Page 5 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next


What is your overall political outlook?
Nihilist 6%  6%  [ 2 ]
Anarchist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Libertarian 15%  15%  [ 5 ]
Theocrat 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Fascist 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
MAGA 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Royalist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Reactionary 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Conservative 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Democrat 9%  9%  [ 3 ]
Liberal 21%  21%  [ 7 ]
Socialist 12%  12%  [ 4 ]
Communist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Apatheist 3%  3%  [ 1 ]
Other (specify in comment) 24%  24%  [ 8 ]
Total votes : 33

Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

05 Feb 2023, 10:09 am

Liberal in Europe means Classical Liberal, the original meaning of the term. I know that in Israel it means the same. Apparently in Australia as well. Also apparently in Canada it's used in the same sence as in the U.S.
In Europe we don't use the Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy as we use Left vs Right. A liberal is a center-right wing person as is a conservative in the U.S. Also Modern Liberalism in the U.S. is a development of Classical Liberalism. So, liberalism in the U.S. is still capitalism loving classical Liberalism but with some societal concerns. It is not Social-democratic. Being a Modern Liberal and a social-democrat are two different things, although they look alike and overlap.



stratozyck
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 28 Jun 2022
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 366
Location: US

05 Feb 2023, 10:15 am

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Why do you think the government should be allowed to make it a crime for me to live off the land way out in the boonies in Texas on a 10,000 acre ranch off the grid as long as I aint hurting nobody.I just dont know what legit purpose that would serve.


Read what I said again. I never said it should, I said it can. And it most definitely can. All governments have the monopoly right to decide what is allowed and not. The idea of owning a 10k acre ranch is akin to winning the lottery for most so really not a useful counter point. But the government most definitely has that right to tell you what you can do with that land.

I never said specifically it should prohibit you from living off of it, merely that it has that right.

For the typical citizen born into this country, living off the land is not an option. All the land is owned by someone at this point. People who are living off land they do not own are almost certainly doing it illegally. As soon as that option is off the table, we are forced to participate in society. If we are forced to participate in society, that society only deserves our potential blood sacrifice if it at least tries to give us a decent chance at happiness.

If a society doesn't deserve its citizens blood sacrifice, it is a weak society that will fall at some point, either internally or externally.

What I said was "You cannot simply decide to live off the land in a state - the state can and does deny you that right. Even if you own the land, the state can and does tell you what you can do with it." Even if you are living off the land, the state is allowing it and that right can be taken away at any moment. Look up the list of Russian and Chinese businessmen who forgot that and are now dead/under arrest/disappeared.

I mean nothing more and nothing less than what I said, and I never said the government should prohibit you from living off the land. Please, do not do the "this person said X, so they must mean Y" thing. That is all too common on the internet.

Finally, I would say if you did own 10k acres of land in the US, you got that because the Federal government kicked killed off the natives for you. They stole it and you bought the stolen property. Its not illegal for a government to steal land, even if its immoral. Its legal because they have the monopoly on deciding whats legal.



Last edited by stratozyck on 05 Feb 2023, 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

05 Feb 2023, 10:23 am

stratozyck wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:

Why do you think the government should be allowed to make it a crime for me to live off the land way out in the boonies in Texas on a 10,000 acre ranch off the grid as long as I aint hurting nobody.I just dont know what legit purpose that would serve.


Read what I said again. I never said it should, I said it can. And it most definitely can. All governments have the monopoly right to decide what is allowed and not. The idea of owning a 10k acre ranch is akin to winning the lottery for most so really not a useful counter point. But the government most definitely has that right to tell you what you can do with that land.

I never said specifically it should prohibit you from living off of it, merely that it has that right.

For the typical citizen born into this country, living off the land is not an option. All the land is owned by someone at this point. People who are living off land they do not own are almost certainly doing it illegally. As soon as that option is off the table, we are forced to participate in society. If we are forced to participate in society, that society only deserves our potential blood sacrifice if it at least tries to give us a decent chance at happiness.

If a society doesn't deserve its citizens blood sacrifice, it is a weak society that will fall at some point, either internally or externally.

