The Tank has Gone to Hell

[Vraith]

Libertarians are, by nearly every definition, Classically Liberal. The only way any of my beliefs can be labeled as conservative is if one believes that someone else has a right to the fruits of my labor.

I'd agree with that, and it's pretty much what I was getting at [why I said conservative in a particular way]...but the common understanding...rightly or wrongly...labels "libertarians" as a flavor of the conservative...[though the Europeans label it a flavor of liberal, I believe]...and many reinforce that view by being members of the Republican party.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Cail, I can think of one other way you could be labelled conservative and that is your pro-life stance.

[Cail]

Libertarians are, by nearly every definition, Classically Liberal. The only way any of my beliefs can be labeled as conservative is if one believes that someone else has a right to the fruits of my labor.

I'd agree with that, and it's pretty much what I was getting at [why I said conservative in a particular way]...but the common understanding...rightly or wrongly...labels "libertarians" as a flavor of the conservative...[though the Europeans label it a flavor of liberal, I believe]...and many reinforce that view by being members of the Republican party.

The only reason libertarians cast their lots with the GOP is over economic policy. The Republicans have traditionally played the small government tune, and that trumps their poor record on social issues.

But libertarians are fleeing the GOP given Bush's massive expansion of government and private sector regulation.

Cail, I can think of one other way you could be labelled conservative and that is your pro-life stance.

True, but I could then counter with pacifism being a liberal trait.

[ussusimiel]

It might. One fundamental thing I see, as far as U.S., comes from this:
The U.S. constitution/creation of it is at root a liberal document, forged from liberal thought as "liberal" existed at the time.
U.S. libertarians are, generally speaking, liberal-ish on many social issues [not all]...but conservative in a particular way, "conserve" the constitutional basis/ideology.

That's something it's taken me a long time to get my head around. To a European liberal like me it feels like a really strange, almost contradictory mix.

u.

[Lefdmae Deemalr Effaeldm]

The local differences may mean a lot, as well as just usual distortions - I think the main important thing with your post was that you intended it well and grounded well on what you knew)

Politicians, even if they've never read anything by Lewis Carroll, often live and breathe by "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

Stepping aside from the topic a slight bit, here is the topic that ended up as a place for song parodies SRD-related song parodies

Hashi, I copied the "All Along the Watchtower" parody as a quote, a link to the song is also there - if you don't like anything, I'll fix it.

Vraith, can you post the ones you mentioned above in this thread to that one, please?

[Vraith]

Vraith, can you post the ones you mentioned above in this thread to that one, please?

Well, mine were WATCH related, not so much SRD books related...but I'll put them there, if I can find them, and someone can cut them need be.

[Avatar]

There's a simpler way...

...It would of course have to be done by an admin, not mod, but then our mod here is an admin...

This version does not appear to allow you to set permissions for ranks.

Yeah, but only an admin can change a rank, whereas a group leader can change membership status.

Yep.

And I'm considering this as a solid offer...

Now if you want to give me admin privileges we can talk.

In the sense that the moderator would be able to remove people from the group, and thus be able to "ban" them from the 'Tank.

--A

[sindatur]

Libertarians are, by nearly every definition, Classically Liberal. The only way any of my beliefs can be labeled as conservative is if one believes that someone else has a right to the fruits of my labor.

I'd agree with that, and it's pretty much what I was getting at [why I said conservative in a particular way]...but the common understanding...rightly or wrongly...labels "libertarians" as a flavor of the conservative...[though the Europeans label it a flavor of liberal, I believe]...and many reinforce that view by being members of the Republican party.

Are they labeled as liberal or Liberals? The Liberal Party (Capital "L", is known as Conservative)

[Vraith]

Are they labeled as liberal or Liberals? The Liberal Party (Capital "L", is known as Conservative)

small L. It's slippery, and means different things to different peeps, but a european "neoliberal" is roughly equivalent to a U.S. libertarian.

[I'm Murrin]

There's a simpler way...

