The part I quoted. I don’t believe that “Guns are essential in an unfair world,” nor that guns are “harmful in a fair world,” and haven’t seen evidence to support either assertion.
There’s one rather obvious claim that liberalism can make which other countries can’t. All first-world countries (i.e. those which are prosperous, safe, and technologically advanced) could reasonably be described as being based on a liberal philosophy, as can almost all successful second-world and third-world countries. That’s what I call results. Competing philosophies can claim to be results-oriented, but they can’t offer results like that.
I might well agree with this assertion but I don’t see how it’s relevant to this thread, since liberalism isn’t an ideology. Liberalism is a philosophy, meaning “a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs”. Look it up if you don’t believe me.
Oh, really? How, exactly, does one define “liberal philosophy” to make this statement true?
In my opinion, one of the fundamental assumptions of modern day liberal thought is that people are equal.
Modern day liberals like to believe that a criminal is an otherwise honest person who fell into bad circumstances. They want to believe in Jean Valjean – take a poor person, give him some silver candlesticks, and he can be a big success.
I think that the liberal view of gun control; taxation; civil rights; crime and punishment (including capital punishment); and so forth are informed in large part by this philosophy.
Keep in mind that capitalism is a conservative philosophy (if you want to call it that). The liberal side has the naive notion of communism and full economic equality. Which one of your prosperous, safe and technologically advance nations are communist?
Now I grant that we don’t have pure capitalism like conservatism would want, but our economic system is more conservative than it is liberal.
If a country believes in a philosophy it becomes an ideology.
Here is what I get for ideology:
- The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
- A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
I’m a communist? Wow, I had no idea, being naive, and all. Thanks for the info!
I think if you look at historical liberalism and historical conservatism and their opinions on capitalism you might not be so sure about that.
If you hold extremely liberal views on economics then yes. Just because you hold one conservative view doesn’t make you a conservative, but a free market without government interference is a conservative view.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, a “free market”. Where the money flows, the hounds catch the scent. Even where government consisted of nothing more than one retarded proto-Habsburb and six poxed henchmen…the market is under their control. Tighty righties consistently tout the magic of an institution that is pure vaporware, with no more practical reality than a Marxist’s “workers paradise”. Take most intransigent social problems, sprinkle some free market pixie dust on it and poof! A miracle. All that need be done is to unleash the exuberant beast, the free market, and cornucopias will spring from the earth.
And these men think themselves sober, hard-headed and realistic, especially towards naive wooly thinkers such as my ilk, with our insistence that, no, gobbling up the planet to produce loud, shiny crap is not A Good Plan. These are men who would rather make money than breathe. Often, they ponder deeper questions, like how it is the Free Market allows bad things to happen to rich people.
Ain’t no such thing. Never was, and ain’t likely.
Of course, but the system we have now is closer to the conservative side, no?
No - its probably much closer to classical liberalism than other schools of economic thought.