What I said was "You cannot simply decide to live off the land in a state - the state can and does deny you that right. Even if you own the land, the state can and does tell you what you can do with it." Even if you are living off the land, the state is allowing it and that right can be taken away at any moment. Look up the list of Russian and Chinese businessmen who forgot that and are now dead/under arrest/disappeared.

I mean nothing more and nothing less than what I said, and I never said the government should prohibit you from living off the land. Please, do not do the "this person said X, so they must mean Y" thing. That is all too common on the internet.


Sounds like fascism.



stratozyck
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 28 Jun 2022
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 366
Location: US

05 Feb 2023, 10:30 am

Texasmoneyman300 wrote:


Sounds like fascism.


Its FDR. FDR was a leftist nationalist.

Fascism often has an ethnic component and I do not believe ethnicity matters. Fascists tend to be pro corporation and I am not. All that matters is the citizens willingness to defend the state if need be. If someone is willing to do that or have their kids do that, then they are a citizen. It doesn't have to be just military service, it can be paying your taxes.

In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now.

A fascist wants a strong military to advance the country's borders. A leftist nationalist wants a strong military to advance the countries' values. FDR and Truman again was that and not trying to expand our borders.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,224
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 Feb 2023, 11:18 am

stratozyck wrote:
Texasmoneyman300 wrote:
In the US we are united by a value system and not ethnicity. Our value system is freedom to pursue happiness and representation by a government that is of us and for us. We do not have that now.

A fascist wants a strong military to advance the country's borders. A leftist nationalist wants a strong military to advance the countries' values. FDR and Truman again was that and not trying to expand our borders.

You're saying that in the 30s and 40s the US value system was in effect but now it isn't? What changed and when?


_________________
My WP story


Last edited by MaxE on 05 Feb 2023, 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,224
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 Feb 2023, 11:25 am

Dengashinobi wrote:
Liberal in Europe means Classical Liberal, the original meaning of the term. I know that in Israel it means the same. Apparently in Australia as well. Also apparently in Canada it's used in the same sence as in the U.S.
In Europe we don't use the Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy as we use Left vs Right. A liberal is a center-right wing person as is a conservative in the U.S. Also Modern Liberalism in the U.S. is a development of Classical Liberalism. So, liberalism in the U.S. is still capitalism loving classical Liberalism but with some societal concerns. It is not Social-democratic. Being a Modern Liberal and a social-democrat are two different things, although they look alike and overlap.

Yeah I said this before, in Europe it's usually Left vs. Right. I doubt the average person one encounters on a European Street could tell you what Classical Liberalism is, so for the purpose of this poll I will assume that the US and Canadian definition is intended.

It occurs to me that the way Liberal in the US is used may have something to do with the fact that the US has been an affluent society for a long time. The political dialog is different in the US from most of the world in which most people have lived in poverty for much of history. So for example, whether one thinks one is paying too much in taxes is a bigger concern than whether one knows where one's next meal is coming from. In the latter sort of society the Left vs. Right dichotomy is typical.


_________________
My WP story


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,120
Location: Outter Quadrant

05 Feb 2023, 11:33 am

??. Bioptic Isolationism ??? 8O


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


stratozyck
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

Joined: 28 Jun 2022
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 366
Location: US

05 Feb 2023, 11:36 am

kraftiekortie wrote:
I tend to be microcosmic in my outlook, rather than macrocosmic.

My politics reflects (mostly) my immediate needs, which should be met without stepping on people’s toes. Or anybody stepping over mine.

MAGA-type fascistic, Big Brother ideology goes totally against my grain; the trend towards Dear Leader worship throughout the world is troubling.

European-style Social Democracy is the way to go with me.

I believe pragmatism and adaptation to actual conditions in my immediate environment is much better than an abstract/ideological stance.

I’m probably more a “world citizen” advocate than a patriot/nationalist….though I’m a staunch believer in the maintenance of individual ethnic traditions, though always within a framework of universal values.

I can totally understand the desire for people to find a situation where they would have an opportunity to be economically viable. There is justification for people, say, migrating from Syria seeking a better life in a place like France. This is exactly what my ancestors did when they migrated out of Russia to come into the United States. Most anti-immigrant sentiment reeks of hypocrisy.


