I don't mean in terms of the contemporary left (liberal) vs. right (conservative) dichotomy, which I generally see as overly obtuse and hiding the meaning/philosophy behind questions of governance and lawmaking
Copy/pasted from Wikipedia, the big issues relating Liberalism are:
>liberty >equality >freedom of speech >freedom of the press >freedom of religion >free markets >civil rights >democratic societies >secular governments >gender equality >international cooperation
Do you agree with this characterization of what would classically be called a "liberal" philosophy? If you find all or most of these things important in regards to government, do you consider yourself a liberal? If not, why?
My guess is that the vast majority of people on Sup Forums would consider themselves classical Liberals if we could divorce ourselves from the dualistic, overly simplified contrivances of modern football-team politics
>If not, why? And what set of philosophy/beliefs do you find more appropriate?
Grayson Price
>democratic societies
but why though? we can have all of those things without lying to ourselves and pretending we have any say in the actions of the jew mafia(police)
Parker Richardson
Those are empty niceties that have been covered (for example freedom of speech - the key tenants) under law before their conception or are the result of quality of life rising in the 17th and 19th centuries, and as a result, people got this strange idea that they were individuals instead of large blocs.
Jason Wood
Liberalism doesn't necessarily mean democracy. Neither Rome (Republican democracy) or Athens (Athenian democracy) were liberal. Just two examples. Democracy has just been liberalised.
Kayden Young
Liberalism is centre-right literally anywhere except USA you fucking retard. Socialists are on the left, kill yourself.
Bentley Young
That's only because people don't differentiate this new breed of leftism from classical liberalism, and the leftist movement hasn't hit other countries as hard as its hit America.
Kayden Rivera
I mean why are there no "benevolent dictators" like the Kings and great leaders of old? We all know we live in a plutocratic nepotistic world, why not encourage education and good faith WITH this knowledge, not against it? To replace the system of law written in stone, with a new system where proles put coloured notes into boxes in order to squabble their rights away....
I hate this world.
Zachary Bailey
>and the leftist movement hasn't hit other countries as hard as its hit America Though, arguably, that's not true for Sweden.
Parker Sanders
Oh absolutely. It was studying the Roman Republic that made me realize "hurr durr dicators bad" isn't true. And then the study of English history, particularly the English Civil War and Revolution of 1688, that makes me think a form of monarchy is natural to life. Not necessarily a state wide institution but a ruler.
Owen Wood
I have very liberal social policies such as I believe in gay marriage, pro choice, etc. but I am very fiscally conservative
Eli Green
This is sort of a strange question in that much of what you described, when practiced, was associated with say the athenian and roman republics or more recently the early united states, which were all reasonably illiberal by your criteria.
Ryder Brooks
No. "Liberty" is a meme. Benevolent Monarchy is the best we can hope for.
Carson Gray
Athens and Rome didn't have any of this in writing and yet most of this still existed. The advancement of mankind made it neccersary for us to write this shit down.
Tyler Stewart
A ruler is natural in the same way as "10% of men will try to fight any stranger who stares at them" is natural. Just because SOME PEOPLE are cuntholes doesn't mean one-upping eachother is the default human response.
Easton Diaz
>illiberal by your criteria What do you mean by this? I didn't really set "requirements" for what ought to be designated as liberal. By illiberal do you mean authoritarian/antidemocratic?
Aiden Davis
Also I'm a nationalist so I would've described myself as a democrat twenty years ago but not today
Josiah Bailey
I consider myself clasically liberal in the traditional sense, and more precisely a radical centrist in a contemporary sense. I'm fairly dissolusioned overall with the left/right identity politics dichotomy we have - intellectual honesty mandates that the truth is somewhere inbetween the extreme viewpoints of SJWs and Alt-righters.
Ryan Taylor
>expects a Sup Forumstard to hold actual reasoning behind his edgy backward opinions.
Jackson Young
None of those things are real issues that are relevant to society. But fags corrupting marriage is wrong, and women being able to get abortions has corrupted their mentality.
Justin Davis
Well at the very least, the romans and early americans had a strong idea that they were to be a privileged people within their territory, along with the expectation that property was required to participate in electoral politics.
They didn't really conceive of liberty as a carte blanche to everyone in their society.
Isaiah Hill
I don't believe in literally any of the things you listed.
Elijah Turner
I disagree, it is in a persons right I believe to marry who they want by any lines, also how could you not like abortion??? It's basically self eugenics, it gets rid of the mentally weak people in society
Joshua Jones
Everyone in this thread who says yes should be gassed.
Ryan Brooks
>Liberty
Yes
>Freedom of Speech, the Press, Religion
Yes.
