[Dystopian Darkness]

My political compass results puts me slightly on the libertarian right. I am overall in favour of a small but efficient and strong welfare state and I am socially liberal on issues like gay marriage and abortion.

I believe individual rights prevail over the public good and I think the free market is preferable to state regulations. I'm obviously a capitalist



Economic score: 1
Social score: -3


I don't think I am a right-wing libertarian because I identify neither as a minarchist nor as an anarcho-capitalist, I'm still in favour of some regulation, but only the minimum necessary. I'm not as rightist as libertarian capitalists.

Does this make me some kind of classic liberal, or am I just a modern liberal?

[Brisket]

You're a modern liberal.

[Decky]

Liberalism was left wing in the past when it was destroying feudalism and it is right wing at the moment since it is the established ideology.

[SpaciousBox]

Liberalism can be left or right, depending on which school of thought you follow. I'd say modern liberalism is inherently left wing, as our understanding of the world has progressed in a manner which ties individualism and economics intrinsically. There are some however (libertarians, Anarchists, a few centre-right types) who manage to come to alternative conclusions. It is entirely possible that you are one of those people, as your views suggest social liberal thought but with a heavy capitalistic edge (the Nick Cleggs of our age - as depressing as it is to admit). What matter is the value of other individuals. How you manage to bring that in line with the free market is up to your own political studies I guess! (many seem to manage it, even if I disagree with them).

[Rejn]

I doubt "economic score: 1" suggests "heavy capitalist edge". I don't think that liberalism is necessarily left-wing. While there are many who are left, you seem to be a centrist, and I am definitely right.

[Rei Murasame]

Liberalism has - if followed to its furthest conclusion - the tendency to create the environment in which it can be negated in favour of another ideology, be it of the left or of the right. This is because all of the tools that it creates to maintain its own rule, the freedom of the press, the parliament, the freedom of association, and so on, all can be turned against it and used as a rod against its own back.

[Lexington]

Right. Liberalism is going to destroy itself by letting the people govern themselves.

300 years ago liberalism didn't exist. Since then it's beat the living shit out of all other ideologies and taken over the planet. Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler didn't achieve anything like this.

Liberalism is conniving, it is cunning, it is evil, it is good, and it is awesome. Liberalism shows up all fluffy and weak and "Oh, oh, the poor people, let's not kill anyone," and then kills anyone that gets in its way.

And it's coming for you.

[Rei Murasame]

Napoleon

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, you are aware that Napoleon was a liberal, right? He was a liberal during the advent of liberalism, and he was really good at it. If Napoleon had been able to unite Europe then it would've been a great step forward, but unfortunately he was not successful.

Cecil John Rhodes, another great person, was also a liberal.

Basically, blatantly invading things does not preclude someone from being a liberal.

Liberalism is conniving, it is cunning, it is evil, it is good, and it is awesome. Liberalism shows up all fluffy and weak and "Oh, oh, the poor people, let's not kill anyone," and then kills anyone that gets in its way.

And right now that is what needs to happen in the Middle East, because we need liberalism to cover every single millimetre of the planet, by hook or by crook. After 1991, it would be impossible for any rival system to emerge unless liberalism has first exhausted its ability to act as a progressive force, and its ability to allocate wealth in rational ways.

Every single advantage that liberalism confers, should be exploited where it is possible to exploit it, if there is an absence of any other viable alternative at that time.

This is why you and I are presently in agreement that NATO power must be expanded as far as it can go. But it needs to be liberalism with the mask off. And anyone who resists should indeed be shot. Whatever comes later, comes later.

[fuser]

Genghis Khan

Ah, he did achieved much, in fact if we are counting years, he will come up top on liberalism. People were legitimizing themselves in name of Genghis even after 400 years of his death while empires formed directly because of his conquests lasted for around 500 years in Eurasian lands.

You really can't compete with Genghis, no one can.

[Rei Murasame]

Also, now that I think of it:

Alexander

People are literally living in a Europe and a Near East shaped by the military campaigns of the country he led. We're writing in a language - English - partly shaped by the Greeks.

Cue for Noemon to enter stage right.

