A Classical Liberal & A Progressive Marxist Debate

[Fawlty]

Are you intending to sling salty blanket statements that hinge on "inclusion" logical fallacy like

"You mentioned anti-cartesians but no mention of the french? Interesting..."

You are?

i don't hear a peep of specificity from this post

You're reduced to absurdity very easily by this- all the way back to the first talking ape. We get Mill.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I wasn't cherry picking with the links just to show sources that agree with me, I was using sources which showed that these laws are real and the potential ramifications of these laws.

But the laws you referenced don't appear to line up with the claims made about them, at least based on the info provided.

I see this as a growing movement on the left. I also see the far-right backlash brewing on the right. The left going insane is the reason why I think Trump was elected.

The right going insane is the reason Trump was elected. That's who actually voted for him. And it's not like he came out of nowhere. Palin was nominated to be VP, for example.

Hedonic calculus, bentham's utilitarianism, 'natural law' blanket terms, Malthus' population theory (of the inevitability of poverty) social darwinism, laissez-faire private company exemptions, free-trade in violation of economic sanctions and other international agreements, Adam Smith traditionalists spouting anti-union, pro corporate rights, alongside many other cornerstones in classical liberalism, the list goes on and on.

You kids are retarded in your blind pursuit of targeted party critique sans all theory and historical specifics whatsoever

There's no content to this, buddy.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm suggesting that you're cherry-picking raw, quantitative utilitarianism if that wasn't clear.

 

[MacDuffle]

You're reduced to absurdity very easily by this- all the way back to the first talking ape. We get Mill.

Being quippy and aloof in sparse declarations does not make you eligible for a serious debate on theory kid

What is your ideology beef. Man up and state it, because those examples of traditional liberalism back there were spot on and you know it.

What is your thing about Mill that you expected laid-out differences between his theory and modern liberalism? He's a scientific method styled empiricist with progressive publications on everything from Irish/English relations, women's rights, civil status, you name it. If anything, he doesn't fall to the limitations of theory faced by his predecessors by simple virtue of the fact that he lived in closer proximity to modern times. That's why scientific method man doesn't make the list of outdated theory.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Classic liberal parties today are the Parti libéral démocrate in France or the FDP in Germany and Switzerland. They call themselves liberals, they're called liberals by their opponents as well as their supporters and they're seen as the intellectual heirs of the early 19th century liberals in Europe, which is 'classic' and original liberalism since most of the 'founding fathers of liberalism' were French and English.

Their platform is clearly different from US Democrats, so if both claim to be classical-liberal parties, I definitely see a conflict.

There's no conflict because liberalism isn't a set of positions. Lots of positions, including some that conflict fit under the heading of liberal in any sense.

That there was a conflict between the initial classical liberals and the later social liberal is a historical fact, there are multiple 'complaints' by early liberals found in historical documents who felt like social liberals abandoned some of their principles and later neo-classic liberals referred to themselves as 'actual' or 'real' or 'true' liberals.

You're just talking about differences between liberals within liberalism. Obviously that happens, which is why I asked what positions of American liberals go against liberal principles.

 

[MacDuffle]

But the laws you referenced don't appear to line up with the claims made about them, at least based on the info provided.



The right going insane is the reason Trump was elected. That's who actually voted for him. And it's not like he came out of nowhere. Palin was nominated to be VP, for example.

I think Antifa was a major reason why Weimar Germany collapsed and the public sided with the Brown Shirts and things devolved into Nazi Germany, and now these maniacs are active in the US and you've got the left-wing media covering for them to a large extent. These are all really bad signs, and I think that even people like yourself will have to acknowledge it in the near future.

There's no content to this, buddy

I can put your post in a tiny quote box and declare

"There is no content to this"

as well. Doesn't make a specific argument, but you sound like a guy who takes the easy way out of theoretical debates

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can put your post in a tiny quote box and declare

"There is no content to this"

as well. Doesn't make a specific argument, but you sound like a guy who takes the easy way out of theoretical debates

You can but you wouldn't be correct. I said that you didn't say anything, which you didn't. There's nothing to debate because your post had no content--just kind of expressed a feeling.

 

[MacDuffle]

You can but you wouldn't be correct. I said that you didn't say anything, which you didn't. There's nothing to debate because your post had no content--just kind of expressed a feeling.

You can try to play wordplay semiotics with a semiotics guy, but it won't go well for you if you can't maintain authenticity with your signs and signifiers

What positions of the mainstream left do you think go against classic liberal principles?

