Liberalism

Let me expand on that to be a bit less acrimonious.

xeno’s first axiom:
All governments have, as their base reason for existence, the task of providing a framework for society whereby the group is stronger than the sum of individual strengths.

xeno’s second axiom:
All governments operate through a quid pro quo arrangement with the citizens or subjects, whether clearly stated by charter (as in a constitution or libertarian contract) or exerted through tradition and civil obedience.

If we accept these axioms, then it is not a stretch of logic to say that the “quid” provided by the government requires a “quo” commitment from each citizen. This commitment, under all forms of government not contracted for on an individual basis by each citizen (i.e. all of 'em so far), need not be explicitly stated by separate legal document, since citizenship under that government has as its most basic requirement the acceptance of the “quo” obligation.

Under any government, if a citizen decides that the “something” he or she is getting from the government is not worth the “something” he or she is required to give to the government, that citizen may seek an arrangement he or she finds more equitable. The options here may include renunciation of citizenship, civil disobedience or deliberate disdain for the law.

Xeno

Thank you for that. Although I respect your view (to the extent that you hold it for yourself, but do not require other men to hold it), I do not accept your first axiom.

I like Jefferson’s (Thomas, the Classical Liberal) axiom about the purpose of government: “It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.”

Does liberalism see government as a benign agent that is forming society according to the wishes of the majority of its constituency?

This liberal sees government as a mindless and amoral beast under the control of a succession of temporary workers, against whose tendency toward excess we must be eternally vigilant.

Kind of hyperbolic, but I think you understand what I mean.

Lib asked me: *Am I right to say that liberalism subjugates the right of individual consent to the needs of the society as perceived by agents of the state? *

Huh wha’? Unless I missed a major step here, that’s exactly the opposite of the point I was getting at.

You said a few posts ago, *No one is saying that every decision must be consentual. Just one. The decision whether to be governed. *

And I said that liberals do indeed agree that that must be consensual, although the consent is implied: that is, the state must not insist on governing you without your consent, i.e., it must let you legally renounce citizenship at will. (This does entail the hardship of physical emigration, but as I said—a few times by now I guess, sorry—it isn’t liberalism in particular that makes that necessary.)

So it sounds to me as though, on the contrary, liberalism supports the right of individual (implied) consent to governance over the needs of the society, should they be in conflict. I can’t see liberals arguing that Uncle Sam should be able to stop you from emigrating because the rest of society needs you, any more than we agree that Uncle Sam should be able to stop you from preaching libertarianism because it might be destructive to popular support for the social contract. If you want to leave and society wants to stop you, that’s society’s tough noogies. Subjugate, hell! We’re on your side, Lib! (Ulp…how did I end up here? :))

I’d just like to add that, IMHO, the US beast is a more efficiently engineered and “user friendly” product than most governmental beasts…

My goodness, what a slippery noodle this liberalism seems to me. It is like a calculus limit that gets close to, but never touches, the Principle of Noncoercion. I suspect it is because liberalism attempts to define rights outside the context of property, which, of course, would be tediously futile.

Fair enough. I will take you at your word.

Will you then help me to discover whatever it is that does make it necessary, and assist your fellow (Classical) Liberals to weed out this hideous root of tyranny? Think of the reward to you. You would effectively stop the bitching and moaning of every Libertarian alive in one fell swoop!

You know, there is a libertarian presence (of a sort) in the Republican Party (the Liberty Caucus), from which the LP originally split. Perhaps it is time for a libertarian presence in the Democratic Party.

I realize I’ve dragged you people over the coals. I promise to give the Conservatives their due. Jo Jorgensen said:

Perhaps I should ask them that directly.

Lib: *I suspect it is because liberalism attempts to define rights outside the context of property, which, of course, would be tediously futile. *

Well, you know I can’t agree. It seems to me that any definition of rights ultimately rests on some selected axiom, and I don’t think that libertarian definitions of rights are any less futile than liberal ones. I also don’t see liberalism’s asymptotic relation to the non-coercion principle as a disadvantage.

*“it isn’t liberalism in particular that makes [emigration as opposed to secession] necessary”

Fair enough. I will take you at your word. Will you then help me to discover whatever it is that does make it necessary, and assist your fellow (Classical) Liberals to weed out this hideous root of tyranny? Think of the reward to you. You would effectively stop the bitching and moaning of every Libertarian alive in one fell swoop! *

Wow, I can’t resist a temptation like that! But I fear I may not succeed in coming up with a suggestion that you would consider as sufficiently “weeding out” this “tyranny”. See, I suspect that this is just another of those issues that reflect fundamental facts of human nature rather than flaws in particular political philosophies. However, with my eyes on the glitter of the promised prize, I’ll take a stab at it:

Q: Why do states, even those that permit at-will renunciation of citizenship, insist on ex-citizens emigrating rather than permitting them to secede in place? In other words, why is there a ban on letting part of the state’s existing territory cease to be governed by that state?

