an unconventional view on the economy

Well there you have it. You don't like it when people use words in other ways than you intended. But conservative is a perfect definition for RP's political philosophy. Definitely as good as any other. He interprets the constitution conservatively...meaning limited to exactly what is enumerated. Every part of his philosophy is characterized by a conservative approach...meaning the least amount of action taken by the govt as possible. Government intervention is conservative or limited. There you have it in a nutshell, meow. I am glad you could prove this to yourself. And of course you now see how abiding by the constitution is conservative and how silly your whole semantic game is

BTW
Economics
Most modern right-wing ideologies and movements, to the extent that they consider economic questions, support capitalism. Right-wing libertarianism supports a decentralized economy based on economic freedom, and advocates policies such as property rights, free markets, and free trade; some claim that Economic freedom correlates with right-leaning governments.[28].
The libertarian right has focused on the preservation of rights through constraints on government power. Libertarian conservatism, also known as conservative libertarianism, describes certain movements. Ronald Reagan said in an interview: "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."[29]
Many political movements outside the United States described as "right wing" favor Western style corporate capitalism, but not full fledged lassiez-faire economics and individual autonomy. Outside the Anglo-American political economy, industrialization has historically been led most often by state owned enterprises and politically privileged conglomerates or trading companies. Governments in Singapore and China that are strongly authoritarian and venerate tradition, have described an "Asian model" in which personal freedom is minimized but regulated capitalism is embraced. Some right wing movements and parties have supported protectionism, such as France’s National Front. Conservative authoritarians and right-wing radicals support corporatism.[30]

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

He proved to himself last time that the New Deal was a success because unemployment reached just under 10% prewar.

So Nadar and Chomsky, democratic socialists, agree with free market liberals that the Democrat and Republican parties are both fascist. I think that is strong evidence that it is true.


Liberalism operates along a spectrum. Laissez-faire is near one end of the spectrum, while the other end allows more regulation and government involvement. Hybrid liberal-socialist-fascist economies are possible. In fact, that is what we have in the United States, and in most countries. The economy is becoming more fascist and socialist and less liberal. Corporate capitalism and the military-industrial complex are fascist. Health care, education, public services, are socialist functions. Liberalism is the free market and personal liberty. There is an optimal balance. Lumping liberalism and socialism under the same label just adds confusion and opacity to the debate.

Why is no one to the "right" of Ron Paul in this chart?

:scratch:

All of a sudden wiki is not such a good source.

I wonder if Nadar is a right winger?

You still haven't accepted that liberal doesn't really mean anything, meow? That just saying "freedom" is the epitome of providing no context?

That is a quite ridiculous post. Conservative means little and liberal means much? Not even worthy of a response, but here are a few examples to help you understand your error.

Marijuana: Barack Obama supports criminalization, Ron Paul opposes. According to you, Obama is the liberal and Paul the conservative.

War on Terror: Barack Obama supports war on terror, Ron Paul opposes. According to you, Obama is liberal and Paul is conservative.

Banking Bailouts: Barack Obama supports bailouts, Ron Paul opposes. According to you, Obama is liberal and Paul is conservative.


The actual definition of liberalism, and even the definition that is commonly accepted, fits Ron Paul's positions on these issues, not Obama's.

That is a joke. Let's see the questions. I can tell you already that one of the big flaws is that it doesn't take into account the concept of federalism. And on other note, why do all of these discussions devolve into Ron Paul? It is certainly not my doing. I would rather discuss my own positions than anyone else's.

"Free-market liberals" is a contradiction in terms in this country. Try again, retaaad! We aren't in Austria!

In as much as they have both embraced Reaganomics, yes. Absolutely. That's Fdub101.

And Reaganomics = Friedman = "free-market" ideology, which eventually = Fascism/corporatism.

East India Company says wot?

And also cornerstones of right-wing economics/Reaganism/Friedmanism.

Republicanism. The last 30 years basically.

Only for the "li'l 'tarded" maybe. Liberalism is the balance of which socialism is a part.

:hw:

I did not say that liberal means much. I defined exactly what conservative means in context of my statements. And they are 100% correct. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Cognitive dissonance just went through the roof in our dogmatic RP droid.
Oh, and don't put words in my mouth, meow. I provided the exact definition I used unlike other people. "Liberal means freedumb" :drool:
Does that mean conservative means no freedom? I would like a wiki link for that one
Luke at you all upset because somebody called RP a conservative
Hey, just because you losers try and call him other things does not mean his politics are not conservative. That stings doesn't it?
Good times. Ensnared in your own web, meow. :gwave:

he who melts last...

Classic.

And what are the other parts?

You took the quiz in that thread, no?

Its all in fun, but it illustrates something further....what the generic, accepted understanding of these terms are in this country.

And no one is to the "right" of RP in that chart. And apparently he's actually a "right-AUTHORITARIAN".

The only ones not, are the two Liberals, Kucinich and Nader. The two politicians I pimp in here (plus Sanders). What a coinky-dink.

:hw:

You have the link to the definition you accepted.

Take it, Puss-in-Boots.

I am not upset. Your rantings only make sense to yourself. I have spent the last few hours posting because I feel a perverse sense of gratification in realizing that my understanding of the world, meager though it may be, is substantially greater than others. But I suppose you feel the same way. In that we are similar, but only one of us is correct.

"Great Liberals of Hiiiiissstorrryyy!!!!":

Which is exactly what I said. The other part of your "liberalism" is a moderate form liberalism. Instead of combining liberalism and socialism under the name liberalism, why not just define the terms as they have been since their conception? It is no great task. The only purpose is for the clarity of your argument. It is not like you need to convince Fox News and CNN to change their ways. You have nothing to lose, only to gain a certain degree of intellectual sophistication.

Safe in your warm familiar caccoon of conservative denial and certainty.

:baby:

Oh shit, maybe I'm slow because I don't live on this board 24 hours a day but I think I just figured out who Mao is the re-incarnation of... welcome back!

Wrong. The other parts of Liberalism are the other parts of Liberalism. They aren't another "moderate form" of anything.

Today's liberalism is today's liberalism. Period. Socialism is a part. There are others.

To spoon-feed you like the baby you are:

Princeton sociologist Paul Starr described it by saying,[3]

"Liberalism wagers that a state... can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained... Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society."

Well, I took the test and I am a left libertarian. I am not a Ron Paul clone and never claimed to be. There are a lot of questions on that test that have nothing to do with politics. To assert that he is an authoritarian is just plain false, no matter what any test says. I would say the same about Friedman. Provide specific evidence (a political position) to back up the charge. But I would prefer to leave Ron Paul out of the discussion.

Don't you fuckers sleep?

Liberalism - More robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society.

Socialism - Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state

That definition does not specifically mention that you can still go to the grocery store and buy apples and oranges at a market price rather than government distribution by quota, but liberal economics is included in that definition as well. It is moderate liberalism because there are many things you cannot buy at market prices, either because of government prohibition or price manipulation.

Liberalism + Socialism = Liberalism

I see no rationale for that definition. With respect to Dr. Starr, sociologists study social behavior. His definition is a description of the use of the word liberalism in modern society. For example, on Fox News and CNN. Liberalism as a political philosophy does not include socialism.