Poll - Do you consider yourself more liberal or more conservative?

[TenPercenter]

[TenPercenter]

.

[Zeno]

You forgot a special line for Cyrus -- More Moral. One wonders if Cyrus once belonged to the Moral Majority. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

Thee is a significant problem here with the categories.

The problem is that the original meaning of "liberal" has morphed into the present common meaning.

The original meaning of liberal revolved around the concept of "to allow". Today's meaning seems more along the lines of "to control or to interfere, for a (supposed) greater good".

The uncorrupted meaning of "liberal", in my view, is along the lines of "live and let live". Today's popular meaning, though, seems more along the lines of government-controlled social programs. To me, that is actually the antithesis of liberalism.

So I consider myself far more liberal than most posters on this board, even the so-called "liberal" posters who are actually in favor of greater government control. Most of them, however, view me as conservative because I do not subscribe to their statist views and groupthink-oriented policies.

I am an individualist, and believe that the individual is far more important than the group. Someone said that the smallest minority is the minority of one, and therefore no
philosophy can claim to champion the rights of minorities unless it first and foremost champions the rights of the smallest minority.

The truth is, most of today's so-called liberal views tend towards fascism in their necessary modes of implementation.

Conservatives too falter in this way, but IMO not so badly as liberals, except for the religious right. The religious right is about as willing as are "liberals" to impose statist solutions to reach their goals.

The essence of good government is to protect the individual's rights to life, liberty and property, from those who would rob those things from him. Any form of further forced social engineering is a step towards fascism, not liberalism. The true liberal believes in live and let live. Most further meddling is the root of all evil.

[andyfox]

"most of today's so-called liberal views tend towards fascism"

Example, please.

[sam h]

In one sense, you are absolutely right. Nineteenth century liberal thought focused upon the freedom of the individual, especially the protection of that freedom from the intrusion of other individuals and entities. This understanding has changed, as so we now see the perplexing situation, for instance, where it is "conservatives" who are mostly associated with support of "neo-liberal" economic policies.

But what did that change in the understanding of liberalism really connote? In your view, it is basically just a distortion. But others see it differently, and the best way to illustrate this is by reference to Isaiah Berlin's distinction between "negative freedom" - the classical liberal understanding of freedom from government intrusion - and "positive freedom," understood as freedom to fulfill one's human potential.

In this view, true liberalism - the essence of the rights to life, liberty, and property - is never guaranteed by the market mechanism. For history has tended to indicate that the unbridled market, rarely seen but most evidenced in 19th century England, immiserates the populace in great numbers and leads to social devastation on a horrific scale. If one is interested in the positive freedom of individuals, the idea that people should get a fair shake no matter what sort of circumstances they are born into and that the poor and powerless should be protected from the rich and powerful, then it follows that one will endorse a form of liberalism quite different than the 19th century view.

I know you disagree. Just understand that this is a coherent intellectual position that in no way "tends toward fascism."

[MMMMMM]

Thanks for the interesting and informative response.

I generally think freedom "from" is much more important than freedom "to". Freedom "to" can be acquired by hard work, diligence, studiousness, frugality, and ingenuity--even for those born today in the least prosperous circumstances in the United States. Look at examples like Booker T. Washington, who had to overcome far greater obstacles than today's inner city youths. The fact that our government (for the most part) protects one's rights to life, liberty and property, means that those most diligent can always eventually better their lots in life.

Freedom "from", however, cannot obtain under an oppressive government because government ultimately possesses the greatest power: the legal use of force. There is no amount of diligence or study that can overcome governmental tyranny.

Additionally, if one postulates that everyone should have access to a certain amount of "things" (rather than merely certain "rights"), the only way to grant those "things" by fiat is by taking them by force from someone else. Since the hours of one's labor are a part of one's life, to forcibly take the fruits of one's labor from one to give to another, is equivalent to taking some portion of the former's life and giving it to the latter. I do not think government should be able to forcibly take part of one's life away for the purpose of giving it to another. If I or you wish to give some part of our lives to help another, that is our prerogative, but I think it would be immoral if I were to force you to give to another some portion of your life.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"most of today's so-called liberal views tend towards fascism"
--------------------------
Example, please.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just off the top of my head:


1) forced redistribution

2) laws subordinating the individual's harmless interests to purported group interests for the supposed "good of society"


The reason I say it involves fascism is that government fiat and force must be utilized in order force people into compliance with the above proactive programs.

