The Popular Misconception of "Liberal"

page: 1
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
+1 more 
posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
As the political landscape began to change in the 60's, perhaps due to the shift in emphasis from meaningful policies to being able to be popular, other things began to change as well.

Certain buzz words became the norm in US politics, and from there crept into the electoral systems of other countries.

No longer was it enough to outline policies, it became increasingly essential (especially in the information age) to be able to smear or discredit political opponents by the use of certain buzzwords, invented solely for that very purpose.

We could spend a long time going through the list of political "hate speech" but really, I would just like to focus on the most misunderstood word of all.

To some this word sends shivers of apprehension down the spine, as it allegedly denotes connotations of anti-everything hippies protesting wildly against whatever bee they have in their bonnet at a particular time, while being castigated by the "freedom loving" political brethren.

However, it is important to note one very important thing which has been lost amongst the rhetoric - Liberal comes from the latin "Liberalis" meaning literally "of freedom"

The Liberal ideal is not one of social upheaval, but is one of supporting freedom, whether that be through constitutions, human rights, capitalism, equal rights or fair trade.

The Liberal ideal is freedom for all - not for the minority who can buy it, but for absolutely everyone, within the confines of a system of social justice and societal laws.

In my opinion, this is why Liberal has become a dirty word, and why certain people in the hierarchy of world power have for so long sought to taint those who believe in these ideals.

Nothing scares TPTB more than the idea of truly free people, so we see more and more laws being passed which MAY eventually make a criminal out of every one of us, in however small a capacity.

The "right" and "left" do not share the idea that we should all have maximum freedom - the right and left both have their own agenda's which are anti-freedom in so many ways.

The only political ideology with freedom in its name and at its core is the Liberal ideology.




posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Here's the problem with "social justice":

Just because Person A is making less money than Person B does not mean that something unjust is happening. It doesnt even mean that Person A is unhappy about it. It does not mean that Person B is oppressing Person A. When Person B sells something to Person A, it does not mean that Person B is a greedy capitalist. Person A would only buy it if it benefits him too.

"Freedom and Equality for All" or the idea of utopian perfection can only come about by imposition or force, which contradicts the very idea of Freedom. Furthermore, taking from Person B and giving to Person A does not necessarily make Person A happier or more productive. Its a lose-lose situation, instead of a win-win. Its this and many other logical fallacies of Communism, Socialism and "Liberalism" (a word socialists adopted in order to mask their past errors) that make your ideas about "social justice" and "freedom for all" a wolf in sheeps clothing.
edit on 19-1-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Here's the problem with "social justice":

Just because Person A is making less money than Person B does not mean that something unjust is happening. It doesnt even mean that Person A is unhappy about it. It does not mean that Person B is oppressing Person A. When Person B sells something to Person A, it does not mean that Person B is a greedy capitalist. Person A would only buy it if it benefits him too.

"Freedom and Equality for All" or the idea of utopian perfection can only come about by imposition or force, which contradicts the very idea of Freedom. Furthermore, taking from Person B and giving to Person A does not necessarily make Person A happier or more productive. Its a loose-loose situation, instead of a win-win. Its this and many other logical fallacies of Communism, Socialism and "Liberalism" (a word socialists adopted in order to mask their past errors) that make your ideas about "social justice" and "freedom for all" a wolf in sheeps clothing.


Ok, first point - it's very true that one person making more money than another is NOT unjust, it's simply the way market forces work, and those who believe in TRUE freedom also believe in capitalism.
What we practice at the moment though, is NOT capitalism, it is Keynesian economics, and through this system we have seen the rise of hugely bloated corporations, who by dint of having more money to pay more loobyists, have effectively wiped out compettition in many respects.

Freedom and Equality do not and cannot come about by force - they come about through social and electoral reform, which is something that the present incumbents of so many countries resist at all costs - so ask yourself why they resist electoral reform so strongly.
It couldn't possibly be to preserve the status quo, so that "they" stay in power indefinitely, in one shape or another, could it?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski

It couldn't possibly be to preserve the status quo, so that "they" stay in power indefinitely, in one shape or another, could it?


