Journal Bill Dog's Journal: like hot ice 23
Thanks to smitty for spurring a little Wikipedia journey, with:
Yeah, I don't mind the label "classical liberal", in the Hayekian sense.
So it seems that one way of looking at the Liberalism scale, politically L to R (at least in the U.S.), is:
Social Justice - Large amount of governmental intervention in peoples's lives.
Social Liberalism - Medium amount of governmental intervention in people's lives.
Classical Liberalism - Small amount of governmental intervention in people's lives.
And with Conservatism:
There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time.
In the U.S. at least, a free market and a free society are for now still recognized as our traditional form.
Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others, called reactionaries, oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".
So I'm a Liberal Conservative. Reactionary (and growing moreso, the more we move "forward") in my Conservatism (roll the country back to much of its traditional ways) and Classical in my Liberalism.
p.s. But when I look up Liberal conservatism, it says not to be confused with Libertarian conservatism. Yet I'm not seeing the difference between the two. I especially don't get this bit:
It contrasts with classical liberalism and especially aristocratic conservatism, rejecting the principle of equality as something in discordance with human nature, instead emphasizing the idea of natural inequality.
I believe in both, so maybe it's really splitting hairs by this point. This is me too:
Libertarian conservatism is a conservative political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values.
That is, I have very Conservative values, yet don't think they should be imposed by law. And I come at my libertarian bent from the Right, vice those who come at it from the Left, like my sister and John Stossel, which to me doesn't not make for a very predictable libertarian.
Finally, I like this:
Nelson Hultberg wrote that there is "philosophical common ground" between libertarians and conservatives. "The true conservative movement was, from the start, a blend of political libertarianism, cultural conservatism, and non-interventionism abroad bequeathed to us via the Founding Fathers." He said that such libertarian conservatism was "hijacked" by neoconservatism, "by the very enemies it was formed to fight â" Fabians, New Dealers, welfarists, progressives, globalists, interventionists, militarists, nation builders, and all the rest of the collectivist ilk that was assiduously working to destroy the Founders' Republic of States."
Here's a question you won't answer (Score:1)
...roll the country back to much of its traditional ways....
What time period are you talking about? How far back do you wanna go? I always love this *roll the country back* shit. Nostalgia for something that never existed. Eh, in the echo chamber you will find good company.
Re: (Score:1)
I think that http://www.conventionofstates.com/ [conventionofstates.com] is the least-worst route. You'll know it's getting big when the GOP, "accidentally", and with much weeping, strangles it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are all sorts of "what-if" scenarios, because everyone has their own opinion of what would be "the best of times". However, I think Dickens said it better when he wrote "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times." There's always going to be both situations, depending on individual circumstances, and we tend to have a (very) selective memory.
On specifics, taking away powers of direct taxation (amendment 17) would quickly leave the us with nothing BUT a poorly armed militia - within a gener
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, good, then let's change you into somebody with a little less, how should we say... "social status", and see how you like it.
Re: (Score:1)
I have earned everything I have. I would have no problem doing that in any era.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, Toledo... *I spent a week there one day*
And BTW: The AC covered it. I'll just add that you, like Mr. Smith, are in denial of the privileges you enjoy just for being from the "right" family. Reasoned discussion, therefore, will remain elusive.
Re: (Score:1)
So here it is in a nutshell:
I worked my ass off working shitty fast food jobs to pay my own way through college, got a degree, and a good job. Had nothing to do with my "family connections" or "white privilege" or any other lame ass excuse used by people that don't have any success.
YOU are to blame for your failures in life. Not your family upbringing, not your race, or any other secondary attribute.
Re: (Score:1)
And for you the clue will remain ever elusive. You have no idea what you were gifted, and how easy you had it.
Re: (Score:1)
Sorry... have it
Tradition of small government? (Score:2)
Two and a half centuries is an experiment, not a tradition- and one that is either failing or failed.
Re: (Score:1)
I fail to see your point. All government in this life is government by man, so is doomed to failure. This is because we cannot resist the temptation to mistreat others. Most of the ability to mistreat others comes from having power over others. More power over others means more ability to mistreat them. Government is power, so small government is the least-worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps this link [scborromeo.org] will explain better. Government only exists to build a fraternity of human beings.
Re: (Score:1)
That link sounds good, but it's an ideal, where everyone in the society is unified spiritually, like say the Amish.
But then what keeps such a community from being ripped to shreds by another community of a different mindset? A higher order level of governance, which, not having the luxury of presiding over a state of shared values, must try to remain neutral*, and only exist to protect our rights.
So maybe subsidiarity at the micro level, and libertarianism at the macro level, might be the least-worst.
*And
Re: (Score:2)
Very true. Multiculturalism and pluralism, like urban living, requires liberty and individualism.
The way I usually put it is "limited but strong"./ Limited in topics they can intervene on, strong enough to defend their competency.
Re: (Score:1)
But "limited but strong" may be an oxymoron. How you do keep them from gradually intervening more and more, if they're strong? Or I guess how do you keep them from getting stronger?
Re: (Score:2)
Manpower. The limitation should be on population and area.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't get it.
A la what I posted in smitty's latest JE, I don't think there's anything that can limit your "limited but strong", given human nature.
Re: (Score:2)
A dictator is only as strong as the number of soldiers he has available. If his geographical area is so small that he can only attract a couple of people into the police force, while his legal strength is great, his ability to affect people's lives is severely limited.
Re: (Score:1)
The District of Columbia might be a counterexample of that.
I guess you're saying the lower levels of governance would have the militias and the territory to support them, and the higher levels wouldn't, and the lower levels would use them against the higher levels if they overstepped their levels of what they were responsible for handling.
Seems like some lower orders might side with an overstepping higher order, for competitive gain. Civil wars might be occasional rather than practically never.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see more civil wars actually. This creating one nation out of five to 11 completely different cultures isn't working real well. What is important to somebody in NYC is not necessarily something a farmer isolated in a valley in the Rockies really needs to worry about.