Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Popular Misconception of "Liberal"

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


I disagree.

The term 'Libertarian' was first used by left wing Anarchists apposed to capitalism. Libertarian thought was anti-authoritarian, whereas capitalism supported authoritarianism as capital has to be protected.

The United States has perverted the meaning of terms to confuse the population and keep you all pacified and supporting your own tyranny.


“libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American
right-wing proprietarians.” [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57]


anarchism.pageabode.com...

Please watch this if you have time, Chomsky explains it well...

edit on 1/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by budski
 


I disagree.

The term 'Libertarian' was first used by left wing Anarchists apposed to capitalism. Libertarian thought was anti-authoritarian, whereas capitalism supported authoritarianism as capital has to be protected.

The United States has perverted the meaning of terms to confuse the population and keep you all pacified and supporting your own tyranny.


“libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American
right-wing proprietarians.” [Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57]


anarchism.pageabode.com...

Please watch this if you have time, Chomsky explains it well...

edit on 1/21/2011 by ANOK because: typo


Sorry, the word is Liberal, as I made clear in my opening post, from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"

Libertarian is something completely different, and is simpy an offshoot word adopted by a splinter group.

Once again, Liberal not libertarian.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I always say LIBERAL is the "catch all" bucket for everything Conservatives don't agree with.

Also - - the mistake of equating Liberal with Pacifist. They are not the same thing.

Personally - I'd say a true Liberal - - is the "color outside the line" person. An independent thinker.

Conservatives are the Sheep - - but they just don't get it.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
The argument about how the term "liberal" has been changed (180 degrees) is well made. Nevertheless confusion still abounds because the words liberal and conservative are used on both the social and economic continuua. One can be a "liberal" in terms of social issues such as civil rights for women, racial minorities and gays and yet favor big government for economic issues (keynesian stimuli, government regulation, etc). At the same time a social conservative (one who favors the previous status quo) can favor big business and be antithetical to environmental conservation (a derivative of conservative). It is ironic that most of the so-called environmental "liberals" are really conservative. Likewise for those "conservatives" who are advocates for freedom and liberty (from which we derive liberal). If we added the terms "social" or "economic" to "liberal" and "conservative" the debate might become more clear and less confusing.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

I am an independent thinker, and I am anything BUT the contemporary liberal, which I will define.
Believe in government run by Democrats, as opposed to government run by representatives of the people.
Believe war is bad, unless Democrats are in power.
Believe government can run businesses better than businesses.
Believe that everyone should be forced to pay for a huge governmental bureaucracy to administer limited health care services to citizen and non citizen alike.
Believe the founding fathers were terrorists, but FDR and the New Deal are beyond reproach and criticism.
Believe the Federal Reserve should be left alone and it is okay for Wall Street executives to rotate in and out of the present administration.
Believe Obama is center, center right.

Pretty close?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by Annee
 

I am an independent thinker, and I am anything BUT the contemporary liberal, which I will define.
Believe in government run by Democrats, as opposed to government run by representatives of the people.
Believe war is bad, unless Democrats are in power.
Believe government can run businesses better than businesses.
Believe that everyone should be forced to pay for a huge governmental bureaucracy to administer limited health care services to citizen and non citizen alike.
Believe the founding fathers were terrorists, but FDR and the New Deal are beyond reproach and criticism.
Believe the Federal Reserve should be left alone and it is okay for Wall Street executives to rotate in and out of the present administration.
Believe Obama is center, center right.

Pretty close?



I don't think that even makes any sense.

At least not to me.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


I agree with you as I consider myself a Social Liberal - - Fiscal Conservative.

I am 100% supportive of Equal Rights -- Gay Marriage - Right of Choice - - etc.

But I do not support Welfare. I do not support CASH payments at all. I believe everyone should have BASIC necessities - - but not cash. "That which is not earned has no value".

I do support free breakfast and lunch for every primary school student - - because nutrition feeds the brain - - and these children are our future.

Basically I'm a "Teach them to Fish" believer.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That covers it pretty well, on the whole.

I mostly agree with your statement.

The problem as I see it, is that TPTB have been "teaching us to fish" but without bait, because they kept it all for themselves...



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Annee
 


That covers it pretty well, on the whole.

I mostly agree with your statement.

The problem as I see it, is that TPTB have been "teaching us to fish" but without bait, because they kept it all for themselves...



