liberalist wrote:Its all a matter of semantics I guess. What you call a "true" liberal, I would not. I tend to think of liberalism in terms of classical liberalism (laissez-faire economics). And I beleive that is what libertarians do also. I query though, why you can claim to use the term "true" liberal. Surely a "true" liberal would be an old-school laissez faire man. Also, it is important to remember that liberal is not a set term, so the word "true" does not come in to it - there are many types of liberals, so which one is "true" I am unsure. Freidrich Hayek (who, as far as I am concerned was as "true" a liberal as you can get - he was a free market economist, who wrote "The Road to Serfdom ") said nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden instance of some liberals on certain rules of thumb
And its true - liberalism embraces many things.
Getting back to your definition of Liberalism, it would appear rooted in the 18th and 19th Century views of a Liberal, which for many decades are have been considered to be Libertarian economics, and unlike a Liberal's
views of economics, during the past 50+ years. For example, Freidrich Hayek is considered to be a Libertarian economist, as opposed to a "Liberal" economist, by the standards of any Liberal in this Century.
This is not just my personal opinion. For example, see:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/ ... the_great/
When we span Centuries and attempt to equate a Liberal view of the 18th or 19th Century to any notion of a Liberal view, during the 21st Century, that we are not conveying anything meaningful to whomever our audience is during this Century. For example, if a Scientific Pantheist was to refer to "God", and the audience was Christian (for example), the Christian would quite understandably assume that the person speaking is talking about a "personal God", as opposed to a word that is a substitution for the phrase "The Laws of Nature". Thus, the Scientific Pantheist has not conveyed anything meaningful to the Christian.
Such is the case, when speaking of an Old-School Liberal or a Liberal, or just Liberalism.
When speaking of Liberalism and Liberals to anyone the words you are using convey a completely different meaning this Century, than the views of a Liberal, or espoused by Liberalism, during the 18th and 19th Century.
That the meaning of Liberal, and Liberalism has changed during the past few Centuries because it is a dynamic philosophy and outlook.
What was considered Christianity during the 1600's is totally different than what is considered Christianity during the 21st Century.
The exect same principle applies when speaking of Liberalism.
The reasons for changes during several Centuries in the definition of Liberalism a Liberal relate to the dynamic nature of the world, and in the case you are speaking of, vast differences in the economy of the 18th and 19th Century, to the economy of the 21st Century.
It makes no sense to attempt to convey, discuss or even debate a thought, when the meaning of the words you are using are not put in the context of the 18th and 19th Century notion of a Liberal economist.
You are, in effect, not conveying anything meaningful, because the definition of the word Liberal, as you meant to you it required a context that is uinlike that in the 21st Century, and everyone's definition of that word, in this Century.
Certianly there is a range of what is considered Liberalism, or a Liberal in this Century, and even today. However, that range does not span across
the centuries, because the world is entirely different than it was centuries ago, with regard to economics, political views, and social views.
Anyone that is a Liberal today is certainly unlike a Liberal of the 18th or 19th century. The notion of Liberalism has changed because the world has changed, not because the Dems hijacked the term "Liberal". Certainly, the term itself can undergo changes, as it is understood to mean something different by a particular group. I am not denying that. For example, the notion of Christianity has changed, with changes that relate to the period of time, and with regard to whom the audience is, that we are referring or speaking to.
I could simply call myself a Progressive or Left-Winger, or what I consider an Old-School Liberal. However, one of my reasons for using the term TRUE Liberal, AS OPPOSED TO Progressive, is that despite the attempts of the Repugs to intend the term to be an insult, I do not share their belief that Liberal is an insulting word.
My use of the term TRUE Liberal, as opposed to, Progressive, or another qualifier before the word Liberal relates to what Liberal and Liberalism meant when the Baby-Boomers learned what Liberals think and want, during their teens and their 20's.
The vast majority of that run for and hold an elected office are of the same generation (i.e. + or - 25 years), as I am. Therefore, the term Liberal, as they learned it is well understood to be meaningful when
I say TRUE Liberal.
For myself, I could say I'm an Old-School Liberal. However, I dislike the phrase "Old-School" as it signifies a Conservative point of view.
It is well understood by anyone that reads my posts that when I refer to myself as a TRUE Liberal, that I am not speaking of a Dem Liberal, but a Liberal as it was understood to mean, during the generation of the people that run for and hold elected offices.
When using the term "TRUE" Liberal, my meaning is clear.
I am conveying that I consider few people that are called "Liberal" by the Right-Wing to in fact, actually be Liberals, and I am making a
well-understood distinction between myself and a typical Dem Liberal.
No one has ever asked me to define what I mean by it from the time I began using it. If it was unclear or required further definition I would
have used a different qualifier, long ago.
) I understand what you are trying to say.. I think we are coming at this conversation from different angles. Essentially, all I wanted to say is that you have to be careful with the word liberal when talking on an international board such as this because around the world 'liberal' has different meanings. In many non-united states places the word still means what it did in the 18th and 19th century. What I was trying to say was that your definition of the word generally only applies in the USA - it is not a world wide definition.
- By KurtFF8
- By Rancid
- By Tainari88