>Free Markets
Yes
>Civil Rights
Mostly yes
>Secular Government
Depends. The officials should be religious, but religious officials should not also hold political office or vice versa.
>Gender Equality
Yes and no.
>International cooperation
Yes and no.
>Equality
Hell to the fucking no. Equality is fucking cancer and a blatant lie whether it refers to social equality, political equality, economic equality, equality in potential, equality in ability, equality in any respect whatsoever neither exists nor should exist. Its cancer, and a cancer that has utterly killed our social and political systems.
Angel Brooks
Is this type of governance actually possible post-Marxism, though? In USA for example wouldn't a figure like Mao inevitably pop up without extreme draconian oppression of the masses?
Aiden Nguyen
No.
Jack Williams
>international cooperation
Not liberal. Classical liberals seek to avoid entangling alliances as they perpetuate endless war and conflict.
See: >Switzerland >Republic of Venice
Oliver Sullivan
I'll ask about the ones that I believe in most strongly then, what is your stance in regards to ...? >freedom of speech/freedom of press >free markets >secular government >international cooperation
Jack Gonzalez
Good point. There are probably more modern things we can judge a quality of a person on, though property holding is definitely a plus since it shows you aren't completely incompetent. Perhaps an age limit of around 25-30, marriage/children status, land holding, taxpaying, career, etc.
Carter Wilson
You mean classical liberalism? Libertarianism.
Any rational person (most of Sup Forums really) would subscribe to these ideals, as did the founding fathers of the United States of America.
...except for gender equality and international cooperation; take that kikery elsewhere.
Connor Williams
And for the last part, not if people are satisfied with where they live and who rules over them.
Ryder Robinson
>Any rational person (most of Sup Forums really) would subscribe to these ideals Not at all. Just systems are possible without liberalism. We've already discussed various forms of democracy which predate liberalism.
Charles Flores
Not to imply democracy is any sign of justice at all.
Henry Reed
>calls it a false dichotomy >falls for it anyway Who said the SJWs & alt-righters are the most extreme views you can have? Truth might be slanted more one way or another, and given more extreme viewpoints to be 'somewhere inbetween', that slant could be significant.
Christopher Cooper
>liberty Yeah >equality For the most part yes, but not islamics and others that threaten us >freedom of speech Yes >freedom of the press 9/10 yes, but not to slander/ promote and brainwash people >freedom of religion Not unless it's Christian or something that doesn't promote hate like budist >free markets If it's a real free market, yes >civil rights Yes, but not civil privilege that makes your life better, ex. Black lives matter >democratic societies No because most people are too stupid and biased to make a good choice, look at how many people voted Hillary >secular governments Yes >gender equality No, because genders aren't equal, but hey should be treated somewhat equal, but ladies can have kids and shit and shouldn't be in the army or shit like that. >international cooperation No, competition makes the world go round.
Kayden Clark
You're mixing neo-liberalism (socialism) with classical liberalism (freedom).
They are not at all the same; nearly the opposite.
Nicholas Rivera
Well, let's work through somethings. If women were disenfranchised, what could they really do? Not much. I imagine most of the poor are so myopic that they would trade away there political power for fool's gold and malt liquor.
It would really boil down to if someonelike the EU or China decided to stick their nose in american affairs.
Kevin Butler
I'm not at all and if you checked my post ID you'd see that. I was talking about the Roman Republic, Athenian democracy, Greek councils, etc.
Julian Sanchez
Why? Can you boil it down to a few sentences or at least which specific concepts you disagree with? You can boil the general concept of equality down to a point where it is meaningful. Most of the things you said "yes" to would necessitate being applied to all people equally. When you characterize it as a loaded term by applying contemporary leftist sentiments you're sucking meaning out of it (which is what the people you're decrying did to ruin it for you.) >Switzerland isn't cooperative with other countries >is literally seen as the centerpoint of Europe I don't think "cooperation" necessarily means military support The way I see it the current prevalence of Marxist ideology would completely prevent people from being satisfied, we'd have to have a huge cultural revolution for it to be a stable system.
Adrian Russell
Women vote with emotion, and one used to have to be a property owner to vote.
Both of these were no nonsense approaches to keeping the republic solvent.
Cultural Marxism fucked everything up.
Levi Thompson
>liberty shouldn't be an end in itself. Just one factor among many that should exist in moderation in any stable government
>equality Means nothing in itself. Equality of economic status? Under the law? Before God? What kind of equality?
