Defining the noun "Liberal"

[iceaura]

13% African American Vote
33% Latino Vote
53% Women Vote

Yep, we are a diverse group.

You mean white women. Trump lost among women overall - every category except white women with no college education.
Your numbers are also wrong for black people - Trump got 8%, not 13%. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

Yet here we are, an elected Republican for president, a Republican House and Senate. What the hell happened, Joe?

Gerrymandering, vote rigging, voter suppression, and the electoral college. All of the above set up over the last three decades by hundreds of millions of dollars in bribe and influence money funneled into corrupt media from a few rich men who want their taxes lowered.

The goal was to inculcate ignorance and delusion, take advantage of that inculcated ignorance and delusion added to, and manipulating, an existing racial bigotry, to put together a voting base that could be manipulated to install a Republican Party of service to the needs of the financiers. That goal was achieved.

You can fool enough of the people some of the time, as it turns out, to get and keep power. Especially if you have proprietary control of voting machines and their tally software, in key States.

Those people, of course, got shafted. And in the past they deserved some sympathy, because they had no real experience with that stuff. But after W&Cheney, they have no more excuses.

Yet politics does appear to be a large part of campus life.

Only on your little videos, that you get fed by your supplier of opinions, who has your number from way back.

In real life, it's not - and it's also diverse: a lot of rightwing politics, a lot of Republican presence.

If the outcome had been reverse, I doubt you would care.

Most of your political thought is based on hypotheticals like that. They are largely - as that one is - unlikely or even wrong altogether.

 

[iceaura]

It really isn't OUR FAULT that the Democratic nominee lost this election

It is your fault that Trump won. You are fully responsible for electing Donald Trump, and all of the consequences that will ensue.

 

[joepistole]

It was the top of the list when I googled the term. Feel free to search the subject if you care to give it some effort.
Here's another for you to criticize.
http://hrweb.mit.edu/diversity/affirmative-action-plan-admins/what-is-an-aaplan

And how exactly does that support your assertion? Again, it doesn't. Do you even read your references or do you just google and post? You need to read and understand your references. Your casual relationship with truth and reason is why you believe what you believe.

If the outcome had been reverse, I doubt you would care. SO, why should I? I'm perfectly happy how things came to be. Absolute perfection.

If the outcome were reversed, I wouldn't be lying about the outcome of the election as you and your Republican fellows have done. You see, I'm not a partisan zealot. I'm not even a partisan. I'm a registered independent.

13% African American Vote
33% Latino Vote
53% Women Vote

Yep, we are a diverse group.

You said you were a diverse group. So now it's "we" are a diverse group? Who is we? And how is that relevant to this discussion?

The unpleasant fact for you is Republicans are mostly lesser educated rural whites, and the majority of Americans didn't vote for Republicans. So when you and your fellow Republicans misrepresent your selves as representing most Americans you aren't being honest.

The worst that will happen is that the Earth will crack open and swallow the Golden Calf.

So are you saying you want the Earth to swallow up California and kill millions of Americans in the process? Is that your solution? Is that your plan to make the Republican Party a majority party? And your problem isn't limited to just California; it's the entire Western and Eastern seaboards.

 

[Bowser]

And how exactly does that support your assertion? Again, it doesn't. Do you even read your references or do you just google and post? You need to read and understand your references. Your casual relationship with truth and reason is why you believe what you believe.

I try to offer you proof of the assertion, but you refuse to accept it. That's fine with me. It's your choice.

If the outcome were reversed, I wouldn't be lying about the outcome of the election as you and your Republican fellows have done. You see, I'm not a partisan zealot. I'm not even a partisan. I'm a registered independent.

But what is the truth? Trump won the election. BTW: I'm a registered Democrat.

You said you were a diverse group. So now it's "we" are a diverse group? Who is we? And how is that relevant to this discussion?

Do you have an issue with the fact that blacks, latinos, and women voted for Trump?

The unpleasant fact for you is Republicans are mostly lesser educated rural whites, and the majority of Americans didn't vote for Republicans. So when you and your fellow Republicans misrepresent your selves as representing most Americans you aren't being honest.

So all the smart people voted for Hillary? And they lost? The Presidency, the House and the Senate? You're right, that looks pretty stupid to me.

