No.65403
Are Classical Liberals pretty much just moderated Social Democrats?
No.65411
You mean like liberaldemocrats?
No, i don't give a fuck if a black or a transexual is not hired by a white businessman, after all it is his business.
Classical liberalism is more like the root of libertarianism
No.65413
No.65414
>>65403
Not at all. Classical liberals don't want a welfare state, high taxes, anti-discrimination laws and the like. When in doubt, they will take the side of freedom, unlike a social democrat. Social democrats are just soft socialists who have done away with the more utopian and unrealistic ideas of socialism. Usually, they're relativists too, afraid of extremes, and that's why they don't join the marxists and the ancoms even though they admire them.
No.65435
>>65403
It depends where you are, if you're in Europe then you are correct. They;re probably very light-weight social democrats. If you're in America, it's more like Libertarian-lite.
No.65444
>>65414
> they don't join the marxists and the ancoms even though they admire them.
But the reverse is far from true.
>>65403
Socdems are basically (very) revisionist Marxists who decided that Capitalism either can be reformed, or that you can live with Capitalism as an extended transitional period.
As they are Marxists, they draw a bit of inspiration from classical liberals.
No.65447
>>65403
No, classical liberals argued for economic liberty in itself whereas social democrats often argue for more programmes to help the poor.
Classical liberalism planted the seeds of its own destruction by embracing the idea that the state 'existed for the people' rather being a thing with its own existence outside of the people.
If the state exists for the people, then it follows that the people can and ought to control the state. Therefore you have increasing spread of the vote and increasing calls for unconstitutional actions.
No.65448
>>65447
>Classical liberalism planted the seeds of its own destruction by embracing the idea that the state 'existed for the people' rather being a thing with its own existence outside of the people.
Then where does your state draws its legitimacy from ?
Blood, Monarchy ? Look how it ended in Europe.
Strength and armed goons ? Then revolution becomes not only a right but a duty.
No.65451
>>65448
>Monarchy?
>Look how it ended in Europe
You mean how a bunch of violent godless thugs started a reign of terror in France after the Jacobins/Illuminati created an artificial food shortage to spark a revolution?
..And the monarchy is to blame why?
No.65452
>>65451
This. The movement to substitute modern republican/democratic governments for the old monarchies was one of the worst things to ever hit Europe.
No.65464
>>65448
>Blood, Monarchy ?
Yes, blood, rite, and spirit. The state would rule vertically, being above the people.
>Look how it ended in Europe.
It depends whether you think that manner of ending is a strong enough criticism of monarchy.
No.65467
>>65451
>>65464
Monarchy is a very low form of government, it is bound to disappear because it displease both workers and the bourgeoisie.
> The state would rule vertically, being above the people.
The State is the people. There is no nation, no state without some sort of democracy, it's just the King's personal property and we're his slaves.
No.65469
>>65467
>Monarchy is a very low form of government, it is bound to disappear because it displease both workers and the bourgeoisie.
It's an organic and spiritually virile system that survived for thousands of years.
>The State is the people. There is no nation, no state without some sort of democracy
Pure ideology.
> it's just the King's personal property and we're his slaves.
Not exactly; people certainly have their role and place in society. The ideal is that they serve willingly and with a spirit of freedom. A King that resorts to tyranny shows he is unable to command his position.
No.65470
>>65467
So when the state kills someone, it's just suicide? Get fucked, commie.
No.65472
>>65467
The idea behind (Christian) monarchies was that the king is under God and represents the people.
A bad king (bully) can easily be overthrown compared to a state (mafia).
I'd rather have a monarchy with a God-fearing king rather than a state. There's too many variables and centralized power when it comes to nation states.
Besides, presidents are just modern LARPing as kings.
No.65473
>>65467
>The State is the people
And the Mafia is also the Business owners that it robs. What in the actual fuck is this ideological reasoning?
No.65474
>>65444
So would social democrats count as fabian socialists?
No.65477
>>65467
>The State is the people.
