Coming Out of the Closet: Rant-Libertarianism, The State, and Democracy

[DTSKKH]

THIS IS BRUTAL

[allixpeeke]

From a libertarian anarchist to a libertarian minarchist, I say: good for you. :)

While I would prefer to see ALL legitimate activities currently administered by the state (e.g., defence of person and property, adjudication of disputes, education, &c.) handled by voluntary associations and businesses operating on a purely free market, and all illegitimate state functions simply eliminated entirely, I nevertheless maintain that I would rather live in a minarchist society than our statist one. :)

[lastradicaldude1]

fruitkay, when you state that we cannot legislate morality, I am unsure what you refer to for example. Almost every law is some attempt to legislate morality, if by no other means creating a punishment as a deterrent. It is true that morality cannot be taught by the law, but must be learned through everyday experience and sometimes philosphy. Recognition of the rights of others is what ultimately leads an individual to discover objective morality. A moral people will do no harm.

[mattsamudio]

@fruitikay ... congratulations on the growth you've experienced. I'm happy for you, and look forward to your next step(s) of growth, which should lead you to anarcho-capitalism :)

[tridentmovies]

@ fruitikay,

If you keep an open mind, i expect you to declare yourself an anarcho-capitalist within a few years. Once you've made the step toward minarchism, the only thing that remains is the last remnants of government you deem necessary for society. But if you keep thinking, you'll reach the point where even those last remnants are just based on dogmatic notions about the "necessity" of government.

Most anarcho-capitalists started as conservatives or liberals once.

[allixpeeke]

@tridentmovies

At the beginning of the millennium, I was a liberal with some vague libertarian tendencies. By 2004, I was a minarchist who believed in natural law and natural rights. By 2006, I rejected taxation but supported the state, like Ayn Rand. By July of 2007, I was an anarchist of the Rothbardian sort.

I still believe in natural law and natural rights. But, now, I no longer believe that the state is a legal institution. Today, many of my minarchist friends have also become anarchists.

[SuricataSol]

Next step: Anarchism. Check out Stefan Molyneux

[Infowarriorification]

Thank you! you have realized that governmnet doesnt need to interfere with our personal lives! You should be able to do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. I don't see what's wrong with that philosophy.

[TheAssesKicker]

@Infowarriorification I do think that the government should interfere in people's lives. e.g. taking money from the rich to give it to the poor. I'm a Liberal, I believe in big government, not a corrupted big government, a good one.

[allixpeeke]

@TheAssesKicker I am all for voluntary charity. But, I cannot condone the existence of the state. The state is inherently violent. Compulsory taxation amounts to men in blue suits with shiny badges pointing guns at innocent people and telling said innocent people that they must choose either to surrender their own justly-acquired money or submit themselves to being thrown in cages. I am far too merciful to ever support the existence of such an inherently-violent, inherently-criminal institution.

[TheAssesKicker]

@allixpeeke Good god, don't make me laugh. "their own justly-acquired money" = bs.

[BlackSabbathXTheCure]

I am also a Minarchist-Libeterian. We should have free undocile rights. Even if we don't agree with each other. And I agree with you when you said that there is no such thing as the best democracy. Because that would require perfection, and perfection does not exist.

[COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY]

you do have a fake democracy in the U$A, real democracy would mean public ownership of land and industry, not ownership by private fascist interests feeding their own parasitic greed

[COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY]

libertarianism is for neo-fascists, a doctrine of hatred

[tridentmovies]

@COMMUNISTPHILOSOPHY

Yawn. Got any more ad hominem garbage? Go eat some tofu, commie. But be sure to ask for permission of all your comrades. No private property, after all.

[kazearaki]

Excuse me Miss, but Socialist Libertarian is the traditional definition for Libertarianism. Capitalist Libertarian, or you can call it Minarchist Libertarian is an exclusively used US version of Right Libertarianism.

[Left] Anarchism from my point of view, is not about the lack of government, but the lack of State. Only idiots would want to live in a govern-less society. The differences between Anarchist government and other is that it is socialist, egalitarian, democratic and grass-root driven.

