"Is Liberalism A Dying Faith?"

[me]

Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.

But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

[GLOBALIST]

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

He is including the elections going on in Europe for sure.
Liberalism here now accepts violence as a way to get
rid of free speech. Our college campuses are cesspools
for that. Liberalism denies our bill of rights.
However their political candidates are easily
voted against by the general public.

[Jack Fate]

Post by GLOBALIST

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

He is including the elections going on in Europe for sure.
Liberalism here now accepts violence as a way to get
rid of free speech.

Try *hate* speech which is not covered in the First Amendment, uneducate
slime ball.

Our college campuses are cesspools

Post by GLOBALIST
for that. Liberalism denies our bill of rights.

Liar.

Post by GLOBALIST
However their political candidates are easily
voted against by the general public.

There are not any liberal politicians in the USA anymore. Bernie Sanders
is right wing when compared to Podemos in Spain. The last liberal
president you've had was Kennedy and you see how non violent the USA was
about him and his brother Robert. The alt right MURDERS liberal
politicians and I'm sure you're happy about that, you alt right bigoted
and racist asshole.

[Tzatz Ziki]

There

"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."

[me]

There is nothing ‘liberal’ about those who now count themselves as Liberals.

[Jack Fate]

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

The USA hasn't been liberal since Kennedy. Bernie Sanders is right wing
in comparison to European countries. Trump is a right wing Nazi.

[Tzatz Ziki]

The

"...but I will no longer be posting here. No one here is going to change
so, basically, I'm wasting the little time I have left by posting to
this obscure little group full of stupid bigoted and racist Trump
lovers."

[mg]

On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), me

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

Liberalism is dead. It's as dead as the dinosaur. It was
killed by a SOB named Bill Clinton.

That doesn't mean that it's not okay to talk about
liberalism, though. However, anyone who doesn't talk about
liberalism in the past tense is merely demonstrating their
ignorance.



----------------------------------------------
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies
that have become widespread during the last 25
years or so. Although the word is rarely heard
in the United States, you can clearly see the
effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

[me]

Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

[El Castor]

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:47:39 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I'm sure glad you're not in a position of power. The
consequences of such thinking as yours, in religious
and other doctrinaire politics, are all too familiar in
the history of humanity, and it's not been pretty at all.

[El Castor]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:47:39 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I'm sure glad you're not in a position of power. The
consequences of such thinking as yours, in religious
and other doctrinaire politics, are all too familiar in
the history of humanity, and it's not been pretty at all.

I have the greatest respect for the First Amendment and the rule of
law. Can you say the same? Any sympathy for masked ANTIFA
demonstrators? And what was it you wanted to do with "blood suckers"?

You say you are a socialist?

"More people have died for notions of a socialist utopia than for any
other explicit political ideology."
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm

"No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more
cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans
than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other
systems of production in turning out the dead."
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-everest-of-bodies-of-the-victims-of-socialism/

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:15:02 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:47:39 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I'm sure glad you're not in a position of power. The
consequences of such thinking as yours, in religious
and other doctrinaire politics, are all too familiar in
the history of humanity, and it's not been pretty at all.

I have the greatest respect for the First Amendment and the rule of
law. Can you say the same? Any sympathy for masked ANTIFA

Unless you include the anti-Wall-Street demonstrations
of a few years back, I've never encountered an ANTIFA
person that I know of, although since I'm still not really
sure if ANITIFA isn't just an imaginary alliance made up
for propaganda purposes by the right wing, I can't say
much about it. Actually, I'm pretty sure by now that
"an imaginary alliance made up for propaganda
purposes by the right wing" is exactly what it is.

Some people, not many, in the anti-Wall-Street
demonstrations a couple of years ago did wear Guy
Fawkes masks, but nobody was being violent.

The rule of law by (easily twisted) necessity rules
government, but the rule of common decency in the
sense of respect for others and concern for their
condition is a "higher law". Wen the rule of law does
not line up with common decency, then something is
astray with the rule of law, not with common decency.

Post by El Castor
demonstrators? And what was it you wanted to do with "blood suckers"?

I don't remember saying anything about them, except
perhaps that they should be jailed, which they should be.
I may have condemned them to eternal punishment in
Hell in one of my less fine moments, but since Hell is just
a bizarre concept invented by people who get off on
scaring children and dullards, I'm not going to condemn
myself too much for that.

Post by El Castor
You say you are a socialist?

Unless you say I am. Whatever you say I am, I'm
not, although you may use the same word to mean
something completely different than what I mean.

Post by El Castor
"More people have died for notions of a socialist utopia than for any
other explicit political ideology."
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm

For example, you call the Nazis "socialist" though
"National Socialism" is to socialism what the
lightning bug is to lightning. Words should be used
to reveal truth IMO, not to forge lies although that
is admittedly a far more common (and all-too-easy)
usage of them.

Post by El Castor
"No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more
cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans
than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other
systems of production in turning out the dead."
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-everest-of-bodies-of-the-victims-of-socialism/

I expect you regard car wrecks as "socialist", or at least you
would if you thought you could wrangle a way to get away with
it. Car wrecks are in truth of course caused by right-wing
rocks falling onto the freeway and pushing innocent leftist
drivers off the road and over a cliff.

