Quarantining Dissent

[MountainSage]

rmcrobertson, be careful, liberal and libertarian are two different horses. Social similar, but not the same. Touch O' Death, isn't it fun to watch eastern liberals and closet liberals argue. Where Kaith on this one?

Mountainsage

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Originally posted by MountainSage
Where Kaith on this one?

Mountainsage

Staying in the closet.

 

[Seig]

You can do it Bob, come out of the closet.
:roflmao:

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by MountainSage
rmcrobertson, be careful, liberal and libertarian are two different horses. Social similar, but not the same.

A mix of both is best. It is kind of like Odin, riding into battle on two horses, one foot in each stirrup.

 

[Phil Elmore]

The modern definition of "liberal" -- totalitarian statism -- is antithetical to libertarianism, whereas libertarianism is essentially what "liberal" means in its classical sense. A "mix of both" is simply a contradictory mess of principles that don't work together -- akin to "a little slavery" or "an acceptable amount of tyranny."

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Sharp Phil
The modern definition of "liberal" -- totalitarian statism

Please direct me to the source of this 'modern' definition. I have been unable to find it.

 

[MisterMike]

This article explains the shifting definitions of liberalism and conservatism.

At the rate liberalism is changing however, Phil's post adequately describes where it's heading, if not already.

http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_1708.shtml

 

[Makalakumu]

A small, socially conscious government is a mix of liberalism and libertarianism. Neither system will work on its own. The world isn't a place of absolutes that never mix. Gray exists.

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MisterMike
http://michnews.com/artman/publish/article_1708.shtml

WelL, I read it. I find the article not particularly enlightening. He reaches conclusions that he did not support in his discussion. There is very little discussion about why conservatism is what it is, it only argues that conservatism is the opposite of liberalism, which as I mentioned, he doesn't define very well.

I understand that in a 1000 word article, it is difficult to define such advanced topics, but this, I think, is a poor example.

Rest assure, as a self-proclaimed liberal, this definition is nothing like my own.

Thanks - Mike

 

[MisterMike]

Well, while I can see why a liberal would see the need for everything to be advanced and complicated, I don't think seperating the ideologies is.

 

[michaeledward]

No .. you see it is not 'advanced and complicated' ... it is 'defined'. what the article defines in 'idealogue' ... which is defined as a blindly partisan advocate.

Here is a better definition, I think. Oh, yeah, and this one is from a dictionary.

Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE <a liberal translation>
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

 

[rmcrobertson]

Well, while I do not define myself as politically liberal, I will note that defining modern liberals as, "totalitarian statists," is absurd. And neither wishing, nor yelling, will not make it so.

It occurs to me that there are two senses of, "liberal," at stake here. One is political: I'd suggest reading a little Daniel Bell. The other is intellectual and even emotional: we're talking about "liberal," as something of a synonym for "humanist:" the virture of liberalism are tolerance, open-mindedness, etc., all no doubt Very Bad Things.

The only way that "liberal," may be interpreted as leading to totaliarianism is if one buys the ideological statements that the likes of Limbaugh, Savage, etc., have been making over the last twenty-some years. After all, Franklin, Jefferson et. al. were liberal-minded men...

As for totaliarianship, well, poppycock. Name ONE liberal democracy that was dictatorial, except by the more-crackpot right-wing definitions of allowing black people to vote, not shoving fundamentalist Christian prayer down kids' throats in school, etc.

If you want something to worry about, I recommend either a) fascism, especially of the theological variety; or b) Foucault's carceral society.

As for quarantining dissent, well, the historical trend over the last fifty years has clearly been towards quarantining and censoring dissent on the grounds of some fantasy of, "national security." Sorry, but for all the "PC," idiots (fewer than suspected, I might add), this has since Hoover and McCarthy largely been a right-wing enterprise.

But you can also see very clear marks of who's trying censoring whom on the last six months of threads here. I've read again and again and again that certain views are, "traitorous," or just something that one just shouldn't be saying given the times. I've read again and again and again claims that so-and-so is stupid and should shut up, as well as personal attacks on people's character, and those sure as hell ain't coming from liberals.