I have seen many of your posts/comments and generally agree.

However in my view, the main failure of European style mindset was exposed in the invasion of Ukraine. Europe doesn't have the will or ability to defend its values on the battlefield. Ultimately, that matters.

The problem with global citizen concepts is most of the world sucks. A majority of the world holds views that we find abhorrent in the West. A majority of the world does not support LGBT rights. A majority of the world does not support women in leadership. Even democratic India has problems with women & persecutes non Hindus. They are recently persecuting Christians. Most world governments are tin pot dictators and rob their own people blind.

You can't expect Joe Six pack to risk their life for the world. The country is the largest political entity in which you can reasonably expect someone to risk their life to defend. If it can't be defended, it will be destroyed in time. If people don't see a positive connection to the state, it shows up in things like decreased birth rates and misery deaths (suicide and drug overdoses). The young in America today aren't having as many kids because the state isn't ensuring that its citizens can propagate without undue financial stress. That is a major problem and while it doesn't collapse a state, it lessens its power over time on the world stage.

What ultimately happens when a state that can't propagate its values is next to one that can is the state that can takes the land. At that point it doesn't matter how much socialized medicine you have or any other freedoms.

By the end of Rome, the common citizen saw no reason to defend it. Many actually preferred the invaders. Rome falling was thus a good thing because the state failed to maintain a society in which people were willing to defend it. The states that gained permanence in Europe after Rome's fall tended to be the ones in which they could get common people to defend it - and that took centuries before stable states came about.



kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Feb 2023, 3:20 pm

In the 30s and 40s, a significant portion of the population……yes, American citizens…..didn’t have the full rights and opportunities of citizenship, merely because of the color of their skin, ethnicity, or religion.

We don’t want to go back to that situation.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

05 Feb 2023, 3:30 pm

stratozyck wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
I tend to be microcosmic in my outlook, rather than macrocosmic.

My politics reflects (mostly) my immediate needs, which should be met without stepping on people’s toes. Or anybody stepping over mine.

MAGA-type fascistic, Big Brother ideology goes totally against my grain; the trend towards Dear Leader worship throughout the world is troubling.

European-style Social Democracy is the way to go with me.

I believe pragmatism and adaptation to actual conditions in my immediate environment is much better than an abstract/ideological stance.

I’m probably more a “world citizen” advocate than a patriot/nationalist….though I’m a staunch believer in the maintenance of individual ethnic traditions, though always within a framework of universal values.

I can totally understand the desire for people to find a situation where they would have an opportunity to be economically viable. There is justification for people, say, migrating from Syria seeking a better life in a place like France. This is exactly what my ancestors did when they migrated out of Russia to come into the United States. Most anti-immigrant sentiment reeks of hypocrisy.


I have seen many of your posts/comments and generally agree.

However in my view, the main failure of European style mindset was exposed in the invasion of Ukraine. Europe doesn't have the will or ability to defend its values on the battlefield. Ultimately, that matters.

The problem with global citizen concepts is most of the world sucks. A majority of the world holds views that we find abhorrent in the West. A majority of the world does not support LGBT rights. A majority of the world does not support women in leadership. Even democratic India has problems with women & persecutes non Hindus. They are recently persecuting Christians. Most world governments are tin pot dictators and rob their own people blind.

You can't expect Joe Six pack to risk their life for the world. The country is the largest political entity in which you can reasonably expect someone to risk their life to defend. If it can't be defended, it will be destroyed in time. If people don't see a positive connection to the state, it shows up in things like decreased birth rates and misery deaths (suicide and drug overdoses). The young in America today aren't having as many kids because the state isn't ensuring that its citizens can propagate without undue financial stress. That is a major problem and while it doesn't collapse a state, it lessens its power over time on the world stage.

What ultimately happens when a state that can't propagate its values is next to one that can is the state that can takes the land. At that point it doesn't matter how much socialized medicine you have or any other freedoms.

