NIGEL FARAGE SHOW LIVE NOW
youtube.com
Speaker John Bercow accuses Boris Johnson of sexism
bbc.co.uk
Data row: Facebook's Zuckerberg will not appear before MPs
bbc.co.uk
Theresa May swaps Blackberry for iPhone
bbc.co.uk
Archie Spriggs: Custody battle mum jailed for son's murder
bbc.co.uk
All urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
supforums.com
twitter.com
twitter.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
archive.org
archive.is
youtube.com
youtube.com
m.youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
m.youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
bbc.co.uk
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
thermidormag.com
youtube.com
supforums.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
supforums.com
I find his advice about finance and general attitude to life helpful, don't take him completely seriously though
bbc.co.uk
I never realised just how much child abuse is perpretated by women until I started working in paediatrics a few months ago. Non-accidental injury to a child is almost always inflicted by the mother, yet everybody thinks of men when they hear the words 'chid abuse'.
building up a following
even if most of you cunts are cowards
Yeah you certainly make us aware of your autism, I like how my Lulu nickname of you stuck
that's a hearthstone cupcake
i think i have a card back like that
it felt like an appropriate follow desu
well i am like a crazy lazy version of louise
no real investigation here
but screaming traitor at people and cursing blumpf
i have plenty of that
Absolutely, just joshing. I've actually been following without literally following you.
Pretty sure I'm somewhere on the spectrum desu.
Was anyone else a totally normal kid but became a socially retarded stuttering fuck after puberty?
Trump is clearly autistic and trying to hide it with over-the-top cartoonish arrogance. Listen to his speeches, he can barely string a sentence together.
well yes then
not sure i was an entirely normal child though
his eloquence is astounding
truly a presidential speaker
my personal opinion is that's he's absolute shit
but i'm trying to be friendly on twitter because diplomacy is like that
we'll see if the excellent deals materialise
not sure i was an entirely normal child though
Sometimes I think this too. But then I remember how I used to give other kids wedgies and people would fight to be my best friend. Very unlikely for an autistic person to be in that situation.
Pretty sure I was traumatised by stuff I saw on the internet and that fucked up my brain.
live in Aberdeen
A liberal, SNP worshipping, university town
How the fuck do I find a right wing gf?
He's moving shit away from him so he can rest his hands on the desk freely. I always move drinks away and centre because then you don't risk spilling it or have the cup leaving wet rings near your hands.
Very unlikely for an autistic person to be in that situation.
Not necessarily. It's much less apparent at an early age, especially if you were born in the early 80s.
Which explains why in one of the clips he awkwardly leans over the table to push it even further away than it already is. It's clearly a weird instinctive quirk he has.
autistic people don't exist
they just pretend to be weird just to get attention
Autism becomes apparent during infancy. I was normal up until about year 5 or 6.
AHOY LADDIES ...
MUH CUNT IS AS ITCHY AS AN UNLURKY CUNT ON HAGGIS CENTRALLLLLLL
supforums.com
COME AND GET THEM CUNT...
... YOU LOOK THIRSTY ...
ANY ONE OF YE CANNAE CUNTS WANT A SUCK O ME SPORRANNNNnnnnnn!!!!!!!?????
youtube.com
TFW THEY ACTUALLY USE HARRY POTATOE AS AN ERMAHGERDUMENT ..
LOL
OLD SQUAD WINS AGAIN
WE WAN WHUN YER STERTURD!
Mate he'd have to have arms like a fucking orangutan, some of that shits on the other side of the table.
what happened to the british, there used to be a sense of humor,
youtube.com
Ffs Sup Forums was wrong. Farcry 5 is redneck libertarian gun nut simulator. OyVey 5 my arse.
He's holding papers in that clip. You don't want rings of water near your papers, especially when those papers have presidenty things on them.
It's more autistic that someone edited that webm together.
i reckon autismos were all potential hitler-tier leaders but somethings gone wrong and it's turned them into right weirdos
Nope. I just come from a time when it wasn't acknowledged or tested for anywhere near the scale that it is today.
But Sup Forums is always right.
another incorrect Sup Forums claim
like the autism cures bleach
or the flat eath
or woes
Nah. Just spackers who wouldnt have survived until breeding age, keep their retard sperm from contaminating the gene pool.
