Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:Liberalism thrives because it plays into the hands of the type of conservative with power. Namely the 'Free Market'.

The Free Market is not free, slavery is now achieved indirectly through debt and interest repayment. The 'free' economic model is propagated because it suits some for that to occur.

The Free Market is also undemocratic, large companies are to a large extent a mimic of the feudal system with 'lords' having 'overlords' (the franchise system and the corporate structure). With anyone on a standard wage being a form of serf with the educated elite as freemen. The banking system provides the top tier in corporate feudalism, and it is largely self serving above autority and highly unstable.
Most large businesses are inherited so the feudal system is again propogated there.

We are 'free' to join this system or be poor.

Totally agree about wage slavery, however I think the times they are a changing and we are moving from Marxism to Neo Marxism and awareness of the exploitation of capitalism is spreading. I firmly believe that by next century we will have become post scarcist, and the concept of money will be a memory, but then, I'm an optimist. That would be a liberal society though, so to answer the OP if we end up there we are definitely moving forward.

And you could not join the current system, if you chose to form a cooperative.

Things rise and fall in cycles. To say that there has been an unending trend of liberal progress is to deny the very real cases in which things that once were had were lost.

It's not necessarily a bad thing that we seem to be getting more liberal, I think it's actually more descriptive that we are actually getting more compassionate as a society. More people are caring for the less fortunate than ever before even as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Society now abhors slavery, when up until the late 1800's (even later in some parts of the world) it was not only acceptable, it was the epitome of capitalism. Things are progressing and though atrocities continue to happen, I think humanity is still experimenting with how to remain just and equal. As Winston Churchill said, If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart, if your old and not conservative you have no brain. The key is always to balance the two.

Well, considering the general principle is that liberalism = progressive change, whereas conservativism = maintaining the status quo, then yes I think it is fair to say that history, in general, has a liberal trend. By that same general principle, it is also fair to say that liberalism = progress.

Generally.

Frazzled wrote:I'd dispute that strongly. W. Europe has been under a Pax America for decades, after going through the most wrenching bloodiest period in history (outside of China's 1970's of course). We'll see what happens in the future. After all Greece is about seven days from being kicked out of the Euro.

In the words of the immortal bard: We'll see.

You didn't dispute anything I said. I suspect you didn't even bother to read what I said.

Liberalism does not equal progress. For example, censorship and copyright laws. Those are not progressive ideas, those are backwards and stupid.

Clearly the introduction of human rights, freedom of speech, and reduction of censorship that has occurred over the past 100--500 years has not occurred on planet rockerbikie.

Kilkrazy wrote:Clearly the introduction of human rights, freedom of speech, and reduction of censorship that has occurred over the past 100--500 years has not occurred on planet rockerbikie.

There has been reductions is censorships but it has become crazy in the last 10 years. You don't really have much free speech today, it is too easy to get sued. Human rights has been introduce but whether they have been used or not by figures of authority is another matter altogether.

rockerbikie wrote:Liberalism does not equal progress. For example, censorship and copyright laws. Those are not progressive ideas, those are backwards and stupid.

Indeed, the definition needs to be properly made. If we're talking repression vs. Western style FREEDOM!!!(gets out the blue paint) then no, not at all.

1. We have the Arab Spring. Dictatorships being toppled and replaced by...Islamic dictatorships. Er ok.
2. USSR breaking up and going democratic under Yeltsin. Russia is now again a dictatorship.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Frazzled wrote:
No. WWI killed the royals. WWII killed the dictators. The Napoleonic Code didn't have jack gak to do with it, other than being superior to the UK/US legal code.

And what was the basis for the German/Italian states?
What was the inspiration for Spanish liberals?
Who gave the Jews a taste of freedom?

Frazzled wrote:
Yes thats why they had a Kaisar, Tzar and various nobles ruling pretty much everything but France. It wasn't lawyers it was the death of millions.

Even France was not the result of that. remember Maximillian got killed by Mexicans...Mexicans!

Right. After Napoleon lost, the Ancien Régimes were re-instated in Europe. Then 20 years later there were huge populist outbreaks all over Europe.
Clearly you regard these as coincidences. Populist democrat conquers Europe, loses to reactionaries, then 20-30 years later, populist democrat uprisings abound. Yeah, definitely a coincidence.

Orlanth wrote:slavery is now achieved indirectly through debt and interest repayment

Capitalism, the free market, has made more people more wealthy and free than ever before in human history.

sirlynchmob wrote:we're getting more liberal, but at some point we need to start working towards the future.

Would that be away from liberty?

rockerbikie wrote:copyright laws . . . are not progressive ideas . . . [they] are backwards and stupid.

Copyright laws (and other IP laws) aren't stupid, but you're right that they're not "progressive." They're also not liberal. But they're a net benefit.

biccat wrote:
Copyright laws (and other IP laws) aren't stupid, but you're right that they're not "progressive." They're also not liberal. But they're a net benefit.

