Tex in Tex's definitions
The word 'liberal' is derived from the Latin word 'libertas,' meaning 'liberty.' Liberalism started in 17th Century Europe as a logical and historical development from Protestantism with its focus on an individual having a direct personal relationship with God. Liberalism is also rooted in the English tradition of individual rights and privileges. John Locke's *Second Treatise on Civil Government* articulated the basic principles of liberalism--limited government, private property, equality before the law, the rule of law (meaning an impartial application and enforcement of the broad-based laws that allow for a wide scope of private discretion), and some democratic influence to restrict those in power. Locke, himself a Protestant Christian, believed people to be naturally sinful and selfish, but rational and social enough so that they could peacefully interact with one another. Laws are needed to maintain order, but largely the State should be restricted only to protecting private property (broadly defined as a person's private sphere), and to enforce contracts. The Founders of the United States were all followers of Locke. Jefferson's *Declaration of Independence* is an American adaptation of Locke's basic political philosophy. Puritan John Milton's defense of free speech in his *Areopagitica* provided the intellectual justification of the First Amendment from a Christian metaphysic.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
With John Stuart Mill we find a bridge to another conception of liberty and equality that moves more toward socialism. Mill was highly influenced by his wife, Harriet Taylor, who was more of an egalitarian than a liberal. Here we find Mill arguing against classical notions of liberalism. Mill argued, contrary to Locke, that a just law is an encroachment on a person's liberty. He also contended that informal, non-coercive public opinion was a violation the rights of the individual as are traditional prohibitions, say on sexual morality or gender roles. In these moves to conceive of liberty in a broader way that simply overt coercion, Mill started to blur the line between private and public. Mill was also concerned about the distribution of wealth and income in ways that the Founders of the U.S. were not. Mill,at times, argued for a greater role for the State to actually achieve equality of result and actual liberty from others as opposed to a purely formal equality and liberty that the classical liberals sought.
These differences point to a fundamental divergence between classical and modern left liberals. Another such difference is the basic character of human nature. Locke and the U.S. Founders believed that humans were naturally selfish and dangerous in their exercise of power. For this reason, the U.S. Founders placed explicit restrictions on the State including a Bill of Rights, federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances. Jefferson's admonition that the power that the State has to do something for you also has the power to do something to you follows from the doctrine of human depravity found in Christianity.
Left liberals tend to view humans as naturally good or malleable. No one is born evil. So, with the proper education and proper social and economic environment, people can naturally cooperate and care for each other. Brutal punishment is inhumane and simply aggravates past injustices making those convicted of a crime even more alienated and victimized by the unequal social order. What is needed to avert criminal behavior is greater inclusion and benevolence. The mechanism that facilitates these moral advances can be the State. Concerns over abuse of power, at least in social welfare legislation and macroeconomic policy, are not only misplaced but can be unnecessary obstacles for social progress.
Classical liberals view of legitimate State action is quite different. Physical punishment is seen as necessary to control those who freely choose to violate the rights of others. The State is needed to contain human evil and establish justice by retribution fairly imposed. Preparation and engaging in war can be necessary to protect a country from the attacks of an international aggressor. In both domestic and international crime, the person(s) who initiate violence forfeit their rights and violence can be justly used against them.
Some classical liberals such as Jefferson, Tocqueville, and Benjamin Constant believed that liberty was supported in the indigenous cultures of free countries. All of the Founders of the U.S. believed that a necessary condition for liberty was moral self-control. Religion provided the average person with the moral training and habit to prepare them to live responsibly with their fellows. Leftist liberals in contrast tend to be indifferent or hostile to traditional cultures and traditional religion and morality. Following Mill, they tend to see tradition and religion as restrictions on liberty and hindrances to greater social and political equality.
These leftist liberal theorists would not only include Mill, but T.H. Green, John Dewey, and John Rawls. These writers combine some elements of classical liberalism with socialism.
Contemporary classical liberals would include F.A. Hayek, Robert Nozick, and Milton Friedman. They are considered conservative because they are trying to conserve or preserve the original liberal tradition that can be traced back to Locke and the U.S. Founders. They clearly reject an active role for the State in achieving actual equality because such extensive and intrusive actions by the State violate individual liberty and place social planners over average people in power relationships.
"I am a liberal, they are socialists." Milton Friedman distinguishing himself from leftist liberals.
by Tex in Tex January 18, 2008
Get the liberalmug. Derived from the Middle English 'libertyn' meaning 'freedman,' which came from the Latin root 'liber,' which means 'liberty.' Libertine was a derogatory term which referred to someone who was a free-thinker or non-believer. Until the 19th Century, atheists or agnostics were considered beyond the pale of reasonable or civilized people. The term was extended to describe people who lacked moral self-restraint. Being a libertine was associated with living as an animal or an uncivilized person. John Stuart Mill's dictum, "Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied" applies as a condemnation of the libertine.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Many contemporary libertarians miss crucial moral distinctions and have fallen into perverting the Liberty Principle into a "Libertine Principle." Contemporary liberals (social democrats and socialists, not classical liberals) have fallen into the same moral nihilism falsely believing that they are defending liberty when they place atheism, sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, and illicit drug use on par with traditional morality and religious belief.