"WE"
AYE LADDIE!!!!!
WE FIGHT AMONGST OURSEL
WHEN THE ENEMY IS SO WEAK
IT WOULD BE AN INSULT TO THEMSELVES TO GO HAEM SO LAME
A BATTLE NEEDS MUST
YOU ME AYE
THE BATTLE IS NAE FER WEAKNESS....
in the first clip he pushes it closer to his papers
in the third one he pushes someone else's glass away when he doesn't even have any papers
in another clip he pushes an empty holder away
Stop trying to excuse his blatant autism.
archive.org
(Scroll down for download options)
(I'm not as sick as they say I am)
Ironically, the chap who painted the mural is quite the lefty, and this work is widely now viewed as being anti-Semitic.
Street ‘artist’ behind anti-Semitic mural defended by Corbyn launches bizarre rant about ‘Crypto reality’ and ‘tyrannical’ bankers
Bollocks. Welp, thats it, shes never getting on the end of my cock now. She can take it from my cold dead glans.
You sheltered me from harm, kept me warm...
What account?
A very good friend of mine was lost today. I am finding it difficult to deal with.
What account?
all of them
condolences on your loss
perhaps if you free yourself from the technological slavery you could be at peace
in the first clip he pushes it closer to his papers
The centre is better. You don't want cups and glasses near the backs of your hands, you might hit them with a gesture or a paper shuffling movement. He has a coaster and so it won't leave marks on the table.
in the third one he pushes someone else's glass away when he doesn't even have any papers
It's not good to have shit in your elbow room. The guy next to him actually moves his placeholder first, they both have have desk shit in their way.
in another clip he pushes an empty holder away
Which is in the prime hand/paper resting area.
Older than all of you faggots. Better than all of you. Seen more than any of you will ever see.
for the past 5 years or so I've been on and off staying up all night until 7am listing to God on my shortwave radio about the upcoming race war.
is that normal?
I remember armstrong setting foot on the moon, lad. Miners strikes in the 70s. Thatcher, falklands, blair...
First time I heard that someone played it on vinyl, really loud on good speakers in their living room. It sounded supernatural.
how long have you been browsing Sup Forums then and what side effects did the red pill had on you?
WE
OLD
WE
SQUAD
WE
BUILT
THE
ERMAHGERDERNERT!!!
WE NERD TER FURND DERR WURLSHHH ERMBURSEEURRRRRR!!!
WE PROUD
OF OUR
WELSH EMBASSY
CONNECTIONS ...
youtube.com
/ourkatie/ ....
OLD SQUAD
t. KATIE SQUIDS
t. SLURP
no one knows what my day's about
the way that life keeps playing out
i got so many things to be angry about
Tripfag I transcend you in ways that you would not ever be able to conceive of. Do not approach me. Do not ask me any questions.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Argentina. I watched coal seams glitter in the dark near the Lancashire Gate. All those THINGS will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
the red pill has caused a crippling effect on me
as you can see I'm a lot more depressed and suicidal now
God, I wish I was bluepilled again!
I've had enough.
This headline has sent me over the edge.
A man who is pretending to be a woman is marrying a woman who is pretending to be a man.
These headlines are an interuption to the usual stream of Muslim rape gangs headlines.
I'm just staying away from the news and Sup Forums for a while.
I'm going to actually read some fiction books.
Horus Heresy should keep me entertained for a while.
Maybe I'll take up rock climbing.
When the civil war starts let me know. But this shit day by day is killing my soul.
God, I wish I was bluepilled again!
this desu, life was a lot happier, I just want to go back
seven lads and three girls
depressingly familiar
got a schedule planned?
will you be gone for long?
will you be gone for long?
What business is it of yours and why do you ask?
At the end of September 1941, Lord Beaverbrook arrived in Moscow, in the world, Max Aitken, the trustee of Churchill. His task was to coordinate the volume of Soviet aid from the United Kingdom and the United States on the spot (Harriman represented the American side in Moscow).
