Will the real liberals please stand up?

recedite

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

I'd suggest that in 2016, that would be better described as a libertarian viewpoint.

Yes, especially in the USA.

So we have a situation in which the Enlightenment liberalism which gave rise to republics in USA 1776, and France 1789 and almost succeeded in Ireland in 1798 has now evolved into two distinct forms;
1. American libertarianism/republicanism which values freedom.
2. American Democrats/ European Alt Liberalism which value a particular groupthink as described earlier, and largely exists as a reaction against 20th Century European militant fascism.

oscarBravo

recedite wrote: »

Saipanne wrote: »

It was founded on the basis that one could use reason, logic and science to persuade people of your point of view. It was a rejection of dogmatic approaches and coercive techniques. That is what being a liberal means to me, at least.

At its core is the freedom to do whatever, just as long as you don't interfere with the next guy's freedom.

I'm not sure why you can't see that you're not, in fact, saying the same things as the OP.

At its core (for me), liberalism is about extending the same rights to everyone, and about making sure that the enforcement of one group's rights doesn't impinge on another group's rights.

By your definition, an employer refusing to pay for health insurance that covers birth control on religious grounds is consistent with liberalism. By mine, it's illiberal: it's claiming that your right to be religious trumps my right to healthcare.

recedite

oscarBravo wrote: »

At its core (for me), liberalism is about extending the same rights to everyone, and about making sure that the enforcement of one group's rights doesn't impinge on another group's rights.

Your definition is consistent with mine and the OP's. Although the word "group" as inserted there is somewhat unnecessary, and possibly a Freudian thing associated with the groupthink of an Alt Liberal.

oscarBravo wrote: »

By your definition, an employer refusing to pay for health insurance that covers birth control on religious grounds is consistent with liberalism. By mine, it's illiberal: it's claiming that your right to be religious trumps my right to healthcare.

In this specific example, both sides have their own claim to their own perceived rights and liberty. All three sides, if you also extend rights to the unborn.

Trying to call a judgement in that scenario is a matter of philosophy and ethics, its not about liberalism per se.
Having said that, the Alt Liberal must adopt the predefined groupthink stance on the matter, which is to be "pro-choice" in abortion matters.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Your definition is consistent with mine and the OP's. Although the word "group" as inserted there is somewhat unnecessary, and possibly a Freudian thing associated with the groupthink of an Alt Liberal.

Hmm. I'm not sure that the word "Freudian" means what you think it means. And, while we could discuss whether the reference to "groups" in this context is necessary or not, the view that it's the product of "the groupthink of an Alt Liberal" might surely with equal justification be said to be the product of thr groupthink of Libertarians?

I think what's playing out here is differing attitudes to the individual and the community. This is a separate issue from liberalism and cuts across it, or intersects with it.

I suggest that liberals basically value freedom and, in particular the freedoms that enable humans to flourish, to grow, to develop, to reach their potential etc.

Where the different schools of liberalism disagree, I think, is in identifying which freedoms are more important for this purpose. This isn't just an individual/community thing; it also depends on what you understand by flourishing/fulfilment. There's a tradition of libertarianism identified with (but by no means exclusive to) America which understands this primarily in economic/material terms, and lays enormous stress on the sanctity of property rights, for example. A different emphasis, but I think one with an equally valid to the "liberal" label, would see good physical and mental health as a prerequisite for human flourishing, and so would guarantee medical care to all, and would subordinate property rights to that to the extent of taxing citizens to provide universal healthcare. These two traditions are both committed to freedom; they are just priotitising freedoms differently.

Right. There's a view of human personhood which lays great emphasis on our relationships and connections with one another. On this view, humans are social animals; we can't flourish without good networks of family, sexual, social and community relationships. We're justified in restricting (or even required to restrict) some freedoms to some extent in order to create an environment which is supportive of good human and community relationships, since thi is part of freeing people to develop and flourish.

So, for example, we forbid a business owner from refusing to deal with Blacks, or Jews, or Gays, or Muslims. A strict libertarian view would say that it's his restaurant and his food; he can sell it to who he wants and on what terms he wants and if you don't like it you can dine elsewhere. But a more communally-minded liberal would say no, it's not enough that someone can go and get a coffee elsewhere and their property rights are not infringed by not being able to get one here; this kind of behaviour is corrodes and destroys the network of social and community relationships that society requires if humans are to be free to flourish; therefore we ban it.

