This is Why Liberalism Always Results in Loss of Freedom - The Full Explanation

Maybe you should learn what the terms mean?

They were opposed to the status quo. They were for freedom. They were against the Crown. Etc, etc, etc. They were all radical ideas at the time. You're the one trying to rewrite history to try and make them conservative right wingers. Left and Right wing came about not long after the American Revolution during the French Revolution. It meant those opposed to the Monarchy/Nobility. Gee, sounds like what?

 

So you're using the faulty definition of liberalism and conservatism to define liberals.

 

No, I'm using the actual definitions. Somehow Americans got confused and think that what is left wing, right wing, liberal, conservative are static and what is left wing, etc today will be left wing tomorrow.

This is what leads right wing Americans to claim that the Nazis were left wing communists because they don't get it.

 

Okay, I'll bite.

What do you claim to be the actual definition of liberal?

 

There's more than one definition because that's how language works.

One that supports freedom. One that is opposed to the status quo. One that is for progression.

 

That is the faulty definition.

Because it goes something like this:

A liberal is for change and a conservative is for the status quo.

And the reason why it is faulty is this:

When the liberal gets the change they want, they want to keep that change the status quo and will fight any other attempts to change it.

Therefore they then cease to be liberal and become conservatives.

And it's also faulty because conservatives are not against change.

And liberals always like to use the term progressive but they never fully define what they wamt to progress too.

 

So basically you just proved some of my points about what is left and right isn't static. Yes, today's liberals can become tomorrow's conservatives because they get the change they want and then they want to stop further change. Others though want to keep bringing in more and more change. None of that stops them from being left wing/liberal while they were fighting for change.

 

I never claimed they were static.

Things change. Socie3ty changes. Social beliefs and attitude changes over time.

Because belief and opinion can be manipulated and influence over time.

 

But you can't claim that someone from the past was a right winger/conservative because even though they were fighting to get those changes today they are conservative values. They were still left wing/liberal values at the time they were for them.

 

The framers were libertarian, basically classical liberals, a far cry from modern liberal progressives who can be more closely associated with Marxism and put a high value on central control. Progressive doesn't mean progress, it means change. Not all change is for the better.

 

So you apply today's standards to history, disregard what standards were in history, and lament someone trying to rewrite history? Very Orwellian of you.

 

I agree with what you are saying, but you are also contradicting yourself within your post. When you say "the feminists are going to hate the "man up" statement", you're alreadypre-judging that anyone, particularly a feminist, would say that. To my knowledge, this is not a current issue. I certainly have not heard any feminists as of late nit-picking at that level, at least not within the last 20 to 30 years.

However, the OP has, as well as many others on here, continue to project their distorted visions of what a liberal is, or is not. The funny thing is I just don't see those in the center, or the left, subscribe to the same dogmatic echo chamber as those on the right.

So, if you're okay with gay marriage, or don't give a damn about what others do in their private lives...then good for you, but just keep in mind that there is a pack of right wing pundits who do vociferously wave these issues like a flag.

 

Yes. National socialism was and is socialism. Why do you believe that because Hitler murdered his opposition that makes him any less of a national socialist? Did that make him any less of an authoritarian socialist? No. Of course not.

Stop reading left wing blogs....blah, blah, blah...

 

Actually liberals can't be defined. So few are alike or so few liberal agendas are alike. They group together under a single banner "Liberals" in order to utilize the dynamic of 'strength in numbers'. They support each others agendas only because in order to present a sense of cohesiveness they are forced to. Sort of like; if you want membership in the club, you must obey it's by-laws.
Do 'tree huggers' really give a **** about social injustice? Do pro-abortionists loose any sleep over the plight of illegal immigrants? Does the 'legalize marijuana crowd' march against Wall Street? Maybe a few in all categories do, but generally the concern and energy goes to 'their favorite cause'. If the country were to somehow 'convert to liberalism' (which it never can, again, because there is no such thing) Then you'd see the 'club' start to fall apart as those with their 'favorite cause' would be at odds and battling for supremacy over all those other 'favorite causes'.

 

I don't think you understood a single (*)(*)(*)(*)ing word you used.

 

Authoritarian statists continue to be authoritarian statists no matter what label you put on then. National socialists continue to be national socialists no matter how many reasons you give for why you want them to be right wing zealots. They never were right wing. There were national socialists. They adjusted their tactics as all authoritarian statists do.

Our authoritarian statists in the US do the same thing. Some of them call themselves Progressives and worship fake science to justify an all powerful state to combat "Global Warming". Some are fascists who will use the EPA to deindustrialize the US. Some are Marxists who will take from the people who produce wealth to give to others who do nothing but vote for Democrats. Some are liberals who just go along because it helps them feel...All are statists who place primacy of the state over individual liberty and freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

Cool. I am sure you read that somewhere. Have you ever had an original thought?

 

LOL. Sure. Wrap it up. If one is liberal one believes that groups and the state are more important than individual liberty and freedom.

 

No, that is not the definition. The NSDAP was right wing conservative and believed that the state was more important than the individual. The state being more important than the individual was the norm throughout history and thus was very much a conservative view.

 

^This is a common cop out that is rarely if ever backed by anything substantial. Because people frequently become unwittingly socially conditioned against conservatism through their environment. So when they say things like this, it is typically an autopilot response. If you think your argument is different, feel free to plead your case. But I've already got plenty of evidence to the contrary cued up and ready to go.

 

No that would be y6ou.

And you just lost the entire discussion because of your crap insult.

Screw you.

 

While for the most part I agree there should be freedom of speech, however there are certain things that have such negative connotations / associations for the victim that it essentially becomes a form of bullying / racism. Yes it is all fine to say the other person is sensitive but certain things affect societies as a whole and need to be restricted for the common well being of society as a whole.

No actually PC applies only to a handful of things. Moreover, if a group of people hold something sacred or grievous to them, there is no harm implementing PC since its restriction does not negatively affect any one else. If you use the n word, it grievously hurts a large group of people but not saying the word does not negatively affect you in any way, then it makes sense to restrict the use for a more harmonious society.
Although the bible is not a political document, however, this is in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

When it comes to freedom etc, it is conservatives who are the ones more often advocating for restricting freedom of religion among other things.

On the contrary, not saying the n word does NOT rob you of any joy. However, using it DOES robs the joy in life of a large group of people. And that is why PC exists.

As I said, PC does not apply to all instances but only very specific limited conditions only.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with this particular issue do you believe that a few rebels in black robes should have the authority to decide any issue for all of us? Why, in your opinion, when the people vote and render their judgment, should a couple of people overturn the votes of millions?

These kinds of issues should be decided by the people or the legislatures.

With these decisions I believe we have seen the end of federalism. We are all worse off for it. If we are unable to have an article V convention of states I believe this will mark the end of liberty in this country.

 

Unifier has a habit of "hit and run" posting.....i.e. doing an OP...maybe one response...and then never returning to actually debate his OP....but I'll ask my question of him or any who think like him....it's quite a simple question-


In the last 100+ years of American history....has the US become more liberal or more conservative?

 

You really don't understand how America works.

America is not a tyranny.

Stop the hyperbole.

 

We can disagree. Your view is one more reason why I believe we need to rethink how we think about our differences. One one side is authoritarian statism. It goes by many names. Progressive, liberal, fascist, national socialist, international socialist, and in your opinion, conservative.

On the other side are those of us who believe that individual liberty and freedom protected by the state is the highest good.

All of the authoritarianisms glorify the state at the expense of the individual.

You are right that the history of mankind has been a history of state tyranny in many different disguises.