[tridentmovies]

@kazearaki

Anarchy doesn't mean lack of state. It means lack of "rule" (as in 'being ruled'). Therefor, any so-called anarchism where there is still a government imposing its will on people is NOT anarchism.

[kazearaki]

@tridentmovies

Confusing Anarchy and Anarchism.

A government-less society is anarchy (chaos) which is what twats like you seek to vilify Anarchism with. A trade unions confederation is still a government, despite lacking a state.

If you want to spew garbage, you got better chance to sell them to those tea bagger zombies.

[allixpeeke]

@kazearaki

A stateless society IS anarchy, but it is NOT chaos. Anarchy requires a prohibition on aggression, where aggression is defined as initiation of force or fraud against person or property. Whenever a person aggresses, she or he is acting as lord and master over her or his victim. Thus, wherever aggression arises, so does statism. Only where aggression is eliminated and thwarted can anarchy be said to exist. Anarchy is an orderly and lawful, albeit not a conformist or coercive, system.

[allixpeeke]

@tridentmovies

Slight correction: Anarchy is the lack of rulers, the lack of rulership. We oughtn't say that anarchy means a lack of "rule" because people will interpret that as meaning a lack of rules, or a lack of law. As I'm sure you'll agree, anarchy clearly REQUIRES a prohibition on rulership, otherwise known as a prohibition on initiating force or fraud against the person or justly-acquired property of others. And, this prohibition on rulership could aptly be described as a rule or a law.

[TheKatyLady1]

Then you should vote for Ron Paul

[dougcarlton]

Wonderful, being informed is liberating. Thanks for this honest moment.

[BoundlessEyes]

Welcome to the dark side. =) This is why youtube is fantastic.

[jrc99us]

...(CON'T) I wish you luck fruitikay and I'll stay friends with you.

But do know I do not make friends with Neo-Cons so far I have had many friend attempts by Neo-Cons and like usual their rants contained racism and drug-use that's why I made my latest vid on my channel.

I honestly see where you are coming from but don't throw away your morals because libertarianism sounds nice.

If you ever wanna chat shoot me an email.

HOOYAH!

[jrc99us]

...(CON'T) Finally, DO NOT fall in the trap of blaming "the corporations." There are crony-capitalists like GE but blame the corporations in general that includes small-businesses as well. That's what socialists/liberals/fascists have done for decades.

Also another question is do you believe in limited-markets?

And are you a deist or atheist/agnostic aka a-moral?

If you answered yes to all these questions then you are most definitely libertarian...

[jrc99us]

...(CON'T) that arrogantly assumes that everyone in the world thinks like us. Jefferson also wanted the United States to be the divided states especially when it comes to the military. He wanted each state to have it's own militia-type military and when one state is being attacked for a focal-point in attacking the United States in general the other states can opted out for defending the United States...

[jrc99us]

...(CON'T) At one time I thought I was libertarian as well but then I realized who libertarians are they are Neo-Cons aka Fiscally Conservative but Socially Liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a big instigator of the libertarian model. As much as I admire Jefferson he was wrong in so many things. For example he believed that if isolate yourself from the rest of the world the world will leave you alone. Very interesting thought but flawed...

[jrc99us]

Well fruitikay I'm sorry to hear this. I am going to ask you some VERY serious questions...

1. Do you support legalized narcotics and/or other controlled substances?

2. Do you support the legalization of prostitution?

3. Do you support homosexual marriage and/or special rights for homosexuals?

4. Do you support blaming 9/11 on the United States?

5. Do you support abortion?

6. Do you support disbanding the military?

7. Do you support amnesty for all illegal immigrants?

...

[JustABitchyCancer]

some people need public assistance and will always. charity just ain't going to cut it.

[JustABitchyCancer]

I have decided to never label myself as anything. Even the green party doesn't fit all my views. Even if they did i can't define myself as anything anymore.

