Will the real liberals please stand up?

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem with that kind of one-dimensional thinking is that it tends to produce oscillations from one extreme to the next.

Arguing that the cure for too little individual liberty is too much individual liberty is like advocating drowning as a cure for dehydration.

As the massive state apparatus of the United States -- including the military, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, etc. -- passes under the control of Donald J. Trump, a lot of liberals are suddenly nervous, thinking "Look at how much power this guy has! This is scary!" But these same so-called liberals were in favor of all this power when Obama held it.

I don't recall too many liberals arguing in favour of a surveillance state.

That's why genuine liberals oppose massive state bureaucracy as a matter of principle, not just when the opposition party is in government. Give them too much money and too much power, and suddenly your tax dollars are being used to spy on you, to blow people up in other countries, to deport millions, to build walls, etc., and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

The problem with opposing state bureaucracy as a matter of principle is that it means taking a principled stand against all the positive things such a bureaucracy can achieve.

Granted, if you're of the view that the alleviation of poverty is something that the free market could do better, that's not a perspective that will hold much appeal for you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, thank christ somebody said it.

Are we really so wrapped up in internet politics that the only phases of political ideology we can see are the skewed American types?

For most liberals, or left leaning people, the "liberals" of the American sort are largely unrecognisable and certainly don't represent their values a lot of the time. A lot of left leaning people in Europe are flabbergasted at some of the bizarre actions attributed to "liberals" in the US.

Both here and the Cafe, I've seen comments about what "far left liberals" are up to in Ireland. It's a complete nonsense, one can't be far left and liberal.

I actually don't think we have many liberals in Ireland. We have many flavours of social democrats, some left wing parties and a smattering of right wing individuals who occasionally coalesce.

I don't think the Demcrats in the US are really liberal either. They're fairly populist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

recedite

According to Vulcan philosophy,

Mr Spock wrote:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

But who decides on the needs of the many? If its one person, he's a tyrant.
If its by a democratic vote, it can still be "the tyranny of the majority".
A certain amount of coercion is always going to be required to enforce the needs of the many if "the few" object, possibly even the establishment of a police state which is obviously going to damage individual liberty.

The Enlightenment age liberals were quite happy to use a certain amount of that coercion in order to achieve certain key objectives (enshrined in their republican constitutions) But to use any more than necessary would betray the core principles.

Consequently I think neither the US libertarians nor the "left wing" Alt liberals of today would be "liberals" in the classical sense. One is obsessed with the liberty of individuals, and the other is obsessed with the liberty of "groups" within a society. Classical liberalism focuses on the well being of the society as a whole.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

According to Vulcan philosophy,

But who decides on the needs of the many? If its one person, he's a tyrant.
If its by a democratic vote, it can still be "the tyranny of the majority".
A certain amount of coercion is always going to be required to enforce the needs of the many if "the few" object, possibly even the establishment of a police state which is obviously going to damage individual liberty.

The Enlightenment age liberals were quite happy to use a certain amount of that coercion in order to achieve certain key objectives (enshrined in their republican constitutions) But to use any more than necessary would betray the core principles.

Consequently I think neither the US libertarians nor the "left wing" Alt liberals of today would be "liberals" in the classical sense. One is obsessed with the liberty of individuals, and the other is obsessed with the liberty of "groups" within a society. Classical liberalism focuses on the well being of the society as a whole.

Did you make up the term "alt liberal" to mirror the alt right? Can you please define it or stop using it?

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Much the same way as libertarian is only ever used to refer to the right wing flavour. The assumption being that everyone on the left is authoritarian.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

Did you make up the term "alt liberal" to mirror the alt right? Can you please define it or stop using it?

It wasn't me :pac:

Saipanne wrote: »

I agree. Again, the modern definition of liberalism does no longer fit the traditional meaning. Alt liberal?

recedite wrote: »

Lets define some of the tenets of the Alt Liberal ideology then.

Guns are bad but weed is wholesome.

All cultures are equally valid, no matter how horrible or backward they are. We have no right to criticise them, or to expect them to remain in their own country.
International borders are bad, because they hinder multiculturalism which is good. Everyone would live in a happy-clappy multicultural bliss if it wasn't for The Populists*.

Freedom of speech is valued (for anyone who is speaking in favour of the Alt Liberal agenda). Any one tries to criticise Alt Liberal ideals shall be righteously "no-platformed".


*Populism used be the idea of giving democracy to the common people, as distinct from having an oligarchy or a monarchy in charge of things.
But that was back in the days when Liberals were associated with the enlightenment and were quite happy to crack down on ideologies that clashed with their own, so liberals were also populists.

Populists nowadays are the bete noir of the Alt Liberal. Basically anyone who disagrees with their agenda, and especially anyone who beats them in a democratic election.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

Did you make up the term "alt liberal" to mirror the alt right? Can you please define it or stop using it?

I coined it. My argument is that modern day liberals are not really liberals at all, as per my op. So I came up with the new phrase. I think the alt right and alt liberal have much in common, with respect to their authoritarian behaviour.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

I coined it. My argument is that modern day liberals are not really liberals at all, as per my op. So I came up with the new phrase. I think the alt right and alt liberal have much in common, with respect to their authoritarian behaviour.

Surely alt right and alt left make more sense? Alt liberal doesn't really fit.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

Surely alt right and alt left make more sense? Alt liberal doesn't really fit.

