"Classical Liberals"

[Derec]

Sargon of Akkad...
What a fucking racist piece of shit!

Coming from you, that's a badge of honor!

 

[Derec]

And is utterly incapable of holding a thought without segwaying into some other bullshit. Other examples of bad faith dickheads are Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Bill Kristol, Jordan Peterson, Bari Weiss, David Rubin, and Ben Shapiro.

So basically anybody who does not kowtow to left-wing orthodoxy on every issue is a "bad-faith dickhead". Understood.

Here's an article highlighting the sort of person who uses this phrase and the final paragraph sums it up nicely.

What classical liberalism really is is a way to justify conservative thought without having the courage to stand behind the ugliest conservative ideals.

There is a huge difference between classic liberalism and conservatism. The political landscape is wide and complex, not binary.

It seems that this author can only think in binaries - unless you are on his side, you are on the other side (i.e. conservatism) no matter how you self-identify or how much you may disagree with actual conservatism.

It's no different than what some conservatives are doing and calling everybody opposed to them a "socialist" whether it fits or not.

 

[Derec]

Who says that? It sounds like nonsensical capitalistic propoganda to me, not a coherent political philosophy of any sort.

What Loren wrote has nothing to do with capitalism per se. Besides, what is wrong with capitalism?

If you have preditably unequal outcomes, that should be a pretty obvious indication to out that equality of opportunity is a myth.

Equal opportunities do not guarantee equal outcomes. People have different abilities, and do not apply themselves to the same extent.

Plus there is always the element of chance.

When the assembly line starts churning out broken pipe valves, do you turn to the supervisor and say "I guaranteed proper functioning of the machine, not proper results"? No, because he would point out the blooming obvious: properly functioning machines don't produce broken products.

People are far more complex than widgets like valves. For one, we have agency, the ability to make our own choices. Pipe valves do not.
Major analogy fail!

 

[Derec]

Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!

Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity. That's why the illiberal left came up with a new term for the former - "equity". Notice how "equity" is being used far more frequently in left-wing discourse over the last decade or so?

"Equity" taken to its logical conclusion has been satirized in "Harrison Bergeron". Kurt Vonnegut could see the seed of the rot back in the early 60s.

 

[Derec]

Nixon's 'War on Drugs' is proof that some laws are specifically aimed at particular demographic sectors of a society.

Nixon wasn't a classical liberal. Classical liberals do not agree with the War on Drugs.
You are kind of disproving the point made by others on this thread who want to equate classical liberalism with conservatism.

 

[Derec]

I cherish our status as "The Nation of Immigrants". Had Trump accomplished building it, I'd want to regress to that status.

Including illegal immigrants? That is what the Wall is intended to stop - not legal immigration.

I definitely think we need a certain level of immigration. But it needs to be legal. And the criteria and numbers should be set by what our country needs. It should not be the same as 19th century when US has 1/10th of the population and long distance travel was difficult. Neither should our national policies be bound by some poem on a monument.

 

[Derec]

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".

 

[Derec]

Have you ever wondered why the runners finish with different times?

An Olympics or World Cup run by principles Toni, Hermit et al are espousing here would be interesting - as an SNL sketch.

 

[Derec]

I don't know the history of the term "Liberalism" or "Classical Liberalism" but John Locke (1632-1704) is called the "Father of Liberalism."

My college professor (ethics requirement class) would describe classical liberalism (and also liberalism as used in say "liberal democracy") as "John Locke liberalism, not Ted Kennedy liberalism".

 

[Derec]

That is not the point. The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.

Each lane is the same length, thus making sure each runner is traversing the same distance. Equality of opportunity. Same standard for each runner.

Note that runners are not handicapped based on height, muscle mass, short/long twitch fiber distribution or the quantity or quality of training they enjoyed before race day. And most certainly is race/ethnicity not used as a proxy for those differences between runners, with runners handicapped based on their race and ethnicity, which is what the left is supporting with the so-called "affirmative action" policies.

 

[Politesse]

Does the conservative fringe really think John Locke of all people would be on their side if he could meet them? "Where there is no law there is no freedom" John Locke?

 

[Hermit]

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

To ensure equality of opportunity by having each lane be the same length.
It is not there to ensure equality of outcomes aka "equity".

