J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,434
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 30, 2024 14:50:17 GMT
Libertarianism in the English speaking world is now associated primarily with groups in America that have a rather different ideology. In essence a Liberal believes in individual Freedoms but understands that other people have equivalent Freedoms, so generally a balance needs to be found between conflicting Freedoms. An American Libertarian will tend to believe they have certain absolute rights (e.g. to bear arms) and is less concerned with how these impact the different Freedoms of other people (e.g. to not get shot).
I would stick to the more usual terms "Social Liberal" and "Economic Liberal"; although "Classical Liberal" is sometimes used as a synonym for "Economic Liberal" if you prefer.
"To bear arms" was a classical demand of the liberal bourgeoisie versus the privileged aristoCracy. Any "Manchester-liberalism" would surely also be "libertarian" in Your scheme - so the very vast bulk of liberals in the XIXth had to be renamed... The right to bear arms was enumerated in the 1689 Bill of Rights, 200 years before Manchester Liberalism.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by polupolu on May 30, 2024 15:06:13 GMT
"To bear arms" was a classical demand of the liberal bourgeoisie versus the privileged aristoCracy. Any "Manchester-liberalism" would surely also be "libertarian" in Your scheme - so the very vast bulk of liberals in the XIXth had to be renamed... The right to bear arms was enumerated in the 1689 Bill of Rights, 200 years before Manchester Liberalism. US Libertarians tends believe in absolute Freedoms (at least for themselves). A Liberal sees one person's Freedoms interacting with other people's Freedoms and so requiring a balance to be struck.
While they are related in that both analyse policy based on Freedoms - in contrast to, say, a Marxian analysis which analyses issues in terms of class - but they end up quite differently in terms of policies.
And yes, Manchester-Liberalism used to be a synonym for (what was then) Social Liberalism. A Manchester-Liberal would not have thought the right to bear arms was absolute however.
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on May 30, 2024 17:10:47 GMT
Nerd issue: for the time ever the problem of list exhaustion has cropped up.
PVV had 45 candidates on the list, 37 were elected. Only candidates on the list can act as a replacement.
So Wilders has in theory 8 candidates to spare, but in reality only 6 because 2 are currently members of the Senate. In the senate the problem is the same: he had 11 names on the list, 4 were elected. But of the list of 11, 5 were elected as MP’s in november. Which leaves 2 spares for the senate, but these 2 are also part of the 6 spares mentioned earlier. If there are no spares to appoint, the seat will remain unfilled.
Wilders is now looking for people to join the government on behalf of the PVV. Two sitting MP’s are mentioned: one of his most experienced who apparently runs the parliamentary party and seems indispensable in a group of MP’s with so little experience. If these two are appointed, he has to use 2 of his remaining 6 spares. The way he has run the party as his private kingdom also means he has not invested in a group available of possible credible appointees. There is a group of former MP’s, but the majority of them left in a huff. One Mp who stepped down at the last election is mentioned: he used to work in the asylum system and was the party’s spokesman on that issue, so could be appointed in that field.
ADDED For context: we have a constitutional ban on combining being a member of parliament and being a member of the government
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,512
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 30, 2024 17:54:58 GMT
"To bear arms" was a classical demand of the liberal bourgeoisie versus the privileged aristoCracy. Any "Manchester-liberalism" would surely also be "libertarian" in Your scheme - so the very vast bulk of liberals in the XIXth had to be renamed... The right to bear arms was enumerated in the 1689 Bill of Rights, 200 years before Manchester Liberalism. On the continent this fight lasted longer, into the XIXth.
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,512
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 30, 2024 18:00:45 GMT
The right to bear arms was enumerated in the 1689 Bill of Rights, 200 years before Manchester Liberalism. US Libertarians tends believe in absolute Freedoms (at least for themselves). A Liberal sees one person's Freedoms interacting with other people's Freedoms and so requiring a balance to be struck.
While they are related in that both analyse policy based on Freedoms - in contrast to, say, a Marxian analysis which analyses issues in terms of class - but they end up quite differently in terms of policies.