Holy shit I might need to cap this, this is the most naive fucking sentence I have seen in a very long time.
No.65478
>>65467
You win the reward for most naive poster on an image board full of anarchists. Congratulations.
No.65482
>>65467
This: >>65470
And democides are cases of spontaneous mass suicide.
No.65530
>>65467
>The State is the people.
Oh Boy
No.65559
No.65562
>>65451
>after the Jacobins/Illuminati created an artificial food shortage to spark a revolution?
wait, what?
No.65565
>>65530
so what is the state? people + guns?
No.65567
>>65467
the republic state is supposed to represent the will of the people. Monarchy is a fucking cancer, and having it removed is a deed for the rest of humanity.
No.65580
>>65567
>the people
See, here's your problem: You see it as immoral for one man to ten millions, but you see no problem with five million and one to rule over another five million. There's autonomy in neither case, but in the former, you have one tyrant and not five million and one.
No.65670
>>65565
Read The Anatomy of the State by Murray Rothbard, m8.
No.65672
>>65580
It has more to do with decentralization of power, and the attempt at having people have a say in how the State is run itself.
No.65673
>>65559
Then what would be the modern equivalent of a fabian socialist?
>>65672
But shouldn't it be decentralized further. Like the current democracy is a stepping stone to anarchy?
No.65684
>>65672
But the power is not decentralized at all. Not even the decisionmaking process is decentralized, not after the initial election, but if it was, that wouldn't change a thing. You still end up with centrally enforced acts affecting entire countries.
No.65749
>>65673
>But shouldn't it be decentralized further. Like the current democracy is a stepping stone to anarchy?
Obviously.
>>65684
In principle it was supposed to be decentralized. Practice is always another story.
>You still end up with centrally enforced acts affecting entire countries.
Is this not endemic to any system of governance outside of anarchy?
No.65806
They're more like Libertarian-lite. Pretty okay people overall.
No.65850
Classical liberalism is dead
No.65851
No.65863
>>65851
>Youtubers
>Human beings
Lel
No.65864
>>65851
He's more of a social democrat fam.
No.65871
>>65403
Only because everyone is progressive to you NEETSocs
No.65891
>>65851
He endorsed bernie
No.65974
No.65984
>>65864
This. He's way too economically left-leaning to be classic liberal.
No.65985
>>65851
Sargon is a SuccDem
No.65986
>>65851
You could have Said Ron Paul or at least Rand.
No.65992
No.65993
>>65472
In monarchies the king IS the state.
No.65995
>>65993
Absolutely wrong. Not all monarchies were absolutist. Often, the king was just the highest worldly authority, but not the only one, neither de jure nor de facto. The lords had rights too that he had to respect, and in fact their titles weren't even derived from him. Even under absolutism, that didn't fundamentally change, as the lords still held independent rights that weren't derived from him. In fact, the king was sworn to protect these rights, which wouldn't make sense if he had been the source of them. The theory that property was "just a legal construct" that didn't exist before the state created it is itself a modern invention. Pic related.
At least in roman catholic monarchies, the monarch was also always subject to the Church, which could excommunicate him and to which most of his subjects held allegiance, too. That also created a check on his powers. You'll often hear talk that the EU or the WTO deprive the member states of their sovereignty, but unlike the Roman Catholic Church, they cannot excommunicate the head of state and successfully call for the peasants to dispose of him. So even if we apply modern theories of state to the monarchies of old, not to the nation states they were invented for, we must conclude that the monarch was not a state by himself.
No.66054
>>65993
in monarchy if you kill the monarch then state continues to exists and ppl elect another monarch
No.66069
>>66054
>ppl elect another monarch
>ppl
>elect another monarch
No.66073
>>66072
I think this shift got started early in the 20th century in the angloamerican sphere, but not sure how, sorry. But yeah, it's some high level appropriation of a perfectly good term.
No.66076
liberals are realistic anarchists. At least this is how they should act after definition.
It's all about freedom and stuff. What I don't get is why liberals in the US get seen on the left instead of right? As I understand, it's the Republican party that was historically for less government.