>freedom of speech not if said speech is destructive to the nation (not state)
>freedom of the press same
>freedom of religion Absolutely not. One church should work hand-in-hand with the monarchy (I'm a monarchist)
>free markets domestically, for the most part. Internationally, no. Protectionism is the leverage a strong economy has over weaker ones and is a fat source of power for the nation
>civil rights meaningless outside of a democratic/multicultural system. I don't believe in voting or multicultural values, so no segregation issues either
>democratic societies absolutely not. All democracy is veiled oligarchy and is extremely easy to subvert with enough patience. Dynastic monarchy in an ethno-state is what I advocate
>secular governments no. leads to moral nihilism, creating a theological/philosophical chaos from which any kind of deluded belief system can be impressed upon the suggestible populous
>gender equality sure
>international cooperation only if it serves the interest of the nation above the others
Christopher Phillips
closest to my beliefs yet. right down to free market on domestic vs international.
Brandon Young
No not remotely. A concept applying universally does not imply equality in any fashion that matters. The fact of the matter is that the Equality as both word and as concept is spread through implication and propaganda, there is no way you can say you're for "equality" without snakes and vermin trying to apply that term to social, political, economic, and ultimately individual differences. Equality as both word and concept is cancer, and any actually admirable concept that can be expressed by that word is better expressed by another word that lacks its poisonous connotations.
Cameron Howard
>>liberty there is already >>equality there is not and the nationalist man is being scrutinized >>freedom of speech virtue-signaling is killing this >>freedom of the press (((they))) have to give it >>freedom of religion allowin the existance of religious conflicts erradicates the freedom of speech and press >>free markets i'm in, ruins woman and entertainment with fads though >>civil rights already in >>democratic societies true democracy would allow anything to come up so yeh >>secular governments yeah >>gender equality which is being killed by neoliberalism >>international cooperation what is the free market
Ryan Fisher
Free markets internally as much as expedient. Everything else I oppose. Political freedom, Equality and Democracy in particular
Alexander Murphy
>liberty >equality >freedom of speech >freedom of the press >freedom of religion >civil rights >republic >secular governments >gender equality >international cooperation I am for those things minus free market I think pol as a whole though looks more like this
>liberty >freedom of speech, press >christianity as state religion >non socialist protectionism >republic and maaaaaaaaaaybe >civil rights. definately no gender equality or equality.
Ethan Bailey
I would tend to disagree >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
That statement is a lie. Plain and simple. Not only is it not self-evident, its not true. People are unequal in every single way.
In potential, they are unequal due to genetic differences. Tabula Rasa is a lie.
In ability, they are unequal due to both genetic differences, environmental conditions, and the willpower and effort applied.
Under social conditions, they are unequal due to birth, status, and position.
Under economic conditions, they are unequal so long as they are not enslaved and forced to be equal. Some will always rise above the others otherwise.
And these things are not only true, they are desirable. This is because any attempt to enforce "equality" always comes in one of two forms. Attempting to pull everyone to the top [which only ends in hierarchy as not everyone can reach the top, only as high as they can reach] or dragging everyone down to the bottom [which produces equality, of a sort].
Equality is not only a lie, it is the great lie, the lie that has ruined the world. Equality between the sexes! Equality between the races! Equality between cultures! Ugliness is just as good as Beauty! Weakness is just as good as Strength! Ignorance is just as good as Knowledge!
The people who set out to make men equal start with the lawbooks, move to the pocketbooks, then end hammering out men's souls. Its a disease.
Brandon Hill
>liberalism of any sort
Fascism/National Socialism is literally the only hope and truth
Elijah Ross
>Equality is not only a lie, it is the great lie, the lie that has ruined the world. Equality between the sexes! Equality between the races! Equality between cultures! Ugliness is just as good as Beauty! Weakness is just as good as Strength! Ignorance is just as good as Knowledge! None of those bits negate the notion that people should have inalienable rights, though. Like I said you're knocking down a strawman "equality." Just because there are a lot of people who strongly believe in the strawman doesn't mean that it is a good use of the word. Equality is your boogieman because of neoleftism, I can see that, but it's an incredibly general principle and does apply usefully to some realms.
Jose Jackson
No. I don't believe in equality.
Thomas Taylor
Yeah, they wanted it to be an axiom so they could undermine national sovereignty later on. It worked.
Goddamn old men's club.
Gavin James
You probably claim to be an advocate of small state but those "inalienable" rights require excessive amounts of state. This is why, most, of these are early modern concepts, at the earliest. What rights, beyond the rights granted by nature, do you want? If you mean, say, not to thrown in speech for criticizing a leader (covered under freedom of speech), this was forbidden in Roman law from antiquity in theory.