So are you saying you want the Earth to swallow up California and kill millions of Americans in the process? Is that your solution? Is that your plan to make the Republican Party a majority party? And your problem isn't limited to just California; it's the entire Western and Eastern seaboards.

No, I don't have an issue with California. It is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Joe, it's late and I have work in the morning. Just want to say one more thing. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.[/quote]

 

[iceaura]

Do you have an issue with the fact that blacks, latinos, and women voted for Trump?

You seem to attach a lot of importance to slim pickings, easily explained by fundie (abortion) and ignorance politics. You got the percentages wrong, too.

So all the smart people voted for Hillary? And they lost? The Presidency, the House and the Senate? You're right, that looks pretty stupid to me.

It is, indeed, stupid to let a few rich guys trash your country like this:

Gerrymandering, vote rigging, voter suppression, and the electoral college. - - -
- - - - - - - -
You can fool enough of the people some of the time, as it turns out, to get and keep power. Especially if you have proprietary control of voting machines and their tally software, in key States.
- -

 

[Schmelzer]

I doubt that every European liberal is as ignorant of American politics as you are.

We know already that all except iceaura are completely ignorant about everything. Whatever, this is basic information, so this is probably known by everybody who cares about American politics at all. And, by the way, the first who have recognized this have been the American libertarians. They have, of course, also some conceptual differences from liberals in the European meaning, because there are anarchists among them, while liberals have always favored some, even minimal, state. But to use "liberal" in the American meaning was impossible even for the minarchists, so they had to create a new word. Mises in Europe was simply a liberal. In America it would be impossible to name him a liberal.

Sure. Except for a consideration about that word "everybody".

Of course, if one talks about such vague things like we now, "everybody" never has the mathematical meaning. The same holds for the words in the text above, I know very well that you, just for fun, can name Mises a liberal in the American sense too.

 

[iceaura]

We know already that all except iceaura are completely ignorant about everything.

Not at all. You are ignorant about American politics, is all. You keep saying silly things.

Whatever, this is basic information, so this is probably known by everybody who cares about American politics at all.

But it's wrong.

Need elaboration? There are lots of liberals in America, and many of them are not particularly socialist at all. In the recent cultural and media arena you can check, off the top of my head, we have people like Edward Abbey, Molly Ivins, Bill Maher, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Kurt Vonnegut, Paul Krugman, Larry Wilmore, Driftglass and Rectification of Names and Charles Pierce and other such bloggers, - - - it's a very long list.

Perhaps Europeans are confused, because some classically liberal notions are traditional politics in the US, status quo going back centuries - what one would think of as "conservative" people hold them?

Anyway: go back and fix your ignorant preconceptions about what is basic information in American politics.

 

[Tiassa]

It really isn't OUR FAULT that the Democratic nominee lost this election.

The sick coincidence of this line coming in excuse of a Republican triumph, that the Party of Accountability should be justified by saying, "It isn't our fault!" is emblematic of why Trump voters are unreliable. One of the hard things about learning any lessons from this election is that there really aren't any to learn. If the problem is that people are somehow unsatisfied, it's not like they cleared up anything; the election of Donald Trump was a stupid idea by a bunch of people who just proved that American society during my lifetime has been a complete and utter lie. Meanwhile, Americans apparently did that thing children do when they don't think Mommy and Daddy are paying enough attention, so the kid goes and makes things worse in order to make the point?

I think the thing is that Trump voters know they've fucked up, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to distance themselves from this outcome.

It's the damnedest thing. In the end, only the bigotry will remain; it really was the only reason to vote for Donald Trump, and now we have our answer. But he's already making a joke of any other policy justification his voters might offer.

What is it about bigots, Bowser, that they think they're right, but they're also ashamed to be right? Is it because they know they're wrong, but just want to be terrible, anyway?

Seriously, y'all just won. Stop blaming your victory on everyone else; it only reminds us what kind of human beings you are.

 

[billvon]

Well, cling to that with all your conviction, it won't change the outcome of the election.

It is, nevertheless, a fact - one that right wingers don't want to acknowledge.

 

[billvon]

It really isn't OUR FAULT that the Democratic nominee lost this election.

