Somehow, I don’t think that “Harder! Faster! More!” fits “the dictatorship of the proletariat”, even as they most assuredly control the “means of production”.
However, we certainly have the key to reversing SA’s political polarity, if we can find a volunteer…
Pleasepleaseplease don’t get him started again.
Thanks. I vaguely remember HW, but don’t have any recall of what his posting style/content was. The new and unimproved version seems like someone I’ll be not paying much attention to.
Goldwater was a Liberal in the sense that **Liberal **is a Liberal.
'Course, he woulda smacked you if you called him that.
[Let’s face it - this is a hijack, but…] I’m not trying to be difficult Lib, but I’m a little uncomfortable making von Mises the final authority here.
Do you know what Locke’s position on this might be? I’m guessing that he would say that property rights were but one of a few, and that they are not the sole source of the remainder. But I admit that I probably have not read any of his original work.
Hm. It seems from wikipedia that Locke derives property rights from labor. Then again, his successors tend to emphasize the social contracting as the source of rights. [/Let’s face it - this is a hijack, but…]
I believe I explained that in quite some detail. See my post about the terms morphing and switching multiple times in American usage. “Classical liberal” and “classical conservative” give us terms that mimick the more steady usage of the terms worldwide. Goldwater was a classical liberal. And incidentally, with Obama the terms in America may well flip again.
Right. And by extension from ownership of one’s body and/or mind (whichever do/does the labor).
And they would be classical conservatives. In America, as of this writing, they would be liberals.
And you should stop acting like the pompous, long winded professor who fulminates when a student points out his fly is down.
Liberal, it may be a bit of a hijack, but I for one have learned a lot from what you posted here, and I think it’s an interesting subject, and one you are well informed on.
This is bogus. This thing about the varying definitions of the world liberal is an old chestnut for Lib. He’s fully aware of the European and American definitions of the word liberal and most intelligent readers should be able to work this one out.
Continuing the hijack, as a leftie I’m not sure why Lib wants to take ownership of this damaged brand.
William Safire (Safire’s Political Dictionary, 1978) agrees with Lib:
The modern American meaning of the word liberal was cemented during the New Deal. But until the 1960s or 1970s, liberals were understood to be opposed from both the far left and the far right.
Safire also noted: "The word has fallen on hard times. In the 1976 presidential primaries, Rep. Morris Udall told columnist David Broder: `When a word takes on connotations you don’t like, it’s time to change the label.’ Henceforth, Udall said --though he would think of himself as a liberal- he would use the word “progressive” instead because the word “liberal” was “associated with abortion, drugs, busing and big-spending wasteful government.” "
Safire’s entry is worth reading in full. Lib may even want to bookmark it (p388-89):
ETA and PS: The modern liberal philosopher John Rawls uses a social contract approach to justify a framework that is extremely egalitarian by contemporary standards.
You missed when I explained that way back when. There are certain words that have been mutilated almost beyond recognition, and I wanted there to be (1) a renewal of the classic usage and (2) some reasonable discussion about the issue and recognition of its history.
One need only check the etymology of the word to figure out what “liberal” is intended to mean. It comes from the Latin liber, meaning “freedom”. Same as the word “liberty”.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful comments and the interesting link.
You are very kind. Thank you.
The second is a legitimate goal. The first is not – especially not when you already have a perfectly serviceable and unambiguous label in “libertarian.”
In this article (discussed in this GD thread) Michael Lind defines “liberal” as follows: “Liberalism is a theory of a social order based on individual civil liberties, private property, popular sovereignty and democratic republican government.” That is not what you mean by the word – it’s close, but libertarianism does not admit the legitimacy of popular sovereignty as such.
It appears that you know even less about libertarianism than you do about liberalism.
I went through a libertarian phase when I was young(er) and (more) foolish, and I have known several libertarians intimately; I’m sure I’m not misrepresenting their views.
Bet you’ve known some Injuns, too.
Not fair, methinks. Libertarians don’t like regulation of big business, which American liberals believe to be an aspect of popular sovereignty.
More generally, there’s a tradition of concern for the downtrodden and respect for empirical inquiry that runs through Adam Smith, Ricardo, John Stuart Mill and Keynes. Today’s libertarians miss the first aspect of liberalism almost entirely and have supplanted observation with ideology over the past couple of decades.
Old school libertarians such as Milton Friedman were highly empirical, however, as are members of today’s Chicago school.
That said, I don’t agree with Michael Lind. The word “Liberal” rolls off the lips in an awkward manner and is a damaged brand. And in Europe there are meaningful distinctions between those called liberals and socialists.
Me, I just wanna be a Libertine.
Pass me that hip flask.
“Libertarian” has morphed into something pretty unrecognisable, too, though.
I believe the current definition is “overwrought former or fringe Republican who likes guns more than he dislikes gays and/or drugs.” See Bob Barr, Ron Paul, etc.
A popular misconception. Libertarians advocate strict regulation against initial force and deception, which the philosophy calls “coercion”, in all business dealings. A similar misunderstanding involves the size of government, often voiced as “Libertarians like small government”. Libertarian philosophy is not concerned with the size of government, but rather with its scope; i.e., what it involves itself in. As far as size goes, it should be however large it needs to be to suppress coercion.