3 ms·

Liberalism and the word liberty in and of itself no longer means anything concrete. Every side claims to defend it but in the midst of it all I'm reminded of th

Liberalism and the word liberty in and of itself no longer means anything concrete. Every side claims to defend it but in the midst of it all I'm reminded of the quote that those who give up a lottle liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. All who profess it end up being tyrannical. I've disabused myself of the schpiel that is the concept of liberty. It means nothing today because is has been abused as a concept. I like to think of it now as simply more state intervention vs less state intervention.

shard972 8y ago
> Liberalism and the word liberty in and of itself no longer means anything concrete It means a lot to those who can understand the liberalism is the underpinning ideology of the west post enlightenment. All you have to do is understand russia and china's rejections of liberalism to understand that liberalism isn't just some buzz word that pops up randomly on left/right politics. > I've disabused myself of the schpiel that is the concept of liberty. It means nothing today because is has been abused as a concept. I mean I can help you understand liberty. Consider before the enlightenment we operated under a system of formal monarchism, where everything within the borders of the state were owned by the king who got his authority from the divine. A liberal government does the complete opposite, it's authority in leadership comes from the people which are assumed to be independent sovereign agents. The contrast between these two systems and the role of liberty should be obvious to most. While a formalized system of monarchy doesn't really exist today, countries like China don't fit into the liberal government category either. > I like to think of it now as simply more state intervention vs less state intervention. As a reformed Anarcho-Capitalist, I find such a view to be incredibly limiting. What about if the government classified social media companies as utilities? It would be a large increase in government intervention, but those like Alex Jones and his supporters would see that as a huge gain in liberty while some on the other side would say their liberty is being violated by the existence of people like him on these websites. What you could say contrasts the two takes is that one is valuing freedom from, and the other freedom to.
- andromedavision 8y ago
  > It would be a large increase in government intervention, but those like Alex Jones and his supporters would see that as a huge gain in liberty I've got no cognitive dissonance on this issue and to me it doesn't matter which govt. takes over. The state is the state and you want less of it, never more. > A liberal government does the complete opposite, it's authority in leadership comes from the people which are assumed to be independent sovereign agents. Nope. No such thing as a liberal government. It is an oxymoron as far AFAIC. Government by its very definition requires that the people give up some freedoms and allow a degree(large or small) of state intervention. I want less of it. Only the judiciary & law enforcement - and even then, way less of it than we have now. Everything else people should do for themselves at absolute local levels or even better, at the familial level. The King was the original sin but I'll still take a monarchical govt. over a democratic govt. any day. > As a reformed Anarcho-Capitalist Why did you abandon ancap ideology? I get that it may not be plausible to attain it in its entirety, but I still view it as an ideal - something to aspire to and get as close as possible to. Ideals are good to have because they act as a north star of sorts.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Only the judiciary & law enforcement What is the purpose of the judiciary and law enforcement if there is no legislative power? If there are no laws for the former to apply and the later to enforce—which is the case if there is no authority to create law—then they are pure waste.
    - andromedavision 8y ago
      What's the purpose of having laws if they're going to change on the whims of the govt./legislature of the day? The FUNDAMENTAL law should be immutable. Write once and it never changes. No need for senators, mps and all those other useless positions that only consume from tax payers. If there are other nuances - because there'll be unforeseen occurrences and paradigm shifts like the advent of technology and its implications - then we rely on the judiciary and future similar occurrences rely on precedent to come to a judgement. Also, arbitration can really solve some of these cases in free market environment where parties involved can agree on an arbitrator and their differences can be resolved.

shard972 8y ago

> Liberalism and the word liberty in and of itself no longer means anything concrete It means a lot to those who can understand the liberalism is the underpinning ideology of the west post enlightenment. All you have to do is understand russia and china's rejections of liberalism to understand that liberalism isn't just some buzz word that pops up randomly on left/right politics. > I've disabused myself of the schpiel that is the concept of liberty. It means nothing today because is has been abused as a concept. I mean I can help you understand liberty. Consider before the enlightenment we operated under a system of formal monarchism, where everything within the borders of the state were owned by the king who got his authority from the divine. A liberal government does the complete opposite, it's authority in leadership comes from the people which are assumed to be independent sovereign agents. The contrast between these two systems and the role of liberty should be obvious to most. While a formalized system of monarchy doesn't really exist today, countries like China don't fit into the liberal government category either. > I like to think of it now as simply more state intervention vs less state intervention. As a reformed Anarcho-Capitalist, I find such a view to be incredibly limiting. What about if the government classified social media companies as utilities? It would be a large increase in government intervention, but those like Alex Jones and his supporters would see that as a huge gain in liberty while some on the other side would say their liberty is being violated by the existence of people like him on these websites. What you could say contrasts the two takes is that one is valuing freedom from, and the other freedom to.

andromedavision 8y ago
> It would be a large increase in government intervention, but those like Alex Jones and his supporters would see that as a huge gain in liberty I've got no cognitive dissonance on this issue and to me it doesn't matter which govt. takes over. The state is the state and you want less of it, never more. > A liberal government does the complete opposite, it's authority in leadership comes from the people which are assumed to be independent sovereign agents. Nope. No such thing as a liberal government. It is an oxymoron as far AFAIC. Government by its very definition requires that the people give up some freedoms and allow a degree(large or small) of state intervention. I want less of it. Only the judiciary & law enforcement - and even then, way less of it than we have now. Everything else people should do for themselves at absolute local levels or even better, at the familial level. The King was the original sin but I'll still take a monarchical govt. over a democratic govt. any day. > As a reformed Anarcho-Capitalist Why did you abandon ancap ideology? I get that it may not be plausible to attain it in its entirety, but I still view it as an ideal - something to aspire to and get as close as possible to. Ideals are good to have because they act as a north star of sorts.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Only the judiciary & law enforcement What is the purpose of the judiciary and law enforcement if there is no legislative power? If there are no laws for the former to apply and the later to enforce—which is the case if there is no authority to create law—then they are pure waste.
  - andromedavision 8y ago
    What's the purpose of having laws if they're going to change on the whims of the govt./legislature of the day? The FUNDAMENTAL law should be immutable. Write once and it never changes. No need for senators, mps and all those other useless positions that only consume from tax payers. If there are other nuances - because there'll be unforeseen occurrences and paradigm shifts like the advent of technology and its implications - then we rely on the judiciary and future similar occurrences rely on precedent to come to a judgement. Also, arbitration can really solve some of these cases in free market environment where parties involved can agree on an arbitrator and their differences can be resolved.