Liberalism is a good thing...

Liberalism is a good thing. many of the people here who oppose liberalism don't really understand what it actually means.

Pic related is the correct definition.

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/books/liberty.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s
youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM
youtube.com/watch?v=O894bXmqqGU
youtube.com/watch?v=xvhBoF_pCHo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

We're the only board that DOES understand what you're saying, kike.

If you take all definitions literally, you have to admit that socialism is a stupid idea

Equality? When was that added lol

> equality for people who aren't equal
> liberty to do things that shouldn't be done

Shit ideology would not disseminate

> Liberty and Equality
> Liberalism

Modern Liberalism only really sees one as more valuable than the other. They don't value liberty at all, they see at something evil.

Give an ordinary man a gun, he'll kill kids with it, give a government agent a gun and he'll be a saint, a public crusader.

At least until they shoot Tyrone that is, in which case go ahead and kill and loot people. They deserve it.

Wouldn't the concept that everyone is equal under the law be pretty liberal?

Your pic is classical liberalism

today its Neo-liberalism and its the base of the most cancerous political ideologies of our time.

" Progressiveism "

Classic liberalism is modern libertarianism
Modern liberalism is nu-male beta cucked faggotry.

Nowadays liberals think that equity is equality.

user, modern liberalism goes along with the definition.

Also if you don't think the US needs more gun controll, even though more people die in the US due to guns than people dying from terror attacks here in israel (and trust me, there are ALOT of terror attacks here), you are being delusional

Today's liberals define equality as equal results instead of equal opportunity. This is the opposite of equality.

Liberalism is the most cancerous ideology there is at the moment.

Equality in what sense? Races and cultures are clearly not equal objectively.

Equality as in, everyone should be born with equal rights

Classical liberalism includes equality in front of a law, not economical equality. That's socialism. No problem with that.

No seriously, fuck off. Your kind aren't welcome here. This isn't a 'safe space' thing. Your presence endangers liberty in a way I and those who love it, would punish with a firing squad. Not a firing squad with any government oversite, of course...more of a lynchy version.

Yanks are retarded, they confuse new leftists with liberals like Gladstone and Asquith.

Liberalusm now is considered a right ideology.
It supposes that EVERYONE (white men too) are equal, nobody's feelings are protected. Also freedom to say anything and freedom to own a gun and protect yourself.
Fags got a right to not be killed with liberalism. Why the fuck do they need marriage is boyond me.

Today Ultra-Left or Cultural Marxists are against liberty, they are illiberal and pol is mostly liberal.

Liberalism can be both left wing and right wing i think, user.

Also, the current gun laws in the US clearly don't work well in saving life.

>Control
>Liberty
>Control
>Liberty
Are you fucking retarded?
In real Liberal society i can do ANYTHING as long as i dont hurt anyone.
I could open "White men only bar" and serve drinks with a BANG shooting my magnum into the ceiling. As long as i own the ceiling.

Modern liberalism is against freedom of speech, against discrimination, pro affirmative action.
>No liberty to talk
>No liberty to kick niggers outta your own pub
>They FORCE you to hire niggers.
Modern Liberalism is against liberty.
Liberallism is illiberal.

So you guys acknowledge that the current model of equal opportunity does not lead to equal results? If you do then doesn't this mean that there is a structural problem in our society in which one group of people tend to reap the benefits of the system while the other group of people are set up for failure? For example, it is common knowledge that students of private schools are from higher income families on average. This allows for the wealthy to network with the wealthy while leaving the poorer people out of it. A form of segregation that occurs in this system of "freedom". But the question is whether or not the government should address these problems that exist.

GUNS SERVE A DIFFERENT PURPOSE THAN MEDICINE OR DISCOURSE

NEWS AT 11

Amerika's problem is Amerikans.

Swiss guys dont shoot chools for some reason.
I heard Jews also can own and carry guns but no shootings in Israel.

Liberalism by definition is PRO-FREEDOM
Including freedom to have a weapon and a freedom to smoke weed.

I can call myself a Catholic priest, but if I preach atheism and degeneracy I'm not actually a Catholic priest.

classical liberalism is equal opportunity, not equality, but as we (the world) saw on our own example, when combined with globalism, it turns into neo-liberalism (better described as corporatism), where 1% have control of the global economy and the opportunities of the rest depend on them.

what's known as liberals today are social marxists funded by the wealthy neo-liberals in an attempt to destroy all cultures, everything that ties people together really, so that the morals, the ethics, the very world view can be completely dictated by the 1%, same thing that communists attempt to do ie. 1984

Nigga, you are in Singapore ffs. The most economically liberal society. That's why you have nice things and all your neighbors are shit

You can't have liberty AND equality.. that makes no sense.

