Letters to the Editor
bucky1
Published Letters: 1714
-
Does LWM ever talk policy or position? (re: Pro-war and Anti-war Fascists)
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... Bucky1 isn't a liberal, Shooter. He's about as welcome here as Dr. Mengele is at a pediatric hospital ward. We may tolerate you, I'm willing to tolerate the pompous and pretentious pedantry of Bucky's little friend, Ken. He doesn't know any better. But don't call Bucky1 a liberal. It won't fly. "Classical Liberal" or "Classical Liberalism" may be a term you'll find at Wikipedia but you won't find at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ...
I must admit, after the attack on Glenn G. I thought the fellow had shot his wad. But no!
He continues on with the Nazi references as if he never heard of Godwin's Law. And then the wanker claims that the term "classical liberal" is not part of American politics! Wow, no; double wow!
a google search on the term gave me 378,000 hits back; one of which is from George Mason University. (http://gmu.edu/) but I suppose a man full of codswallop will say they do not count in his universe.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~ihs/guide.html
How about the "National Center For Policy Analysis"?
Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. Many of the emancipationists who opposed slavery were essentially classical liberals, as were the suffragettes, who fought for equal rights for women.
Basically, classical liberalism is the belief in liberty. Even today, one of the clearest statements of this philosophy is found in Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. At that time, as is the case today, most people believed that rights came from government. People thought they only had such rights as government elected to give them. But following the British philosopher John Locke, Jefferson argued that it's the other way around. People have rights apart from government, as part of their nature. Further, people can form governments and dissolve them. The only legitimate purpose of government is to protect these rights.
People who call themselves classical liberals today tend to have the basic view of rights and role of government that Jefferson and his contemporaries had. Moreover, they do not tend to make any important distinction between economic liberties and civil liberties.
Oh well, you all know he is just attacking me, and he will sound less deluded when he rage cools a bit. Unless, he is unstable and is this way all the time. I mean, really; he claims there are "Anti-war Fascists" for gods sake! Does he think all those fascists were pacifists? bejesus; it gets better all the time!
Anyone? Has he ever calmly discussed even one issue in American politics?
-
re: Literal-Mindedness and (Political) Labels
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]LaL:
Strictly speaking and properly understood, all of our "political problems," are derivative from "quality of consciousness" problems.
Practical, pragmatic, action-oriented people do not want to admit that unthinking action is problematic, and of course that's why such people are causing the most problems in the world. For them, feeling and willing are far more important than thinking.
We can and should act politically, but if we are not to make matters worse, as the Nazis, Bolshevics, and Bushevics (to name only three movements) have done so spectacularly with their coercive institutions and *predilection for action at the expense of forethought*, we can and should look first, as Confucius and others have said, at the state of our own consciousness.
My word, you write well when moved to speak your mind. Well done. :-)
In the first century, there were pagan gnostics, jewish gnostics, christian gnostics, eastern paths, and others I can not even imagine of that taught that to know one's self was to know the ultimate consciousness (god in our lingo). "The kingdom is within you" I think you have become "enlightened." :-)
I asked a few times if anyone here ever just talked about a particular solution to a particular problem (an issue) rather than in broad generalizations. So far, no love.
-
Libertarians and the two party system
[Read the article: The Republican Party is the party of Bush]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We have at least one here who seems to be totally unable to understand that libertarians see vast misuses of government power by both of our supposedly independent major parties. Depending upon who is in power at a given time, we might be yelling at a Democrat or at a Republican. Why is that hard to understand?
Why is it hard to understand that we anti-war types do not see any difference in a war simply based on which Party got it started. Why is this hard to see?
Why is it hard to see that we think that if government caused the problem (e.g., the Great Depression or the "war on drugs") that even more government is not the cure that the Doctor ordered. Why is this hard to see?
I also would point out to our very literal friends that few politic leaders or theorists are all good or all bad. If we have purity tests, then we are fundamentalists of the worse sort.