I guess, when you set your own definition of what liberty really is, you can make anyone out to be anti-liberty.

"If you're pro-liberty, you are not conservative. You are liberal. Notice the similar root between the words liberty and liberal? That's not a coincidence." -Fallen_yoter


http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/...../#cid:10105212

Note in the same thread you said you wished no further communication with me. Note that it was your decision to come to this journal entry.

Have a nice day.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA XD
*dies from laughing*

Something relevant to add, perhaps?

Granted I like a good laugh as much as the next guy.

Playing semantics with a Literature and Philosophy major, hm? Sure, why not.

Liberty
–noun, plural -ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
4. freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint: The prisoner soon regained his liberty.
5. permission granted to a sailor, esp. in the navy, to go ashore.
6. freedom or right to frequent or use a place: The visitors were given the liberty of the city.
7. unwarranted or impertinent freedom in action or speech, or a form or instance of it: to take liberties.
8. a female figure personifying freedom from despotism.
—Idiom
9. at liberty,
a. free from captivity or restraint.
b. unemployed; out of work.
c. free to do or be as specified: You are at liberty to leave at any time during the meeting.

Let's review Conservatives' track record, shall we?

Don't Ask Don't Tell.
Sodomy Laws.
Proposition 8.
Jim Crow Laws.
Slavery.

Each of these things is kept in place because of 'traditional social values' and are flaunted as major cornerstones of modern conservatism.

So by the dictionary definition of Liberty, yes, the Conservative is anti-liberty.

Now jog on and spout your bullshit elsewhere, thankya.

that to me is Neo-Con, not conservative and i'm a libertarian more or less anyways

Left wing furries are getting pretty rediculous lately...

Again, I reiterate that you asked me to break off contact with you. Please discontinue speaking in this discussion if that really is your wish.

i don't mean any offense by this comment
but he was talking to me on that one, and he's breaking off contact with you ^^"

Don't care who he's talking to, it's in a thread I started, talking about matters I brought up.

that's true

Hahaha! You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
Firstly, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not seeing how copy-pasta of the definition of Liberty really proves anything.

And as far as that "track record", DADT, passed by Clinton(a LIBERAL) is not conservative. Sodomy laws, as in more government involvement in private lives, not conservative at all, Prop 8 much the same way. As far as Jim Crow laws go again, it's generally more unconstitutional government involvement, and called Jim Crow after a play made to mock President Jackson's involvement in those laws, who himself was a liberal.

Feel free to appeal to mockery all you wish, but you're quite wrong.

Clinton was more of a moderate than anything, hardly an ideologue. And while he put -in- Don't Ask Don't Tell, notice which segment of society (self-professed conservatives) are trying to keep it in force while a major movement is underway to repeal it.

Consider all the facts, please. DADT is an existing social restraint that people wish to keep in place for the sake of the status quo, a conservative trait.

The definition of liberty is in answer to your asinine 'when you define liberty any way you want' comment. It is the definition I use, and the one we are discussing. Feel free to provide your own definition if you'd like a rational discussion as opposed to empty chukleposting.

Let it never be said I ignore my own flaws, that should have been *chuckle posting.

If you're going to claim Clinton wasn't liberal(which, by modern definition of the word, he sure as hell was), then I may as well claim that the politicians who you don't think uphold liberty aren't conservative. And conservatives don't generally agree with their non-conservative viewpoints.

Now, as far as DADT goes, I would rather the government ensure openly gay soldiers are protected before they repeal that. Unfortunately, there's no effective way, that I can see, to do this. And honestly, discussions about sexuality don't really belong on the battlefield, regardless of orientation.

The British military integrated without any serious fuss. There's been no disaster as a result, their gays didn't need 'protecting,' the military simply enforced standard discipline (if you attack your fellow soldiers, expect a court martial). We can surely do the same if we're as advanced thinkers as we claim we are.

Clinton is what is currently referred to as an 'American Liberal,' which on the historical scale of politics, is rather moderate/slight left. It is nothing compared to what the Left is in Europe (far more socialist), and has nothing to do with the Austrian school of Liberalism and economics, the first ones to truly use the word, and the only philosophy with a legitimate -claim- to liberalism.

Again, feel free to use what words you wish to describe people, and I will stick to the original definitions for my purposes.

But you're not using the original definitions, that's quite a bit of the problem. I'm using what's commonly accepted by today's standards, you seem to be using what's convenient to make your point. I mean, it makes about as much sense as going to a restaurant, asking for ketchup, and then yelling at the waiter/waitress about the bottle of tomato paste they bring.

Then we cannot agree on definitions, and there's no further point to the discussion.