If we both have Liberty... I have the liberty to sit on my mother's couch all day.... and you have the liberty to become an oil tycoon, and then leave your fortune to your kids. That doesn't make us equal. Nor will it make our kids equal. But we all will have the liberty to make our own choices and be responsible for those choices. That's liberty.

If it was about equality, why should I be allowed to have more hair than you if you're going bald? Why should you be allowed to win a track race because you have longer legs and shorter torso than me? Why should Phelps be allowed to be a great swimmer just because he has marphans syndrome?

Liberalism has a different meaning in the US

>does not lead to equal results?
Some people are better than other.

The benefit of meritocracy is that the dumb will be ruled by the smart. Its better for the dumb.

If you elect a dumb nigger to power because affirmative action everibody loses with a bad leader.
Oh wait, you just did that!

But in meritocracy a smart nigger (if they even exist) will find his way to the top.

Classical European Liberalism is literally pretty much libertarianism so fuck yes I'd describe myself as liberal if modern progressive socialists did not hijack the term.

We classic liberals bro.

Its self-defeating like any Universalist ideology

The political right are genuine liberals. They define equality as equality under the law.

The political left are totalitarians. They use 'equality' as a cynical euphemism for tyranny.

Read this book if you still think liberty and equality are complementary and not in conflict: mises.org/books/liberty.pdf

Well if you tell the liberals that they ree out because it's not culturally marxist enough

classical liberalism masterrace

Liberalism is a mental disorder

>like any Universalist ideology
Egalitarianism can establish meritocracy.
In meritocracy the trash will sink and the best people will rise to power due to equal competition.

This is what We really need.
The real equality of opportunity.

>totally ignoring classical liberalism and why there is a need for such a term

Jews really aren't that smart.

>Liberals claim to be peaceful
>Liberals claim to be compassionate
>Liberals claim to be against war
>Liberals claim to support Islam

And yet the person they support is a psychopathic killer


youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s - The Truth About Hillary Clinton's Mental Illness

youtube.com/watch?v=FmIRYvJQeHM - "We came, we saw, he died! LAUGHS" (Gaddafi)

youtube.com/watch?v=O894bXmqqGU - Hillary Clinton openly states she wants war with Iran to protect Israel

youtube.com/watch?v=xvhBoF_pCHo - Hillary laughs maniacally about war with Iran

Fuck off false Jew. You are a cursed people.

The Torah CLEARLY states that the real Jews have lost their inheritance and will not return to Israel until the arrival of the messiah

Anything you have to say on any subject is automatically negated because you are a false Jew living in an abomination state

>liberty
>equality
Pick one

American liberals arent the liberals we know. They are more like retarded social democrats.

Sauce?

>correct definition.

How? Equality is the antithesis of liberty.

I am not an advocate of affirmative action. I'm arguing that the environment plays a role in how successful people can be. A smart man can be poor but, to refer back to my example in my other post, they may never succeed to due poor networking. This is why asking whether or not to change these structural inequalities seems like the reasonable thing to do imo.

classical liberalism is now libertarianism

which for the most part sounds great on paper, but in practice it doesn't work completely

>this comming from a Russian
I'm impresed

...

I'm a communist. Liberals can eat shit.

>don't really understand what it actually means.
>Pic related is the correct definition.

Fuck your theory. We see it in practice, and it is CANCER.

>communist
>Swedish flag
Fuck off, cuck

American liberals adobted liberalism as their name because they didnt want to be called socialist. They are like socialists or social democrats in Europe.

Elon Musk was a power middle class in fucking Afrika.
He got to space because he's fucking smart, he just has a brain better than the rest of the people.
And We all are better off with people like this in power.
They will establish prosperity and give us the best jobs.

I live in Russia and here the low class white people have equivalent of Amerikan ghetto criminal/thug culture, I still didnt adopt criminal culture and started climbing the social ladder and education.

...

