 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007"Liberal" in the American cartoon-reader's mind
I know that this is an endless subject, so I hope you'll limit yourself to my specific question. Recently, the funnies page featured the following dialogue, which had me stumbling (quoting from memory): - The government has to get out of our lives! - You used to be such a liberal. What happened? - Taxes! My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? Or is it in the author's mind, but actually doesn't work very well because so many people have so many different images? Think not only of you, but what you think is a general perception of the concept "liberal". In German, "liberal" could either be orthogonal to the idea of "small government", or in favor (then maybe close to US "libertarian"?), but certainly not opposing.  SignatureThe most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents. -- Nathaniel Borenstein > My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that > "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? Yes. I could go on, but the short answer is: a liberal is supposed to like the idea of expanding government scope and power, and a conservative is supposed to oppose those things. Whether or not that is true as a matter of practise is largely irrelevant; those are the ideas that are generally accepted. > In German, "liberal" could either be orthogonal to the idea of "small > government", or in favor (then maybe close to US "libertarian"?), but > certainly not opposing. As you can see, that's not the case in America. There are a few people trying to reclaim the word 'liberal' by calling themselves "classical liberals", but most often they're either libertarians who don't want to admit it, or libertarians who want to use a word with fewer adverse connotations to make their positions seem more attractive. -=Eric > As you can see, that's not the case in America. There are a few > people trying to reclaim the word 'liberal' by calling themselves > "classical liberals", but most often they're either libertarians who > don't want to admit it, or libertarians who want to use a word with > fewer adverse connotations to make their positions seem more > attractive. Funny word, "libertarian". Always makes me think of a cross between "librarian" and "libertine". SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> As you can see, that's not the case in America. There are a few >> people trying to reclaim the word 'liberal' by calling themselves [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Funny word, "libertarian". Always makes me think of a cross between >"librarian" and "libertine". Porn-site webmasters, take note....r Signature"Keep your eye on the Bishop. I want to know when he makes his move", said the Inspector, obliquely. > Robert Bannister filted: >>Funny word, "libertarian". Always makes me think of a cross between >>"librarian" and "libertine". > > Porn-site webmasters, take note....r I suggest f'up2 alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.fetish.glasses SignatureSmith & Wesson--the original point and click interface >As you can see, that's not the case in America. There are a few >people trying to reclaim the word 'liberal' by calling themselves >"classical liberals", but most often they're either libertarians who >don't want to admit it, or libertarians who want to use a word with >fewer adverse connotations to make their positions seem more >attractive. The liberal creed is "The government governs best that governs lest." Americans misunderestimate everything. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk [...] > The liberal creed is "The government governs best that governs > lest." Govern not, lest ye be governed. > Americans misunderestimate everything. >>As you can see, that's not the case in America. There are a few >>people trying to reclaim the word 'liberal' by calling themselves [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Americans misunderestimate everything. Nah, it's just a usage difference. When you see or hear an American use "liberal", just substitute "progressive" for a reasonable approximation. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. ... > Nah, it's just a usage difference. When you see or hear an American use > "liberal", just substitute "progressive" for a reasonable approximation. But that only works within an American value scale. An American "liberal" would be a frothing-at-the-mouth reactionary in most of Europe. >> The liberal creed is "The government governs best that governs lest." >> >> Americans misunderestimate everything. > Nah, it's just a usage difference. When you see or hear an American use > "liberal", just substitute "progressive" for a reasonable approximation. The idea that progress must necessarily involve more state intervnetion is itself suspect, and in any case the use of "progressive" in this meaning is not widespread here in Europe, or is at least distinctly old-fashioned. "Social democrat" would, as I have said, be a more widely understood and neutral term. Matthew Huntbach >>> The liberal creed is "The government governs best that governs lest." >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The idea that progress must necessarily involve more state intervnetion > is itself suspect, And I don't think it's accurate to say that self-styled (or other-labeled) "progressives" or "liberals" in the US necessarily supported more state intervention, although rhetoric from the progressives/liberals or their critics might suggest otherwise. > and in any case the use of "progressive" in this > meaning is not widespread here in Europe, or is at least distinctly > old-fashioned. "Social democrat" would, as I have said, be a more > widely understood and neutral term. Right. The left wing of the mainstream center-left in the US began to appropriate the long-discarded "progressive" beginning around the latter half of the 1980s, in response to the skunkedness of "liberal". "Social democrat" had long been unavailable because of its association with socialism, even though there's probably no useful policy-level difference between today's European social democrats and today's US self-styled "liberals" (or "progressives"). Remember, too, that precisely at the time that mainstream American leftists began to call themselves "progressives" instead of "liberals", socialism was seen to be undergoing a general intellectual collapse. I don't think the modern US usage of "progressive" is entirely equivalent to what it was in, say, 1948, let alone 1912. There is, however, something charmingly American about it which I find nice. But the idea that "progressive" is equivalent to "liberal" in AmE is misleading without reference to history. For example, John F. Kennedy was surely a liberal by early 1960s American standards, but he was not a "progressive" by early 1960s American standards (to the extent that "progressive" meant anything by then). Certainly he wasn't a progressive by the standards of just a decade or so earlier. Whether he was a "liberal" by present-day standards is unclear and probably depends on the subjective affection of the labeller for particular power forces within the Democratic Party. Joe Lieberman, who's considered a conservative Democrat and is very much not considered a "progressive" by progressives, strikes me as someone who would have been considered a liberal Democrat by early-1960s standards. The same could be said for Bill Clinton, except that many Democrats, and certainly most Republicans, are convinced that Clinton was a liberal (and I've heard progressives call Clinton a progressive; how much of this has to do with his charisma?). I think the confusion here must also indicate that we are in the middle of a leftward shift, however slight, on the part of the Democratic Party. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >The idea that progress must necessarily involve more state intervnetion >is itself >suspect, Of course, that's not what progressivism is about, not that that's stopped anyone from misappropriating the term. Progressivism says: 1) There is such a thing as social progress[1]. 