...It would of course have to be done by an admin, not mod, but then our mod here is an admin...

This version does not appear to allow you to set permissions for ranks.

Pretty sure that's a default thing for phpBB2. Cant' remember exactly where in the admin panel, though.

[Zarathustra]

The conversation sure has been tame lately. You guys are actually discussing politics in a thread for bitching about the Tank.

I think the social issues tend to settle themselves out on their own. The politicians don't lead in this area, they follow the movements of society that are already happening, and the the polls that track them. In terms of voting, fiscal issues are more important for this reason. I think that's why so many Libertarians hold their nose and vote Republican. However, the Reps are hypocrites on fiscal issues, so this becomes harder and harder.

[ussusimiel]

I've been doing a bit of swot on Classical Liberalism. I enjoyed this video, The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism, Part 1, (part 2 is here). I can't see much (if any) difference between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. There may be some addition of economic theory (e.g. Hayek, Friedman etc.) but the fundamentals seem the same.

The lecturer explains some interesting things, like how 'progressive' became associated with socialist policies (which with their centralisation and concentration of power can be seen as 'conservative') in the early 20th Century, whereas liberal policies up until then had been seen as 'progressive'.

He does skip over some vital questions, IMO, like why the artists and cultural actors turned against liberalism around 1900. Also, why did people embrace communal organisations and nationalism? And he says nothing about science, God/religion or Weber's 'instrumental rationality'.

Still, very interesting and thought-provoking.

u.

P.S. One of the reasons that the term liberal is troublesome in discussing US politics is that many liberals are actually socialists, but can't use that term of abuse to describe themselves

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Shhhh u. quit truthin.

[Vraith]

1)He does skip over some vital questions, IMO, like why the artists and cultural actors turned against liberalism around 1900. Also, why did people embrace communal organisations and nationalism?

2)Still, very interesting and thought-provoking.

u.

3)P.S. One of the reasons that the term liberal is troublesome in discussing US politics is that many liberals are actually socialists, but can't use that term of abuse to describe themselves

Number inserts above mine. So:
1) For one thing, "art" like almost everything else, works in discontinuous cycles [I just made that up...there probably already exists a term for it, but I don't know it...closely tied with the idea of paradigms, yet essential differences] an idea/form breaks and severs from the dominant...the bleeding edge...then others are inspired/follow to synthesize/perfect until it IS the dominant, then a new vision cuts. In a way [don't anybody steal this, I just thought of it, and I think it might lead somewhere spectacular if I can flesh it out/fill it in...heh...though this is the Watch, not a major media outlet...we don't plagiarize here... ] it is the reverse butterfly effect...artists [and other creative/groundbreaking] folk are "sensitive to initial conditions"...but in this case the butterfly doesn't cause the hurricane, the hurricane causes a butterfly that then...well you get the idea.
It is ALSO related to something the other thing you cited before addresses...though only to blast liberalism/individualism, so one sided. People ARE individuals, they like it, they want it, free will uber alles!...yet people ARE social beings, like it, want it, my GOD, [or country, or state, or fiefdom, or family] right or wrong!
2) Yes, very.
3) Bollocks. A small group are...but they aren't at all shy about saying so. I can't think of any group more offended by the "Democrats/Liberals are Socialists" and/or "Obama is a Socialist" than the people who are, in fact, Socialists....it's just that no one here [the media/players, not here on the Watch] pays the slightest bit of attention to them. Hell, Ron Paul wrote a pretty amazing indictment of Obama that many have never seen/read...and he denies utterly that Obama is a Socialist, and it is the best, most logical, and by far most factually true/accurate piece anyone has done. If he weren't a total whacko concerning the gold standard and a couple other things, he'd be in the running for best and brightest of U.S. politicos.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

From Google dictionary:

so·cial·ism
noun /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ 

1. A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

2. Policy or practice based on this theory

3. (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism

[Vraith]

