This confirms my suspicion - that 'liberal' has an entirely different meaning
in the US. Liberal and libertarian are quite different things to me. 'Liberal'
is the descendant of the Whig position - reformist as opposed to Tory
(Conservative). It was largely supplanted by the Left/Socialist position in the
late 19th C. and became the centralist position in the UK and here. To me it is
a moderately reformist position in the centre, generally welfarist,
economically soft/wet and veering toward social democrat at times. Liberals are
often VERY far from being libertarian on contentious social issues - it's more
of a 'let's find a more sensible approach than just chucking them all in jail'
sort of approach.
Murkins seem to use it as a 'may as well be a commie' term of abuse which is
very confusing to mere observers like me. And even more so when those same
objects of abuse are expressing what seem to be quite moderate soft social
democrat ideas. Yall need to go back and read J.S. Mill?
No, it's not a circle, it's a cloud overlaid with a Venn diagram. :-)
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.soultheft.com
Author/Publisher:
The SLR Compendium:
revised edition -
http://blur.by/19Hb8or
The TLR Compendium
http://blur.by/1eDpqN7
On 06/03/2014, at 2:25 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>>> extreme liberal
>> Are you confusing liberal with libertarian?
>
> The political spectrum isn't a straight line, but more of a circle.
> Extreme liberals and extreme libertarians are actually one and the
> same. They're right at the point where the line comes back together.
> The specific subjects of disagreement may be different, but the
> arguments are exactly the same. Substitute "pot" for "guns" in the
> sentences.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|