I also don't get why liberalism gets perceived as pro-democratic. Democracy is mob rule. Which means becoming a slave to the collective… (true communism)
Liberalism in practice should instead be all about giving the state as little power as possible by looking for alternatives in the private sector..n
No.66081
>>66076
Maybe if by historically you mean "just on the outskirts of living memory". Going back to their founding in the 19th century, they were pushing high taxes, strong government, and interventionist economics.
No.66085
>>66081
>Maybe if by historically you mean "just on the outskirts of living memory"<
I will need to study more about this topic it seems.
But that still does not explain how it came that liberalism became left. How is left = freedom? Liberalism should than have been outside of the political spectrum than.
Was Hillary good about tax cuts and such stuff? I thought that was Trump. He did say that he wanted to cut regulations and give back power to the states. Trump and the republicans should after that logic still have been the liberal vote.
Also what the fuck Is a Liberal-democrat? This sounds like a wordplay to me, to confuse people into thinking:
democracy=freedom to vote for your president
The Democratic party=The Freedom party
But are you not allowed to vote already!? This makes no sense…
After that logic the republican party would be, the Anti-Democratic party, which would explain why there are so many people still protesting in the US.
This also explains why "liberals" voted for Hillary.
No.66105
>>66076
US liberalism is a term that was co opted by the left.
US liberals are just several sorts of leftism mingled together, mainly progressive socdems and socialists.
They have nothing to do with true classical liberals.
It drives me crazy to see lefty fucks being called liberals when they are just a buch of commies. Liberalism means libertarianism in most of the world but America.
Damn you americans for letting the word liberal get expropriated by our opponents.
No.66110
>>66076
Democratic governments have better civil rights and political freedom.
As far as the private sector goes, I expect many liberals became socialists, or at least social democrats, as they realised that advocating political freedom and equality was not sufficient to make those ideals a reality.
No.66111
>>66085
Liberals hate tax cuts for the rich and corporations; they don't like the idea of the power imbalances. Or the spending cuts
No.66118
>>66054
>people elect a monarch
Top queck
No.66121
>>66110
>Democratic governments have better civil rights and political freedom.
Can this meme end? I have never seen it get substantiated, except by very vague references to the fact that people started revolutions or that political enemies were exiled. Neither fact proves anything.
No.66137
>>66110
>civil rights and political freedom
Can't have either without Economic freedom.
No.66152
>>66121
If you seriously doubt that it just proves how in denial you are. Sometimes- most of the time- the conventional wisdom is correct.
No.66163
>>66118
>what is elective monarchy
No.66173
>>66152
>Germany
>Sweden
>Good situation
No.66178
>>66152
>I don't have to prove anything because I am correct :-)
Yeah, right. Fuck off. Not even your graph proves you right, as almost all the countries on it are democracies, republics or, at worst, constitutional monarchies. No absolute monarchy or feudal system anywhere on it.
>M-muh dictatorships!
In other words, democracies you don't like.
No.66179
>>66178
Dictatorships / monarchies in Middle East, communist regimes, Africa, somehow not dictatorships / monarchies?
Europe and the former British colonies, where democracy flourishes, have the most political and civil liberty, very obviously
No.66181
>>66173
>Germany
We had a case where the grave of a Neonazi was dug open to remove a swastika someone laid on it. You cannot even bury a fucking swastika, that's how much the government hates them. Freedom of speech my ass.
I should also point out, our biggest broadcasting companies are state-owned. They get funded with eight billion dollars a year, that's over thirty times as much as what Russia Today gets but you don't hear an outcry about us.
>>66179
>Dictatorships / monarchies in Middle East, communist regimes, Africa, somehow not dictatorships / monarchies?