On similar arguments we might ban other forms of discrimination like, say, racial vilification. Or, we might not. Some people would be comfortable banning discrimination in the restaurant, but not in banning pure speech. The point is that what's going on here is a recognition that, to be truly free, we need to live in a supportive society and to enjoy supportive relationships, and behaviour which tends to destroy this is corrosive of true freedom. I think more individualist liberterians see this are comparatively unimportant and will accept only limited restrictions on other freedoms for this purpose (or, in extreme libertarian cases, none at all) , whereas more communitarian libertarians see it as comparatively important. They're both liberals, though, and the difference between them is not that one is more liberal than the other.

Akrasia

recedite wrote: »

Am I?
At its core is the freedom to do whatever, just as long as you don't interfere with the next guy's freedom. Eg by shooting at him. So in that context, a law prohibiting murderous assault is sufficient. If people want to play around with guns, a liberal viewpoint would allow that.

Liberalism is always a balance between personal freedom and the rights of others and society as a whole.

Because people place different emphasis on different aspects of life, their version of a balanced society will be different to others, so liberalism requires compromise and tolerance of others by everyone.

Because some people are less tolerant than others by their own natural inclination, a liberal society requires laws and frameworks that impose the effect of tolerance using regulations and laws to prevent discrimination and ensure that reasonable freedoms are protected, and unreasonable freedoms are restricted

Anti-discrimination laws exist in order to force intolerant people to act in a way that does not impose an undue burden on vulnerable groups.
These laws should be carefully drafted and carefully implemented because they necessarily involve coercion, they force business owners to serve customers that they personally do not want to serve, they force people to accept the presence of people they may be prejudiced against, but the absence of these laws results in a heartless and cruel society where people's entire destiny can be decided by the colour of their skin or the nationality or religion of their parents.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem is when theory bumps into reality. Beaurocracy evolves to deal with the economic, political and social reality of governing vast populations over vast distances and over multiple sectors of industrial activity

Trying to reduce everything down to simple idealised maxims or principles doesn't work when there are complicated cases, and there are always complicated cases.

Loopholes are identified and exploited, so they need to be patched up with more legislation to deal with those specific instances, which in turn creates more loopholes somewhere else.

Libertarianism in it's most fundamentalist iteration is either woefully naive, or heartless to the extreme suffering that would inevitably occur when people fall through the cracks or suffer from an unforeseen misfortune.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And so we come back to Peregrinus' well-made point about the balance between community rights and individual rights.

Tony EH

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think one of the issues hampering a clearer discussion is that the word "liberal" has become quite confusing.

Liberalism developed into quite a distinct ideology in the late 19th and early 20th century. However, in more recent times in the US its been used as a catch-all term for anyone from socialists to centrists and is often used as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with me".

It's since been re-imported across the Atlantic and any time it's now used in discussions here there's always the question of what definition of "liberal" your interlocutor is using.

Well, thank christ somebody said it.

Are we really so wrapped up in internet politics that the only phases of political ideology we can see are the skewed American types?

For most liberals, or left leaning people, the "liberals" of the American sort are largely unrecognisable and certainly don't represent their values a lot of the time. A lot of left leaning people in Europe are flabbergasted at some of the bizarre actions attributed to "liberals" in the US.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The problem with that kind of one-dimensional thinking is that it tends to produce oscillations from one extreme to the next.

Arguing that the cure for too little individual liberty is too much individual liberty is like advocating drowning as a cure for dehydration.

As the massive state apparatus of the United States -- including the military, the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, etc. -- passes under the control of Donald J. Trump, a lot of liberals are suddenly nervous, thinking "Look at how much power this guy has! This is scary!" But these same so-called liberals were in favor of all this power when Obama held it.

I don't recall too many liberals arguing in favour of a surveillance state.

That's why genuine liberals oppose massive state bureaucracy as a matter of principle, not just when the opposition party is in government. Give them too much money and too much power, and suddenly your tax dollars are being used to spy on you, to blow people up in other countries, to deport millions, to build walls, etc., and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

The problem with opposing state bureaucracy as a matter of principle is that it means taking a principled stand against all the positive things such a bureaucracy can achieve.

Granted, if you're of the view that the alleviation of poverty is something that the free market could do better, that's not a perspective that will hold much appeal for you.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Tony EH wrote: »

Well, thank christ somebody said it.