[JustABitchyCancer]

and i originally listed myself as independent anyway when i registered cause i always believed we should look at the candidate.

[JustABitchyCancer]

I liked the whole libertarian idea (i may have commented on this before) till i found out it was against SS, public assistance, etc (which i should have known). I am against big government other than that.

[MrDpsummers]

Well said.

[CasusLuciferi]

I just have to ask. This was news to you? I mean, I'm no political science major, though I think politics is fun but this is something that I thought was common knowledge. This country has been economically Fascist since the second world war. I don't mean to come off as a prick and look forward to a possible exchange.

[Evilanious]

I would like to see something you have learned in your studies back in your video. You just make a bunch of hollow and vague statements like 'liberals support big government.' The whole frase 'big government' has little meaning to me at this point. You could have provided examples of bad policies liberals stand for and explained why this is bad. You say you dont want morality to be legislated. I consider not murdering people a form of morality and I really do want that to be legislated.

[fruitikay]

@Evilanious Okay, wow. I wasn't giving you guys a thesis. I was stating what my beliefs are and how they have changed from being a conservative. This video wasn't to argue for my belief system, it was stating my belief system. This is the first time I have come out to my subs about it. Obviously if I was doing a different video I would give facts, stats, and other research to support my claims. This is not that type of video.

[piprod01]

Does the state really involve itself in what you do in your own bedroom, outside maybe the age of consent?

[prophetchannel]

BTW I really hate the term "libertarian". It should rather be called simply "liberal". Unfortunately, the left in the US has captured the term from its original meaning to mean mild socialism and welfare-state populism. In Norway, to be "liberal", is not the opposite of "conservative", but is a dimension on its own, which is more like the opposite of "authoritarian", and is more of a right-wing position to take. The biggest party on the right call themselves "liberal-conservative".

[fruitikay]

@prophetchannel In America, Liberal and Libertarian are completely different. I'm not for the welfare state or socialism at all. I didn't explain any of that in here because it was a rant about my change from conservatism to libertarianism. I understand its different in Norway, but I'm talking about America. Thanks a lot for your comment I really appreciate it. :)

[fruitikay]

@prophetchannel Oh nevermind I understand your comment now.

[prophetchannel]

I wish you would clarify your political assumptions more, and also provide examples. I know it was not a video trying to convince people of your positions, and more about stating them. However, it would be more interesting if you would give more thorough reasons for what you believe.

[RockingMrE]

One more thing: I TOTALLY agree with EVERYTHING you say in this vid.

We're political soulmates :-)

[RockingMrE]

I'm more of a minarchist libertarian too.

Feel free to check out my "Is the State Necessary?" series because I talk a lot about many of the issues you discuss.

Love your Hannah Minx vid btw :-)

[fruitikay]

@RockingMrE I will go look at your videos! :) :) Thanks!

[jdefabs2112]

@fruitikay the more people give up their rights (free speech/right to bare arms) for a feeling of safety,we will eventually loose our country and our rights as citizens, our country is not a democracy,its just a ploy to make people feel like they have some say in whats going on,but if we were to take a vote who would vote for war/more taxes. your right on with what your saying dont hold back to save peoples feelings, you hit the nail right on the head :)

[Domingo0022IWAY]

Anarchy is not the solution IMO great points you presented here

[pamew]

"soft" libertarianism isn't such a bad thing, IMO. Socialist libertarianism appeals to me because I'm for personal freedom, but also want a system of support for the disadvantaged (which is realistically hard to accomplish without a hard government, unfortunately). I'll agree that the traditional political model has failed utterly, not just in the US but everywhere. In practice, I vote for the Labour party, because they're the closest thing to ideal I can find. Still far from perfect.

[prophetchannel]

@pamew I agree, I think we can see a social support system as a kind of inter-generational insurance, and should be run through the tax-system. It is difficult to be a socialist AND liberal (in the original meaning, not the United States meaning of the word), if socialism means a planned economy, stifling competition etc. But socialism seen as a set of "citizens rights" for covering basic necessities, can easily be combined with a free market. Government can also be used to enhance competition.

