The Maximum Wage.

[mykcob4]

Jason's right about classical liberalism.  It really is a thing.  You either suck at google or you're being disingenuous cause I typed in "classical liberalism" and got several links in addition to Wikipedia.   (https://www.google.com/#q=classical+liberalism&start=20)

Princton
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... alism.html

Stanford
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

WebChron
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/glos ... alism.html

UNC
http://www.unc.edu/~lpalmer/notes/May26.html

Berkeley
http://orias.berkeley.edu/lessonplans/C ... ralism.pdf

In every link that you posted the term "classic liberal" is at best subjective and doesn't delineate the difference between a "classic liberal" and a liberal of today. Sure Liberals have changed values somewhat, but not to the point that they are completely different than a so-called classic liberal. By no stretch of the imagination can a libertarian (which is simply a conservative embarrassed by the brand, renaming themselves) be referred to a liberal or even a classic liberal. It is an attempt to hijack the term and redefine it to suit their political agenda.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse.  Classical liberalism goes back to Mill, Locke, and Smith.  How in the hell could it be an attempt to hijack something that wasn't even around at the time?  Classical liberalism was about limiting government; the governments of the day being monarchies.  It was conceived in opposition to conservatives of the day.  Socialism had yet to arrive on the scene.  All this is clearly spelled out in the links I posted for anyone to see.  

It has no bearing on the liberal/conservative positions of today.  It is just a history of political thought.  Modern libertarians claim identity with the principles classical liberalism as do modern liberals.  It started in response to the abuses of the industrial revolution and evolved from there.  You do grok evolution no?  Libertarians and liberals/progs can both trace their roots back to classical liberalism just as humans and chimps can trace their roots back to a common ancestor.  Insisting that libertarians and conservatives are the same thing is no more true than insisting communists and progressives are the same.  Sure, there will be overlap on both but the schools of thought are distinct and different.  Your insistence that conservatives and libertarians are the same regardless of what they profess to believe doesn't make it so.

Liberalism and conservatism classic or otherwise is an idealism that reaches far back in history and is a classic battle between the people that want to conserve wealth for the very few in forms and tools as religiosity, bloodlines, inheritance etc. verse the liberal idealism as individual freedom and fair opportunity. Therefore I don't agree with the subjective redefinition of liberalism at all. The basic tenet is the same. I am as John Locke had described the ideal of liberalism. The idea that libertarians are of the same ilk is ridiculous as they don't agree that fair and equal opportunity is a basic tenet of that idealism. Libertarians can trace their roots back to conservatism and the ideal to a  completely deregulated government. that isn't in any sense of the term liberal. The way that libertarians attempt to hijack the term liberal is in the fact that they say that THEY are REAL liberals when in fact they only want a completely deregulated government, which as a result would only allow the rich and powerful exploit everyone and everything else. they deny the liberal tenet of fair opportunity and the necessity of the things that government provides.

[mykcob4]

I don't care what you or any libertarians SAY they believe. I don't believe them in the slightest!

This is exactly why trying to have a decent discussion with you is a waste of time.  Communication is a two-way street; when you start with the premise that your interlocutor is lying, you perforce block off good communication.

Listening well is a valuable skill.

"Those who see only what they wish are doomed to rot in the stink of their own perceptions." -- Frank Herbert.

You think that I am just being stubborn but you'd be wrong. Just because you and I don't see eye to eye doesn't mean that I don't listen. I know what a liberal is. I know the recent attempt to corrupt the meaning of liberal and the spin used to do it. I know the subjective argument and the history of the term. It's the same old thing. Conservatives like to revise history for their own political purpose. they have to redefine terms like liberal to do so. I just object when that occurs and don't let them get away with it.
Oh and by the way you should talk....!

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The actual history of liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism goes very far back.  Given mykcob4's demonstrated knowledge of history I would not be surprised if he didn't know why I call the most commonly used political spectrum the "French Assembly Spectrum."  That is because it is based on the pre-revolution French Assembly.  The aristocracy and the church lords would sit one one side of the chamber, while the peasantry and those desiring change would sit on the other.  If someone was standing in front of the assembly and speaking to the assembly, the aristocracy would be to the speaker's right and the radicals would be to the speaker's left.  That is where we originally get the "right wing" and the "left wing."

Of course that didn't last long, because shortly after those terms were coined there was a revolution.

The conflict between the left and right at the time were the feudalists on the right and the classical liberals on the left.  These were classical liberals, not modern liberals.  Their ideology was expressed most expertly by John Locke, who I strongly prefer to Hobbes or Rousseau.  The first and oldest enemy of the classical liberals were the feudalists.

Classical Liberalism had its strongest expression in the early United States given much expression, albeit imperfectly, by Thomas Jefferson.  It is important to remember that classical liberals believe in people and do NOT believe in government, considering it a dangerous tool at best, and a force of pure destruction at worst.

The feudalists, on the other hand, seeing history pass them by with the old aristocracy decaying and seeing feudalism give way to trade and enterprise, reinvented themselves into the early corporatist.  Instead of feudal grants from the crown they sought corporate grants from the crown.  As always, the classical liberals opposed this, seeing it as interference in free trade.  In the early United States this was given expression by Alexander Hamilton and his intellectual heirs.

But at this point, the French Assembly model still stood, with the radical left believing in individual liberty and the conservative right believing in government favors.  The feudalists were doomed, history was passing them by, and even reinventing themselves with mercantilism didn't give them much of a life line.

The progressives, much like the conservatives, didn't see government as dangerous.  The conservatives saw government as a way to become powerful and to grant them unearned wealth.  The progressives saw it as a way to do good, such as it is.  The classical liberals still saw government as dangerous.

But Between 1880 and 1930 the progressives coopted the party and the label that used to belong to the classical liberals.  Thus progressives started to be called liberals and classical liberals were left homeless until slightly after WWII when the term "libertarian" came into popular usage to describe classical liberalism and then 1971 when the Libertarian Party was founded.

The irony is that the progressives try to say that libertarianism and its first, oldest, and worst enemy - conservatism - are somehow in some undefinable way the same thing.

[mykcob4]

The actual history of liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism goes very far back.  Given mykcob4's demonstrated knowledge of history I would not be surprised if he didn't know why I call the most commonly used political spectrum the "French Assembly Spectrum."  That is because it is based on the pre-revolution French Assembly.  The aristocracy and the church lords would sit one one side of the chamber, while the peasantry and those desiring change would sit on the other.  If someone was standing in front of the assembly and speaking to the assembly, the aristocracy would be to the speaker's right and the radicals would be to the speaker's left.  That is where we originally get the "right wing" and the "left wing."

Of course that didn't last long, because shortly after those terms were coined there was a revolution.

The conflict between the left and right at the time were the feudalists on the right and the classical liberals on the left.  These were classical liberals, not modern liberals.  Their ideology was expressed most expertly by John Locke, who I strongly prefer to Hobbes or Rousseau.  The first and oldest enemy of the classical liberals were the feudalists.

Classical Liberalism had its strongest expression in the early United States given much expression, albeit imperfectly, by Thomas Jefferson.  It is important to remember that classical liberals believe in people and do NOT believe in government, considering it a dangerous tool at best, and a force of pure destruction at worst.

The feudalists, on the other hand, seeing history pass them by with the old aristocracy decaying and seeing feudalism give way to trade and enterprise, reinvented themselves into the early corporatist.  Instead of feudal grants from the crown they sought corporate grants from the crown.  As always, the classical liberals opposed this, seeing it as interference in free trade.  In the early United States this was given expression by Alexander Hamilton and his intellectual heirs.

But at this point, the French Assembly model still stood, with the radical left believing in individual liberty and the conservative right believing in government favors.  The feudalists were doomed, history was passing them by, and even reinventing themselves with mercantilism didn't give them much of a life line.

The progressives, much like the conservatives, didn't see government as dangerous.  The conservatives saw government as a way to become powerful and to grant them unearned wealth.  The progressives saw it as a way to do good, such as it is.  The classical liberals still saw government as dangerous.

