Capitalist liberals are not 'to the left'. They're left socially, right economically. Absolute freedom, without the implication of disorder. Also you have yet to explain why libertarianism would not 'work'. All it means is the government getting out of enterprise, and cutting spending, and more civil liberties. Big government and freedom are mutually exclusive. Check out http://www.liberalcapitalist.com/
QUOTATION FROM THAT SITE: "Do Liberal Capitalists support the War on Terror? What about Iraq? " "Liberal Capitalists fully support the War on Terror. Self defense is the right of all people. And the frustrated tribalists who we are battling represent a grave threat to liberalism." And you support those? What did I tell you guys? Most imperialism from wishy-washy republican lites, pretending to be libertarians. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I support a 'war on terror' in theory if the perceived threat is real and if they are unconditionally for our harm. That's simply defense. However what this nation must do, for freedom, is to stick the the tested and true structure that is capitalism, that flows from every individual, that builds from the ground up, and that is focused on creating wealth instead of 'redistributing' it. Left liberals are soft socialists and are a great threat.
That site also supports the invasion of Iraq. You insist that you are opposed to the war in Iraq, don't you? The correct words would be tested and failed, if left on its own. We had as close to a free market as ever we'd come a hundred years ago. It blew. There are so few examples of pure free market societies succeeding in the world. There are, however, a lot of examples of free market societies failing. I wonder why that is. Meanwhile, I can name a hundred mixed economy societies that succeeded. We're living in one right now. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Question: how long have you lived in the USA, norsefire, and how much of American history were you taught?
Absolutely. There are also loads of examples of leftist societies failing; Soviet Union, anyone? N. Korea? Cuba? China? And your examples are complete shit; laissez-faire works. Do you think the world would be where it was without capitalism? Capitalism works. The US is not supposed to be a 'mixed economy'; the government needs to stay out of enterprise. Perhaps you do not value freedom... I don't care about Europe, I don't care what Canada did or does. We're not them. We're better than them. Quite a while, and alot. And capitalize the N.
This is not a socialist thread, norse. Most liberals in America are not socialist. In socialism, currency is abolished and private property doesn't exist at all. No country in the last two hundred years has done that, including the USSR. China isn't left, economically speaking, nor have they failed. The USSR despite not being true socialist, was the second most powerful country in the world for more half of a century, having failed due to a political alignment shift in its leaders. N. Korea may be evil but it's more powerful than most countries. And Cuba, well, Cuba's just an isolated dump. We have in the world a pretty wide array of powerful mixed economy and even a few socialist leaning societies. QUESTION: What is the most powerful free market society in the world right now? How do they measure up against the USA, Germany, Japan, etc? It wouldn't be where it was today without mixed capitalist hybrids.I'm quite sure we'd be here today without the paltry amount of true free markets that have ever existed in the whole world. How would you know what the USA is supposed to be, norse? This is not your country.
I must be mistaken. You seem to be suggesting that Thatcher actually did some good as Britain's prime minister. When, as we all know, she was nothing but an evil money-grabbing old hag. And just because she was a Tory, does not mean she was a Conservative.
Look in the mirror. You're the one that's doing that. You, a self professed Liberal angry about conservatives alleged mischaracterization of Liberalism, are on a vendetta trying to mischaracterize conservatism. To pigeonhole it into a little box you've made for it labeled "bad guys". Just as you quoted Kenedy defending the term liberalism and saying the ideas people had about liberalism were incorrect. The views of Edmund Burke have as much to do with modern conservatism as the views of Thomas Jefferson do with modern liberalism. They're interesting. They certainly had some influence that can be traced to this day. But they are hardly definitive and the modern versions of liberalism and conservatism are far removed from their early influences.
Awesome hypocrisy, and other notes (chortle!) That's awesome, dude. • • • Apparently, if we follow the point syllogistically, Jesus Christ was a bad guy, an enemy.
Been a while since I've seen you chortle. Well sure he was seen as the enemy, they crucified him, after all.
It seems to me to be a matter of perception. You are more sensitive to it, you look for it more, you notice things that effect your own personal sensibilities. This is common.
Liberals in America are socialist; they want to turn the US into Scandinavia. I'm glad the US is not like Scandinavia; I'm glad it's free. Furthermore, what a laugh! Fascism creates strength, not socialism. Nazi Germany was the most powerful country of its era, aside from the United States. Communism creates nothing. It is foolish to believe that everybody is equal when we simply aren't. I'd say Hong Kong is the most laissez-faire society (very minimal government) and it holds up rather well. Laissez-faire calls for minimal interference, not no interference. Also, the USA is more capitalist leaning than socialist leaning; it's not truly capitalist, but it's more capitalist than Deutchland und der Fuhrer. We'd be even better off in a true laissez-faire society. Freedom; freedom creates inequalities, but this is a price you must pay. Freedom is worth it. The only reason lib'rals support government everything is because they lack confidence in human beings to do it themselves. But to this I say, how would government, made of humans, be any better? Whose country is it? The US is a nation of immigrants, no? A simple look at the constitution and it becomes very clear what the founding fathers intended: freedom. There doesn't need to be a competition. This is the way it should be: minimal government and programs are run on voluntary contributions. Liberals can still give up their income if they want to, without forcing others to. Why can't you accept that? It's like you want to force people to pay, when it doesn't have to be that way. Make taxation voluntary; there can be a low rate that everybody has to pay, and then after that it is voluntary.
Liberals came from liberty....conservatives came from conserving the past....!. We need the future , the present and not the past .
No, I didn't. Both conservatives and liberals think about the future, obviously; they have different ideas as to what it should be, though.
Most liberals don't want currency or private property to be abolished. Socialism calls for the abolition of those two things, so to call liberal Americans socialists makes no sense. Scandinavia is not fully socialist either... though I hear it's one of the best places to live on Earth. Your idea of freedom is whacked out, norse. I'm an American citizen... and I feel very free. So do most Americans. You keep saying we'd be better off as a laissez-faire society, accompanied by a lack of examples of why that would be. You just can't wrap your head around the idea that we were closer to laissez-faire than ever before a hundred years ago... and it sucked donkey dicks. The Great Depression of the 1930's is a testament to that. It is Americans' country, norse. If I'm not mistaken, you aren't an American. You're a foreign national who has legal residence here, isn't that correct? If you were either a natural born American citizen or an immigrant who was naturalized, then you would be able to speak from a legit source of authority on what America is supposed to be about. Most Americans not immigrants. Most Americans are simply descended from immigrants. My father came here directly from Germany, as one example. He's been a citizen for decades. Actually if you have ever gone through and read the actual constitution of the United States of America, instead of just learning it piecemeal as you go because no one here ever formally taught you American history, then you would know that there is a statement preceding the body of the constitution that we call "The Preamble." It states that: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Clearly, the authors of our constitution had many goals in mind when they designed that document. They tasked the government with insuring peace, promoting the well being of the people, AND securing liberty for us. In order to do this, they empowered Congress through something we Americans call "the necessary and proper clause" which, if you take the time to read the document, you will find in Article 1 -- the longest article in the entire constitution.
Actually, he is right norsefire. Historically speaking, liberals promote freedom and conservatives promote traditionalism and slow change. That is the origin of the two ideologies.
