Using a 19th century British politicians' definitions of liberal and conservative to critique 21st century American liberal and conservative is rather silly don't you think?
Conservative and liberal are relative terms and even the modern usage in Great Britain differs from its modern usage in the US. Adding in the political shifts over the last 100 plus years makes the relative meanings even more disparate.
By comparison, we can use the ancient Greek Pythagoras to apply to triangles today because the nature of triangles are unchanging.
Well, that would mean that any discussions of Karl Marx must be taken into the context of today with the fact that we have a global marketplace and workers own stock in their companies now.
Well, that would mean that any discussions of Karl Marx must be taken into the context of today with the fact that we have a global marketplace and workers own stock in their companies now.
Well, no fucking shit, Sherlock. Just like any discussion of Darwin's On the Origin of Species has the take into account the state of knowledge of his time. What you've done here in comments is as silly as if some Fred Phelps (D-Kansas) sort of whackjob had posted something about how the Flintstone's theme song is proof of Hollywood pushing the gay agenda for the last half-century, then when called on the fact that the culture has changed along with the common meaning of the word "gay", responded with an inane comment about "(ahem)... John Maynard Keynes?"
With that answer I'd have to ask why to liberals then not trust the people to serve the common good? - by regulating behavior in the name of the common good? If they were trusted then it wouldn't be necessary to regulate toilets, soda pop size, recycling etc etc.
12 comments:
Using a 19th century British politicians' definitions of liberal and conservative to critique 21st century American liberal and conservative is rather silly don't you think?
(ahem)...Adam Smith?
WTF, Mark? Seriously. WTF does that even mean?
It means that if we use Adam Smith (an 18th century figure) to apply to circumstances today why can't we use a 19th century figure?
Conservative and liberal are relative terms and even the modern usage in Great Britain differs from its modern usage in the US. Adding in the political shifts over the last 100 plus years makes the relative meanings even more disparate.
By comparison, we can use the ancient Greek Pythagoras to apply to triangles today because the nature of triangles are unchanging.
Well, that would mean that any discussions of Karl Marx must be taken into the context of today with the fact that we have a global marketplace and workers own stock in their companies now.
There has always been a global market.
Well, that would mean that any discussions of Karl Marx must be taken into the context of today with the fact that we have a global marketplace and workers own stock in their companies now.
Well, no fucking shit, Sherlock. Just like any discussion of Darwin's On the Origin of Species has the take into account the state of knowledge of his time. What you've done here in comments is as silly as if some Fred Phelps (D-Kansas) sort of whackjob had posted something about how the Flintstone's theme song is proof of Hollywood pushing the gay agenda for the last half-century, then when called on the fact that the culture has changed along with the common meaning of the word "gay", responded with an inane comment about "(ahem)... John Maynard Keynes?"
I guess the real question at this point is this: Do you think this statement applies to today's conservatives and liberals? If not, why not?
Better question: In the terms of Gladstone what do you think he is referring to when he says trust of the people? Trust them to do what?
I'd say the trust of the people to serve the common good through prudence.
With that answer I'd have to ask why to liberals then not trust the people to serve the common good? - by regulating behavior in the name of the common good? If they were trusted then it wouldn't be necessary to regulate toilets, soda pop size, recycling etc etc.
Post a Comment