[El Castor]

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:15:02 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:47:39 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I'm sure glad you're not in a position of power. The
consequences of such thinking as yours, in religious
and other doctrinaire politics, are all too familiar in
the history of humanity, and it's not been pretty at all.

I have the greatest respect for the First Amendment and the rule of
law. Can you say the same? Any sympathy for masked ANTIFA

Unless you include the anti-Wall-Street demonstrations
of a few years back, I've never encountered an ANTIFA
person that I know of, although since I'm still not really
sure if ANITIFA isn't just an imaginary alliance made up
for propaganda purposes by the right wing, I can't say
much about it. Actually, I'm pretty sure by now that
"an imaginary alliance made up for propaganda
purposes by the right wing" is exactly what it is.

Have you lost your mind? Noticed what has been going on in Berkeley,
20 miles from where you live?

"Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in
Berkeley"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/

"'Antifa' violence in Berkeley spurs soul-searching within leftist
activist community"
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-far-left-violence-20170829-story.html

"Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ of antifa protesters"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/

"Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html

Convinced?

Post by rumpelstiltskin
Some people, not many, in the anti-Wall-Street
demonstrations a couple of years ago did wear Guy
Fawkes masks, but nobody was being violent.
The rule of law by (easily twisted) necessity rules
government, but the rule of common decency in the
sense of respect for others and concern for their
condition is a "higher law". Wen the rule of law does
not line up with common decency, then something is
astray with the rule of law, not with common decency.

Post by El Castor
demonstrators? And what was it you wanted to do with "blood suckers"?

I don't remember saying anything about them, except
perhaps that they should be jailed, which they should be.
I may have condemned them to eternal punishment in
Hell in one of my less fine moments, but since Hell is just
a bizarre concept invented by people who get off on
scaring children and dullards, I'm not going to condemn
myself too much for that.

Post by El Castor
You say you are a socialist?

Unless you say I am. Whatever you say I am, I'm
not, although you may use the same word to mean
something completely different than what I mean.

Post by El Castor
"More people have died for notions of a socialist utopia than for any
other explicit political ideology."
https://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/asreview.htm

For example, you call the Nazis "socialist" though
"National Socialism" is to socialism what the
lightning bug is to lightning. Words should be used
to reveal truth IMO, not to forge lies although that
is admittedly a far more common (and all-too-easy)
usage of them.

Post by El Castor
"No cause, ever, in the history of all mankind, has produced more
cold-blooded tyrants, more slaughtered innocents, and more orphans
than socialism with power. It surpassed, exponentially, all other
systems of production in turning out the dead."
http://www.aei.org/publication/the-everest-of-bodies-of-the-victims-of-socialism/

I expect you regard car wrecks as "socialist", or at least you
would if you thought you could wrangle a way to get away with
it. Car wrecks are in truth of course caused by right-wing
rocks falling onto the freeway and pushing innocent leftist
drivers off the road and over a cliff.

Useless even trying to talk to you.

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 18:15:47 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 00:15:02 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by rumpelstiltskin
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:47:39 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I'm sure glad you're not in a position of power. The
consequences of such thinking as yours, in religious
and other doctrinaire politics, are all too familiar in
the history of humanity, and it's not been pretty at all.

I have the greatest respect for the First Amendment and the rule of
law. Can you say the same? Any sympathy for masked ANTIFA

Unless you include the anti-Wall-Street demonstrations
of a few years back, I've never encountered an ANTIFA
person that I know of, although since I'm still not really
sure if ANITIFA isn't just an imaginary alliance made up
for propaganda purposes by the right wing, I can't say
much about it. Actually, I'm pretty sure by now that
"an imaginary alliance made up for propaganda
purposes by the right wing" is exactly what it is.

Have you lost your mind? Noticed what has been going on in Berkeley,
20 miles from where you live?

Yes, right wingers deliberately stirring up trouble trying to
make the university pay as much as possible for security, and
then not showing up. The same thing happened in San
Francisco too, with some gun nuts (or at least I think they
were gun nuts) who procured the right to speak in Alamo
Square, and after the city spent millions for security, they
didn't show up. They hadn't shown up for an earlier
rally in Chrissy Field either, using the same trick. Whatever
their point, or plan, is, I have zero respect for it.

Post by El Castor
"Black-clad antifa members attack peaceful right-wing demonstrators in
Berkeley"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/28/black-clad-antifa-attack-right-wing-demonstrators-in-berkeley/
"'Antifa' violence in Berkeley spurs soul-searching within leftist
activist community"
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-far-left-violence-20170829-story.html
"Pelosi condemns ‘violent actions’ of antifa protesters"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/08/30/pelosi-condemns-violent-actions-of-antifa-protesters/
"Unmasking the leftist Antifa movement"
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html
Convinced?

Not interested in your choices of articles. Waste of time.
It gets you off, but it doesn't get me off, it's just boring
to anyone who isn't just a fanatic seeking affirmation.

If you want to lose my attention immediately in future,
just write "antifa".



<snip>

Post by El Castor
Useless even trying to talk to you.

