ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 10th January 2018, 06:03 PM   #81
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Nazis are conservative. It's a vital part of their ideology.

Really? The Nazis believed in individual freedom for all with a limited government of enumerated powers? Cite?


On a more serious note, one of the problems with the political scale is that conservative can mean different things depending on the political culture involved. In other words, whether a conservative is good or not depends on what exactly they're trying to conserve. For instance, a Muslim cleric could be considered conservative in Saudi Arabia if he's in favor of the supremacy of religious law and the right of the king to control the country completely. Vladimir Putin could be considered a conservative since he wants to restore a Soviet-style hegemony to that region of the world. Of course, both of these positions are complete nonsense in the American sense of a conservative.

I wish I could remember the person's name to give them credit, but there was political philosopher that said that one of the best things about America was that it was one of the few places in the world where a person could be both a conservative and in favor of freedom and democracy since that's the legacy of the American founding.

All that being said, though, the Nazis still were in no way conservative, even by the political culture of the time. Hitler wasn't trying to preserve the Republic or bring back the Monarchy, he was explicitly selling a revolution. Yes, it was a different revolution than what the Communists wanted, but it was just as radical in it's own way.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 06:34 PM   #82
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 280
Quote:
They aren’t “far-right,” they are “far-out-wacko.”
Then what is "far-right"?
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 06:49 PM   #83
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Then what is "far-right"?

Anarcho-capitalism. Link

ETA: I'm reminded of the old quasi-official Libertarian slogan, "Libertarians, trying to take over the government in order to leave everyone alone!"

Last edited by cmikes; 10th January 2018 at 06:53 PM.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 06:55 PM   #84
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Anarcho-capitalism. Link
Far-right more commonly refers to national and racial supremacists than anarcho-capitialists in academics.

Of course fascists and anarcho-capitalists can both be considered far-right as they are both extremely anti-egalitarian.

Last edited by Jerrymander; 10th January 2018 at 06:58 PM.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 07:23 PM   #85
cmikes
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
Far-right more commonly refers to national and racial supremacists than anarcho-capitialists in academics.

Of course fascists and anarcho-capitalists can both be considered far-right as they are both extremely anti-egalitarian.

I'm not qualified to speak academically, but personally, it's always been hard to reconcile a movement that by definition involves the supremacy of the state over individual rights as right wing. Movements that require a person to be the right race, the right class, the right nationality, etc, always strikes me as left wing because of the way it emphasizes their position in the collective rather than a person's worth as an individual.

And of course, any classification that could put fascists and anarcho-capitalists in the same group seems way to broad to have any kind of usefulness.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 08:41 PM   #86
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 280
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
I'm not qualified to speak academically, but personally, it's always been hard to reconcile a movement that by definition involves the supremacy of the state over individual rights as right wing. Movements that require a person to be the right race, the right class, the right nationality, etc, always strikes me as left wing because of the way it emphasizes their position in the collective rather than a person's worth as an individual.

And of course, any classification that could put fascists and anarcho-capitalists in the same group seems way to broad to have any kind of usefulness.
Individualism has nothing to do with being right-wing. Right-wing was used to describe monarchists and fascists before libertarians.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 08:48 PM   #87
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Neither of which is very good either.

I tend to agree with Paxton (Anatomy of Fascism) - fascism does not really have an intellectual component. It is a worldview of "people" or "races" in struggle, led by "leaders", and a practice that follows from that view with the goal of restoring a mythic past. The tenets and policies of fascist politicians were essentially defined by being ad-hoc and invented on the spot or co-opted from other movements (e.g. socialists) toward the ultimate goal of power consolidation and some elusive "victory".

That's very different from even Marxism-Leninism (which is a relatively un-intellectual form of Marxism) which has a much more coherent sets of values, views of society, concrete policy goals, etc. There are some loose paralells to be drawn (e.g. the mythic goal of "Communism" serving as justification) but the model of "totalitarianism" is pretty obsolete. Fascist and "Communist" states just weren't all that similar in their workings.

