right on stuart..
*promote

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, @marinara
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Liberalism is libertarianism (with a small "L"). It's always meant the same.

Where on that page does it say classical liberalism and libertarianism are one and the same forever and always? Why is there a separate page for libertarianism?

Have you read the Classical Liberalism wikipedia page you just linked? How about just the first paragraph? Clicked on some of the links? Click on the link for utilitarianism, does that sound like libertarianism, or something a little more like what you don't like about liberalism?

>> ^blankfist:
I'm not making this shit up. Now, because the term 'liberal' has been coopted by both Dems and Repubs, liberalism is now known as classic liberalism, and progressives are now known as modern liberals.

The only thing true here is that you, personally, aren't making this up. It's because there's disagreement between modern liberals about who's staying more true to "classical liberalism" that makes us have to develop separate nomenclature. Personally, I'm not too worried about whether the philosophy I believe in exactly matches what someone came up with in the 17th century. I don't think philosophers conclusively settled all modern arguments about morality and the proper role of the state over 300 years ago.

For example, to really burnish my nerd-cred, the specific thing this not-DeLancie Q is talking about is wanting to commit suicide. John Locke, classical liberal, says that's not his right to do because John Locke doesn't believe in self-ownership, and thinks in fact that people's bodies, minds, and souls are the property of God, so we shouldn't do things like kill ourselves.

>> ^blankfist:
[Liberals] tend to believe in the greater good comes before the individual which is classic collectivism vs. individualism.

Now you're showing your ignorance of classical liberalism. Click the link for utilitarianism. Read John Stuart Mill. Hell, even just read the links from my previous post.

Just educate yourself for once, rather than lashing out at us like we're monsters.

>> ^blankfist:
This is all history. This isn't some Daily Kos, Glenn Beck or whatever else partisan talking point.

Yes, it is history, and you're the one preaching a Glenn Beck vision of liberalism at me. Stop being partisan and listen to what I'm trying to tell you for once.

I'm trying to explain to you what liberalism really is, not what Mises, Reason, and CATO want you to think liberalism is.

I wouldn't call Colbert a fucktard or anything harsh like people did above, but I understand the sentiment a little. I sorta feel like since he plays the character so much, it would've been more meaningful if he had dropped it for a congressional hearing. That way, people couldn't dismiss it as him just trying to get laughs.

I hear people dismiss Colbert/Stuart as simple comedians, but they're both really smart guys from what I've seen when they're not on their respective shows. They're great even when they're not delivering pre-written material. I think it's important for these people to see that these shows aren't just made 100% for laughs...they're made because some really smart people have some really smart commentary which just so happens is funny as hell.

Guess I'm just saying it's more helpful when people see the two guys being really smart/eloquent outside of their shows/characters. Jon Stewart/Bill O'Reilly interview, for example.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

Oh no she didn't.
She played the John Stuart, fucking, Mill card. Mill was a classical liberal among other things.
I believe she was referring to his Axiom:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

Basically what the above philosophy means, society individual or grouped has no right to tell someone he or she cannot do anything that doesn't involve the harm of the society individually or wholly.
She was stating, as I thought, that there needs to be a better way to differ what will truly harm someone and what is in the minds of those who think someone will come to harm. It's a difference between projection of thought versus what is real and demonstrable.
Just because you think it does not make it true, it must be demonstrable.


That makes perfect sense to me, and I agree was one of the problems I had with his logic. However I'm not about to condemn this guy in the strictest sense just yet. There's a lot more that should and will probably come out about this situation. I'm interested though in how his aspergers might have effected his decision making.

Oh no she didn't.

She played the John Stuart, fucking, Mill card. Mill was a classical liberal among other things.

I believe she was referring to his Axiom:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

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

Basically what the above philosophy means, society individual or grouped has no right to tell someone he or she cannot do anything that doesn't involve the harm of the society individually or wholly.

She was stating, as I thought, that there needs to be a better way to differ what will truly harm someone and what is in the minds of those who think someone will come to harm. It's a difference between projection of thought versus what is real and demonstrable.

Just because you think it does not make it true, it must be demonstrable.

Some of these rape jokes are a bit weak. I actually prefer the one-liner zingers of Stuart Francis.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice, — is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." - John Stuart Mill


"There is no right not to be offended; indeed, as part of offering free speech to all we must often endure the opinions and expressions of others that strike painfully at the very heart of our most deeply held beliefs. And we, conversely, may tell those people exactly what we think of that in words just as strong, but there is absolutely no place in a free society for any group or figure or institution to claim the privilege of being exempt from ridicule, criticism, or depiction, and particularly to claim it on pain of death." - Laura Hudson

The guy was right. The chick was sounding like Stuart Smalley.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it."

John Stuart Mill

I don't want to sound like an asshole, but the uptight nerd side of me is screaming right now. Jon Stewart didn't come up with the idea for the dailyshow. It first aired in 96 or so, and was originally hosted by craig kilborn. I personally thought his dry, dissmisive style made him much funnier than stuart. I also really liked his 5 questions seqment during his interviews. Here's one of the ads for the original lineup.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO1sR5_XAcQ&feature=related

>> ^NordlichReiter:
To think that something which started from the End the Fed rallies has morphed into something so stupid.
I'm ashamed to call myself a Libertarian if there are millions of these people who watched Fox news and decided that they were Libertarians.
How many of them now about John Stuart Mill, John Locke, or that most of the old white people wanted freedom for themselves from the British Empire, not for their slaves.
These people have been drinking too much of the Faux news water, I think they are very mad.
I true Libertarian would know that having a corporation behind your movement means you are no longer a Libertarian, you are a Plutocrat.
Lets start by making a new party, the Secular Humanist Rational Party For Liberty (Liberty for all, not just who you choose), where you have to think about things before you spout stupid shit.