From Google dictionary:

so·cial·ism
noun /ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/ 

1. A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

2. Policy or practice based on this theory

3. (in Marxist theory) A transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism

And?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

There seems to be harmony between (1) and much of the democratic agenda and its stated ethos. Then again, there is harmony between (1) and much of the republican agenda as well. The point, really, is that there aren't these bright line distinctions that allow easy condemnation or simple deflection. An ethos that favors increasing degrees of community consent and economic regulation at the expense of the free exercise of private property rights, particularly when considered as part of a progressively accumulating trend, can rightly be characterized as socialist, I think -- even if express calls for the state ownership of industry and capital are presently lacking. A pedantic defense of the most narrow definition available would hardly permit one to name a single extant socialist system in the world, which clearly robs the term of its meaning. Or, if you like, is an example of public image management by those who are somewhat reluctant to disclose their entire agenda all at once.

In either case, as someone who advocates the expansion of certain aspects of social welfare (single payer), I don't think the label "socialism" per se should be regarded as the policy kiss of death. It would be nice if we could at least be honest about what we are advocating.

[Vraith]

distinction accepted...which is obvious since those distinctions are included, some implicit, some explicit, in what I said.
Nevertheless, that definition is functionally meaningless...in that ANY regulation of any kind that touched, even tangentially, upon production, distribution, and/OR exchange would be, by definition, socialist.
And lets look at what the "ethos" of democrats/liberals that are apparently socialist might mean and/or ignore.
On the ignore side: Romney, for instance, currently, and almost all the Rep's generally for a LONG time now, analyze EVERY regulation on a COST basis. But almost zero regulations have ONLY a cost basis. Almost no actual business formulates its actions on a cost basis alone. No...it is cost/BENEFIT.
And, just for fun we'll take the EPA cuz they seem to piss of Rep's the most...on a cost/BENEFIT basis they tend to have benefits much higher than the cost. That's in strictly monetary terms, too...leaving out the "quality of life" benefits that Rep's tend to hate.
The Dems problem in conveying that is that they continually call it a "social" benefit.
"Emissions regulations make all of us healthier"...social...socialist?
"Emmissions regulations save 200,000 INDIVIDUAL lives every year. For every dollar the companies "pay" [which is passed on to INDIVIDUAL consumers anyway] 10 dollars are saved by INDIVIDUALS."

Now, I wouldn't give much of a damn about this...and I'd [on a tangential issue] even be in favor of eliminating all Fed taxes on Corps...IF we eliminated the ten "regulations," and "decisions" that aided and abetted them for every one that limited them, AND if they were every truly liable for ANYTHING at all...but they don't really ever lose a damn thing even when they, technically, "lose" a civil case. And no one that matters, especially the ones who call the shots, is ever treated appropriately criminally no matter how criminal the action nor how directly and intentionally responsible.
Just for example, one TINY loophole among more important ones, [cuz of something I was reading recently]...a Corp is sued cuz someone dies. The company claims that certain evidence, if admitted, would expose "trade secrets,"...and the judge tosses out the case cuz without that evidence there is no way to prove anything. Imagine that for a person, like you. You come up with a unique process/method for acquiring property. Unfortunately part of the process results in dead people. "I'm sorry, your honor, I didn't kill them...but even if I did, evidence of how they died violates my trade secrets so you can't admit it."
"dismissed!" says the judge.
[And I'm not exaggerating by even a micron, the way many cases have been decided].

[ussusimiel]

3)P.S. One of the reasons that the term liberal is troublesome in discussing US politics is that many liberals are actually socialists, but can't use that term of abuse to describe themselves

3) Bollocks. A small group are...but they aren't at all shy about saying so. I can't think of any group more offended by the "Democrats/Liberals are Socialists" and/or "Obama is a Socialist" than the people who are, in fact, Socialists....it's just that no one here [the media/players, not here on the Watch] pays the slightest bit of attention to them. Hell, Ron Paul wrote a pretty amazing indictment of Obama that many have never seen/read...and he denies utterly that Obama is a Socialist, and it is the best, most logical, and by far most factually true/accurate piece anyone has done. If he weren't a total whacko concerning the gold standard and a couple other things, he'd be in the running for best and brightest of U.S. politicos.