 

[MountainSage]

rmcrobertson, I love the way liberals use Franklin and Jefferson as examples to defend their position. These men were Libertarian, not Liberals. Liberals generally believe in equalizing the playing field at any cost with the govt. making the decision about what is equal and who has more than another. Libertarians believe more in freedom of choice and living with the results of those choices. If I walk down the street with a gun, that is my choice, if I shoot someone while walking that is also my choice, but I must accept the results of my actions. Jefferson and Franklin believed in individual rights with emphasis on individual responsiblity. Liberals have fall short on the individual responsibility area. Jefferson and Franklin were both strong state's rights people, so how can they be liberal.

Mountainsage

 

[rmcrobertson]

Sorry, but please read what I wrote. I separated, "political," liberalism from, "humanist," liberalism. The first is a particular political party--English in origin I believe, which didn't come around until what...the late nineteenth century?

The latter sense applies rather nicely to Franklin and Jefferson, who certainly seem to me to have worked out of the sort of "broad-mindedness," that I'd associate with liberalism.

As for being a liberal, for the nineteen-thousandth time, I am not politically speaking a liberal: for example, I though Walter Mondale and Hubert Horatio Humphrey were both schmucks.

You're working, I'm afraid, out of a gimcrack definition of liberalism. Nor do I think that you really want to ride that, "state's rights," train very far, considering that its historical stops included the Confederacy, Jim Crow laws, and segregationism in all its forms.

Yes, liberals such as Daniel Bell tend to shift towards the, "big government," side of the spectrum. That's because a) local gov't, historically speaking, has a very poor record with some laws--like civil rights legislation and EPA regs that we have to have, b) corporations (as the last two years should pretty well illustrate, and does anybody in faavor of letting the market police itself have family in Bhopal, India?), c) regrettably, the world's gotten pretty big and complex. Are they always right? Absolutely not. But make no mistake, most of the folks who are yelling about the EPA are shilling for corporations. Look at states like West Virginia, treated so very well by coal companies and local politicians...

As I've mentioned before, there's a pretty nice, "pox on both their houses," argument in the first couple chapters of Cornell West's "Race Matters." West is pretty smart aand pretty lucid about the sterility of arguing liberal vs. conservative, even if he was dumb enough to play Councellor West in the last two really, really crappy, "Matrix," movies...

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by MountainSage
Liberals have fall short on the individual responsibility area.

Hey all .. I am the self-proclaimed liberal in the group. I do not believe that I fall short on individual responsibility. As long as you are viewing liberalism through the 'Rush Limbaugh Lens', of course that is what you are going to think.

I do not think conservatives are all gun toting doctor shooting anti-abortionist nut-cases. It would be nice, if you conservatives would extend as much careful thought about those of a more societal opinion.

 

[michaeledward]

Submitted for your enlightenment


Three protesters arrested


[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]By ANDREW NELSON, Telegraph Staff
[email protected]
[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Published: Friday, Mar. 26, 2004[/font]


http://nsimg.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=NS&Date=20040326&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=203260348&Ref=AR&border=0&MaxW=200
Staff photo by kevin jacobus
Nashua police officers pick up Betty Hall of Brookline after she apparently refused to get out of her chair and move to a spot designated for protesters on Amherst Street in Nashua, across from New Hampshire Community Technical College. President Bush made a campaign stop there Thursday.
[font=verdana,sans-serif]Order this picturehttp://java_script_:NewWindow(600,6...326&Category=NEWS01&ArtNo=203260348&Ref=AR'); [/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NASHUA - Three protesters, including a prominent resident of Brookline, were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct during President Bush’s visit to New Hampshire Community Technical College.

The three protesters refused to move out of a “safety zone” and away from the intersection of Amherst Street and Deerwood Drive, police Lt. Bruce Hansen said.

Officers carried Betty Hall, 83, of Brookline, away in her chair after she refused to cooperate.

Hall, who held a sign that declared, “Bush is bad for America,” is a member of the Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School Board and a former state representative who served 12 terms in the House.

The two others arrested were Howard Morse, 72, of Amherst, and Valerie Farrell, 54, of Merrimack.

Morse and Farrell were part of a larger group of protesters at the intersection of Amherst Street and Deerwood Drive on Thursday afternoon, across the street from the college. They were the only two remaining after officers ordered the group to move to the front of the Fleet Bank branch on Amherst Street, away from the intersection.