Possibly. Those not doing well tend to complain about and what to change the status quo and those doing well tend to want to maintain and keep old structures. Its the classical class-conflict.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Possibly. Those not doing well tend to complain about and what to change the status quo and those doing well tend to want to maintain and keep old structures. Its the classical class-conflict.

So.. who's doing the complaining these days?



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jazzyguy

So.. who's doing the complaining these days?


Throughout History it has always been those who do not happen to be in power at any given time, to do the complaining.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Here's the problem with "social justice":

Just because Person A is making less money than Person B does not mean that something unjust is happening. It doesnt even mean that Person A is unhappy about it. It does not mean that Person B is oppressing Person A. When Person B sells something to Person A, it does not mean that Person B is a greedy capitalist. Person A would only buy it if it benefits him too.



In Utopia, this would be true. Unfortunately, we are in America, where money talks and can buy legislation to keep you on top.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   




Liberalism as discussed today has little to do with the orginal word. Classical liberalism arose from enlightenment thought, and greatly influenced the rise of modern "republican" states. Today, the liberal issues are the opposite. A huge state that interfers in every aspect of life is the polar opposite of what the original liberals of the 17th and 18th century discussed.

Even if the liberal rhetoric argues "freedom, whether that be through constitutions, human rights, capitalism, equal rights or fair trade" reality is the opposite. It is the time old technique of saying one thing, and doing the opposite.

Either way it is a dead system. Right and left are two legs of the same body. It is mechanism of control. The people are given issues, and pitted against one another. As long as your attached to liberalism or conservativism you are already doomed to a controlled paradigm, and any meaningful change is impossible.
edit on 19-1-2011 by stephinrazin because: spelling



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Liberal is a label, and it is unfortunately "defined" not by traditional definition(s) or by historical analysis. Liberal, like Conservative, is what people are led to believe they are by the ACTIONS of those that call themselves "liberal" or "conservative". They are ever changing.
Like any label, it can be put on the wrong "goods", the wrong package. Faux conservatives, wolves in sheep's clothing, may be labeled as conservatives but actually be something much different. Same with your liberals. This is a destructive tactic that destroys the cohesiveness of an ideology, and it is done on purpose, imo, by those that seek to monopolize and corrupt society for their own ends. And, coupled with the dumbing down of society at large, it is effective. Many don't know what they are, they don't see themselves as liberal OR conservative just ISOLATED and without a voice.
Everything possible will be done to dilute and render meaningless the meaning of any political ideology and any political group for that matter, unless it is controlled by the very wealthy that control how the labels are applied.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by budski

It couldn't possibly be to preserve the status quo, so that "they" stay in power indefinitely, in one shape or another, could it?


Possibly. Those not doing well tend to complain about and what to change the status quo and those doing well tend to want to maintain and keep old structures. Its the classical class-conflict.


I disagree, although not entirely.

The status quo as it stands is designed to protect the elite, i.e. those with the most power and wealth, who want to keep accumulating power and wealth, to the detriment of all others.

Since WW2, and the realisation that war makes money for the few off the backs and lives of the many, TPTB have sought to maintain a constant state of fear amongst the populace, the better to get them to accept war as a "necessity" to protect their "freedoms" when in fact all war does is oppress both sides and further enrich those at the very top of the pyramid scheme some dare to call democracy.

The frightening irony, is that those amongst the populace who support these policies seem incapable of seeing that the policies they support are the very same ones which erode the freedom they profess to aspire to.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
The status quo as it stands is designed to protect the elite, i.e. those with the most power and wealth, who want to keep accumulating power and wealth, to the detriment of all others.


This has been the view of the "commoner" (as opposed to "elite") throughout History. "Here is small me, and there is the big Elite". What Communism did was overthrow the Elite and give power to the "commoner".
The results were even worse than what was previously going on. Why? Because Hierarchies are natural to humans. "Equality"-as-sameness is unnatural. If I study medicine, then I am more qualified and have more authority to provider medicine. That is not "inequality", its meritocracy.


