Hero, my apologies
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Saturday, February 4, 2006 07:12
VIEWED: 3461
PAGE 5 of 5
Nobody agreed with you. I said you were wrong, Citizen said you were wrong and Finn --- well known liberal activist -- said you were wrong.
As to what any of your friends think it means who cares? I'm sure PirateNews's friends think "Jew" means all kinds of dirty things but that doesn't mean it is correct.
More over, even if we accept your theory that the meaning of the word has evolved, that wouldn't "retro" the meaning of its latin root.
Can liberal mean "generous?" Absolutely, and nobody ever disputed that, someone who is generous can also be described as "free spending" for the self same reasons. As for not wanting to be associated with "generous" are you suggesting that libertarians are not also generous people?
My problem with your spin is principly your murder of the language. If you want to believe that liberals have no intrinsic love of freedom or believe they are a little too free spending other people's money then that's fine. I won't even bother arguing that with you, you are free to draw your own conclusions based on your life experience. If you believed that they were baby sacrificing satanists bent on world domination you could say it as much as you like with no problem from me. I believe your problem lies in your methodology. You start out by defining a meaning for the word "conservative" (or rather cherry pick the meaning that suits your political opinion) then seek to find a meaning of "liberal" that opposes it. The problem is that liberal isn't the opposite of conservative in terms of meaning. In fact they don't actually clash at all which is why "conservative libertarian" is not a contradiction.
Conservative and liberal in the current political context are primarily labels that groups use to define themselves and each other not nescessarily a shopping list of attributes tied directly to the meaning of the word. If liberals today were nazis it still wouldn't change the fact that the root meaning of the word is "free" it would just become ironic.
What a word means is important, when you redefine it to mean something different you fundementally change the mind-space it exists in. As I said before it is a technique of low propaganda and when someone tries that it puts me on guard against them.
The latin and the OED incident only backs up my opinion that this is driven by your need for ideological purity and the horror that "liberal" and "libertarian" may be linked at all, even as far back as the first century AD.
As for your Democrats, they strike me as piss poor liberals since they seem perfectly willing to sacrifice any principle in a grubby attempt to gain transient popularity. I respect politicians that back their beliefs even when those beliefs are obviously wrong, at least they have the backbone to stand for something.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was your insinuation that I was somehow being deceptive thaqt angered me. I know that brits are always going to think that americans are murdering the language. In this case, if the word was murdered it happened long before I came along.
Yes, I recognize that the democrats are to the right of a lot of european parties of the same name, they recognize it too. America, like Australia, is full of conservatives and pseudo-conservatives.
My point was, in American political discourse, liberal and conservatives are polar opposites, and that is the axis in which they oppose, so any other meaning is normally not used in American politics. Thus the 'liberal' justices of the supreme court are liberal in the sense of opposite to the 'conservative justices.' As such, they favor increase govt. role in providing services, and that led them to the anti-libertarian position in New London.
I apologize for the rant. I'm really rarely that angry. I don't hark from an unshakeable ideological position, a beckon from the middle, somewhere in the right. Sometimes I agree with pat Buchanan, other times with Ralph Nader, and my positions are constantly shifting on the basis of the evidence I have at the moment, but not given to wild swings as the balance of evidence is not given to wild swings.
From where I was standing it looked like you were running up a radical interpretation and calling everyone a crook and liar if they didn't bow down and solute it, in particular, me. I took offense. I try not to.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Radical, no. In fact if anything a conservative interpretation. Just because two groups of people who chose to call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" happen to oppose each other doesnt mean that the meaning of the words themselves have to be opposite. Certainly the fact that a group calls itself something does not mean that they are in fact what they claim. We already established that American "Social Democrats" were in fact Trotskyists. By your methodology the meaning of the word "Democracy" and it's latin root would now have to be changed to reflect the dogma associated with this one groups political useage.
Like I said I don't really care what you think of liberals. The meaning of the word still derives from the same root as "free man" just as it does for Libertarian. It does not come from "gernerous." You don't redefine the entire meaning and history of a word just to make it appear more consistant with it's use as a political label.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Just because two groups of people who chose to call themselves "conservative" or "liberal" happen to oppose each other doesnt mean that the meaning of the words themselves have to be opposite.
No it doesn't, ... and yet it does. Words themselves have no meaning outside of the context in which they are used, and what they are used to be meant, by their proponents, their opponents, in the mind of the people. A treasure is worth what someone will pay for it, a word means what someone uses it for. There are no absolutes.
Quote:
Certainly the fact that a group calls itself something does not mean that they are in fact what they claim. We already established that American "Social Democrats" were in fact Trotskyists.
Very true. And the social democrats of Germany are not, and are probably more pro-democratic with a social conscience. But the Totskyites believed that's what they were, so they chose the name. The believe that a compound majority of shut out votes constitutes a democracy, answering to the will of 3% of the people.
The only thing that makes them wrong is that there are other people in those cultures they seek to rule who are also democrats who believe a democracy is something different, and those who oppose democracy, who believe it is something different. But were it not for that fact, democracy would become what they said it was.