The cult of modern liberalism is essentially a war against the individual, in the name of groupthink. The delusions run deep and the implementations are invariably counterproductive in net terms.

I recently read that the average person in America living below the "povery line" has a higher standard of living than the average European. Sorry I didn't save the link. If true, that is evidence of how flawed social programs are at base.

IMO the only true Liberalism is Classic Liberalism.

All the Socialists in the world do not possess, in their combined knowledge, the wisdom that Henry David Thoreau or Benjamin Franklin had in their little fingers.

[andyfox]

"The reason I say it involves fascism is that government fiat and force must be utilized in order force people into compliance with the above proactive programs."

But that's what government is, period. The state has the monopoly on the use of force in a society. Whether it's social programs or forcing people to have a drivers license, if you don't obey, and they catch you, you're punished by the state. All states define themselves as an association of individuals for the common good. To me, fascism is an extremely, authoritarian, dictatorial government. Usually they're what's commonly referred to as right-wing, but many of the so-called left-wing governments, i.e., twentieth century communist governments, were also fascist. Stalin and Mao, to cite two examples, to me, were fascists just as certainly as Hitler was. The policies espoused by today's Democratic (captial D) liberals (small l) do not compare with the policies espoused by these fascists [elROY's views on the matter nowithstanding /images/graemlins/wink.gif].

[sam h]

In general, I agree that "freedom from" is more important than "freedom to," in so far as "freedom to" becomes fairly meaningless without a certain degree of "freedom from."

But I also think that the interests of the populace, en toto, are best served by a balance between the two. There are certain basic rights, ones that contribute to "positive freedom," that I think it is immoral for an affluent society not to ensure. For instance, people who work full time should make a living wage, or one that enables them to survive with some comfort. And everybody should be guaranteed some form of health insurance.

We both know the Booker T. Washingtons are the exception rather than the rule. Why is this? Certainly, in many instances the people in question just don't possess the qualities that you talked about that are necessary for bettering oneself. But I think in many more cases, people do have these qualities to some degree yet cannot overcome the disadvantage of a deck stacked against them. Diligence, frugality, and hard work should be rewarded, but perhaps there is a role for government in creating conditions that enable people to better themselves through hard work.

I really believe that if you got rid of the state, very few people would be able to better themselves significantly, because they would be torn up in the thresher of market capitalism. That reflects a fairly pessimistic view of humanity, but one that I think is supported by history. If you are interested, the classic book in support of this view is The Great Transformation, economic historian Karl Polanyi's look at 19th century English industrialization.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't call a spade a spade when it comes to government. To borrow from Max Weber, the state is an organization that dominates a territory through a legal apparatus and enforces its domination through a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The idea of a social contract agreeing upon this situation is BS. Government implies coercion, forced residence under somebody's else rules. That should make everybody feel a bit queasy, and I can understand why it pisses libertarians off. I just think the alternative is far worse.

[MMMMMM]

I wasn't merely getting at use of force, but rather what that force is used for.

Either you believe you own your life, or you believe "society" or "the state" owns your life.

If government is used to transfer, by force and against your will, part of your life to another (as in the hours you work), I believe that is fascistic--even if the government in question is not primarily fascist.

If your will is to donate some part of your life to another, great. That is not fascistic. If however you insist that everyone donate as you do in that regard, that is a fascistic attitude--and if you and some others get the government to do that to/for everybody, then that is the mob using the force of government for fascistic purposes. It is essentially using government to take away parts of certain individuals' lives--their very time on this earth--for the purpose of giving it to others. Again, my view is that you ought to be considered the rightful owner of your life, not that the state ought to be considered the owner of your life.

[MMMMMM]

I guess it comes down to whether one would rather live wild and free and take one's chances in the mountains, or live in a medieval city.

I prefer to take my chances in the wilds. To those who would prefer the medieval city, I say, fine, if that is what they prefer. However I do think it immoral for those who prefer the medieval city to attempt to force everybody else to live therein.

Also, I am not too concerned if the masses would be threshed under by the market. There is overpopulation already. I fear government tyranny far more than being broke or homeless. I suppose those who have experienced neither might fear being broke more greatly. If so, they are severely mistaken. I have experienced the former and found it temporary. I have experienced the latter in my mind, reading of tyrannies throughout the ages, and that is infinitely more horrifying.

[MMMMMM]

Just to add: I don't think that unbridled capitalism is today nearly as dangerous as it once was. Reason: a much broader, more diverse economic base...so I much doubt the scenario of the masses getting threshed under by capitalism today. But if it happens somewhat, oh well. That's a small price to pay for liberty, in my opinion.

