*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[CoccoBill]

Sounds good. Though it should be noted that people are always motivated by self-interest instead of usually.

I think the jury of neuroscientists is still out on that. There are certainly convincing arguments for it.

I'm not sure what they're going for here. I do not believe that people have a right to "use of reason", "respect of others' choices and decisions", or "political equality" (whatever that is). "Rights" are things that individuals have between themselves and the government. Like I have the right for government to not tell me what I can or cannot say.

The interaction between individual and individual regarding rights like speech is super complex. The quoted tenet goes far enough to say that the rights are between individual and individual instead of between individual and government. The tenet implies that I can stop you from saying something I don't want you to say. This is antithetical to what the "rights" really are.

I would think these are originally meant to more describe the interactions between the government and the people. Liberalism is a political ideology rather than a moral guideline, though I'm sure in many cases there's overlap. Freedom of speech means that you have a right to say anything you want that is not specifically made illegal (libel, slander, property rights etc), without fear of prosecution or censorship. It definitely does not mean that individuals have a right to stop others from exercising their right. They are not mandated to like what is said, and they do have a right to respond and criticize.

Same as the above, and I'll add that, it's the government that has to respect your religious practice, not me. I can disrespect your religion as much as I want. The only thing I can't do is obstruct your private property that you use to practice your religion.

Exactly. These are about the interactions with the government. It means that the government permits religious practices of other sects besides the state religion, and does not persecute believers of other faiths. I don't know what they mean about individuals respecting other people's religion, but I think it just boils down to them having a right to practice their beliefs, which would perhaps restrict you from obstructing that. I know many countries have limitations to freedom of speech when it comes to disrespecting religion. In the US defamation (including libel and slander) is not protected by the 1st amendment, so that would for example limit your right to disrespect someone's religion.

I don't see anything concrete here.

I think the key here is democracy, over monarchy and other forms of government. Remember these were thought up in the 17th and 18th century.

Rights of individuals and majority rule are contradictions in terms. This contradiction in terms is very difficult to solve for, because that which government has power to intervene on is not a "right" anymore and becomes about majority rule (when democratic). The only way I can think of to solve this problem is to prohibit government intervention into the space itself. That creates rights for individuals that cannot be overturned by a majority.

Sure.

I'm down with less (*fewer) restrictions on how people use their private property, but not down with government encouraging it. Government should stay out of it, not select any winners or losers.

I would say that a free market economy implies competition, but not equal opportunity for all. Equal opportunity is a not a reasonable thing, it's not real, it's not something that would benefit people to pursue. A free market economy instead implies optimal opportunity given individual circumstances. And those will never be equal nor should we want them to be.

It means the right to own property, not what people should or can do with it. Government selecting winners and losers is certainly not a liberalist tenet, I'm not sure it's anyone's apart from corporate lobbyists. I don't think John Locke had in mind the government enforcing equal opportunity to all, that would certainly not be reasonable. I think he meant ensuring that the government treats everyone equally, not favoring anyone, thereby defending equal opportunity.

This tenet states that people are the same then states ways people are not the same.

I don't think things like differences in cultures are throwaways. They're big, big deals.

I'll add that this last tenet shines of the core mistake that characterizes "the left" well these days: the idea that people are fundamentally good. No, people are not fundamentally good. Some people will give you the shirt off their backs, others will stab you in the back. Some cultures will revert you to the stone age, others will take you to the moon.

It's kind of like saying the black and white rooks in chess are the same, except for the color. It definitely doesn't state that cultural differences are throwaways, or that people are fundamentally good.

Thanks for the list.

No problem, I think this was a fun exercise. The liberal values are what made America, you guys have literally been the champion of liberalism for a couple centuries. That's why it's curious to note the recent backlash against it (or rather some modern bastardized definition of it) there. I think if I had posted that list under the heading the tenets of free market capitalism or something, you would have found far less to criticize in them. It seems like you're more trying to attack some idea of liberalism you have than what is actually written.

[wufwugy]

I think the jury of neuroscientists is still out on that. There are certainly convincing arguments for it.

I should clarify that I'm speaking in the terms used in economics. They may not be the only terms, but I think they are the only terms with any credibility.

but I think it just boils down to them having a right to practice their beliefs, which would perhaps restrict you from obstructing that.

I think this is one of the main reasons why the issue is so hard to solve. I think the solution comes from two components: (1) governments not infringing on rights, and (2) governments protecting private property. Through this, we can have a situation where individuals aren't forced to do something like respect another person's religion, YET if those individuals try to impose upon private property, then the government is duty bound to uphold property rights. In an indirect way, this keeps government out of the space of speech, religion, etc., while also stopping undue aggression from some individuals to other individuals.

I don't think John Locke had in mind the government enforcing equal opportunity to all, that would certainly not be reasonable. I think he meant ensuring that the government treats everyone equally, not favoring anyone, thereby defending equal opportunity.

Yes, that's it. I don't think most Americans who call themselves liberals today agree with this.

I think if I had posted that list under the heading the tenets of free market capitalism or something, you would have found far less to criticize in them. It seems like you're more trying to attack some idea of liberalism you have than what is actually written.

My sense of the list is that it's mostly classic liberalism (which is stuff I like) mixed with the neo twist of social justice (which I don't like).

You're right about liberal roots. "Liberalism" used to mean something very different than what it does today. I think it is correct to say that today most people who identify as liberal are closer to socialist than classic liberal, and that conservatism and classic liberalism have more in common today than classic liberalism and modern liberalism do.

[wufwugy]

I should clarify that I'm speaking in the terms used in economics. They may not be the only terms, but I think they are the only terms with any credibility.

I should add that this may or may not be what an economist would say, depending on which economist and how you follow up with questions.

"Behavioral economics" has gained a lot of traction in the field of economics. Only problem is that "behavioral economics" changes definitions of basic economics then argues against those definitions. It also doesn't result in any different models in a meaningful way.

Overall, economics is half a mess, because of embracing stuff like behavioral economics, because of bad math, because of holding up politics over economics, because of a lack of focus on economics history and history of economic thought.