[jfrontier1]

Jay, study Hobbs and Jefferson. Hobbs argued that we needed to be ruled by the elite vs Jefferson who advocated a form of freedom (of course, not for everyone).

"If Voting Changed Anything They’d Abolish It." Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London 2000 - 2008 Enjoy the videos Jay, keep up the good work.

[fruitikayvlog]

@jfrontier1 Thank you very much. I have studied Hobbs along with Jefferson, Locke, Rousseau, and Machievelli. :)

[fruitikay]

@jfrontier1 Wow, sorry. I commented w/ my other account. XD

[OukaKisa]

I think the politicians in America suck... but I think that anarchy would be way worse o.O

[fruitikay]

@OukaKisa That's why I'm a minarchist, not an anarchist. :)

[OukaKisa]

@fruitikay what is a "minarchist"?

[fruitikay]

@OukaKisa Minarchism small government, or limited-government libertarianism is a libertarian political ideology which maintains that the state's only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud.Some minarchists defend the existence of the state as a necessary evil. Minarchism is closely associated with libertarianism, propertarianism, and classical liberalism.(wikipedia-better explanation)

[OukaKisa]

@fruitikay interesting... I have conversed with anarchists and they don't care about crimes existence (that... and they glorify revenge) =P

[qualityrkc]

@OukaKisa you live your life in anarchy. Do people tell you when to brush your teeth? When to get married? When to have a kid? The biggest choices you make in life are made without the assistance of a central government.

[OukaKisa]

@qualityrkc Yes... however having the government not telling us what to do in our personal lives isn't an anarchist position. Anarchy is more like "chaos" and involves society and not an individual person.

[LiberAnarchy]

Great job. Yep, America does not have a free market. it is corporatist.

YouTube did allot to introduce me to new avenues of study as well. :)

[AnnikaGarratt]

great video! can i ask what you think about the Alternative Vote in the UK? We are about to have a vote to change the voting system. :)

[SecularNumanist]

@AnnikaGarratt

lol, im an anarchist but im actually hoping we can have an alternative voting system. My older brother has been handing out leaflets and helping with the campaign

[AnnikaGarratt]

@SecularNumanist don't the anti AV adverts make you LOL they are so retarded!

[fruitikay]

@AnnikaGarratt I'm not very educated in UK politics, but I think that I support the alternative voting system. It seems like first-past-the-post might be a little too unfair (winner take all, right? I think, anyway). But yeah I agree with SecularNumanist I think.

[fruitikay]

@SkidRowRadio Thank you much, Ooj. :)

[fruitikay]

@brettkeanedotcom Wow, thank you! :) I accepted it. I will go look at it now. 

[SecularNumanist]

watch?v=3QlED2Hr5c4

this video is pretty funny btw, relates to your other videos linked

[SecularNumanist]

I really enjoyed this video.

Youre damn right about politicians being bought out by corporations, just look who helped Obamas campaign.

its a shame you are a minarchist.

Unless you agree with me 100 percent about absolutely everything then you are automatically my enemy and will be shot in the revolution.

[fruitikay]

@SecularNumanist LOL Well hopefully I'll have some time left before the anarcho revolution XD. Yep, about Obama and others, it's just a huge joke to me. All of these Repubs and Demos are getting all mad and passionate about a system that doesn't work anyway, IMO. Well, minarchist is only a few steps away...I've really been getting into studying it and also anarchy recently so who knows if I'll change further. That video was really good. The kid was totally right, too. Ridiculous.

[SecularNumanist]

@fruitikay

I suggest checking out "man economy and state" by murray rothbard if youre into that sort of thing.