They choose to call themselves liberals, not I.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

They choose to call themselves liberals, not I.

You chose to make up the term alt liberal. A term that lacks any meaning.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

You chose to make up the term alt liberal. A term that lacks any meaning.

So?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It wasn't intended as an insult, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

My point was that there's a tendency to look at immensely complex social questions through the prism of a single perspective - liberalism versus conservatism, left versus right, democracy versus authoritarianism - and diagnose simplistic cures on the basis of the one-dimensional view that ensues.

I've made the same point when it comes to taxation, where every proposed change to a tax code is scrutinised through the simplistic lens of "progressiveness" - is the tax progressive or regressive? Will it of necessity take a greater percentage of the net worth of a wealthy person than that of a poorer person? If not, it's condemned as regressive, and vehemently argued against.

That's the sort of one-dimensional thinking - I hope you can see that I mean the phrase literally, rather than pejoratively - that resulted in our income tax system being skewed to the point where something like half the workforce paid no income tax at all during the bubble, which in turn inevitably contributed to a collapse in the public finances.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

So?

So either define it or stop using it.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

So either define it or stop using it.

Alt liberal. Noun. Meaning modern day groups who identify as liberals but often behave like their authoritarian alt-right adversaries.

Usage:

It seems like you're trying to suppress a term that you don't like. How very alt-liberal of you.

Chips Lovell

But very few people on this side of the Atlantic identify as liberals.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because they're usually called anarchists.

It's undeniably the case, though, that the left generally pursues its goals through the power of the state. The left's solution to wealth inequality is taxation and redistribution; the solution to poverty is government social programs; the solution to environmental problems is state regulation, etc. I can't think of any left-wing movement that tries to accomplish its goals in a libertarian way, i.e., in a manner other than trying to leverage the power of large government.

I think you miss the point of a socialist society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe the state and the people are separate and distinct entities and always will be. I belive the state is a projection of the power of the people. In a libertarian socialist society the role of the state becomes redundant because it's no longer necessary as power is directly devolved to the people.

Right wing libertarians believe in destruction of the state and left wing libertarians believe in making the state redundant.

I don't know if I'm explaining that very well. But I believe a misinterpretation of what "the state" actually is in socialist society leads people to view socialism as an authoritarian system. That and the bastardisation of socialism that occurred in the USSR.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

Alt liberal. Noun. Meaning modern day groups who identify as liberals but often behave like their authoritarian alt-right adversaries.

Usage:

It seems like you're trying to suppress a term that you don't like. How very alt-liberal of you.

Thanks. They don't exist.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

Thanks. They don't exist.

They do. Anyone who calls themselves liberal and seeks to dogmatically suppress others fits the description.

PLENTY of those people around. Alt liberal. Spread the word.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

They do. Anyone who calls themselves liberal and seeks to dogmatically suppress others fits the description.

PLENTY of those people around. Alt liberal. Spread the word.

As the inventor of the "alt liberal" moniker the onus on you is to prove they exist. Can you provide some evidence, other than your repeated assertions they do exist?

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

As the inventor of the "alt liberal" moniker the onus on you is to prove they exist. Can you provide some evidence, other than your repeated assertions they do exist?

Honestly, I'm struggling to understand why I should provide you with anything. I am under no onus to run off to Google by your command and provide you with links, especially since you will only dismiss them anyway.

I'm happy with the definition, as we all know various feminist/SJW movements have used coercive tactics to bully people into submission. We all know they attempt to force their dogma on society. If they didn't do this under the banner of liberalism, I wouldn't call them alt liberal. But they do.

You seem too worked up over a made up term. It is neither offensive nor derogatory. It's a fitting description. So I will continue to use the term as freely as I wish. You can have the last word, I won't be responding to your posts any longer.

ancapailldorcha

Saipanne wrote: »

It seems like you're trying to suppress a term that you don't like. How very alt-liberal of you.

Quit sneering and while you're at it, backup your claims if asked or don't make them. This is explained in the charter.

K-9

Saipanne wrote: »

They do. Anyone who calls themselves liberal and seeks to dogmatically suppress others fits the description.

PLENTY of those people around. Alt liberal. Spread the word.

So would supporters of ssm be alt liberal? Some religious types would see that as repression.

Saipanne

I'll just go, guys. I can tell I'm not welcome in this forum.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

Honestly, I'm struggling to understand why I should provide you with anything. I am under no onus to run off to Google by your command and provide you with links, especially since you will only dismiss them anyway.

I'm sorry, but the entire ethos of the politics forum is that if you make a claim you back it up. If something is proposed with zero evidence, it can be dismissed with zero evidence.

I'm happy with the definition, as we all know various feminist/SJW movements have used coercive tactics to bully people into submission. We all know they attempt to force their dogma on society. If they didn't do this under the banner of liberalism, I wouldn't call them alt liberal. But they do.

You seem too worked up over a made up term. It is neither offensive nor derogatory. It's a fitting description. So I will continue to use the term as freely as I wish. You can have the last word, I won't be responding to your posts any longer.

I was hoping to change your mind through reasoned debate.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

... evidence?....

How about this.
The suppression of a liberal, by alt liberals.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

How about this.
The suppression of a liberal, by alt liberals.

How about that? Who started the petition? Did they identify as liberals? I'm not seeing that in the article.

Could the petition have been started by Muslims?