Are we really so wrapped up in internet politics that the only phases of political ideology we can see are the skewed American types?

For most liberals, or left leaning people, the "liberals" of the American sort are largely unrecognisable and certainly don't represent their values a lot of the time. A lot of left leaning people in Europe are flabbergasted at some of the bizarre actions attributed to "liberals" in the US.

Both here and the Cafe, I've seen comments about what "far left liberals" are up to in Ireland. It's a complete nonsense, one can't be far left and liberal.

I actually don't think we have many liberals in Ireland. We have many flavours of social democrats, some left wing parties and a smattering of right wing individuals who occasionally coalesce.

I don't think the Demcrats in the US are really liberal either. They're fairly populist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

recedite

According to Vulcan philosophy,

Mr Spock wrote:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

But who decides on the needs of the many? If its one person, he's a tyrant.
If its by a democratic vote, it can still be "the tyranny of the majority".
A certain amount of coercion is always going to be required to enforce the needs of the many if "the few" object, possibly even the establishment of a police state which is obviously going to damage individual liberty.

The Enlightenment age liberals were quite happy to use a certain amount of that coercion in order to achieve certain key objectives (enshrined in their republican constitutions) But to use any more than necessary would betray the core principles.

Consequently I think neither the US libertarians nor the "left wing" Alt liberals of today would be "liberals" in the classical sense. One is obsessed with the liberty of individuals, and the other is obsessed with the liberty of "groups" within a society. Classical liberalism focuses on the well being of the society as a whole.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

According to Vulcan philosophy,

But who decides on the needs of the many? If its one person, he's a tyrant.
If its by a democratic vote, it can still be "the tyranny of the majority".
A certain amount of coercion is always going to be required to enforce the needs of the many if "the few" object, possibly even the establishment of a police state which is obviously going to damage individual liberty.

The Enlightenment age liberals were quite happy to use a certain amount of that coercion in order to achieve certain key objectives (enshrined in their republican constitutions) But to use any more than necessary would betray the core principles.

Consequently I think neither the US libertarians nor the "left wing" Alt liberals of today would be "liberals" in the classical sense. One is obsessed with the liberty of individuals, and the other is obsessed with the liberty of "groups" within a society. Classical liberalism focuses on the well being of the society as a whole.

Did you make up the term "alt liberal" to mirror the alt right? Can you please define it or stop using it?

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Much the same way as libertarian is only ever used to refer to the right wing flavour. The assumption being that everyone on the left is authoritarian.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

Did you make up the term "alt liberal" to mirror the alt right? Can you please define it or stop using it?

It wasn't me :pac:

Saipanne wrote: »

I agree. Again, the modern definition of liberalism does no longer fit the traditional meaning. Alt liberal?

recedite wrote: »

Lets define some of the tenets of the Alt Liberal ideology then.

Guns are bad but weed is wholesome.

All cultures are equally valid, no matter how horrible or backward they are. We have no right to criticise them, or to expect them to remain in their own country.
International borders are bad, because they hinder multiculturalism which is good. Everyone would live in a happy-clappy multicultural bliss if it wasn't for The Populists*.

Freedom of speech is valued (for anyone who is speaking in favour of the Alt Liberal agenda). Any one tries to criticise Alt Liberal ideals shall be righteously "no-platformed".


*Populism used be the idea of giving democracy to the common people, as distinct from having an oligarchy or a monarchy in charge of things.
But that was back in the days when Liberals were associated with the enlightenment and were quite happy to crack down on ideologies that clashed with their own, so liberals were also populists.

Populists nowadays are the bete noir of the Alt Liberal. Basically anyone who disagrees with their agenda, and especially anyone who beats them in a democratic election.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

Did you make up the term "alt liberal" to mirror the alt right? Can you please define it or stop using it?

I coined it. My argument is that modern day liberals are not really liberals at all, as per my op. So I came up with the new phrase. I think the alt right and alt liberal have much in common, with respect to their authoritarian behaviour.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

I coined it. My argument is that modern day liberals are not really liberals at all, as per my op. So I came up with the new phrase. I think the alt right and alt liberal have much in common, with respect to their authoritarian behaviour.

Surely alt right and alt left make more sense? Alt liberal doesn't really fit.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

Surely alt right and alt left make more sense? Alt liberal doesn't really fit.

They choose to call themselves liberals, not I.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

They choose to call themselves liberals, not I.