But Between 1880 and 1930 the progressives coopted the party and the label that used to belong to the classical liberals.  Thus progressives started to be called liberals and classical liberals were left homeless until slightly after WWII when the term "libertarian" came into popular usage to describe classical liberalism and then 1971 when the Libertarian Party was founded.

The irony is that the progressives try to say that libertarianism and its first, oldest, and worst enemy - conservatism - are somehow in some undefinable way the same thing.

Great revisionist history. I don't have time but I will give you the real history lesson. Yes just like the bible you used SOME truths to make your lie plausible but on the whole it is a farce.

[josephpalazzo]

Great revisionist history. I don't have time but I will give you the real history lesson. Yes just like the bible you used SOME truths to make your lie plausible but on the whole it is a farce.

Yep, some people confuse between opposition to a particular form of government with opposition to any form of government. The early founding fathers were not in opposition to any form of government but feared that any man could take absolute power, as was the case with the monarchy when the colonies were under British rule. That's why they worked a system of check and balance to prevent that from happening. If they would be alive today, they would be horrified by the present gridlock. That was never their intention. There is meaning behind "a government of the people, by the people, for the people." Unfortunately, for the upper class - call them the elite, the 1% percenter, or the CEOS of multi-nationals - they are not interested in the common folks and their struggles to make a better life for themselves.  For the upper class, it's me, myself and my money. And anything they can do to twart the government, even if it means making it weak, inefficient and corrupt as long as that serves their own interests.

[mykcob4]

The actual history of liberalism, conservatism, and progressivism goes very far back.  Given mykcob4's demonstrated knowledge of history I would not be surprised if he didn't know why I call the most commonly used political spectrum the "French Assembly Spectrum."  That is because it is based on the pre-revolution French Assembly.  The aristocracy and the church lords would sit one one side of the chamber, while the peasantry and those desiring change would sit on the other.  If someone was standing in front of the assembly and speaking to the assembly, the aristocracy would be to the speaker's right and the radicals would be to the speaker's left.  That is where we originally get the "right wing" and the "left wing."

Of course that didn't last long, because shortly after those terms were coined there was a revolution.

The conflict between the left and right at the time were the feudalists on the right and the classical liberals on the left.  These were classical liberals, not modern liberals.  Their ideology was expressed most expertly by John Locke, who I strongly prefer to Hobbes or Rousseau.  The first and oldest enemy of the classical liberals were the feudalists.

Classical Liberalism had its strongest expression in the early United States given much expression, albeit imperfectly, by Thomas Jefferson.  It is important to remember that classical liberals believe in people and do NOT believe in government, considering it a dangerous tool at best, and a force of pure destruction at worst.

The feudalists, on the other hand, seeing history pass them by with the old aristocracy decaying and seeing feudalism give way to trade and enterprise, reinvented themselves into the early corporatist.  Instead of feudal grants from the crown they sought corporate grants from the crown.  As always, the classical liberals opposed this, seeing it as interference in free trade.  In the early United States this was given expression by Alexander Hamilton and his intellectual heirs.

But at this point, the French Assembly model still stood, with the radical left believing in individual liberty and the conservative right believing in government favors.  The feudalists were doomed, history was passing them by, and even reinventing themselves with mercantilism didn't give them much of a life line.

The progressives, much like the conservatives, didn't see government as dangerous.  The conservatives saw government as a way to become powerful and to grant them unearned wealth.  The progressives saw it as a way to do good, such as it is.  The classical liberals still saw government as dangerous.

But Between 1880 and 1930 the progressives coopted the party and the label that used to belong to the classical liberals.  Thus progressives started to be called liberals and classical liberals were left homeless until slightly after WWII when the term "libertarian" came into popular usage to describe classical liberalism and then 1971 when the Libertarian Party was founded.

The irony is that the progressives try to say that libertarianism and its first, oldest, and worst enemy - conservatism - are somehow in some undefinable way the same thing.