Language, Vraith! You're right though. Socialism is directly related to the means of production e.g. natural resources, water, electricity, communications, transport and even more directly factories and services. I suppose what I was reaching for was something more like 'Social Democrat'/'Liberal Democrat'. Most leftish states in the world (including where I live) are dismantling their state owned means of production, so the idea that the Democrats are looking to do the opposite is ludicrous.

Throwing the term 'socialist' at Democrats is both 'insulting' and innacurate and it has the added effect that the Democrats can't be open about their policies, as you say, because any mention of the word 'social' leads to the accusation of 'socialist'.

Hell, Ron Paul wrote a pretty amazing indictment of Obama that many have never seen/read...and he denies utterly that Obama is a Socialist, and it is the best, most logical, and by far most factually true/accurate piece anyone has done. If he weren't a total whacko concerning the gold standard and a couple other things, he'd be in the running for best and brightest of U.S. politicos.

Any link for this?

1) For one thing, "art" like almost everything else, works in discontinuous cycles [I just made that up...there probably already exists a term for it, but I don't know it...closely tied with the idea of paradigms, yet essential differences] an idea/form breaks and severs from the dominant...the bleeding edge...then others are inspired/follow to synthesize/perfect until it IS the dominant, then a new vision cuts.

Not sure I fully inderstand or agree with you here.* First year undergrad of just about any (ironically) liberal arts course will show that the literature/psychology/sociology/history of this time all points to a deep unease with the nascent modern era (of which Liberalism was a huge part). Whether this led to/prefigured the rise of the communal and national I don't know. What interests me is that the unease of the people involved in art at that time, because of capitalism and science, is still relevant today.

u.

* If you get a paper or a book out of this I want a credit or some cash

[Vraith]

Any link for this?

I looked for it...there is this one from his website:
www.ronpaul.com/2010-04-25/obama-is-a-corporatist/
But somewhere there's a longer/better version with more examples
and that also speaks a bit about the other direction...when the
corp "owns" the gov't [an almost-but-not-quite impossible scenario in
his view.] But this ones still pretty good: In theory
[though it's never worked in practice] Gov't owns, for the benefit
of the people [standard socialism]...Paul distinguishes that
Gov't as Obama pursues it, owns for the benefit of the gov't
and the selected businesses [even if they pay lip-service to
"the people."] which, pragmatically, is what often is the real
result of attempts at socialism.
Now, I don't AGREE with Paul on this as far as Obama's intent/nature...but it is a good, solid argument just the same, and I understand why reasonable people
might agree with it.

1) For one thing, "art" like almost everything else, works in discontinuous cycles [I just made that up...there probably already exists a term for it, but I don't know it...closely tied with the idea of paradigms, yet essential differences] an idea/form breaks and severs from the dominant...the bleeding edge...then others are inspired/follow to synthesize/perfect until it IS the dominant, then a new vision cuts.

Not sure I fully inderstand or agree with you here.* First year undergrad of just about any (ironically) liberal arts course will show that the literature/psychology/sociology/history of this time all points to a deep unease with the nascent modern era (of which Liberalism was a huge part). Whether this led to/prefigured the rise of the communal and national I don't know. What interests me is that the unease of the people involved in art at that time, because of capitalism and science, is still relevant today.

Well, I think it is still relevant, too. After a "settling in" period, there is ALWAYS a deep seated unease with whatever system is dominant, [though also with change...during the rise of something else to prominence.] I think it is inherent/structural/systems-in-themselves that cannot, ever, satisfy the full nature/expression of human beings...and we are built to prioritize whatever aspect is unexpressable/absent. Power/systems/structures CAUSE that which infects, then replaces, them.