By the end of Rome, the common citizen saw no reason to defend it. Many actually preferred the invaders. Rome falling was thus a good thing because the state failed to maintain a society in which people were willing to defend it. The states that gained permanence in Europe after Rome's fall tended to be the ones in which they could get common people to defend it - and that took centuries before stable states came about.


All I know is that:

socialism+nationalism=fascism

You can argue for the contrary but that is what it is. I have little respect for FDR, the closest the U.S. has ever come to a dictator.



Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,120
Location: Outter Quadrant

05 Feb 2023, 3:47 pm

from above:
about.


All I know is that:

socialism+nationalism=fascism

You can argue for the contrary but that is what it is. I have little respect for FDR, the closest the U.S. has ever come to a dictator.
about.


All I know is that:

socialism+nationalism=fascism

So if my country is big on social welfare programs and Other people in higher offices promote their country ? Strongly ,,, Does that equal Fascism ?


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

05 Feb 2023, 3:49 pm

Social welfare programs are not socialistic if they are implemented within an otherwise capitalistic-oriented society.

Norway is a primarily capitalist country with many social welfare programs.



Dengashinobi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2022
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 598

05 Feb 2023, 4:09 pm

MaxE wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Liberal in Europe means Classical Liberal, the original meaning of the term. I know that in Israel it means the same. Apparently in Australia as well. Also apparently in Canada it's used in the same sence as in the U.S.
In Europe we don't use the Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy as we use Left vs Right. A liberal is a center-right wing person as is a conservative in the U.S. Also Modern Liberalism in the U.S. is a development of Classical Liberalism. So, liberalism in the U.S. is still capitalism loving classical Liberalism but with some societal concerns. It is not Social-democratic. Being a Modern Liberal and a social-democrat are two different things, although they look alike and overlap.

Yeah I said this before, in Europe it's usually Left vs. Right. I doubt the average person one encounters on a European Street could tell you what Classical Liberalism is, so for the purpose of this poll I will assume that the US and Canadian definition is intended.

It occurs to me that the way Liberal in the US is used may have something to do with the fact that the US has been an affluent society for a long time. The political dialog is different in the US from most of the world in which most people have lived in poverty for much of history. So for example, whether one thinks one is paying too much in taxes is a bigger concern than whether one knows where one's next meal is coming from. In the latter sort of society the Left vs. Right dichotomy is typical.


Yes, the average person in Europe doesn't have a clue what Liberal means and if they do, they assume that it means socially liberal a.k.a in support of gay rights, women's sexual liberty etc as opposed to socially conservative. In the political discourse though Liberal means Classical Liberal.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

05 Feb 2023, 4:32 pm

Dengashinobi wrote:
Honey69 wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Originally the term Liberalism ment what today in America call Libertarianism. In Europe we still call it Liberalism, or Classical Liberalism in order to differentiate it from Social or Modern Liberalism, which in America is called simply Liberalism. Modern Liberalism has it's roots in Classical Liberalism. Modern Liberals are the Democrats, Classical Liberals are the Republicans.


In the United States, thanks largely to the highly successful efforts of Rupert Murdoch, the term "Conservative" has become a euphemism for a "sh***y Person." The term "Liberal" is hurled as an insult, by people who fancy themselves "Conservative", against people whom they deem insufficiently "sh***y." We don't really get any more nuanced than that.


"S****y" is a rather personal assessment based on emotion. Conservatism in the U.S. is Classical Liberal. According to Bertrard Russell, Noam Chomsky's idol, Classical Liberalism has been historically preserved in it's purest form by the Rebublican party.

Bertrand Russell died in 1970, when Nelson Rockefeller was still governor of New York, so I wouldn't trust his assessment of the Republican Party over 50 years later!
MaxE wrote:
Dengashinobi wrote:
Liberal in Europe means Classical Liberal, the original meaning of the term. I know that in Israel it means the same. Apparently in Australia as well. Also apparently in Canada it's used in the same sence as in the U.S.
In Europe we don't use the Liberal vs Conservative dichotomy as we use Left vs Right. A liberal is a center-right wing person as is a conservative in the U.S. Also Modern Liberalism in the U.S. is a development of Classical Liberalism. So, liberalism in the U.S. is still capitalism loving classical Liberalism but with some societal concerns. It is not Social-democratic. Being a Modern Liberal and a social-democrat are two different things, although they look alike and overlap.

Yeah I said this before, in Europe it's usually Left vs. Right. I doubt the average person one encounters on a European Street could tell you what Classical Liberalism is, so for the purpose of this poll I will assume that the US and Canadian definition is intended.

It occurs to me that the way Liberal in the US is used may have something to do with the fact that the US has been an affluent society for a long time. The political dialog is different in the US from most of the world in which most people have lived in poverty for much of history. So for example, whether one thinks one is paying too much in taxes is a bigger concern than whether one knows where one's next meal is coming from. In the latter sort of society the Left vs. Right dichotomy is typical.

You're both equally right, in my view.

"Europe" is a diverse place. There are countries with strong liberal parties, often as part of a multi-party parliament, such as Germany's FDP and the Netherlands' VVD and D66. There are countries without a major liberal party, like France and Italy (LREM in France is close but is probably better understood as centrist) as well as Ireland. I think generally it's harder for liberal parties in Eastern Europe, except in Estonia and Latvia where they are the dominant parties. In Poland and Hungary, every vaguely sensible party seems to have formed a grand coalition to try to defeat the ultra-conservative, fascist-leaning ruling parties.

Norway's traditional big parties are called "left" (Venstre) and "right" (Hoyre). "Left" is a liberal party, while "right" is a conservative-liberal party. In recent decades, "left" has been outflanked by parties like Labour, who are social democratic.

In countries like Germany, Netherlands, or Belgium, people (at least those with an interest in political affairs) know what liberalism is. They probably don't always think it aligns with Dengashinobi's definition, which is useful and has its place but is not universal or "correct" (no definition is truly correct). The political systems there encourage a variety of diverse viewpoints rather than "two sides". In the Netherlands, there is VVD, who are quite conservative by liberal standards, as well as D66, who are quite left-wing by liberal standards (well to the left of Norway's Venstre for example).

In the UK we have the Liberal Democrats, but our electoral system forces them to try to concentrate their support in certain seats, which means the party lacks the ideological rigour of the FDP. Activists often get very involved in lively policy debates, but when it comes to campaigning time, that all goes out the window in the quest for target seats.

The theory about prosperity, I'm not sure holds water. Western Europe has been prosperous for longer than the US. I'm also not sure how that would change perceptions of "liberalism" specifically.



MaxE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Sep 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,224
Location: Mid-Atlantic US

05 Feb 2023, 4:48 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
The theory about prosperity, I'm not sure holds water. Western Europe has been prosperous for longer than the US. I'm also not sure how that would change perceptions of "liberalism" specifically.

This is rather surprising as my first exposure to Western Europe (taking France as example) happened when those countries were still recovering from WWII. The US actually benefited economically from the war whereas it devastated countries in Europe (in particular Britain to be honest). Ironically Germany was arguably an exception, but at that time we were told that Europeans resented the comfort in which Americans were understood to live, having done little to deserve it. This was more true in some countries than others, but in France in particular there seemed to be a great deal of resentment of this sort in the 60s and 70s.

Looking farther back in history, I would be surprised to learn that Western Europe was more prosperous 100 years or so ago. I mean that's when the Lost Generation hung out in Paris because they could sleep and eat so cheaply there compared to the US and I would assume the average Parisian wasn't out partying all night like Ernest Hemingway and his posse. Not to mention Germany with its hyperinflation. I am not contradicting you I just never got that impression and would be quite open to statistics that support what you said.

I mean in general Left parties were major players in the political scene of those countries because workers felt exploited and open to Marxist theory about ownership of the means of production, whereas once American factory workers unionized they weren't the least attracted to ideas that would be considered Leftist in Europe. Again, depends on which country one has in mind, but I can recall hearing that Europeans were puzzled by the apparent conservatism of American blue collar workers.


_________________
My WP story


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,605
Location: the island of defective toy santas

05 Feb 2023, 4:56 pm

scandinavian "third way."