I said that I would address this and I will. Not all at the same time because time is not on my side at the moment.
1) The first problem is the time line. The French Revolution happens after the American revolution, and even though it is true how lefties and righties were named and distinguished  in the French court it happened in 1789 a full 2 years after the American Constitution was signed.
2) Another fallacy by Jason is the idea that the founders didn't believe in government. The fact is that they believed in government by the people. That is a very different thing then what Jason would have you believe. The founders wanted self rule as opposed to rule by rich land owners and aristocrats and divine monarchies. Again much different than what Jason is suggesting.
3) Funny how Jason refers to Hamilton and mixes French feudalism in with American enterprise. They do not mix. Hamilton devised the national bank to lend money to enterprises in the new nation and raise money for the GOVERNMENT with the % from those loans. Libertarians are against the Fed and want to abolish it. Which is an example of how libertarians are in no way "classic liberals" and very far removed from how the founders thought and acted.
4) The greatest lie by Jason in this little fairytale of his is the notion that Liberals were "homeless" until just after WWII when as he say libertarians came to the rescue. I don't know where he got that idea but it is utter nonsense.
In conclusion Jason wants you to believe things that just aren't true.
a) That classic liberals hate government---not true liberals classic or otherwise don't hate and fear government. They want a fair government that represents the people governed by the people and for the people, not no government at all.
b) That progressives and conservatives are the same thing--not true progressives want change for the better, conservatives don't want change at all.
c) That liberals and so-called classic liberals are different, that liberals are actually conservatives---profoundly untrue! Liberals and classic liberals are very much the same wanting free and fair government that provides opportunity for all.
There is much more but I haven't the time right now. It's safe to say that Jason is spinning the narrative to fit his conservative agenda and is trying through revisionist history to hijack the term liberal so he may misuse the term for his conservative agenda.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Oh and by the way you should talk....!

I've been reading without commenting throughout this thread, because until the battle lines were drawn, it was an interesting read and I was learning something; and economics isn't a strong area of my knowledge, so it's best for me to hush and learn under that circumstance.

You'll notice I'm not arguing that you are or aren't what you say you are, based on how I define your political outlook; I'm listening to you, agreeing with some of it, and disagreeing with other parts of it. I'm unsure what your complaint is in accusing me of being hypocritical; I read what you have to say and more importantly, I take you at face value instead of assuming that you're a liar about your views, as our exchange earlier demonstrates.

I stand by my point that your refusal to accept Jason at face value is choking off meaningful communication. He has valid points about the distinction between Republicans and Libertarians, and simply because that undermines your point, you're stuffing your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalalal". It's no wonder you have hard sledding trying to convince people to agree with you unless they already do so.  If you don't listen to others, you have no right to expect them to hear you out.

Conservatives like to revise history for their own political purpose. they have to redefine terms like liberal to do so.

Both American parties do this.  Pretending that one side has a monopoly on historical accuracy, honesty, or integrity is not something I will engage in.

[mykcob4]

Oh and by the way you should talk....!

I've been reading without commenting throughout this thread, because until the battle lines were drawn, it was an interesting read and I was learning something; and economics isn't a strong area of my knowledge, so it's best for me to hush and learn under that circumstance.

You'll notice I'm not arguing that you are or aren't what you say you are, based on how I define your political outlook; I'm listening to you, agreeing with some of it, and disagreeing with other parts of it. I'm unsure what your complaint is in accusing me of being hypocritical; I read what you have to say and more importantly, I take you at face value instead of assuming that you're a liar about your views, as our exchange earlier demonstrates.

I stand by my point that your refusal to accept Jason at face value is choking off meaningful communication. He has valid points about the distinction between Republicans and Libertarians, and simply because that undermines your point, you're stuffing your fingers in your ears and shouting "lalalalalalalalalal". It's no wonder you have hard sledding trying to convince people to agree with you unless they already do so.  If you don't listen to others, you have no right to expect them to hear you out.

Conservatives like to revise history for their own political purpose. they have to redefine terms like liberal to do so.

Both American parties do this.  Pretending that one side has a monopoly on historical accuracy, honesty, or integrity is not something I will engage in.

Okay Thump that is a valid statement and I appreciate the comment sincerely and respectfully. I know what Jason is trying to say. I have heard it a million times if I have heard it once. The fact is that there may be a difference between republicans and libertarians, but what is also true is that libertarians are NOT in any sense of the term Liberals. he just can't hijack "liberal" and redefine it for his own political agenda and I won't allow him using revisionist history to do so either.
This idea that "true liberals" or "classical liberals" hate and fear government is ridiculous, that conservatives and progressives are the same thing is equally wrong. I have read the platforms of the conservatives, various tea parties, and libertarians. It all boils down to one thing: Government bad, corporation good. Any way you slice it it's the same thing over and over again, they are against fair opportunity. They aren't for "free" enterprise. To them free enterprise means no regulation at all, none, nada, zip. That isn't "free enterprise", that's wildwest anarchy where by the already rich and powerful can exploit everyone, and everything else.
Go to the libertarian website and you get the usual fluff and patriotic fluff about how they are for the "freedom" of the individual, then they start their "big government" rant and propaganda.
This rehashing both the civil war, states rights crap, and gold standard guff it nonsense. States don't have rights, individuals do, and corporations are not individuals. The civil war was fought and their side lost. The gold standard isn't realistic because it alienated most of the world due to the fact that they don't have any. If it were implemented today, the USA would be a second rate nation and China would be the sole superpower. The economy is based on speculation and has been since Nixon totally fucked up things with his out of control inflation tactic. Reagan exasperated the problem with his 600 ship initiative. He basically bought 600 ships with no money forcing the rest of the world to go to a speculation base economy. Jason lies when he states that I and liberals are all for that system that we wanted it in the first place. That isn't the case. The fact is that is reality and we have to live with what Nixon and Reagan did. The trick is and the goal for liberals is to regulate this speculation keeping it from getting out of hand, which is exactly what it did under George W. Bush. It is also the goal to bring things inline providing fair opportunity for all individuals and small businesses so they can compete on equal footing. Those goals are a long way from the libertarian ideals and completely opposite of the conservative ideals.
Lets take the libertarians on purely social issues. they say that they are for women and minorities, but if you implement the libertarian economic plans you are waging an economic war against women and minorities...AND the individual American worker. So even though libertarians say that they are for everyone, they really aren't. They are inline with republicans and conservatives.
That's it in a nut shell thump. If you still think that I am just being stubborn, well there is nothing I can say about that. Curious though. If you have been reading the entire thread, you may have read the post by allpurposeatheist who has pointed out the utter nonsense of Jason's post. You see Jason has been ignoring the facts.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Most Libertarians have an innate distrust of corporations, too.  They just trust the labor market to punish shitty corporations with higher labor costs in order to compensate for the crap they pull.  Also, we (because I'm a so-called "neo-Libertarian", one who doesn't adhere to the party line) don't all agree that no regulation on an industry is the ideal; the dictum in play is more like "the minimal government needed to get the job done is most desirable."

Not sure why you're mentioning the Civil War, as that started 110 years before the Libertarian Party did.  

Libertarian ideals aren't economic war against women and minorities; nor do all, or most, or even many libertarians think that women and minorities should be treated  as beneath white males, in my experience.  Nor do all, most, or even many of us prefer the rollback of equality protections.

I don't think you're being stubborn, so much as I think that refusing to take a man at his word is simply poor form, and guaranteed to poison the conversation. That's all.  Thanks for giving my point a fair hearing.

[mykcob4]

Most Libertarians have an innate distrust of corporations, too.  They just trust the labor market to punish shitty corporations with higher labor costs in order to compensate for the crap they pull.  Also, we (because I'm a so-called "neo-Libertarian", one who doesn't adhere to the party line) don't all agree that no regulation on an industry is the ideal; the dictum in play is more like "the minimal government needed to get the job done is most desirable."

Not sure why you're mentioning the Civil War, as that started 110 years before the Libertarian Party did.  

Libertarian ideals aren't economic war against women and minorities; nor do all, or most, or even many libertarians think that women and minorities should be treated  as beneath white males, in my experience.  Nor do all, most, or even many of us prefer the rollback of equality protections.

I don't think you're being stubborn, so much as I think that refusing to take a man at his word is simply poor form, and guaranteed to poison the conversation. That's all.  Thanks for giving my point a fair hearing.

I mentioned the civil war because "states rights" is exactly the civil war and the right side of the aisle to include the libertarians side for states rights.
I explained how the libertarians are against women and minorities economically. Reread what I wrote and try and understand that. It isn't about rolling back civil right gains, it is about allowing companies to choose without regulation how they treat and who.
As for you and your statement that you are a "neo-libertarian" I have no comment.
Here is a question to ask yourself and one I use to ask myself albeit just a little different when it pertains to me.
How is a libertarian different than a liberal on the issue? You have to ask it about each and every issue.
You also have to be first completely honest and also completely comprehensive.
In every situation I can attest that a libertarian comes out conservative directly or indirectly on each issue.
Women make up about 70% of minimum wage earners. Minorities make up closer to 80%. If libertarians are against raising the minimum wage then by default they are against women and minorities. Statistics have proven that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs or cause job losses nor does it significantly cause the prices of things to raise.
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage. ... e-job-loss
That is just one issue. I can do this over and over again on every issue and it still comes out the same.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Great revisionist history. I don't have time but I will give you the real history lesson. Yes just like the bible you used SOME truths to make your lie plausible but on the whole it is a farce.

Calling that revisionist, just like calling yourself politically informed, doesn't make it so.  Even other progressives think you're an uninformed twit.

1) The first problem is the time line. The French Revolution happens after the American revolution, and even though it is true how lefties and righties were named and distinguished  in the French court it happened in 1789 a full 2 years after the American Constitution was signed.

And the seating of the French Assembly happened before both revolutions.

2) Another fallacy by Jason is the idea that the founders didn't believe in government. The fact is that they believed in government by the people. That is a very different thing then what Jason would have you believe. The founders wanted self rule as opposed to rule by rich land owners and aristocrats and divine monarchies. Again much different than what Jason is suggesting.

Even believing in government by the people doesn't mean that they thought "with the right people in charge there's no need to be afraid of a powerful government" the way you do.  Check out this quote by George Washington.  "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  Yep, that's certainly the words of someone who thinks the government can take care of everything.

3) Funny how Jason refers to Hamilton and mixes French feudalism in with American enterprise. They do not mix. Hamilton devised the national bank to lend money to enterprises in the new nation and raise money for the GOVERNMENT with the % from those loans. Libertarians are against the Fed and want to abolish it. Which is an example of how libertarians are in no way "classic liberals" and very far removed from how the founders thought and acted.

Hamilton wasn't the Classic Liberal, his opponent Jefferson was.  Good grief, please study some history.  I made that point pretty clearly when I called Jefferson the liberal and Hamilton the feudalist.

4) The greatest lie by Jason in this little fairytale of his is the notion that Liberals were "homeless" until just after WWII when as he say libertarians came to the rescue. I don't know where he got that idea but it is utter nonsense.

CLASSIC liberals were, because MODERN liberals had taken over their party.  I made that distinction clear in what I wrote.  Just because you don't like the distinction doesn't make it go away.

In conclusion Jason wants you to believe things that just aren't true.

I've never made the claim that you know what you're talking about.

a) That classic liberals hate government---not true liberals classic or otherwise don't hate and fear government. They want a fair government that represents the people governed by the people and for the people, not no government at all.

And according to Jefferson and Locke, as little of it as possible.

b) That progressives and conservatives are the same thing--not true progressives want change for the better, conservatives don't want change at all.

Change?  Now you're confusing political science definitions with dictionary definitions.  How tiresome.  Seriously.  Progressives want to change the law to conform to their ideas and conservatives want to change the law to conform to their ideas.  Conflating dictionary definitions with political science definitions, that's really amateur.

c) That liberals and so-called classic liberals are different, that liberals are actually conservatives---profoundly untrue! Liberals and classic liberals are very much the same wanting free and fair government that provides opportunity for all.
There is much more but I haven't the time right now. It's safe to say that Jason is spinning the narrative to fit his conservative agenda and is trying through revisionist history to hijack the term liberal so he may misuse the term for his conservative agenda.

I did say that classic liberals are different from modern liberals.  I didn't say that either of them are conservatives, although I did show you have sympathy for conservatives when I brought up the gold standard.

[mykcob4]

Calling that revisionist, just like calling yourself politically informed, doesn't make it so.  Even other progressives think you're an uninformed twit.

And the seating of the French Assembly happened before both revolutions.



Even believing in government by the people doesn't mean that they thought "with the right people in charge there's no need to be afraid of a powerful government" the way you do.  Check out this quote by George Washington.  "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  Yep, that's certainly the words of someone who thinks the government can take care of everything.



Hamilton wasn't the Classic Liberal, his opponent Jefferson was.  Good grief, please study some history.  I made that point pretty clearly when I called Jefferson the liberal and Hamilton the feudalist.



CLASSIC liberals were, because MODERN liberals had taken over their party.  I made that distinction clear in what I wrote.  Just because you don't like the distinction doesn't make it go away.



I've never made the claim that you know what you're talking about.



And according to Jefferson and Locke, as little of it as possible.


Change?  Now you're confusing political science definitions with dictionary definitions.  How tiresome.  Seriously.  Progressives want to change the law to conform to their ideas and conservatives want to change the law to conform to their ideas.  Conflating dictionary definitions with political science definitions, that's really amateur.



I did say that classic liberals are different from modern liberals.  I didn't say that either of them are conservatives, although I did show you have sympathy for conservatives when I brought up the gold standard.[/quote]
Blah, blah, blah, just another attempt to salvage a weak and misinformed political agenda by you. Sobeit!

[Thumpalumpacus]

I mentioned the civil war because "states rights" is exactly the civil war and the right side of the aisle to include the libertarians side for states rights.

Not so.  Libertarians are for individual rights, in glaring contrast to both major parties, which have cooperated in eroding the Bill of Rights.

I explained how the libertarians are against women and minorities economically. Reread what I wrote and try and understand that. It isn't about rolling back civil right gains, it is about allowing companies to choose without regulation how they treat and who.

In other words, it's the companies doing the discriminating.  And again, most libertarians don't have a problem with equal-rights legislation, in my experience.

How is a libertarian different than a liberal on the issue? You have to ask it about each and every issue.
You also have to be first completely honest and also completely comprehensive.
In every situation I can attest that a libertarian comes out conservative directly or indirectly on each issue.

Of course.  No one here is arguing that libertarians are like modern-day liberals.  What has been pointed out to you is that in the past, classical liberalism gave rise to the libertarian movement in America.

Women make up about 70% of minimum wage earners. Minorities make up closer to 80%. If libertarians are against raising the minimum wage then by default they are against women and minorities.

Not so, for the same reason that liberals against raising the defense budget aren't "weak on defense".

Statistics have proven that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs or cause job losses nor does it significantly cause the prices of things to raise.
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage. ... e-job-loss
That is just one issue. I can do this over and over again on every issue and it still comes out the same.

Statistics can "prove" anything. In most cases, raises in the minimum wage see a fall in employment numbers, although there are occasionally simple plateaus and in one case (1997) a small bit of growth in jobs rate.  Even economists disagree on the effects of a rise in the minimum wage, so your assertion that statistics have proven that mw rises don't kill jobs seems like overstepping your evidence.

On the larger point, of course Libertarians and modern liberals hold different views.  No one is arguing otherwise. Ascribing those differences to racism or sexism doesn't seem borne out to me; those differences are much more likely to be a result of the Libertarians' taste for minimal governmental intervention.

I get it, you think that government can solve these sorts of problems.  I don't share your confidence, and I do distrust the government; as the last twenty years in particular have shown, they have no interest in our welfare as citizens except insofar as the wider citizenship is kept quiet and mollified so that they do not turn out the incumbents. We'll have to agree to disagree.  I'd much rather do so agreeably, and that means that even when we disagree I will listen to you and give you the benefit of the doubt, so long as I receive the same courtesy in return.

