10 votes

Why I believe in (Classical) Liberalism

Just like most of the other members and guests of this forum I would like to live in a better world.

We all have our own opinion of what 'better' means but I would like to take the time to put forward what I think a better world would look like and why classical liberalism is the way to achieve it.

To me the most important ingredient in a happy life is freedom. I have made my fair share of mistakes with money, drinking, bad decisions etc. but having the freedom to make them and to learn from them has allowed me to develop more than if government regulation had made my mistakes impossible.

This freedom is under threat from those who would like to be able to influence by stealth in the form of laws and taxes what we are reasonably able to do.

Examples of this are as follows;

- Government taxes alcohol and tobacco in order to persuade us to reduce our intake of these goods.
- Laws are introduced in order to stop inflammatory speech (the definition of which is left to others to determine).
- Excessive regulation of businesses.

To add insult to injury we are also taxed to pay for social schemes designed to create a better society as judged by our elected leaders;

- Redistribution of wealth to others as seen fit by the government.
- Government funded schemes to promote a society envisaged by others instead of letting society develop of its own accord.
- An Education system teaching a curriculum influenced by a select few.

I know this will be a controversial point but I am not against some taxes to ensure that the less well off amongst us are provided with food and shelter and that services such as roads are funded.

It does however seem very unjust that the rewards of our labour can be taken from us to fund schemes that are deemed suitable by those in elected positions without consultation from the people who elected them.

It is also disturbing that we can have a money system that so obviously disadvantages the poor by way of inflation to the point that we seem to be fighting for breadcrumbs from the table of the banks.

Another controversial point I would like to make is to question the demonization of those that wish to remain within there own ethnic group. To my own view those who wish to continue their ethnicity are just as within their rights to do so as those who choose not to.

We are all different, that is what makes us human and it is this freedom to choose one way or another that greatly contributes to our happiness.

The answer to all these problems is classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism teaches that it is okay to be;

Gay or Straight
Religious or Agnostic
Black or White
Male or Female

Another way to look at these issues is to realise that we should all be free to do as we please as long as we do not stop others doing the same (the golden rule).

In fact I would argue that our right to live freely hinges on our ability to extend the same right to others.

We are all free people capable of making decisions, forming arguments and making discussions amongst ourselves. It is the difference of our opinions that makes life interesting and worth living.

Our ideas are under threat and in order for those of us who would like classical liberalism to succeed we must always keep the moral high ground even when we may achieve success by bending the rules.

It also means that we should strive to be more tolerant of others ideas even when they are intolerant of ours. If we are then you can be sure that those with neutral views will take notice of our stance and join us.

If we ever fall for the trick of cheating or lying to try to get our views greater exposure then all we will succeed in doing is to become a false, hypocritical movement like all the others that currently dominate politics.

Things are turning in our favour, this cannot be doubted. It will be up to all of us to do what we can in our lives to share our knowledge with others so that we can succeed in gaining liberty for all.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
ecorob's picture

Well stated, Silk Shirt...

excellent thread!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Thank you.

:)

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Democratic Federted Republic

At the time of the Revolution in America there was an obvious power that was measurably evil and the words used to label that power were many.

Examples:

The King
The British
Monarchy
Taxation without Representation
The Dogs of War

The concept of choosing to disconnect from that accurately measurable EVIL power was expressed in many ways during those days.

Examples:

The Declaration of Independence
The Articles of Confederation combined with State Constitutions
Trial by Jury
Bills of Rights
Commons Sense

The fact that evil people insist upon connecting to the victims they target remains to be a fact right now.

So the question asked again, by the victims, is embodied in individual minds, and those individuals, when added together, make up a POWER that is much greater than the total sum of each individual POWER to question that Evil POWER.

It may be useful, you can decide, to know, understand, and accurately measure, a reasonable solution that worked well enough to drive out The Dogs of War visiting America from Britain, as the targets in America were having their productive POWER stolen by The British and used to finance further destruction including those Dogs of that Aggressive War for British Royalty Profits; and the Central Bank of that day.

The reasonable solution was neither Evil A, nor Evil B.

The reasonable, working, solution was a Democratic Federated Republic.

Those who prefer Evil were able to vote with their feet to places where Evil was subsidized, and those people, in those days, were called Loyalists, or Tories.