I recall once having an argument with a group of street kids that fancied themselves neonazis. They tried to tell me what national socialism was. Because they said it, it would have been that, had there not been Nazis. But because there were Nazis, all of us have a knowledge of what nazis are, and in our minds it that is likely to remain.
Quote:
By your methodology the meaning of the word "Democracy" and it's latin root would now have to be changed to reflect the dogma associated with this one groups political useage.
There are other democrats. I would agree with your assertion though. The word democracy no longer means 'rule by the people' because greek is not the language we are speaking. Democracy is a system in which you vote for elected officials who then try to represent your views in the writing of laws. If someone were to design a system where everyone voted for every law via internet, and legal ideas were submitted by anyone through forums and blogs, it would become something new, and gain a new name. Maybe we'd call it "True Democracy" or perhaps "Referendocracy." We took the greek roots, and we applied them, and it became a living thing. Now it is what we use it to mean. But not one groups usage, collectively, the useage. If this one group were isolated, not globalist, but on an island, and they used the word democracy to mean 'shachtmanite compound democracy,' then it would mean that to them.
Quote:
Like I said I don't really care what you think of liberals.
Nor should you. What I think of liberals is not at issue and bears not at all on this debate. I do not dislike liberals as much as you seem to think I do, or as much as you seem to dislike conservatives, I would, after all consider voting for Mr. Feingold, who I consider a liberal. I quite like Mr. Galloway, a socialist. But again, it's irrelevent to the discussion.
Quote:
The meaning of the word still derives from the same root as "free man" just as it does for Libertarian. It does not come from "gernerous." You don't redefine the entire meaning and history of a word just to make it appear more consistant with it's use as a political label.
Nor do I intend to. The latin dictionaries I could find agree with me, by the way. Your denials are broad and sweeping, and based largely on preheld belief. I know nothing of the subject, but I'm not dumb, so let me lay it out as I understand it to be:
Liber, the giver, a roman god, was parallel to Dionesyus. He was known for his generosity, his love of free society, ale, and merriment.
His name became a word, in latin, liber.
I do not know the conjugation of latin, but I do not need to, it is
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
American dictionaries of English agree with thes derivations, that the two forms 'liberalis' and 'libertas' evolved into our two words 'liberal' and 'liberty.' Through the use of those words, their meaning evolves, and it is amazing that the words are as true as they are to their origins.
Ah a theory we can test. Excellent.....
from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Quote:
Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lEodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal artsb archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : OPENHANDED b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way c : AMPLE, FULL
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : LICENTIOUS
4 : not literal or strict : LOOSE
5 : BROAD-MINDED; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives
- lib·er·al·ly /-b(&-)r&-lE/ adverb
- lib·er·al·ness noun
synonyms LIBERAL, GENEROUS, BOUNTIFUL, MUNIFICENT mean giving or given freely and unstintingly. LIBERAL suggests openhandedness in the giver and largeness in the thing or amount given . GENEROUS stresses warmhearted readiness to give more than size or importance of the gift . BOUNTIFUL suggests lavish, unremitting giving or providing. MUNIFICENT suggests a scale of giving appropriate to lords or princes .
No surprises here. We know that the word can be used for both generous and free, the political context has been highlighted. Liberal in a political context comes from the notion of "liberalism." Let's look into that.
Quote:
Main Entry: lib·er·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'li-b(&-)r&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the quality or state of being liberal
2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party
- lib·er·al·ist /-b(&-)r&-list/ noun or adjective
- lib·er·al·is·tic /"li-b(&-)r&-'lis-tik/ adjective
note "protection and of political and civil liberties" not "tax me and spend my money (b*ards.)
But wait, maybe Webster isn't one of those "American" dictionarys. Let's try one with "American." in the title.
From the American Heritage Dictionary:
Quote:
liberal
SYLLABICATION: lib·er·al
PRONUNCIATION: lbr-l, lbrl
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of sNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
well the French do but they think everyone is stupid
Of course, the French are the master race.
I wouldn't mind the French if they were just arseholes as a nation, but the fact that they're utter c**ts in person is what really gets to me.
The riots were no surprise to me what-so-ever, theres only so long you can treat a group of people like dirt (which in France means anyone who isn't white and of 'pure' French descent) before they kick off.
Yes, I really don't like the French. Only country in world I have those feelings about actually.
Anyway, rant satisfied I'm going to go away now.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, I go to Washington for a few days, and the whole Latin thing starts up again in earnest. I’ve never seen this much mileage from Latin Lexicology. 
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Those definitions have a fair amount of reference to Britain. In colloquial Americanism, since the two specific instances this started over were 1) Discussing what a liberal-leaning economic stance might be, and 2) what the 'liberal' justices of the court ruled, 3) the meaning of liberal in the context as it opposes conservative. The first I'm not sure of, and I never was to begin with, I thought it was ambiguous. The second is this one, and I am sure. I know that the libdems are using it in this sense, not arguing that. Liberals of America aren't. But this argument has lost it's point, or I've lost this argument.
