Most immediate threat could be peak water

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Row6, Jul 9, 2013.

  1. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Classical liberalism is (not was) almost entirely agnostic when it comes to social issues. Keep in mind it's essentially libertarianism today, and Libertarians largely believe in the right to use drugs and for gays to marry.

    You're conflating two different concepts just because they share a common word. Classical liberalism did not become today's liberalism.
  2. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-other-principle-of-classical-liberalism#axzz2YdjJKUft
  3. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    Social liberalism - the predominate European version still today - arose in the 19th century from classical liberalism by promoting the utility of the state's role in procuring the other values of the movement - freedom and equality. Libertarianism largely focuses on the rights of individuals as opposed to the state, with little regard for how that impacts the other liberal values in the real world.
  4. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    I don't think anyone brought up social liberalism specifically, but social liberalism still believed in laissez faire, still very far removed from the Democrats of today.
  5. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    I am bringing up social liberalism, which is a true heir to the tenets of classical liberalism, minus the emphasis on individual rights vs the state. IMO, individual rights are critical, but what I consider a fixation on them to the detriment of the other liberal concepts of freedom and equality, and promotion of the common good against reactionary forces, is a misstep. Fortunately, most of the western world agrees with this. As to history:

    "...Beginning in the late 19th century, however, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version, and it was first developed by British philosopher Thomas Hill Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasizing instead the complex circumstances that are involved in the evolution of our moral character.[81] In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked social and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity.[81] Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:

    “ If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been...one might be inclined to wish that the term 'freedom' had been confined to the...power to do what one wills.[82] ”​

    Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a duty to promote the common good.[83] His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as L. T. Hobhouse and John Hobson. In a few years, this Social Liberalism had become the essential social and political program of the Liberal Party in Britain,[84] and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. ..."​

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
  6. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    Which is specifically why libertarianism is much closer.
  7. Row6
    Offline

    Row6 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    15,997
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +26
    I guess, and if you live in the 18th century maybe not a bad choice.
  8. madgator
    Offline

    madgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,524
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +673


    Does everything have to have a centralized "one sized fits all" solution?


    the point is that there are MANY solutions.
  9. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,052
    Likes Received:
    595
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,878
    That I can accept. But that wasn't what you said.
  10. madgator
    Offline

    madgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    8,524
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    South Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +673

    it wasn't spelled out specifically but the purpose of this article is scare tactics....plain and simple. get over-reaction. stir up the pot.

    create and issue when at this time there is no real issue and if/when their actually is something to worry about their are already plenty of viable solutions


    what is the point of stirring the pot when the issue is really effectively solved?
  11. demosthenes
    Online

    demosthenes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,247
    Likes Received:
    194
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Ratings Received:
    +982
    At what point is there an issue in your book? We already have areas of this country that are on that threshold. Is that not enough for you?

    Hell, we spend millions to desalinate river water in Arizona for Mexico. Not an issue?
    Colorado's front range is becoming a megalopolis that will further consume Colorado and other river water within the state. You don't think that bodes ill for downstream locales in Utah, Arizona, Nevada, California, and New Mexico?

Share This Page