Here is a relevant quote:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams

In those days, those who wanted nothing to do with Evil A, The British, had in mind a solution called Liberty, which was gained with a tool, and the tool was called a Democratic Federated Republic, and it worked well enough to help drive out the Evil that invaded, and occupied America at the time.

It worked well enough to defend against the largest army of aggression on the planet Earth as that criminal army invaded, occupied, and subjugated the target population into Evil Rule by Evil, Inhuman, beings.

The Loyalists, and the Tories either allowed Evil to exist, or were willfully working to make Evil more powerful.

A useful quote:

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." Tom Paine 1776

As it turned out, in accurately measurable fact, government need not be Evil at all, and a Democratic Federated Republic was a tool used to work Evil OUT of the "Colonies", when the targets of Evil employed that tool, which they did, and so the example is provided for all to see, if you care to look.

Joe

to me, the current

spate of minarch, ancap, paleocon in-fighting is getting utterly ridiculous, and utterly unnecessary, mainly initiated by a very select few weekend visiting repeat offenders.

as long as one respects, applies and lives by the Golden Rule it's all good.

as for taxes, govt, & other state, corporatist mechanisms, as long as one is cognizant of their nature, and agree that voluntary means is ALWAYS morally superior, and given the option, will figure out a way, away from any state mechanism, they're an allies in my book.

I'll drink to that.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

It is pretty simple and agreeable.

Not sure why there has been so much infighting lately. The golden rule could help a few people.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Value systems are personal and cannot be expanded beyond...

the individual level.

Who you think deserves assistance may not meet my criteria set by my value system. You have no right to take my money and give it to people that you feel are deserving of the fruits of my labor.

If you feel they are deserving, you can voluntarily donate your own money.

I agree with the sentiment

But is it achievable in practice?

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

ecorob's picture

I think so, double S...

America is one of the most generous Nations in the history of the world.

We help people in need. The trick is, defining who is in need and who is "freeloading".

It would be a GREAT benefit to answering this question if our country's leaders had not destroyed the manufacturing base here in America in favor of cheap labor oversees to benefit the multinational corporations (that bought off the politicians, to begin with).

If jobs were aplenty, food stamps, welfare, and medical care would be easier to acquire.

I believe a large tariff needs to be placed on ALL imported goods received inside this country from abroad and Americans should boycott all of them until the prices come down or the manufacturing base returns.

I don't give a damn about any laws that restrict this. Overturn them!

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

I disagree with Tariffs unless they are to protect

against economic warfare from outside forces.

But desperate times can call for desperate measures.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

I don't agree with basing a society on evil

But yes if we have to accept the immorality of theft then the Robin Hood thing seems tempting.

The problem isn't that it's a little evil. If it was a little evil and it stayed that way then ok. The problem is that, like with all evil, it doesn't work and it grows.

Robin Hood may start thinking he is doing good. But pretty soon he realizes he wants job security. If he and his merry band wants to stay in business, he can't ever really help the poor. If he did they wouldn't need him. So he must plan ways to help some occasionally escape their plight, but always ensure at least as many new poor enter the system.

Robin Hood isn't a temp or an independent contractor. He has no plans on being a temp or a contractor. He intends a full career in the hood. He intends his children will take over when he retires.

In time, as the guys with the bows, he and his merry men need to make sure no one else has bows. Eventually his prey might get annoyed and get ideas. Even his 'beneficiaries' may start to figure out they really aren't being helped. Bow Control will be called for. (If there is pushback Robin can always go the 'background check'->'registration'->'confiscation' route, slower but very sure)

Also, and importantly, there is a 'transaction cost' in this hood business. Robin doesn't 'work' for free after all! As a monopoly the transaction cost will always increase, and it won't always be possible to take more from the rich. Sometimes the poor will have to live with less. Certainly Robin and the boys will never live will less. They will always do better over time.

Eventually what's left of the rich will figure out the game. They will buy in, and buy off, Robin and his Merry, and now also, Many, men.

The poor may start to get wise, and organize 'Occupy Sherwood' but it will be too late.

The mechanism for the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is the evil itself. The state.

The larger the state gets, the greater income disparity there is.

Eventually there's no middle ground to squeeze. If you can't buy time with printing and borrowing you get Greece. Of course we'll end up worse than Greece in the middle term.