Even the poor today in America are much better off than the rich in older times--and I don't mean because of safety nets, but because of a higher overall standard of living.

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
The state has the monopoly on the use of force in a society.

[/ QUOTE ]

The implications of this statement are very far reaching indeed. But for the moment, I would like to ask if, in your opinion, the 'state' ever forfeits its right to this 'monopoly of force'.

I would guess that Andy Fox would, at some point, rebel if abuses by the state became too tyrannical or overbearing. The 'at some point' may be different or defined differently depending on the individual.

I hold that an individual does not give up the right to use force for the protection of his individual body, his loved ones, or fellow citizens in immediate danger. I also hold that the coercive force of government should be held to the minimum possible for the living together of a civil society. The government may legitimately warn people about smoking and drinking, for example, but not make any laws banning this activity.

We all do give up some freedoms or individuality for the common cause of living together and associating in a civil society. But the really issue, and the one that is endlessly debated, is where this freedom line is and how much of a role government is to play in the lives of the individual citizen. I find the US and most government’s as unnecessarily intrusive, nosey, and too concern for ‘the common good’ as a pretext to exploit and coerce its citizens. And the frauds and mountebanks in power have always used this as an excuse for the extension of power and the enforcement of arcane and imbecilic laws and regulations.

I do not regard government as something inherently good, but as a necessary evil and as such, the less of it the better.

How Jeffersonian of me. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[andyfox]

How do liberals believe that the state owns the peoples' lives? You used the example of the hours one works. Liberals today are more concerned with people having control of the hours they work than conservatives, aren't they?

[PublickStews]

I answered "more liberal," but I'd describe myself as a socialist with certain Marxist sympathies. Consequently that makes me an anti-liberal in 19th century terms.

I'm glad this thread was made, since I was curious about the general stance of poker players; I assumed they would be predominately right-wing, so I'm pleasantly surprised /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tyfromm]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v27/raven1268/GOP.jpg

[MMMMMM]

"How do liberals believe that the state owns the peoples' lives? You used the example of the hours one works. Liberals today are more concerned with people having control of the hours they work than conservatives, aren't they?"


Social Welfare Programs/Redistribution of Income:

We trade hours of our lives for income. Appropriating the fruits of labor is the equivalent of appropriating hours of labor. The state, in appropriating the fruits of one person's labor for the purpose of transfer to another person, is effectively transferring some of that person's time/life to another.

It is akin to slavery, to me being able to tell you that must work x hours for John Doe or Pamela Parsons for free.

[andyfox]

I wouldn't judge the poker-playing community by the few of us who participate here. But I'm curious why you would think poker players would be more conservative (or more liberal) than the population in general.

[andyfox]

But that's what the state does. It creates an infrastructure according to its definition of what is good and necessary and proper. There's no difference between a social welfare program and giving a pension to a person who was in the military or giving a staff to a congressman or building a highway in Montana. Our Constitution says our government is constituted to, among other things, promote the general welfare. All government involves transferring from one person to another.

[MMMMMM]

"There's no difference between a social welfare program and giving a pension to a person who was in the military or giving a staff to a congressman or building a highway in Montana."

There certainly is a difference.

In the cases of pension, it is part of a contracted arrangement, part of the pay for long years of work or service. In the the case of building a highway, it is providing a useful infrastructure by which everyone will benefit.

In the case of doling out money to poor individuals, however, it is a specific transfer of wealth from those who produced it to those who did not. Can you not see the distinction here?

"Our Constitution says our government is constituted to, among other things, promote the general welfare. All government involves transferring from one person to another."

Actually all government does NOT involve transferring from one to another. Protection of rights, which is IMO one of the primary purposes of good government, is not a transfer.

The definition of what constitutes the general welfare may be difficult, but IMO it is more along the lines of the necessary infrastructure than doling out money to those who have not earned it.

By your argument, one could say that nearly anything is provided for by that clause if it can remotely be construed as being for the "general welfare".

Regardless of the definition, the forcible taking of the fruits of one's labor to GIVE to another is a form of legalized, limited slavery. This is an example of where pure democracy or "mob rule" breaks down. You should have the right to give as much as you want to the needy, and to encourage others to do the same, but you should not have the right to force others to do so according to your whim or majority consensus.

To do that, you must believe that society or the government, not the individual, owns the income-producing hours of your life, and the hours of everyone else's lives, too.