And yes, Manchester-Liberalism used to be a synonym for (what was then) Social Liberalism. A Manchester-Liberal would not have thought the right to bear arms was absolute however. polupolu : I am afraid You are missing my point. You use "liberalism" in the sense of the XXth, "the century of social-democracy" (v.Dahrendorf). So watered down a lot with socialism. Liberalism in the XIXth (especially a la "Manchester") meant laissez faire, laissez aller; smallest-possible state.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,434
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 31, 2024 2:12:13 GMT
The right to bear arms was enumerated in the 1689 Bill of Rights, 200 years before Manchester Liberalism. US Libertarians tends believe in absolute Freedoms (at least for themselves). A Liberal sees one person's Freedoms interacting with other people's Freedoms and so requiring a balance to be struck.
While they are related in that both analyse policy based on Freedoms - in contrast to, say, a Marxian analysis which analyses issues in terms of class - but they end up quite differently in terms of policies.
And yes, Manchester-Liberalism used to be a synonym for (what was then) Social Liberalism. A Manchester-Liberal would not have thought the right to bear arms was absolute however. Indeed, and as is written in the Bill of Rights: "That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law".
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,259
|
Post by polupolu on May 31, 2024 8:55:36 GMT
US Libertarians tends believe in absolute Freedoms (at least for themselves). A Liberal sees one person's Freedoms interacting with other people's Freedoms and so requiring a balance to be struck.
While they are related in that both analyse policy based on Freedoms - in contrast to, say, a Marxian analysis which analyses issues in terms of class - but they end up quite differently in terms of policies.
And yes, Manchester-Liberalism used to be a synonym for (what was then) Social Liberalism. A Manchester-Liberal would not have thought the right to bear arms was absolute however. polupolu : I am afraid You are missing my point. You use "liberalism" in the sense of the XXth, "the century of social-democracy" (v.Dahrendorf). So watered down a lot with socialism. Liberalism in the XIXth (especially a la "Manchester") meant laissez faire, laissez aller; smallest-possible state. So you are accusing me of using the 20th Century definition of Liberalism rather than the 19th Century one?
OK. I was born in the 20th century, so that is plausible.
However... The British Liberal party emerged as a combination of "Peelites", Whigs and RADICALS. Early Liberal Governments passed Laws making education for young children compulsory (in effect). They legalised Trade Unions in 1871. They passed various "Factory Acts" controlling conditions in a variety of industries (as did the Tories, it has to be said). They abolished the system of buying army commissions. They started the process of land reform. They disestablished the Church of Ireland. Do these seem like the actions of a "laissez faire" (no interference), "laissez aller" (no restrictions) party?
The party certainly grew out of a belief that protectionism is bad - opposition to the corn laws was what defined the Peelites. So the early party coalesced around the concept that trade enriches both parties (otherwise they wouldn't do it), what we would now call a plus-sum game. This is indeed laissez faire in one sense, but it was in a very specific area of trade. Also, by definition, it weighed the Freedoms of the British landed classes TO sell corn (which in this context means basically bread wheat) at an increased profit against the Freedom FROM hunger (due to high bread prices the protectionism resulted in) for the British workers. One of the definitions of a Social Liberal is a tendency to weigh Freedom FROM as highly as Freedom TO (whereas Freedom TO seems more important to Economic Liberals).
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,512
|
Post by Georg Ebner on May 31, 2024 14:08:30 GMT
polupolu : I am afraid You are missing my point. You use "liberalism" in the sense of the XXth, "the century of social-democracy" (v.Dahrendorf). So watered down a lot with socialism. Liberalism in the XIXth (especially a la "Manchester") meant laissez faire, laissez aller; smallest-possible state. So you are accusing me of using the 20th Century definition of Liberalism rather than the 19th Century one?
OK. I was born in the 20th century, so that is plausible.
However... The British Liberal party emerged as a combination of "Peelites", Whigs and RADICALS. Early Liberal Governments passed Laws making education for young children compulsory (in effect). They legalised Trade Unions in 1871. They passed various "Factory Acts" controlling conditions in a variety of industries (as did the Tories, it has to be said). They abolished the system of buying army commissions. They started the process of land reform. They disestablished the Church of Ireland. Do these seem like the actions of a "laissez faire" (no interference), "laissez aller" (no restrictions) party?