Originally posted by budski
The status quo as it stands is designed to protect the elite, i.e. those with the most power and wealth, who want to keep accumulating power and wealth, to the detriment of all others.


A marxists classic fallacy is that being wealthy is to the detriment of others. In realilty I can only become wealthy if I benefit others. The idea that wealth is the result of disadvantaging others is the reversal of reality.



Since WW2, and the realisation that war makes money for the few off the backs and lives of the many, TPTB have sought to maintain a constant state of fear amongst the populace, the better to get them to accept war as a "necessity" to protect their "freedoms" when in fact all war does is oppress both sides and further enrich those at the very top of the pyramid scheme some dare to call democracy.


Fear is the result of mental-processes and chemical imbalances and does not originate with some mythical "PTB". The "commoner" who wakes up to that power within will rapidly shed fear and join the ranks of those who are well-off.

Your views are what most people who come to this site already hold true. It is not true that there is a "popular misconception". Most people agree with you. But its the popular opinion that is part and parcel of the "commoner" and the unpopular opinion that is part of the 0.1% we call "elite". Come to think of it, if there is anything the elite is doing to keep you small then its teaching you that they are the all-powerful-elite.

I dont mean to sound harsh, but there is an alternate view to this whole "PTB" and "liberal" and "social justice and equality" idea.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I'd love to hear the popular misconception of "conservative"



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I prefer the terms Totalitarian and Authoritarian.

Simply because neither political party is interested in Liberty so much.

They are more poised to trample on liberty, considering the content of their legislation and the stated goals of their respective parties.



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by punctual
 

True conservatism is classical liberalism.
You may have heard that conservatives want to force their religion down your throat. Or that conservatives are war-mongers (while Liberals just want to give you health care and a guaranteed job). Or that conservatives are always for the rich, and against the poor working man.

www.conservativeforchange.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by punctual
reply to post by budski
 


I'd love to hear the popular misconception of "conservative"


Look it up


or start a thread



posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused.

I wasn't talking about socialism, or communism, but you seem to have gone off on that tangent...



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused.

I wasn't talking about socialism, or communism, but you seem to have gone off on that tangent...



I addressed the specific points you brought up.
"Fight Tbt", "social justice", "equality". Instead of labeling me "confused", why not engage in Debate.

You believe there are a "ptb" that are responsible for your lack
of freedom. That view is held by most people, including, but not limited to, socialists.
Im not invalidating your view, just putting it into the meta-context of anti-ptb epistemologies.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


I'm sorry, but you seem to be confused.

I wasn't talking about socialism, or communism, but you seem to have gone off on that tangent...



I addressed the specific points you brought up.
"Fight Tbt", "social justice", "equality". Instead of labeling me "confused", why not engage in Debate.

You believe there are a "ptb" that are responsible for your lack
of freedom. That view is held by most people, including, but not limited to, socialists.
Im not invalidating your view, just putting it into the meta-context of anti-ptb epistemologies.


Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, but it's been a busy couple of days...

OK, I don't "believe" anything - there are forces at work in our societies of which most people know very little.

These people are invalidating freedom via the mediums of cold hard cash, political favours and the MSM which is little more than a government tool for indoctrination and brainwashing the populace into accepting whatever they are led to believe.

Socialism is completely different from liberalism - socialism is another form of control, liberals seek to level the playing field, and give people a TRUE choice in a TRUE democracy.

If, by an accident of birth, someone becomes powerfull, does that give them more rights than someone born on a council estate?

I think not - but that is what has been happenning for a long time, whether that is through royalty, or political dynasties (a poor mans royalty) which is what happens now.

The very small percentage of people who control the vast proportion of wealth are not there by merit - in many cases, they are living off the merits of their ancestors.

Is that fair, equal, democratic or open?

Again, I think not.





new topics
top topics
 
28
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join