Whats with the leftwing bent of Wrongplanet?

Post Reply New Topic

We aren't liberal to the idea of rights. We are libertarian to the idea of rights. If we were liberal then we'd have a lot more social insurance. Frankly, libertarians and leftists are both socially liberal and both have socially liberal aspects of their conceptions of rights, however, the former sees economic rights from an individualist standpoint and the latter sees them from a more communal standpoint and our system does hold to both, but compared to the rest of the world it is more libertarian and compared to the history of ideas it seems more libertarian.

I seemed to have forgotten what sarcasm is. Let me go look it up.

Oh, here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

sar·casm
Pronunciation: \ˈsär-ˌka-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology:
French or Late Latin; French sarcasme, from Late Latin sarcasmos, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein to tear flesh, bite the lips in rage, sneer, from sark-, sarx flesh; probably akin to Avestan thwarəs- to cut
Date: 1550

1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
synonyms see wit

You'd make a mighty fine comedian.

Maybe.

The founders of the country were liberals, you illiterate twit. Government "by the people, for the people" was a radically leftist idea for their time. The philosophers responsible for their ideas would be liberal even by modern standards. For example, many of the more educated elite of the day would not have objected to polygamous marriages if some arrangement could be made for them and they were in great enough number to constitute a legitimate minority population. If I recall correctly, there were at least a few who actually said so. The right-wing of their time were monarchists who were loyal to the King. The King's Men were flag-waving "patriots" who were happy to murder their own countrymen in the name of their distant ruler. They were also called "tories," which would be a much more fitting term for modern conservatives. Conservatives don't have any business in this country. They've fought against it since the get-go, and it mystifies me that we even put up with them.

Oh, but libertarians are a different story. They're deluded, but they have good intentions. I think. Just try to remember the leftist roots of your philosophy. Libertarianism is rooted deeply in liberal philosophy, and it always has been. I don't know why many people seem to think it's "right-winged." They're outright wrong, really. Even Adam Smith, the original libertarian, was a liberal philosopher, and most people either don't know or won't tell you that he was one of the earliest advocates of progressive taxation. Even today, his views would be seen as very liberal.

Of course you don't believe it. You're historically illiterate. It's easy to argue from a position of ignorance, you know. It's how Creationists can convince so many people of their stupid rubbish. They aren't constrained by facts, so they're free to make the truth up as they go along. Before you make another post, I suggest you do some actual reading on history. Actually check out a few books from a library, and act like you're really serious about enlightening yourself before you come back on here to spout your ill-researched opinions. If you don't, count on this: you WILL be ridiculed.

Adam Smith would be horrified by modern day Corporate Capitalism and it's inherent tendency towards monopolies and cartels, and would be further horrified because corporate crony apologists invoke him when they are criticized.

Ah, and I was assuming we were sticking to the American usage of the term libertarian. Really though, given that the basic defining feature of libertarianism is its dislike of government, I would say that it tends to be somewhat inconsistent. I mean, a left-libertarian who accepted that the status quo was to stay I suppose could compromise on this issue, but they typically dislike this system.

Right, I would only include Ron Paul as left-libertarianism is along the same lines as most anarchism and I don't see Ralph Nader advancing such a view very much, but perhaps I am not very familiar with his work.

In many countries, outside of the U.S., libertarianism is practically a synonym for anarchism. However, the term "left libertarianism" is commonly used in the U.S., at least among American political theorists.

Ralph Nader is a left libertarian, but he is not an anarchist. However, anarchism can, in a sense, be seen as a category of left libertarianism.

FDR and such had taken the term "liberal" from the US libertarians. Frankly, given that US libertarians are better known in the US than left-libertarians or anarchists, the necessity of extra clarification is clear.

Well, I know anarchism can be seen as a category of left-libertarian, I just was not aware that Ralph Nader was much of a left-libertarian, much of his work has advanced progressivism more so than left-libertarianism from my perspective, such as work he has done to promote regulation of the auto industries and such.

I generally just say right libertarians and left libertarians. The term "liberal" is mercurial. Economic liberalism still refers to the ideas of Adam Smith (invisible hand), David Ricardo (percolate down), etc. FDR's usage of liberalism, which has become a pejorative in much common American usage (due to right-wing talk radio, Fox News Channel, etc.), has been rapidly morphing into progressivism.

Nader has repeatedly run for president against "liberals." His anti-corporate left libertarianism (including opposing the capitalist globalization which is favored by both Clinton and Obama) is a middle position between FDR liberalism and the far left.

Well, I know that he is further left than Clinton or Obama, however left-libertarianism isn't just a left-wing belief but a certain left-wing belief. I will admit that the green party will sort of lean that direction, but it does not seem to really be there as it still does rely on the state as a regulator more than left-libertarianism would, as the latter would emphasize getting rid of the state and getting rid of property rights claims rather than going around creating government programs and messing around with tax laws. Perhaps I don't know left-libertarianism as well as you do though. I do know that right-libertarians have dismissed Nader as a statist, but that could just be the antipathy between the two groups.

I regard *right-wing*/conservative Aspies as being the equivalent of Black Uncle Toms.

I regard *right-wing*/conservative Aspies as being the equivalent of Black Uncle Toms.