The party certainly grew out of a belief that protectionism is bad - opposition to the corn laws was what defined the Peelites. So the early party coalesced around the concept that trade enriches both parties (otherwise they wouldn't do it), what we would now call a plus-sum game. This is indeed laissez faire in one sense, but it was in a very specific area of trade. Also, by definition, it weighed the Freedoms of the British landed classes TO sell corn (which in this context means basically bread wheat) at an increased profit against the Freedom FROM hunger (due to high bread prices the protectionism resulted in) for the British workers. One of the definitions of a Social Liberal is a tendency to weigh Freedom FROM as highly as Freedom TO (whereas Freedom TO seems more important to Economic Liberals). Was not unaware of this. Some measures - CoE, armyCommissions, partly landReform - were genuine to the liberalism of that time. Others were forced on them by the (fear of) emerging social unRests. Yet, the democratic variant of liberalism (there existed antidemocratic liberals like TOQUEVILLE or CONSTANT, who defended the rule of aristoCracy correctly by being the only tiers willing to defend liberties against the top, but i don't want to shock You too much...) since 1789 was based on the principle of legal, not economical equality. As A.FRANCE put it: "Cela consiste pour les pauvres à soutenir et à conserver les riches dans leur puissance et leur oisiveté. Ils y doivent travailler devant la majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain. C’est un des bienfaits de la Révolution. Comme cette révolution a été faite par des fous et des imbéciles au profit des acquéreurs de biens nationaux et qu’elle n’aboutit en somme qu’à l’enrichissement des paysans madrés et des bourgeois usuriers, elle éleva, sous le nom d’égalité, l’empire de la richesse."
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on May 31, 2024 14:34:50 GMT
Lads, just create a new thread about the definition of liberalism.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,872
|
Post by Khunanup on May 31, 2024 17:53:38 GMT
Lads, just create a new thread about the definition of liberalism. No need. It's already been defined beautifully by polupolu
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 2, 2024 13:08:00 GMT
A new opinion poll out today.
PVV slowly coming back to earth. In what is a common winner bonus after the election, their seat tally increased to 57 (up 20) immediately after the election. They are down to 42 now, 5 up from the election but 5 down from the last poll two weeks ago. VVD shows the opposite: still down by 5, but up 6 from the polls in February. CDA is up 5, NSC lost 9 in February, a further 4 in the last poll, but manage to remain stable at 7. The coalition reduced to 76, before a single measure has been proposed, let alone implemented.
All other parties are either stable (for instance GL-PvdA) or up a little.
Although we usually vote on Wednesday, this week Euro elections will be held on Thursday, with the results withheld until Sunday, on the rather silly assumption by Brussels that announcing on Thursday could influence the results elsewhere in the EU. Unless I’m very much mistaken the votes will be counted on Thursday; it’s anyway unthinkable that we would count on Sunday, because that would be insensitive to our Protestant voters.
|
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,330
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Jun 2, 2024 15:39:59 GMT
The right to bear arms was enumerated in the 1689 Bill of Rights, 200 years before Manchester Liberalism. US Libertarians tends believe in absolute Freedoms (at least for themselves). A Liberal sees one person's Freedoms interacting with other people's Freedoms and so requiring a balance to be struck.
While they are related in that both analyse policy based on Freedoms - in contrast to, say, a Marxian analysis which analyses issues in terms of class - but they end up quite differently in terms of policies.