[fruitikay]

@Menak666 Yes I know. That's what I've been saying a million times in this comment section: Liberals are generally for bigger government in the economy and smaller government in the social issues, where conservatives are the other way around. Libertarians are for smaller government in all areas. Thanks for the comments. :)

[fruitikay]

@PaulTM2991 Well I agree that we AREN'T a true democracy because of corrupted politics. I think we try to be a democracy, but democracy has failed. Any system where members elected by voters is *supposed* to be a democracy, not that it actually accomplishes that goal. Of course it never says that in the D of I and C. However, Jefferson loved John Locke, who supported the right of revolution for the people and Madison too who drafted the Const. and advocated for separation of powers.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

No matter what you want to call yourself, you're still conservative.

[fruitikay]

@NAGGERNUTZ Someone else called me a liberal a few minutes ago. How am I a conservative if I agree with making gambling legal, prostitution legal, pot legal, abortion legal, gay marriage legal, drugs of all kinds legal, and am against all the wars? Tell me how that is conservative. I don't know very many conservatives who are FOR all of those things.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@fruitikay - Darlin', sounds like you just moved farther to the right. I'm conservative and I believe most of the same things you do, with the exception of legal abortion and same sex marriage. There is no time really, that it's "OK" to kill a human being especially when it's a defenseless unborn. Most of this country's wars were started by democrats anyway. I believe in the word of god and the bible is quite clear on homosexuality, no gray area.

[fruitikay]

@NAGGERNUTZ God isn't real, lol. We don't agree. Women have the right to choose and gay people should get married. Libertarians agree with conservatives fiscally and economically, but they agree with liberals on social issues. Conservatives do not support legalizing drugs and prostitution. If you support that, your semi libertarian because most cons are focused on morality and values. Farther right is the last place I am. I'm a centrist.

[NAGGERNUTZ]

@fruitikay - I guess that we both agree that we're entitled to our own opinions. The way I look at it, women have the right to kill a living human being? Prostitution... this is where a woman has a right to do with her body, the way she sees fit. But when a life is created, she has to accept the responsibilities of her actions. I do see the hypocrisy of the war on drugs. Legalize them, put the money towards rehab and treatment, take the profits away from the cartels and dealers.

[fruitikay]

@PaulTM2991 Thanks for your comment. We are not just a Republic, though. We are often referred to by scholars and other political scientists as being a Democratic-Republic (We are technically a representative democracy as well as a republic). Democracy can be included in the definition of American government because we use Representative Democracy to elect people. A democratic republic is a country which is both a republic and a democracy, which is what we're supposed to be.

[Coquipirate]

Look up the fourteen characteristics of fascism. That's conservatives to the T. I hate how people base their votes on which administration will serve as the gaurdian of their idealized version of the family, or will keep Mexicans out of "their" country. I'm with you. Education, deffense, maybe enviormental stuff, after that gtfo!

[SecularNumanist]

@Coquipirate

1. Fascists didnt invent closed borders.

2. Fascists cared about "Education, deffense, maybe enviormental stuff"

[StanMarsh1]

Get rid of lobbyists for starters, how you are allowed to have such open bribery is astounding.

[MirageScience]

ANARCHY

generally speaking we are liberals and they are conservative. lol

[fruitikay]

@MirageScience How am I liberal if I'm against government intervention in the economy? :)

[SecularNumanist]

@MirageScience

anarchists are hardly conservative. not traditionally and not now.

[MirageScience]

@SecularNumanist well I'm talking about conservative vs liberal values  socialism vs freedom

she said in the video something along the lines of ancaps being generally conservative, which obviously only makes sense in the US, so its not "generally" so. xD

[fruitikay]

@MirageScience When did I say that? O_o

[MirageScience]

@fruitikay It's not a big deal, I think I'm being misunderstood,  I'm rather picky. Here it is: 1:03

[fruitikay]

@MirageScience Yes, Modern American Liberals believe in big government in fiscal and economic issues, and Modern American Conservatives believe in smaller government in fiscal and economic issues.

[1Here3And4Beyond9]

Politics in this country is a joke. Voting is just an illusion of choice that the people really stil have power in this country. We have to get away from this two party system. This has gone from a country that was a beacon for freedom to a beacon of the dollar sign. I don't know if there is any hope left to turn things around. Things aren't going to change even if Obama gets re-elected, it just means more draconian legislation like a lower corporate tax rate or cuts of social security.

