palerider,
et al,
I see I've touched a nerve here; in my short commentary.
It is obvious that you have never actually made a study of political philosophy or if you did, you didn't get it. Of course this nation was founded on liberalism.
(COMMENT)
Hummm! So, you think I was correct? But have chosen to express it in a negative way.
Classical liberalism that is, which has no real relation to what is called liberalism today. Today classical liberalism is called conservativism and what is called liberalism is, in fact, various degrees of marxism, socialism, communism, or facism or some mixture of all of them.
(COMMENT)
AH! So you presuppose I wasn't speaking in classical terms.
(Remembering that I was replying to the idea that the term "liberal" might be derogatory in nature; not that I was supporting concept.)
When you start talking about liberal states vs this or that, it is important that you know what you are talking about and alas in this case it is clear that you don't. It is true that the opposite of a classical liberal state is some sort of authoritarian state, but my bet is that you aren't talking about classical liberalism.
(COMMENT)
So again, you think I was correct? But have chosen to express it in a negative way.
In a typical uneducated fashion, you are clearly trying to conflate conservativism, which is in essence, and aim, classical liberalism with the various authoritian states which, in fact, represent the development of modern liberalism.
(COMMENT)
I may, in fact, be uneducated. And assuming I am, one look at you post would go a long way in convincing me (that what you describe yourself to be) is the pendulum at the extreme. And most things that are taken to the extreme, prove harmful or counterproductive.
I'm not sure I made a distinction between classical liberalism and what you describe as modern liberalism. But I take your point.
Before you go about responding and removing any doubt that in the arean of political philosophy you really don't know what you are talking about, try this test. Take a good hard look at the US Constitution. That document founds a country that is the literal personification of classical liberalism. Now ask yourself if you would like to live under a goverenent in which that document was strictly adhered to. That means government could only be large enough to carry out the responsibilites specifically laid out for it.
Moved and Reinserted: I am a conservative's conservative and I would jump at the opportunity to live under a strictly constitutional, classically liberal federal government. How about you?
(COMMENT)
I'm not sure that I subscribe to the notion that strict compliance of a doctrine, two centuries old, without the benefit of evolution, is the correct approach. I tend to think that "strict constitutionalism"
(originalist perspective ) is just as harmful as "extreme judicial activism;" each being at opposite ends of the spectrum; contentious theory. But if one exists, so must the other to achieve balance in the continuing interpretation of The Constitution.
Many people, lightyears beyond my meager understanding, express the idea that The Constitution is a "Living Document."
I doubt that you have ever read the Federalist papers. They are the letters and essays the founders of the nation wrote to the people in an effort to explain the nature and purpose of the constitution.
(COMMENT)
Well, actually, when I went to school, we had to study both the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers. But I don't claim to be as enlightened as you are on the subject.
Constitutionally, the responsibilities of the government are to deliver the mail, defend the borders, make treaties, and manage the federal courts. Ask yourself if you would like to live under a constitution that would strip our federal government down to just those duties and you will have your answer as to whether or not you are truely a classical liberal or conservative as they are known today or a member of one or more of the various authoritian groups such as socialist, marxist, communist, or fascist.
(COMMENT)
Again, you are injecting something not in evidence. I don't believe I did a comparative analysis on America relative to other social, economic and political constructs (socialist, marxist, communist, or fascist, etc).
I believe I was discussing whether or not "liberal is a justifiably-derogatory term." It is a matter of whether we consider all alternative views in a derogatory light, or as an or simply one of a number of possibilities worth of consideration.
The expansion of government duties and responsibilities has been (for the most part) a result of Congressional Action, derivative of Constitutional Authority. Whether they are observed as serving classical liberal or conservative views is virtually unimportant as the implementation and funding was done by the will of the people. However, individually, they are all open for debate.
I started a thread some time ago to discuss the authoritarian nature of modern liberalism and it went on for some pages. My premise clearly won the discussion. Perhaps you might like to read it, then again, perhaps you can't deal with that much truth and would rather not read it. If you are tempted, or beleve that you are more adept at political philosophy than I, the discussion can be found here:
https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/modern-liberalism-authoritarianism.1879/
(COMMENT)
While a discussion of the alternative mental lexicon governing the interpretation of what it means to be a "liberal" or a "conservative" may be philosophically entertaining, it ultimately has no relevance to the nature of governance. In this short discussion, my commentary was focused on the derogatory connotation of the labels and not the political outcomes of the legislative processes in governance.
Most Respectfully,
R