[ThirdTerm]

Libertarians are against foreign wars like liberals but they are right-wingers and many small-government conservatives in the American South are libertarians who seek to maximise political autonomy by getting rid of government regulations. Ron and Rand Paul are typical libertarians but Ron Paul had been associated with Don Black in the past and Rand Paul got into trouble after speaking out against forced integration policies imposed by the federal government. Right-wing libertarianism is an anti-establishment ideology popular among white Southerners and there is already a thread on this subject.

What we refer to as "libertarianism" in the United States, and Anglophone countries to a lesser extent, is merely one facet of the libertarian ideology. Libertarianism in other countries is wholly a political phenomenon of the Left, oftentimes supporting a fundamental re-evaluation of property rights (a la geolibertarianism) or the abolition of capitalist structures and hierarchical society. In the United States, "libertarianism" can be classified as a right-wing ideology. The primary defining issue of the Libertarian Party is the removal of government impediments to capitalism and the exercise of property rights, both of which are positions of the Right. I would, however, hesitate to classify libertarianism in any form as either right-wing or left-wing. Libertarianism is sufficiently removed from the dominant modern liberal tradition that identifying it on the liberal spectrum is precarious at best.
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=134741

[fuser]

Ah, yes. Alexander, I missed that. I think only Hitler can be labelled as failure from Lexington's list, Hellenistic empires were direct descendents of Alexander's conquest and lasted for about three centuries while the indirect consequences of his conquests can still be felt today.

Napoleon can be said to be half success while he himself lost, his campaigns changed the whole Europe completely.

Also, left right paradigm is quite obscure nowadays, for all I care, Socialism left, everything else right.

[Rei Murasame]

Even Uncle Hitler would get by as a 'half success', because while he was not able to alter the map of Europe, he did contribute to the complete collapse of all western colonialist administrations in East and South Asia, thus making him along with Hideki Tojo the indirect 'forefathers' of ASEAN+3 and of SAARC.

We should make sure to remain adaptable and not to waste the sacrifices of our ancestors in the turbulent decades that we're about to face. And above all, don't let anyone use petty-moralisations to dissuade you from supporting actions which must be supported. At every turn I suggest a rightward turn, because we need resources to survive and that involves imperialism against places that have resources. And if that rightward turn keeps us within the liberal spectrum or drives us finally to a point outside of that spectrum again, it doesn't matter at the moment.

Later it will matter, but not yet. For now we need to loot oil and we need to get FDI. If liberals are happy with providing these opportunities for now, then we should work with them with glee. If they stop providing these opportunities before the appropriate time then it means that they would need to not be in power anymore, I guess, and I would have to change my tune.

[Lexington]

Just for the sake of historical accuracy, you are aware that Napoleon was a liberal, right? He was a liberal during the advent of liberalism, and he was really good at it. If Napoleon had been able to unite Europe then it would've been a great step forward, but unfortunately he was not successful.

I know. He was also an Emperor. And the Napoleonic Code that he left in his wake, liberal and illiberal, the liberal thing was left standing across Europe. The residue of Napoleon is liberalism. The residue of Hitler is hatred of fascism, and hence liberalism. The liberal thing survived, the Empire did not. Liberalism is insidious like that. Not only does liberalism beat the shit out of its enemies, it sneaks in under the radar.

Cecil John Rhodes, another great person, was also a liberal.

So what?

Basically, blatantly invading things does not preclude someone from being a liberal.

Of course liberals invade countries. Sometimes we conquer them. You should, after all, admire that kind of success: you're a fascist, you admire strength. Also, you're Japanese right? How many countries have forced a Japanese Emperor to surrender?

That is the fist of liberalism.

And right now that is what needs to happen in the Middle East, because we need liberalism to cover every single millimetre of the planet, by hook or by crook. After 1991, it would be impossible for any rival system to emerge unless liberalism has first exhausted its ability to act as a progressive force, and its ability to allocate wealth in rational ways.

Every single advantage that liberalism confers, should be exploited where it is possible to exploit it, if there is an absence of any other viable alternative at that time.

And liberalism will sprout up randomly until you can't even play whack-a-mole on it. It turns out, really, people like to govern themselves.

Even when us liberals fail to understand that, to be honest.

Ah, he did achieved much, in fact if we are counting years, he will come up top on liberalism. People were legitimizing themselves in name of Genghis even after 400 years of his death while empires formed directly because of his conquests lasted for around 500 years in Eurasian lands.

You really can't compete with Genghis, no one can.

How many nations (including yours) have refused liberalism? Genghis himself didn't take India.

