|
Post by Fumbduckery on Apr 7, 2018 23:20:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hart's Middle Finger on Apr 8, 2018 13:57:25 GMT -5
Liberalism as defined in that article isn’t what most would think of when hearing the phrase.
The article states this:
“liberalism defines humans as autonomous and rights-bearing individuals who should be freed up as much as possible to pursue their own preferences, goals and dreams.”
Liberalism as most people here think of it now really seeks to provide a nanny state and deny a lot of rights... and that thought.. that humans are autonomous and rights bearing individuals who should be freed as much as possible is the idea it says has failed.
It does correctly state that family bonds and culture have disentigrated, but I don’t think it is because of the pursuit of human autonomy, rights, and freedom as I think of these.
I get what he is saying, but his definition of liberalism is actually political elitism and how political elites have defined human freedoms, and only the list of freedoms that they deem as having value.
|
|
|
Post by Fumbduckery on Apr 9, 2018 22:32:50 GMT -5
The irony of it is that liberals today still think they stand for people having the right to do and say whatever they want. But as I've said for a long time now, that's only true if they agree with what you are saying or doing.
I love how they feel they are "right" and therefore the ends justifies the means in everything they do. No matter how underhanded or dirty it is. It's ok, because it's being done to make things better in the end. In their opinion, of course.
|
|