My sentiments exactly in the other direction.
Perhaps we finally agree on something.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I will disagree with your assumption that libertarianism shares much of
anything with liberalism. Yes, libertarians claim to support personal
freedom in several of the areas of civil rights - incarcerations and
arrests, marriage, education, gun rights, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco,
etc. But, if you look at the weight that libertarians place on what
they define as "freedom" as defined by that citadel of libertarianism,
the CATO Institute, you will see that their primary emphasis is on
minimizing government involvement in taxation, regulation and other
pro-business issues. CATO scoring of emphasis across what they define
as "freedoms" shows that 29.7% is allocated to fiscal policy and 38.7%
is allocated to regulatory policy. Little emphasis is left for the
spectrum of personal freedom that they claim to embrace.

See *Freedom in the 50 States* by Ruger & Sorens, published by the CATO
Institute.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I will disagree with your assumption that libertarianism shares much of
anything with liberalism. Yes, libertarians claim to support personal
freedom in several of the areas of civil rights - incarcerations and
arrests, marriage, education, gun rights, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco,
etc. But, if you look at the weight that libertarians place on what
they define as "freedom" as defined by that citadel of libertarianism,
the CATO Institute, you will see that their primary emphasis is on
minimizing government involvement in taxation, regulation and other
pro-business issues. CATO scoring of emphasis across what they define
as "freedoms" shows that 29.7% is allocated to fiscal policy and 38.7%
is allocated to regulatory policy. Little emphasis is left for the
spectrum of personal freedom that they claim to embrace.
See *Freedom in the 50 States* by Ruger & Sorens, published by the CATO
Institute.

I was comparing Conservatism and Libertarianism to classical
liberalism -- not modern 21st century liberalism.

"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of
liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with
an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to libertarianism and
to free market capitalism, it developed in the early 19th century,
building on ideas from the previous century as a response to
urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United
States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical
liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and
David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief
in natural law, utilitarianism and progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I will disagree with your assumption that libertarianism shares much of
anything with liberalism. Yes, libertarians claim to support personal
freedom in several of the areas of civil rights - incarcerations and
arrests, marriage, education, gun rights, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco,
etc. But, if you look at the weight that libertarians place on what
they define as "freedom" as defined by that citadel of libertarianism,
the CATO Institute, you will see that their primary emphasis is on
minimizing government involvement in taxation, regulation and other
pro-business issues. CATO scoring of emphasis across what they define
as "freedoms" shows that 29.7% is allocated to fiscal policy and 38.7%
is allocated to regulatory policy. Little emphasis is left for the
spectrum of personal freedom that they claim to embrace.
See *Freedom in the 50 States* by Ruger & Sorens, published by the CATO
Institute.

I was comparing Conservatism and Libertarianism to classical
liberalism -- not modern 21st century liberalism.
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of
liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with
an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to libertarianism and
to free market capitalism, it developed in the early 19th century,
building on ideas from the previous century as a response to
urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United
States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical
liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and
David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief
in natural law, utilitarianism and progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

So, would you claim to be an advocate of classical liberalism?

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I will disagree with your assumption that libertarianism shares much of
anything with liberalism. Yes, libertarians claim to support personal
freedom in several of the areas of civil rights - incarcerations and
arrests, marriage, education, gun rights, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco,
etc. But, if you look at the weight that libertarians place on what
they define as "freedom" as defined by that citadel of libertarianism,
the CATO Institute, you will see that their primary emphasis is on
minimizing government involvement in taxation, regulation and other
pro-business issues. CATO scoring of emphasis across what they define
as "freedoms" shows that 29.7% is allocated to fiscal policy and 38.7%
is allocated to regulatory policy. Little emphasis is left for the
spectrum of personal freedom that they claim to embrace.
See *Freedom in the 50 States* by Ruger & Sorens, published by the CATO
Institute.

I was comparing Conservatism and Libertarianism to classical
liberalism -- not modern 21st century liberalism.
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of
liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with
an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to libertarianism and
to free market capitalism, it developed in the early 19th century,
building on ideas from the previous century as a response to
urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United
States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical
liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and
David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief
in natural law, utilitarianism and progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

So, would you claim to be an advocate of classical liberalism?

I'm not an advocate of any specific political philosophy, but I see a
lot more to be admired in classical liberalism than the current
Marxist inspired variety.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I will disagree with your assumption that libertarianism shares much of
anything with liberalism. Yes, libertarians claim to support personal
freedom in several of the areas of civil rights - incarcerations and
arrests, marriage, education, gun rights, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco,
etc. But, if you look at the weight that libertarians place on what
they define as "freedom" as defined by that citadel of libertarianism,
the CATO Institute, you will see that their primary emphasis is on
minimizing government involvement in taxation, regulation and other
pro-business issues. CATO scoring of emphasis across what they define
as "freedoms" shows that 29.7% is allocated to fiscal policy and 38.7%
is allocated to regulatory policy. Little emphasis is left for the
spectrum of personal freedom that they claim to embrace.
See *Freedom in the 50 States* by Ruger & Sorens, published by the CATO
Institute.

