|
hardbodysub -> RE: Politically Conservative BDSMers? (8/9/2008 6:50:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tingedpurple
hardbodysub, I quote:
"The trademarks of liberalism, open-mindedness, tolerance, and willingness to consider alternatives to the status quo, have resulted in ideas that challenge pure capitalism and pure communism/socialism."
What you describe there aren't the trademarks of liberalism. They hardly describe the so-called liberals of today (i.e., Democrats in the U.S.A.) and, taken alone, they most definitely do not describe the historical concept of liberalism. Those concepts better describe humanism. Liberalism, historically speaking (and that is the only way we can gauge its "trademarks"), is not some vague philosophy of open-mindedness, it is a specific political philosophy rooted in the concept of property rights and very much espouses the free market (or "pure capitalism"). The etymological root of liberalism is libertas, the Latin for liberty.
I disagree on several points:
There's more than one historical perspective on the word. Try The American Heritage Dictionary, for example:
1. Having, expressing, or following political views or policies that favor civil liberties, democratic reforms, and the use of governmental power to promote social progress.
2. Having, expressing, or following views or policies that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing.
3. Of, designating, or belonging to a political party that advocates liberal social or political views, esp. in the United States, Great Britain, and Canada.
4. Of, relating to, or characteristic of representational forms of government.
5. Tolerant of the ideas or behavior of others; broadminded.
Definitions 1 and 2 are consistent with your statements, but they are also consistent with mine. Favoring civil liberties, individual freedom, democratic reforms, and the use of governmental power to promote social progress are clearly consistent with open-mindedness, tolerance, and willingness to consider alternatives to the status quo. Civil liberties and individual freedom go hand-in-hand with tolerance; you can't have one without the other. Likewise, you can't make reforms without challenging the status quo, and progress is made possible by open-mindedness and innovation. Definitions 3 and 4 aren't particularly relevant, but please do check out definition 5.
In reference to your passage above, "What you describe there aren't the trademarks of liberalism. They hardly describe the so-called liberals of today (i.e., Democrats in the U.S.A.)": I wasn't describing "so-called" liberals, or Democrats, so this rebuttal isn't refuting anything.
Finally, humanism isn't even close to my description. It's not even in the same ballpark.
|
|
|
|
