Your political Ideology

Bi0Hazard: I'm more opposed to the armed forces than Bernie. Unlike Bernie, I am a pacifist.

I oppose about half of the present US constitution. Not saying I blame anyone for upholding it, but there's plenty of amendments I'd want stricken for a start. There's precedent for that, too.

I do agree policy-wise with Sanders on bailouts though for slightly different reasons.

A lot of democrats support sanctuary cities and amnesty, for example.

I don't think I'm a moderate - I'm fairly hard-line anti-drugs.

admin: So, Where would you fit on this scale from left to right?

Communist Socialist Green Liberal Christian Democrat Conservative Right-wing extremist

admin: He was able to arrange seven of them from left to right: communist, socialist, green, liberal, Christian democratic, conservative and right-wing extremist.
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics

Bi0Hazard: I'd be closest to liberal. I take a lot of ideas from the Greens and others though.

admin: So basically you're a woodstock liberal except that you hate drugs.

Dassault Papillon: I don't think that's totally fair either. I consider myself to be a true classical liberal. Freedom & equality all the way.

admin: Classical liberal is not the title for you, more like social liberalism. There's a difference.
Classical Liberal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Social Liberalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

Classical Liberalism is what libertarianism is today.

Bi0Hazard: Hence why I said true. Libertarians hijacked a lot of titles in the 20s.

Bi0Hazard: or national conservative

Bi0Hazard: Libertarianism has many schools of thought. That is what the American libertarian party believes, and that isn't even totally true. George Bush was a recognized neo-conservative and classical liberal, but he definitely was not a activist for limited government.

Crow: George Bush was a recognized neo-conservative and classical liberal, but he definitely was not a activist for limited government.
Classical liberals believe in limited government, so George Bush wouldn't fit the definition well.

admin: M8, you are not a classical liberal. You are a social democrat. Look it up.

Also don't say you are for freedom all the way. You clearly are not.

admin: That is true classical liberalism. Enlightenment liberals were libertarians, and believed fully in limited governments.
.
I have read a shit ton of enlightenment philosophy. Our modern states and governments are in direct opposition to everything enlightenment age liberals taught and believed.

Crow: As per usual, depends on how you define freedom. I believe the only way to balance negative and positive freedoms is through equality legislation. Equality has always been a central tenant of liberalism, yet libertarianism rejects it nearly outright.

admin: You have a hive perspective on liberty, as opposed to the normal individual perspective. Humans are not a hive species.

From the individual perspective, the only credible point of view, there is no negative liberty held by oneself.

Using the word liberty instead of freedom, because the inteligent philosophers you claim represent your beliefs, knew the difference.

Crow: Would that argument hold any water if you replaced hive with social?

admin: Not the same thing.

Now back to what is actually important. Can an individual have a negative liberty for themselves? I say not, do you contest that.

Crow: I'd contest that.

admin: Then contest it. Say something instead of always weaseling away. It is intellectually dishonest.

Crow: There's a big difference between leaving something uncontested and letting it be conceded. I see plenty of things day to day that I disagree with. For example, I don't believe Coca-cola is the best tasting soft drink, but if coca-cola says they are on some of their marketing, I'm not going to stand in front of a billboard and start elucidating a rebuttal. That doesn't mean I agree to what coca-cola said, or that I am dishonest - it just means I didn't consider it to be particularly worth arguing about.

To formulate your claim a little differently, negative liberty for themselves == free from themselves. I like to call it escapism and I think it exists. Some people do it. Can't say I particularly recommend it but it certainly does exist on a personal level.

If your claim is that humans are not social animals, I do find it ironic that a human is pressing me so hard on answering that. What you're doing right now is social. We're both working together for our mutual good, aren't we?