I was comparing Conservatism and Libertarianism to classical
liberalism -- not modern 21st century liberalism.
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of
liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with
an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to libertarianism and
to free market capitalism, it developed in the early 19th century,
building on ideas from the previous century as a response to
urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United
States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical
liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and
David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief
in natural law, utilitarianism and progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

So, would you claim to be an advocate of classical liberalism?

I'm not an advocate of any specific political philosophy, but I see a
lot more to be admired in classical liberalism than the current
Marxist inspired variety.

I could understand your saying that. Locke was an advocate of religious
tolerance, but he was speaking about tolerance for the various
*Christian* faiths. Locke also coined the phrase "Life, Liberty and
Property" which Jefferson changed to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of
Happiness." Say was the original supply sider. Malthus argued that
civilization would deal with population growth in "natural" ways like
reduced health care, disease, poverty, warfare or infanticide. "Let
them die!" Ricardo believed that adding more workers diminished return.

So yes, I can see that you would be attracted to these beliefs.
Fortunately, political philosophy has learned a few things since they
were writing about natural laws that tended to favor the wealth
producing side of the Industrial Revolution.

How do you account for the fact that conservative states are not as
productive as liberal states and that liberal states recovered from the
Great Recession more rapidly than conservative states? We have run our
own 50 experiments in democracy and liberal states are producing the
most vibrant economies as measured by per-capita GDP and personal
consumption expenditures. People in liberal states are also much
happier than the people in conservative states. I think that Jefferson
may have had a clue about what was wrong with Locke's philosophy.

[me]

How do Democrats 'care for the poor'? Dems put the poor into government sponsored reservations not unlike American Indians. Look at any undesirable social indicator (crime, education, food stamps, income, wealth disparity) and ask yourself where are these concentrated and what good are Democrats to the poor or those who must sacrifice to pay for them. The country is dotted with Democrat shit holes from LA to places like Detroit and NYC. Yet, for reasons I don't understand people in these shit holes keep voting Democrat for 'caring'. Go figure.

See
http://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-schools-in-the-us/
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/ejii45efkm/the-5-biggest-municipal-bankruptcies-in-u-s-history/#282cf35f1c76
https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/us-cities-gone-bankrupt/
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top-100-worst-schools
http://time.com/money/4755758/income-inequality-best-worst-cities/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/06/21/economic-blight-50-worst-american-cities-live/415609001/
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-united-states.html

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I will disagree with your assumption that libertarianism shares much of
anything with liberalism. Yes, libertarians claim to support personal
freedom in several of the areas of civil rights - incarcerations and
arrests, marriage, education, gun rights, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco,
etc. But, if you look at the weight that libertarians place on what
they define as "freedom" as defined by that citadel of libertarianism,
the CATO Institute, you will see that their primary emphasis is on
minimizing government involvement in taxation, regulation and other
pro-business issues. CATO scoring of emphasis across what they define
as "freedoms" shows that 29.7% is allocated to fiscal policy and 38.7%
is allocated to regulatory policy. Little emphasis is left for the
spectrum of personal freedom that they claim to embrace.
See *Freedom in the 50 States* by Ruger & Sorens, published by the CATO
Institute.

I was comparing Conservatism and Libertarianism to classical
liberalism -- not modern 21st century liberalism.
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of
liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with
an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to libertarianism and
to free market capitalism, it developed in the early 19th century,
building on ideas from the previous century as a response to
urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United
States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical
liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and
David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief
in natural law, utilitarianism and progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

So, would you claim to be an advocate of classical liberalism?

I'm not an advocate of any specific political philosophy, but I see a
lot more to be admired in classical liberalism than the current
Marxist inspired variety.

I could understand your saying that. Locke was an advocate of religious
tolerance, but he was speaking about tolerance for the various
*Christian* faiths. Locke also coined the phrase "Life, Liberty and
Property" which Jefferson changed to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of
Happiness." Say was the original supply sider. Malthus argued that
civilization would deal with population growth in "natural" ways like
reduced health care, disease, poverty, warfare or infanticide. "Let
them die!" Ricardo believed that adding more workers diminished return.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this, but let me say that
religion plays no part in my thinking on these matters, and I
absolutely do not favor allowing American poor to die from starvation
or lack of medical care. I would favor paying substantial sums as an
inducement to welfare men and women who agreed to VOLUNTARY
sterilization, but that aside, do you remember Jim Chamblee? You and
Jim were on the same political page, but he did not favor sending
shiploads of food to, for instance, starving African countries -- in
effect putting the starving African poor on an international welfare
system, and in doing so, supporting the highest birth rates in the
world. So, if they can't feed their own people, let Malthus solve the
problem. Would you agree with Jim? (Oh, and before you bring up birth
control, we can air drop condoms by the bale on the Congo, but I don't
believe it would make the slightest difference, but send the birth
control --- not the food. OK?)

Post by islander
How do you account for the fact that conservative states are not as
productive as liberal states and that liberal states recovered from the
Great Recession more rapidly than conservative states? We have run our
own 50 experiments in democracy and liberal states are producing the
most vibrant economies as measured by per-capita GDP and personal
consumption expenditures. People in liberal states are also much
happier than the people in conservative states. I think that Jefferson
may have had a clue about what was wrong with Locke's philosophy.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by me
Liberalism was killed as BigGovernment was born and prospered. The Civil War Union victory was probably the prime birthing event for this.