Bentley Watson
>thrown in speech It's late sorry. thrown in prison
Aiden Rogers
its only common sense
Isaac Turner
No its not useful. The fact that political rights were first of all called 'inalienable' as though they were an inherent part of the universe and not an aspect of the social contract is one lie. The fact that those rights were made a part of equality as a concept was the second lie that kills us.
And it kills us by design, because it makes anyone who defense the Bill of Rights a defender of "equality". Its a semantic web in which you've been caught, not because of some trickery on their part, but because you were foolish enough to think that "equality" was a good thing to defend!
You should never, and they should never, have supported equality even on the social/political plane, because that equality thus pursued will INEVITABLY lead to the pursuit of equality on the economic and personal planes.
Isaac Garcia
>liberty No. People need structure, and order. They need to be pushed in a collective direction to perform specific tasks and goals that ensure the advancement of the human race. Otherwise they fall to mindless entertainment and overall strives for hedonism and leisure.
>equality No. People with superior genetic makeup need to be placed at higher positions by default. If we can reach a stage in which we can engineer people with specific traits and place them in the right position in society - even better.
>freedom of speech No. You do as you are told and keep your mouth shut instead of sowing descent in the system.
>freedom of press No. The press needs to be used to properly inform the citizens of what is expected of them.
>freedom of religion Religion needs a flat-out ban
>free markets Absolutely not. It just encourages the creation of commodities that are not efficient and serve to impress the feeble minds of an aimless populus.
>civil rights Kind of. Everyone is equal before the state, but don't expect mercy if you stand up against it
>democratic societies Fuck no. Democracy is a broken and extremely easily corruptible, inefficient system. It is only popular because the masses feel like they have control so they don't get rowdy.
>secular government Yes.
>Gender equality No. The two genders will perform different tasks dependent on their competencies and capabilities.
>international cooperation Depends on the state of the other governments.
Angel Ramirez
Shouldn't peoples' natural rights observed equally?
Shouldn't two morally competent agents be treated equally in the eyes of the law without regard to their economic means or their differences of opinion? People are necessarily born into the social contract by being human beings, if they are outside of the social contract then their "rights" don't matter in any meaningful way because they aren't interacting with other human beings. So what you're saying reads as a tautology to me
Adam Parker
>free markets
Would that not make you a Libertarian? The modern Liberal supports welfare states.
Ryder Mitchell
First of all, no they shouldn't. People of high political office or military position or similarly high status should be held to higher standards, and people like children and retards should be held to lower standards. Which is already, in many ways, the case.
Secondly, there is no reason to use this general concept with the word "Equality". Justice, or fairness, already exist as more then sufficient words for the concept of "Don't fuck people over, and apply consistent standards of conduct". The only reason to use the word "Equality" instead is if you fetishize the word and/or want to get screwed over by ideologues who use the inch you give them to take an ell of propaganda.
Carter Anderson
You be fun at parties
godskolere he
Brayden Walker
Law vs rights.
Angel Barnes
yes. I always refer to democrats and such as leftists, not liberals.
Jack Reyes
Without religion, there is no legitimate authority of the ruler, only despotism. If you want men to strive for the betterment of mankind, they need to know how.
Dylan Moore
So I can see the idea behind everything you said here but if everyone was in line with the framework you have here we'd live in "1984"
Isaiah Garcia
you'd be living in a strong stable state with a nice house, a virgin wife and 20 kids with only white people for miles.
Camden Brown
But do "justice" and "fairness" as concepts actually make sense if there isn't a type of equality which puts all people, regardless of their various differences, on equal standing with regard to some portions of the law? Like with your example of retarded people, why is it "just" or "fair" to expect society at-large to provide for them if not for their having equal right to their lives compared to "normal" people? "Just" and "fair" are subjective concepts without some sort of legal parity if only for a basic reference point
Chase Robinson
no
Charles Rodriguez
1984 takes place in a despotic republic. That's the future of non-monarchical systems.
Sebastian Collins
who here /on the tiger and get get off/
Logan Rogers
I would consider myself a liberal in that classical, Lockean sense.
I'm just here for news, happenings, memes, and easy to win debates with mouth-breathing alt-righters (who put up less of a challenge than the leftists on /lit/, come on guys!).
Lincoln Bailey
>liberty depends on what liberty you're talking about >equality pic related >freedom of speech yes >freedom of the press yes but they should face legal consequences when they lie >freedom of religion yes for all religions but Islam >free markets yes >civil rights for whites only >democratic societies depends on who can vote >secular governments sure but government should stay out of religious affairs >gender equality pic related >international cooperation pic related
