Liberalism

[Whaleboy]

Got my website back up, and its updated, and I just finished this article because I am irritated by the lame arguments and faulty logic used against liberalism by conservatives these days.

Note that this is a defence of the concept, in terms of how we interpret that, most liberals are probably "partial" liberals, same as most conservatives are also "partial". Things in the real world aren't quite as black and white as my article implies.

Defence of liberalism

My site

There are some bugs in the text layout, you can see by comparing different articles. In the next update I might have to use frames, but I'm trying to avoid that, but let me know what you think of the changes!

EDIT: By the way, I'm English, is it "defence" or "defense"?

[geeslaka]

According to the Merriam Webster sitting in front of me, it's defense. However, both spellings are acceptable.

Nice site
Good essay too.

[Whaleboy]

Thanks! I should probably standardise on defense.

[Paul Hanson]

Defense is the US spelling, IIRC. Defence is the British spelling, and being British I think you should use this spelling and resist US linguistic imperialism.

FIGHT THE POWER!!!!

[Whaleboy]

I think they might be getting revenge on us for being the original imperialists and giving them our language in the first place!

[Whaleboy]

Anyone seen "The Idiot Experiment", its an article on my site. I strongly recommend others do the same .

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by elijah
Anyone seen "The Idiot Experiment", its an article on my site. I strongly recommend others do the same .

[Maniac]

Funny idiot experiment. Though it's exaggerating to call people intolerant because they look weird at you or laugh when they see something unusual.

[Whaleboy]

Well, it is indicative. Like I said, its hardly scientific.

[The diplomat]

I think we do have the right to "hate" the terrorists. We are talking about a group of Islamic extremists that want to impose their way of life on everyone else. Do you want to live like the Afghanis under the Taliban? Do you want to live under a brutal Sharia law, where if you are a woman then you are literally the property of your husband to do with you as he wants, where if you are a man and your beard is too short you are publicly put to DEATH. Considering that they killed 3000 people, and want to impose that kind of society on others, I think we have the right to hate them just a little bit.

But the real problem is that the policies that liberals offer to deal with the threat of terrorism, are simply wrong.

Diplomacy and intelligence cannot solve the problem. They definitely are crucial to find out about a imminent attack before it happens. But once you know about an imminent threat, how do you stop it? By diplomacy, I assume you mean talking to countries close to the problem. What if those countries are unwilling or unable to deal with the problem. In the case of Al Queda, the Taliban SUPORTED them whole heartily. You can't talk to the Taliban and ask them to dismantle Al Queda. They'll refuse because they WANT Al Queda to strike.

This gets me to my second point. Terrorism is a military threat because most terrorism is state sponsored. Al Queda was whole heartily supported by the Taliban, Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria. Hamas by Iran.

The thing to undertand is that terrorism is the military wing for these countries. They can't match the US military tank for tank, so they try to even the balance with more unconventional means, ie terrorism. it gives these countries are powerful weapon to offset there tradional military deficiencies. They can fund these groups with weapons and money, and logistics. Since the support is "under the table", they can pretend they don't know anything about, while the terrorists strike.

When you are faced with group like Al Queda which is a well armed, well trained, well financed, group armed to the teeth, that is a military force. They are so committed to their cause, they are not going to talk or negotiate. We have to defend ourselves. 3000 people died on 9-11. That is not social terror. You are completely insulting the families of the victims when you say, "Tactically speaking, terrorists do little actual damage to society. Even 9/11, by far the worst outrage ever committed by terrorists, was getting off lightly when compared to even a single night of the blitz in British cities". I doubt the families of the victims would consider that they got off lightly.

The bottom line is that Liberals do not understand terrorism, and simply do not offer appropriate solutions. That is why their policies are rejected.

[el freako]

Originally posted by Paul Hanson
Defense is the US spelling, IIRC. Defence is the British spelling, and being British I think you should use this spelling and resist US linguistic imperialism.

Well I thought being 'liberal' in Britian was it's original meaning (to get some idea of that the root word is liberty), people who would today be called libertartians in the US.