Fascism is "right-wing" in the sense that it is a form of pseudo-conservatism and a twisted, reactionary mirror image of popular socialist movements, but the classification really falls apart upon closer examination.
If that's too long, just remember "Two Legs Bad, Four Legs Good"
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th January 2018, 11:10 PM   #88
Cabbage
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 214
I'm surprised no one has bothered to mention this poem yet:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Cabbage is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:18 AM   #89
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,194
Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby View Post
So, if I can show that Jeffrey Dahmer voted for Jimmy Carter, will you concede that all Democrats are cannibals?
What does that have to do with what I wrote? Someone said Nazis weren't conservative and I corrected that false notion. If you want to start a thread arguing that Democrats are cannibals, go for it.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:22 AM   #90
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,194
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Nope, NAZI's were and still are radicals, even revolutionaries, that is not generally considered conservative.
No, they were reactionary conservatives. That's where the ideas of a glorified past came from. There were non-conservative parts of the movement, but what Hitler built was based on conservative ideas.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:26 AM   #91
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 11,194
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Really? The Nazis believed in individual freedom for all with a limited government of enumerated powers? Cite?
That's not the definition of conservatism.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 08:22 AM   #92
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,729
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
I'm not qualified to speak academically, but personally, it's always been hard to reconcile a movement that by definition involves the supremacy of the state over individual rights as right wing. Movements that require a person to be the right race, the right class, the right nationality, etc, always strikes me as left wing because of the way it emphasizes their position in the collective rather than a person's worth as an individual.

And of course, any classification that could put fascists and anarcho-capitalists in the same group seems way to broad to have any kind of usefulness.
Individual freedom is a liberal principles.

Conservatives embrace “personal freedom” and limited involvement” not to allow people to live as they want but to prevent the government from stopping them when they try force their principles on others. The end goal is still people falling into line and subverting their own interests with their nationalistic business/industry first agenda.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 08:35 AM   #93
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 779
Quote:
The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States, but as on the global level there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect that is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms left and right than understood the terms liberal and conservative.[49]
Which really tells you what the problem is. And for Europeans:

Quote:
The differences between left and right have altered over time. The initial cleavage at the time of the French Revolution was between supporters of absolute monarchy (the Right) and those who wished to limit the king's authority (the Left). During the 19th century, the cleavage was between monarchists and republicans. Following the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the cleavage was between supporters of a strong executive on the Right and supporters of the primacy of the legislature on the Left.[48]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E...Western_Europe

If you defined right as authoritarian, which is probably the most agreed upon notion, then the NAZI's were clearly right wing, but so were most commies but most people don't view commies as right wing.

Now,

Quote:
The Left seeks social justice through redistributive social and economic policies, while the Right defends private property and capitalism.
So the NAZI's followed policy that were both redistributive and defended private property, sort of. They left compliant capitalists in nominal ownership but the state generally made the big decisions. Krupp was still owned by Krupp but the had to manufacture what the government told them to.

Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Individual freedom is a liberal principles.

Conservatives embrace “personal freedom” and limited involvement” not to allow people to live as they want but to prevent the government from stopping them when they try force their principles on others.
I hope you realize that that sounds like, "liberals believe in good things" while "Conservatives believe in bad things."

Last edited by ahhell; 11th January 2018 at 08:38 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 09:01 AM   #94
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 280
Quote:
If you defined right as authoritarian, which is probably the most agreed upon notion, then the NAZI's were clearly right wing, but so were most commies but most people don't view commies as right wing.
Actually...

Quote:
Right-wing politics hold that certain social orders and hierarchies are inevitable, natural, normal or desirable,[1][2][3] typically supporting this position on the basis of natural law, economics or tradition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 09:38 AM   #95
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Individual freedom is a liberal principles.
Depending on how you define, "individual freedom," both liberals and conservatives have it as a core principle.

