re: Classical liberal role call of the poli talk board

quote:

---

where do "classical liberals" fall on the social issues? Conservative? Liberal? Abstain?

---

You people are not understanding at all. Let me try again.

'Classical Liberal' = 'Conservative.' They are synonyms. The reason there are two words for the same thing is because of language changes over time. IE, in 1970 Nancy Pelosi was a 'liberal.' In 2018 Nancy is a 'progressive.' She has not changed.

On social issues.... 'Conservative' is an umbrella term. Under that umbrella you have subgroups. Like...'the religious right', 'nationalists', 'libertarians', etc. Their unifying link is their loathing of a strong, centralized federal govt that trumps individual freedom because govt is needed for the achievement of utopian equality.

On social issues... 'Classical Liberals' is an umbrella term. Under that umbrella you have subgroups. Like 'the religious right,' 'nationalists', libertarians', etc.
They are the same. It is a rhetorical distinction.

OTOH, 'central planners' = 'liberals'= 'progressives.' They are synonyms. There is no difference. There are subgroups but they are all united in the advocacy of a strong centralized controlling federal govt in order to make life 'fair' and 'just.'

I can get behind most of what you posted and agree with the majority of it.

Most of us really aren't all that far apart. Had breakfast with a left-leaning friend today and after discussions we really saw things very similarly with only minor differences.

I've said over and over re: this board...it's a damn show and not much more.

quote:

---

Losh the Great, slumming on the poli board.

If you can't discuss anything here, why do you visit? Just to grace us with your presence?

---

Generally effort is not met with effort here. If I shitpost, I get shitpost replies. If I effortpost, I get shitpost replies. Shitposting can be fun, that's why the SEC Rant exists. But it's no fun when it's one-sided. So I tend to take effortposts elsewhere.

Anyway neoliberalism was a sort of counter-reaction to liberalism's drift towards socialist central planning in the early 20th century. This isn't very controversial, it's literally the first paragraph of the "neoliberalism" Wikipedia entry. It represents a rightward swing of the pendulum from the early and mid-century left swing of liberalism towards socialist central planning. So they're related in the same way that 70s punk and 90s grunge are related. You wouldn't go so far as to call them the same but the basic ethos is similar.

quote:

---

We sort of did a while back. The Trump movement changed that, leaving few who are straight up libertarians left. Right wing populism resonated.

I'm certainly not a classical liberal, but also wouldn't be called a progressive or hardcore SJW. It's hard to find a spot where you believe that markets are the best economic driver, but they need some regulation to set the rules and a degree of social welfare programs to insulate people from the wild swings the markets can take. At the same time, governments kind of suck at designing these systems and build poor incentive structures.

There's also the weird feeling of supporting social justice for historically marginalized groups, while being sick of the SJW left shouting down anyone who has a different perspective. This shuts down any meaningful conversation. As our President would say, SAD!

---

Well said, I can relate to a lot of this. So how would you classify yourself?

quote:

---

I am glad you responded.

---

I wish you would respond to me :(

oh look

another hack

quote:

---

He is the logical result of the emotionally driven team politics.

---

He pushes people's buttons on purpose.

"If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him."

quote:

---

So how would you classify yourself?

---

Human.

I've called it left-leaning libertarianism, which reads as a silly contradiction. The reality is that it's more of a balancing act between the liberal drive to have an economic system that benefits us all and understanding governments struggle to get the regulation right. So it's always a question of what is the least government intervention necessary to get the better outcome.

Another hack?

Who was the first?

I did respond. I invalidated you on the list at your request.