[Thumpalumpacus]

<double post deleted>

[mykcob4]

I mentioned the civil war because "states rights" is exactly the civil war and the right side of the aisle to include the libertarians side for states rights.

Not so.  Libertarians are for individual rights, in glaring contrast to both major parties, which have cooperated in eroding the Bill of Rights.

I explained how the libertarians are against women and minorities economically. Reread what I wrote and try and understand that. It isn't about rolling back civil right gains, it is about allowing companies to choose without regulation how they treat and who.

In other words, it's the companies doing the discriminating.  And again, most libertarians don't have a problem with equal-rights legislation, in my experience.

How is a libertarian different than a liberal on the issue? You have to ask it about each and every issue.
You also have to be first completely honest and also completely comprehensive.
In every situation I can attest that a libertarian comes out conservative directly or indirectly on each issue.

Of course.  No one here is arguing that libertarians are like modern-day liberals.  What has been pointed out to you is that in the past, classical liberalism gave rise to the libertarian movement in America.

Women make up about 70% of minimum wage earners. Minorities make up closer to 80%. If libertarians are against raising the minimum wage then by default they are against women and minorities.

Not so, for the same reason that liberals against raising the defense budget aren't "weak on defense".

Statistics have proven that raising the minimum wage does not kill jobs or cause job losses nor does it significantly cause the prices of things to raise.
http://www.businessforafairminimumwage. ... e-job-loss
That is just one issue. I can do this over and over again on every issue and it still comes out the same.

Statistics can "prove" anything. In most cases, raises in the minimum wage see a fall in employment numbers, although there are occasionally simple plateaus and in one case (1997) a small bit of growth in jobs rate.  Even economists disagree on the effects of a rise in the minimum wage, so your assertion that statistics have proven that mw rises don't kill jobs seems like overstepping your evidence.

On the larger point, of course Libertarians and modern liberals hold different views.  No one is arguing otherwise. Ascribing those differences to racism or sexism doesn't seem borne out to me; those differences are much more likely to be a result of the Libertarians' taste for minimal governmental intervention.

I get it, you think that government can solve these sorts of problems.  I don't share your confidence, and I do distrust the government; as the last twenty years in particular have shown, they have no interest in our welfare as citizens except insofar as the wider citizenship is kept quiet and mollified so that they do not turn out the incumbents. We'll have to agree to disagree.  I'd mush rather do so agreeably, and that means that even when we disagree I will listen to you and give you the benefit of the doubt, so long as I receive the same courtesy in return.

I applaud that post, and agreeing to disagree is fine with me. There is no need for harshness and I am glad that you and I CAN find that common ground. I disagree with a couple of things. I don't think that government can solve everything. I actually believe a well regulated private sector can and will solve most things. I also disagree that libertarians came out of liberalism but it really doesn't matter in the long run because the libertarian ideal is in my opinion not a solution at all. It's inherent cynicism of government makes no sense. There will always be a government. The best thing to do is make government work for we people. Capitalism has a glaring flaw that can only be solved by regulation and oversight. That flaw being corruption and greed. I don't see government exploiting people, but I do see many multinationals doing so.
Also it only humane to have a safety net. It isn't a "nanny state" to provide a safety net for people. It is actually cheaper in the long run.

"On the larger point, of course Libertarians and modern liberals hold different views.  No one is arguing otherwise. Ascribing those differences to racism or sexism doesn't seem borne out to me; those differences are much more likely to be a result of the Libertarians' taste for minimal governmental intervention." This is exactly correct and what I actually said. I don't believe that libertarians hold any prejudices against any social dichotomy but as a result of wanting government to keep out of all business, discrimination occurs in the form of wages and opportunity for sectors of the population. as for your example about Liberals and the defense budget, there is an explanation. Liberals want to reduce the defense budget for two reasons.
1) So it is more proportional to the whole budget and less about being the world police (multinational asset attack and protection corps) and more about being a defense budget.
2) To quit over funding defense contractors (like Haliburton) for actually nothing in return.