They're illiberal but nessesary for free market capitalism to succeed. It's impossible to have real competition if you could just emulate your competitors. Not that this stops me from voting Pirate Party

biccat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:slavery is now achieved indirectly through debt and interest repayment

Capitalism, the free market, has made some people more wealthy and free than ever before in human history.

FTFY

biccat wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:copyright laws . . . are not progressive ideas . . . [they] are backwards and stupid.

Copyright laws (and other IP laws) aren't stupid, but you're right that they're not "progressive." They're also not liberal. But they're a net benefit.

Copyright in an age of digitised information is in its death throes, the only scarcity is imposed as supply is infinite and therefore digitised information is effectively worthless.

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:Capitalism, the free market, has made some people more wealthy and free than ever before in human history.

FTFY

No, it was correct as written.

Ask your ancestors who worked 16 hour days in order to provide enough food to feed themselves and (maybe) their families.

biccat wrote:Copyright in an age of digitised information is in its death throes, the only scarcity is imposed as supply is infinite and therefore digitised information is effectively worthless.

Supply is only infinite so long as there is copyright protection. Do you think there would have been an "Avengers" movie without copyright?

biccat wrote:
Ask your ancestors who worked 16 hour days in order to provide enough food to feed themselves and (maybe) their families.

Source please. Kind of counter intuitive that working some fields and hunting takes 16 hours.

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:
Ask your ancestors who worked 16 hour days in order to provide enough food to feed themselves and (maybe) their families.

Source please. Kind of counter intuitive that working some fields and hunting takes 16 hours.

Depends what time of year it was.
Harvest time would indeed be 16 hour working days, since you have to get all the crop in as quickly as possible to prevent it rotting/being eaten.
But there would be times of the year when there was less to do, certainly. At which point you could, what, exactly? Stand in a ditch and die of plague. Good times.

'Course there's a liberal trend in History. They run all the schools.

dæl wrote:Source please. Kind of counter intuitive that working some fields and hunting takes 16 hours.

Hunting and gathering are remarkably inefficient.

How many hours a day does one have to work in order to get enough food for a day? 3, maybe 4 hours at minimum wage?

Of course, living in modern society, you probably want amenities like an apartment, maybe a bed to sleep on, a vehicle (or bus pass). These are nice amenities, and are all provided by the market.

Joey wrote:

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:
Ask your ancestors who worked 16 hour days in order to provide enough food to feed themselves and (maybe) their families.

Source please. Kind of counter intuitive that working some fields and hunting takes 16 hours.

Depends what time of year it was.
Harvest time would indeed be 16 hour working days, since you have to get all the crop in as quickly as possible to prevent it rotting/being eaten.
But there would be times of the year when there was less to do, certainly. At which point you could, what, exactly? Stand in a ditch and die of plague. Good times.

Build tiny soldiers out of turnips and play a futuristic wargame called warhammer 2k?

@biccat thats not really a source.

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:
Ask your ancestors who worked 16 hour days in order to provide enough food to feed themselves and (maybe) their families.

Source please. Kind of counter intuitive that working some fields and hunting takes 16 hours.

He may be talking about factory work.

dæl wrote:

biccat wrote:

Orlanth wrote:slavery is now achieved indirectly through debt and interest repayment

Capitalism, the free market, has made some people more wealthy and free than ever before in human history.

FTFY

point, and in order for the some to be rich others must be poor. the last thing the west wants is even distribution f resources, especially the US. The US wastes an enormous amount of energy because the nation is very big and people are encouraged to be mobile. As reources tighten either wars must be fought to attain those resources (Iraq) or the expected standard of living must drop heavily.

Joey wrote:
And what was the basis for the German state?

Otto von Bismark.

Joey wrote:
Who gave the Jews a taste of freedom?

The Muslims.
Also The French National Essembly and especially Adrien Duport, in 1791.

rockerbikie wrote:Liberalism does not equal progress. For example, censorship and copyright laws. Those are not progressive ideas, those are backwards and stupid.

Yes, because equating the rights of creators to profit from their intellectual property to censorship isn't even slightly misleading and alarmist...

To answer the OP, yes there has been a liberalising trend over the last few centuries of human history. That universal suffrage, democracy, the rule of law and individual freedom all remain prevailing trends in our societies is pretty much a given. Now - ignoring the very obvious fact that liberalism (in its proper meaning) in no way equates to socialism (and that both are meaningless labels to apply in US politics; all your politicians are liberals of one sort or another, none of them are socialists) - the contention your brother seems to have been making is that there has been a similar historical trend to an increase in the power and authority of governments.

This, it would be fair to say, is probably also true; modern governments take on vastly more responsibility for the lives of their citizens than those of previous centuries, principally because there are certain areas (national defence, international relations, jurisprudence and public order, to pick generally-undisputed examples) which states are better-placed to provide than individuals.

The important word there is "responsibility"; if a government thinks it possible that the lives of its citizens would overall be improved by (to pick a contemporary US example) providing free healthcare, then it should feel morally obliged to at least consider the possibility, and to do so objectively. (Whether this is the case, I would not care to comment; what is disappointing is that both sides in the dispute seem guided principally by dogma, rather than by the facts of the case.)