I assume you are speaking of classical liberalism -- which shares a
lot in common with modern conservatism and libertarianism -- so I
don't believe it's entirely dead. Modern liberalism has its roots in
Marxism, and lately has been increasingly influenced by Cultural
Marxism -- AKA Identity Politics.

I will disagree with your assumption that libertarianism shares much of
anything with liberalism. Yes, libertarians claim to support personal
freedom in several of the areas of civil rights - incarcerations and
arrests, marriage, education, gun rights, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco,
etc. But, if you look at the weight that libertarians place on what
they define as "freedom" as defined by that citadel of libertarianism,
the CATO Institute, you will see that their primary emphasis is on
minimizing government involvement in taxation, regulation and other
pro-business issues. CATO scoring of emphasis across what they define
as "freedoms" shows that 29.7% is allocated to fiscal policy and 38.7%
is allocated to regulatory policy. Little emphasis is left for the
spectrum of personal freedom that they claim to embrace.
See *Freedom in the 50 States* by Ruger & Sorens, published by the CATO
Institute.

I was comparing Conservatism and Libertarianism to classical
liberalism -- not modern 21st century liberalism.
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of
liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with
an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to libertarianism and
to free market capitalism, it developed in the early 19th century,
building on ideas from the previous century as a response to
urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United
States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical
liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and
David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief
in natural law, utilitarianism and progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

So, would you claim to be an advocate of classical liberalism?

I'm not an advocate of any specific political philosophy, but I see a
lot more to be admired in classical liberalism than the current
Marxist inspired variety.

I could understand your saying that. Locke was an advocate of religious
tolerance, but he was speaking about tolerance for the various
*Christian* faiths. Locke also coined the phrase "Life, Liberty and
Property" which Jefferson changed to "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of
Happiness." Say was the original supply sider. Malthus argued that
civilization would deal with population growth in "natural" ways like
reduced health care, disease, poverty, warfare or infanticide. "Let
them die!" Ricardo believed that adding more workers diminished return.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this, but let me say that
religion plays no part in my thinking on these matters, and I
absolutely do not favor allowing American poor to die from starvation
or lack of medical care. I would favor paying substantial sums as an
inducement to welfare men and women who agreed to VOLUNTARY
sterilization, but that aside, do you remember Jim Chamblee? You and
Jim were on the same political page, but he did not favor sending
shiploads of food to, for instance, starving African countries -- in
effect putting the starving African poor on an international welfare
system, and in doing so, supporting the highest birth rates in the
world. So, if they can't feed their own people, let Malthus solve the
problem. Would you agree with Jim? (Oh, and before you bring up birth
control, we can air drop condoms by the bale on the Congo, but I don't
believe it would make the slightest difference, but send the birth
control --- not the food. OK?)

I really cannot speak for what Jim believed, but I understand the
rationale. The same can be claimed for not providing medical aid to the
poor countries of the world. Personally, I have a somewhat more nuanced
view. We have a horrible policy for providing food to surviving nations
that is pretty heavily tied up in subsidizing American agriculture (and
American shipping). We flood the market in poor countries with food
that damages the local market and discourages local production. Dipping
into religion briefly, we should not give them fish, but help them learn
how to fish so that their local economies benefit.

I've also expressed here many times that I am a strong advocate for
enabling women. I'm a big fan of micro-loans to women, giving them the
economic freedom to avoid pregnancy. I agree that condoms are not a
good solution, but there are other, more reliable means of birth
control. It is foolish of some on the political right to oppose birth
control. What can they be thinking?

The political philosophers that you mentioned all have one thing in
common in that they advocate "natural" laws - that somehow things
balance out if we would just leave them alone. That way of thinking may
have applied to hunter-gatherer tribes, but we should have learned by
now that civilization often needs pressure in opposition to our genetic
impulses.

Post by El Castor

Post by islander
How do you account for the fact that conservative states are not as
productive as liberal states and that liberal states recovered from the
Great Recession more rapidly than conservative states? We have run our
own 50 experiments in democracy and liberal states are producing the
most vibrant economies as measured by per-capita GDP and personal
consumption expenditures. People in liberal states are also much
happier than the people in conservative states. I think that Jefferson
may have had a clue about what was wrong with Locke's philosophy.

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), me

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

Liberalism is dead. It's as dead as the dinosaur. It was
killed by a SOB named Bill Clinton.
That doesn't mean that it's not okay to talk about
liberalism, though. However, anyone who doesn't talk about
liberalism in the past tense is merely demonstrating their
ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies
that have become widespread during the last 25
years or so. Although the word is rarely heard
in the United States, you can clearly see the
effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

I'm a socialist, and socialism is as alive in
the USA as it ever was, which is "not very".

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), me

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

Liberalism is dead. It's as dead as the dinosaur. It was
killed by a SOB named Bill Clinton.
That doesn't mean that it's not okay to talk about
liberalism, though. However, anyone who doesn't talk about
liberalism in the past tense is merely demonstrating their
ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies
that have become widespread during the last 25
years or so. Although the word is rarely heard
in the United States, you can clearly see the
effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

I'm a socialist, and socialism is as alive in
the USA as it ever was, which is "not very".