You chose to make up the term alt liberal. A term that lacks any meaning.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

You chose to make up the term alt liberal. A term that lacks any meaning.

So?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It wasn't intended as an insult, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

My point was that there's a tendency to look at immensely complex social questions through the prism of a single perspective - liberalism versus conservatism, left versus right, democracy versus authoritarianism - and diagnose simplistic cures on the basis of the one-dimensional view that ensues.

I've made the same point when it comes to taxation, where every proposed change to a tax code is scrutinised through the simplistic lens of "progressiveness" - is the tax progressive or regressive? Will it of necessity take a greater percentage of the net worth of a wealthy person than that of a poorer person? If not, it's condemned as regressive, and vehemently argued against.

That's the sort of one-dimensional thinking - I hope you can see that I mean the phrase literally, rather than pejoratively - that resulted in our income tax system being skewed to the point where something like half the workforce paid no income tax at all during the bubble, which in turn inevitably contributed to a collapse in the public finances.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

So?

So either define it or stop using it.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

So either define it or stop using it.

Alt liberal. Noun. Meaning modern day groups who identify as liberals but often behave like their authoritarian alt-right adversaries.

Usage:

It seems like you're trying to suppress a term that you don't like. How very alt-liberal of you.

Chips Lovell

But very few people on this side of the Atlantic identify as liberals.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Because they're usually called anarchists.

It's undeniably the case, though, that the left generally pursues its goals through the power of the state. The left's solution to wealth inequality is taxation and redistribution; the solution to poverty is government social programs; the solution to environmental problems is state regulation, etc. I can't think of any left-wing movement that tries to accomplish its goals in a libertarian way, i.e., in a manner other than trying to leverage the power of large government.

I think you miss the point of a socialist society. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe the state and the people are separate and distinct entities and always will be. I belive the state is a projection of the power of the people. In a libertarian socialist society the role of the state becomes redundant because it's no longer necessary as power is directly devolved to the people.

Right wing libertarians believe in destruction of the state and left wing libertarians believe in making the state redundant.

I don't know if I'm explaining that very well. But I believe a misinterpretation of what "the state" actually is in socialist society leads people to view socialism as an authoritarian system. That and the bastardisation of socialism that occurred in the USSR.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

Alt liberal. Noun. Meaning modern day groups who identify as liberals but often behave like their authoritarian alt-right adversaries.

Usage:

It seems like you're trying to suppress a term that you don't like. How very alt-liberal of you.

Thanks. They don't exist.

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

Thanks. They don't exist.

They do. Anyone who calls themselves liberal and seeks to dogmatically suppress others fits the description.

PLENTY of those people around. Alt liberal. Spread the word.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

They do. Anyone who calls themselves liberal and seeks to dogmatically suppress others fits the description.

PLENTY of those people around. Alt liberal. Spread the word.

As the inventor of the "alt liberal" moniker the onus on you is to prove they exist. Can you provide some evidence, other than your repeated assertions they do exist?

Saipanne

Brian? wrote: »

As the inventor of the "alt liberal" moniker the onus on you is to prove they exist. Can you provide some evidence, other than your repeated assertions they do exist?

Honestly, I'm struggling to understand why I should provide you with anything. I am under no onus to run off to Google by your command and provide you with links, especially since you will only dismiss them anyway.

I'm happy with the definition, as we all know various feminist/SJW movements have used coercive tactics to bully people into submission. We all know they attempt to force their dogma on society. If they didn't do this under the banner of liberalism, I wouldn't call them alt liberal. But they do.

You seem too worked up over a made up term. It is neither offensive nor derogatory. It's a fitting description. So I will continue to use the term as freely as I wish. You can have the last word, I won't be responding to your posts any longer.

ancapailldorcha

Saipanne wrote: »

It seems like you're trying to suppress a term that you don't like. How very alt-liberal of you.

Quit sneering and while you're at it, backup your claims if asked or don't make them. This is explained in the charter.

K-9

Saipanne wrote: »

They do. Anyone who calls themselves liberal and seeks to dogmatically suppress others fits the description.

PLENTY of those people around. Alt liberal. Spread the word.

So would supporters of ssm be alt liberal? Some religious types would see that as repression.

Saipanne

I'll just go, guys. I can tell I'm not welcome in this forum.

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

Honestly, I'm struggling to understand why I should provide you with anything. I am under no onus to run off to Google by your command and provide you with links, especially since you will only dismiss them anyway.

