Liberal Aspies

Post Reply New Topic

I am "liberal" in the sense that virtually all heirs to Western civilization are liberal- I support civil liberties, freedom of religion, individual rights, and generally free markets. The only people in the modern West who are not "liberal" in the broad sense are far-left socialists like Dent (they oppose free markets) and right-wing quasi-fascists like Jacoby (they oppose civil liberties).

Out of curiosity, are Democratic Socialists (like Sir Eric Arthur Blair) and left libertarian like mutualists (who support markets, albeit in a highly idiosyncratic ways) liberal or illiberal? For that matter, where do you classify Chomsky on the liberal-illiberal spectrum?

For me, DentArthurDent is more of an Orthodox Lenninist than a (democratic or ultraleft) socialist.

Most small "l" libertarians are not anarchists. They are minarchists. The believe in small limited government.

ruveyn

Considering what is going on in the USA today I cannot imagine a more limited government. Size, of course, makes some difference.

Liberal in a sense that we could do much better than the liberalism I'm seeing today.

I'd call that progressive, which I put further left than liberal in my mental conception of the political spectrum. A liberal, on the other hand, can fit quite comfortably in the traditional hierarchy of the Democratic Party, academia, organized religion, government agency, or even a for-profit corporation. What distinguishes them from a status-quo conservative then is a stronger belief in civil liberties and support for some kind of social welfare for the less fortunate.

On the other hand, contemporary U.S. progressivism blends with social democracy in Europe, the environmental movement, and the gay-rights movement.

Left libertarianism would be pretty much extreme liberalism, and that would include libertarian socialists like Noam Chomsky. Authoritarian brands of socialism, though, are clearly illiberal (this means anything derived from the Marxist-Leninist tradition).

George Orwell's opposition to totalitarianism clearly puts him in the liberal camp, at least in a broad sense.

Anarchism doesn't mean chaos. Although not every libertarian is an anarchist, anyway.

This is Anarchism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_Catalonia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Revolution


You have to take in mind the Marx and Lenin lived in times were there was no liberalism at all.
The dictatorship of the proletariat was supposed to be a transitional stage towards communism, which is anarchism. It was not even supposed to be a one-man dictatorship. Actually, the Soviet Union never got to communism.
As Karl Marx himself said:

Engels explained:

Anyways, there were some anarcho-communists who predicted this Marxist-Leninist failure, like Bakunin:

Eric Blair was definitely a liberal- characterized by opposition to totalitarianism, as NeantHumain said. Left libertarians like Chomsky are definitely opposed to totalitarianism and supportive of civil liberties; this is probably the most important component of liberalism.


Nah. He's not bloodthirsty enough to be a Leninist—he even wants a nonviolent revolution.

yes, liberal for america [but in canada i would be considered a conservative].

univeral health care for all CITIZENS- YES!! !! !! !! !!
universal no-fault auto insurance? yes!
proportional run-off voting? yes!
uniform national school funding? yes!
reformed immigration laws? yes!
federal school textbook standards? yes!
federal school curriculum guidelines? yes!
greatly stiffened antitrust laws? yes!
reform of our ridiculous copyright laws? yes!
strict regulation of banks/wall street? yes!
gun control? HELL NO!! !! !

ok, so i'm inconsistent;+)

I am certainly opposed to totalitarianism and supportive of civil liberties. But another big reason I'm liberal is because of bad church experiences, many with people who were highly conservative, and the sense of having the agendas of others forced on me. About the church issue, a friend said yesterday that people who have been at one extreme tend to swing to the other extreme. This has happened with me. Another big reason is my sense of Asperger's and autism rights, and having developed a better sense of equality and anti-discrimination stuff.

Not true. Most small "l" libertarians I know want a smaller government. Minarchist would be the word.

ruveyn

I'm "liberal", but I think in the US it has a different meaning. I'd vote conservative there.

Libertarian as well, for more control of my own money and life while still maintaining FULL social order.

I am both a "small l" and a "capital L" liberal.

Socially, I consider myself a progressive, valuing diversity and individual liberties.

Economically, I am a neo-Keynesian. I see an important role for the public sector in regulating the economy, as well as resolving aggregate demand failures, but I generally oppose non-competitive or monopolistic public sector participation in the marketplace.

Have you noticed that the old Keynsian Snake Oil is not working in the American economy?

The politicians are only half-Keynsian. Keynes also said the the money that was created to pump up the economy during slack times had to be redeemed by productive increases when the economy was chugging along. All that government debt has to be repaid when the economy is able to permit such repayment. The politicians only signed on to the part where they created money out of thin air. If a private party does that, it is called counterfeiting.

ruveyn

But the Federal Reserve can only issue currency to the extent that it creates new reserves to fund the purchase of Treasury instruments. Since every single dollar in circulation has been used to purchase government debt, the model is inherently redemptive.

Now, it is a political question whether or not Congress and the Administration choose to redeem government debt, and at what rate--but the fact of the matter is that new money is not created out of thin air, it is created out of the debt obligations of the government, which are perfectly real assets to the holders of those obligations.