[fruitikay]

@1Here3And4Beyond9 Wow, exactly! Great way of wording it! 

[mrscooter711]

I'm out of here :).. it's getting to deep man !! Awesome video Jay, Well done my friend and I admire your honesty :O)

[MarmaladeINFP]

The American conservative movement is idiosyncratic & doesn't necessarily have much to do with Europe's traditional conservatism. It's similar to how fundamentalism has little to do with traditional religion because fundamentalism is a modern response to a modern society. During the revolutionary war, Americans were fighting against the conservatives who remained loyal to Britain. Relative to the time period, the founding fathers were 'liberal'. But relative to today, they are 'conservative'.

[MarmaladeINFP]

Also, liberals aren't inherently for big govt. Liberalism is just the egalitarian desire for greater freedom & for the greatest good for the greatest number. Liberalism tends not to be ideological because it's always seeking the new, seeking to 'liberally' expand beyond constraints (whether ideological or social)... whereas the conservative tendency is to conserve the past which can even include the liberalism of the past (such as modern conservatives identifying with classical liberalism).

[fruitikay]

@MarmaladeINFP Here's Political Science 101: Modern American Conservatives are for less government in economy but bigger government on social issues. Modern American Liberals are for bigger government intervention in the economy and welfare and less government intervention in social issues. My kind of Libertarianism is for less government in economy AND social issues. I know the history of classical liberalism and conservatism, but that's irrelevant to today's definitions.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@fruitikay Well, I'm a modern American liberal and I don't fit the stereotypical definition of a liberal. And I think there are many liberals like me. The Democratic Party has become the definition of the modern American liberal, but that doesn't make sense to me. Only a 1/3 of Dems are liberal (1/3 conservative, 1/3 moderate) & almost 1/2 of liberals are Independents. I just think the understanding of liberalism has become skewed because neither of the 2 main parties is predominantly liberal.

[fruitikay]

@MarmaladelNFP Con't: I'm well aware that the founding fathers believed in a "liberal" form of government in the classical definition. But like I said, that's irrelevant to the discussion I'm referring to. No one calls themselves "liberal" in the classical sense anymore. People refer to the newer definitions. Yes, I know conservatives are for traditional values and liberals are for "new". That's beside my points, really. :) Thanks for your comments I appreciate them. :)

[MarmaladeINFP]

@fruitikay Technically & broadly speaking, classical liberalism is all liberalism prior to the 20th cent. But it's not like liberalism transformed into an entirely new species when the 20th century began. The American Revolution was inspired by & it's success was ensured by the liberal vision of Thomas Paine. Paine proposed a welfare state including a version of social security & a land tax that would be used to give payments to those who were landless. That is more progressive than Dems today.

[fruitikay]

@MarmaladeINFP That's because America is a center-right country. Even the liberal democrats have to skew their views slightly to the right in order to get elected. That is why there is a screwed up view of what liberalism is and isn't. Yes, classical liberalism became modern-day conservatism. Do you identify more with the classical conservatives, but agree with liberals on social issues? then you might just be some form of independent or libertarian. But I agree about Thomas Paine.

[fruitikay]

@MarmaladeINFP That's because America is a center-right country. Even the liberal democrats have to skew their views slightly to the right in order to get elected. That is why there is a screwed up view of what liberalism is and isn't. Yes, classical liberalism became modern-day conservatism. Do you identify more with the classical conservatives, but agree with liberals on social issues? then you might just be some form of independent or libertarian. But I agree about Thomas Paine.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@fruitikay In principle, I'm not for or against govt, not for or against capitalism. As a liberal, I'm more interested in ends than means. I'll accept anything that creates the greatest good for the greatest number. I'm suspicious of big govt & big biz because I'm suspicious of concentrated power, but if they must exist I'd prefer a system that separates govt & capitalism as govt & religion is separate. I could be wrong, but my sense is many liberals hold this non-ideological pragmatic view.