This was your prompt. Classic liberal principles and the positions of mainstream left that don't line up

These:

Hedonic calculus, bentham's utilitarianism, 'natural law' blanket terms, Malthus' population theory (of the inevitability of poverty) social darwinism, laissez-faire private company exemptions, free-trade in violation of economic sanctions and other international agreements, Adam Smith traditionalists spouting anti-union, pro corporate rights

Are principles, listed together in direct relationship to modern "positions" of the mainstream left that do not match

 

[Rational Poster]

Read some of this thread and I figured out what a Cultural Marxist is.

People who promote ideas that you disagree with.

 

[MacDuffle]

@Jack V Savage does that sound like feeling to you



paper doll, mate. Who's next

 

[Jack V Savage]

You can try to play wordplay semiotics with a semiotics guy, but it won't go well for you if you can't maintain authenticity with your signs and signifiers

I'm making a pretty straight-forward comment.

This was your prompt. Classic liberal principles and the positions of mainstream left that don't line up

These:

Are principles, listed together in direct relationship to modern "positions" of the mainstream left that do not match

That's just a list. It's not even a sentence. I suspect you have something you want to say, but you're not saying it.

 

[MacDuffle]

That's just a list. It's not even a sentence. I suspect you have something you want to say, but you're not saying it.

You got exactly what you asked for.

I have no clue what you are so salty about at this point

you are railing at thin air because you can't dispute the differences, which in the context of theory debate, is the only direction your disagreement can take at this point if you want to be taken seriously

Taking the angle of "this is no answer" because your feelings are hurt is some bizarre descartian stupid pills. Why don't you blame my reply on a demigod you came up with in your sleep because you're a shitty empiricist mate

 

[lecter]

You're just talking about differences between liberals within liberalism. Obviously that happens, which is why I asked what positions of American liberals go against liberal principles.

Yes, I was describing the obvious differences and conflicts between social liberals and classical liberals.
Social liberals and classical liberals will -most of the time- still be closer to each other than they are to fascists, communists, nationalists, socialists, neo-Nazis, anarchists etc
But at the same time very different ideas on issues which are seen as important by either side, can lead to a quite hostile atmosphere. I don't really see how big-tent liberalism can be seen as one group other than in extreme situations, like when they're collectively threatened by nationalists, communists etc
For example, a European classical-liberal party could (and in some cases does) actively work against the "right" to various social welfare benefits or many forms of workers' rights while social-liberals in the US might see the exact opposite as one of their top priorities.
From my experience, if you argue for a classical-liberal position, let's simply say here on Sherdog, you're often seen as 'the enemy' by social liberals and vice versa.
I don't claim to be a classical liberal btw, I'm just saying I had multiple discussion where a classical liberal could have made the exact same argument without violating principles of classical liberalism.
The fact that you don't advocate unlimited state surveillance, fascism, the drug on wars, largely unprovoked military interventions or that social liberals also acknowledge the superiority of a market-based society and other things doesn't really change that. And to be honest, I don't even think that's an accusation, I think it's quite reasonable. But I intentionally said 'seen as an enemy' because I don't feel like it's a discussion that typically plays out like 'ok I see your point, but wouldn't it be better... oh no? well, ok but we can agree on...',
instead, both sides are often convinced that their opponent's views are inherently immoral and therefore make him an evil person.

 

[bobgeese]

But the laws you referenced don't appear to line up with the claims made about them, at least based on the info provided.



The right going insane is the reason Trump was elected. That's who actually voted for him. And it's not like he came out of nowhere. Palin was nominated to be VP, for example.



There's no content to this, buddy.

This is how out of touch you are Jack.


Trump won because the LEFT has gone insane. Many of his voters, myself included, were lifelong democrats. Once the left started openly embracing criminals, terrorists, and men in the ladies room, WTF were we supposed to do?


There's a few of you folks here, who although intelligent, are pretending the democrats of the 90's still exist.

 

[Fawlty]

Being quippy and aloof in sparse declarations does not make you eligible for a serious debate on theory kid

What is your ideology beef. Man up and state it, because those examples of traditional liberalism back there were spot on and you know it.

What is your thing about Mill that you expected laid-out differences between his theory and modern liberalism? He's a scientific method styled empiricist with progressive publications on everything from Irish/English relations, women's rights, civil status, you name it. If anything, he doesn't fall to the limitations of theory faced by his predecessors by simple virtue of the fact that he lived in closer proximity to modern times. That's why scientific method man doesn't make the list of outdated theory.

Don't you think I matched your aloofness when you threw in a bunch of quantitative utilitarian stuff? It's one thing to say modern liberals are ignorant of history (you should know well that everybody is though- it's meaningless to say that- liberals are not a special case), but it's another to act like modern liberals might have any allegiance to population theory and utilitarianism without emphasizing the qualitative, which is one reason why Mill still plays Bentham's number is retired. I don't feel like your intentions are good here.