2) Social progress can be promoted through collective action. "Collective action" includes a broad range of mechanisms, both voluntary (unions and associations organized to promote a particular social good) and involuntary (government). Sometimes these means overlapped (as in special tax treatment for charities, unions, and other not-for-profit organizations). In terms of contrasts, Hayek and the Libertarians generally accept (1) but not (2); indeed, they hold to the opposite of (2). I'm not sure how Spencerism fits in (although it is certainly relevant as that's one of the important philosophical trends that the Progressives were reacting against). -GAWollman [1] I'm glossing over the precise definition of "social progress". The notion of social progress has a lot to do with evolutionary theories popular in the second half of the nineteenth century -- and indeed owes a lot to Herbert Spencer, who was the first to apply the term "evolution" -- theretofore understood as an orderly, directional unfolding -- to biological processes.[2] "Progress" posits a continuous "improvement" over time, and of course philosophies disagree as to what constitutes an improvement. The Progressives considered improvement to include better working conditions, increased leisure time, upward social mobility, and universal suffrage. [2] Darwin did not use the term "evolution" until, and with some reluctance, the last edition of the /Origin/. For him, the connotation of "evolution" as being orderly and directional was too much at odds with his notion of natural selection, which is disorderly and has no preferred direction. Many of Darwin's supporters failed to understand -- or rejected -- this important point, and believed that natural history had a directional bias towards greater size and complexity (see "orthogenesis"). We understand today that this appears to be so because of a "left wall effect": the smallest and least-complex organisms are as small and as simple as they can possibly be, due to fundamental physical limitations, so evolution in that direction is precluded. The right tail of the distribution has no such inherent limit. SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >>The idea that progress must necessarily involve more state intervnetion >>is itself [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >overlapped (as in special tax treatment for charities, unions, and >other not-for-profit organizations). It aslso means different things in different places. In South Africa "progressive" is associated with the Progressive Party, which was centre-right, advocating a qualified franchise and a bill of rights. As a result of various political realighnments it becam The Progressive Reform Party The Progressive Federal Party The Democratic Party and is now known as the Democratic Alliance It represents the white right in South African politics. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >I know that this is an endless subject, so I hope you'll limit yourself >to my specific question. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >- You used to be such a liberal. What happened? >- Taxes! >My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that >"liberal" contrasts with "small government"? If the answer has to be "yes" or "no", then "yes". >Or is it in the author's >mind, but actually doesn't work very well because so many people have so >many different images? Think not only of you, but what you think is a >general perception of the concept "liberal". Everyone I know who professes to be a liberal always seems to say "I'm a liberal on this issue" and then defines the issue. Only the rabid ideologues are liberal on all issues. The general perception of a liberal is someone who is further out there than the person with the perception. This reminds me of the shaggy dog thread: "I didn't mean *that* liberal". In my case, I have some liberal views...on some issues. (And some conservative views...on some subjects.) SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>I know that this is an endless subject, so I hope you'll limit >>yourself [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > In my case, I have some liberal views...on some issues. (And some > conservative views...on some subjects.) So glad that we aren't all blindly doctrinaire. Makes us difficult to stereotype, don't it? > I know that this is an endless subject, so I hope you'll limit yourself > to my specific question. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that > "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? It's a common notion (and I would call it a misconception) in the US that support of big government spending is a trait of liberalism. However, liberalism (which stems from the Latin word "liber", meaning "free") can also encompass the idea of freedom of self-determinaton without restriction from authority, be it business, government or otherwise. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > It's a common notion (and I would call it a misconception) in the US that > support of big government spending is a trait of liberalism. It's not a "misconception" to the extent the notion coincides with how "liberal" is actually used in AmE. It isn't quite how it's used -- liberalism is understood to mean support of big government spending for particular purposes (regulation of or intervention into the economy, welfare state machinery, etc.). Big government spending for military purposes is not seen as liberal (and has to some degree been associated more with those who castigate "liberals"). SignatureSalvatore Volatile >> My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader >> that "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > without restriction from authority, be it business, government or > otherwise. If you plot social liberalism on one axis, and economic liberalism on another, then in many countries you will find a large cluster at the "socially liberal, but in favour of economic controls" corner, and another large cluster in the "economically liberal but socially authoritarian" corner. (The only people who are liberal in both senses are the anarchists, who I think are also know as libertarians in the US.) Both groups have logic on their side if they want to call themselves "liberal", even though their political philosophies are poles apart. That leaves us with an ambiguity which is resolved in different ways in different countries. It's not safe to call yourself a liberal in an international forum unless you add some qualifiers. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. >>> My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader >>> that "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > are the anarchists, who I think are also know as libertarians in the > US.) While we're talking in catchphrases, I'd say that so-called "left liberals" in Germany put their emphasis on protecting the citizen from government intervention, so they would be opposed to a lot that happend since 9/11, or against the government favoring some "lifestyle choices" over others (divorce, homosexual marriage, abortion etc.). So-called "right liberals" put the emphasis on protecting business from government intervention (through laws on hiring practices, union participation, taxing businesses). Most "liberals" are easy to pigeon-hole, and have a slightly negative attitude towards the other type. On the conservative side, there is the "religious conservative" cluster (that should exist in the US, too), which favors a paternalistic government style, and social spending as a measure to nurture communities, preferably linked to churches. The most educating observation for me may be that "neocons" translates to "Neoliberale". SignatureIn spite of cloudiness, why is it a photograph of weather that it was finw? Because it is a secret, it isn't taught. From a Japanese magazine >If you plot social liberalism on one axis, and economic liberalism on >another, then in many countries you will find a large cluster at the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >ways in different countries. It's not safe to call yourself a liberal in >an international forum unless you add some qualifiers. And then, of course there is political liberalism. That's the view of all those wimps and bleeding hearts who believe in human rights, democracy, and disapprove of concentration camps, whether at Belsen or Guantanamo Bay. Political liberals can have varying economic views. Some may also be economic liberals (those like to call themselves libertarians), while others may be closer to the socialist end of the economic spectrum. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > If you plot social liberalism on one axis, and economic liberalism on > another, then in many countries you will find a large cluster at the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are the anarchists, who I think are also know as libertarians in the > US.) Not all libertarians (in fact, rather few) are anarchists, and not all anarchists are libertarians. Most libertarians believe that there's need for government for some functions (notably defensive military, police, perhaps a rock-bottom economic safety net, and at least court of last resort), and probably the bulk don't have any fixed idea where we'd need to stop, but just believe that it needs to be a lot smaller and less intrusive than it is. And not all anarchists are libertarians, although libertarians appear to be the only ones these days who openly use the label. The libertarians are the ones who are anarchists because they believe that states are necessary evils when necessary, but are unnecessary. They expect anarchy to be orderly and widely beneficial. Personally, I consider myself technically an anarchist libertarian, because I'm pretty sure that the basic functions of the state can be done privately without things devolving into the chaos that's normally associated with the word "anarchy", and that this would be a better arrangement for almost everybody. I'm also a gradualist, however, so while I believe that there are a lot of silly intrusions that could and should simply be removed at a stroke, I also believe that a lot of what the government does now should dismantled slowly as private alternatives are allowed (and demonstrated) to take its place so that people who depend on them don't get hurt. And I would be a bit disappointed, but not too surprised if we came to points where we said "no, we really need to leave that". On the other hand, by the time the government got pared way down, the mind-set would probably have changed a lot and it might be more evident how to replace those last few things. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that > "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? > [...] > In German, "liberal" could either be orthogonal to the idea of "small > government", or in favor (then maybe close to US "libertarian"?), but > certainly not opposing. The notion of liberalism is applied to different entities: The US liberals want the government to spend freely other people's money, while the European liberals want to be free to spend their own money. Pierre SignaturePierre Jelenc | New on Home Office Records: Ethan Lipton | www.homeofficerecords.com www.ethanlipton.com The Gigometer | Pepper Of The Earth: the HO blog www.gigometer.com | www.homeofficerecords.com/blog In alt.usage.english, Pierre Jelenc wrote: >> My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that >> "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >want the government to spend freely other people's money, while the >European liberals want to be free to spend their own money. Both senses are used in the UK. I reckon that in recent years the interloper has had the upper hand. (Before long, the small-government sense will be restricted to pockets in the Dee Estuary, the Isle of Wight and Poole Harbour.) SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Pierre Jelenc wrote: >> The notion of liberalism is applied to different entities: The US liberals >> want the government to spend freely other people's money, while the >> European liberals want to be free to spend their own money. > Both senses are used in the UK. I reckon that in recent years the interloper > has had the upper hand. (Before long, the small-government sense will be > restricted to pockets in the Dee Estuary, the Isle of Wight and Poole > Harbour.) Both senses are interlopers, and derive from a narrowing of the general idea of freedom. In the small government sense it derives from the stupid idea that the only thing that restricts freedom is taxation, in the big government sense it derives from the idea that the biggest restriction on freedom is inequality of wealth. But the US adoption of the latter narrowing seems to have gone further than the (continental) European adoption of the former - those who call themselves "liberal" in Europe, even those of the most economic nature, do seem to have a general idea that it's linked to ideas of freedom, and are often liberal on those scoial issues whcih don't involve government assistance. In the US it seems the origianl meaning of "liberal" really has been completely lost and now the word in effect means what would in Europe be "social democrat", with "extreme liberal" meaning "socialist". Remember that continental European liberals derive from 19th century anti-clerical movements, and became the right-wing of politics when pro-monarchist and aristocratic movements dwindled to the fringes. Christian Democracy arose as more of a peasants' movement and as such always had left/social democratic elements. To this day, in most European parliaments, the liberals sit on the right and the Christian Democrats in the centre. Things worked out differently in Britain where the pro-monarchy/aristocratic party remained the major party of the right and it was the liberals instead who dwindled away. However, the existence of a large right-wing non-liberal party meant that what remained of the liberal party didn't become the natural party for anyone of right-wing economic views, thus the UK Liberal Party remained an authentic liberal party, as it does to this day as the Liberal Democrats. UK liberalism also did not have the anti-clerical basis of continental European liberalism, or rather its anti-clericalism was associated with Protestant non-conformism instead of secularism. Matthew Huntbach > In the US it > seems the origianl meaning of "liberal" really has been completely lost and now > the word in effect means what would in Europe be "social democrat", with > "extreme liberal" meaning "socialist". Yes, that's essentially ri-- I mean correct. For a period of a few decades there may have been an interesting difference between Euro "social democrat" and US "liberal", but I think since the early 1990s that's been lost. SignatureSalvatore Volatile In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> Both senses are used in the UK. I reckon that in recent years the >>interloper has had the upper hand. (Before long, the small-government [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the big government sense it derives from the idea that the biggest >restriction on freedom is inequality of wealth. But the original liberalism was all about opposition to the state interfering excessively in the lives of its (wealthier) citizens: it was all about promoting small government. The redistribution of wealth by the state was a much later addition to - some would say perversion of - the ideas set out by Paine, Mill & co. (I have never read either of them, so shoot me down, why dontcha.) [...] >Things worked out differently in Britain where the pro-monarchy/aristocratic >party remained the major party of the right and it was the liberals instead who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >European liberalism, or rather its anti-clericalism was associated with >Protestant non-conformism instead of secularism. British politics in the 18th and 19th centuries was very fluid but surely there never was any such thing as a "pro-monarchy/aristocratic party"? I'm not quite sure what you mean by it. A party of pro-monarchy aristocrats? Of people who were in favour of keeping the power and privileges of both the monarchy and the aristocracy? Of aristocrats who supported the king against persons unknown? Of people who supported the king and aristocrats against persons unknown? But it doesn't really matter, because none of those possible meanings is an accurate description of the Tory/Conservative party. If you want to concentrate on their attitude to monarchy and aristocracy, the Tories were, in general, the party of pro-monarchy pro-monarch