As a parting comment, my definitions originate from Hayek, Friedman, and the Austrian school. Far older than your contemporary definitions, and truer to the linguistic roots of the words this discussion has focused on.

Come back to me when you have a source that predates these fine gentlemen.

I'm not trying to justify definitions by how old they are, that's idiotic. I'm using what words mean today. Older definitions aren't necessarily more relevant, in much the same way as ketchup isn't a fish-paste anymore.

A source closer to the point of origin is to be at all times preferred to a more recent source.

When studying ancient texts, an older source is considered more relevant than a more recent one because it is likely to have suffered less drift from the original intent. This is why the original copy of the Constitution is kept under secure guard, so we have an original source to draw from, rather than a myriad of copies that may have drifted.

That is the rationale behind my decision to focus on the original intents behind the words Conservatism and Liberalism, rather than the 'Republican/Democrat' divide they currently are used to represent.

Modern Conservatives and Liberals aren't necessarily Republicans and Democrats. Quite often, they disagree with what 'their party' is doing. Like when Bush was in office, just because I'm a conservative and he flew an ® behind his name, I didn't agree with quite a bit of what he was doing.

But as far as insisting on using what apparently is the old definition, rather than being relevant, you're actually misguiding people pretty horribly. Certainly not preferable to being clear as to what your intent and stance on anything is.

Sorry if this offends you, but I think you need to take a break from Literature and Philosophy and start studying Economics and Poly Sci if you truly wish to make these claims. At the core of each party, true Republicans push for less governmental control (ie more liberty by your own definition) while true Democrats push for greater governmental control (ie less liberty, again by your own definition). I use the term 'true' in this case because many republicans are not true republicans, and many democrats are not true democrats. For example, Bush wasn’t a ‘true’ republican- he spent massive amounts of time and money extending governmental control over the US. Obama, on the other hand, is a 'true' democrat. Just look at the different laws, reforms and legislation he keeps pushing for, all of which lead to the government having more of a say (and thus more control) over the goings on of this country and thus your own life. The argument over whether control is important or unnecessary is pointless here- I don’t care how you or other folks feel one way or another, but governmental control and influence is the bottom line in terms how the two political parties are supposed to differ.

Yes, many republican leaders push for stupid, hurtful laws, many of which are (or arguably are) unconstitutional, and many of which deviate from the true goal of the republican party (limited government, and thus greater liberty for individuals). But when you look at the two parties as a whole, republicans are just as liberal as democrats if not more so. Democrats are more likely to favor social liberties such as gay rights, but don’t forget that they also clamp down on other liberties such as the subject you were discussing in the other journal (gun control).

I’m repeating myself here, but the ultimate point is this: republicans favor less governmental control, and democrats favor greater governmental control. Which means if you equate conservatives with republicans and liberals with democrats as you seem to be insinuating, your statement is wrong.

The facts do not support your assertion.

A small core of the Republican party, associated with Reagan and Goldwater, did push for limited government and was the one truly unique selling point of the organization.

By and large however, the party does not promote these ideals in the least way, and largely seeks to restrict social freedoms in the way the Democratic party seeks to restrict economic freedoms. Neither party supports individual liberty in its active policies, regardless of rhetoric.

I'll pass on political classes, I prefer to learn from firsthand research and reading. Thank you for the recommendation and the thoughtful post however. You presented your ideals coherently and respectfully, and I always appreciate a worthwhile contest of ideals. You have my respect.

I guess you're discounting political research and reading? I didn't realize those subjects were devoid of such things. If that were true, discussions like this would be moot.

Even your post is asserting the same claim -- In reverse.

Democrats are as conservative as Republicans. Because American political parties are on the right when examined on a global scale.

I'm not discounting political research and reading. I simply do not wish to gain it through the structure of an actual class - I'll pursue it through reading of my own, in terms of books, newspapers, blogs, television accounts, etc. I have too little life left in me to waste it on an overview when I can go to the sources.

Ah, fair enough. I misunderstood your comment as discounting those as legitimate areas of study.

Not a problem, I probably spoke too hastily.

I freely admit I adopt a confrontational pose for discussions such as these. I don't want moderate pussyfooting, I want arguments so we can all see and be pleased with where we stand. I want some meat to these discussions, and I'm not afraid to Get as much as I Give!

Wow you need to go take to a politics class.

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.


You do realize in this yo described RIGHT wing politics in that little exert, right? I guess you're so damn blind from the red socialist banner flying in your face. Where the right has fought against gov't control over everyday matters that should be left to the state, your precious left wing friends have stripped the rights of companies, you literally took GM and just gave it to the Americans instead of the investors that put their money into the business. Last time I checked redistribution of wealth was a socialist/communist trait. But what do I know I just teach politics. Come back to me when we're all under a hammer and sickle because of your liberal politics.