I don't think there's a word to describe my thoughts on the
best type of government. What I've concluded is that there
is probably no ideology that will not work under a specific
set of circumstances, with a particular group of people, in
a particular time frame and, on the other hand, there is
probably no type of government that will work all the time,
and anytime, under any set of circumstances, with any
particular group of people, in any random time frame.

Even if there is a particular ideology which provides the
best frame work for a method of governing a large
civilization of H. sapiens, the question still remains,
though: how do we get there? Is democracy the best way to
establish and maintain a socialist government (or a
capitalist government, or a theocracy, etc.)? Or, is some
other type of government the best way to get there?

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), me

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

Liberalism is dead. It's as dead as the dinosaur. It was
killed by a SOB named Bill Clinton.
That doesn't mean that it's not okay to talk about
liberalism, though. However, anyone who doesn't talk about
liberalism in the past tense is merely demonstrating their
ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies
that have become widespread during the last 25
years or so. Although the word is rarely heard
in the United States, you can clearly see the
effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

I'm a socialist, and socialism is as alive in
the USA as it ever was, which is "not very".

I don't think there's a word to describe my thoughts on the
best type of government. What I've concluded is that there
is probably no ideology that will not work under a specific
set of circumstances, with a particular group of people, in
a particular time frame and, on the other hand, there is
probably no type of government that will work all the time,
and anytime, under any set of circumstances, with any
particular group of people, in any random time frame.

That sounds fair. As Bullwinkle used to say,
"Go go go! -- but watch where you're going!"

Post by mg
Even if there is a particular ideology which provides the
best frame work for a method of governing a large
civilization of H. sapiens, the question still remains,
though: how do we get there? Is democracy the best way to
establish and maintain a socialist government (or a
capitalist government, or a theocracy, etc.)? Or, is some
other type of government the best way to get there?

Perhaps it might be said that it's impossible for even
the wisest people to define a government that can't
be commandeered and used to their own advantage
by selfish and "evil" people. Voltaire once wrote that
the best government might be benign dictatorship
kept in line by occasional assassination.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), me

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

Liberalism is dead. It's as dead as the dinosaur. It was
killed by a SOB named Bill Clinton.
That doesn't mean that it's not okay to talk about
liberalism, though. However, anyone who doesn't talk about
liberalism in the past tense is merely demonstrating their
ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies
that have become widespread during the last 25
years or so. Although the word is rarely heard
in the United States, you can clearly see the
effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

I'm a socialist, and socialism is as alive in
the USA as it ever was, which is "not very".

I don't think there's a word to describe my thoughts on the
best type of government. What I've concluded is that there
is probably no ideology that will not work under a specific
set of circumstances, with a particular group of people, in
a particular time frame and, on the other hand, there is
probably no type of government that will work all the time,
and anytime, under any set of circumstances, with any
particular group of people, in any random time frame.

That sounds fair. As Bullwinkle used to say,
"Go go go! -- but watch where you're going!"

Post by mg
Even if there is a particular ideology which provides the
best frame work for a method of governing a large
civilization of H. sapiens, the question still remains,
though: how do we get there? Is democracy the best way to
establish and maintain a socialist government (or a
capitalist government, or a theocracy, etc.)? Or, is some
other type of government the best way to get there?

Perhaps it might be said that it's impossible for even
the wisest people to define a government that can't
be commandeered and used to their own advantage
by selfish and "evil" people. Voltaire once wrote that
the best government might be benign dictatorship
kept in line by occasional assassination.

I would assume that Voltaire probably spent some time
thinking about this and I would also assume that anyone who
had thought about the problem very much might put forth the
same type of speculation. Or, to put it another way, perhaps
democracies are not the best route to use to arrive at the
best type of government, no matter what it happens to be.

I've told this story before, but at the steel plant I worked
at. We had railroad tracks that went around the steel plant
starting out on the east side and going in a southerly
direction and we had railroad tracks that went around the
steel plant starting out on the east side and going in a
northerly direction and they both stopped in the middle of
the steel plant, on the west side of the steel plant and
there was no place where they connected to each other.

So, from time to time, a new foreman would spot a railroad
engine close by and wave the crew down and ask them to move
a railroad car for him. When that happened, the conductor on
the train would have to explain to him that "we can't get
there from here" (even though they might be just a few feet
away) :-)

[rumpelstiltskin]

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), me

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

Liberalism is dead. It's as dead as the dinosaur. It was
killed by a SOB named Bill Clinton.
That doesn't mean that it's not okay to talk about
liberalism, though. However, anyone who doesn't talk about
liberalism in the past tense is merely demonstrating their
ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies
that have become widespread during the last 25
years or so. Although the word is rarely heard
in the United States, you can clearly see the
effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

I'm a socialist, and socialism is as alive in
the USA as it ever was, which is "not very".

I don't think there's a word to describe my thoughts on the
best type of government. What I've concluded is that there
is probably no ideology that will not work under a specific
set of circumstances, with a particular group of people, in
a particular time frame and, on the other hand, there is
probably no type of government that will work all the time,
and anytime, under any set of circumstances, with any
particular group of people, in any random time frame.