I'm sorry, but the entire ethos of the politics forum is that if you make a claim you back it up. If something is proposed with zero evidence, it can be dismissed with zero evidence.

I'm happy with the definition, as we all know various feminist/SJW movements have used coercive tactics to bully people into submission. We all know they attempt to force their dogma on society. If they didn't do this under the banner of liberalism, I wouldn't call them alt liberal. But they do.

You seem too worked up over a made up term. It is neither offensive nor derogatory. It's a fitting description. So I will continue to use the term as freely as I wish. You can have the last word, I won't be responding to your posts any longer.

I was hoping to change your mind through reasoned debate.

recedite

Brian? wrote: »

... evidence?....

How about this.
The suppression of a liberal, by alt liberals.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

How about this.
The suppression of a liberal, by alt liberals.

How about that? Who started the petition? Did they identify as liberals? I'm not seeing that in the article.

Could the petition have been started by Muslims?

Brian?

Saipanne wrote: »

Alt liberal. Noun. Meaning modern day groups who identify as liberals but often behave like their authoritarian alt-right adversaries.

This is the definition given. I don't believe the story above meets this definition. The alt right aligns with white supremacists amongst others, hides in the dark corners of the internet blowing various dog whistles and communicates primarily in shouting louder than the opposition.

If liberals behaved like the alt right, they would have bombarded that speaker with racist insults on twitter, not a polite petition to the University.

ancapailldorcha

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sadly, this is slowly becoming the norm.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You're not the only one looking at recent developments in the US and Europe with trepidation. I'm personally hoping that the anti-establishment wave passes and liberalism, by which I mean classic liberalism undergoes a resurgence. The bastions of classic liberalism, free trade and free movement of people have become very convenient scapegoats. The problem is that lazy mainstream politicians have relied on these for too long instead of implementing creative, beneficial policies which might have bettered the lot of citizens' and now they're feeling the pinch at elections vis-á-vis Trump and Brexit. I hope that those two examples are the beginning and the end but my hopes are not high.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think the appeal of what you call big government liberalism stems from the fact that a lot of people feel hard done by when it comes to elites. Sticking with the US, the government has spent trillions on lavish foreign wars while its' own citizens are denied quality education, housing and healthcare. Both parties are complicit in this and to excuse one is to ignore the problem entirely. I think people are looking towards non-mainstream politicians like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders to establish a government which can use legislation to protect them from corporations which have previously engaged the state's assistance to better their lot at the expense of the average citizen.

K-9

Brian? wrote: »

This is the definition given. I don't believe the story above meets this definition. The alt right aligns with white supremacists amongst others, hides in the dark corners of the internet blowing various dog whistles and communicates primarily in shouting louder than the opposition.

If liberals behaved like the alt right, they would have bombarded that speaker with racist insults on twitter, not a polite petition to the University.

The alt right is a kind of catch all term though because it has disparate elements, the white supremacists, MRA types, Tea Party types, basically the disgruntled right.

I don't think an alt liberal term would work as well.

As for Trump and Sanders, they are the mainstream now, same with Brexit. For me it's a reaction to centrist Government of 20 years or so in the US and UK.

Akrasia

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The 'big government' liberals aren't the problem, it's the corruption and the role of money in politics.

When 'liberals' want big government, they usually want decent pensions, decent education, decent healthcare and, well paying jobs, decent infrastructure and public services. None of these are the things that lead to the negative elements of 'big government'

The problem in the U.S. is that the government is only pretenting to represent the interests of the voters, and instead, it is run almost entirely for the interests of the economic elites and certain favored special interest groups.

America needs the kind of political revolution that Sanders wants to lead, to turn america from a plutocracy into a social democracy, and if this can happen, the lives of the American citizens will improve

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would have referred to myself as a libertarian before the tea party and *shudder* Gary Johnson.

The overwhelming uneducated and poor support of "conservatives" would seem to indicate that they have suffered a similar identity loss.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I just meant that I think they gave libertarians a bad name - tarred them all with the same brush.

I'm actually more of a classic liberal anyway tbh.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I always see the distinction being discussed in terms of theory as being the role, scope and intervention of the State. Libertarians being for a much more limited State than "classic liberals" - but I admit there is very little difference in real life probably.

I think we share broadly the same views on most things, but I would certainly suggest that there would be plenty of evidence to say I support a more interventionist State than you do.