Just remember I didn't vote Obama.

Oh please, really?

Come back to the discussion when you'd like to engage with what I've actually said instead of made up bullshit you've decided to invent.

It would appear he's right, there. Those are traits of conservatism, as opposed to what liberals are doing, which is entirely different.

And if he can present his thoughts in a coherent discussion fashion instead of waving jingoism around like some sort of banner, he'll receive an intellectual reply rather than the dismissal he currently warrants.

You at least attempt to present thoughts and an argument. This twit simply presumes I'm a communist and doesn't look at anything I've actually said.

Lovely people.

You come across, being that you're pushing your liberalism down everyone's throats, as being pretty far out in left field, so that makes sense. You haven't really spoken of your own political beliefs otherwise than to say they're liberal.

What I don't get is where you're getting the Jingoism from in there.

His good ol' boy right wing patriotism mentality. In this case I may have used the word incorrectly. If so I will substitute a more appropriate term as it becomes available.

wait
the Swedish Black guy is an American right wing good ol' boy patriot?

Damn liberals.
Quit pushing and forcing your shit down our throats.
Aint you the ones who are supposed to be protecting free thought and speech and all that?
If so why the FUCK do you lot always complain and moan and whine and bitch when someone has a different idealogical/political perspective from yourself.

Fucking hypocrits

I freely grant and concede to you the freedom to think and say anything you like.

I also grant myself the right to ridicule it when I find it retarded.

Notice that I grant myself the right to do the same things I consider you to have the right to do. That's the joy of free speech - both of us may mock the other freely and suffer nothing whatsoever for the exchange but a bit of cheerfully wasted time.

So yes, I am happy that you choose to express yourself the way you wish! I also will do the same, and that includes calling conservatism idiotic and anti-liberty.

Yes it's perfectly fine stating your beliefs and letting others know of them that's a given.
The point i was making was that you liberals seem to think it's acceptable to force your beliefs and ideals on others. I know i've seen it many many times.

(benefit of living in the UK i can see first hand what extent you liberals will go to in order to make the rest of us think like you do)

You clearly do not read anything I write.

I accept no use of force on any other. I will compel no man to take no action, save in one explicit instance:

If someone is actively trying to harm me or someone I care about, I will -end- them.

Apart from that, I do not support any use of force against anyone whatsoever. I support the -removal- of government and social force from the lives of everyone. I support the freedom to associate and act as you will, free of restraint.

So no, I will not -force- any belief on anyone who wishes to feel otherwise. I simply assert my own without fear and without assault.

so lets say for instance i was to attend a hammerskins or blood and honour concert. Would i not find myself surrounded by liberals throwing objects and abuse at me?
Would i not find myself surrounded by liberals telling me to think what they think?
Somehow i think i would.

Did you not SEE the shit the liberals cause at the NSM march every year on April 20th?
They arrive with bat's, chains, mace, bottles, bricks and knives to threaten and force their ideas onto others.

(blood and honour, Hammerskins and the National Socialist Movement are Neo Nazi groups, parties. I use them as an example of the extreme right only)

Anyone can -call- themselves a Liberal.

I would not call anyone who initiates force on another human a Liberal, I would call them an animal who only understands the use of force. They're not a Liberal, they're a bully pretending to be one.

Be assured I would never do anything such as you suggest, nor would I condone or associate with anyone who would. They disgust me, and if I saw anyone attacking you, I would fight to my utmost to protect you as a fellow man who doesn't deserve to have his freedom attacked.

My sympathies if this has happened to you, sir.

Lol it happens a lot (sometimes on an almost daily basis).

On the otherhand being subjected to this sort of behaviour only strenthens my desire to see it stopped and so i keep on fighting the good fight in the name of all proud Nationalists.
Given your previous statement if it came down to it and you did uphold what you have just said i would be both surprised and grateful. In fact you would be one of the few liberals i would choose to talk to or even befriend.
(truth be told all i ever get from left wingers or liberals over here is abuse and violence so it's understandable i assume as to why i'm not exactly trusting of them)

Understand though that I am not a Nationalist and do not support Nationalist ideals. I consider them ideologically flawed.

However if you pursued them without trying to force (through law or by force of arms) them on anyone else, then you are free to go as you please and I would champion your right to do so. I am neither Left nor Right wing, as these terms are imprecise anyway.

true.
While my party is basicly left on economic and some social issues we are predominatly right in social issues.