It is funny indeed that the right wing has gotten so used to complaining that they can't help complaining even when they win. (This is one of the reasons Trump is going to be such a disaster for the right wing - they are going to try to spend the next four years blaming democrats for every idiotic thing Trump does, and that's going to hurt them in the next election cycle.)

 

[joepistole]

I try to offer you proof of the assertion, but you refuse to accept it. That's fine with me. It's your choice.

You think posting contradictory, false, and irrelevant links are proofs? Frankly, I don't think you even read the links you post, because as has been repeatedly pointed out to you they are not congruent with your assertions. Several times now you have been requested to provide evidence of the quota system you have asserted exists, and several times now you have obfuscated and misrepresented facts.

You can't prove quotas exist, because they don't exist...oops. So instead of being honest about it, you engage in all this obfuscation.

But what is the truth? Trump won the election. BTW: I'm a registered Democrat.

Yeah and I'm a registered Martian. Why is it Republicans are so heavily dependent upon lies and misinformation? Are you seriously so impaired as to be unable to discern the truth? Well, that explains a lot.

Do you have an issue with the fact that blacks, latinos, and women voted for Trump?

No; why would I? The fact is the vast majority voted for Clinton.

So all the smart people voted for Hillary? And they lost? The Presidency, the House and the Senate? You're right, that looks pretty stupid to me.

You are using another illogical argument here. It's called a straw man. You might want to google it. The majority of voters voted for Clinton. So for you and those like you to misrepresent that fact is dishonest. Most Americans did not vote for your man "The Donald".

No, I don't have an issue with California. It is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

So what's with your previous machinations about the Earth gobbling up California?

Joe, it's late and I have work in the morning. Just want to say one more thing. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

So why are you trying to put lipstick on a pig?

 

[Magical Realist]

 

[Schmelzer]

Ask any European liberal, and he will tell you that there are no liberals at all in America, and those who name themselves liberals are socialists.

I see, I have used here "socialists", it should be better "left wing". "Socialists" in the European sense (which would be, roughly, marxists) play no role in America, to use "socialists" in America makes sense only in the polemical sense (left-wing statists), which is what I have done.

But, of course, European liberals, who would associate "socialists" with the European socialist (marxist) tradition, would not name American liberals "socialists". Despite this correction, my main point, that the European, American and Russian meanings of "liberal" is quite different, remains.

There are lots of liberals in America, and many of them are not particularly socialist at all. In the recent cultural and media arena you can check, off the top of my head, we have people like Edward Abbey, Molly Ivins, Bill Maher, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart, Rachel Maddow, Kurt Vonnegut, Paul Krugman, Larry Wilmore, Driftglass and Rectification of Names and Charles Pierce and other such bloggers, - - - it's a very long list.

So far ok, in the light of the correction above, these media celebrities are not socialists in the European (marxist) tradition. But such celebrities do not have programs. Say, comedians have to be against some part of the establishment, this is sufficient for making comedy, there is not even a need for consistency of their jokes, so, they are not really relevant for a discussion of the difference between European liberal tradition and American liberalism.

Perhaps Europeans are confused, because some classically liberal notions are traditional politics in the US, status quo going back centuries - what one would think of as "conservative" people hold them?

This is, indeed, part of the problem. Classical liberal notions one can find among American conservatives, with American liberals rejecting them.

 

[Yazata]

"Socialists" in the European sense (which would be, roughly, marxists) play no role in America, to use "socialists" in America makes sense only in the polemical sense (left-wing statists), which is what I have done.

It's hard to find Americans, except on the fringes, who publicly favor state ownership of the 'means of production'. Some broader Marxist-inspired tendencies are more widespread, such as the propensity to think of profit as something reprehensible.

But, of course, European liberals, who would associate "socialists" with the European socialist (marxist) tradition, would not name American liberals "socialists".

I think that American 'liberals' most closely approximate European 'social democrats'. Their argument is basically that in order to exercise the individual freedom that liberals value, people need to have the means to do so. Hence the government should have a strong and at times intrusive role in ensuring that everyone has equal opportunity, economic equality and so on. That's led to a new 20th century thing called 'social liberalism' and it's the ideology behind the welfare state, both here in the US and in Europe.

