It was weird to be a pro-war Liberal

[Undesired Walrus]

I think Virus's rather extreme position does deserve some degree of debate, even though it is tempting to dismiss it out of sheer disbelief.

The question of whether a country is 'better off' with an advanced civilisation in charge should, IMHO, be judged as secondary as to whether it is fit and moral to intervene in the first place. If outrageous disregard for human life -such as the kind going on in Libya- is going on, I don't have any problem with those who respect human life intervening. However, the intervening power remaining and governing that nation means that it has dismissed the idea that the people of the country are capable. This would mean them permanently judging them by the past, something that seems remarkably elitist and short sighted.

 

[Giz]

I think Virus's rather extreme position does deserve some degree of debate, even though it is tempting to dismiss it out of sheer disbelief.

The question of whether a country is 'better off' with an advanced civilisation in charge should, IMHO, be judged as secondary as to whether it is fit and moral to intervene in the first place. If outrageous disregard for human life -such as the kind going on in Libya- is going on, I don't have any problem with those who respect human life intervening. However, the intervening power remaining and governing that nation means that it has dismissed the idea that the people of the country are capable. This would mean them permanently judging them by the past, something that seems remarkably elitist and short sighted.

Think about it… that means that you accept the need for them to be there temporarily. Now, how long is temporarily?

As long as they need to be there in order to kill/capture the big tyrant?...

As long as they need to be there in order to kill/capture the big tyrant and his henchmen and disable his powerbase?...

As long as they need to be there in order to kill/capture the big tyrant and his henchmen and disable his powerbase and restore order?...

As long as they need to be there in order to kill/capture the big tyrant and his henchmen and disable his powerbase and restore order and grow civic institutions (separation of powers, law and order, equal rights)?...


The first option on the list might take only days. The last option might take decades…

 

[BenBurch]

Surgical equipment
Cement
Public toilets
Standardized education
A standardized calender
A postal system
Habeas Corpus law
Civic representation
Courts of law
Theatre
Sport
Public libraries

Slaves. (you seem to like those)

 

[BenBurch]

...

indoor heating?? really??

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocaust

 

[bikerdruid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocaust

i understand the principle os roman central heating.
indoor heating, however, began when our first ancestor lit a fire in their cave.

 

[Giz]

Slaves. (you seem to like those)

Are you saying that Virus is a wannabe slave owner??

You are aware that we were contrasting Rome to other competing civilizations/cultures. At the time, slavery was endemic - so there's not much of a contrast if everyone is doing it.

Obviously, Ancient Rome is inferior to modern democratic societies (although, going by what other people have said on this thread, it would be wrong to judge Roman slavery as a bad thing… it's just their indigenous culture, right??)

 

[Humes fork]

I think also that the military intervention by NATO in Yugoslavia was generally considered to be a success

Chomsky opposed it though.

 

[Virus]

i understand the principle os roman central heating.
indoor heating, however, began when our first ancestor lit a fire in their cave.

Fine. Replace "indoor heating" with "central heating". Thanks for pointing out the error in my extensive list of things the Romans had that the Gauls didn't. You totally win on that.

Then add;

Gymnasiums
Apartment complexes (with running water)
Long distance trade
Professional standing armies
Siege equipment

And a million other things that could be listed until the cows come home.

 

[angrysoba]

Chomsky opposed it though.

Chomsky isn't a liberal, though.

 

[Humes fork]

Chomsky isn't a liberal, though.

He is not? Why do many liberals like him then?

 

[angrysoba]

He is not? Why do many liberals like him then?

Errmmm... I'm not sure. I think you had a thread on this in which you pointed out that "liberalism" has come to lose all meaning in the US because people with vastly different political perspectives such as Noam Chomsky and John Kerry are both called "liberals" even though the former is a libertarian socialist (otherwise sometimes known as an anarchist) while John Kerry is a pragmatic wishy-washyist (otherwise known as a Democratic presidential candidate).

 

[angrysoba]

He is not? Why do many liberals like him then?

Errmmm... I'm not sure. I think you had a thread on this in which you pointed out that "liberalism" has come to lose all meaning in the US because people with vastly different political perspectives such as Noam Chomsky and John Kerry are both called "liberals" even though the former is a libertarian socialist (otherwise sometimes known as an anarchist) while John Kerry is a pragmatic wishy-washyist (otherwise known as a Democratic presidential candidate).

 

[Humes fork]

Errmmm... I'm not sure. I think you had a thread on this in which you pointed out that "liberalism" has come to lose all meaning in the US because people with vastly different political perspectives such as Noam Chomsky and John Kerry are both called "liberals" even though the former is a libertarian socialist (otherwise sometimes known as an anarchist) while John Kerry is a pragmatic wishy-washyist (otherwise known as a Democratic presidential candidate).

I did. But doesn't Chomsky fit into the (very wide) liberal umbrella? And by American definitions, would libertarian socialism be a branch of liberalism (social democracy being another branch)?

It seems to me that the American term liberal is a generic term for left-wing, and no particular ideology of its own.

 

[bikerdruid]

It seems to me that the American term liberal is a generic term for left-wing, and no particular ideology of its own.

correct

 

[Virus]

Soba is right. Chomsky is an anarchist, not a liberal.

 

[Humes fork]

Soba is right. Chomsky is an anarchist, not a liberal.

But he seems to be very popular among liberals. And if liberal is just a term for generically left-wing and not an ideology in itself, then why isn't Chomsky a liberal?

 

[angrysoba]

But he seems to be very popular among liberals. And if liberal is just a term for generically left-wing and not an ideology in itself, then why isn't Chomsky a liberal?

Maybe the point is that "liberal" has very little meaning when used that way. If you insist on using terms according to the vaguest and broadest definition then you shouldn't be surprised if it confuses you to see two liberals not agreeing on anything at all.

There is a meaningful definition of "liberal" which doesn't include Chomsky. If you asked him if considered himself a liberal he would probably either say "no" or, more likely, "What do you mean by liberal?"

By the way, P.J O'Rourke is "popular among liberals" and he most definitely doesn't consider himself one.

 

[Virus]

Chomsky despises liberals. He thinks they're dupes. You have to remember that Chomsky sees little difference between liberal democratic governments and Nazism.

 

[Humes fork]

There is a meaningful definition of "liberal" which doesn't include Chomsky. If you asked him if considered himself a liberal he would probably either say "no" or, more likely, "What do you mean by liberal?"

Ok, what is that definition?

By the way, P.J O'Rourke is "popular among liberals"

Really?

 

[angrysoba]

Ok, what is that definition?

Well, you have classical liberalism which tends to be of the Lockean/Founding Fathers type that goes in for freedoms to do what you want, say what you like, practice the religion that you like etc...

Then you have social liberalism of the Rawlsian kind in which some kind of compromise between freedom to do what you like has to be balanced with certain provisions to ensure that everyone has a relatively equal chance of enjoying those freedoms.

Chomsky is opposed to both kinds as they tend to affirm the owning of private property and in the latter case to merely temper capitalism. In the former case liberalism is seen by many Chomskians as giving free reign to big business which he considers a bad thing.

This is all a bit of a diversion from Travis' OP though so you might be better off confining this discussion to the thread you started on the use of the term liberalism in the US.