And yes, Manchester-Liberalism used to be a synonym for (what was then) Social Liberalism. A Manchester-Liberal would not have thought the right to bear arms was absolute however. Libertarianism does not support the freedom to do things that limit others freedom (at least the libertarian understanding of freedom). That's clear in the NAP. To my mind, libertarianism and liberalism are basically synonymous, except perhaps in the sense that the former usually (but does not always) means a "hard" liberal rather than a more moderate one. To me (ignoring economics) a socially liberal person is someone who is relaxed about drugs, guns, LGBT people, religion or lack thereof and pro free speech for all sides. I don't see any difference between a "Manchester liberal" and a social democrat. Perhaps there is one, but it's surely pretty thin.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,872
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 2, 2024 17:05:33 GMT
US Libertarians tends believe in absolute Freedoms (at least for themselves). A Liberal sees one person's Freedoms interacting with other people's Freedoms and so requiring a balance to be struck. While they are related in that both analyse policy based on Freedoms - in contrast to, say, a Marxian analysis which analyses issues in terms of class - but they end up quite differently in terms of policies. And yes, Manchester-Liberalism used to be a synonym for (what was then) Social Liberalism. A Manchester-Liberal would not have thought the right to bear arms was absolute however. Libertarianism does not support the freedom to do things that limit others freedom (at least the libertarian understanding of freedom). That's clear in the NAP. To my mind, libertarianism and liberalism are basically synonymous, except perhaps in the sense that the former usually (but does not always) means a "hard" liberal rather than a more moderate one. To me (ignoring economics) a socially liberal person is someone who is relaxed about drugs, guns, LGBT people, religion or lack thereof and pro free speech for all sides. I don't see any difference between a "Manchester liberal" and a social democrat. Perhaps there is one, but it's surely pretty thin. Not to labour the point, but if you can't understand the difference between a Radical Liberal and a Social Democrat, you really don't understand Liberalism at all. And there is a distinct difference between a Libertarian and most Liberals. Libertarians are interested only in themselves, and the freedom to do what they want with no regard to what impact it has on others. Communities themselves are an annoying necessity of humanity, rather than being something to be cherished and cultivated. If you take Libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion you get anarchy with no state and each individual is literally king of their own domain. Such is the circle (it's not a horseshoe) that it's indistinguishable in outcome to utopian socialism (where the state becomes obsolete).
|
|
aargauer
Conservative
Posts: 5,330
Member is Online
|
Post by aargauer on Jun 3, 2024 16:44:20 GMT
Libertarianism does not support the freedom to do things that limit others freedom (at least the libertarian understanding of freedom). That's clear in the NAP. To my mind, libertarianism and liberalism are basically synonymous, except perhaps in the sense that the former usually (but does not always) means a "hard" liberal rather than a more moderate one. To me (ignoring economics) a socially liberal person is someone who is relaxed about drugs, guns, LGBT people, religion or lack thereof and pro free speech for all sides. I don't see any difference between a "Manchester liberal" and a social democrat. Perhaps there is one, but it's surely pretty thin. Not to labour the point, but if you can't understand the difference between a Radical Liberal and a Social Democrat, you really don't understand Liberalism at all. And there is a distinct difference between a Libertarian and most Liberals. Libertarians are interested only in themselves, and the freedom to do what they want with no regard to what impact it has on others. Communities themselves are an annoying necessity of humanity, rather than being something to be cherished and cultivated. If you take Libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion you get anarchy with no state and each individual is literally king of their own domain. Such is the circle (it's not a horseshoe) that it's indistinguishable in outcome to utopian socialism (where the state becomes obsolete). Personally I don't really agree with that, because Ancaps do nothing to uphold the NAP which is a key tennant of libertarianism. From the Ancap side Rand likewise stressed the difference with libertarians calling them/us "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people". Naturally, I know a few ancaps and they largely believe in no government *for its own sake* rather than with the aim of maximising freedom. It leads to some intense disagreements on eg. the right to do polluting activities (I'd be moderate/pragmatic, they'd be absolutist. FWIW it is absolutely a fundamental principle of libertarianism that activities that damage others freedom are not acceptable. Otherwise it'd be internally inconsistent. Now, there's some handwaving and pragmatism required on stuff near the borderline- like the pollution example, but that's true of every ideology. If moderate social democracy and radical liberalism are that distinct then why the merger in the 1980s? I'd honestly not even be able to say which, eg Tim Farron is. And fwiw I can see that some of his positions are liberal - eg on lgbt people despite his personal religious views. Others are not (eg not voting against the smoking ban - albeit he didn't vote for it).
