"Classical Liberals"

[TomC]

If it is a matter of opinion, then clearly any change can also be viewed as a move backwards (regression) as well.

Exactly. It depends on who's view we're talking about.

To me, Trump's Wall was a move forward in a direction I despised. I cherish our status as "The Nation of Immigrants". Had Trump accomplished building it, I'd want to regress to that status.

Not everyone would.
Tom

 

[rousseau]

It seems like something changed after Marx gained influence and completely upended the conversation. Before him people just wanted economic freedom, after him people started feeling that anything but absolute equality was a problem.

IMO, we're at a point in history where there is a lot of pushback toward, and misunderstanding of, natural science and how it applies to politics and economics. Many people with grand ideals, but not a very deep understanding of how the world actually works.

A couple centuries ago we just wanted democracy.

 

[TomC]

A couple centuries ago we just wanted democracy.

I'm not sure who "we" is here.

The country I live in, USA, certainly wasn't founded on that.

It was Founded by a batch of wealthy male WASP people. They certainly didn't believe in democracy. They just wanted voting rights for themselves, and a government that represented them.

Over time we expanded on their high falutin' hypocrisy. Now even black lesbians get to vote(mostly).

But, no, a couple of centuries ago democracy was a delicacy reserved for the elite. It wasn't for the little people.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The word "liberalism" originally referred to an emphasis on human rights and personal liberty — freedom from government regulation, freedom from an imposed religion, freedom to accumulate wealth, et cetera.

That's what I'm asking about. When and where was this "the original meaning" of liberalism, and why should we aspire to recreate that political system?

Classic liberals are about equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Who says that? It sounds like nonsensical capitalistic propoganda to me, not a coherent political philosophy of any sort. If you have preditably unequal outcomes, that should be a pretty obvious indication to out that equality of opportunity is a myth.

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.

What you are missing is that there can be other factors at work that society doesn't control.

Do you agree with the current approach of punishing Asians and Jews for cultures that value education?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is classic conservative bullshit because it presumes that the "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. The "evidence" is always based on disparate outcome, not showing a problem with the laws. Show how the law is wrong, don't just claim it is and expect us to take it on faith.

 

[rousseau]

A couple centuries ago we just wanted democracy.

I'm not sure who "we" is here.

The country I live in, USA, certainly wasn't founded on that.

It was Founded by a batch of wealthy male WASP people. They certainly didn't believe in democracy. They just wanted voting rights for themselves, and a government that represented them.

Over time we expanded on their high falutin' hypocrisy. Now even black lesbians get to vote(mostly).

But, no, a couple of centuries ago democracy was a delicacy reserved for the elite. It wasn't for the little people.
Tom

That's fair, but the world doesn't and can't change completely overnight. The expansion of rights takes time, and eventually minorities were recognized.

My point was that a few centuries ago the main social issue was despotic government (generally across Europe). These days capitalism and social inequality is the target of most liberals.

 

[Trausti]

A couple centuries ago we just wanted democracy.

I'm not sure who "we" is here.

The country I live in, USA, certainly wasn't founded on that.

It was Founded by a batch of wealthy male WASP people. They certainly didn't believe in democracy. They just wanted voting rights for themselves, and a government that represented them.

Over time we expanded on their high falutin' hypocrisy. Now even black lesbians get to vote(mostly).

But, no, a couple of centuries ago democracy was a delicacy reserved for the elite. It wasn't for the little people.
Tom

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

 

[laughing dog]

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.

 

[laughing dog]

A couple centuries ago we just wanted democracy.

I'm not sure who "we" is here.

The country I live in, USA, certainly wasn't founded on that.

It was Founded by a batch of wealthy male WASP people. They certainly didn't believe in democracy. They just wanted voting rights for themselves, and a government that represented them.

Over time we expanded on their high falutin' hypocrisy. Now even black lesbians get to vote(mostly).