A: Hmmm. Well, of course, there’s the very pragmatic matter of the states’ already being established and internationally accepted as rightfully possessing eminent domain. You can’t opt out of the government and still stay in the country because the (king, Constitution, Magna Carta, whatever) says so, so there. On a more thoughtful note, there are the points discussed by Gilligan and waterj2 and RTFirefly near the end of the Why Do Libs Do Poorly in Elections thread: importance of public property, and “territorial integrity.”

Public property is probably not such a stumbling block here, since we could just rule that secession in place applied only to private property. (Yet I’m sure some secessionists would argue that they should be able to take “their share” of public property with them into their new libertarian state, and we’d have to find a way of settling that.) Territorial integrity is probably the big kicker. It would be so incredibly inefficient for a country honeycombed with foreign states to carry out any significant public works. Building roads and railroads when you have to go around all the little libertarian enclaves that won’t let you build on their land—whoo, what a mess! Think of Bangladesh sitting between most of India and its northeast territories, and multiply that by how many hundreds or thousands? Help.

Then there’s the question of international borders. The state has an obligation to protect its citizens from possibly unfriendly or overacquisitive neighbors; how much more trouble and expense would this be if “neighbors” were scattered in clumps throughout the country? And that’s not even taking into account that libertarians wouldn’t recognize the state’s authority on the property next door to them—because libertarian governments don’t represent their citizens as national entities—so even if you recognized all the little libertarian countries they’d never recognize you, so you couldn’t negotiate with them.

Which leads me to the final point, which I made better in another of these threads a long time ago: the inevitability of (probably constant) war. See, if Libertaria doesn’t recognize the rights of any national entity or the rights of anybody who hasn’t contracted with Libertaria, then sooner or later there’s going to be trouble. I used a hypothetical case of trespass and murder last time, but this time suppose we consider issues of pollution. Yup, libertarians couldn’t pollute each other’s property because they’d be infringing each other’s rights, but there’s nothing in the contract about the rights of the non-libertarians next door. So the guy farthest downriver in Libertaria pours toxic goop into the water and it doesn’t bother anybody except the non-libertarians. The survivors complain to their government, the government complains to the leaders of Libertaria, the leaders of Libertaria ask one another “Do you hear a sort of faint buzzing sound?”, the non-libertarians get exasperated, and the tanks roll in. Libertaria is forcibly reassimilated and the non-libertarians’ environmental protection laws are enforced, and all is serene until the next people who own property in this region decide to secede to form a libertarian state, and the libertarian guy downriver realizes it’s legal for him to pour toxic goop into the water, and…Hooooowwwwwwllll!

See how it goes? It’s just not humanly possible for a society that wants to be something more than an anarchy to survive if its citizens are constantly taking little bits of it outside its jurisdiction. Note that nothing in the above discussion presumed a society that was particularly liberal, either: why, in practice you wouldn’t even need a respectable excuse for border troubles. The state could just assert a combination of secession-in-place and territorial expansionism, so that you could legally secede all you liked but the government would immediately re-invade you in order to annex the territory, in an eternal game of conquistador musical chairs.

To sum up: States simply wouldn’t be able to survive without claiming and maintaining a right to eminent domain and the integrity of their territory. So since the people who found states want them to survive, they build territorial dominion into their founding principles. And since most of the people of other states also want them to survive, they accept and defend the territorial dominion of the new states. So that’s why you always have to emigrate instead of seceding in place.

Well, it was the best I could do. Will the Libertarians stop bitching and moaning now? :slight_smile:

*I realize I’ve dragged you people over the coals. I promise to give the Conservatives their due. […] Why do Republican Politicians keep selling out freedom?

Perhaps I should ask them that directly.*

Yeah, start a new thread. We liberals are about worn out just defending liberalism and are not about to bust ass on behalf of the conservatives! :slight_smile:

IMO, Govt., in any form, is a barely needed evil. The task of Govt. is to protect us from internal (intra-national?) interference with our lives, and to organise us for external (international) defence. My bargin with the Govt. is something like this, “I will refrain from shooting the person who is a threat to me and mine, on the understanding that the Govt. will take care of it for me. I will pay a portion of my income towards the maintenance of a resouce for the purpose of protecting my nation from foreign invaders. Given that this group of people and equipment must maintain a state of readiness and training to be effective, it would seem logical to use that force in international situations, provided there is a consensus on the morality of the conflict situation in which they are involved.”
What amazes me, is the way American’s fork over a huge portion of their income, and still have to pay for services such as hospital care. The more a govt. is asked to do, the more money and resources are tipped down the toilet.