You're such an incoherent fucking idiot. Dictatorships and moinarchies are two different things. A dictator almost always claims to have majority support and very often, they actually do. Their policies reflect that. Most dictators are populist, amateurist, and collectivist. The few exceptions that exist are guys like Franco or Pinochet who seized power with no mandate at all, killed the opposition, then went back to being as liberal as most of their neighbors. Hardly typical cases. And speaking of Africa, many of these countries do have a parliament. South Africa, for example, has a parliament, and from what I heard, their problems with democracy aren't worse than "the executive is kinda strong and all" which is true everywhere nowadays.
Of you want to compare monarchy and democracy, then why not look at how Europe developed after it abandoned the former and adopted the latter? Like how it adopted conscription, how warfare shifted from limited to total wars, ethnic tensions rose, the prison system became more dehumanizing, and all these things after it got accustomed to this great idea that a million peasants can run a country. And that's not even getting into how the Soviets and the Nazis were borne out of very democratic movements.
No.66182
>>66181
The discussion wasn't about monarchy. It was about democracy. Democratic regimes are clearly the most open, and that's why liberals support democracy.
Your rants about monarchy aren't really helpful. Move to Saudi Arabia.
No.66183
>>66181
If the question in >>66121 is about the relation between democracy and (his preferred form of) monarchy then he should have said so.
No.66184
>>66179
>Europe and the former British colonies, where democracy flourishes, have the most political and civil liberty, very obviously
Stop with faggotry.
Democracy doesn't create liberty, western civilizations are good because they recognize individual and property rights. Our democracy works because it is based and limited by these rights.
>Dictatorships / monarchies in Middle East, communist regimes, Africa, somehow not dictatorships / monarchies?
You really think democracy is not dictatorship? A majority of people who hate me and want to kill me is not despotism?
No.66186
>>66184
>>66184
>western civilizations are good because they recognize individual and property rights
Which I'm saying democratic governments are more likely to do. Not that 'voting is freedom' but that voting is associated with freedom.
>You really think democracy is not dictatorship?
Yes, by definition.
>A majority of people who hate me and want to kill me is not despotism?
No, it's not.
No.66207
>>66186
>Which I'm saying democratic governments are more likely to do
And i'm saying democracy alone doesn't create freedom and liberty.
>Not that 'voting is freedom' but that voting is associated with freedom
So: "i'm not saying voting is freedom, but according to this map here >>66152 voting is connected with freedom, so democracy somehow create freedom"
The fact that people believes that democracy sustain freedom doesn't mean it is reality.
>You really think democracy is not dictatorship?
<Yes, by definition.
>A majority of people who hate me and want to kill me is not despotism?
<No, it's not
How? Tell me why mob rule is not a bad thing.
No.66208
>>66207
>And i'm saying democracy alone doesn't create freedom and liberty.
Okay?
>So: "i'm not saying voting is freedom, but according to this map here >>66152 (You) voting is connected with freedom, so democracy somehow create freedom"
Yes, according to the map democracy is associated with freedom. You're the one injecting stuff about democracy 'creating' freedom. I don't even know what means.
Are you very lonely, or why are you trying to keep arguing for no reason? Just move on.
No.66213
>>66182
>>66183
Monarchy is very much relevant, because it's what we had before democracy rolled along. Under this form of government, Europe did comparatively better than under democracy. So where do people get this idea from that democracy is the most liberal form of government and that no one in his right mind could deny that? From all that history teaches us, democracy is a bad form of government, and perhaps the single most belicose of all.
No.66236
>>66213
I doubt that monarchies had a better record than democracies. Even if they did, I doubt liberals believed that was true.
Monarchies before the 19th century often banned religious freedom, and in the 19th century they still banned free speech, especially for socialists.
No.66268
>>66236
>I doubt that monarchies had a better record than democracies.
They did, but you don't seem to be interested in hearing about anything that contradicts your pet narrative. Before you address what I said here >>66181, there's no use talking with you, you fucking child.
No.66273
>>66268
>you have to read everything I wrote and engage in a specific debate with me regardless of whether you want to
How about no :3
No.66296
>>66273
Reading everything I wrote isn't hard, that'll take you a total of one minute. If you don't want to engage me, sure, you can abandon ship. You just can't do it without being an intellectually dishonest little shit, because you started this discussion in the first place.
