Bob Lee said:
CDUB98 said:
Bob Lee said:
CDUB98 said:
I disagree, and as expected, you used the modern liberal examples as your basis.
You don't understand the concept from my point of view.
I understand that you don't understand what liberalism is.
Incorrect
You don't understand the difference between what the Founders were and what those *******s from the 60s onwards were/are?
Classical
Modern
Different ideologies. Barely overlapping. The modern a *******ization of the former.
The founders weren't strictly liberal. They were political philosophers who agreed to a large degree with Montesquieu, whose ideas were heavily influenced by his Christianity, and Aquinas among others, and they weren't a monolith. Their sole influence weren't Hobbes and Locke believe it or not. That's a lie. They definitely understood the pragmatic nature of liberalism as a political philosophy, and its limitations. they actually understood the need for religion in the public square. They understood community, and that people cannot commune around their differences.
Pointing to the founders as models of liberalism is such a lie. Actual liberalism cannot resolve conflicts of will except to side with the more debased will. If there's a difference between what you're thinking about as the 2 concepts of liberalism, it's just that one is downstream of the other.
I agreed with everything up until the bolded.
Why does it have to side with the debased will? I'd argue that the debased will is the one more likely to infringe upon someone else's natural rights.
So, we're not going to agree, obviously, but seems we've reached a point where we could now talk. Sadly, TA is not a great venue for it.
If, fundamentally, you don't believe the Founders had the best vision/version of gov't the world has come up with, then your only alternatives are eventually some form of authoritarian oppression. Either secular or theocratic.
If you, personally, want an authoritarian theocracy, then we likely have no common ground.
Bottom line for me is: I do not want to be ruled. I will oppose any authoritarian gov't. I will support a gov't that wants to leave me the hell alone. In a very simplistic way, that is the compromise of the Founders.
Once the gov't became involved in social engineering at the Federal level, it was game over. I originally typed in a starting point, but didn't want to open that can of worms.
What we have today is a 100% illiberal gov't, and only getting worse. The solution should not be more illiberalism.