It occured to me yesterday, at a time when I was far far away from any internet access, that Lib’s preferred Jeffersonian axiom regarding the purpose of government tends to take “xeno’s first axiom” as an assumption. To whit:

TJ: “Government is resorted to merely as a means to secure our (the People’s) rights.”

xeno: “Governments provide a societal framework whereby the group is stronger than the sum of individual strengths.”

I submit that if Jefferson did not believe the latter statement, he would have advocated pure individualism rather than the pluralistic republic he helped bring into fruition. Also, we must remember Jefferson as President — even though he had worked tirelessly against the Federalists, his first acts as President were conciliatory and centrist (as the first opposition party President, he was also the first bi-partisan organizer); “…we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists.” By the end of his second term TJ had made the (to then) boldest executive move in American history (Louisiana Purchase) and had exerted Federal control over all American ports (the failed Embargo Act), the exact sort of coercive acts of the federal government he deplored in his political writings.

Jefferson’s pragmatism in spite of his own rhetoric speaks more eloquently for the necessities of statism than most arguments I could make.

I have dealt before with Jefferson’s enigmatic onset of senility after his penning of the Declaration. From declaring rights as given by God, inalienable, and intrinsic within the sacred consent of man to …

the Louisianna Purchase??! Dear God.

I submit the following for each person, Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative, and Authoritarian, to interpret in his own way. It is text from the extension of remarks by Representative Philip M. Crane in the first seesion of the 102nd Congress, on Wednesday, May 1, 1991:

[/quote]

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was brought up to appropriate money for the benefit of the widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question to a vote when Colonel David Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker, I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, as any man in this House. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.

"We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to so appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

“Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bills asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed and as, no doubt, it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on.

"The weather was very cold and, when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced, appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

"The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than in any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road.

"I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

"I began: ‘Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and–’

" ‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

"This was a sockdolager. . . . I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

" 'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not the capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case, you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine.

" ‘I will say to you what, but for my rudeness I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.’

"I said, ‘I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any Constitutional question.’

" 'No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

" ‘Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.’

" 'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the treasury no more money than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

" 'What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how many thousands are worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

" 'If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

" 'No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

" 'The Congressmen chose to keep their own money which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people of Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is stipulation, and a violation of the Constitution.

" ‘So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congeress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.’

"I tell you, I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

" 'Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard.

" ‘If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.’

"He laughingly replied: ‘Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again on one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.’

" ‘If I don’t,’ said I, ‘I wish I may be shot; and, to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.’

" ‘No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promose you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.’

" ‘Well, I will be here. But, one thing more before I say goodbye. I must know your name.’

" ‘My name is Bunce.’

" 'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.

"It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words, but in act. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintances.

"Though I had never met him before, I had heard of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition and been beaten. One thing is certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

"At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

"Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

"I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him-no, that is not the word-I reverence and love him more than any living man. I got to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

"But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I have not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted-at least, they all knew me.

"In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

" ‘Fellow citizens, I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to my self as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration.’

"I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them that I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

" 'And now, it remains for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

" ‘It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with this convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.’

"He came up on the stand and said:

" ‘Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.’

"He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

"I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some drops rolling down my cheeks. I tell you, the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have made as a member of Congress.

“Now, sir,” concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday.

“There is one thing to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men- men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speches upon the great debt of gratitude owed the deceased-a debt which could not be paid by money-and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighted against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

Lib: *I have dealt before with Jefferson’s enigmatic onset of senility after his penning of the Declaration. *

snort Oh now, there’s a respectable argument, Lib; if it bothers you that the guy said some contradictory things, just say he went senile. :rolleyes: Joke, right? I think the real explanation is what xenophon suggested and what I’ve stated before: revolutionaries by their very nature tend to be libertarian, because they’re trying to justify dissolving a state, but founders and public servants tend to be statist. So naturally, Jefferson put some good libertarian stuff into the Declaration of Independence, and equally naturally, it was a less important issue when he was working on the Constitution, and even less so when he was running the joint as President. This may be a perfect metaphor for the essential nature of libertarianism: it’s a vital and valuable opposition philosophy, but it’ll never run a government.