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jun 4, 2024 18:37:59 GMT
I feel sorry for Farron. He was criticised as intolerant by people who didn't really know what tolerance means.
|
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,872
|
Post by Khunanup on Jun 4, 2024 19:22:55 GMT
Not to labour the point, but if you can't understand the difference between a Radical Liberal and a Social Democrat, you really don't understand Liberalism at all. And there is a distinct difference between a Libertarian and most Liberals. Libertarians are interested only in themselves, and the freedom to do what they want with no regard to what impact it has on others. Communities themselves are an annoying necessity of humanity, rather than being something to be cherished and cultivated. If you take Libertarianism to its ultimate conclusion you get anarchy with no state and each individual is literally king of their own domain. Such is the circle (it's not a horseshoe) that it's indistinguishable in outcome to utopian socialism (where the state becomes obsolete). Personally I don't really agree with that, because Ancaps do nothing to uphold the NAP which is a key tennant of libertarianism. From the Ancap side Rand likewise stressed the difference with libertarians calling them/us "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people". Naturally, I know a few ancaps and they largely believe in no government *for its own sake* rather than with the aim of maximising freedom. It leads to some intense disagreements on eg. the right to do polluting activities (I'd be moderate/pragmatic, they'd be absolutist. FWIW it is absolutely a fundamental principle of libertarianism that activities that damage others freedom are not acceptable. Otherwise it'd be internally inconsistent. Now, there's some handwaving and pragmatism required on stuff near the borderline- like the pollution example, but that's true of every ideology. If moderate social democracy and radical liberalism are that distinct then why the merger in the 1980s? I'd honestly not even be able to say which, eg Tim Farron is. And fwiw I can see that some of his positions are liberal - eg on lgbt people despite his personal religious views. Others are not (eg not voting against the smoking ban - albeit he didn't vote for it). It was ultimately a takeover rather than a merger. The hard core Social Democrats either drifted away or became so embedded as elder statespeople in the party as to become part of the furniture rather than having any real policy influence (and Jenkins was always a Liberal in the wrong party until the merger). And yes, you've made my point. You can have outcomes that are similar for people of different ideological traits (such as that of Liberals and Social Democrats, or Conservatives, or even in extreme cases Hard Right or Hard Left) but your journey to get there is quite different. That some ideologies have some desired outcomes that are often similar doesn't mean that those ideologies are not different and distinct. And to bring it right back on topic, that's why places like The Netherlands has largely had reasonably stable governments over decades despite the fact they they all have to be multiparty coalitions, because in the end they come to agreement on certain key desired outcomes common to at least some partners in the coalition even if their reasons for wanting said outcome comes from a different place.
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 6, 2024 8:21:16 GMT
Three weeks after agreeing the program, the 4 parties are according to press reports still fighting over who gets which positions. Would be fun if it blew up over this.
Some would say: surely that’s not possible. In 1977 PvdA, D66 and CDA negotiated for months before reaching an agreement about the program. . They then negotiated over the number of cabinet ministers each party would get. This again was very difficult. When they managed to resolve that, the problem was which CDA prominents would be or not be acceptable. (This was right after the merger of the 3 parties that formed CDA, and there were former leaders to indulge). In the end CDA nominated their current leader, and two former leaders. PvdA was only prepared to accept two of those and wanted one replaced by the leader of the third merger party. So the negotiations failed. The leader of that third party allegedly stated that he could not join. A few years later it was revealed that during WWII he had voluntarily joined the Waffen SS. This later turned out to be not completely true, but his career was over.
PvdA assumed that the negotiations between CDA and VVD would fail, and CDA would have to return to the negotiating table with their tail between their legs. But: the negotiations were swiftly concluded, and PvdA was condemned to 12 years in opposition (minus a very short period in government in 1981-1982).
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 10, 2024 8:24:03 GMT
Remarkable: with far lower turnout in the European elections than in the Parliamentary elections, CDA nearly doubles its number of votes. In the past they used to win low turnout elections, because of a base that always turned out. This time round they gained significant support, probably mostly from NSC. With thanks to Omzigt..
Its leader Henri Bontenbal is probably a bit dull, but serious and principled enough to not want to cooperate with Wilders. Evidently a number of conservative voters appreciate that stance.
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 10, 2024 8:28:02 GMT
The official result will be announced today, but unofficially the exitpoll of Thursday is confirmed, with the final seat going to Volt, not PVV. PVV thus wins 6 seats, Volt 2.
|
|
|
Post by noorderling on Jun 11, 2024 14:36:53 GMT
Wilders has tweeted that there is an agreement about the division of positions in the government.
|
|