[MarmaladeINFP]

I think conservatives are more ideological which they consider as being principled. Conservatives see the liberal view of non-ideological pragmatism as being wishy-washy, flip-floppin moral relativism. Liberals see different means are necessary for different situations, different contexts, different times. There is no single liberal solution for all time. For liberals in the past, hyper-individualistic liberalism made sense because of oppressive govts. With new times, new liberal responses.

[fruitikay]

@MarmaladeINFP (con't) Yes I'd agree that perhaps cons are more ideological, however, you must recognize that liberals have some common themes among them as well (that doesn't mean you are included in this sphere). Yes, there are very many different types of liberalism. There are liberal-Repubs, and Lib Demos, and Lib Independents. There are Con Demos and Con Independents. It's just a crazy labeling game lol. :)

[MarmaladeINFP]

w w w. tnr. com/blog/alan-wolfe/false-dist­inction

"everywhere I go, the moment I tell people that I have written a book about liberalism, I am invariably asked which of the two I mean. Classical liberalism, my interlocutors patiently explain to me, is that wonderful notion of the free market elucidated by Adam Smith that worships the idea of freedom. The modern version, by contrast, is committed to expansion of the state and, if taken to its logical conclusion, leads to slavery."

[SecularNumanist]

@MarmaladeINFP

seriously, Smith was hardly a freemarket economist by todays standards.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@SecularNumanist That is my central point. Terms change meaning and theories change contexts. Of course, a free market would operate and be understood differently in the past. Nothing surprising about that.

[MarmaladeINFP]

"One must choose one or the other. There really is no such thing, therefore, as modern liberalism. If you opt for the market, you are a libertarian. If you choose government, you are a socialist or, in more recent times, a fascist.

I try to explain to people that in my book I reject any such distinction and argue instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. But so foreign is this idea to them that they stare at me in..."

[fruitikay]

@MarmaladeINFP (About the quote) that is one person's opinion, though. There are other educated people, like many of my professors, department heads, and writers of some of the books I'VE read who would say there is such a thing as modern liberalism. I don't know many modern liberals who agree with Adam Smith, because classical liberalism has turned into modern conservatism.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@fruitikay It's one person's opinion, specifically a liberal opinion. I tend to think it's best to ask a liberal about what is liberalism. The author of the above quote doesn't claim there isn't such a thing as modern liberalism. He just argues that liberalism as a general attitude doesn't change, but the historical context that the liberal responds to does change. So, a liberal is a liberal, but of course the ideas and solutions of liberals in the past is different than that of liberals today.

[MarmaladeINFP]

"...utter disbelief. How could I have possibly written a book on liberalism, I can almost hear them thinking, when this guy doesn’t know a thing about it?

...I think of the whole question of governmental intervention as a matter of technique. Sometimes the market does pretty well and it pays to rely on it. Sometimes it runs into very rough patches and then you need government to regulate it and correct its course. No matters of deep philosophy or religious meaning are at stake when we discuss.."

[MarmaladeINFP]

"...such matters. A society simply does what it has to do.

When instead we do discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers."

[SecularNumanist]

@MarmaladeINFP

Both Adam Smith and Keynes were wrong.

There has been much moe progress in market based economic thought since Smith. And Smith was a proto Keynsian anyway. there was mises, there was friedman, there was hayek, today there are people like walter block (not a fan of him) and even people like Kevin Carson who offer blends of different perspectives.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@SecularNumanist I don't know that the author was necessarily arguing for either Smith or Keynes. He was arguing for liberalism in pointing out that the liberal attitude remains the same even as liberal ideas and solutions change. A person can be a liberal while not liking either Smith or Keynes.

[Gettinghitonattheban]

@SecularNumanist

For some reason I read that  as Adam Sandler. ._.'

[SecularNumanist]

@Gettinghitonattheban

sorry, I meant to put Ben Stiller

[MarmaladeINFP]

"For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end."