By the way, I deduce from that cute although unsubstantiated sermon about Rep. Crockett that my secession-vs.-emigration explanation didn’t do the trick, so the Libertarian bitching and moaning will carry on as usual at the old stand. Sorry fellow liberals, I tried! :slight_smile:

I’ll be out of the loop a bit. I’ve been asked by Lissener to write a short story. Thanks, though, Kim. I suppose we are the voices in the wilderness. Perhaps you Liberals will look kindly upon us as the voices of your conscience, if nothing else.

A short story? Cool! Will we get to see it?

In one sense Statism rests on the principle of equivalence: If you derive benefit from an object or fact of existence, you are obligated to contribute to its development and maintenance. A crucial consideration is that benefit is not always strongly correlated with use. Consider the gas station at the freeway exit. The proprietor of the gas station derives her entire livlihood from the freeway, yet she uses it not at all. Even more abstracted, consider the grocery store down the street. Its proprietor benefits from the economic health of the gas station’s proprietor. His benefit, although more abstract, is no less real. At a higher level, in a complicated, industrialized economy such as ours, the interests, benefits and obligations of its participants are, in many important cases, intertwined in a complex manner, rendering impossible any attempt to tease them out at the individual level.

Statism (taxation by one or more bureaucracies) does not, of course, form the only or even necessarily the most efficient solution. However it is proven to work, and all industrialized societies use this method.

Liberalism is the philosophical position that each person has value regardless of his or her economic ability. It is the obligation of each person to recognize and support this value in proportion to his or her overall prosperity. A need, the obligation to support value without regard to the recipients’ economic ability, is determined not by individual claim but by negotiation through the legislature.

One might not individually recognize and agree to the aforementioned obligation. Hence we have developed a system to negotiate the imposition of obligations and the dispensation of benefits.

Democracy is the procedural system whereby consent is defined as the triad of the vote, petition, and the right to exit. When a person has the right to vote, petition the government for the redress of grievances, and physically leave the system at will, the fact of his continued residence by definition implies consent.

Again, one might not individually recognize and agree to the aforementioned definition of consent. However, at some level, a defintion of consent must be imposed. The criminal certainly does not individually consent to the non-coercion principle; technically one violates his consent by interfering with or punishing his or her criminal behavior.

The basis of governance is not to form a system that all people believe to be completely morally correct. Given that different individuals have wildly constrasting and contradictory moral standards, such an endeavor would certainly fail. The basis of governance is simply to create conditions where people with such differing standards may cooperate with reasonable efficiency. One may evaluate a system of governance only by pragmatic stadards.

A displine (such as medicine or engineering) creates a terminology to efficiently disambiguate distinct but closely related phenomena (e.g. “ulna” and “radius” rather than “the front/back bone in the forward section of the arm”) and to create terms without complicated and often contradictory emotional connotations usually associated with more common terms. A vocabulary may be a considered a terminology if it exhibits these effects; if it does not, it is often just doublespeak and obfuscation.

When a person “defines” abortion as murder, he or she does not define a terminology. He or she is trying to associate a set of connotations, rather than disassociate then. Such an endeavor is often legitimate: We are emotional beings and political and social discourse concerns itself with emotions as well as facts. However, when one tries to associate emotional connotations with a specific object or condition, it is disingenous to claim that they are merely defining a terminology for purely rational discourse.

Yes, I can spell “discipline” correctly.

Hello Joe Malik. I’m tempted to take that sentence as a sig line! :slight_smile:

Welcome to the SDMB.

Excellent post, Joe Malik. Just to get this straight, I’m assuming that that piece about terminology was directed at the use of the word coercion where consent is what’s meant.

Liberalism in a pragmatic sense:

1 - Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives opposed the movement. While Libertarians may have been against government-imposed segregation, would they have opposed segregation in a restaurant, for instance?
2 - Liberals constantly fight against encroaching government interference in the areas of speech, religion (including the religion-based attempt to stop abortion, as blatant an attempt to legislate a religious doctrine as ever there was), property (improper searches and seizures), and the person. (ditto with property, with such additions as the Miranda decision.) I have never been able to figure out where anyone gets the idea that liberals are a friend to “big government”, or why modern liberalism would not meet that Merriam-Webster definition quoted by Libertarian. In every one of these areas, by contrast, we have conservatives attempting to inject government control, by restricting objectionable speech (the proposed Constitutional Amendment against flag burning), injecting religion everywhere (abortion, “Creation Science”, prayer in public schools), condoning warrantless searches of property and people, and fighting Miranda and habeas corpus at every opportunity.
In all of these areas liberalism attempts to prevent government coercion against a person and his property.