So the entire sentance should be spelled in the US style - to avoid confusion.

[Whaleboy]

With regards to imminent threats, you use your intelligence/security forces to apprehend or kill the people who would carry it out.

Diplomacy and intelligence cannot solve the problem

An immediate threat of attack or series of attacks? Probably not, see above. Diplomacy, intelligence, a sensible foreign policy etc can prevent attacks or terrorist campaigns from starting in the first place. If I walk down a street and punch lots of people, I'll get punched back. If I'm nice to people, I'll be fine (in general, probably wont work with Albert Speer ).

the Taliban SUPORTED them whole heartily. You can't talk to the Taliban and ask them to dismantle Al Queda. They'll refuse because they WANT Al Queda to strike.

This gets me to my second point. Terrorism is a military threat because most terrorism is state sponsored. Al Queda was whole heartily supported by the Taliban, Hezbollah is supported by Iran and Syria. Hamas by Iran

I count the taleban as terrorist in terms of organisational structure, level of fanaticism etc. We can and should deal with reputable governments, but the taleban etc would not have been a problem, and Afghanistan would have been much more prosperous had the Russians withdrawn properly, leaving a functioning state behind them, and the USA not forgotten about them after the 80s.

This gets me to my second point. Terrorism is a military threat because most terrorism is state sponsored

Some is, that is not in dispute, but it is fundamentally independent from the state itself. Its like a gang of criminals, whose goals might happen to be the same as the state in which they are operating, but that does not make them part of that nationstate, an instrument of that nations power, or even a part of their mlitary. That goes without saying due to tactics, as well as sociological origin of terrorism. Due to the level of actual tactical damage they can do, they are criminals, not military people.

The thing to undertand is that terrorism is the military wing for these countries

Not at all, see above. Paramilitary/militia? Perhaps to an extent, but that matters little as these are separate organisations, or to be more accurate, independent cells forming a loose organisation. They are FORMED spontaneously from the extreme edge of social discontent about a certain situation, be that Northern Ireland, suppression by Israel, or a general feeling of suppression by the West.

Theres an article on my site about terrorism too that goes into a bit more detail.

When you are faced with group like Al Queda which is a well armed, well trained, well financed, group armed to the teeth, that is a military force.

If I recall correctly, the 9/11 hijackers were armed with ceramic knives that probably costed less than $200 for all the men involved.

They are so committed to their cause, they are not going to talk or negotiate

Indeed, but they are a relatively small number of men. When they are engaged by a military or special ops, they don't stand a chance. That is IF THEY ARE ENGAGED FIRST! The key is to create, preferably passively, the social conditions whereby a dead terrorist will not be replaced by a newly recruited one, let alone the dead becoming martyrs, as is the current case.

We have to defend ourselves. 3000 people died on 9-11

The men should have been stopped at the airports, shot by air marshalls in flight, or the planes shot down as a last resort. Two wars fought and won, yet Al Qaeda is an even greater threat with greater numbers. Simple common sense security, plus good intelligence, as well as a foreign policy that does not incite is far more effective that populist militarism that merely continues and escalates a viscious circle.

That is not social terror

Americans scared ****less about possible more attacks? Popular support for wars that help Al Qaeda justify an increasinly popular jihad against the West? (Don't be naive, that was their intention, knowing the US would strike back). Grief, shock, anger, revenge, terror. Looks like the terrorists have won a big victory this time, not a tactical victory, casualties are still light compared to a proper total war, or even civvy death tolls in Afghanistan/Iraq since the US wars (don't get me wrong, I supported Afghan war to a point). It has created a social terror, and a damn big one!

You are completely insulting the families of the victims

Theyll survive. Unlike many people, I dont let sympathy for the victims, and shock and anger that I felt on 9/11 like most people get in the way of what I believe. I do not believe it is logical, productive, or beneficial to necessarily side with the victims in any crime - certainly I haven't let it give me a desire for revenge on behalf of the victims, who by their very position lose objectivity in such a situation, thus their positions under any critical analysis carries little weight in terms of independent evidence.

