naturalgasbadChinese scientists develop cure for diabetes, insulin patient becomes medicine-free in just 3 months
šš¶š¶š²š®Itās sad to see USA so shackled by pure capitalism it starts to lose its scientific edge
I am super confused by your take here. Liberals who, and letās be clear, regularly push for better if not universal health care (and are the only major party to do so) jerk off big Pharma to you? How exactly do you get to that conclusion?
Liberal = laissez faire
Liberals means different things around the world. Here it is free markets circlejerkers, Adam smith cultists, invisible hand of the market preachers
You just said that liberals are hardcore capitalists despite the fact that liberals are the ones pushing for a hybrid socialist democracy where key industries are socialized so that rampant corruption, which is an effect of the invisible hand, can be avoided. You go on to say that liberal means conservative.
Phrases like āwe are living in a post truth worldā are a self fulfilling prophecy for those who use that phraseā¦ for the rest of us you just sound like a far-right provocateur.
It appears you are either very confused or you are a dishonest interlocutor and are completely full of shit.
Lmao sounds like you got some stick up your ass. Go get some qualified help
Careful, your ad hominem is showing
Damn I am trying to stay classy today despite all odds almost caved in
Maybe you should try putting a stick in your ass
.world user try not to be confused about the word āliberalā challenge (impossible)
This is a really insightful argument you have proposed. am going to have to give it a lot of thought because itās so sophisticated and well thought out/communicated. You should be proud of yourself.
sparkleāLiberalā isnāt only a word used for US progressives. āLiberalā is used to mean someone who believes in āfree-marketā capitalism, private ownership of the means of production and anti-nationalization, anti-protectionism/anti-regulationism, and individualism/anti-collectivism. Itās pretty much synonymous with right-wing ālibertarianā ideologies, including neoliberalism, classical liberalism, and "anarcho"capitalism. This is what the word has always referred to normally, and is by far the most common usage in most of the world, and itās still used this way in the US ā mainly in economic, philisophical, or āfundamental rightsā contexts though.
Liberalism is pretty much the antithesis of socialism, in a purely left-versus-right sense at least.
Modern American liberalism is democratic socialism and thatās what it has meant since FDRā¦
"In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited governmentand laissez-faire economic policies."Consequently, the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism are key components of modern American conservatism and movement conservatism, and became the basis for the emerging school of modern American libertarian thought.
This doesnāt mean that liberalism = conservatism.
Surely you must notice that āModern American Liberalismā and āLiberalismā are two separate terms? It even specifies in the article youāre quoting. You cannot just assume that any and every usage of the term āliberalā is in reference to social liberalism, even in America itās still used in the typical/āoriginalā sense occasionally.
Also calling either āsocialismā, even ādemocratic socialismā, is laughable. Socialism means abolishing capitalism and having the means of production belong to the public. Democratic socialism is an ideology that believes that socialism can be achieved through peaceful reform rather than violent revolution. Modern American Liberalism specifically advocates for a mixed economy with mostly private, but some nationalized, industries. It also specifies that in the same article you quoted.
Adam Smith had a completely different definition of āfree marketsā than Neoliberals did.
They might mean neo libs.
Itās fucking annoying when capitalists keep coming up with capitalist positions and naming them so that they sound like they are something else. Like neo liberalism or libertarianism, which are pretty close to the same thing (all about a deregulated, private, free market), only libertarians like to emphasize how they are ok with sex and drugs.
Liberals want governments and collective public elements to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals (from other individuals, organizations, and governments).
Neo liberals want governments and collective public elements to stay out of their affairs and let them manage their own interests.
Liberals want governments and collective public elements to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals (from other individuals, organizations, and governments).
If the overarching āfreedoms of individualsā is the freedom to exploit the labor of individuals then yes, thatās the core of liberalism.
If by ācollective public elementsā you meant collectivizing the means of production, then no, thatās socialism/anarchism/other.
Thatās the core of neo liberalism. Liberalism has a āmy rights end where yours beginā component but neo liberalism drops that and expects the free market to solve such conflicts.
And by ācollective public elementsā, I meant public organizations like the postal service, police departments, etc. The government itself is supposed to be one of those. Liberalism is neutral on what is and isnāt collectivized. Neo liberalism likes privatization but appreciates that some functions are better handled by the public, like law enforcement and road maintenance. Libertarianism believes it should all be private.
In the last comment I said neo liberalism and libertarianism are pretty much the same, but itās more accurate to say libertarianism is an extreme version of neo liberalism.
Liberalism has a āmy rights end where yours beginā
No, itās always been the defense of exploitation when it comes into conflict with any other supposed right.
Hereās one of my favorite books, it goes through the history and evolution of Liberalism: acdc2007.free.fr/losurdo2011.pdf
Liberals donāt do that, progressives do. Liberals say that universal health care is too complicated and nuanced so we better just stick with the system we have because thatās generating profits so it must be working.