In more extreme cases, it can veer very close to socialism. Not so much in the sense of government ownership of everything, but in the sense of government control of everything in hopes of shaping desired outcomes through grand social engineering. (I suspect that's what motivates Bernie Sanders to label himself a "socialist". He doesn't seem to be in favor of wholesale European-style nationalizations of entire industries.)

Classical liberal notions one can find among American conservatives, with American liberals rejecting them.

Very true. I consider myself something of a classical liberal. (Certainly not an anarchist.)

American liberals are typically unaware that there's an entire publishing industry on the European academic left attacking and denouncing 'liberalism', which these authors passionately hate and identify as the ideology of the right and of capitalism.

 

[iceaura]

But such celebrities do not have programs.

Many liberals in that illustrative list, and in America generally, do - ideologies (Rachel Maddow), de facto programs and political affiliations (Edward Abbey), formal and technical and highly sophisticated economic policies (Paul Krugman), the whole shot.

This is, indeed, part of the problem. Classical liberal notions one can find among American conservatives, with American liberals rejecting them.

The way I have put it: If the libertarians of the left and the libertarians of the right ever made common cause in America, the political logjam would shift overnight (cf gay marriage). But the right would have to let go of the racial stuff, and a good deal of the corporate personhood stuff, and that will not happen until the current batch has died of old age - in my estimation.

Meanwhile, the authoritarians of left and right have had fair success in "cooperation" of a kind - they face fewer obstacles, especially racial in the US, and of course the Left has much less power in the US in the first place and can be coerced or overruled by rightwing force (an option unavailable to the libertarian negotiation).

 

[Schmelzer]

The way I have put it: If the libertarians of the left and the libertarians of the right ever made common cause in America, the political logjam would shift overnight (cf gay marriage, for example).

This makes no sense at all to me. Why would a libertarian care about gay marriage? If people want to live together or not is not the business of the state, that's all. If you want the state to care about marriage, you are not a libertarian at all. Then, of course a libertarian is obliged to support the right of separation. If we do not agree about some important question, then where should be the possibility of peaceful separation. If you disagree, you are not a libertarian at all. With this right of separation, there is no problem at all between libertarians of the left and of the right - if they disagree about something important, so what? They don't have to live together if they win, but can separate. Why would they have to find some "common cause" now?

Of course, there are a lot of people who name themselves "libertarian" which I would not classify as libertarian at all. I have not cared that much, because I reject libertarian political parties, but what I have heard about that candidate of the libertarian party did not sound libertarian at all. So, if these not really libertarians from the left unite with not really libertarians from the right, maybe this will be some not really libertarian but maybe at least liberal (in the European sense) movement with some power. I doubt. Maybe I underestimate the power of the libertarian movement, but it seemed to me that even if one includes all those not really libertarians, it remains a small minority which is essentially politically irrelevant.

But the right would have to let go of the racial stuff, ...

Sounds like you think a libertarian should not be allowed to be a racist? Racists into gas chambers or what? Racists can segregate into small pure white or pure black or pure yellow communities, which do not allow anybody from the wrong race to enter their gated community. What is the problem with this solution? If one doesn't want to allow small communities of various freaks, however stupid, why would one name oneself a libertarian?

 

[iceaura]

This makes no sense at all to me. Why would a libertarian care about gay marriage? If people want to live together or not is not the business of the state, that's all

Marriage is, among other things, a legal contract in the US. That is its status with regard to the State.

Gay marriage in the US was an example of libertarians of the right and left making common cause and common progress toward a state of greater liberty for actual human beings - in this case, a change in the law of the State and a removal of a State restriction, the extension of legal contract to people formerly excluded from that service of the State, which increased their freedom of action and the range of options from which they could choose in their real lives. I realize that makes no sense to you, but then you are unfamiliar with US politics (as well as the practice of correcting theory by observation) and so you are handicapped in the effort to make sense of events here.

Sounds like you think a libertarian should not be allowed to be a racist? Racists into gas chambers or what?

? The problem in the US is not disapproval of attitude, but impossibility of action.