Alexander
People are literally living in a Europe and a Near East shaped by the military campaigns of the country he led. We're writing in a language - English - partly shaped by the Greeks.

Cue for Noemon to enter stage right.

Somehow English, by way of liberalism, has gone a long, long way.

[Rei Murasame]

Now you're trespassing into fantasy. If you're going to make liberalism look unassailable then you have to do it right.

Liberalism is not about self-government. The peril comes - for anyone regardless of ideology - when you start letting people do things on their own. For example, imagine what calamities would unfold if the United States didn't have the multinational companies using campaign funding and think tanks as a way of state-managing presidential elections?

You'd end up with something really stupid like a 'President Rand Paul', or a 'President Elizabeth Warren'. That obviously cannot be allowed to happen and for good reason, hence self-government is prevented through raw application of bourgeoisie power. It don't even disagree with it, it is what it is. One of the most powerful things about liberalism is how it very competently manages itself without having to resort to overtly suspending elections or having rolling back to back coups.

I genuinely do think that liberals are highly intelligent, and that's why I get pretty happy when we are in scenarios where the liberal mainstream is doing things that I like. I mean, let's say the United States offers up Jeb Bush as President and Marco Rubio as the Vice President. For me that is best case scenario, both on a geostrategic level, and for my wallet personally.

[Decky]

Liberalism is not about self-government.

QFT.

Liberalism is government by rich capitalist. This is obvious, look at any liberal country.

[fuser]

How many nations (including yours) have refused liberalism? Genghis himself didn't take India.

This comparison makes no sense. Genghis was human and human are limited by a pesky thing called death. India was conquered by Mughals (a mistranslation of word, "Mongols"), Babur the first Mughal ruler claimed legitimacy by always trying to trace and establish his legacy back to Genghis. Why does it matter that he himself wasn't able to live 400 years like every human past and present

Its like saying Alan Turing is not successful because he himself didn't made a PC.

If Genghis is not successful then no one and nothing has been successful ever, seriously one can interchange word success with Genghis, sorry but saying Genghis was a failure is "Earth is flat" territory.

[SolarCross]

300 years ago liberalism didn't exist. Since then it's beat the living shit out of all other ideologies and taken over the planet. Alexander, Genghis Khan, Napoleon and Hitler didn't achieve anything like this.

This is not comparing like for like. Liberalism is an ideology, Alexander and the rest were men of heroic stature but still men for all that. The heroes of Liberalism are people like Robspierre, George Washington, FDR.. The ideology of Alexander and Genghis, if they could be said to have an ideology at all, is monarchic imperialism.

So liberalism is an ideology that has been around for less than 300 years and now, from riding on the back of the British Empire, the Allied victory in WW2 and the Cold War, is the world dominating ideology.

Monarchic imperialism has roots so old they are go back to the earliest days of history and in all that time is found all over the world, everywhere there is civilisation, so that is 4000 years of being a world dominating "ideology".

The heroes of monarchic imperialism are more numerous than just Genghis and Alexander, you could also mention:
King Cyrus the Great
Augustus Ceaser
Qin Sha Huang
Czar Ivan the Terrible
Charlemagne
Sultan Suleiman I the Magnificent
many many others but I too lazy to list them all

liberalism has big shoes to fill if it wants to beat monarchic imperialism for world historical influence and should fill them for more than a hundred year flash in the pan in order to amount to anything. If liberalism is still a thing in 4000 years time, okay you win.

[Pants-of-dog]

Liberalism has - if followed to its furthest conclusion - the tendency to create the environment in which it can be negated in favour of another ideology, be it of the left or of the right. This is because all of the tools that it creates to maintain its own rule, the freedom of the press, the parliament, the freedom of association, and so on, all can be turned against it and used as a rod against its own back.

You seem to be confusing the state (or gov't) with the society itself.

"The freedom of the press, the parliament, the freedom of association, and so on, all can be turned against" the gov't by the people, which keeps the gov't accountable and actually makes the society stronger.

What you see as weakness is actually its strength.

[Rei Murasame]

"The freedom of the press, the parliament, the freedom of association, and so on, all can be turned against" the gov't by the people, which keeps the gov't accountable and actually makes the society stronger.

Wow, that certainly sounds interesting. Liberal governments themselves don't seem to agree with this though.