a defense of liberalism.

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.

Defining liberalism in terms of what the Founding Fathers thought, and then concluding that because the FF’s were liberal for their time, liberalism today is thereby defended is completely irrational. First of all, the founders, insofar as they were liberal at all, were ‘classically liberal’, which in U.S. politics maps onto libertarianism, and not left liberalism. And that’s just speaking of the ones that weren’t obviously conservative instead. Secondly, the only thing ‘liberal’ that PK argues the founders and the modern left have in common is that they were both ‘radical’ for their time. Is liberalism radicalism? I don’t think so, but even if it was, it’s the easiest thing in the world to point out that ‘radicalism’ just means being in favor of dramatic political change, which anybody who’s had a high school history course should be able to recognize as being sometimes left, sometimes right, sometimes good, sometimes bad.

Secondly, this defense of liberalism doesn’t actually defend any positions that present liberals actually take on anything. It merely identifies ‘liberal’ as virtuous in an ad hoc way: “The dictionary says ‘liberal’ means ‘generous’, and generosity is good, therefore the political stance we also call ‘liberal’ must also be good!”

Lastly, ‘being able to change and adapt’ isn’t an ideology, liberal or otherwise. PK brings up environmentalism. Sure, taking some radical measure to fight global warming would classify as ‘changing and adapting’. But so would cutting down every rainforest and using the wood- that’s a change, an adaptation. The United States escaping a monarchy to found a republic qualifies as ‘changing and adapting’ but so do the Germans giving up their democracy to become a Nazi state. Change isn’t inherently good, or inherently bad, and it certainly isn’t sufficient to define or defend an ideology. If liberals are in favor of environmental reforms for no reason other than they like changing things, that would just make them amoral crazy people. The actual reasons why the left takes one stance on environmentalism, and the right takes another, need to be explored to actually defend or criticize liberalism.

i concur with Uccisore, which is something i can only very rarely say with honesty.

I don’t always agree with a liberal, but when I do, it’s UglyPeopleFucking.

I have never once suggested you should moderate your language so what you say certainly does not apply to me
As I make a point of not allowing myself to get emotionally compromised by words I see on my computer screen
You are easily the most politically incorrect member of the forum but what you say has next to no effect on me
Everybody else who you abuse lets it get to them but I am not interested in letting it affect me and so I let it go


It looks to me that you misunderstand definitions slightly.

Definition wise, conservative is who is not willing to change at all, and liberal is who is all for the change. But, neither conservatism nor liberalism has nothing to do any particular ideology. The only thing that matters is whether they want the change or not. That is all. Both has nothing much to do with either openness or restrictions. These are slightly different issues.

Let me give an example to explain.

RIght now, premarital sex use to happen in every western society . In other words, you can say that it is one of the western social tradition now. There is no law now to restrict it either. Right.

Now, if you want it to continue as it is, you have to be defined as a conservative now, not liberal. On the other hand, if anyone wants to change (restrict) this practice, he has to defined as a liberal because he is open and supporting the change what is already established. Here, it does not matter whether anyone is pitching for openness or restrictions.

In the same way, as premarital sex is not in practice is the Muslim society, thus anyone who is not for it and pitching for change, is liberal. And, who does not want to change it, is conservative.

with love,

Zinnat, he (P. K.) is too much a Western Conservative. :slight_smile:

Well, I am not sure if he would be pleased with that tag.

With love,

Also equals ‘sharing’; where ones wealth is earned, to what degree should that be shared, if et al? Except by one’s own volition.
The inverse of that is where, everything we do and obtain are the results of collaborative efforts.

As ever, both categories – liberal/conservative pertain to categorical aspects of the same thing*. To observe only one [ liberal/conservative/anarchist or whathaveyou] denies the validity [or not] of further categories at work in the world/schemata*, and imho is therefore a belief. Ergo all kinds of politics = belief systems.

I think politics itself will be superseded. Schemata composed of all relative positions and categorical applications, will be written into markets AI’s. Eventually money will be digitalised and wealth distributed with respect to all the gathered factors. Wages cannot remain related to work where there is no work to be done. In other words, the wealth of a world culture beyond need [with robots/machines building everything], will not be set by effort/work. World govt will need to adjust to this, jobs become creative.

Liberalism? Or something else? then is balance, it is and will be the result of our release from our emancipations over time?


Again, I think that the tags of lberal and conservative do not express the ideologies clearly, at least in which way OP triesit.

It would be better to define both positions as right to the center and left to the center.

With love,

That’s wonderful that you don’t have a censorious attitude to other people’s speech. But Ultimate Funtime Party Pony is still correct that this is a thing liberals do, as can be seen in any number of campus or political protests as of late.

My own philosophy with regard to free speech is that one should have the freedom to say what ever they want so long as they accept responsibility for
it too. Because rights and responsibilities are not mutually incompatible but actually interconnected. Now I would never knowingly insult someone but
I draw the line at being told what words I can and cannot use since that is ultimately a decision for me and me alone. Restricting freedom of speech is
actually a greater harm than insulting someone because it is a slippery slope and also because no one has the right not to be offended. I think that the
desire to limit any offensive language starts off with noble intentions but the way to really tackle the problem is through education and not censorship

Even that gets complicated. I mean, I agree with it, but there are people who say what you just said knowing that they have the political/economic/social leverage to severely punish people who say things they don’t like. So in other words, I say “You can say whatever you want aslong as you accept responsibility” knowing that if you step out of line I will sic my lawyers, twitter followers or jihadists on your ass, and the lawsuit/harassment/explosions you recieve will just be ‘part of the responsibility of your free speech’.

That would be misleading. It implies that center between those two is good, yet it isn’t. Good is not formed of opposing evils.

The default position should not be the centre but a combination of the two. Since it prevents adopting an automatic stance
on everything from a purely ideological position instead of from a more pragmatic one. Also neither side has a monopoly on
wisdom for it is less black and white and more shades of grey. So I myself am socially liberal and economically conservative

One doesn’t create the best car by combining Ford with Chevy.

i’m facebook friends with a former professor from my alma mater, and apparently there was a recent incident at a frat party off campus where some drunk white students started chanting “white power”. This inspired a “zero tolerance for racism at [my former university]” student and faculty campaign, complete candlelight vigils and (get this) “zero tolerance for racism” armbands, black with a big white zero on them.

That’s self-parody of Trump-ian proportions.


Add to it that the ‘white power’ chant probably didn’t actually happen, or was started by liberals hoping specifically for the result you describe, and you’ve got a pretty accurate portrayl of what’s up on college campuses.

It makes me wonder how much money Mizzou has lost from all this.

I did not say that the center in an ideal or good position. Both ideologies have their pros and cons thus can be helpful in some specific conditions.

But, actually problem arises when supporters of both ideologies refuse to let go their support even when their ideology is not serving any purpose in any given circumstances.

You can see this attitude in the OP where PK starts with saying that conservatism is a failed ideology. Means, he will stick to liberalism no matter what happens.

With love,