I doubt the families of the victims would consider that they got off lightly

See above. I'm sure they wouldn't but multiply the number of dead by ten, and that would be a single night in late 1940 in Coventry! The inescapable fact is that terrorism is not a tactical threat! American civilisation is under no threat from Al Qaeda, sure they say so in the rhetoric, but do they ever describe a rational mechanism by which that could happen? I certainly have never heard one, and cannot think of one, and reasonably assume that none exists in the medium term. If and when American civilisation falls, it won't be because of terrorism, and it wont be for centuries!

The bottom line is that Liberals do not understand terrorism

I personally have spent a good deal of time over the past three years analysing, researching and debating the issue, it is fairly safe to say that I understand it, and see solutions fitting into liberalism, strengthening the latter position. Hence my article and site. That of course begs the question of whether you, and conservatives understand it, and from what I have seen, that is often not the case, but lets keep this free of ad hominems. I do agree that in terms of immediate, actual threats of attacks, actual crimes that are about to be committed, that force and the intelligence services are essential. This is purely defensive. This does not work in the longer term as explained above, the only logical solution is the liberal one.

You will find that liberal solutions and policies are rejected in this day and age, because they are not popular among the general conservative simple-minded ilk in the West today.

[Whaleboy]

I think we do have the right to "hate" the terrorists

You can feel what you want to feel, for me, I find it next to impossible to hate. I dislike terrorists, I dislike what they do, I dislike what they stand for. Rather, I disagree with it. I recognise their right to have an opinion, a view, a culture, and have that culture not interfered with by me as the West. I do not recognise their right to impose that on others as you quite rightly say, but I fail to see why, asides from defence, we should stoop to that level.

The fact that you admit hatred would seem to imply that you are operating on less than rational principles, your position fuelled by irrational emotions. I'm not trying to piss on you, but one word of advice is to stick to rationality, and not use hatred and irrationality as the basis for your positions. It is possible to defend the conservative argument without them, nonetheless, it is my opinion that the liberal argument is stronger, but be that as it may, I am not in an objective position to judge as I know my preferences, am merely advocating them.

Do you want to live like the Afghanis under the Taliban? Do you want to live under a brutal Sharia law, where if you are a woman then you are literally the property of your husband to do with you as he wants, where if you are a man and your beard is too short you are publicly put to DEATH.

I do not want to, but then I do not! I recognise the validy of that alien culture, even though I do not agree with it. It does not fit within the bounds of what I consider to be a good culture, well that is fine, but then I cannot logically judge over that, as I have made my choice and any judgement wuold be clouded by principles independent from the culture in question, thus while it would be valid for me, it is not objective and not necessarily valid for others, particularly that culture. Similarly, I cannot act on that judgement and impose my culture on theirs, as they seek to do to us. As I have often said, they are two equally valid subjective positions, there is nothing absolute, holy or ultimately good about mine that would warrant me to force mine on others.

Considering that they killed 3000 people, and want to impose that kind of society on others, I think we have the right to hate them just a little bit.

I think you, as a nation, have the right to get over 9/11 and start viewing things clearly and rationally for once .

[Ned]

I did not read the whole article in detail because I honestly did not know what you were talking about. Perhaps you could define Liberal and Liberalism and Conservative and Conservatism, and then define what their respective positions are on an issue. From there, you can analyze why one is right and the other wrong.

Why do I ask this? It is because the meaning of the terms changes from context to context. I think Liberalism and Conservatism may not be an overriding philosophy, but issue dependent. But, I might be wrong, depending on your definitions.

[Whaleboy]

Conservatism: Bush-like (perhaps neocon is a better term).
Liberalism: Not the above.

Its odd, because conservative can mean pragmatic/realistic, capitalist, libertarian etc, whereas it can also mean very highly patriotic, and leaning towards totalitarianism. The traditional left-right political scale is flawed, its at least four dimensional.

Here I take conservatism to mean what it does today in Bushland, liberalism being the pacifist and intellectual libertarians that are opposed to him.

EDIT: Common sense definitions really apply here. I suppose I should make it clearer.