>many of the people here who oppose liberalism don't really understand what it actually means.
You know, I think that most of the people who support liberalism doesn't really understand what it means either

this

So when will israel live the dream?

wow in that case pretty much everyone on this board/in real life is a liberal because in modern western society, everyone is born with equal rights

I hate Liberalism even more now.
1. presented by a kike
2. equality... HELL NO
3. liberty? well ye but this isnt a direct goal.
Liberty is a privilege that can be achieved through outstanding dominance towards other nations.

It's also a world view that takes liberty for granted, limits freedom of dissenting elements and imposes equality rather than reaching it through consensus.

And nice cherry picking there, son of Zion.

I wish OP would have stayed to defend his views. I guess it's kind of demoralizing to be called a kike for the 100th time.

Privilege is what people want today.

I think your first two sentences are about how some people succeed despite the poor circumstances they were in. I don't think that says much because I acknowledge that this sort of thing is a bell curve like many other things. Not all smart people who are rich succeed and not all smart people who are poor fail.
>And We all are better off with people like this in power.
I don't understand how you got to this conclusion. It seems like you said that after talking about Musk because you are trying to highlight how his rise to success means he's better than those who did not have to rise. I'm not too sure really my interpretation of that could be off. But if my interpretation is correct then it seems like you favor having a system in which the poor must struggle to succeed because those who do succeed are exceptional over a system in which the poor do not have to struggle as much to succeed because you don't value success if it wasn't "earned" through struggling. I don't support that first system because I don't think it's beneficial to reduce the amount of people who succeed, nor do I think it's right to make less people succeed.
>I live in Russia and here the low class white people have equivalent of Amerikan ghetto criminal/thug culture, I still didnt adopt criminal culture and started climbing the social ladder and education.
I think my response to this is the same as my response to the first two sentences.

You know, i believe in free education based on competition.
The state OR the business can open a free school with high competition
>Compete to get into
>Compete to not get kicked
>Become a worthy specialist
>If you graduate you will HAVE TO WORK for your investor for 3-5 years
Mutual profit!
A poor ghetto nigga got a proper life.
His employer got a qualified specialist and profits for his business.

MAGIC!

liberalism as actually practiced is authoritarianism

too bad modern liberalism has nothing to do with your definition

>user, modern liberalism goes along with the definition.

modern liberalism would like to censor everybody who disagrees with their agenda

their agenda isn't freedom and liberty

it's identity-group self-interest and resentment

still saging

>Ideas of liberty
>don't drink that soda
>no you can't own a gun
>pay for this other countries shit
>respect other cultures or else

>equality
>you make too much for assistance
>pay more taxes
>everyone needs perks except white straight males

You're describing merit based libertarian society

Modern american "liberalism" defines equality as "enforced equal outcomes" not "equal opportunity."

We will never give up our firearms. That is essential to true liberty, the very fact that we are dangerous to the government. The founding fathers of this country were true liberals and they knew the 2nd amendment was essential.

Explain China's success.

'libertarianism' is a meaningless buzzword made up by americans to describe classical liberalism tbqh

>You know, i believe in free education based on competition.
The problem I was trying to highlight when I first brought up schooling was how the existence of private schooling and public schooling brings about segregation. So if you're talking about free education coexisting with other forms of education that costs money then I have the same problems with that system. However, if you're talking about free education without the existence of other forms of education that cost money then I wouldn't have that same problem.

How's your vacation in Israel going, Onision?

And surely conservatism means wanting to conserve, but ho hum

In a society you can never have full liberty, equality is nothing but a false pretense, no 2 people are truly equal.

The problem is toady 'liberal' is a label every fucking normie attaches to themselves, because who wouldn't like liberals? But the policies pushed by today's SJW 'liberals' are the fucking anti-thesis to liberalism.

? Apples and fucking oranges...what the hell are you talking about!? China's success at what?

>But if my interpretation is correct then it seems like you favor having a system in which the poor must struggle to succeed
I am for the system in which people have an equal footing in competition.

Given even chsnces the best ones will get to the top, the mediocre will be ok under wise leadership of the best and the worst will sink because they suck.
Fuck them anyway.

Having said that I believe that to ensure equality of opportunity We need a system in which everyone has medicine and a chance at school.
Or else the poor will just die or never get the chance.

Dont think about it as robbery.
It should be an INVESTMENT a man is a waluable resource, he works, he does job, he creates money and GDP.
Investing in your people is like feeding your horse, it pays you back. It creates more than it takes.

And i say that because my poor family would never be able to pay for my STEM degree if It wasnt paid by Putin.
Now i'm working on Sukhoi factory and creating money for the state with taxes and products.