But, no, a couple of centuries ago democracy was a delicacy reserved for the elite. It wasn't for the little people.
Tom

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

On what basis can you make the claim that a country that was founded with legal slavery, the denial of a political voice to a gender or to those without property was the most progressive society in the history of the world?

 

[bilby]

A couple centuries ago we just wanted democracy.

I'm not sure who "we" is here.

The country I live in, USA, certainly wasn't founded on that.

It was Founded by a batch of wealthy male WASP people. They certainly didn't believe in democracy. They just wanted voting rights for themselves, and a government that represented them.

Over time we expanded on their high falutin' hypocrisy. Now even black lesbians get to vote(mostly).

But, no, a couple of centuries ago democracy was a delicacy reserved for the elite. It wasn't for the little people.
Tom

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

On what basis can you make the claim that a country that was founded with legal slavery, the denial of a political voice to a gender or to those without property was the most progressive society in the history of the world?

Blind patriotism, coupled with an abject ignorance of the majority of the history of the world would be my guess.

 

[Hermit]

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

 

[Hermit]

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...

 

[Trausti]

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.

 

[Trausti]

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?

 

[Swammerdami]

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

John Locke FRS (/lɒk/; 29 August 1632 – 28 October 1704) was an English philosopher and physician, widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers and commonly known as the "Father of Liberalism".[12][13][14] ... His writings influenced Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and many Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American Revolutionaries. His contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the United States Declaration of Independence.[15] Internationally, Locke’s political-legal principles continue to have a profound influence on the theory and practice of limited representative government and the protection of basic rights and freedoms under the rule of law.

There's some ambiguity about Locke's stance on slavery, but his view on child labor would not be endorsed by 20th century "post-Classical liberals":
From the same Wiki article:

Locke also supported child labour. In his "Essay on the Poor Law", he turns to the education of the poor; he laments that "the children of labouring people are an ordinary burden to the parish, and are usually maintained in idleness, so that their labour also is generally lost to the public till they are 12 or 14 years old". He suggests, therefore, that "working schools" be set up in each parish in England for poor children so that they will be "from infancy [three years old] inured to work".  He goes on to outline the economics of these schools, arguing not only that they will be profitable for the parish, but also that they will instill a good work ethic in the children

 

[Hermit]

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?

It has not been the most progressive society in the history of the world for a long time.

Could you let us know what other society before these dead White guys was better?

Relevance?

Without these dead White guys, you wouldn't have the freedoms you have today.

That is an utterly ridiculous assertion.

 

[Hermit]

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

 

[Derec]

An odd phenomenon I have encountered lately is that people who seem to be pressing for an eradication of social justice politics and a dismissal of critical conversations about history, gender, race, and other controversial issues have started self identifying as "liberals" or "classic liberals".

That is not odd. Liberalism was, until it somehow got redefined in the US some decades ago, a political philosophy that espoused individual liberties. It still means that in most of the world. What is odd that it somehow got twisted in the US to mean embrace of left of center economic policy and an attitude to social polices that is more concerned about groups than individuals.

So-called social justice is often opposed to actual justice because the latter is supposed to seek justice on an individual level, while "social justice" concerns itself with groups.

Who started this, and what is it actually supposed to mean? Where and when did this classical age of liberalism occur, and is there some reason should we be fighting to reconstruct that age? What would a classically liberal society look like? When and why did "liberal" go from being an implied slur on conservative media to being a label of choice for the PragerU crowd?

Not familiar with "Prager-U" or the details of dating these developments precisely.

 

[Derec]

Change is only progressive if it moves forward.

How do you define "forward"? Or "progress"?
If somebody wants to have stronger unions that represent more workers, is that "progressive" or "reactionary" (because it wants to recreate a past state of affairs as the peak of US unionization was in the 1940s)? Is is based on which you personally prefer?

Trump wants to move the country back to fiefdoms,

[Citation needed] Especially since this country never had the system of fiefdoms to go back to.
The rest of your post is no better, so I snipped it.

 

[Derec]

I understand that you consider changes that suit you to be progress and changes you disapprove of to be regress.

Exactly!