If someone could just find the solution to this:

" . . . Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than the fact that the office sanctifies the holder of it."



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


I agree with you as I consider myself a Social Liberal - - Fiscal Conservative.

I am 100% supportive of Equal Rights -- Gay Marriage - Right of Choice - - etc.

But I do not support Welfare. I do not support CASH payments at all. I believe everyone should have BASIC necessities - - but not cash. "That which is not earned has no value".

I do support free breakfast and lunch for every primary school student - - because nutrition feeds the brain - - and these children are our future.

Basically I'm a "Teach them to Fish" believer.




posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
The problem is that the state creates quasi-monopolies and can dictate who sells us the "bait and tackle."



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
The problem is that the state creates quasi-monopolies and can dictate who sells us the "bait and tackle."


What is your solution to that?

Should we remain in "lower form" animalistic mode of survival of the fittest?



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


To borrow a word I dislike, the "proletariat"

Without us, they are nothing and it's time they recognised that.

However, as we know, as soon as people go on strike, there is a bombardment in the press about what bad people the strikers are, and it's just not true.

We also have the situation where a lot of manufacturing has been sent to countries where labour is cheaper.

Is that social responsibility or just plain greed?

TPTB want all the benefits of our societies, but none of the responsibilities.

edit on 21/1/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
We also have the situation where a lot of manufacturing has been sent to countries where labour is cheaper.

Is that social responsibility or just plain greed?


My answer to that is: if my future perspective is to have a One World Government (NOT NWO) - - the first thing I would do is equalize the worlds economy. I would bring up the 3rd world economy - - and lower the power players.

The physical geology (mineral etc) is not equal. There are locations rich in Earths "treasures" and places void of such commodities. Should Humans be subject to such inequalities because of their physical location?

I really appreciate the industrial revolution of America - - but should it really be "owned" as we progress as Humans of the World?

I am a progressionist. I am not really interested in where we have been - - but where we are going - - - as an entire planet.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Thank you for this post OP. When we backtrack who made liberal and libertarian for that matter into a dirty word, it is not hard to see it was those wanting to maintain the power they held. Inherently in monetary designs the people who are the most creative should probably be the richest, as they will constantly figure out a way to get around a problem. However, today creativity is sold to the highest bidder. The more money you have the more creative people you have at your disposal. Today we have a class of people at the top that only allow creativity that suites their needs. Ironically they need government to assist them in maintaining their power and influence, to stop creativity. They want laws prohibiting activities that would be creative. Want to experiment with herbal remedies, good luck they can shut you down. Want to find a cure for cancer in your basement? Good luck getting it to market, to have someone believe that it works. You need money to be creative, otherwise nobody believes you until you have money to show for it. Okay...this turned into my personal rant



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by budski
We also have the situation where a lot of manufacturing has been sent to countries where labour is cheaper.

Is that social responsibility or just plain greed?


My answer to that is: if my future perspective is to have a One World Government (NOT NWO) - - the first thing I would do is equalize the worlds economy. I would bring up the 3rd world economy - - and lower the power players.

The physical geology (mineral etc) is not equal. There are locations rich in Earths "treasures" and places void of such commodities. Should Humans be subject to such inequalities because of their physical location?

I really appreciate the industrial revolution of America - - but should it really be "owned" as we progress as Humans of the World?

I am a progressionist. I am not really interested in where we have been - - but where we are going - - - as an entire planet.



Fair points.

The one thing I would say, is without the workers, "they" have no riches...

And we can go longer without them, than they can without us, because we can look after ourselves on a lower level...

Because we don't have the same levels of greed...
edit on 21/1/2011 by budski because: spelling



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Because we don't have the same levels of greed..


Ah - Greed - the original sin (unless you want to count lust - which I don't).

Greed or Power?

To me - Greed is anything beyond the necessities of life. Food - Shelter - Love - Family - Purpose.

Then comes Power and Control.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by budski
Because we don't have the same levels of greed..


Ah - Greed - the original sin (unless you want to count lust - which I don't).

Greed or Power?

To me - Greed is anything beyond the necessities of life. Food - Shelter - Love - Family - Purpose.

Then comes Power and Control.


It's kind of a messed up Maslow hierarchy of needs:



I think you have to be a tad messed up, if you need power...
edit on 21/1/2011 by budski because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

It's kind of a messed up Maslow hierarchy of needs:



Interesting.

Not sure I've read that before.






top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join