The visit of Beaverbrook was extremely honorable for Stalin and symbolized a rise in the degree in the bureaucratic hierarchy of the British Empire. The Moscow Nabob organized a royal reception for an expensive guest and, knowing about his passions, singled out from the Kremlin harem a sex pearl - a handsome boy with a charming ass. When the visit was over, Beaverbrook kindly said goodbye to the Secretary General and unexpectedly added:
"I take the boy with me." A smart little boy.
Stalin threw himself on his knees, tried his lunopop peach, delighted eyes and the joy of the universe to beg. Nothing helped. The Englishman plunged prey on a plane and flew away.
The point here is not only in the high feelings of Mr. Aitkin, but also in the diplomatic school. British diplomacy has accumulated a lot of experience in lowering eastern animals. Know how flaky and manage expertly: click-candy-click.
OLD
SQUAD
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
. t old
NO AMATEURS ALLOWED ...
CLICK
CLICK
youtube.com
SOMETHING
SOMETHING
SOMETHING
THE OLD SQERDELICIOUSNESS ..
youtube.com
HAVE NO FEAR DARLING, EVERYONE ELSE ITT ARE MASSIVE FAGGOTRONIC BUTT MERCHANTS ....<<<
> THEY HAVE NO VIBES BABE ...
THAT IS HOW TO KNOW ...
every time i make an embassy thread they provide this charming text
are there any?
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
Kate KACZYNSKI
absolute state of p**rfags
You can see my posts but you'll be charged to do it.
A man who is pretending to be a woman is marrying a woman who is pretending to be a man.
hey hey HEY
bbc.co.uk
"(Hannah) was never a man, as I was never a woman," Mr Graf has said since.
Where I = whatever my mind thinks it is
Ill fucking fight you. Oh wait, no I wont, cos you wouldnt show, your head would break, and youd have to rest from shitposting for 2 months to heal your brain.
I just spent an hour discussing anonymity and freedom of speech with my dad. My dad believes that posters on Sup Forums should put a face and name to their comments so that they can be held accountable for what they say. He also disagrees with uninhibited freedom of speech, and says that he's fine with making it illegal to share his views if the majority chooses to outlaw them.
I wasn't really sure what to say to this... radical centrism? In the past he told me that Holocaust survivors have earned the right to inflate the death toll.
The unnamed friend said she had 'an awful lot of institutional support' and academics recognised her as a 'potential Nobel Prize winner'.
A Nobel-winning surgeon? Not in this century.
Don't pretend that Kate Bush won't very seriously upset you, inspirobotlad.
My dad believes that posters on Sup Forums should put a face and name to their comments so that they can be held accountable for what they say
See you all in the gulag.
Reminder that "March For Our Lives" is blatantly plagiarised from "March For Life".
face and name to their comments so that they can be held accountable
Point out that your dad is assuming the people doing the accounting have good and just intentions.
making it illegal to share his views if the majority chooses to outlaw them
In the past he told me that Holocaust survivors have earned the right to inflate the death toll.
Pretty sure most Germans were OK with Jews getting what was coming to them - ask him about that.
It would be good to meme it into a pro-life campaign, kind of fuck with the narrative.
he's fine with making it illegal to share his views if the majority chooses to outlaw them.
So if the majority wanted to outlaw Islamic/Jewish/homosexual views he’d be fine with that?
My granddad, who is Catholic and grew up in Nazi-occupied Belgium (and is probably autistic), might be the only one.
No. I am not that person. Ask yourself why that individual goes quiet whenever I appear, Kathy.
I'd love to meet him though. See what he is.
and not very bright if they think this place is anything more than pseudo anonymity
YOU MAY NOW
REFER TO US AS
THE STRANGEST LAIRD PANDA
BUT ONLY IN SWEETEST PERSON
SWAY HWEELOOO
TO OUR
OLD SQUERD
SERSTERRRRR
I remember seeing a funny quote about horseshoe theory, I forget who by but it went along the lines of "horseshoe theory is when you claim that two opposing sides are exactly the same then I grab a horseshoe and whack you over the head".
You do like to make a grand entrance fella. Nice to see you if it's really you.
I drank coffee in central London because I couldn't bear being in my flat alone. I then came back and binged on junk food for hopefully the last time
It's so demoralising to see Staceys everywhere
Most women are malleable and don't really care about politics. Just find a normal girl and play to her family instincts, family values are conservative in nature. For this to work you have to be a desirable mating partner.
