aditantimedh on May 27, 2007, 11:16:59 pm
Except that taxation and state-interference has never been part of the definition of "liberal".  The Democrats who believed in those were not liberals at all, it was the Right that labelled them as such when they labelled the entire party as such.  I've never seen the Democrats as liberal at all.

The word is now meaningless in American discourse and to use it or argue about its meaning has become quite futile.


Rocketman on May 28, 2007, 08:45:34 am
I don't think it was the conservatives that originally labeled the left as "liberals".  I think it was the fabian socialists who gave themselves that title because at the time which was around the time of the McCarthy era the words socialists and communist were nearly identical in the average Americans minds which were strongly anti-communist.  Jefferson called himself and his fellow anti-federals "liberal" meaning they were progressive in their beliefs from the royalist beliefs of their time.

Leviathan on May 28, 2007, 09:55:18 am
Regardless, she can easily become the type of fascist, control freak typefied by the superhero genre.  Even if the goal is "positive", that she's forcing a sovereign being (much less many sovereign beings) to accede to it is frankly against my political philosophy...  Inform, demonstrate, or even allow people to basically bribe another people to make their country a better place.  But force is force whether it's subtle or not.

Oh, and even if the word "liberal" has lost all its original meaning, you still knew who I meant when I used the term.  That is all that is really required in language: that the words map to a common territory of meaning.  Even if you disagree with it being an accurate definition, it's still a common definition.  I also don't like calling most of what we have in government under the label of "conservative" that either.  Liberal and Conservative have both been co-opted, and hold none of their original meaning anymore.  It's more likely to induce confusion as to the actual intent to try and reference anyone with the terms as they "should" be.

Rocketman on May 28, 2007, 10:53:14 pm
Yes, under her control it could easily become a benevolent dictatorship.  When she "modified" those skinheads we can see that she didn't care about getting their permission before she began.   Good point.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2007, 07:36:41 pm by Rocketman »

aditantimedh on May 30, 2007, 03:17:12 am
That's exactly the type of thing I'd like readers to notice about Susan's actions.


Rocketman on May 31, 2007, 07:34:28 pm
The problem from the way I see it is where to draw that line.  I think that pretty near everyone would agree with Susan's actions concerning the modification of the climate in Africa but what about the AK-47s not having any effect on the people that were being shot.  Some would probably argue that that was a violation of individual rights (I kind of doubt given her liberal political beliefs thus far that Susan is a member of the National Rifle Association) and undoubtable more and more people will question her actions as she decides to carry her beliefs as far as she probably intends to take them.  If for example she decides to eliminate every gun on the planet not only is she going to have a very angry large group of people mad at her, she is also going to drastically increase the crime rate in the areas that she can't watch.  I believe that it's called the law of unintended consequences.  ;D

aditantimedh on May 31, 2007, 10:37:14 pm
Ah, but she's not eliminating any guns at all.


Frank Bieser on May 31, 2007, 11:11:11 pm
Ah, but she's not eliminating any guns at all.

Quite true.  But I think the reference to the "law of unintended consequences" is a very astute one in this case.


Rocketman on June 01, 2007, 01:35:54 am
Frank:
     Judging from your last comment I believe I now know in what direction this story is going to be heading but I'm not going to say it outloud for the benefit of those who haven't figured it out yet.   ;D ;D ;D

wdg3rd on June 02, 2007, 09:56:59 pm
What, trivial stuff like thinking individuals from a 3D universe are ethically superior to an infantile (albeit powerful) twit from a 4D universe?  Hell, that was established even back in the first Star Trek series.  (Though Roddenberry's ethics were pretty childish themselves they were a step up from those of Trelayne and his parents)).
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

Frank Bieser on June 02, 2007, 11:11:06 pm
Frank:
     Judging from your last comment I believe I now know in what direction this story is going to be heading but I'm not going to say it outloud for the benefit of those who haven't figured it out yet.   ;D ;D ;D

Nothing given away really.  You'll notice things have already, seemingly, not gone quite the way Susan intended.  There's a whole lot of story still to be seen in the grand story arch.  Stay tuned.

Scott on June 04, 2007, 02:25:05 pm
With regards to the term "liberal": folks here should bear in mind that Adi was educated in Great Britain, where the term has a meaning closer to what we would call "classical liberal" than it does here.

It's not a neo-con smear. Gradually, over a period lasting roughly from the 1890s to the 1950s, "liberalism" gradually look on more and more characteristics of what Brits would call fabian socialism, or, if you will, pluralistic fascism. I trended away from a focus on individual rights and more towards "group rights" versus other groups -- workers versus owners, blacks versus whites. women versus men. The term is still very murky and can mean various things depending on context -- concern for free expression rights and legal due process rights are generally considered "liberal" but so also are restrictions on free expression (e.g., college speech codes) intended to accommodate ethnic minorities, or combat corruption in politics.

In the past, American liberalism strongly defended individual (justly acquired) property rights against a state that would infringe upon them, for almost any reason. In modern times, liberalism is quite ready to impose itself on people's property rights in pursuit of a wide variety of goals -- poverty relief, redress against social inequalities, education, "management" of the economy.

Usually when I hear the term "liberal" in an American political context I mentally substitute the term "social democrat" and usually it fits pretty well.

From what I understand of Adi's thinking he's not a libertarian but he does appreciate individualism and his philosophy is too nuanced to admit to conventional labeling. Just read the dang story, and draw your conclusions when it's finished.


aditantimedh on June 04, 2007, 03:18:31 pm
Cheers, Scott.


Rocketman on June 05, 2007, 11:31:33 pm
Scott:
     Concerning your last comment, a word to those who are unaware of this might be that the party of Jefferson was originally referred to as the "Republican" party while the party of Hamilton and Washington was the "Federalist" party.  The original "Republican" party about the time of Andy Jackson became the "Democractic Republican" which morped into the modern "Democractic" party.  The Federalist party broke into two factions prior to the American Civil War mainly over the issue of slavery with the anti-slavery side becoming the "Republicans".  Most of the people who read this are probably aware of all of this but I added it for the benefit of those who aren't.   :D

Frank75 on August 12, 2007, 09:02:51 pm
I also think she's way too much Mary Sue. (And a spoiled bitch, too.)