No.66350
>>66296
Because clearly saying 'democracies have more civil rights and political freedom' means I want a debate about your LARPy form of monarchy, whatever it is.
No.66351
And in your post you just rant about how democracy somehow leads to 'total wars' and bad prison systems (even though Europe and North America are the most peaceful places, with the best prisons)
That has nothing to do with the subject, and is probably a load of nonsense.
>inb4 post calling me a retard six times and telling me to kill myself, because on this board has a short temper
No.66360
>>66350
It means you want to debate about the relative merits of democracy. Relative to what? Monarchy is the obvious contender.
>>66351
>And in your post you just rant about how democracy somehow leads to 'total wars'
It does. Or what do you think led to the two world wars? The only somewhat recent war in Europe that was comparatively bad was the Thirty Years War, and that was obviously fueled by religious fanaticism. Yet the world wars, products of democracy, rivaled it in barbarism. You should be able to explain that if you want to uphold that democracy is literally Jesus.
>and bad prison systems (even though Europe and North America are the most peaceful places, with the best prisons)
I'm not just talking about Europe and North America, you nigger. But even if we limit the discussion to these regions, we must conclude that you're a faggot and should get your facts straight. The Europe behind the curtain used to have what might be the worst prison system in the history of mankind. The only institutions in Europe that rivaled places like Kolyma, Pitesti or Auschwitz were perhaps some medieval dungeons and the witch towers, but these were never used for mass imprisonment. To clarify, the witch towers housed perhaps a hundred thousand people over the course of two hundred years. The Gulags held ten to twenty times more prisoners over a few decades.
And the US prison system is still shit, the prisons are overcrowded, inmates form gangs instead of being resocialized, and rape is so prevalent it has become a joke. The US also has one of the largest populations of prisoners on the planet. Jails, I have heard, are even worse,
>inb4 post calling me a retard six times and telling me to kill myself, because on this board has a short temper
I only call people retards when I think that they cannot be argued with. Which, sadly, includes you, not least of all because you can't even get your damn history straight. You're following a popular narrative that you apparently never bother to think about critically. That's the only explanation I can find for you praising the US prison system. The only other people that praise this system are the ones that want to virtue-signal how "tough on crime" they are, so even they tacitly admit how shit it is.
And I never tell people to kill themselves. I know other users do, including some regulars, but I find this tasteless and unproportionate. So don't tell me I'm doing this shit, you massive fucking faggot. Yes, calling you a faggot is proportionate and in good taste.
Not sure what political boards you've been hanging out on to find /liberty/ particularly rude. This place can be incredibly civilized if you're not a massive faggot. We don't ban you, lock your threads or slide them with gore or porn, unlike some of our visitors.
No.66370
No.66397
>even though Europe and North America are the most peaceful places, with the best prisons
Well, if for "peaceful place" you mean giving our national soveregnity to an invasive sopranational union created by socialist bureaucrats as an excuse to achieve peace…
No.66399
>>66370
You have time simply shitposting is higher value preference for you
No.66409
>>66360
>It means you want to debate about the relative merits of democracy. Relative to what? Monarchy is the obvious contender.
No it's not. Modern day liberals spend zero time thinking about monarchy, nor do liberals around the world who are suffering under dictatorships.
19th century liberals may have, and rightly so, given that they had no rights to free assembly, speech, the press, and so on (I doubt many of their countries had nice prisons either)
>entire post of cherry-picking, calling me a faggot, accusing me of praising the US prison system, and even apparently calling the USSR a democracy
Nice fam
No.66418
>>66399
This. Everyone has the time to read fifty damn pages. Our reading assignments in school were longer.
>>66409
>y-you insulted me ;_;
Fuck off.
No.66422
>>66418
I was clearly mentioning it in relation to his post being low quality, not in the context of 'you hurt my feelings'.
Feel free to tell me to fuck off though, it seems to me normal among your 'crowd' to try to be as unlikeable as possible.
No.66448