4 ms·
Liberal is supposed to mean “freedom.” When a government tells you what to do, that isn’t liberal. Of course there is a government and even classical liberals a
by briandear 8y ago
Liberal is supposed to mean “freedom.” When a government tells you what to do, that isn’t liberal. Of course there is a government and even classical liberals acknowledge the need for some government, but liberal really should mean a support of a government that provides for a common defense and has a court system that would provide for the enforcement of civil contracts. A “liberal” government doesn’t mandate actions of private entities unless those mandates are to protect the life, liberty or property of other individuals.
Mandating gender on corporate boards doesn’t protect any of that. Nobody has a right to serve on a board and not serving on a board isn’t threatening anyone’s right to pursue happiness or live their life as they see fit. In fact, it does the opposite: it imposes a requirement that limits the freedom of people to run their business how they see fit. Unless the running of that business infringes on the rights of others, the government really has no business with that sort of mandate. And the key to understanding this is that no person has a “right” to success or a right to a specific job — they have a right to pursue happiness, but not a right to actually be happy.
Progressivism is well-intentioned totalitarianism. There is nothing wrong with supporting progressivism, but let’s not pretend is has anything to do with liberalism.
- shredprez 8y agoI'm not making a case for progressivism here and I'm clear on the traditional (and international?) definition of "liberal." I'm mainly interested in what specifically constitutes a liberal platform or policy model in the US. I genuinely don't know what it looks like. The descriptions I hear are typically hand-wavey in a way that reminds me of communist rhetoric; lots of ideals, few details, and typically reactionary (defined by what it isn't). I'm assuming this is a gap in my knowledge/experience and I'd love to fill it in.
- clarkmoody 8y agoThe libertarians are most in line with a classical liberal ideology. It is a platform that acknowledges individual rights that exist independent of government, which finds its only legitimate role in ensuring those rights. Those rights are life, liberty, and property. Any policy that prefers individual liberty and private property over government power and government-granted privileges would be more libertarian. Libertarians support: - Decriminalization of all "moral crimes" such as drug possession and use, prostitution, etc - Freedom of trade and exchange, zero tariffs or import/export restrictions, elimination of price-gouging laws - Elimination of taxation, government welfare programs, corporate welfare - Immediate cessation of all foreign wars and assuming a defensive posture in foreign policy - Elimination of most, if not all, regulations on consumer goods - Sound money and the elimination of fractional reserve banking For the most pure, detailed explanation of libertarianism, check out The Ethics of Liberty[1] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0814775594/ https://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Liberty-Murray-N-Rothbard/dp/0...
- shredprez 8y agoGreat response, thank you!
- nostromo 8y agoIf you want details, you'll have to look beyond internet comments. :) Read The Road to Serfdom and The Constitution of Liberty by Hayek for a deep discussion of liberalism. The Wealth of Nations and Free to Choose are also great books to consider.
- shredprez 8y agoFair enough :) Thanks for the recommendations!
- moate 8y agoBut this is where the Marxist has to step in and point out that "the invisible hand" doesn't work. It's how you get robber-barons and child labor and unlivable wages. Having a system in which a group sees such little representation begs the question of WHY. The conclusion being drawn (accurately or not) by the progressive liberals is that the game is being fixed (perhaps intentionally, perhaps not) The argument between "classical liberals" or libertarians or whatever they're calling themselves that day and progressive liberals is the belief that this will all just sort itself out if the government looks the other way and lets the economy run itself. We have seen time and time and time and time again that all that does is lead towards monopolies and exploitation of the masses. You can't possibly pretend that pure unadulterated capitalism is the best choice, since it just winds up leading to people being enslaved (literally or figuratively), murdered and oppressed. Anarcho-capitalism is a horrible thing. It's impossible to tell what's market forces, and what's unfair advantages. The progressive liberals are of the opinion that in order for the whole to be better, sometimes the state needs to step in and act force people to play nice where it believes they aren't. It's not perfect, but it's a long slippery slope from totalitarian gulags to "put one fucking woman on your board you idiots".