|
Post by ltfred on Feb 14, 2010 15:13:49 GMT -5
So what you're saying is that Bush's big problem was that he was too liberal? Yes. Bravo. That's exactly what was contained in that post. You are an amazing logician. Protectionism is usually regarded as liberal. He complained about some mild protectionism on Bush's part. Two and two make...
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Feb 14, 2010 17:34:55 GMT -5
Yes. Bravo. That's exactly what was contained in that post. You are an amazing logician. Protectionism is usually regarded as liberal. He complained about some mild protectionism on Bush's part. Two and two make... 32 in your case it seems
|
|
apedant
Full Member
Over himself, over his body and soul, the individual is sovereign--J S Mill.
Posts: 139
|
Post by apedant on Feb 14, 2010 20:32:53 GMT -5
Right then, let's start at the beginning, PO1005, Introduction to Political Philosophies.
Liberalism is a political philosophy based largely on the writings of JS Mill and Jeremy Bentham. It primarily believes that government has no role in the personal sphere of life, applying Mill's "harm principle", that a person is free to do any thing that does not harm another person. The role of government is to protect the individual from others, not from themselves. Liberalism is underpinned by a belief in the effectiveness of competition and freedom of choice, and so is characterised by a belief in free trade on both a national and a global level.
Conservatism is a philosophy based on the desirability of stability and order, it seeks to conserve the status quo, giving rise to the name. Paternalist and underpinned by a belief in the need for a strong nation state, it will often be associated with protectionism, isolationism and exceptionalism (the latter two being somewhat incompatible will depend on the precise nature of the movement in question, compare the neo-conservative movement of the USA with the powerful conservative trends in Swiss politics).
Socialism is a political model based on the idea that the workforce is oppressed and desrves to be raised in society. Being by its nature revolutionary (in most cases figuratively rather than armed revolution) socialism conceives of its constituent workers that they require the leadership of those who have been enlightened as to their needs, this gives rise to the paradox known as Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy (that in any socialist or anarchist organisation an oligarchy, mostly of administrators and the educated, will of necessity arise). In order to create or protect jobs for the domestic workforce, one style of socialism will engage in protectionism. Seeking solidarity for the global workers, another branch will seek open borders, although it is antagonistic to the global trade that tends to emerge from such a system.
I think I have managed to go an impressive length of time on this site without screaming this, so I will caps lock it LIBERALISM=/=SOCIALISM.
So no, I'm not saying the problem with GWB was him being too liberal, the problem was the age old problem of a conservative adopting conservative protectionism.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Feb 14, 2010 20:55:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Feb 14, 2010 22:27:43 GMT -5
Right then, let's start at the beginning, PO1005, Introduction to Political Philosophies. So you would, for instance, call FDR a conservative, because he supported protectionism? Or berhaps a socialist, even though he wanted a market? The reason this doesn't work is because there are often more than one branch of political philosophies. In US terms, 'Liberal' means Modern Liberalism, but there are also Neo-Liberals and traditional Liberals. Both some traditional liberals and most modern liberals support protectionism. Not so much neo-liberals. In the same way, there are different kinds of conservatism. The more Keynesian or Burkeanish (in the sense that their reform was organic, not planned) conservatives like the Germans and Austrians support pretty strong government intervention to prevent social collapse. But US conservatives, mostly followers of Oakeshott (or a wierd combination of social conservatism and neo-liberalism) don't. Not even a little. Marx, on other hand would be too busy crucifying most of the US bankers to respond.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Feb 14, 2010 23:13:04 GMT -5
I wish to take a moment to observe that I would have hot sweaty man sex with John Stuart Mill in a second, except that he was by all accounts completely happy with his partner, was not gay or bisexual, and is in any case an inconvenient number of decades (i.e. any) dead.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Feb 14, 2010 23:48:35 GMT -5
This is why I hate arguments over labels.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Feb 14, 2010 23:55:48 GMT -5
Exactly, they're too damn subjective. What is liberal to one person is conservative to another.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Feb 15, 2010 19:29:57 GMT -5
Wow, how did a conversation on political labels come about?
|
|
apedant
Full Member
Over himself, over his body and soul, the individual is sovereign--J S Mill.
Posts: 139
|
Post by apedant on Feb 15, 2010 19:37:29 GMT -5
I wish to take a moment to observe that I would have hot sweaty man sex with John Stuart Mill in a second, except that he was by all accounts completely happy with his partner, was not gay or bisexual, and is in any case an inconvenient number of decades (i.e. any) dead. Quite scandalously so, since Harriet's husband (I'm reaching for a name, I want to say Sir Joseph but that is possibly wrong) took an inconsiderately long time to die, despite being in Victorian terms an old man.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Feb 15, 2010 21:41:17 GMT -5
Wow, how did a conversation on political labels come about? Fuck if I know, I just decided to add some pointless commentary. Boredom is an amazing thing. Now, back to our original programming...
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Feb 15, 2010 22:36:16 GMT -5
I see someone's very consistent with his spelling errors, grammar still sucks to the point I don't get or understand the point though.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Feb 15, 2010 22:45:53 GMT -5
The signs refer to Obma the Merciless, a radical anarchist who proposes militarily overthrowing the government and has an army of far-left soldiers. Hillary Clinton, however, made the prophecy that he will fail as long as Texas (is independent), because he will change up the prosecution of his campaign in Oklahoma and expose his flank. We don't need Obma's Civiol War.
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Feb 16, 2010 9:33:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by discoberry on Feb 16, 2010 9:34:34 GMT -5
|
|