Come on user I'm sure you are more attractive than you give yourself credit for
Don't upset me Kathy. You're already pushing your luck. I would advise you to stay the fuck off my radar.
Why don't you vote for the Liberal Democrats if you're a Classical Liberal and/or are concerned about violations of your civil liberties?
Sure, they're very pro-EU, which I disagree with, but they're also very classically liberal on social policies and individual rights
have an emotion
it's a feeling of a deeply profound but absolutely simple sadness that ebbs and wanes as you think about that one particular aspect of the single, specific failure you will never be able to undo
will never share this feeling with anybody
repeat
we're not classical liberals, the lib dems are cucks and will never get any of their policies implemented if they ever get elected, the lib dems are probably too liberal to be classical liberals by now
Yes, there is, you knob. It's Libertarianism scaled back to pragmatic levels
The term "classical liberal" always has been a misnomer, in that it presupposes an earlier or undiluted form of liberalism that must be distinguished semantically and temporally. and But the great historian Ralph Raico disabused us of this empty distinction in his great book Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School:
There was no ‘classical’ liberalism, only a single liberalism, based on private property and the free market, that developed organically, from first to last. Liberalism . . . is based on the conception of civil society as by and large self-regulating when its members are free to act within the very wide bounds of their individual rights. Among these, the right to private property, including freedom of contract and exchange and the free disposition of one’s own labor, is given a high priority. Historically, liberalism has manifested a hostility to state action, which, it insists, should be reduced to a minimum.
But today we find, in the grand Orwellian tradition of meaningless words, arch neoconservative Jennifer Rubin has declared herself a "classical liberal."
This comes on the heels of a harrowing episode at the recent CPAC conference, where Rubin's friend Mona Charen experienced a smattering of boos for her criticisms of Trump and Roy Moore. Since then the twittersphere has burst forth with praise for Charen's courage— one attendee gushed "that was so brave" as Charen left the building. Only in Washington does leaving one's well-paid job at a think tank for a few hours to speak at a conference, under conditions of less than 100 percent enthusiastic agreement, constitute uncommon valor. It's hardly surprising to anyone who has attended CPAC that the pep rally atmosphere doesn't lend itself to intellectual arguments and nuance. And the idea that neoconservatives like Rubin and Charen imagine themselves speaking truth to power is absurd, given the close relationships and influence their movement has with leaders in both political parties and the administrative state.
They just don't like Trump, which hardly makes them unique or noble. Only libertarians, after all, have the temerity to challenge the validity of democracy itself as the mechanism for organizing society. Sorry, but democrats don't get a mulligan when the wrong guy wins. Only anti-state libertarians can say "not my president" with any degree of coherence.
Ms. Rubin's use of the term "classical liberal" is especially galling, given her neconservative worldview. Ms. Charen and other neoconservatives define liberalism as a set of pre-approved political and cultural precepts, not as a conception of restrained government. They accept, and encourage, a strong and activist state: one that provides regulated capitalism, a robust safety net, unchallenged central banking, uniform social and cultural norms, and most of all an unrestrained military role for the United State across the globe.
Implying Sup Forums is a Neetsoc hivemind
You do realise Sup Forums largely supported Ron Paul in 2012, right? Sup Forums is a largely Libertarian board with LARPers acting as National Socialists to stur up debate too
This is hardly Misesian liberalism, with its emphasis on private property, individual liberty, trade, and peace above all as the necessary precondition for the first three. From this perspective Rubin and Charen are actually quite authoritarian in outlook, considering both would propose significant restrictions on property and commerce, military conscription, economic sanctions on a host of nations, and escalation of American wars. They are, in fact, distinctly illiberal, always insisting on a central role for the state in human affairs. Liberalism is society organizing itself, neoconservatism and progressivism are society organized around the state.
What really distinguishes the Jennifer Rubins of the world from garden variety progressives like Hillary Clinton or Dianne Feinstein? The answer is not much, save for perhaps a bit more lip service given by the former to Judeo-Christian moral traditions, and greater emphasis on identity politics and welfare by the latter. Their differences are those of tone and style, not substance.