Quote:
Conservatives embrace “personal freedom” and limited involvement” not to allow people to live as they want but to prevent the government from stopping them when they try force their principles on others. The end goal is still people falling into line and subverting their own interests with their nationalistic business/industry first agenda.
Well that seems a bit skewed . . .
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:00 AM   #96
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,729
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

I hope you realize that that sounds like, "liberals believe in good things" while "Conservatives believe in bad things."
I don’t care what it “sounds like” as that’s entirely a function of the lens you happen to be looking though. The history of Liberalism being based on and innovator of individual freedom and Democratic rule is clear. This “sounds good” because these principles won.

Conservatives as the advocates of personal freedom is factually wrong, regardless of what that sounds like to you. Right wing policies systematically favor Aristocratic or Authoritarian rule, even in places where they claim they are advocating freedom. Liberalism promoted Democratic government because it Democracies placed checks on the power of the Aristocracies that predated it. “Limiting the scope and power” of a Democratic government is essentially synonymous with promoting the power of Aristocratic rule.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:04 AM   #97
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 69,467
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
I don’t care what it “sounds like” as that’s entirely a function of the lens you happen to be looking though. The history of Liberalism being based on and innovator of individual freedom and Democratic rule is clear.
Yeah but that's a bit of an equivocation, though, because "liberal" can mean different things in different contexts. You mean "classical liberalism" but when US conservatives use it they mean "the left".
__________________
Briefly "Argumemnon"

Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:33 AM   #98
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,729
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Yeah but that's a bit of an equivocation, though, because "liberal" can mean different things in different contexts. You mean "classical liberalism" but when US conservatives use it they mean "the left".
You/they are presuming these are different, when in fact the mainstream of “The Left” in the US is predominantly a practical implementation of the principles of classic liberalism.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:37 AM   #99
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 28,476
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
So not only does all American politics fall somewhere on a pure Left to Right scale all politics ever of all time do. It is literally impossible to even conceptually conceive of a political ideology anywhere at any time that doesn't support or demonize the current American right or left?
It's really very simple. In America, anything left of Fox News is FAR LEFT.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 11:08 AM   #100
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,547
How come Black Rights is a democrat platform?
And Brown rights too.

But White Ethnic Rights is a Repub plank?

Sounds like the point is not about rights, but racism on both sides. And all to get votes.

The parties themselves are the cause of the divisiveness in America.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:11 PM   #101
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 779
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
How come Black Rights is a democrat platform?
And Brown rights too.

But White Ethnic Rights is a Repub plank?

Sounds like the point is not about rights, but racism on both sides. And all to get votes.

The parties themselves are the cause of the divisiveness in America.
Nah, they just exploit it.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 12:20 PM   #102
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 779
Here's what Mussolini had to say about whether Fascism was on the right or left:
Quote:
Mussolini stated that fascism's position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue for fascists: "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words"
Edit to add:
Rationalwiki actually has a pretty good write regarding fascism/NAZIism place on the political spectrum:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fascis...ism_and_Nazism
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nazism...tical_spectrum
I don't usually like rational wiki because the obvious snark and bias but these articles aren't too bad. Probably because agree with them.

Also a pretty good article on the political spectrum generally.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Last edited by ahhell; 11th January 2018 at 12:56 PM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 03:16 PM   #103
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 280
And here's what Hitler said as to which side National Socialism belonged to are at least had more in common with.