 

[HomerThompson]

This is how out of touch you are Jack.


Trump won because the LEFT has gone insane. Many of his voters, myself included, were lifelong democrats. Once the left started openly embracing criminals, terrorists, and men in the ladies room, WTF were we supposed to do?


There's a few of you folks here, who although intelligent, are pretending the democrats of the 90's still exist.

You're literally retarded.

 

[bobgeese]

You're literally retarded.

Dispute what I said instead of pathetic insults.

Hands up don't shoot?
Linda Sarsour leading marches?

 

[TheStruggle]

Your right. He doesn't agree with conservatives - if you discount Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Theresa May, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Steven Crowder, Milo Yiannopoulos, Dave Rubin, Paul Joseph Watson...

Your Progressive bias is showing big time on this one.

First off at least three of the people you just named aren't even conservatives. Le Pen, Rubin, and even May are not people you would put in the category of American Conservatism. Now if your argument is because he has been on Crowder and Rubin's show therefore that makes him a conservative, the problem with the Progressive/Marxist left is they do not entertain opposing viewpoints. You think that if Sargon could book more progressives that he wouldn't be on their shows or vice versa? The problem is, progressives want nothing to do with him, his appearance at Mythcon was highly debated as many on the left fought very hard not to have him at the event and the first 15 minutes of the debate I posted was Smith trying to make a case why Sargon shouldn't have been there. Progressives are open hostile to him and you wonder why he has more civil discussions with people on the right, because conservatives aren't the ones trying to ban him.

Bonus:

Here he is being utterly delusional about Trump.

So you cherrypicked a tweet out of context...here is Sargon calling Trump a baffon which he has done on more than one occasion. Skip to 6:45





You also leave out the point that Sargon was less pro-trump and more anti-hillary. he supported Bernie Sanders until he realized what an SJW he was. So no he isn't a Trump Supporter, he strongly dislikes the establishment left

Here are a couple of his recent live streams, one with a progressive Youtuber and the other with noted white supremacist Jared Taylor. Couldn't help but notice a difference in tone.

You mean you noticed a difference in tone between interviewing a white nationalist and a genderqueer youtuber? Seriously, if you watched both debate, he was civil with both of them and challenged their viewpoints, both their give decent accounts of their ideals so what exactly were you expect, a reaction based on YOUR viewpoints? BTW he also talks about the Jared interview in the OP which i'm sure you haven't watched.

 

[MacDuffle]

Don't you think I matched your aloofness when you threw in a bunch of quantitative utilitarian stuff? It's one thing to say modern liberals are ignorant of history (you should know well that everybody is though- it's meaningless to say that- liberals are not a special case), but it's another to act like modern liberals might have any allegiance to population theory and utilitarianism without emphasizing the qualitative, which is one reason why Mill still plays Bentham's number is retired. I don't feel like your intentions are good here.

And to @HomerThompson lurking as well:

Those were not the prompts responded to buddy. My post highlighted how it is a childish and historically theory-ignorant position to generalize modern liberalism as matching its predecessors across the board. That is a tactic used by many USA neo-conservatives to make extremist ties to modern liberality politick by connecting it to "deaths by communism" or socialist dictators exterminating/deporting millions and all that logic fallacy 'sins of the fathers' crap

when anyone with a basic understanding of how theory, art, philosophy, science changes with time recognizes the necessity of combining values and structures that came before it while also distancing from out-moded areas of original theory, adapting it to different parameters and applications. And you're mad at how 'selective' those differences can be? That's exactly how that is supposed to work.

You're adding a bunch of criteria now, demanding i repair the relationships between old-school utilitarian positions and modern applications without being man enough to admit a myriad of departures from centuries-old economic and political theory.

That is some stubborn fakery, all in service of saving face when someone drowns you in examples. You'd rather re-frame these areas of old-timey theory to sustain them today (despite the fact that "cornerstone philosophy" isn't always expected to hold up some 200, 300 years later if you're a legitimate scholar)

So fuck your fakery, sometimes old, old theory doesn't match practices today. So what.

Do you think that post was some kind of anti-liberalism propaganda? Don't be fucking retarded mate, I'm of the school of thought, which might help explain why I can provide examples where you stall about proclaiming "qualitative" examples without anything underneath your feet

what on earth are you demanding be qualified here

 

[HomerThompson]

Dispute what I said instead of pathetic insults.

Hands up don't shoot?
Linda Sarsour leading marches?

What you said is complete nonsense. How can I dispute fantasy?

Openly supporting terrorists and criminals?