The Foundations of (classical) Liberal Policy

http://www.mises.org/story/2092 ^ | April 01, 2006 | Ludwig von Mises

[Marxbites]

The term "liberalism," from the Latin "liber" meaning "free," referred originally to the philosophy of freedom. It still retained this meaning in Europe when this book was written (1927) so that readers who opened its covers expected an analysis of the freedom philosophy of classical liberalism. Unfortunately, however, in recent decades, "liberalism" has come to mean something very different. The word has been taken over, especially in the United States, by philosophical socialists and used by them to refer to their government intervention and "welfare state" programs. As one example among many possible ones, former US Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr, when he was Mayor of Philadelphia, described the modern "liberal" position very frankly in these words:

To lay a ghost at the outset and to dismiss semantics, a liberal is here defined as one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice at the municipal, state, national, and international levels.... A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society which attempts to carry Christian principles of conduct into practical effect. (Atlantic, July 1953, p. 27)

This view of "liberalism" was so prevalent in 1962, when the English translation of this book appeared, that Mises believed then that to translate literally the original title, Liberalismus, would be too confusing. So he called the English version The Free and Prosperous Commonwealth. By the following year, however, Mises had decided that the advocates of freedom and free markets should not relinquish "liberalism" to the philosophical socialists. In the Prefaces of both the second (1963) and third (1966) editions of his magnum opus, Human Action, Mises wrote that the advocates of the freedom philosophy should reclaim "the term 'liberal'. . . because there is simply no other term available to signify the great political and intellectual movement" that ushered in modern civilization by fostering the free market economy, limited government and individual freedom. It is in this sense that "liberalism" is used throughout this book.............

[Marxbites]

This is an excerpt really. The entire article delves into what constitutes liberty, and what does not, ie Govt economic intervention.

[Froufrou]

"Everything that serves to preserve the social order is moral; everything that is detrimental to it is immoral. Accordingly, when we reach the conclusion that an institution is beneficial to society, one can no longer object that it is immoral. There may possibly be a difference of opinion about whether a particular institution is socially beneficial or harmful. But once it has been judged beneficial, one can no longer contend that, for some inexplicable reason, it must be condemned as immoral."


I have a big problem with these statements. Based on this premise, that gay marriage maintains social order makes it moral?! I don't effing think so.

[Marxbites]

Since when does gay marriage preserve social order when IMHO it does the very opposite?

Froufrou? Catchy name! What does it mean?

[Froufrou]

See, the article mentions the problem with personal opinions. I think gays in MA would argue that now that marriage is legal they don't have to make such public displays as are done in CA, for example.

Froufrou is a French word that describes a flounce or something on a Victorian dress. I use it instead to describe myself as something of a 'fuss budget.'

[Citizen Tom Paine]

My Oxford dictionary seem to indicate that liber means free (man). Cassell,s Latin dictionary says free, independent, unrestrained.

[the anti-liberal]

I have long felt that 'liberalism' has become it's opposite, which is why I always use 'liberal socialist', 'liberal left', or 'liberal socialist left' when referring to liberal socialists.

[FreedomPoster]

NeoLiberal also works, and tends to pee off Lefties.

[the anti-liberal]

Neolib - oh that's good!

Thanks for that!

[tpaine]

Froufrou wrote:

I have a big problem with these statements. Based on this premise, that gay marriage maintains social order makes it moral?! I don't effing think so.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



You're in good company Frou:


To quote Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."


This quote was a portion of Scalia's dissent in the case of Lawrence v. Texas, which has gained so much attention in calling into question the so-called "Constitutional right to privacy."

Allow me to quote a portion of the Constitution, the Ninth Amendment:


"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."


Do you see the words "right to privacy" in there? Neither do I. This leads me to agree completely with the Justice's opinion.
Strong enforcement of Christian moral laws is the only thing that can reverse this deadly tide of liberalism.

Let's take a look at a few key selections from his retort.

Adultery.
The Bible has always said that adultery was wrong. Adultery laws are on the books in at least 27 states, but when was the last time that they were enforced? The decreasing amount of moral fiber in our society can be directly attributed to the lack of marital fidelity, brought on primarily by feminists who insist on their right to cheat.
I've got news for these philanderers -- in Pakistan and Nigeria, they stone adulterers. Pakistan and Nigeria are valuable allies in the war on terror; it's the least we can do to match them in words and deeds.
I feel that it is critical to re-institute the death penalty for those who violate their sacred vows. Let's start with Bill Clinton.


Masturbation.
My God! Recent studies show that 90% of American boys have masturbated at some point in their life. Even more shocking is the fact that only 25% of American boys are Catholics. What does this mean? A disturbing 23% of young American men are living with sins on their souls that will never see the light of a confession.
Can we allow this many of our countrymen to burn in hell? We must pursue vigorous moral codes to ensure the ascension of this wonderful republic to its rightful place at God's side.




Constitutional right to sin
Address:http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1472597&displaytype=printable&lastnode_id=1472597

[RBroadfoot]

I'm old-fashioned, so I prefer the more accurate term "phony liberal" if I have to use the word "liberal" to describe something that is left wing or socialist.

[Marxbites]

Anything that pees on lefties is very good IMHO!

As a kid, we had a neighbor boy whose dad was always trying to get us to play football or other sports with him - man him up a bit, if you will.

Up in a tree one day, he came walking by just when nature's call struck, (or was it our mischeiviousness?), and we soaked him but good while he'd tried to figure out where the sprinkler was! Sho 'nuff he turned into the pansy lefty his dad must have feared he would!

But now having remembered that, I am wondering now if peeing on them just makes them worse!