No need for shame, NR, the teabagger movement has nothing to do with libertarianism. It was founded by old skool conservative republican, Dick Armey - which is apropos for a movement basically comprised of an army of angry, ignorant dicks. While conservatives use some of the same rhetoric as libertarians and share various economic views, the Tea Party thing is strictly a conservative movement.

Not all libertarians are completely secular *nudge nudge*. Rational Party For Liberty sounds good though! Though, I guess you could throw in secular as a condition of the rule of state, not to the people in it...perhaps Religiously free (as in free from the state control of religion) Rational Party for Liberty...but I think you can just eliminate that all by using rational in the word, it precludes both faith and personal morality.... so ya, Rational Party For Liberty gets my vote!

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
To think that something which started from the End the Fed rallies has morphed into something so stupid.

I'm ashamed to call myself a Libertarian if there are millions of these people who watched Fox news and decided that they were Libertarians.

How many of them now about John Stuart Mill, John Locke, or that most of the old white people wanted freedom for themselves from the British Empire, not for their slaves.

These people have been drinking too much of the Faux news water, I think they are very mad.

I true Libertarian would know that having a corporation behind your movement means you are no longer a Libertarian, you are a Plutocrat.

Lets start by making a new party, the Secular Humanist Rational Party For Liberty (Liberty for all, not just who you choose), where you have to think about things before you spout stupid shit.

To think that something which started from the End the Fed rallies has morphed into something so stupid.

I'm ashamed to call myself a Libertarian if there are millions of these people who watched Fox news and decided that they were Libertarians.

How many of them now about John Stuart Mill, John Locke, or that most of the old white people wanted freedom for themselves from the British Empire, not for their slaves.

These people have been drinking too much of the Faux news water, I think they are very mad.

I true Libertarian would know that having a corporation behind your movement means you are no longer a Libertarian, you are a Plutocrat.

Lets start by making a new party, the Secular Humanist Rational Party For Liberty (Liberty for all, not just who you choose), where you have to think about things before you spout stupid shit.

Throughout history, the only blood to be spilled has been done at the hands of the religious? Does that make sense?

In public, there should be caps on speech. In the US, the principle of shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is on well known restriction on free speech. The line is also drawn on public hate speech that incites immediate violence. I think that we should also restrict speech that leads to violence, as many countries do. I don't care too much about what a person does or says in their home, if it doesn't harm me.

Run that buy me again? Hang on, one more time I didn't quiet believe my eyes! I, wait I can't say anything because of the new caps on freedom of expression. Oh wait, this website is now gone because of the new international laws that stop us from free speech. Guess what Longde, your speech on this website would be capped just as everyone else would be.

Welcome to the world were no one can speak without being beheaded because "someone might get offended." Hang on, while we're at it lets go ahead and hang:

• George Carlin Posthumously


• Howard Zinn Posthumously


• Noam Chomsky


• Theo van Gogh (film director)- Oh wait, they got him already.


• Frank Zappa


• Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Wait, here is a whole list you can start with; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_speech_activists.

Hell while we are being politically correct lets go ahead and enact a law that will make mandatory executions for all independent investigative journalists. I mean while we are going all out here, why don't we go ahead and make it a crime to be anything independent.

I think someone said this before me, "There can be no freedom without free speech."Free Press. You know what they say? If you don't like it don't read it! If you don't like it don't watch it! If you don't like it don't eat it! If you don't like it go back to your protective bubble!

Hypberbole aside where I come from it is an inalienable right to speak your mind even if it offends someone. It is that offended persons right to think you are a douche bag. But as soon as there is violence both parties are in the wrong. Justice is properly blind but in most cases she is not stupid; she doth not tread across that line to become a tyrant.

Quotes from one John Stuart Mill speaking on the Harm Principle.

If the arguments of the present chapter are of any validity, there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered. (1978, 15)

John Stuart Mill quote on the Harm Principle, again:

In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered."[28] Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.[28]

What do these quotes mean to you and I? Well they mean simply; that a person can speak their mind so long as the argument presented is valid even if it is embarrassingly immoral. That means, as it is already a statute the US, that hate crime is not free speech. But the prosecuting party has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person had the intention of causing harm with said speech. Then we enter the realm of Libel and Slander. A person has to proven knowingly lieing about someone in order to be charged with Libel or Slander.

I have for you, sir or mam a quote from Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, this quote is often confused with Samuel Johnson's "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Hell is paved with good intentions." Even earlier than that, it's been attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

Honestly, I don't watch much MSNBC, but I'm not sure that they're biased. I can certainly agree that Olbermann is biased. He's basically the opposite of Bill O'Reilly. Rachel Maddow is of course also biased. But then as John Stuart pointed out, MSNBC's morning show is hosted by a conservative. MSNBC is probably overall biased, but they're less than half as biased as Fox News. Fox News has reached the level of insanity.