Conservative Is Not Opposite Liberal: That's Totalitarianism

Conservative Is Not Opposite Liberal: That's Totalitarianism

www.huffingtonpost.com

When I tell people that there's a symbiotic relationship between science and liberalism, it turns out that what I usually need to define is not "symbiotic," which most folks understand to mean mutually beneficial, but "science" and "liberalism."

(visit the link for the full news article)

Liberal democracy--the form of government in which a majority can elect leaders but not constrain human rights--has survived innumerable social experiments to become the choice of more than a third of all humanity and the stated preference of most of the remainder. (Even outright despots feel obliged to pay lip service to its inevitability, if only as a distant prospect to be realized once the populace is "ready.") Yet in the United States--and, increasingly, in parts of Europe as well--the term liberal has come to mean the political Left. This has served only to cloudy the political waters. Those on the Left are free to call themselves anything they like--such as progressive, a term many have been taking up lately--but they ought not to be called liberals. Liberalism is an independent political philosophy, with no inherent connection to either the Left or the Right.

[edit on 2/16/2010 by iMacFanatic]

There are some who will sniff knowingly that since this article comes from The Huffington Post then it is unreliable and not worth reading...oblivious to the fact that Timothy Ferris is a scientist and historian of science and the author of books such as "The Red Shift"..."Coming of Age in the Milky Way" and "The Whole Shebang".

He points out what most of us progressive/liberal types have known for a long time now...that totalitarian systems are by their very nature the polar opposite of liberalism.

The ignorance of this has been on TV for the past few weeks in the shape of glenn beck whose ad hoc attacks on liberals and progressives...intelligible only to idiots...makes them seem the evil driving force for everything up to and including erectile dysfunction and gas.

The article takes a few paragraphs to get going so be patient...its interesting.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2/16/2010 by iMacFanatic]

Thanks - anything to keep mind ticking.

Then please explain how liberals must steal money from people who actually work to run their "oh so humanitarian" projects for those who refuse?

Liberal democracy--the form of government in which a majority can elect leaders but not constrain human rights

Anyone who has a third grade education can point out the obvious error in this statement. A democracy is majority rule, rights don't matter if the majority can vote them away. A REPUBLIC is the form of government which the people can elect leaders, but must abide by an unbreakable code of law.

Fifty one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.



[edit on 16-2-2010 by METACOMET]

Originally posted by METACOMET
Then please explain how liberals must steal money from people who actually work to run their "oh so humanitarian" projects for those who refuse?

Liberal democracy--the form of government in which a majority can elect leaders but not constrain human rights

Anyone who has a third grade education can point out the obvious error in this statement. A democracy is majority rule, rights don't matter if the majority can vote them away. A REPUBLIC is the form of government which the people can elect leaders, but must abide by an unbreakable code of law.

Fifty one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.
[edit on 16-2-2010 by METACOMET]

A democracy is any form of government where the act of governing is performed by the people being governed, either directly in the form of a direct democracy (obviously rather untenable in a country as large as ours), or by way of elected representatives (better known as a representational democracy).

A republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch and at least some of the the people have an impact on the government. At it's best, the concept of a republic is exactly identical to the concept of representational democracy. At it's worst, a republic is a government run by a small group of oligarchs or aristocrats who impose laws on people who have no say or power in the system.

We used to be more like a representative democracy. Over the past hundred years we have made strides to improve the common person's access to the government by way of sufferage and civil rights, but at the same time, we have endured a wholesale loss of impact on our government through the rise of influence peddlers and elitism.

I agree. We have a republic in fact. We have a representative democracy only when the media and politicos want people to have a little "hope".

Fifty one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic.

In our republic, 0.0001% of a nation can establish a totalitarian system of government, and still be considered a republic. Just look at N. Korea and China for examples of stellar republics.

[edit on 2-16-2010 by rogerstigers]

reply to post by METACOMET

That is so simplistic. Once you pay your taxes they cease to be yours and you lose all right to them.

The howling about taxes from the right is so idiotic. We pay next to nothing in comparison to many in the industral states. The average person pays around 33% the last i heard.

Try living in countries like Israel...I was over there in December and while there I learned that you pay a tax on your rent each month and not only do you pay a tax when you purchase a TV...you pay a tax on using it...

Better yet try living in a place like say Liberia with few taxes and little or no infrastructure and learn what your taxes actually pay for...

You'll come running back to the United States in no time.