Utopian

[Werewolf]

The word liberal is tossed around quite a bit here, in the media, on the street, at water coolers.

It seems to mean different things to many people.

When I think liberal - at least liberal as the media uses it and not the classic definition - I think:

- ideal: belonging to or characteristic of an ideal perfect state or place
- admirable but impracticable: admirable but impracticable in real life
- impractically idealistic: tending to deal in admirable but impracticable ideas

These are the things that modern liberals seem to want. It is what Obama wants. Especially the 1st and 3rd ones.

It seems likely that many would agree.

Except for one thing: Those traits classify one as a Utopian - not a liberal. So why doesn't the media call these people what they are Utopians? Is utopian a dirty word? too hard for Joe SixPack to understand. Is liberal emotionally charged in a way that can grab one's heart strings while utopian is a cold and academic word?

What's the deal? Inquiring minds want to know.

[drewtam]

It would be too vague. Anarcho-capitalists have Utopian visions as well. Galt's Gulch is also an Utopian vision.

To me "liberal" and "conservative" are two of the most abused words. We don't mean what they are defined as, but they are code words for entire sets of tribal beliefs completely unrelated to liberal or conservative meaning.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I think that "statist" is a better descriptor than "liberal".

[Standing Wolf]

I think that "statist" is a better descriptor than "liberal".

It's a far better term.

[zahc]

leftist is also more useful than liberal. I think when most people say liberal they mean leftist.

[Jamisjockey]

My gut tells me this is a better fit in politics, so I'm going to move it.

[lee n. field]

When I think liberal - at least liberal as the media uses it and not the classic definition - I think:

- ideal: belonging to or characteristic of an ideal perfect state or place
- admirable but impracticable: admirable but impracticable in real life
- impractically idealistic: tending to deal in admirable but impracticable ideas

"Overrealized eschatology".

[HankB]

When I hear the term "Liberal" today, my first thought is of a person who claims the moral authority to lay claim to the fruits of someone else's labor so he can redistribute the wealth to people he believes are more deserving of it than those who worked for, earned, or created it.  

[BMacklem]

Thank you HankB, that hit the nail on the proverbial head, now if we can just drive some of those nails into a lot of the mainstream liberals heads.......... starting with Obama.

[longeyes]

They are "utopian" only in the sense that Utopia was NOWHERE, and that is where the beliefs of the Left will lead us.  Nowhere in the sense of unreason, unprosperity, and unhappiness.

I find it hard to take the positions of the modern Left as anything but embarrassing projections of arrested emotional development.  It is less programmatic than an incoherent array of unprocessed emotions that do not belong on a serious political playing field. 

[FTA84]

... emotional ...

... emotions ...

This is generally how I detect a liberal.

[RevDisk]

The word liberal is tossed around quite a bit here, in the media, on the street, at water coolers.

It seems to mean different things to many people.

Generally speaking, being a liberal means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles.  Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money.  With a couple of wedge issues to keep the base happy.

Generally speaking, being a conservative means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles.  Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money.  But with different wedge issues!


 

[roo_ster]

Generally speaking, being a liberal means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles.  Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money.  With a couple of wedge issues to keep the base happy.

Generally speaking, being a conservative means holding a particular set of authoritarian and statist principles.  Usually associated the presumption that they know better than I how to spend my money.  But with different wedge issues!

You might think that's cute, but it is yet more distortion piled on top of distortion that can not be left without comment.

Contemporary liberalism ~ progressivism.  The labeling head feint was accomplished in the 1930s/1940s where the term "liberal," which had up to that point meant those in accord with the virtues we now know as "classical liberalism" was co-opted by the progressives as camouflage.  Statism is part of the very nature of progressivism, as progressivism sees to replace faith in religion with a cult of the state.

Contemporary conservatism* ~ classical liberalism.  The lexicographical transformation also occurred in the 1930s/1940s, when classical liberals were marginalized and progressives captured the term, "liberal."  "Conservative" was a pejorative used by the progs/libs that was eventually claimed by those so excoriated.   The postwar conservative agenda can be seen in WFB's mission statement for National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDJhYTJjNWI0MWFiODBhMDc2MzQwY2JlM2RhZjk5ZjM=).  It is about as anti-statist a manifesto as one will find that is still grounded in the founding principles.