Summation: It's understandable that if you want to allow a little evil for some reason, let it be towards 'good' ends. But this is impossible. Good ends cannot be achieved with evil means except for brief periods.

Always the evil grows.

I will remind: Poverty was on the decline before we began the welfare state. Before 'we' agreed that just a little theft, just a little socialism might be used for good ends.

But that's just what the devil wants you to think. Just a little evil my friend. The first hit is free.

Very good point good ends cannot be achieved with evil means.

I really can't argue with that. I think the aim should be a society without any wealth redistribution but I am not sure if it is possible.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

I understand. It's why I

I understand. It's why I don't yell at minarchists.

It may not be achievable now, because people still listen to the devil. So I support you in attacking what seems to be the immediate problem of reducing evil. But so long as people listen to the devil nothing can change, so I will always point it out. I hope you don't mind:)

The devil says: Just steal a little, just cage a few riffraff that don't go along. Once people see who's boss, then you can work your good. It won't get out of hand, trust me. People won't resent you. You won't need to ramp up the evil to enforce your plans, just a little evil, let's not even call it evil. Let's call it a 'social contract'. People will appreciate you then. You'll the beloved of all.

I like your style

If everyone could reason without anger or judgement against others this movement would be further ahead...

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Thank you.

I don't expect to win. I didn't even understand there was a war until a few years ago. I was a NPRBot, a sheeple, a matrix dweller.

I would be very pleased to restore the Rule of Law, as embodied in the constitution, despite it's allowance for limited evil, which despite knowing the evil must logically and historically must expand again, it would buy us time. I don't even expect to win that much.

But I do have hope we could contain evil. Whether you believe it's baked into us by original Sin as Christians do, or by evolution as I do, it is baked into us and only utopian collectivists believe otherwise. But good is also baked into us.

There is a way to contain the evil though, and force it to work against itself where it arises. There is a way not to tempt those on the fence, as our system built on evil does.

Not every corporation CEO wants to buy special regulatory privilege with his lobbyists, she just has little choice if she is to stay in business.

Not every welfare recipient wants to be on the taxpayer dole. But often they have little choice if they want to survive or even achieve. Candidly, the honest ones are the ones who take the check and get jobs on the side. They are the go getters. If they would work, why should the suffer for it and make less than couch potatoes? The system encourages people to work outside the system if they would better themselves, and they should.

Liberty is the only way to contain and minimize evil. It isn't perfection on earth, that is impossible, but it is as close as humanly achievable. We only need understand economics to understand that. This is why people are so miseducated, and must be so for the state to survive.

Good Idea.

I think that those who can exist without the state as much as possible should. I am planning on doing that myself.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

I do think that generally, in

I do think that generally, in private, you are allowed to be as discriminatory as you want. It is just that the government can't be, and those who recieve government funds can't be.

A common misconception on this website is that the government prevents private companies from being discriminatory on the basis of race. At least on the federal level, this is only true of restaurants/bars, private transportation, and emergency services (healthcare). Otherwise, you are free to be as discriminatory as you want.

On the issue of welfare, people should realize that it is actually a very small part of the pie. Welfare spending nationwide is about 5% of GDP. That would be a lot less if healthcare costs were more manageable.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You get an upvote for saying what is on your mind

We need more of it, who cares what others think.

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

Fantastic

entry. And let me say that I agree with you 100%.

On the points of taxes for less fortunate. There are some aspects of society in which it just makes sense to pay a little to prevent paying more later. Things like medicare that provide healthcare to the poor benefit us who are not poor. How? Because if you care for the sick, any transmutable diseases they carry will be prevented from entering the population. Inherited diseases can be treated early to provide that individual with the ability to be productive later in life.

On the point of acceptance of other groups. I fully agree here. One is only as free as much as he allows his neighbor to be. By taking sides on issues, especially issues in which a majority hold down a minority, you are being as far from a freedom loving liberal/libertarian as you can be.

Kudos to you. I wish more people on this site would actually be classical liberals, and not conspiracy theorist/bible thumping/atheist religion hating, judgemental class dividers. It is refreshing.

Thanks.

I am still excited about the ideas that Ron Paul was talking about.

Less excited about conspiracy theories....

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."