That sounds fair. As Bullwinkle used to say,
"Go go go! -- but watch where you're going!"

Post by mg
Even if there is a particular ideology which provides the
best frame work for a method of governing a large
civilization of H. sapiens, the question still remains,
though: how do we get there? Is democracy the best way to
establish and maintain a socialist government (or a
capitalist government, or a theocracy, etc.)? Or, is some
other type of government the best way to get there?

Perhaps it might be said that it's impossible for even
the wisest people to define a government that can't
be commandeered and used to their own advantage
by selfish and "evil" people. Voltaire once wrote that
the best government might be benign dictatorship
kept in line by occasional assassination.

I would assume that Voltaire probably spent some time
thinking about this and I would also assume that anyone who
had thought about the problem very much might put forth the
same type of speculation. Or, to put it another way, perhaps
democracies are not the best route to use to arrive at the
best type of government, no matter what it happens to be.
I've told this story before, but at the steel plant I worked
at. We had railroad tracks that went around the steel plant
starting out on the east side and going in a southerly
direction and we had railroad tracks that went around the
steel plant starting out on the east side and going in a
northerly direction and they both stopped in the middle of
the steel plant, on the west side of the steel plant and
there was no place where they connected to each other.
So, from time to time, a new foreman would spot a railroad
engine close by and wave the crew down and ask them to move
a railroad car for him. When that happened, the conductor on
the train would have to explain to him that "we can't get
there from here" (even though they might be just a few feet
away) :-)

It sounds akin to those places where a route is
continuous, but you have to change trains because
the gauge of the tracks changes. It also reminds
me of driving in England, then after a ferry ride
including the car (or, nowadays, after the
"chunnel"), you have to switch which side of the
road you drive on in France. My own experience
in Australia has shown me that I'm intellectually
incapable of making that switch though others
can do it apparently effortlessly. I'm not going
to rent a car if I go to Australia again though,
because I was a menace on the road when I was
there. I came out of a rest stop once at night
and happily started tooling down the highway
without a care in the world, until a car ahead of
me coming in the opposite direction started
honking, and pulled over to the side of the road.
It was only then that I realized I'd been driving
on the wrong side since I'd left the rest stop.
That was what really convinced me. You'd think
that the fact the steering wheel was on the
right side of the car instead of the left might
have clued me in, but apparently that wasn't
enough.

I also won't rent a car if I go to England
again, but I'm getting so old now that it's
seeming more and more likely that I'll
never return. I've never myself driven
in England, or anywhere other than
Australia where people drive on the
left side of the road.

[mg]

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg

Post by rumpelstiltskin

Post by mg
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 05:23:35 -0700 (PDT), me

Post by me
Equality, diversity, democracy - this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-20/pat-buchanan-asks-liberalism-dying-faith

Liberalism is dead. It's as dead as the dinosaur. It was
killed by a SOB named Bill Clinton.
That doesn't mean that it's not okay to talk about
liberalism, though. However, anyone who doesn't talk about
liberalism in the past tense is merely demonstrating their
ignorance.
----------------------------------------------
"Neo-liberalism" is a set of economic policies
that have become widespread during the last 25
years or so. Although the word is rarely heard
in the United States, you can clearly see the
effects of neo-liberalism here as the rich grow
richer and the poor grow poorer."
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=376

I'm a socialist, and socialism is as alive in
the USA as it ever was, which is "not very".

I don't think there's a word to describe my thoughts on the
best type of government. What I've concluded is that there
is probably no ideology that will not work under a specific
set of circumstances, with a particular group of people, in
a particular time frame and, on the other hand, there is
probably no type of government that will work all the time,
and anytime, under any set of circumstances, with any
particular group of people, in any random time frame.

That sounds fair. As Bullwinkle used to say,
"Go go go! -- but watch where you're going!"

Post by mg
Even if there is a particular ideology which provides the
best frame work for a method of governing a large
civilization of H. sapiens, the question still remains,
though: how do we get there? Is democracy the best way to
establish and maintain a socialist government (or a
capitalist government, or a theocracy, etc.)? Or, is some
other type of government the best way to get there?

Perhaps it might be said that it's impossible for even
the wisest people to define a government that can't
be commandeered and used to their own advantage
by selfish and "evil" people. Voltaire once wrote that
the best government might be benign dictatorship
kept in line by occasional assassination.

I would assume that Voltaire probably spent some time
thinking about this and I would also assume that anyone who
had thought about the problem very much might put forth the
same type of speculation. Or, to put it another way, perhaps
democracies are not the best route to use to arrive at the
best type of government, no matter what it happens to be.
I've told this story before, but at the steel plant I worked
at. We had railroad tracks that went around the steel plant
starting out on the east side and going in a southerly
direction and we had railroad tracks that went around the
steel plant starting out on the east side and going in a
northerly direction and they both stopped in the middle of
the steel plant, on the west side of the steel plant and
there was no place where they connected to each other.
So, from time to time, a new foreman would spot a railroad
engine close by and wave the crew down and ask them to move
a railroad car for him. When that happened, the conductor on
the train would have to explain to him that "we can't get
there from here" (even though they might be just a few feet
away) :-)