Sorry, but Jennifer Rubin's opposition to Trump doesn't make her a liberal, classical or otherwise. At least she didn't come out and declare herself a libertarian. We already have enough trouble with that word.
'Classical Liberalism' is largely used to distinguish the original Liberalism of Adam Smith and John Locke from the cucks like Noam Chomsky, and in an effort to fight the open borders multiculturalism of mainstream Libertarians
When did I say that? But there are a lot of LARPers on Sup Forums, you must admit.
Classical Liberalism is a modern term for the original Liberalism that existed in the 18th centuries as the result of John Locke's literature and Adam Smith's economic theories
love how the former tripfags i btfo still stick around and orbit as anonymongs
I have become the abyss.
Well aren't you embarrassed.
You fucking penguin nigger don't get in my way. I could have crossed you a thousand times. I didn't. Do not cross me. I'm warning you.
Let us put a stake through this nonsense. There is no difference between “classical” liberalism and modern liberalism. There is no difference because they are nothing more than the shrieking insane screams of lunatics being hurled forward by power as it centralizes in an unsecure system.
Smith was a lunatic, Locke was a lunatic, Rawls was a lunatic – all of them were lunatics.
When people play into the game of “classical” liberalism it shows they don’t know what they are talking about, but from an Absolutist position the nature of liberalism is quite clear – it is societal acid applied to all power but the centralising one. Each generation of accumulated cultural psychosis gets ingrained as “progress” from which the next generation orientate from. This process has benefits in that it paved the way for greater centralization and industrialisation but not in the way liberal propagandists claim. It was not the wonders of open trade or “progress” due to human freedom or “capitalism”, but the ability of industry to access greater resources and government to operate on a national level.
The idea that some sort of respect should be paid to this mindless mush is appalling. Classical Liberals are a delusional menace.
Libertarians should only support open borders after all welfare is ended. Otherwise it's just retardation.
I'm not an Atheist, I'm an Agnostic, but attempting to equate some of the more illiberal aspects of influential thinkers from 300 years to the modern day is illogical.
baka
234
269
254
238
225
223
227
226
232
225
239
245
260
341
224
283
242
356
237
223
236
224
287
224
261
224
257
261
236
234
248
262
276
269
225
231
238
312
242
242
302
365
235
254
250
279
250
245
325
385
239
225
Social equity today does not have to be so much fought for by young radicals as administrated by managers of all ages.
-- Jay M. Shafritz and E.W. Russell, Introducing Public Administration
A long-standing dilemma that disturbs the libertarians is the question of how classical liberalism was so badly butchered into the pinko social liberal ideology of Hobhouse, Green, Lloyd George, etc. which it is today. The straight answer is that no one butchered it and that liberalism outside of England and (sometimes) France was practically never laissez-fairist.
However, it is worth looking into the question for its own sake. After all, going from Herbert Spencer ranting against public sanitation legislation in his essay The New Toryism (1884) to Lloyd George's "People's Budget" in a span of about a couple of decades is a rather striking saltationist event of social evolution, both in the case of English liberalism specifically, and of how a generally economically liberal consensus can rapidly spiral off into one of scientific management.
"Who now reads Spencer?," asked Talcott Parsons many years ago. No one. No one now reads Parsons either, might I add.
But in order to get a hint, perhaps we ought to sample the man. He was the biggest intellectual celebrity of the 19th century, after all. It's almost difficult to believe this today given his quick plunge into irrelevance simultaneously with the Victorian rugged liberalism he stood for, but at least the volume of his book sales corroborates this notion. And, contrary to stereotypes of him by his socialist opponents, his theory of evolution was quite sophisticated.
This isn't supposed to be an overview of Spencer. If you want that, go read Alberto Mingardi.
The difference between Classical Liberals and modern Progressive Liberals is that the former doesn't believe in big government or the social justice Marxist nonsense, We just believe in giving freedom to the individual, guaranteed by Constitutional Republicanism
One of Spencer's main postulates was that social systems evolve from an indefinite homogeneity to concrete and definite heterogeneous networks, and per his First Principles, "that all sensible existences must, in some way or other and at some time or other, reach their concrete shapes through processes of concentration."