If not taxes then businesses should invest into schools. And into making new specialists for themselves.

You can blame Woodrow Wilson for perverting the definition of 'liberal' in the United States. I fully support classical liberalism.

When you live in a country where the liberals are authoritarians then liberal is the meaningless buzzword.

>Also, the current gun laws in the US clearly don't work well in saving life.
Liar.

Id accept welfare and equity, government programs, maybe even fairness but neither of those two words you used describe liberals.

No, that would be just

>free education coexisting with other forms of education that costs money
Here it's like there's two classes of students (top 30% and the rest) they learn same shit together.
The best top 30% are free, the button pays to get the same.

This provides an opportunity to both smart poor people and the stupid RICH people who want a degree.

If you have good grades you get a free ride.
If you suck you pay for same shit.

Liberals don't know what liberalism or liberty is.

many of the people of support liberalism don't really understand what it actually means either

>I am for the system in which people have an equal footing in competition.
By "equal footing" do you mean equal opportunity? As in the same system you supported above? Because if you do mean that then I've already argued why that very same system is a system in which the poor must struggle to succeed because of the unequal results they bring. That's why I'm saying you favor that kind of system.
>Given even chsnces the best ones will get to the top, the mediocre will be ok under wise leadership of the best and the worst will sink because they suck.
I responded to this in my post when I mentioned how the best of the poor have to struggle more than the best of the rich, and so on. Also it's not just a struggler, it can be argued this system creates barriers that can't be passed for some people. That is why I disagree with you saying that "the best ones will get to the top". We can see that there is definitely no "will". You say we get a system in which the "mediocre ones" get wise leadership but I say that you support a system in which the rich get an easier chance to lead over the poor.

I'd have to look into your countries education model because I'm really looking at this from the perspective of the US model. But I can see that I have a different problem with that system you explained. Students of wealthy parents are more likely to succeed in school in the USA which means that rich people would br more likely to reach that top 30% and get the free ride. idk if that's the same in Russia since those incentives are present but I imagine those incentives did not entirely close the gap. If it did close the gap that's good but I don't think that addresses all the problems with that system.

>Students of wealthy parents are more likely to succeed in school in the USA

The most succesfull students in my group were the poor ones.
They were sweating to get all A+ (you're also paid a little if you have all perfect grades) and they also worked part time because they really wanted to climb the fucking ladder out of poverty.

Most middle and upper class people were more laid back than hungry poors. They were still doing ok but just not that motivated.

All trash people (both poor and dumb) got kicked out after the first year, the rest were hard workers.

liberalism in American has nothing to do with classical liberalism, it has far more in common with authoritarians and totalitarians.

We have two political liberal parties, one is right wing more like Trump, the other is left wing like Obomba.

The right wing liberal party is currently the largest and is governing together with the labor party.

Can you use a search engine for me and search "do rich people do better in school than poor people" to fine info about that in your country. Because I can't find anything and I don't think I should take your word for it that it's the opposite of what it is in the USA.

I could only find translations of foreign countries research to Russsian "teachers in British schools care more about rich children"
Cant find a Russian research.
But my point is
>Be poor and smart
>Get free school
>Get good grades
>Get a degree for free
>Get a job
>Dont be poor
I believe that is the way to go.
There are private high schools but the government ensures that the private schools are sufficent to compete for higher education.

>Rutte
>Like Trump

Well, I just can't support that without seeing evidence that shows rich people aren't more likely to reach the top 30%. I mean I understand that system has good intentions but I don't know whether or not it's actually addressed that problem I have with it.

The world doesn't revolve around correct definitions it revolves around popular definitions.

ITT: people confusing liberalism and libertarianism.

Classic Liberaliam is like libertarianism but not crazy and does not imply abolishment of the state but is pro-freedom and small state.

Its Americans who invented retarded non-liberal "Liberalism" and then started calling real liberalism libertarianism

"There is all the difference in the world in treating people equally and trying to make them equal"

People who lack brains dont want freedom, freedom and equality is a problem for them because their worthlessness ass isnt rewarded for stupid shit like being a brainless nationalist or having x skin color.

Freedom and equality makes a person admit that they are nothing of value, and some people cant accept that so they try to connect themselves with different shit that had no part in like country, religion, ancestors etc.

The only way for that to work is to kill stupid people, they lack self awareness and ability to comprehend a few concept that arent simple, they are dead weight that should be removed.