I will respond to you jake later.
I can't believe you scammed a like from jake by lying like that.
You should be ashamed of yourself. This is like fraud.
You people tempt me so much... Jakes pst was utterly irrelevant. I would have only been responding out of politeness.
You knw curly, I do remember your post, and was going to let it lie, again, out of politeness, but you have brought it on yourself I guess.
I don't think you're a covert agent I just think your ideas are confused and your fetishism of rational debate is as much about staking out an identity as anyone (God I hate how the other side has no interest in logic, how they never engage in good faith). You have a child's understanding of ideas like liberalism and want us to engage with your childish caricatures of them which is tiresome as fuck.
My original post was about Noam Chomsky. I think it was Shosta who couldn't understand how I could use the term 'classical liberal' and Noam Chomsky in the same breath. So I explained it in simple language so that it could be easily understood and so not to dwell on it. The topic was not about liberalism.
I stated, 'to sum up in one sentence' essentially the essence of classical liberalism is individual freedom. From that develops a series of questions which in turn form a body of work on the subject. For instance questions surrounding state power and the role of the state in protecting individual freedom. Whether state coercion is ever justified. More to the point whether there should be a state altogther. In other words from that foundational principle we get a train of thought that ultimately leads to anarchism, or limited government. If individual freedom is a state of being which is in some sense the right of every man, then the state's power over the individual becomes suspect. This is actually more detailed than my original post, but just to make this clear.
Here's the thing: When someone says 'to sum up in one sentence' anyone with half a brain cell, you would think, could understand that they are
intentionally simplifying it. The clue is,
you know... 'to sum up in one sentence'. Summing anything up in one sentence can only ever be a simplification. Yet for some unknown reason, people like you seem to interpret that as, this one sentence is literally the entire breadth of liberal thought. As if when I open a text book, I am expecting that one sentence and then, 'the end' (lol). You can't be this dense surely? You seem not to understand basic words, like: to sum up; the essence of; the root of. Words that necessary qualifies a statement a certain way. We were not having a discussion on liberalism. And so when someone like Jake comes along and states shit like, 'you know there is a whole school of thought in liberalism' or 'liberalism is more nuanced than that', well... Yes. It. Is. It is utterly irrelevant and would have turned the discussion on a tangent. We were discussing Noam Chomsky for goodness sake.
What's worse though is what is implied by your post. If I only have a childlike understanding of liberalism and that it is not worth engaging, what is that suggesting about you? It is suggesting you have an expert understanding of liberalism and so engaging with me is beneath you. Yet, for some reason unbeknowest to me, you are contesting the fact that classical
in essence IS about individual freedom. It is the 'root' of it. The foundational principle where all thought stems outward from. I can't for the life of me see why you would if you knew anything.
I mean... read this first sentence curly.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/classical_liberalism.htmThis demonstrates something to me. You are reading my posts at a distance. You're not trying to get the point I am making you are looking for something to get me on. I don't actually think you're as dense as you seem. What I actually think is you were looking for something as a point of contest. It was a short post of me explaining why I associated Noam with Classical liberalism. WHat it was not was an indepth conversation on liberalism. I was not writing an essay on liberalism. So why then do you make it such? Well, I think I know...