I myself prefer to define myself as an opinianated politically motivated contradiction.
(some of my personal ideals conflict strongly with the party i choose but on the whole i think that the good points vastly outweigh the bad)

In the interests of clarity, as we cannot come to an agreement on definition in Liberal and Conservative, I will instead state my beliefs.

I am a Classic Liberal in the sense that;

Philosophically - All men must be free of all men.

Elaborated - Liberty is the prime focus of the ideal society. All men must be free to pursue whatever makes them happy, with no interference from other men save that which is mutually and freely agreed upon.

There is no seizure of wealth. There is no restriction of association. There is no compulsion to or from any behavior or pursuit, the pursuit of life included.

What I am not;

A Leftist.

A Conservative.

A Moderate.


I am instead an ardent Liberal in the sense that I will not rest until all men are free of all restrictions and interference from other men. The government I desire is that which defends the free and just man from those who would compel him to do things he does not wish to. They would arrest the criminal, fight the invading army, and maintain the peace. Let all else remain the realm of the individual and free associations. I pursue these things in an active and passionate sense - I am not content to wait for Liberty, I am not content with slow and gradual process. I will push and push until I and others are free to act as we will, when we will, or until I am dead and thus free by default.

So, more accurately, you describe yourself much like pretty much all modern conservative conservatives do.

You are free to label me what you wish. I prefer the original definitions of the words, for reasons I have stated.

To be honest, what you've described is much more along the lines of libertarianism than liberalism.

Ty! Heya!

Modern Libertarianism (in the philosophical sense) has a lot to do with Classic Liberalism, I agree there. I don't use Libertarian as a salutation simply because I think the party sold out severely when it tried to use arch-conservative racists and homophobes in the last presidential election (such as the astoundingly odious Bob Barr).

Nice to see you though, I didn't know you were on FA. (is idleyote on aim. don't we got a discussion to finish?)

Which really doesn't make much sense to anyone else, unfortunately. I'm still fairly certain that using the same words as everyone else is the easiest way to go about things, here, in much the same way as what I previously mentioned about things so simple as modern vs old ketchup.

You have made this point several times. I have made mine several times as well. Shall we agree to disagree?

Yeah, sure. However, I still can't understand why you'd favor using the opposite of what everyone else uses now.

Then I will explain one more time. As an academic, philosopher, and linguist, I prefer Original Sources.

What would you consider more accurate, a photocopy of a photocopy of the constitution, or the original document? Which do you consider more accurate to the actual words of the founding fathers, the original constitution plus the bill of rights, or the whole body of constitutional law we've instituted since then? I'm not asking about whether the amendments since the bill of rights are *right* or not, just which are the actual originating statements?

Yes, language changes and updates. But there is an academic and philosophical strength in using words precisely. I choose a precise definition of Liberal and Conservative because I wish to associate myself with a specific school of thought, and I'm willing to explain those thoughts to anyone who asks, or is open to debate.

That is -why- I favor using the original usage over current usage.

But regardless of the original source, isn't using something that makes sense in a modern context, as well as interpreting what people say in a modern context, more intelligent than using words which have been mutated by corrupt politicians into meaning something completely opposite of what they are now?

More practical, certainly. I don't agree it is more intelligent.

Someone at some point stole a word I consider very dear. They did it before I was alive, but age does not confer legitimacy on theft. Therefore I am making an ideological stand, as a matter of principle, for what the word originally meant.

Let me say one more thing, apart from all the ideology and anything else.

This much confrontation in two hours?

I'll call this thread a rousing success. I didn't think anyone would come by, and instead we have a damn delightful threat going on. Plenty of passion, lots of rhetoric, this is the kind of thing I like to see.

So completely outside our stances on the ideological spectrum, thanks to everyone who's participated in this little fracas, it's been an enlightening way to spend an evening!

Not a problem.
Always fun to have intelligent conversation

Seems like most of the furor has died off, so I'll consider this one closed. Thanks again to everyone who participated.

Damn, and here I missed all of the fun.

I'm not a political person. So much, in fact, that I am an Anarchist (not the "all government forever must go down" but a "new government and political border system must be instated" kind of anarchist), and thus such I do not like 99% of political parties, be it left or right, democrat or republican, conservative or liberal. I would classify myself as Forward, rather than left or right. Say what you will about it, "you're only 16 what do you know" is a common comment on my views, but I can say this;
I love this journal entry.
No bullshit. No jumping through hoops. No beating around the bush. No taking a 12 hour speech conference just to hint at something. Pure, straight, in-your-face, "I believe this and I support this, you don't like it fuck you, deal with it"

Well, er...thanks? It's all rather old hat at this point.But glad you identified with it.

Wow, a year ago.
I didn't realize it was that old!