anti-aristocracy - that is, they tended to support the monarch against the Whigs/Liberals, who tended to be pro-monarchy anti-monarch aristocrats. It was a Town versus Country thing. The canonical Whig was an "old money" aristocrat with a private kingdom in the boonies where he set up model farms, performed chemical experiments, prospected for coal, dug canals, theorised about human rights, experimented with free love and wrote pamphlets opposing phlogiston, sobriety, platypuses, Antarctica or any one of several dozen other transient obsessions but most of all he wrote pamphlets opposing any attempt by the king and his townie cronies to extend the franchise or otherwise diminish the power and privileges of aristos like himself. The canonical Tory was a "new money" townie who hung around the Court sucking up to the king. Not that either of those is a very useful description. People were forever changing parties and the parties were forever changing their policies. The Tories were sometimes in favour of one or both of the two main forms of liberalism, viz. laissez-faire economics and the protection of personal liberties, and sometimes they opposed them, and it was exactly the same with the Whigs. Both parties were also inconsistent in their attitudes towards extending the franchise. And even pro-monarchy pro-monarch anti-aristocracy politicians usually ended up in the aristocracy if they hung around for long enough. All very confusing. But that doesn't stop your "pro-monarchy/aristocratic" tag being Just Plain Wrong. I would also question whether the Liberal Democrats constitute an authentic liberal party. They are very keen on higher taxes and (therefore) a bigger state. They also want to extend the franchise to children, which would have been anathema to the early liberals. Their support for a strong European Union is perhaps more authentically liberal - but only if you accept that authentic liberalism was all about an anti-democratic elite (then aristocratic, now bureaucratic) that liked to prattle about rights but was mostly interested in preserving its own power and privilege, and I'm not sure I do. SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> Both senses are interlopers, and derive from a narrowing of the general >> idea of freedom. In the small government sense it derives from the stupid >> idea that the only thing that restricts freedom is taxation, in the big >> government sense it derives from the idea that the biggest restriction on >> freedom is inequality of wealth. > But the original liberalism was all about opposition to the state interfering > excessively in the lives of its (wealthier) citizens: it was all about > promoting small government. The redistribution of wealth by the state was a > much later addition to - some would say perversion of - the ideas set out by > Paine, Mill & co. (I have never read either of them, so shoot me down, why > dontcha.) I have read both Paine and Mill, and other 18th and 19th century liberals, and it is quite plain that they did NOT consider opposition to the very idea of a state as the prime aspect of their philosophy. Try at least to read the Wiki articles on them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill where in neither case do I see "small government" listed as a major concern. It is noted that "Later in life, Mill moved to favor more socialist-oriented politics" while Thomas Paine was one of the first supporters of a progressive income tax, a guaranteed minimum income, and believed "the institution of land ownership separated the great majority of persons from their rightful natural inheritance" i.e. the sort of things that would mark one out as a raving socialist according to today's pseudo-liberals (European meaning) who pretend that liberailsim is just about "small government" and falsely try to pretend those ideas have deeper roots than they really have. >> UK liberalism also did not have the anti-clerical basis of continental >> European liberalism, or rather its anti-clericalism was associated with >> Protestant non-conformism instead of secularism. > British politics in the 18th and 19th centuries was very fluid but surely > there never was any such thing as a "pro-monarchy/aristocratic party"? Yes, that is what distinguished the Whigs from the Tories, and more so the radicals who combined with the Whigs to form the Liberal Party. My point is that this was the general pattern in European 19th century politics, though as you say party labels were much more fluid then. However, in other parts of Europe it tended to be the equivalent of our Conservayive Party that dwindled, leaving the equivalent of our Liberals as the main opponent of Socialism when it arose. Unusually, in Britain it was the Conservatives that survived while the Liberals disappeared (almost). > I would also question whether the Liberal Democrats constitute an authentic > liberal party. They are very keen on higher taxes and (therefore) a bigger > state. As I have argued, it's a false late 20th century invention to suppose this is necessarily antithetical to liberalism. Here is what Tom Paine wrote (quoted from Wiki): "In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity [Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property;" How can you argue in the light of that that oppostion to taxation is the mark of the true liberal? > They also want to extend the franchise to children, which would have > been anathema to the early liberals. Their support for a strong European [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mostly interested in preserving its own power and privilege, and I'm not sure > I do. I believe that the Liberal Democrats, who reject the straight "keep wealthy people wealthy and bollocks to the poor" line of the late 20th century pseudo-liberals are the more authentic successors to the liberals of the 19th and 18th centuries. Matthew Huntbach [re: the UK Lib-Dems] >> They also want to extend the franchise to children, which would have >> been anathema to the early liberals. > I believe that the Liberal Democrats, who reject the straight "keep wealthy > people wealthy and bollocks to the poor" line of the late 20th century > pseudo-liberals are the more authentic successors to the liberals of the > 19th and 18th centuries. You didn't respond to Vinny's first assertion above -- is it true that you lot want to extend the franchise to children? Of any age? That was a policy I supported when I was a minor, though I don't think I would now. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >[re: the UK Lib-Dems] >>> They also want to extend the franchise to children, which would have [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >That was a policy I supported when I was a minor, though I don't think I >would now. They'd probably cancel each other's votes out so what's the harm? We even let women vote, so we might as well be consistent and extend the activity to all sub-species. SignatureRichard Bollard (Ducking) > [re: the UK Lib-Dems] >>> They also want to extend the franchise to children, which would have >>> been anathema to the early liberals. >> I believe that the Liberal Democrats, who reject the straight "keep wealthy >> people wealthy and bollocks to the poor" line of the late 20th century >> pseudo-liberals are the more authentic successors to the liberals of the >> 19th and 18th centuries. > You didn't respond to Vinny's first assertion above -- is it true that you > lot want to extend the franchise to children? Of any age? > > That was a policy I supported when I was a minor, though I don't think I > would now. The Liberal Democrats have published policy papers which suggest the idea of a common age of majority at 16, which would include voting rights at 16. I assume that's what Vinny is referring to. The right-wing press in Britain love to pick out suggestions from Liberal Democrat policy discussion papers, exaggerate them, and make out they're a central part of what the party is about. This is a typical example. Someone floats the idea "if they're old enough to pay taxes at 16, shouldn't they have the vote?" and the Daily Mail writes this up as "Loony LibDems want to give the vote to children". Matthew Huntbach mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk had it: > The right-wing press in Britain love to pick out suggestions from Liberal > Democrat policy discussion papers, exaggerate them, and make out they're > a central part of what the party is about. This is a typical example. > Someone floats the idea "if they're old enough to pay taxes at 16, shouldn't > they have the vote?" and the Daily Mail writes this up as "Loony LibDems want > to give the vote to children". This is not confined to the musings of a single party, or to political parties in general though. Some loony arm of the UK press will take one suggestion from a policeman or a teacher and write it up as though it were the policy of all policemen or teachers. And of course, children are old enough to pay tax at age 0. SignatureDavid ===== In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> You didn't respond to Vinny's first assertion above -- is it true that you >> lot want to extend the franchise to children? Of any age? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >they have the vote?" and the Daily Mail writes this up as "Loony LibDems want >to give the vote to children". It's a bit more than a what-if discussion paper. The Lib Dems have put this policy before Parliament several times. Here's the vote from their last attempt: Representation of the People (Reduction of Voting Age) - 29 Nov 2005 at 15:51 - Commons Division No. 109 For Against Con 3 107 Lab 73 26 Lib Dem 45 0 Other 7 3 Total 128 136 So a narrow defeat. Note the unanimity of the Lib Dem votes. (Personally, I think if you can't vote then you shouldn't pay tax - no tax until you're 18.) SignatureV >> [re: the UK Lib-Dems] > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Matthew Huntbach Are 16-yr-olds not children? [And I'll break this to you gently - you don't even have to be 16 to pay taxes.] >>> You didn't respond to Vinny's first assertion above -- is it true that you >>> lot want to extend the franchise to children? Of any age? >> The Liberal Democrats have published policy papers which suggest the idea >> of a common age of majority at 16, which would include voting rights at 16. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> shouldn't they have the vote?" and the Daily Mail writes this up as "Loony >> LibDems want to give the vote to children". > Are 16-yr-olds not children? The exaggeration was in the way it was written up, which suggested to Sgr Volatile that the Liberal Democrats proposed giving the vote to *all* children. > [And I'll break this to you gently - you don't even have to be 16 to pay > taxes.] Sure, I know that, I just report it as one of the lines used to argue for the "votes at 16 policy". They won't be able to use that line when, as the government is now proposing, school leaving age is increased to 18. I assume what it actually means is "you ca have a full time job and be paying full income tax at 16". Yes, I know kiddies pay VAT on their sweets etc, and I guess if a kiddie managed to earn enough in a part time job s/he'd still be liable for income tax. Matthew Huntbach >> [re: the UK Lib-Dems] > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >they have the vote?" and the Daily Mail writes this up as "Loony LibDems want >to give the vote to children". Young Labor in Australia has gone the other way. They are proposing that pre-voting age workers be exempt from income tax. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> But the original liberalism was all about opposition to the state >>interfering excessively in the lives of its (wealthier) citizens: it was all [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >where in neither case do I see "small government" listed as a major concern. Paine according to Wiki: He wrote Rights of Man as a reply to Edmund Burke's hostile Reflections on the Revolution in France, and as an outline of his general political philosophy, one emphasizing personal liberty and limited government. Mill according to Wiki: Mill's On Liberty is one of the founding texts of liberalism and one of the most important treatises ever written on the concept of liberty. The book explores the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. If that's not small government as a major concern, I don't know what is. (I'll concede that later in their lives both men changed their minds about the role of the state, but where they still liberals by the time they came to advocate a more intrusive state?) [...] >> British politics in the 18th and 19th centuries was very fluid but surely >>there never was any such thing as a "pro-monarchy/aristocratic party"? > >Yes, that is what distinguished the Whigs from the Tories, and more so the >radicals who combined with the Whigs to form the Liberal Party. I don't understand this sentence. Are you agreeing with the main thrust of the snipped material that followed my question (that your typical Whig was an aristocrat opposed to the king)? Or are you defending your original description of (presumably) the early Tory/Conservative party? If the latter, what exactly did you mean when you described the Tory party as the "pro-monarchy/aristocratic party"? [...] >> I would also question whether the Liberal Democrats constitute an >>authentic liberal party. They are very keen on higher taxes and >>(therefore) a bigger state. > >As I have argued, it's a false late 20th century invention to suppose this >is necessarily antithetical to liberalism. You have asserted this. You haven't proved it. As far as I can still see, the most authentic, defining early manifestations of liberalism were opposed to an overmighty state. >Here is what Tom Paine wrote (quoted from Wiki): > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >How can you argue in the light of that that oppostion to taxation is the mark >of the true liberal? Because Paine had moved on from liberalism when he wrote those words? >> They also want to extend the franchise to children, which would have >>been anathema to the early liberals. Their support for a strong European [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >pseudo-liberals are the more authentic successors to the liberals of the >19th and 18th centuries. I don't know much about Continental liberals. SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >>> I would also question whether the Liberal Democrats constitute an >>> authentic liberal party. They are very keen on higher taxes and >>> (therefore) a bigger state. >> As I have argued, it's a false late 20th century invention to suppose this >> is necessarily antithetical to liberalism. > You have asserted this. You haven't proved it. As far as I can still > see, the most authentic, defining early manifestations of liberalism > were opposed to an overmighty state. No, I don't think so. They were opposed to aristocratic and clerical privileges at a time when the state was dominated by the aristocracy and the clergy. They were oppose to arbitrary state control of thoughts and actions. But I'm suggesting that opposition stems from a more general concern for personal freedom, rather than from your suggestion that oppostion to the very idea of state action was the axiom they developed their politics outwards from. >> Here is what Tom Paine wrote (quoted from Wiki): >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> How can you argue in the light of that that oppostion to taxation is the mark >> of the true liberal? > Because Paine had moved on from liberalism when he wrote those words? No, this was Paine writing as a liberal. He appreciated that people dispossessed of wealth had in effect lost their liberty. He thus accepted that a state system for the redistribution of wealth would increase liberty. Thus what I am saying, the idea that acceptance of a supportive state which reduces wealth inequality is against the principles of true liberalism is wrong, a lie spread by wealthy people who have developed their own pro-wealth agenda and wish to give it more gravitas by falsely linking it to liberal radicals of the 19th and 18th century. If Paine were alive today he'd be denouncing stuffed up rich businessmen who demand low taxes and preted that's "liberal" in the same way he denounced the aristocrats and clergy of his day. Matthew Huntbach In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: [big snip - we're not really getting