What I mean is that I can't win this debate with you because brits are scholarly, and can argue that a cardboard box is a spaceship, not that we are less intelligent than you. You equate those, we don't. We can build a spaceship, but aren't lawyers of words. We make up words. I will not win this argument, but I'm not wrong. The present useage and the evolution seem very much in the too much time I already wasted in the idea to be what I said they were. I'm far more convinced of my own position than when I started, but I really am sick of this debate.
You have completely failed to convince me, but I concede the point. You have failed to show that liberal is free in opposing conservative, which would have to mean controlled in the context, and you have failed to show that liberal was not derived from liberalis, not of liber, the giver, and not meaning generous, and you've failed to show that it is used in this way to mean freedom loving in American politics, but rather in British politics, a point I didn't disagree with.
On liberalism, I agree these would support the free society ideals, in a jeffersonian sense. Since jefferson said he was a liberal and a conservative, the two were not used in opposition, because he wasn't being ironic.
But, moreover, liberal in current political discourse is applied to people supporting a system which is socialist-leaning in nature, a philosophy you support. I'm sure you consider yourself a liberal and a socialist, and support generous spending policies. But the liberalism definitions would be in support of laisez-faire economics, as well as civil libertarianism. Such a policy certainly defines no type of socialism, anywhere. And it most definitely does not define the American Democratic party, the Greens, the SWP, or the ACP. Since these are our liberals, clearly the use of the word in not in line with classic 'liberalism.'
Anyway, you make a strong argument, stronger than me, kudos. But you avoid the specifics of the argument, the proper applications and twist it to avoid the inevitable conclusion that the proper context would draw, so you're not right. The american 'tax-and-spend liberal' stereotype wasn't just the invention of spin machines, but derived out a of long period of practice, in which it was very clear that the liberals were strongly in favor of a govt. which provided services to the people, (generously,) and not in any way hands off.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First I'm not a socialist, I think I made that clear before.
Second, if you are saying that American liberals do not uphold the concepts of liberalism, personal and economic freedom, then the problem isn't the definition of the word "liberal" it's that you are using the wrong word to describe these people. Perhaps "statist" is a better choice?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
A word means what the people use it to mean. The democratic party abandoned the word after reagan used it in his '84 reelection campaign. Now it's only used as a self-descriptive by the far left.
I'm not using it to describe them, they are using it to describe themselves. Since no one else in the US is, the word is theirs.
But no, statist is not the same thing. Not all of these self-defined liberals are statists. Some of these people are libertarians, with various positions, often in conflict with one another, others are socialists and statists. There are pro-drug legalization groups, peace groups, animals rights activists, civil-rights (meaning pro-minority, not civil liberties) activists, environmentalists and feminists. Some have one or more, but collectively, they have things in common.
They believe in an increase in govt. services. Welfare, in some form, a social safety net. Regulations to limit corporations and reel in the free market private sector. Often they are at odds with the constitution, but in minor ways. The want to limit restrict or repeal the 2nd amendment. Sometimes they want the 1st amendment limited to remove bigotry from acceptable discourse, but this is less common. Their general push is towards a society that may have a reduced amount of freedom, but not necessarily to state controlled level, more to on a state-limiting level, to prevent what they see as out of control excesses resulting from too much rope. In addition, an increase role of govt. in the lives of the poor, providing services and welfare to prevent abject poverty, which they see as a major problem in the US, and as a way to curb crime.
I'm sure there are a few self defining american liberals on this forum who can define their political position better than I can, but I think I've summed it up as best I can.
I would say that within this lot, there are what I'd call left-libertarian, who probably still feel some controls are needed on corporations, and may even go to the exteme of opposing 14th amendment rights, but don't want limits on personal freedoms.
Then there are the social-left who feel that the private sector should be reeled in completely whenever it becomes a threat to the idea of universal equality, and would support nationalizing certain industries, often this includes oil. They oppose privatization of education, favor a public health, a permanent dole, and favor higher taxes for upper income earners and corporations.
Rarely in America do you find a communist lefty, someone who actually opposes capitalism as an idea, and favors a zero corporation state. In fact, I can't say I know one. I think outside of a real lunatic fringe, everyone supports the idea of a corporation having the right to be independent of govt. as long as it's not causing a problem. The problem comes in defining what a problem is.
Anyway, and I guess this is where I'm coming from, not my choice of words, theirs.
Sorry, didn't realize you weren't a socialist. You so violently defended socialism when I first attacked it. In my experience, socialism is a real fringe ideology that springs up in the far reaches of the far left, places like the SWP and ACP, and not in the democratic party, or probably even the greens. Sometimes greens accuse each other of being socialists, and very rarely some republican will accuse a democrat of it. But when I think of socialists I think of the Soviet Socialists, National Socialists, Serbian Socialists, Baath-Socialists, and Bolivarian Socialists. To some extent the Chinese Communists, but less now. Prior to the 80s I would say the Chinese were socialists, now they're some weird hybrid.
Socialist parties in Europe sometimes gain a fair number of seats, but all of these countries are basically capitalist democracies and not particularly socialist. Maybe they have more of a safety net, like the 'liberals' of democratic party would set up. The only socialist state in europe I would think would be Byelarus.
I can invent a word here: Ameriliberal, to differentiate it from whatever might be a libe
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME