1) Liberalism generally no longer exists. I WISH the Democratic Party was FULL of real Liberals!
2) Progressive and Authoritarian are one in the same. Simply add Wants to change the status quo, don't want to go back to a previous state, against or
not advocating for traditional principles accomplishes these goals "by force of law, force of government, economic force, or social shaming" to FORCE
COMPLIANCE! (or else)
3) Libertarianism - doesn't seem to exist anymore if you look at "what" they are running as their candidate.
edit on 17-8-2016 by infolurker
because: (no reason given)
I see your pushing the LP, an organization lousy with Birchers whose platform most election cycles adds up to "make America third world." Have fun
As for the OP. This is a pretty useless endeavor to begin with as political labels are words that are among the most subject to semantic change and
individual interpretation. That said, your "definitions" are frankly quite horrible imo.
Let's take a look at a few of the issues:
- Meritocracy has very little to do with liberalism.
- A better definition of a progressive would be one who seeks to guide progress through the application of science and technology to improve
the human condition.
- How is "might is right" distinctly associated with authoritarianism? It's a general theme in numerous right-wing ideologies and philosophies.
- a "pure form of liberalism" lol. How about "the right-wing's answer to communism?" Similar to communists, libertarians try to model
everything with heterodox economic axioms formulated through a disasterously flawed understanding of human behavior.
BTW, nice presentation. I would correct only one thing here that seems to be a vestige of our collectivist upbringing. That people left alone will
form dominant organizations which will use force to establish and maintain monopolies. This is not so or, I vehemently believe that it is not so.
In a free market with some form of agreed upon optimal behavioral limitations (don't steal, murder, etc.) and the freedom to defend oneself,
monopolies cannot effectively defend themselves against opposition from both their competitors and their customers. It takes the monopoly of violence
of the state to establish such an impervious market position. This is what crony capitalism is, regulatory capture.
There are some exceptions to this general rule such as geographic monopolies (diamond, etc.). However, in order for monopolies to actually cause harm,
they must be able to charge monopoly prices. Monopoly prices are the truer measure of the relatively uncompetitive state of affairs.
I am probably on the anarcho-capitalist scale for the purposes of this discussion though, in truth, I am a constitutional republican who usually finds
it most convenient to introduce myself as a libertarian.
It's all about who writes and implements what kind of laws. Like, why would I want to be a conservative as a woman. Conservatives have written 1100
laws across the US since 2014 against women and their doctors. I don't know of any laws a liberal or democrat has written targeting just one gender.
Now, if I were a gun, I would want to be a conservative. They gets lots of love.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.