It sounds akin to those places where a route is
continuous, but you have to change trains because
the gauge of the tracks changes. It also reminds
me of driving in England, then after a ferry ride
including the car (or, nowadays, after the
"chunnel"), you have to switch which side of the
road you drive on in France. My own experience
in Australia has shown me that I'm intellectually
incapable of making that switch though others
can do it apparently effortlessly. I'm not going
to rent a car if I go to Australia again though,
because I was a menace on the road when I was
there. I came out of a rest stop once at night
and happily started tooling down the highway
without a care in the world, until a car ahead of
me coming in the opposite direction started
honking, and pulled over to the side of the road.
It was only then that I realized I'd been driving
on the wrong side since I'd left the rest stop.
That was what really convinced me. You'd think
that the fact the steering wheel was on the
right side of the car instead of the left might
have clued me in, but apparently that wasn't
enough.
I also won't rent a car if I go to England
again, but I'm getting so old now that it's
seeming more and more likely that I'll
never return. I've never myself driven
in England, or anywhere other than
Australia where people drive on the
left side of the road.

There are people, like me, who are more accident prone than
others. People like me definitely belong in offices away
from moving machinery. I remember one time, at the steel
plant, I was talking to a conductor and had my back to a
railroad track. When the conversation ended, I began to turn
around and intended to cross the track, but the conductor
grabbed my shirt and prevented me from stepping in front of
a train.

We had one person, who worked on the steel plant railroad
who had lost his legs and used to come to work sitting on
little square board with wheels on it. We had one person who
got his hips crunched between the jaws of two railroad-car
couplers.

I remember one night on a graveyard shit, on a cold winter
night, a switchman got ran over by a train and was ran over
by a lot of cars before anyone knew what had happened. I was
the one who called the ambulance. As it turned out, there
was very little space between the ground and the bottom of
the cars. Someone said that the railroad cars "made
hamburger out of him".

[d***@gmail.com]

I don't believe I've seen a direct answer to Buchanan's claim that liberalism is the faith of 'liberals' in the secular state that is characterized by equality, democracy, and diversity. Some of you have equated liberalism with socialism. What do YOU think liberalism is? I have always thought of it as a social movement, a set of beliefs that make you a member of a morally superior class.

Eugene FitzAubrey

[me]

Belief in moral superiority does not mean having moral superiority. Both contemporary liberals and socialists merely shift responsibility from themselves to others (society/public/rich). They ‘say’ but dont ‘do’. There is nothing moral about this. It is the outsourcing of responsibility, the illusion of caring and so the essence of selfishness.

http://www.endit.info/Myth.shtml

[islander]

Post by d***@gmail.com
I don't believe I've seen a direct answer to Buchanan's claim that liberalism is the faith of 'liberals' in the secular state that is characterized by equality, democracy, and diversity. Some of you have equated liberalism with socialism. What do YOU think liberalism is? I have always thought of it as a social movement, a set of beliefs that make you a member of a morally superior class.
Eugene FitzAubrey

Principles of conservatism have come to be associated in popular terms
of governance that:
1) maintains traditional social values,
2) protects the individual from excesses and abuses of government,
3) does not interfere with free markets and free enterprise,
4) minimizes taxes and regulations, and
5) is responsible and accountable to the people.

By comparison, principles of liberal governance include
1) expanded social rights for minorities and women,
2) reliance on rule-of-law over individual or institutional power,
3) regulated markets and commerce,
4) progressive taxation as needed to support government activities, and
5) a government elected by the people in a fair and equitable election
process.

Unfortunately, conservatism as practiced in the United States has failed
in that it doesn't recognize that any form of government is only as good
as it treats the public. In that role, conservatism has failed us.

[me]

Well isn’t that an interesting observation. How do you explain Liberal Democrat voting shit holes to yourself as examples of success?

[islander]

Post by me
Well isn’t that an interesting observation. How do you explain Liberal Democrat voting shit holes to yourself as examples of success?

How are you coming in supporting your claims about "liberal democratic
voting shit holes?"

In reality, states with large urban populations are doing better
economically than the more rural states.

[me]

See
http://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-schools-in-the-us/
https://wallethub.com/edu/best-run-cities/22869/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
https://www.forbes.com/pictures/ejii45efkm/the-5-biggest-municipal-bankruptcies-in-u-s-history/#282cf35f1c76
https://www.gobankingrates.com/net-worth/us-cities-gone-bankrupt/
https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/top-100-worst-schools
http://time.com/money/4755758/income-inequality-best-worst-cities/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2017/06/21/economic-blight-50-worst-american-cities-live/415609001/
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-united-states.html

[d***@gmail.com]

Islander, thank you for providing your understanding of liberalism (and conservatism). You and most of the posters here see these matters in political terms. When Pat Buchanan refers to liberalism as a faith he may mean the intensity of your convictions or your replacement of the values of Christendom with a new set of your own choosing. I am sympathetic with Buchanan and his viewpoint, although I don't share his pessimism.

Eugene FitzAubrey

[d***@gmail.com]

I wonder which are the 25 SAFEST schools in the US and why we aren't told about them.

Eugene FitzAubrey