. I won the discussion.
""Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same."[11]
John stuart Mill
I won. It is over. Untill you admit women should not be allowed to vote. It is over for you. Besides you pathetic liar, I never said women should not have free speech, that is just a strawman you as a woman make.
Liberalism from the start is garbage because it is entropy. It gave spawn to egalitarianism and will keep going till everything is equal to all no matter what.
>>youtube.com
actually that was hegel not locke.
I think you are absolutely retarded for one, does that mean you're a woman?
told him already
Women have not been forced to be individuals by society. Men will care for them in spite of the fact that they are meant to be equals, whom men should hold no obligation to. They will still be given preferential care based on animalistic biological imperatives. In order to be true individuals, irrational desire would have to be eradicated. This would result in the destruction of the family unit.
Marx needed to invert hegel to make his own ontology. From locke he might as well copy paste.
sure. but try to keep an open mind.
You're getting confused with marxism. Liberalism has its basis in the free market, private property and personal freedom which actually give spawn to separation in society thanks to meritocracy. Which, by the way, is a good thing.
Yes value-less freedom for its own sake degrades everything uniform fungible units.
Absolutely, I always do.
We've discussed this, it's simply not the case. Marx was not an ontologist at all, his dialectic is purely historical. He turned Hegel on his head to say that the economy is what drives history forwards. Nothing to do with anything Locke said. I politely invite you to do more research on the subject at hand.
>I'm a 24 year old dude
Then post dick with timestamp. Don't worry, I won't feel emsculated.
You are pathetic. That you actually ask for peer review to figure out what I write in this picture is real.
Only a woman is that dumb.
No. You lying female. Your opinion matters no more, since there is no rational discussion to be had with liars. It is pointless.
No one should reply to this poster anymore.
In a real free market a true monopoly wouldn't exist.
Most if not all market problems are created by laws and government meddling.
Ok time out here, can we all at least agree that the Danish kid is acting absolutely retarded?
Sup Forums has a long history of doxxing people when they show their faces but what the hell, might as well do it since I have no pics on social media. I'll post my face with a time stamp, because of common decency on a non-nsfw board.
Here you go you retard, now go back to your mom's room to eat doritos with a fedora on.
So is that why there is such a divide between classical liberals and modern liberalism. What exactly makes one left leaning and the other right leaning?
Right? Bureaucratic meddling especially.
The fact that the moderns are not liberals. They merely hijacked the term because it seemed fancy to them because they ask for privileges while pretending they are freedoms, such as women wanting welfare from the state to "close the wage gap".
>Ok time out here, can we all at least agree that the Danish kid is acting absolutely retarded?
No. No one will agree with you on that. Still missing the dick with timestamp as you wrote. And that timestamp looks false. And is that face full of pimples?
Yeah it's a genetic skin condition so what? I wrote the timestamp with a fucking pen how can it be false? You're grasping at straws dude.
I see so, they, Marxist, high jack the term in order to seem "progressive" and on the good side of things all the while pushing for more government and egalitarianism.
It's just really sad seeing someone who actually genuinely thinks women shouldn't be allowed to vote. I thought people like you didn't exist at all anymore honestly. It's because of people like you that SJWs manage to be the bane of our existence, because normal people seee you and think feminism is still necessary. It's not. I'll be ignoring you from now on.
>Yeah it's a genetic skin condition so what? I wrote the timestamp with a fucking pen how can it be false? You're grasping at straws dude.
Grasping at straws? I'm not the one asking for a peer review to figure women can't organise and play an adult soccergame without the help of men. You are a failure. And to think I'm retarded for not wanting to hand the collective power over the military and police is beyond dumb.
That's because the way Americans use "Liberal" and "Conservative" have nothing to do with philosophy. They are just colloquial terms for a set of beliefs that are highly contextual to current events/issues.
Precisely. It's frustrating as hell. It's such a widespread fenomenon that true liberals have basically no representatives left in any governments in the world. The last true liberal politician of some relevance in Italy died during Mussolini's dictatorship, great guy named Giovanni Giolitti.
I believe that the main thing that seperates modern liberals and conservatives is conservatives break everything down to the nuclear family unit, while modern liberals break it down to the needs of the individual.
>because normal people seee you and think feminism is still necessary.
You are dumb. Women's suffrage is at the core of feminism.
Yeah. They're still tied to philosophy in true liberals' minds though, and a little bit even in politics among the more educated people, especially in some countries in Europe with a rich history of great philosophy, and it's really frustrating. In a political context I would never label myself as a liberal anymore, but as far as the core concepts and ideals go I am and always will be.
Eh, that's way oversimplified. It's also highly ironic since divorce rates and other symbolic measures of "family values" tend to be worst in conservative-leaning states. Massachusetts was the first state to allow gay marriage and it consistently has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country. Gets me everytime.
Anyway my point is mostly that you can't boil down the way Americans use the terms anymore to something all that coherent, they are most like the names of sides in a culture war than they are any sort of coherent ideology.
>In a real free market a true monopoly wouldn't exist.
But in free market monopolies are inevitable, therefore "free market" is a self-destroying concept.
>Most if not all market problems are created by laws and government meddling.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yeah it's a good way to put it. When you come down to it it makes more sense to me to be a liberal because a family can disgregate but an individual cannot. Also liberals can be more accepting of new ideas and concepts and more open to social progress as long as no party is harmed or damaged without their express consent.
>. I thought people like you didn't exist at all anymore honestly
Why?
John Stuart Mill.
"Under whatever conditions, and within whatever limits, men are admitted to the suffrage, there is not a shadow of justification for not admitting women under the same."[11]
Now, you are probably to dumb to understand they can't build a house without men's help. But would you be ok to remove women's suffrage and tell them they can get it back when they build one house without the help of men like I outline in my essay? Or do you think that is to much to ask?
I believe you are talking about the reason women shouldn't vote isn't because they dumb but because it has destroyed the nuclear family.
>Government is actually a very real tangible thing that takes people money and impoverishes them
>other 3 bags are literally just buzzwords
Yes. I'm just surprised that this retard.
>Call me when those studies have been peer reviewed successfully by the scientific community and not entirely disregarded. There are plenty of intelligent,educated women whose voice in society is much more worthy of being heard than even mine or yours.
Actually needs a peer review to figure out something so simple.
He wasnpt talking about taxes and regulations temselves, he was alking about excessive taxes and regulations destroying the free market. A free market will adapt itself to the situation if it is policed against unfair behaviour correctly.
Anyway, he is more then 30% of the replies in this thread, I'm out.
>Ok time out here, can we all at least agree that the Danish kid is acting absolutely retarded?
No one agreed with you. You are the only one in this thread defending women's suffrage.