The Demise of The Democratic Party

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Sam123, Mar 20, 2006.

  1. Sam123

    Sam123 Guest

    Yet another example of how human nature never changes…

    “Traditional English liberalism has rested on a fairly simple concept of liberty –namely, that of freedom from the constraints of the state. In Hobbes’s memorable phrase, 'The liberties of subjects depend on the silence of the law.' In general, however, English liberals have always been careful not to press this notion to anarchist extremes. They have regarded the state as a necessary institution, ensuring order and law at home, defense against foreign powers, and security of possessions –the three principles Locke summarized as ‘life, liberty and property.’ English liberals have also maintained that the law can be used to extend the liberties of subjects insofar as the law is made to curb and limit the activities of the executive government."

    “The traditional form of English political liberalism naturally went hand in hand with the classical economic doctrine of laissez-faire. Toward the end of the nineteenth century, however, certain radical movements and certain English liberal theorists, such as Matthew Arnold and T.H. Green, developed, partly under foreign, left-wing influences, a different –as they claimed, a broader-- concept of freedom, which was, to a large extent, to prove more popular in the twentieth century than traditional English liberalism with its economic gospel of laissez-faire. The central aim of this new school was utilitarian –namely, freeing men from misery and ignorance. Its exponents believed that the state must be the instrument by which this end was to be achieved. Hence, English liberal opinion entered the twentieth century in a highly paradoxical condition, urging, on the one hand, a freedom which was understood as freedom from the constraints of the state and, in the other, an enlargement of the state’s power and control in order to liberate the poor from the oppressive burdens of poverty. In the political sphere this contradiction in the liberal ideology ended in the disintegration of the British Liberal party.”

    --pg 458, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volumes 3 & 4, Paul Edwards, Editor in Chief; Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press, New York; Collier Macmillan Publishers, London; 1967.
     
  2. Have you read In Defense of Elitism? You should.
     
  3. saxon

    saxon

    Perhaps the error of socialism is to believe that the state is ABLE to be the instrument by which that end is achieved.
     
  4. This may or may not be true, however it is quite clear there is no nobility or higher purpose in pure capitalism, simply the deification of personal greed and promotion of the crudest of animality in the behavior of higher species.

    We live in an historical time when no child anywhere in the world need go hungry or uneducated from a logistical perspective of abundance and wealth worldwide due to the advancements of technology, yet it is precisely the view of the capitalists that maintains this inequity of wealth and distribution by nature of its very purpose and design.



     
  5. saxon

    saxon

    zzz...you clearly have more faith in governments than I do...except for the US government, of course. :)
     
  6. You have no faith in the potential goodness of people then....

     
  7. It appears, the english were mad. No surprises there.
    But to suggest, one of 2 political parties reaching curtains, as the end of democracy , then..............
    You were already living in a totalitarian state.
    Then again, the thread starter had this to say about.........................................




    "The descending wedge is the opposite of the ascending wedge. The two boundary lines move downward and the upper line has the steepest angle of descent. This formation will normally resolve upward because the steepest angle is usually the least sustainable."






    :) :) :) Brilliant!!!I think theres something in that, for all of us.
     
  8. jem

    jem

    First zzz did you create this statement. It seems too looney even for you. Second, could you possible support it line by line.

    I find the last sentence totally unsupportable.
     
  9. Then could the logical arguement be to let the good people, under capitalism, become wealthy and spread their good will ?