Quote:
There are only two possibilities in Germany; do not imagine that the people will forever go with the middle party, the party of compromises; one day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to dissociate themselves from it. And that party is either the Left: and then God help us! for it will lead us to complete destruction - to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the Right which at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part ruthlessly to seize the reins of power - that is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here, too, there can be no compromise - there are only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan, or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew.
https://archive.org/stream/TheSpeech...ction_djvu.txt
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 03:35 PM   #104
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,726
Once you get far enough out on the fringes, you generally have more in common with other fringe people than you do with the mainstream. The crackpot left and the crackpot right have more in common with each other than they do with the more moderate elements of the left and right. I suspect that the average citizen in Nazi Germany and those in Soviet Russia probably felt similarly oppressed by their respective governments, and that there is a dramatic difference between that and how the average American Republican feels under a Democratic president, or how the average American Democrat feels under a Republican president, drama queens excepted.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 03:49 PM   #105
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,582
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
You/they are presuming these are different, when in fact the mainstream of “The Left” in the US is predominantly a practical implementation of the principles of classic liberalism.
Not really. It's modern "social" liberalism that the Left is all about. The idea that people have rights to such things as healthcare, education, etc. is not a classical liberalism ideology.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 05:04 PM   #106
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,994
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Once you get far enough out on the fringes, you generally have more in common with other fringe people than you do with the mainstream. The crackpot left and the crackpot right have more in common with each other than they do with the more moderate elements of the left and right. I suspect that the average citizen in Nazi Germany and those in Soviet Russia probably felt similarly oppressed by their respective governments, and that there is a dramatic difference between that and how the average American Republican feels under a Democratic president, or how the average American Democrat feels under a Republican president, drama queens excepted.
A colleague of mine has been monitoring the Occupy movement, and it's interesting to see that it is an umbrella concept for what seem like very different participants. What they have in common is "smash the system" mentality.

I'm talking about violent MRAs and SovCits sharing a demonstration with Young Trotskyites. Both watched a little too much Fight Club and want the banks to blow up so their credit card balances go away.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 09:45 PM   #107
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,220
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Once you get far enough out on the fringes, you generally have more in common with other fringe people than you do with the mainstream. The crackpot left and the crackpot right have more in common with each other than they do with the more moderate elements of the left and right. I suspect that the average citizen in Nazi Germany and those in Soviet Russia probably felt similarly oppressed by their respective governments, and that there is a dramatic difference between that and how the average American Republican feels under a Democratic president, or how the average American Democrat feels under a Republican president, drama queens excepted.
The average citizen in Nazi Germany did not really feel oppressed (though they certainly were).
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2018, 10:50 PM   #108
Noztradamus
Illuminator
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Individual freedom is a liberal principles.

Conservatives embrace “personal freedom” and limited involvement” not to allow people to live as they want but to prevent the government from stopping them when they try force their principles on others. The end goal is still people falling into line and subverting their own interests with their nationalistic business/industry first agenda.
And yet, American Liberalism seems based on communitarian identity politics
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping.
Noztradamus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 10:26 AM   #109
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
 
blutoski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 10,994
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
And yet, American Liberalism seems based on communitarian identity politics
Very possibly. Correspondingly, there's an (IMO credible) argument that the Republican Party is now representing white identity politics.
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett
blutoski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:11 AM   #110
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,729
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Not really.
Yes really. The ultimate goal of modern social democracies is to maximize peoples well being and personal freedom. It’s absurd to suggest this is at odds with Liberalism.


Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
The idea that people have rights to such things as healthcare, education, etc. is not a classical liberalism ideology.
I guess that depends on if you are talking about what actual early Liberals thought or 20th century spins/misrepresentations of what they thought.

If it's the former then these are perfectly in keeping with the type of services government could/should provide. The fact that they didn't explicitly mention them comes down to a number of things including advances in technology, understanding of economics/social science and the fact these services have changed significantly since their time.

Core Liberal beliefs (both modern and pre 1900’s) and social democracies include:
Democratic government that places control in the hands of the entire population in general rather than an aristocratic subset of the population.
Government should protect people for each other
Government should provide services and infrastructure that can’t be provided effectively by the free market.


Modern Liberalism of the form generally adopted by Social Democracies still follow these basic principles, they simply integrate modern economic and social science. Services provided by the Government change as economics gains greater understanding of what can/can’t be provided most efficiently by the free market. Regulations change to reflect cases where free markets are not efficient. Laws change based on greater understanding of the ways in which people can unfairly have a negative impact on someone else, etc.

In keeping with the theme some on the right worshiping a “mythical past” some modern conservatives look at the solutions early liberals came up with and insist they were perfect, immutable and need to be followed dogmatically. They ignore the fact that these addressed specific issues of the time and relied on imperfect understanding or science, social science, economics, etc.