Thus, we read, under Chapter XIX of vol. 2 of The Principles of Sociology (1898), that:
That under its primary aspect political development is a process of integration, is clear. By it individuals originally separate are united into a whole; and the union of them into a whole is variously shown. In the earliest stages the groups of men are small, they are loose, they are not unified by subordination to a centre. But with political progress comes the compounding, re-compounding, and re-re-compounding of groups until great nations are produced. Moreover, with that settled life and agricultural development accompanying political progress, there is not only a formation of societies covering wider areas, but an increasing density of their populations. Further, the loose aggregation of savages passes into the coherent connexion of citizens; at one stage coercively bound to one another and to their localities by family-ties and class-ties, and at a later stage voluntarily bound together by their mutually-dependent occupations. Once more, there is that merging of individual wills in a governmental will, which reduces a society, as it reduces an army, to a consolidated body.
An increase of heterogeneity at the same time goes on in many ways. Everywhere the horde, when its members cooperate for defence or offence, begins to differentiate into a predominant man, a superior few, and an inferior many. With that massing of groups which war effects, there grow out of these, head chief, subordinate chiefs, and warriors; and at higher stages of integration, kings, nobles, and people: each of the two great social strata presently becoming differentiated within itself. When small societies have been united, the respective triune governing agencies of them grow unlike: the local political assemblies falling into subordination to a central political assembly. Though, for a time, the central one continues to be constituted after the same manner as the local ones, it gradually diverges in character by loss of its popular element. While these local and central bodies are becoming contrasted in their powers and structures, they are severally becoming differentiated in another way. Originally each is at once military, political, and judicial; but by and by the assembly for judicial business, no longer armed, ceases to be like the politico-military assembly; and the politico-military assembly eventually gives origin to a consultative body, the members of which, when meeting for political deliberation, come unarmed. Within each of these divisions, again, kindred changes subsequently occur. While themselves assuming more specialized forms, local judicial agencies fall under the control of a central judicial agency; and the central judicial agency, which has separated from the original consultative body, subdivides into parts or courts which take unlike kinds of business.
The central political body, too, where its powers do not disappear by absorption in those of the supreme head, tends to complicate; as in our own case by the differentiation of a privy council from the original consultative body, and again by the differentiation of a cabinet from the privy council: accompanied, in the other direction, by division of the consultative body into elective and non-elective parts. While these metamorphoses are going on, the separation of the three organizations, legislative, judicial, and executive, progresses. Moreover, with progress in these major political changes goes that progress in minor political changes which, out of family-governments and clan-governments, evolves such governments as those of the tything, the gild, and the municipality. Thus in all directions from primitive simplicity there is produced ultimate complexity, through modifications upon modifications.
Keep tabs on this, because now into the arena comes Lester Frank Ward. Referred to by Henry Steele Commager as "the philosophical architect of the welfare state," he had quite an influence in, among other things, enshrining the Wisconsin Idea of Charles van Hise.
He also dabbled in quite a bit of sociology himself, and had a bone to pick with Spencer all throughout, especially in his 1883 magnum opus Dynamic Sociology, which went through several editions.
Here, for instance, is Ward cunningly donning the face of Thrasymachus to promote the interests of the downtrodden:
It is here that the new science is destined to be strongly antagonized by the growth of erroneous ideas respecting liberty. The so-called “abstract rights" of mankind must be denied if society is ever to become the arbiter of its own destiny - in theory, that is, for it is impossible that the real enjoyment of liberty should be thereby in the least diminished, while the sum of human happiness must be greatly increased, and this is the only conceivable object of any right. All the prevailing theories of human rights are but ideal conceptions which not only have never yet been realized, but in the nature of things never can be. In point of fact, all things are now and always have been governed by force, and all the attempts to disguise it under the color of abstract right have only served to make it easier for the unscrupulous to accomplish their personal aggrandizement.