anywhere] >Thus what I am saying, the idea that acceptance of a supportive state >which reduces wealth inequality is against the principles of true [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >who demand low taxes and preted that's "liberal" in the same way he >denounced the aristocrats and clergy of his day. I've given up on Paine. He seems to have turned into a rabid proto-Stalinist by the end of his life, but I'll take your word that he remained a pukka liberal. There were other liberal thinkers, though, and I don't see why your beastly stuffed-up businessmen shouldn't cite them (Mill, Smith, Jefferson) as support for their contention that authentic liberalism called for "small government". SignatureV No, I haven't read Smith or Jefferson either. > In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> Thus what I am saying, the idea that acceptance of a supportive state which >> reduces wealth inequality is against the principles of true liberalism is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> pretend that's "liberal" in the same way he denounced the aristocrats and >> clergy of his day. > I've given up on Paine. He seems to have turned into a rabid proto-Stalinist > by the end of his life, but I'll take your word that he remained a pukka > liberal. The key element of Stalinism was belief in there being one strongly authoritarian political party which was the anointed representative of the working class. Paine did not develop any theory of political party. This is typical rich-man's-ideology stuff, to suggest that the merest hint of an active state which works to reduce lack of freedom due to poverty means "Stalinism". > There were other liberal thinkers, though, and I don't see why your beastly > stuffed-up businessmen shouldn't cite them (Mill, Smith, Jefferson) as > support for their contention that authentic liberalism called for "small > government". Ah, and the rich man and his apologists have another cunning trick. Back in the 18th and early 19th century, "the state" would have included the rich. The rich were the aristocrats, and they were part of the state. So arguments which were actually against the rich and powerful and now turned round to do precisely the opposite, because the rich and powerful say "oh, we're not the state, and they were arguments against the state". So let's label the big corporations "the state" and give their CEOs state titles, Lord HSBC, Lord Tesco, and the like. Is that any different from the way, when land was the main wealth, that the big landowners were "the state" with their aristocratic terriotorial titles? And then let's see how our newly ennobled state bigwigs REALLY like the idea of a small state. Yes, power has shifted from the state. True liberals recognise that. Pseudo-liberals pretend they haven't. True liberals fight for freedom for all. Pseudo-liberals fight for freedom for money. Matthew Huntbach In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: [...] >Yes, power has shifted from the state. True liberals recognise that. >Pseudo-liberals pretend they haven't. True liberals fight for freedom >for all. Pseudo-liberals fight for freedom for money. I give up. A lot of apparently impartial sources - including the Wikipedia you sent me to - say that what you call authentic liberalism (the sources usually call it classical liberalism) was, among other things, concerned with limiting the power of the state. I have no doubt that you know a great deal more about this subject than I do but from where I'm sitting you appear to be doing exactly what you accuse others of doing - attempting to boost the "gravitas" of your own version of liberalism by erroneously linking it with illustrious names from the past. Believe it or not, I would be happy to be convinced otherwise. Indeed I am a bit disappointed that you haven't been able to convince me. I don't want to read the entire intellectual output of the 18th and 19th centuries. If "small government" liberalism (which isn't only about low taxes, by the way) was an interloper, it should be an easy matter to point to an authoritative secondary or tertiary or n-ary source that can prove this to our mutual satisfaction. But I don't think you're going to do that, so let's call it a day. SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >> Yes, power has shifted from the state. True liberals recognise that. >> Pseudo-liberals pretend they haven't. True liberals fight for freedom >> for all. Pseudo-liberals fight for freedom for money. > I give up. A lot of apparently impartial sources - including the Wikipedia > you sent me to - say that what you call authentic liberalism (the sources [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But I don't think you're going to do that, so let's call it a day. I'm not going to work harder at convincing you because I don't have time, I do have a full-time job to work at. The point I'm trying to make is that from my own reading of the classic liberal texts, the *prime* motivation of the writers was human liberty, and only as a secondary development from that and in the conditions of the time, came the idea of "small government". So they weren't *primarily* motivated by "small government" as many, including you, now claim. Therefore they were able to accept, and I think this is evident from the quotes from Tom Paine which I gave, that there were cases where greater state action could increase liberty. I believe those who deny that and say things like "you cannot be a true liberal as you don't place tax cuts as your greatest political concern" aren't really acting in the spirit of those 18th and 19th century liberals and are dishonouring them when they claim they are. The economic situation we have now of hugely powerful corporations which dominate politics and can play states off against each other simply did mnot exist then - in those days businessmen were scarcely more than small traders. I believe that just as those liberals decried the powers of the strongest authorities of their days - the aristocracy and the clergy, so if they were around in our days they would be decrying the powers of the strongest authorities of our days - big business. Matthew Huntbach In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: >I'm not going to work harder at convincing you because I don't have time, >I do have a full-time job to work at. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >time, came the idea of "small government". So they weren't *primarily* >motivated by "small government" as many, including you, now claim. I don't think I have mentioned motivation. All I have said is that, as far as I can tell, the early liberals advocated small government. What you wrote in the paragraph above (and maybe earlier: perhaps I missed it) appears to agree with that. >Therefore they were able to accept, and I think this is evident from >the quotes from Tom Paine which I gave, that there were cases where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >in the spirit of those 18th and 19th century liberals and are >dishonouring them when they claim they are. OK. That's fair. >The economic situation we have now of hugely powerful corporations which >dominate politics and can play states off against each other simply did [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >so if they were around in our days they would be decrying the powers of the >strongest authorities of our days - big business. Possibly. But, as I have said, there seems to have been an important strand of British Whiggery that was composed of aristocrats who, as well as advocating liberty and the acceptance of fundamental human rights, were keen to perpetuate the power and influence of the aristocracy. But don't ask me to substantiate that because I can't remember where I came by that impression. SignatureV > In alt.usage.english, Matthew Huntbach wrote: [...] > >The economic situation we have now of hugely powerful corporations which > >dominate politics and can play states off against each other simply did [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >so if they were around in our days they would be decrying the powers of the > >strongest authorities of our days - big business. I haven't been able to see the whole discussion, so I hope it isn't a red herring to mention that enormous international trading companies aren't particularly new. The Honourable East India Company was presumably the biggest, but it wasn't the first overseas commercial enterprise to force a government's hand. > Possibly. But, as I have said, there seems to have been an important > strand of British Whiggery that was composed of aristocrats who, as well > as advocating liberty and the acceptance of fundamental human rights, > were keen to perpetuate the power and influence of the aristocracy. But > don't ask me to substantiate that because I can't remember where I came > by that impression. Ditto. But, in the rather "top-down" social structure of the time, attitudes like that needn't have seemed quite as contradictory as they do now. It wasn't just the landed peerage: even industrialists got in on the act of forcing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on their employees in planned communities. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com In alt.usage.english, Mike Lyle wrote: >Ditto. But, in the rather "top-down" social structure of the time, >attitudes like that needn't have seemed quite as contradictory as they >do now. It wasn't just the landed peerage: even industrialists got in on >the act of forcing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on their >employees in planned communities. Bournville is one of the spookiest places in the West Midlands (i.e. on the planet) but people apparently like living there. SignatureV >> My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader >> that "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > money, while the European liberals want to be free to spend > their own money. It appears that American neocons are happy to spend money liberally, as long as it's not theirs. The difference between "tax and spend liberals" and "borrow and spend neocons" is only on the revenue side these days. In the end, somebody will be paying for it, and it's spent in any case. Signaturerzed > My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that > "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? Or is it in the author's [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > government", or in favor (then maybe close to US "libertarian"?), but > certainly not opposing. Liberal has a very different meaning in the U.S for historical reasons. Most U.S. "liberals" would fall somewhere between Social Democrat and Labor, and would be opposed to classic Liberal positions. In the U.S., "liberals" typically support social spending plans, income redistribution, labor unions, etc. Opponents of "liberals" tend to paint them as being even further left. So the cartoon accurately reflects U.S. usage of "liberal" as a supporter of expensive social programs and higher income taxes. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Braze your own bicycle frames. See <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html> >> My specific question: Is it very natural to the American reader that >> "liberal" contrasts with "small government"? Or is it in the author's >> mind, but actually doesn't work very well because so many people have so >> many different images? [...] > Liberal has a very different meaning in the U.S for historical reasons. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So the cartoon accurately reflects U.S. usage of "liberal" as a > supporter of expensive social programs and higher income taxes. Thank you (and the others). I knew that it is used differently, and often as an insult, but my image was still very blurred. It seems that in a loose everyday context like a cartoon, the best translation to German would be "links" (left). SignatureQ: What do computer engineers use for birth control? A: Their personalities. > Thank you (and the others). I knew that it is used differently, and > often as an insult, but my image was still very blurred. It seems that > in a loose everyday context like a cartoon, the best translation to > German would be "links" (left). Except that there are no socialists to speak of in American politics, which makes things rather different from the German (or other European) left. (At least there are normally not any that get elected. There is at the moment _one_ socialist in the House of Representatives, but that is not a normal situation; he "caucuses" with the Democrats -- effectively he may as well be a Democrat as far as his role in the legislature is concerned.) Thus, American liberals are, for the most part, center-left by European standards. The other thing to understand is that many American conservatives see no legitimate role for government (and govennment-collected taxes) in providing such things for its citizens as health care, education (especially post-secondary), housing, public transportation, employment, disability insurance, and old-age pensions. Pretty much anyone favoring the use of the government's power of taxation to ensure the common good is suspect as a "liberal" and any such program is suspect as a form of "creeping socialism". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > Except that there are no socialists to speak of in American politics, which > makes things rather different from the German (or other European) left. > (At least there are normally not any that get elected. There is at the > moment _one_ socialist in the House of Representatives, but that is not a > normal situation; he "caucuses" with the Democrats -- effectively he may as > well be a Democrat as far as his role in the legislature is concerned.) If you mean Vermont's Bernie Sanders, he's now in the Senate. BTW, Bernie Sanders was born and raised in Brooklyn (FLCIA). SignatureSalvatore Volatile >> Except that there are no socialists to speak of in American politics, >> which makes things rather different from the German (or other European) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > BTW, Bernie Sanders was born and raised in Brooklyn (FLCIA). Yes, Senate. I goofed for no particular reason. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >The other thing to understand is that many American conservatives see no >legitimate role for government (and govennment-collected taxes) in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >suspect as a "liberal" and any such program is suspect as a form of >"creeping socialism". Liberally salted with hyperbole. It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size of the US population. You can safely say that *many* Americans don't believe the government should even collect taxes. You've used "providing" with an understood meaning of "providing any" where it would be more accurate to say "providing more (money for)". The last sentence should include "viewed by some (as suspect..)", and the "some" is in that insignificant minority. The whole paragraph is one of those "we don't do anything" arguments where "we don't do enough" would be a more realistic observation. I suspect you are a "liberal". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still > describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size of the > US population. You can safely say that *many* Americans don't believe > the government should even collect taxes. And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between American and European perspectives on the nature of democratic government. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still >> describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between American and > European perspectives on the nature of democratic government. How so? It's a statement about population size. If as many as a million people believed it, the fraction, rounded to the nearest one percent, would be zero. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Information: If you really want to Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post |the wrong information, and wait for kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in (650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how |wrong you are. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Eric The Read >>> It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still >>> describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >million people believed it, the fraction, rounded to the nearest one >percent, would be zero. I'm glad that someone smarter than I am also wonders "How so?" SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>> It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still >>> describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > million people believed it, the fraction, rounded to the nearest one > percent, would be zero. "Many" in this kind of context makes sense only as a relative number. Otherwise "Many people in Vermont do X" would be wrong per se (e.g. X = "support independence from the USA"). Still, it is unclear how many percent constitute "many", but I won't accept anything less than 10. SignatureThe Internet? Is that thing still around? - Homer Simpson >>>> It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still >>>> describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Still, it is unclear how many percent constitute "many", but I won't > accept anything less than 10. Ah. So you'd to similarly object to statements like "Many Americans are victims of violent crime", since, after all, there are only about 1.4 million violent crimes per year, which is less than half a percent (even if all of the victims were different). Even worse would be "Many American lives are lost every year due to handguns", as the CDC puts the number for all firearms at 10 per 100,000 (of which 4 were homicides and 5.7 were suicides). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |English grammar is not taught in 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |primary or secondary schools in the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |United States. Sometimes some |mythology is taught under that kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |rubric, but luckily it's usually (650)857-7572 |ignored, except by the credulous. | John Lawler http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>> It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still >>>>> describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > puts the number for all firearms at 10 per 100,000 (of which 4 were > homicides and 5.7 were suicides). For the record, by "many" all I meant was, "more than any European would believe possible". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>>>> It's hard to argue with a word like "many" since that can still >>>>> describe a very insignificant minority in a population the size [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > puts the number for all firearms at 10 per 100,000 (of which 4 were > homicides and 5.7 were suicides). Hm, it doesn't work that way. I won't accept less than 10% in the case of the question at hand. So is "many" just "more than I'd expect"? [Reading up] Ah, apparently yes. Signature*Hardware* /n./ The parts of a computer that can be kicked >> Thank you (and the others). I knew that it is used differently, and >> often as an insult, but my image was still very blurred. It seems that >> in a loose everyday context like a cartoon, the best translation to >> German would be "links" (left). > Except that there are no socialists to speak of in American politics, which > makes things rather different from the German (or other European) left. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thus, American liberals are, for the most part, center-left by European > standards. Hmm, given what Tony Blair's done to the Labour Party, there's few socialists in British politics either, and all of those elected "caucus" with the definitely non-socialist New Labour Party. > The other thing to understand is that many American conservatives see no > legitimate role for government (and govennment-collected taxes) in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > suspect as a "liberal" and any such program is suspect as a form of > "creeping socialism". Returning to the original topic, this usage of "liberal" to mean "favoring the use of the government's power of taxation to ensure the common good" is almost precisely the opposite of its usage in many parts of Europe. In France in particular, "liberal" is taken to mean "opposing the use of the government's power of taxation to ensure the common good". Matthew Huntbach >Returning to the original topic, this usage of "liberal" to mean "favoring >the use of the government's power of taxation to ensure the common good" >is almost precisely the opposite of its usage in many parts of Europe. >In France in particular, "liberal" is taken to mean "opposing >the use of the government's power of taxation to ensure the common good". And in most of the Spanish-speaking world, "liberal" borders on a term of abuse applied to the more rapacious effects of globalisation and the policies of the IMF and the World Bank. Paul "Gobhead" Wolfowitz is the ultimate *liberal*. SignatureArchie Valparaiso >> Returning to the original topic, this usage of "liberal" to mean "favoring >> the use of the government's power of taxation to ensure the common good" >> is almost precisely the opposite of its usage in many parts of Europe. >> In France in particular, "liberal" is taken to mean "opposing >> the use of the government's power of taxation to ensure the common good". > And in most of the Spanish-speaking world, "liberal" borders on a term > of abuse applied to the more rapacious effects of globalisation and > the policies of the IMF and the World Bank. > > Paul "Gobhead" Wolfowitz is the ultimate *liberal*. Indeed, which is why it really does sound odd to find Americans using the word to mean "socialist". See also: http://www.mises.org/story/2227 on the "French Liberal School of Economics" which: "indulged in a belief to the effect that the main business of economists is to refute socialist doctrines and to combat the atrocious fallacies implied in all plans of social reform and of state interference of any kind. In particular, they stood staunchly by the drooping flag of unconditional free trade and laissez-faire." Matthew Huntbach >Indeed, which is why it really does sound odd to find Americans using the >word ["liberal"] to mean "socialist". Language is of course full of historical contingencies like this. Here's what happened: in the 1920s and '30s, a split developed in the American left (previously known as "progressives") over how Americans ought to deal with Communism. Many in the political elite, taking a page from what was then known as liberalism, took a strong (some would say aggressive) stand against Communism; being both more numerous and more powerful than the old liberals, they mostly abandoned the "progressive" label and took over the mantle of "liberal" -- but without the economic theories (of Hayek et al) which were previously associated with liberalism. Those who felt that we ought to work with the Communists remained progressives, but were politically and socially marginalized after World War II as the Cold War heated up (particularly once Senator McCarthy made it dangerous to appear to be sympathetic to Communists). At some point in the 1980s, the word "liberal" was deliberately skunked, in one of the first shots of the so-called "culture wars".[1] Since then, the American center-left has been moving back towards "progressive", which (despite the old association with now-irrelevant World Communism) has fewer negative connotaions and seems to be harder to skunk. ("Liberal" was comparatively easy to destroy, since it already had connotations of laxity and excess, as in "a liberal helping". By the late 1980s, "tax-and-spend-liberal" was practically a single word.) Some writers, like /The New Republic/'s Peter Beinart, have been trying to retake "liberal" the hard way, maintaining that there is still a useful difference between liberalism and progressivism. For the moment at least, I think it's a lost cause. -GAWollman [1] It's worth noting that universities were a major target of this first round of attack. During that period, university faculties (and student bodies) were far to the left of the overall U.S. political consensus -- indeed, far to the left of most U.S. political liberals. So it's rather ironic that the words and actions of the far left were used to tar politicians that many of those faculty members would have considered hapless tools of the right. So it is in "war". SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.