Fool: I am a libertarian. I smoke dope, watch pornography, and have sex with anything not nailed down. I love liberty as did the Founding Fathers.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
Person with common sense: You are not a libertarian or a liberal, you are a libertine.
by Tex in Tex March 8, 2008
Get the libertinemug. Aunt Pittypat Hamilton was a character in the novel and movie, *Gone with the Wind.* She was the older maiden aunt of Scarlett's first husband, Charles. She was also the aunt of Melanie Hamilton, Scarlett's friend and romantic competitor for the affections of Ashley.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
After the death of Charles during the war, Scarlett moved from her home at Tara in Jonesboro to live with Aunt Pittypat in Atlanta. When General William T. Sherman and the Federal army attacked Atlanta in the summer of 1864, he deliberated shelled the civilian population of Atlanta. In the story, Aunt Pittypat flees the city to escape the bombardment shrieking "Yankees in Georgia!" just after a shell explodes as she boards a carriage.
During the Battle of Atlanta, Melanie who is "with child" gives birth. Scarlett's slave, Miss Prissy, promises to help deliver the child if needed. Scarlett goes to the doctor for help only to find him overwhelmed with the wounded from the battle. Scarlett reluctantly returns home to Aunt Pittpat's house. She turns to Miss Prissy for the promised help when Miss Prissy famously begs out saying, "Oh, Miss Scarlett, I don't know nothing about birthing no babies." Scarlett slaps her and then proceeds to deliver the baby herself.
After Melanie gives birth, a stray Yankee soldier enters the house looking for loot. Scarlett confronts him on the stairs and he attacks her. Unknown to the soldier, Scarlett is packing a pistol and shoots him in the face as Melanie comes up from behind Scarlett brandishing a sword.
A restaurant in contemporary downtown Atlanta is named "Aunt Pittypat's Porch" in honor of Aunt Pittypat and the culture that she represented.
by Tex in Tex February 15, 2008
Get the Aunt Pittypatmug. The fundamental motivation for humans. Lucifer fell from Heaven in his attempt to become God--the ultimate power grab. Lucifer, as Satan, acting through the Serpent, suggested to Adam and Eve (the first humans created by God in his image) that they could become God luring them into rebellion him. Following the pattern set by their original parents, all humans are driven by a desire to be God.
Humans, now in a fallen condition, are continually trying to one up each other. Even members of one's own family or friends attempt to gain power over each other. As Nietzsche pointed out, virtually all human behavior is motivated by the "Will to Power." Nature even rewards people with more power as they live longer, feel happier, and have higher levels of serotonin in their brain. People band together in an attempt to dominate other groups even more thoroughly. Wars, racism, economic competition, cutting remarks at parties, domestic violence can all be traced back to the urge to dominate others.
Subtly, even attempts to equalize wealth, income, social status, racial disparities are attempts by those without power to pull down and dominate those who are currently in power. Equality of result is motivated by resentment and envy. Efforts to equalize people's conditions are movements by those who are presently less powerful to gain power over those who have dominated them. Many times these less powerful people are aided by those with power who feel guilty that they have power but then assume power over the minorities they claim to help. For example, witness the recent assertion by the Clintons that Martin Luther King and the black leadership in the Civil Rights Movement were not as effective in actually achieving their social goals until their cause was championed by white leftist liberals such as LBJ and themselves--meaning in clear language--shut up, stay in your place, and do not vote for that uppity Barack Obama.
The desire for power makes the entire project of the Left an impossibility. People are selfish, sadistic, and power-crazy. This urge for dominance will never change until the world as we know it ends. There is no exception in human history to hierarchy and inequality. A more reasonable goal is to limit those in power and induce them to serve the common good as classical liberalism sought to do.
Humans, now in a fallen condition, are continually trying to one up each other. Even members of one's own family or friends attempt to gain power over each other. As Nietzsche pointed out, virtually all human behavior is motivated by the "Will to Power." Nature even rewards people with more power as they live longer, feel happier, and have higher levels of serotonin in their brain. People band together in an attempt to dominate other groups even more thoroughly. Wars, racism, economic competition, cutting remarks at parties, domestic violence can all be traced back to the urge to dominate others.
Subtly, even attempts to equalize wealth, income, social status, racial disparities are attempts by those without power to pull down and dominate those who are currently in power. Equality of result is motivated by resentment and envy. Efforts to equalize people's conditions are movements by those who are presently less powerful to gain power over those who have dominated them. Many times these less powerful people are aided by those with power who feel guilty that they have power but then assume power over the minorities they claim to help. For example, witness the recent assertion by the Clintons that Martin Luther King and the black leadership in the Civil Rights Movement were not as effective in actually achieving their social goals until their cause was championed by white leftist liberals such as LBJ and themselves--meaning in clear language--shut up, stay in your place, and do not vote for that uppity Barack Obama.
The desire for power makes the entire project of the Left an impossibility. People are selfish, sadistic, and power-crazy. This urge for dominance will never change until the world as we know it ends. There is no exception in human history to hierarchy and inequality. A more reasonable goal is to limit those in power and induce them to serve the common good as classical liberalism sought to do.
"Two people fall in love when each thinks they are getting someone they don't deserve." Seinfeld on the subtleties of the will to power.
by Tex in Tex January 31, 2008
Get the powermug. Taken to the extreme, an irrational fear of strangers or more broadly, a fear of those who are different. Taken in a more moderate way, a rational fear of those who are different in some significant way, such as race, ethnicity, culture, politics, religion. Since people live together in families and communities where blood ties and cultural similarities foster cooperation, those who are different undermine this social solidarity. The very presence of people who are different in appearance or belief or language make the majority of people in a community wary of those who do not share a common interest in preserving the dominant group.
This fear is justified since people naturally view those who look, believe, and act in a similar manner as extensions of themselves. Since people are naturally selfish, they will lend aid and befriend those whom they see as similar to themselves. Conversely, since people are naturally selfish and seek to dominate others to enhance their own power, they will naturally first seek to dominate those who are different. People who are different are more likely to be seen as objects rather than fellow humans.
When confronted with these threats to social cooperation based on viewing others as objects, it is rational to foster laws, social and economic policy, and attitudes that preserve one's own kind in power. To do otherwise is to hand power over to those who will destroy one's own way of life, culture, and political system.
Political power as well as cultural and social power are zero-sum games. When one group gains in the same geographical region, other groups must lose.
This fear is justified since people naturally view those who look, believe, and act in a similar manner as extensions of themselves. Since people are naturally selfish, they will lend aid and befriend those whom they see as similar to themselves. Conversely, since people are naturally selfish and seek to dominate others to enhance their own power, they will naturally first seek to dominate those who are different. People who are different are more likely to be seen as objects rather than fellow humans.
When confronted with these threats to social cooperation based on viewing others as objects, it is rational to foster laws, social and economic policy, and attitudes that preserve one's own kind in power. To do otherwise is to hand power over to those who will destroy one's own way of life, culture, and political system.
Political power as well as cultural and social power are zero-sum games. When one group gains in the same geographical region, other groups must lose.
Campus Leftist: "Oh, those conservatives really show their xenophobia in opposing open immigration. That shows what closed minds they have and how paranoid they are. Of course, we had to shout down a conservative speaker last night at the lecture series, and drive him off campus in order to promote diversity and pluralism. We would never be prejudiced as those conservatives are."
by Tex in Tex February 1, 2008
Get the xenophobiamug. Plural of those who subscribe to a humanitarian philosophy. Humanitarians feel sorry for certain people, and find pleasure and a sense of significance in taking care of them. Some humanitarians use private, voluntary means to help others while other humanitarians prefer to use the State to force the general public to fund their efforts.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
Humanitarians tend to view humans as innately good and kind. They want to facilitate whatever each person wants to do, no matter what it may be. They enjoy a sense of paternalism as they provide for and protect their wards. This tendency might be appropriate at times but can easily drift into a subtle form of control and dominance.
Humanitarians cannot believe that people are naturally selfish and sadistic. They tend to hold a pollyannish view of criminals and attempt to mitigate their punishment. They hate to see anyone suffer pain under any circumstances.
Humanitarians have a hard time concentrating their affection on a limited set of people, such as their family or their community. They seem emotionally restless and transient. They continually seek out new people to befriend and help without ever settling into a committed, intimate relationship with any one person or group in particular.
Utilitarians, followers of the Social Gospel, collectivists, and the political left each find their roots in humanitarianism. The origin of humanitarianism is likely to be found in a certain reading of the Bible and understanding of Christianity that emphasizes unilateral forgiveness, charity, and the brotherhood of all humans. Such a view tends not to be balanced by a clear understanding of human depravity, and the fact that Eden will not be restored on the Earth until Jesus returns and creates a new Earth with spiritually regenerated people.
"Someone is at the door asking for money to help the poor."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
"Oh, it's one of those humanitarians who is trying to save the world, one person at a time."
Months later...."It is the IRS knocking without a warrant. They are threatening to seize our home because we underpaid our taxes by 22 cents. They need the money for their government give-away programs run by some humanitarian who prefers to steal other people's money rather than donate the money himself."
by Tex in Tex June 19, 2008
Get the humanitariansmug. Liberal elitist hipster: That is so horrible that MacDonald's is everywhere in the world. They are breaking down indigenous culture and traditional folkways. Monoculture everywhere. (Moments later) It is so wonderful that we are breaking down these backward ways of life in the South and any other traditional culture. We want to spread cosmopolitanism everywhere. I am a citizen of the world!
by Tex in Tex February 21, 2008
Get the monoculturemug.