Libertarianism is yet another utopian creed, with no roots in the founding of our nation (which it has in common with progressivism).  Happily, some of its principles are compatible with classical liberalism, though they usually have a different provenance or methodology.  The last few years it has been morphing from a philosophy based on negative rights (essentially the right to be left to one's own devices) into a philosophy of positive rights (rights that must be enabled by or provided by the state).







* The other thread trying to define conservatism was such a mess and so ate up I didn't even want to touch it. 

[MicroBalrog]

Libertarianism is yet another utopian creed, with no roots in the founding of our nation (which it has in common with progressivism).

This is abjectly incorrect. Libertarianism is not utopian , nor would it be wrong to say it has no root whatever in the work of the Founding Fathers. Obviously the Founding Fathers weren't libertarians, but it's quite arguable that libertarianism draws on their work.

Libertarianism is also not utopian. Utopianism proposes the construction of a perfect society, and requires improvements of human nature (which are usually only improvements in the mind of the utopian. Libertarianism does not propose a perfect society (except possibly in the mind of some exceptional utopians such as Rothbard and Rand), nor does it require superhuman qualities from people for it to work (again, with the exception of objectivism).

[roo_ster]

This is abjectly incorrect. Libertarianism is not utopian , nor would it be wrong to say it has no root whatever in the work of the Founding Fathers. Obviously the Founding Fathers weren't libertarians, but it's quite arguable that libertarianism draws on their work.

Libertarianism is also not utopian. Utopianism proposes the construction of a perfect society, and requires improvements of human nature (which are usually only improvements in the mind of the utopian. Libertarianism does not propose a perfect society (except possibly in the mind of some exceptional utopians such as Rothbard and Rand), nor does it require superhuman qualities from people for it to work (again, with the exception of objectivism).

OK, if you excise two of the three* greatest American libertarian philosophers from American libertarianism, I suppose you could avoid the utopian label. 

Thing is, they are inextricably entwined with American libertarianism.  Cut objectivism (AR) and anarcho-capitalism (MR) from libertarianism and you pretty much have some nice free-market economics.


* #3 would be Milton Friedman, whose work was not utopian.

[MicroBalrog]

OK, if you excise two of the three* greatest American libertarian philosophers from American libertarianism, I suppose you could avoid the utopian label. 

Ludwig von Mises and Hayek were part of American libertarianism. Though of course neither were born in America, but then neither was Ayn Rand.

[But then I am not sure how much of a libertarian Friedman was...

[makattak]

Ludwig von Mises and Hayek were part of American libertarianism. Though of course neither were born in America, but then neither was Ayn Rand.

[But then I am not sure how much of a libertarian Friedman was...

I would very much argue you would find Hayek more in the camp of conservatives.

[MicroBalrog]

I think the man who wrote "why I am not a Conservative" might disagree.

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments

[makattak]

I think the man who wrote "why I am not a Conservative" might disagree.

The definition of conservative at the time of his writing is different from the current time. He is using conservative with the correct definiton as one who is trying to preserve the status quo.

He is a classical liberal, as am I. However, classical liberals are now classified as "conservatives". I say he is not a libertarian as they reject many of the notions that Hayek thought important: traditions and mores.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

He is a classical liberal, as am I. However, classical liberals are now classified as "conservatives". I say he is not a libertarian as they reject many of the notions that Hayek thought important: traditions and mores.

You might say that a libertarian is simply a conservative stripped of the belief in cultural or moral traditions.

[MicroBalrog]

I would argue there are also certain emotional differences. More and more I start thinking you can support almost all the libertarian policies and still be a conservative.

[roo_ster]

I think the man who wrote "why I am not a Conservative" might disagree.

Hayek was referencing continental European conservatism, the philosophy classical liberalism was at odds with for several hundred years: hereditary titles, clericalism, class system, monarchy, etc. 

Damn straight Hayek wasn't that sort of conservative, and neither am I.  Monoarchy is fine for the Brits, but I am a dyed in the wool small-r republican.

[MicroBalrog]

Do not be offended, JF, but I think that while you do not share the platform positions of Eurocnservatives, you share many of their key attitudes.

[roo_ster]

Do not be offended, JF, but I think that while you do not share the platform positions of Eurocnservatives, you share many of their key attitudes.

Care to elaborate?

[Perd Hapley]

Monoarchy is fine for the Brits, but I am a dyed in the wool small-r republican.

I think the Brits might look at you kinda funny, and say, "What's a monoarchy?"