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:we're getting more liberal, but at some point we need to start working towards the future.

Would that be away from liberty?

no maximizing liberty for everyone on earth.

Ever wonder why the republicans and democrats don't publish their goals for the US? is it either they don't have any and are just keeping the status quo? or are they so abhorrent that public opinion would finally shift and neither party would ever win another election? Think about it, if your in one of those parties, what are their goals? I really think that if romney wins his 2016 reelection platform would be to end womans suffrage, I mean really haven't women suffered enough?

IMO
I think the next step is setting up a world government, and passing a universal bill of rights that all countries would be bound by. After that the monetary systems and religions need to go away, along with anything else that is used to divided humanity. The end goal being free housing, food, and well free everything. We up the robotic industry til robots can do all jobs and we put humanity out of work. Then after the robots have everything well in hand we dismantle the government and replace it with a computer who's job is to manage all the resources to make sure the people who need them, get them. We tear down old decaying cities and rebuild them with recyclable materials that are modular. maximizing space, and utilizing clean energy. Think about it, if you didn't need to work anymore, selling your life & soul for basic living stuff, what could you do with your life?

You mean other than their party platforms which they do at least every election cycle?

sirlynchmob wrote:

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:we're getting more liberal, but at some point we need to start working towards the future.

Would that be away from liberty?

no maximizing liberty for everyone on earth.

Ever wonder why the republicans and democrats don't publish their goals for the US? is it either they don't have any and are just keeping the status quo? or are they so abhorrent that public opinion would finally shift and neither party would ever win another election? Think about it, if your in one of those parties, what are their goals? I really think that if romney wins his 2016 reelection platform would be to end womans suffrage, I mean really haven't women suffered enough?

IMO
I think the next step is setting up a world government, and passing a universal bill of rights that all countries would be bound by. After that the monetary systems and religions need to go away, along with anything else that is used to divided humanity. The end goal being free housing, food, and well free everything. We up the robotic industry til robots can do all jobs and we put humanity out of work. Then after the robots have everything well in hand we dismantle the government and replace it with a computer who's job is to manage all the resources to make sure the people who need them, get them. We tear down old decaying cities and rebuild them with recyclable materials that are modular. maximizing space, and utilizing clean energy. Think about it, if you didn't need to work anymore, selling your life & soul for basic living stuff, what could you do with your life?

Bring on the singularity, then we just have to learn the lessons of the Eldar, and not do the whole Fall thing.

Frazzled wrote:You mean other than their party platforms which they do at least every election cycle?

no long term, 10 years, 25 years, 100 years. not just what they think will get them elected next year.

sirlynchmob wrote:I really think that if romney wins his 2016 reelection platform would be to end womans suffrage

Wow, seriously? This is all kinds of conspiracy-theory nuts. In my not so humble opinion.

Romney doesn't want to end Women's sufferage. I promise.

sirlynchmob wrote:The end goal being free housing, food, and well free everything.

Nothing is free. We live in a world of scarcity. If everything is free people will demand more. Where does it come from? Who provides it?

sirlynchmob wrote:Think about it, if you didn't need to work anymore, selling your life & soul for basic living stuff, what could you do with your life?

It's too horrible to imagine.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You mean other than their party platforms which they do at least every election cycle?

no long term, 10 years, 25 years, 100 years. not just what they think will get them elected next year.

Er, you think they think longer than that? Who do you think these guys are the Society of Jesus or something? Long term IS the next election.

biccat wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:I really think that if romney wins his 2016 reelection platform would be to end womans suffrage

Wow, seriously? This is all kinds of conspiracy-theory nuts. In my not so humble opinion.

Romney doesn't want to end Women's sufferage. I promise.

sirlynchmob wrote:The end goal being free housing, food, and well free everything.

Nothing is free. We live in a world of scarcity. If everything is free people will demand more. Where does it come from? Who provides it?

sirlynchmob wrote:Think about it, if you didn't need to work anymore, selling your life & soul for basic living stuff, what could you do with your life?

It's too horrible to imagine.

we live in a world of forced scarcity. If you have everything you need, house, food, computer, clothes, than why would you need more? fossil fuels will be done away with and renewable sources will be used for electricity. solar, wind, geothermal, tidal. These will be built into the cities. robots will grow the food, using all the best science has to offer, like hydroponics. goods will be distributed with unmanned trains and planes and boats.

but think about how your life could go, you could still work if you choose to. all the people enjoy robotics could collaborate together and design more efficient robots, design the robots to send to mars for them to start building cities there and terraform the planet. or you could just stay at home and spend time with your family, and play warhammer online, just like the tabletop game, but without the miniatures. You could design computer games, write books, or anything else you enjoy doing, and put them online for everyone to enjoy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You mean other than their party platforms which they do at least every election cycle?

no long term, 10 years, 25 years, 100 years. not just what they think will get them elected next year.

Er, you think they think longer than that? Who do you think these guys are the Society of Jesus or something? Long term IS the next election.

someone is, and if its not your party, then why are you supporting them? who is giving them their orders?