Tex in Tex's definitions
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. 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. A continuation of the Bohemian "tradition" originating in France around the turn of the 20th Century. These folks were anti-bourgeois, anti-Victorian, and anti-traditionalist. They were avant-garde artists who disdained what they considered ordinary but ended up in a futile cycle of radical change for the sake of change soon drifting into silliness and nihilism.
The Beat Generation and then the Hippie movement tried to pick up this stand of thought and way of life in the mid twentieth century. The existential hero who is cool and detached, not caring what anyone else thinks of him is also a mid century fashion that picked up on this theme.
The cool hipster assumes a persona of crass selfishness, irresponsibility, mindless rebellion, cynicism, ironic mocking of anything meaningful or noble, cold reserve, uncaring indifference toward others while paradoxically advocating a politics of compassion toward certain groups favored by leftists, a dull, dumb countenance, and most of all, being constantly out of sorts--a real sour puss. They usually take on a studied disheveled appearance to further the affection of not caring what others think of them. They also prefer to dress in black.
Of course, most of these folks are as phony as you can get. They look as though they are dead on the inside--enthusiasm or being earnest or being genuine are completely missing from their emotional repertoire. They shun kindness,loyalty, spirituality, or empathy as uncool.
The Beat Generation and then the Hippie movement tried to pick up this stand of thought and way of life in the mid twentieth century. The existential hero who is cool and detached, not caring what anyone else thinks of him is also a mid century fashion that picked up on this theme.
The cool hipster assumes a persona of crass selfishness, irresponsibility, mindless rebellion, cynicism, ironic mocking of anything meaningful or noble, cold reserve, uncaring indifference toward others while paradoxically advocating a politics of compassion toward certain groups favored by leftists, a dull, dumb countenance, and most of all, being constantly out of sorts--a real sour puss. They usually take on a studied disheveled appearance to further the affection of not caring what others think of them. They also prefer to dress in black.
Of course, most of these folks are as phony as you can get. They look as though they are dead on the inside--enthusiasm or being earnest or being genuine are completely missing from their emotional repertoire. They shun kindness,loyalty, spirituality, or empathy as uncool.
"Man, like, I dig myself and fuck you, man, like."--An example of a hipster sentence. Complete sentences, of sorts, are few and far between for these folks who are too cool to talk in coherent language.
by Tex in Tex February 2, 2008
Get the hipstermug. An offshoot of the Southern Baptist Convention that is not as committed to defending the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible as the SBC since Evangelicals recaptured the denomination from liberals and moderates. CBF also presents a more egalitarian set of policies on social and political issues along with presenting a hazy view of theology. While most CBF members are not as far to the left as clearly apostate denominational elites such as found in the United Methodist Church, the CBF would be more accurately characterized as part of the mushy middle or moderates.
CBF does not explicitly deny the truth of the Bible, but they emphasize that individual believers can interpret the Bible any way that they choose. This tack on interpreting the Bible can easily provide a liberal Christian with the license to make the Bible into a wax-nose so that one can twist the Bible to justify whatever one wants to read into the text. This loose approach to reading and being instructed in the Bible comes from CBF's so-called "Four Freedoms": (1)Soul Freedom-a direct relationship with God without intermediaries (2)Bible Freedom-each person can interpret the Bible for himself without direction from anyone but God (or who one can easily deceive oneself into believing is God, viz. oneself who wants what he wants and wants it now) (3)Church Freedom-local church autonomy (4)Religious Freedom-as defined by egalitarian leftists at the ACLU. The CBF is affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which opposes such benign policies as allowing for Ten Commandment displays.
CBF does not explicitly deny the truth of the Bible, but they emphasize that individual believers can interpret the Bible any way that they choose. This tack on interpreting the Bible can easily provide a liberal Christian with the license to make the Bible into a wax-nose so that one can twist the Bible to justify whatever one wants to read into the text. This loose approach to reading and being instructed in the Bible comes from CBF's so-called "Four Freedoms": (1)Soul Freedom-a direct relationship with God without intermediaries (2)Bible Freedom-each person can interpret the Bible for himself without direction from anyone but God (or who one can easily deceive oneself into believing is God, viz. oneself who wants what he wants and wants it now) (3)Church Freedom-local church autonomy (4)Religious Freedom-as defined by egalitarian leftists at the ACLU. The CBF is affiliated with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, which opposes such benign policies as allowing for Ten Commandment displays.
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship member reflecting on Deuteronomy 24 after his wife has burnt the toast: "I see here right in the Bible that I can divorce my wife if she displeases me. So, I shall divorce her and marry my sexier secretary. After she gets some mileage on her, I shall trade her in, too. I am so glad that I read the Bible and follow God's Word."
by Tex in Tex October 4, 2008
Get the Cooperative Baptist Fellowshipmug. Congressman from Lake Jackson,Texas in the metro Houston area. He works as a medical doctor. He has been a consistent classical liberal or libertarian as congressman and a presidential candidate (as a Republican in 2008 and a Libertarian in 1988). He holds to a consistent constitutionalist position upholding the Lockean political philosophy that the United States was founded upon. He argues for a nighwatchman view of the State consistent with the Jeffersonaian view of the U.S. Constitution.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
On social issues Congressman Paul is a conservative. He supports the right to life and opposes abortion on demand. He also opposes open borders policy on immigration realizing that it is crucial to protect the culture the American political, legal, and economic system is rooted in. Even though some of his supporters are social and moral nihilists, Paul has maintained a consistent social conservatism and realizes that the main source of leftist attack on American traditions has been the Federal government. Even though he supports drug and sex deregulation, he has never endorsed illicit drug use or aberrant sexual practices. His position is to allow nature to take its course with reckless and immoral behavior rather than placing such behavior on par with traditional morality.
This same logic is present in his economic policy. Companies or individuals who can create new products or services that people choose to buy because they perceive these products or services can help them should be free to prosper. Those who offer poor quality products or services should be allowed to fail. Government should only provide basic rules for these pursuits to take place, such as prevention of fraud and enforcing contracts. As Milton Friedman used to say, the market forces people to "put up or shut up." This maxim applies to life-styles as well as business enterprises.
I am voting for Ron Paul because he stands for the principles Jefferson articulated in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence.
by Tex in Tex January 28, 2008
Get the Ron Paulmug. 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. The personification of what the U.S. has become along with its distorted conception of liberty. Ron Jeremy is to late 20th Century and early 21st Century America what Thomas Jefferson was to late 18th Century America.
Ted Koppel reported that he found himself near Ron Jeremy in an airport. Never having heard of Jeremy and finding out who he was as people mobbed Jeremy, Koppel was horrified to discover a porn star was so well-known and admired.
by Tex in Tex May 4, 2008
Get the Ron Jeremymug.