They also pick and choose as to which are perfect and immutable and which can simply be ignored because they are inconvenient. For example they consider unions bad because the are supposedly the modern equivalent of the guilds Adam Smith extensively condemned. However, they completely ignore the fact he spent at least as much time condemning the Corporations of his day. To their “logic” this means unions should be outlawed while not only should Corporations be allowed they should not even be subject to regulations aimed at minimizing the potential problems Smith outlined.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:17 AM   #111
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,729
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
And yet, American Liberalism seems based on communitarian identity politics
Looking at the actual policies promoted by US Liberals (AKA the Democrats) doesn’t support this IMO. Quite the opposite in fact. Eg, consider that Economist who skew Democrat outnumber those who skew Republican by ~3:1. I don’t see how this would be possible if Democratic policy most closely adhered to modern free market economics.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:30 AM   #112
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 69,467
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Yes really. The ultimate goal of modern social democracies is to maximize peoples well being and personal freedom.
Small aside: I wonder what happens if/when these two things are incompatible.
__________________
Briefly "Argumemnon"

Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:35 AM   #113
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,040
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Small aside: I wonder what happens if/when these two things are incompatible.
Historically, it seems to be "you weren't using that freedom to maximize collective well-being anyway, so it didn't really count as freedom; conflict resolved!"
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:41 AM   #114
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 69,467
I mean, what happens when more freedom doesn't correlate with more happiness/well beign? Which takes precedence?
__________________
Briefly "Argumemnon"

Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:46 AM   #115
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,914
The Freedom/Security balance (both sides of it) is not immune from the Hedonism Paradox; the simple fact that giving people what they want very rarely makes them happy.
__________________
(Formally JoeBentley)

"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

"Hating a bad thing does not make you good." - David Wong
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:50 AM   #116
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 69,467
Originally Posted by JoeBentley View Post
The Freedom/Security balance (both sides of it) is not immune from the Hedonism Paradox; the simple fact that giving people what they want very rarely makes them happy.
Yeah, that's unfortunately the conclusion I came to as well.

Turns out that figuring out what makes humans tick or how to properly run a society isn't a simple thing to do...
__________________
Briefly "Argumemnon"

Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:51 AM   #117
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 24,040
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I mean, what happens when more freedom doesn't correlate with more happiness/well beign? Which takes precedence?
Mu.

At the point where more freedom doesn't correlate with more happiness, the government is already beyond being able to give precedence to happiness. Historically, at that point the government has to double down on removing freedoms, and push the narrative that it's somehow increasing happiness.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 11:57 AM   #118
Mumbles
Illuminator
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Looking at the actual policies promoted by US Liberals (AKA the Democrats) doesn’t support this IMO. Quite the opposite in fact. Eg, consider that Economist who skew Democrat outnumber those who skew Republican by ~3:1. I don’t see how this would be possible if Democratic policy most closely adhered to modern free market economics.
Strikes me of my usual note: "Identity Politics" is usually used to mean "addressing issues that primarily concern women or non-white people". Aiding white men, at the cost of harming others, is just normal politics.

Of course, in reality, any neutral reading would conclude that Dolt45 practices an extremist form of "Identity Politics", to the point actually harming white men due to outright malice towards everyone else, but even after 200+ years many refuse to learn this very simple lesson.
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 12:03 PM   #119
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 69,467
Originally Posted by Mumbles View Post
Strikes me of my usual note: "Identity Politics" is usually used to mean "addressing issues that primarily concern women or non-white people".
The way I usually understand the term is rather to mean "taking complex social or political issues and reducing them to one's identity without justification." i.e. being black means you're oppressed, regardless of any other piece of data or context.
__________________
Briefly "Argumemnon"

Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th January 2018, 12:05 PM   #120
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,729
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Small aside: I wonder what happens if/when these two things are incompatible.
The nice thing about democracy is that you don’t need a definitive answer. Pose the question properly so people know exactly what they stand to gain or loose on either side of the issue and let them decide. No democracy is perfect so in practice YMMV, especially if you have mass media dedicated to spreading misinformation or muddying the waters in order to achieve a specific outcome.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.