Morse said they were a conducting a “peaceful assembly.” Farrell, a massage therapist, said the afternoon rally was the first time she had participated in a protest since the 1960s.

Hall was arrested later, while sitting on the front lawn of the Fleet Bank branch, but closer to the intersection than the rest of the protesters.

Hansen said the three were charged with the misdemeanor offense of disorderly conduct.

He said the Secret Service designates a certain area in the vicinity of a visiting president as a safety zone. People have to be outside the designated zone, and then they are free to protest, Hansen said.

Hall, who has difficulty walking, said she had already complied with two requests from police to move when officers asked her to move again. She said they did not give her a good reason.

“I said no. I didn’t want to move. I didn’t see why I had to,” Hall said.

“I did not agree to walk to the police car, and they picked me up and carried me,” she said. “I didn’t fight them at all.”

Hall, Morse and Farrell were taken to the Hudson Police Department to be booked because all of Nashua’s officers were busy with the presidential detail, Hansen said.

“I took a nice nap in the jail cell,” Hall said. “It was very comfortable, very clean. I’ve stayed in much worse hotels.”

She said she was upset about being charged with disorderly conduct because she felt she was very pleasant and peaceful toward the officers.

Hall has been involved with politics for 50 years, and said she has never been arrested before.

“I’ve been to lots of rallies. I’ve never encountered this kind of a problem,” she said.

She was held at the Hudson station for about two hours before her son bailed her out, she said.

“He was really very amused,” Hall said. “I think it’s kind of funny myself.”

Andrew Nelson can be reached at 594-6415 or [email protected]. Andrea Bushee can be reached at 594-5860 or [email protected].[/font]

 

[MisterMike]

Did you hear about the women who had their signs taken and torn by the Kerry campaign? I guess it was't a good idea to bring the pro-life message to the rally.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat395.html

http://www.worldmagblog.com/archives/001912.html

 

[michaeledward]

I was reprimanded by a fellow poster on this board for posting a link from 'The Nation' because it was not a 'fair and balanced' point of view. The same thing for this post ... those links are arguing from a specific point of view ... which I welcome.

Shame on the Kerry staffer. Hopefully, that staff person has been appropriately reprimanded, (in private) and it won't happen again.

As a democrat, let me say that if you are 'Pro-Life' you are welcome, as the adage goes "If you are against abortion, don't have one."

Ms. Hall, from the article I posted, is somewhat of a well known person in the town of Brookline, and the surrounding communities, a town of approximately 4200 people.

 

[loki09789]

It's funny how a persons social status, revealed in an article after the fact but not known in the moment, is an excuse to refuse compliance because "they didn't get a good reason." Remember a bombing during the Atlanta Olympics, or the abortion center bombings? Standard operating procedure to try and create distance between percieved threats - and yes even a granny can be carrying a bomb, gun... an assault rifle looks meaner than a lever action, but they can both shoot .223 cal just as well. If you are obviously dissatisfied because you are openly critical/protesting you have met a profile criteria for a possible threat. Would you leave your child, a person you are responsible to protect, within arms length of a person who is waving a sign and stating openly that they hate kids?

And sometimes, granny is used as a mule, unknowingly carrying or coerced into carrying an explosive (remember the pizza delivery guy with an explosive around his neck who was forced to rob a bank?).

Is the 'out of the site of the POTUS/PRESS' coincidentally also the recommended or practical safe distance that would protect the POTUS from an explosive, chemical or firearm attack as well? Agendas, agendas.

 

[michaeledward]

I'm sorry folks ... You guys sound as if you are brainwashed .. ..

The Woman Served for 12 terms in the New Hampshire House of Representatives for Christ Sake... She had already complied with their requests twice.

Who was that was complaining that if you don't participate by voting or serving you shouldn't be able to criticize?

I show how that state is suppressing free speech ... (Secret Service moving protestors) ... and get rebutted by 'A staffer tore up a sign'. ... Come 'on ..

No doubt .. .. Ms. Hall is keeping all of Mr. Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in her basement ..


And yes ... Paul ... there is a bit of 'Tone' in this message. Because, it seems as if you have left the ability to reason somewhere else this morning. Is there anything this administration can do that would cause you to say .. 'gee that's wrong' .... Maybe a hummer in the oval office?