Correct. That is what affirmative action is meant to do - levelling the playing field. Many metaphorical Einsteins never get a chance because they start off from too far behind - in the metaphorical cotton fields and sweatshops.


I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

 

[Trausti]

The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.

Are you suggesting that when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability? That’s an astute observation.

 

[Hermit]

The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.

Are you suggesting that when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability? That’s an astute observation.

It's more than a suggestion. You put in other words what I actually wrote.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is classic conservative bullshit because it presumes that "pathe "rules" have been agreed upon by everyone, not imposed by the powerful to entrench their position.

But you need to show that the rules are actually unfair. This comes back to the same thing as always--using disparate results as proof of racism. Yeah, it's only claimed to be evidence of, but it's taken on faith and not subject to rebuttal. Thus it's functionally considered proof.

"Actually unfair" is not an objective standard - that is the point.

Saying it isn't objective doesn't make it so.

"Unfair " (or "fair) cannot be an objective standard, because the notion of fairness and unfairness depend on personal feelings.

So, it isn't often when I get to be quite as pedantic as I can get when it comes to you, LD, but hoo boy...

"Fairness" can absolutely be an objective standard when all personal feelings are set on an equal footing of justification.

It essentially creates a system where both people cannot be right but both people can be wrong. You are essentially otherwise invoking the same fallacy as the false paradox of tolerance.

The answer is that "intolerance cannot ask for tolerance of itself in good faith".

Show how the law is wrong, don't just claim it is and expect us to take it on faith.

"The law", as you put it, applies to everyone equally. So far, so good, but it assumes a level playing field. The field is not level, and not just from a monetary point of view. That is just the most visible aspect of some people starting with a handicap.

Have you ever wondered why starting blocks for longer foot races on ovals are staggered?

400 metre race at the 2012 London Olympics

Have you ever wondered why the runners finish with different times?

That is not the point. The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.


I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

I mean... I was born in... Well, I only remember the barest pieces of it: the dirty underside of a sink. Cupboards I could easily get into. It was dark and dim much of the time.

If I had not been born in the day and age I was, I would have died there.

In all honesty I should have died, because the person who gave birth to me should have aborted.

I imagine for each one of me who made it out of that hell, ten thousand more died, either in infancy, or at least before adulthood. Hundreds of thousands perhaps simply never managed to access education.

I would rather see every child get as much education as they are capable of.

Not "as much education as their parents can afford", but "as they are capable of".

How we treat children as if they were their parents is unconscionable.

 

[Trausti]

The point is that the different positions of the starting blocks level the playing field. Those differences are in fact what ensures that the fastest runner is the most likely winner.

Are you suggesting that when the playing field is level we’d still get disparate outcomes because people are not equal in ability? That’s an astute observation.

It's more than a suggestion. You put in other words what I actually wrote.

So disparate impact does not mean unfair rules or discrimination?

 

[Trausti]

I would rather see every child get as much education as they are capable of.

Not "as much education as their parents can afford", but "as they are capable of".

School vouchers so the parents can send their children to the best school rather than the failing public option. + 1.

 

[Toni]

Sure they are. So long as they get to define equality of opportunity. It's when the equality of outcome comes into play that they start crying unfair advantage!

Equality of outcome is antithetical to equality of opportunity.

How so? No one argues that everyone participating in X should achieve the same outcome. What people do argue is that everyone who wishes to participate in X should get the opportunity to participate in X and their achievements or lack of achievements should be judged fairly.

 

[laughing dog]

When the US was founded more than two centuries ago, it was the most progressive society in the history of the world.

...more than two centuries ago...

And? Could you let us know what other society before these dead White guys was better? Without these dead White guys, you wouldn't have the freedoms you have today.

That is not evidence of your claim that the US was the most progressive society in the history of the world when it was founded more than two centuries ago. You made an affirmative claim of fact. It is up to you to support it.

 

[steve_bank]

I would not use the term progressive to describe founders of the USA as we use the term today to describe extreme liberals on the left.

However if by progressive you mean social, economic, and political change as opposed to conservayive status quo then it fits our history. Whether we are the most progressive is open to debate.

The American revolution resulting in a democratic republic was certainly progressive in the day. It was entirely new. Liberties and rights of the individual protected by the government.