The original Liberalism was an anti-conservative, anti-monarchy movement founded on principles of equality, rule of law (as in: laws that transcend individual persons, as opposed to the very much personal rule of kings), natural rights (life, liberty, property in the general sense) and the consent of the governed. By extension of that last point, imperialsm isn’t liberal because it enforces the will of some ruling class (the imperialist) on its subjects (the imperial vassal).
Their idea of democracy, just as the Ancient original, didn’t actually include all humans in their understanding of the demos that does the self-governing, but that’s a different historical discussion.
Either way, imperialism most certainly is a conservative policy. If the Dems support (or fail to oppose) imperialism, while pretending to be (socially) liberal, they’re limp-dicked hypocrites with a spine of cooked pasta.
That’s a definitional discussion: What does the term mean, and who gets to decide which meaning is the actual one?
If we take the literal word root, it just means anything relating to freedom, in which case we could debate whether the “freedom to bomb children” counts as liberal, but I’m not even going to extend that charity.
More relevant to the subject at hand, there are various branches of that philosophy, relating to how liberally they treat different areas of policy such as economic and social regulation. Which form do you consider to be the “actual” liberal philosophy?
Liberalism was supposed to make the rich the powerful regardless of their birth or former social status. Original liberalists absolutely just wanted to change who wears the boot.
Hell, it is hard fought that workers have any rights over a feodal peasant. Liberals would have referred to keep it that way, want to slide backwards and companies are still as aggressively tyrannical as they can be.
The original Liberalism was an anti-conservative, anti-monarchy movement founded on principles of equality, rule of law (as in: laws that transcend individual persons, as opposed to the very much personal rule of kings), natural rights (life, liberty, property in the general sense) and the consent of the governed. By extension of that last point, imperialsm isn’t liberal because it enforces the will of some ruling class (the imperialist) on its subjects (the imperial vassal).
Their idea of democracy, just as the Ancient original, didn’t actually include all humans in their understanding of the demos that does the self-governing, but that’s a different historical discussion.
Either way, imperialism most certainly is a conservative policy. If the Dems support (or fail to oppose) imperialism, while pretending to be (socially) liberal, they’re limp-dicked hypocrites with a spine of cooked pasta.
So you always look at things with the “original” prism, or the actual meaning?
That’s a definitional discussion: What does the term mean, and who gets to decide which meaning is the actual one?
If we take the literal word root, it just means anything relating to freedom, in which case we could debate whether the “freedom to bomb children” counts as liberal, but I’m not even going to extend that charity.
More relevant to the subject at hand, there are various branches of that philosophy, relating to how liberally they treat different areas of policy such as economic and social regulation. Which form do you consider to be the “actual” liberal philosophy?
Liberalism was supposed to make the rich the powerful regardless of their birth or former social status. Original liberalists absolutely just wanted to change who wears the boot.
Hell, it is hard fought that workers have any rights over a feodal peasant. Liberals would have referred to keep it that way, want to slide backwards and companies are still as aggressively tyrannical as they can be.
Rejoice, liberal, for liberalism has won.