Racists can segregate into small pure white or pure black or pure yellow communities, which do not allow anybody from the wrong race to enter their gated community

Uh, no, not the "libertarian" ones; they can't actually do that, in real life, in the US. That is accomplished in real life by bringing in the police or forming a militia to beat up on the other races and sequester the common resources, and similar abandonments of any pretense to libertarian principle. Without libertarian principle, the left and right libertarians have no basis for cooperation.

What is the problem with this solution?

It overlooks economic inequality, limited resources, geographical constraints, and in the US demographic reality. And that's just the simple stuff - the psychological and social repercussions are even more significant.

It's been tried - these are not theoretical matters, in the US. We've seen your hypothetical, in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town

 

[Randwolf]

It is in fact highly offensive to suggest that conservatives are self-interestedly trying to keep the goodies in society for themselves.

I didn't mean to offend you by pointing out the obvious.

Most people go into politics because of idealism, not self- interest.

Citation? Evidence? Or just because you say so?

 

[Schmelzer]

Gay marriage in the US was an example of libertarians of the right and left making common cause and common progress toward a state of greater liberty for actual human beings - in this case, a change in the law of the State and a removal of a State restriction, the extension of legal contract to people formerly excluded from that service of the State, which increased their freedom of action and the range of options from which they could choose in their real lives.

Fine. [usual scoldings disposed]

? The problem in the US is not disapproval of attitude, but impossibility of action.

The problem with racism - at least with what I see here - is attitude. If there is aggression against people of other races, it is aggression, thus, anyway forbidden by the libertarian Non-Aggression Principle, which is as far as I can tell more popular among right libertarians than among the left. So the problem you have is not with right-wing libertarians, but simply with violent racists.

It overlooks economic inequality, limited resources, geographical constraints, and in the US demographic reality. And that's just the simple stuff - the psychological and social repercussions are even more significant.

So you simply have nothing to do with libertarianism. Segregation is in complete agreement with the NAP, so if some choose to live in a white/black/whatever only environment, they can do this without violating the NAP. If one calls the police or acts in other ways against such NAP-holding one-race-only communities, one violates the NAP. Whatever the justification for this may be, this is no longer libertarianism.

Libertarians are not obliged to be nice people. They are allowed to be stupid, full of unjustified prejudices, full of hate, whatever, as long as they do not use aggression. And a community of such people can simply own the area they live, and are free to impose their own rules on their property. If you don't like these rules, stay out of the property.

It's been tried - these are not theoretical matters, in the US. We've seen your hypothetical, in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundown_town

And what is your objection? That these guys living there are stupid racists? So what, such is life, the world is full of stupid hateful people and will be in future too. That they have established their own immigration rules, while immigration policies are only allowed to very big players (states) and very small (single households) but nothing intermediate? This is certainly not a libertarian objection.

That these rules are not enforced by legal means? This is because those legal means are controlled by the state, and the state did not allow it. This is a problem of any type of illegal structure - the rules and contracts have to be enforced with extralegal means too. So, this is an unfortunate side effect of the actual situation, not a principal libertarian objection. And the problem is here what one thinks about acceptable means of self-defense and defense of others in a non-libertarian society.

That these rules have not been based on volitional agreement of all citizens of these towns, but at best a democratic majority of them? This is the only valid libertarian objection. The violence against those of other races who have lived in these towns when it was decided that it becomes a Sundown town is a clear case of aggression and robbery, typical for democracy, but not libertarianism.

The libertarian solution - gated communities, where all people living there have voluntarily signed the rules, which can be changed only with the agreement of all of them - does not have this problem.

 

[exchemist]

I didn't mean to offend you by pointing out the obvious.


Citation? Evidence? Or just because you say so?

Firstly, when one considers the drudgery of life as an MP, the unsocial hours and the relatively modest salary, compared with what someone with similar education can earn in the private sector, it seems unlikely that is is a logical career choice for those intent on getting rich.

Secondly, those few politicians I have met, or the far larger number I have heard in political discussion, seem genuinely keen to make society work better, according to their ideas of what "better" would be (which are not always mine, it is fair to say). They argue quite passionately for political ideas.

Thirdly, there are occasionally media articles that set aside the usual clichéd cynicism about politics and bring out the better instincts of the journalists, as here, for example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...our-mps-who-would-want-to-enter-politics-now/

But I do admit that my experience is of politics in the UK.