Government has always wielded an iron scepter, which the forms of law have only rendered the more inexorable. The most complete recognition of the right of force in human society - the only rule known to the rest of the sentient world, and the only one ever acted upon by mankind - could by no possibility render matters, worse than they are. But this recognition would put it in the power of the controlling authorities in society to introduce progressive elements into government, and make the coercion which is now so fruitless a positive and increasing future benefit. Under the negative system of government which has prevailed thus far, the world naturally looks round and asks what return it has received in exchange for all this sacrifice, and it is no wonder that many insist that the account is against government, and would gladly dissolve the partnership and annul the "social compact."
Here we also have a neat illustration of the perils of absolutism: it conceals the March of Progress as actually being a "realist," perhaps even reactionary, account of power.
However, it is this paragraph here that really kicks Spencer and the laissez-fairists in the nads:
all the former tripfags who got btfo reveal themselves
aren't you lot gullible ;)
Now, every one admits that the practical use of science is its application to art. The application of science to art is only another way of expressing the utilization of the materials and forces of nature. By a knowledge of natural laws man is enabled to harmonize natural forces with human advantage. This truth, of course, must be general. It would be illogical to pretend that it applies to some kinds of natural laws and forces and not to others. What becomes, then, of laissez faire? Yet some who would be the first to grant the above premises, who are strongest in the conviction that society is the domain of regular laws, who are most earnest in their search for these laws, nevertheless, strangely enough, deprecate all attempts on the part of the agents of society to control the social forces and harmonize them with the social welfare...
But why lay so much stress on these crude failures at invention, due to the absence of science? Why point to them as permanent warnings against all future attempts to regulate society? Why cry "Laissez faire!" as if society would ever work out its own progress? As well say to all inventors: Cease trying to control nature, let it alone and it will control itself; it will, if left undisturbed, work out, in its own good time, all the cotton-gins, reaping-machines, printing-presses, and sand-blasts that are needed. Why not, because the first telegraph line and the first ocean cable failed, cry down the Wheatstones and the Fields, and may, Let these matters alone, they will regulate themselves?
The Frederic Bastiats and the William Leggetts, working out their systems on the "harmony of nature," and of natural laws governing production, nevertheless so stringently insist that this Nature can build miracles of social organization simply by its acting in space and time, with no human actor to direct it for a greater purpose. Alright, laissez-fairist, we agree that there are natural economic and sociological laws. Which is why we will use them to build social technology, as engineers to physicists.
Pwned.
This is not as bad as when the laissez-fairists shot themselves in the foot of their own accord, however.
Such was the case with the great 1834 revision of the Elizabethan Poor Law. An infamous parliamentary report authored by Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick, respectively a classical economist and a utilitarian social reformer. The scheme was best summarized thusly: "It is true, that nothing is necessary to arrest the progress of pauperism, except that all who receive relief from the parish should work for the parish exclusively, as hard and for less wages than independent labourers work for individual employers, and we believe that in most districts useful work, which will not interfere with the ordinary demand for labour, may be obtained in greater quantity than is usually conceived."
All poor relief was to be indoor relief (via workhouses), and a Poor Law Commission was started with the powers to amalgamate parishes into units called Poor Law Unions, for the purposes of building workhouses, and for administration under directives of the Commission. Bigger is better.
alright fuck it just read this thermidormag.com
No, open borders should never be supported regardless of economic conditions because they harm the native Europeans and they harm the working class in particular
Yes, and illiberal ideologies are those that seek to use the State to impose their will on individuals, with the exception of border controls, due to that being a legitimate function of government
so classical liberalism is illiberal because it seeks to impose classical liberalism on individuals?
youtube.com
youtube.com
youtube.com
Kill me lad.
DON'T MAKE A NEW THREAD, LEAVE IT UNTIL I GET UP
here watch this youtube.com
NEW
supforums.com
supforums.com
supforums.com
supforums.com
felchmong?
if any djs are listening send this out to the gay cllubs I could eat a knob at night <<<<
Classical Liberalism is specifically about not imposing ideology on individuals, with the exception of border controls. It's about allowing individual citizens of a nation to do whatever they wish as long as they don't violate the rights of others
e a r t h
i s
f l a t
youtube.com
Check out this channel too:
youtube.com
This website may contain content of an adult nature. If you are under the age of 18, if such content offends you or if it is illegal to view such content in your community, please EXIT.
Enter Exit
We use cookies to personalize content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyze our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our advertising and analytics partners.
Accept Exit
