a defense of liberalism.

I have been thinking about this for a while.
I shall defend liberalism as best as I can while
I will encourage someone to defend conservatism, but
I don’t expect anyone to because conservatism is a failed

Overview: There are many including those on this site who attack liberalism
and liberals and yet, never actually provide any evidence for their attacks.
My guess, they don’t have any evidence and are simply making shit up.

Liberal: 1. generosity 2. ample, abundant 3. not literal or strict
4. tolerant, broadminded 5. favoring reform or progress.

A look at these words suggest compliments. I believe if you call someone
generous or abundant or tolerant or favoring progress, those would be
compliments and taken as such. Liberal in reference to people is a positive
and accepted compliment. I believe that generosity and being tolerant and
being broadminded and favoring progress are compliments and you saying those
things to anyone would be given as a compliment and taken as such.
Yet, people use liberalism as a negative, that being liberal is
somehow bad and yet calling someone liberal is clearly not a negative.

You look into history and you see liberalism (which has different content because of different
times) is praised. For example, the founding fathers have been called, quite correctly, liberal.
You have to compare their actions and beliefs to the prevailing attitude of the time to be
able to judge them liberal. The prevailing attitude of the time is the political system of choice
is a monarchy. to extend political power to the “masses” at the time was progressive and
ahead of the times. It was liberal. To our “modern” eyes, not so much because the founding
fathers did not consider women or slaves and only allowed voting to wealthy people who owned
land. But in 1776, it was considered “radical” and was talked about as “radical”. To make sense
of terms like liberal (and conservative) you have to talk about context. What is the context of
the liberalism and what is the context of conservatism. Liberalism wants to make progress which
means it wants to make changes to the current idea’s or system. Now as we know that survival
of the fittest means being able to change with the changing conditions. Animals to survive,
must be able to adapt to the changing environment. Failure to adapt to the changing conditions
means animals, both individually and collectively, parish. We are animals and we must adapt
to changing conditions or we parish, both individually and collectively. Liberalism is simply
this adaptation process carried to the human level. But being human, we can change not only in
regards to our physical process but we can change our institutions and our ideology.
We can adapt our institutions to the changing process of our environment and failing to do
so will endanger us as humans.

Toleration: to be tolerant is considered to be a good trait. Why? To be tolerant is
to be adaptable to other people traits. To be liberal is not to be fixed, to be
adaptable, amendable to change and this trait is the key trait to survival.
Liberals do not consider any institution as fixed or complete or a end product.
we see change as the essential process of life and as such we believe that change
is not only good, but essential to our survival. For example, the office of the president
of the United States is not a fixed or complete position. It is necessary for the position to
be changeable and adaptable to changes in our environment. We believe in change for
the adaptation of people, situations and institutions to the changing environment.
This need for change is considered to be Liberalism greatest weakness and yet it is
really its greatest strength. If there is on constant to life, it is change and the
ever changing world we live in requires us to change often and sometimes drastically.
Our world is not a fixed, solid, unchanging world and we must choose
ideologies that match our world and liberalism with its fluid nature is best
suited for that ever changing world we live in.

It is said, that liberalism trust humanity and conservatism trust institutions
and in a very real sense, that is true of each ideology. The ability to adapt requires
judgement in which changes are needed to adapt to the new environment.
We see the rising tides of our oceans and we need to make judgements to
make the correct changes in our system to adapt. conservatives even deny
such a thing as climate change and thus they prevent any needed adaptation
to the changing environment. The need to adapt, to change to our ever
changing environment is necessary and needed for our very survival and
yet we can’t get conservatives to agree that change is needed. Their inability
to adapt, to change is endangering our lives, our society and is a threat to
our future survival of the species. This one example shows us the need to
adapt and change which is the bread and butter of liberalism.
If there was one description of liberalism I would use, it is this,
liberalism is the ideology of being able to change, to adapt.
Will there be mistakes? of course, we are human and human makes mistakes
but I would rather make a mistake doing something, making changes than
make a mistake doing nothing.

I suppose there are people who will now attack my views, but I doubt
they will offer us anything other than attacks on liberalism and that is
the nature of conservativism. It cannot create and it cannot adapt and
it cannot change and that is the failure of conservatism.
Look for the attacks but don’t expect any positive suggestions
or positive programs for us to advance upon. Liberalism is about
going forward and having a positive changes, something conservativism knows nothing


You are just redefining liberalism to make it an abstraction.

When people say they hate liberals, they mean they hate the majority of people who identify themselves as liberals.

Example of something a liberal might do - ban you for using the word ‘gender bend’, or negro, because it is offensive.

Notice how those are watered down versions of the words, yet they still find it offensive.
Being around liberals are like being around nuns in a convent, who ban pokemon, harry potter and swear words because it offends their religion. A funny one is ‘microaggressions’ or ‘manspreading’.

K: as I said, nothing positive or offer us anything new. Just the same old tire clichés.
Do you even have a viewpoint you can defend?


Your are lifting your argument to the clouds, where it cannot be assaulted. Sure it is easy to defend an argument that is in the clouds.

That is why you change the definition of liberal to remove it from actual liberals. Because actual liberals are mostly rubbish, a few good qualities but mostly rubbish.

I note that not one person has even attempted a defense of conservativism.
It is a failed ideology that is not even worth defending.


Like all ideologies, there are good parts, and bad parts. You salvage the parts you want from it and scrap the rest. It’s like a stew. You might not like the broth, but the carrots are good to eat.

K: I’m sure conservatives consider this an in depth defense of conservatism.
soup and broth and don’t forget the carrots.


I do not condone either since both have major failings that causes the predator to come out in both. Both are just shy of fanaticism. Both threaten nonbelievers. So I could not even pretend to be on either side.

I’m an anarchist. Screw all of your political ideologies.

I am not even sure you know what the original anarchists were about.

Which anarchists are we talking about in history? There are many different kinds. Regail me.

K: Jesus was an anarchist as well as Tolstoy and Gandhi. Anarchism is a wide tent.


Well, at least hahaha is a better anarchist than anarchist memes.

Religious anarchists are funny. They’ll say that they won’t serve no masters here on earth but they have no problem serving a master in the heavens.

To be fair, while I don’t particularly care for Tolstoy’s anarchist writings I do like some of his literature especially of the aristocratic transition from the 18th to the early 19th century. Beyond all his moralizing and religious zeal he was a great sociologist.

There is no free will, so your body is your master. So, depends on what the master’s got to offer. Well what do you want and what do you got? If they offer eternal paradise, thats a hard bargain. Your body should accept the new master.

Defined by Webster dictionary:

: a person who rebels against any authority, established order, or ruling power
: a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order

You just do not strike me as a true anarchist.


Both have been “failing” for thousands of years.

The only true Anarchist, is the Annhilist, because only through Annihilation of all planets and potential metauniverses, can the arising of the body end.

The body is order, and a master, than no anarchist can be free from until Total Annihilation.