It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Please welcome the newest political ideology - Muscular Liberalism

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Muscular Liberalism is liberal fascism, plain and simple.


No, it isn't. Facism is more of a coporatist authoritarian model.


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
People often mistake 'fascism' for 'nazism' and think that all fascists are racists or intolerant towards other religions or whatever.


Got to love the irony in that statement...


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Let's have a look at Mr. Cameron's proposal for liberal fascism;

1)Everyone must act the same, and respect the rights of all people
2)Everyone must think the same, and endorse Liberalism
3)Everyone must be the same, and become 'British'


That's not what he said at all and I think you're trying to shoehorn something into your viewpoint.


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The problem with 1) is that you are effectively forcing everybody in a so-called free state to obey the law, unflinchingly, unfailingly.


For the most part, is that not what is desirable? People obeying the Law as the Law is decided by the people?


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The rights of British subjects are not claimed to come from God, as in America. They are granted to the public by the good will of the Monarch and the acts of Her parliament. British subjects have no innate rights, whatsoever,


Again, untrue. We have quite a few rights as it happens and all of the ones used by America in their Constitution and Bill of Rights were lifted, for the most part, from English Law. Go check out the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 just to start you off. Just because we don't have a Constitution written down and nailed to a wall in some museum somewhere, doesn't mean we don't have one at all. Ours is scattered across nearly 1,000 years of history and evolved over time.


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The problem with 2) is, as has been pointed out by joechip, that you cannot have freedom of thought and simultaneously denounce freedom of thought.


Again, that's not what he is saying, is it? He advocates freedom of belief, speech etc, but within norms judged acceptable by society. Marching down Luton High street during a parade chanting "Death to British Soldiers", "Death to the UK" and "Sharia in the UK" is deemed as unacceptable by British society and should not be tolerated.


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
The problem with 3) is that 'British' is a totally made up identity that has always, ALWAYS been used to oppress people. London has used 'Britishness' for centuries to justify their oppression of Welsh, Scotian, and Irish people.


Oh please. The Scottish gave as good as they got for the most part and, what is often forgotten, it is they who requested to join the Union, not us taking them over. They also invaded and declared war on England far more times than we did them and only invaded them to neutralise what was a stronghold of French imperialism and a desire to take over England. But lets just blame the English for everything and gloss over history, shall we?

The Irish suffered mainly at the hands of the Normans at first, then at the hands of Scottish settlers and land owners who did quite nicely out of the plantations. In fact, the Scots did very nicely out of Empire indeed. A very big tangent to go off, but you cannot merely simplify history to justify a dubious point.


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Of course, that leaves out the brutal atrocities that were committed overseas in the name of making British the indigenous people of the Empire. Tell me; how can you at once be free and required to identify yourself in a certain way?


Do you feel Canadian? Are there not values inherent to most ordinary Canadians that define your nation? Or do you believe that association with your home country is merely just a matter of fact that you live there?


Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
Who loves corporatism more than the party of Thatcher?


It's hardly corporatism as your trying to paint it. It's called free-market capitalism and it is certainly better than the over-bloated socialist economic model used by labour, which ended up, in 2010, with the Government accounting for over 50% of the UK GDP. Unsustainable.




posted on Feb, 23 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 



For the most part, is that not what is desirable? People obeying the Law as the Law is decided by the people?
I am not disagreeing with you. I find it fairly pleasant to live in a society of laws, even though I do not benefit from all laws and I am the 'victim' of some others. It makes life easier. Nevertheless, it is still Law, and Law is always in opposition to freedom.


Again, untrue. We have quite a few rights as it happens and all of the ones used by America in their Constitution and Bill of Rights were lifted, for the most part, from English Law. Go check out the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 just to start you off. Just because we don't have a Constitution written down and nailed to a wall in some museum somewhere, doesn't mean we don't have one at all. Ours is scattered across nearly 1,000 years of history and evolved over time.
The Magna Carta is only effective as law because it is authorized by the signature of the reigning monarch. By tradition, every monarch has to sign their own copy of the Magna Carta upon their accession to the throne. That is why the Charter continues to be effective, because the Queen wills it to be effective. Her power comes from God; your rights do not.


Again, that's not what he is saying, is it? He advocates freedom of belief, speech etc, but within norms judged acceptable by society. Marching down Luton High street during a parade chanting "Death to British Soldiers", "Death to the UK" and "Sharia in the UK" is deemed as unacceptable by British society and should not be tolerated.
Freedom that is restricted within certain socially defined boundaries is hardly the same as unrestricted freedom of speech and thought.

How is one to determine what is 'deemed acceptable by British society'? Evidently, the protesters and paraders think that their expressions of anti-British sentiment are acceptable and obviously, that is not the same as British society at large condoning it. How do you figure out what society at large thinks? A referendum on every issue? I don't see that happening in the UK, a country in which all legal authority derives from the divine authority of the Sovereign. It's hardly practical, either, since there is an unlimited number of things that people can say that need approval. In practice, isn't this just going to give the government greater powers to determine for the public what does and does not constitute acceptable speech and thought?


Oh please. The Scottish gave as good as they got for the most part and, what is often forgotten, it is they who requested to join the Union, not us taking them over. They also invaded and declared war on England far more times than we did them and only invaded them to neutralise what was a stronghold of French imperialism and a desire to take over England. But lets just blame the English for everything and gloss over history, shall we?

The Irish suffered mainly at the hands of the Normans at first, then at the hands of Scottish settlers and land owners who did quite nicely out of the plantations. In fact, the Scots did very nicely out of Empire indeed. A very big tangent to go off, but you cannot merely simplify history to justify a dubious point.

The welfare of the elites is not the same as the welfare of the lower classes. Scots were used as frontline troops in colonial wars, Irish were treated brutally, Welsh were conquered and denigrated under English rule. But yes, it was a fairly weak point that I was making. A stronger point would have been that 'British' is an identity usurped from the Celtic inhabitants of the island, an identity which the Welsh can make a stronger claim to than the Anglo-Saxon-Norman-Angevin-Jacobean-Hanoverian aristocracy of Luan dun. And yet! That doesn't really say much more than 'How dare you Englishmen steal our name!' and it isn't a terribly strong point either. I concede.


Do you feel Canadian? Are there not values inherent to most ordinary Canadians that define your nation? Or do you believe that association with your home country is merely just a matter of fact that you live there?
I do think that my association with this country is solely based on my having been born here. I know that if I were to move to another country I would understand more fully my 'Canadianness' because I would see the discrepancy between myself and those around me. However, I don't identify myself as Canadian because the government expects me to. I only identify myself as such because of an historical accident.

The 'values' of my nation that I have internalized are multiculturalism and modesty. However, as I grew older I discovered that these values were not shared by all Canadians, or even most Canadians. As I grow older I feel increasingly alienated from my countrymen and find that the actual values of this country are hostile to my own. So, no, I don't think that enforcing a national identity is a good liberal idea, especially when you live in a country as odious as this.


It's hardly corporatism as your trying to paint it. It's called free-market capitalism and it is certainly better than the over-bloated socialist economic model used by labour, which ended up, in 2010, with the Government accounting for over 50% of the UK GDP. Unsustainable.

Any political party that is friendly with corporations is looking to use the government for the interests of business to a greater or lesser extent. There doesn't need to be a formal union between business and the state for effective corporatism to take hold. Just look at America, where businessmen regularly and openly make deals with politicians to subvert the government of the people for the goals of the corporations.



new topics
 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join