[fruitikay]

@MarmaladeINFP (about your liberalism) well your views sound very reasonable. I understand that you want "the greatest good for the greatest number" that makes sense. Of course, the wide range definition of Modern American liberalism doesn't obviously fit all people who call themselves liberals. They are just labels and you can manipulate however you want. I don't know what you mean when you say "man liberals hold this non-ideological pragmatic view". A lot of libs I know do. *shrug*

[MarmaladeINFP]

@fruitikay My point is that there is a consistent meaning of liberalism from the past through the present. If you want to understand the fundamental attitude of liberalism, then look at psychological research which shows which traits people who identify as liberals tend to have. Also, I'd suggest reading Eric Alterman's Why We're Liberals. Alterman explains how liberalism has come to be presently understood. Liberalism is a tendency toward being non-ideological, but all tendencies are relative.

[MarmaladeINFP]

@fruitikay "That's because America is a center-right country. Even the liberal democrats have to skew their views slightly to the right in order to get elected."

Is that really the case?

“America is conservative in fundamental principles… but the principles conserved are liberal and some, indeed, are radical.”

Mainstream politics is center-right, but the American public is center-left:

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2010/01/23/us-demographics­-increasing-progressivism/

[MarmaladeINFP]

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2011/03/16/political-label­s-meaningless-divisive/

benjamindavidsteele.wordpress. com/2011/03/18/is-classical-li­beralism-liberal/

[AgainstZombies]

I just (as in 3 days ago) wrote a 9 page paper for my English class on the corruption of U.S. politics and how it brought about the current economic situation; I completely agree with what you say about corporations, politicians being bought, etc.

I don't know what to call myself though. I'm definitely not a libertarian, I don't think I'm a liberal, and I'm certainly not a moderate. I am for an efficient, effective, smart, and transparent government rather than a big or small government.

[fruitikay]

@AgainstZombies I just got your message! I'll get to responding. Good for you, though, for getting involved! It's okay if we disagree, but YES politics is very corrupt. You can just call yourself an Independent, that's always fun to identify as if you don't know. :)

[TheLaughingOut]

@fruitikay Social issues like health care and welfare and stuff?

[JustABitchyCancer]

ALL politicians are the same. They all are the same. They all are actors no matter who. Jesse ventura, ron paul, ralph nader, all all of them obama, etc are actors.

[fruitikay]

@JustABitchyCancer I agree with you exactly. They are all puppets, all actors.

[TheLaughingOut]

I know I'm a political n00b, I know this. So keep that in mind.

Isn't a "conservative" against "big government"?

[TemporalOnline]

So you are a libertarian that calls for less government because the CORPORATIONS bought the politicians... BUT now, you advocate for MORE FREEDOM for the corporations in order to solve the problem...

Can you explain it a bit more? How freeing (more) the corporations will solve the twist crated by the corporations onto politics?

Unless you are a "social libertarian" and a "fiscal liberal", or some kind of odd/cool mix...

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

[fruitikay]

@TemporalOnline Not just Corporations influence elections, but special interests and bribes as well. I never once said we should allow Corporations to influence elections. Government should stay out of the economy, just as the corporations should not interfere w/ the government. I don't word myself necessarily as being a Capitalist as much as I would call myself a Free Market individual. Government and the fat cats on Wallstreet should be independent of each other. :)

[SecularNumanist]

corporations and cartel exist as a result of government grants and privileges. take away the privilege and companies that cannot compete fairly simply cannot compete atall.

the state gives away the ability for companies to cheat. take away that ability and those potential corporations sink in Jeffersons tempestuous sea.

[jerudoriginal91]

America is the least free country in the world. America has been semi-fascist since the comunist witch hunt in the 50's... Wanna know what countries had comunist witch hunt? Portugal and Spain... countries that were dictatorships at the time... And let's not forget what America did in Chile...

[SecularNumanist]

@jerudoriginal91

hitler also had public motorways.

therefore every country with public motorways are nazi dictatorships

[fruitikay]

@jerudoriginal91 Yes, I totally agree. Thanks for the comment.

[HappyCabbie]

Good for you