Whats with the leftwing bent of Wrongplanet?

Post Reply New Topic

Democratic

I agree that liberal is used in too many different ways(curse you FDR for appropriating the term for the left-wing! ) Perhaps that is so. I don't know, as I would tend to suspect a left-leaning tendency amongst many aspies with libertarians not being too uncommon but not dominant, especially given the common idea amongst aspies to seek governmental aid for their position.


Very true. Well, most political message boards I've seen are divided between libertarians and left-wingers. I really can't say though, I do think that WP has been more left wing in the past.

'Mr. President, are you a Communist?'
''No."

'Are you a capitalist?'
'No.'

'Are you a Socialist?'
'No!' he said, with a look of surprise, as if he wondered about what he was being cross-examined.

The young man said, 'Well, what is your philosophy, then?'
'Philosophy? asked the president, puzzled. 'Philosophy? I am a Christian and a Democrat. That's all.'

Seeking government aid is not inconsistent with all schools of libertarianism, i.e., left libertarianism.



I am using "libertarian" in the broad sense of word. For instance, I would include, not only Ron Paul, but also Ralph Nader.

The founders of the country were liberals, you illiterate twit. Government "by the people, for the people" was a radically leftist idea for their time. The philosophers responsible for their ideas would be liberal even by modern standards. For example, many of the more educated elite of the day would not have objected to polygamous marriages if some arrangement could be made for them and they were in great enough number to constitute a legitimate minority population. If I recall correctly, there were at least a few who actually said so. The right-wing of their time were monarchists who were loyal to the King. The King's Men were flag-waving "patriots" who were happy to murder their own countrymen in the name of their distant ruler. They were also called "tories," which would be a much more fitting term for modern conservatives. Conservatives don't have any business in this country. They've fought against it since the get-go, and it mystifies me that we even put up with them.

Oh, but libertarians are a different story. They're deluded, but they have good intentions. I think. Just try to remember the leftist roots of your philosophy. Libertarianism is rooted deeply in liberal philosophy, and it always has been. I don't know why many people seem to think it's "right-winged." They're outright wrong, really. Even Adam Smith, the original libertarian, was a liberal philosopher, and most people either don't know or won't tell you that he was one of the earliest advocates of progressive taxation. Even today, his views would be seen as very liberal.

Of course you don't believe it. You're historically illiterate. It's easy to argue from a position of ignorance, you know. It's how Creationists can convince so many people of their stupid rubbish. They aren't constrained by facts, so they're free to make the truth up as they go along. Before you make another post, I suggest you do some actual reading on history. Actually check out a few books from a library, and act like you're really serious about enlightening yourself before you come back on here to spout your ill-researched opinions. If you don't, count on this: you WILL be ridiculed.

Ah, and I was assuming we were sticking to the American usage of the term libertarian. Really though, given that the basic defining feature of libertarianism is its dislike of government, I would say that it tends to be somewhat inconsistent. I mean, a left-libertarian who accepted that the status quo was to stay I suppose could compromise on this issue, but they typically dislike this system.


Right, I would only include Ron Paul as left-libertarianism is along the same lines as most anarchism and I don't see Ralph Nader advancing such a view very much, but perhaps I am not very familiar with his work.

Well, depending on your views of them. I agree that the idea was very leftist for the time, however, the emphasis on states rights, a non-interventionist foreign policy(not always consistently followed), and such were somewhat libertarian. That is sort of true about the right wing at the time, however, it can't be ignored the powerful religious influences in the colonies given the original desire of Massachusetts being somewhat theocratic. I say that the issue of right or left sort of depends on the founder, and things like that, but to label the right as wrong historically without distinguishing between British Tories and modern American conservatives is an issue from my view.


Hmm..., the original libertarian isn't John Locke who justified property and whose ideas include the protection of property? Frankly, I would argue that libertarianism and leftism are 2 separate philosophies that have some common roots in the Enlightenment and some figures held in common, but are ultimately separate. You know, the libertarian will assert Bastiat and Locke, and the leftist will look more towards Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, Mill may be influential to libertarians as well as leftists, but he is more of a leftist forefather than a libertarian. You are right, Adam Smith was an early proponent of progressive taxation, the reason why he is a libertarian forefather is simply because he argued for self-correcting markets, frankly, the libertarian ideology stems more from other figures who more rigorously developed the notion of the sovereign individual.

I don't see his statement as being *that* bad. I mean, I would see the thrashing being more necessary if he said that the US were a Christian nation, but to defend the conservative/libertarian grouping for the founding fathers does not seem wrong, especially given that between the Hamiltonians and the Jeffersonians, the former were rather conservative, and the latter were rather libertarian with neither really being "left" as we would typically understand it.

We have to understand what is meant by LEFTIST and if it is applicable. I would say that society then was conservative with libertarian ideals, and liberal to the idea of rights.

We aren't liberal to the idea of rights. We are libertarian to the idea of rights. If we were liberal then we'd have a lot more social insurance. Frankly, libertarians and leftists are both socially liberal and both have socially liberal aspects of their conceptions of rights, however, the former sees economic rights from an individualist standpoint and the latter sees them from a more communal standpoint and our system does hold to both, but compared to the rest of the world it is more libertarian and compared to the history of ideas it seems more libertarian.

I seemed to have forgotten what sarcasm is. Let me go look it up.

Oh, here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

sar·casm
Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date: 1550

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
synonyms see wit

You'd make a mighty fine comedian.

Maybe.

Comedian, oh no good sir, I am way way too serious for comedy. Have no sense of humor whatsoever. None. Zero. Don't even try to get me to laugh. I said don't try! Stop! STOP!! ! HA HA HA HA HA!! !!

Oh wait, that isn't comedian, that is madman, sorry.

Hi All;

Many thanks to all those who rose to my defense. Much as I would love to, I shant jump into this debate. It just fails "cost benifit analisys".

Oh, and Grif, I OWN a history library, twit.

Regards,

Adam Smith would be horrified by modern day Corporate Capitalism and it's inherent tendency towards monopolies and cartels, and would be further horrified because corporate crony apologists invoke him when they are criticized.