lmmarsano
joined 1 year ago
I don't think the leftists who dislike liberalism understand it or liberal philosophy. Liberalism isn't intrinsically tied to capitalism or even democracy.
It's a moral & political philosophy that emerged from the Enlightenment in opposition to power imbalances derived from ideologies & traditions that justify divine hereditary privilege, absolute authority of the church & state. To contest the legitimacy of traditional authority, it needed a new basis of legitimacy & found it in liberty.
It holds that individuals have inherent rights & liberties that exist apart from any law just for being human. All individuals have the same fundamental rights, so are fundamentally equal. Legitimate authority must protect these rights. Governments exist for the people, and the people have a right & duty to correct & replace governments with illegitimate authority. That's the essence of liberal philosophy: legitimate governments protect fundamental rights & liberties of individuals.
It was the original leftism. While left & right varieties of liberalism exist, its leftist varieties are more coherent. All the ideals in opposition to traditional power imbalances serve as well to oppose authoritarianism in general.
Legitimate leftism should oppose authoritarianism due to the power imbalances. Liberal socialism is a valid approach to socialism. The social democracies in Europe are another approach to socialism in liberal democracies. All of these are antiauthoritarian leftism.
ass pennies
Which is great.
Is this a disparity in treatment or response?
The 2025 politicians’ security survey, carried out by the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, found that 26.3% of female elected representatives reported being exposed to threats and harassment last year because of their position. The equivalent figure for men was 23.6%.
About the same levels: the difference could be random noise.
When it came to feeling vulnerable, the gender gap was markedly larger, at 32.7% of women reporting such feelings compared with 24% of men.
That indicates a stronger response.
Maybe this concerns right-wing extremist threatening everyone more than inequality?
- Republican lawmakers are leaving office out of fear of the party’s base
- At least 11 Indiana Republicans were targeted with threats or swatting attacks
- Marjorie Taylor Greene plans to resign after MAGA threats
Everyone's getting heat from far-right dickheads.
On here
- liberalism is a non-economic political & moral philosophy worth defending, it can be leftist & makes more sense that way, socialism can be liberal & should be if it truly aims to be egalitarian
- it's okay to refer to human females as females, and that word should be embraced with pride
- insults are supposed to be abusive
- comedy doesn't need to be politically correct or enlightened, and good comedy challenges us by derisively subverting sacred presumptions & conventions
Then maybe start acting like it instead of missing the obvious?
inequity is real.
Right, in discriminatory laws.
Generalizing the law to crimes attacking anyone for their gender would also increase penalties for femicide without legal discrimination. Did you know there are other genders in the world?
Needs text alternative.
The actions of governments don't necessarily follow from a philosophy they may fail to track. Is whatever you're criticizing due to a proposition of the philosophy or due to an act that departs from the philosophy?
Likewise, knowing only liberals who are capitalists, doesn't imply liberalism is capitalist. Only knowing about socialists who are tankies/authoritarian, doesn't imply socialism is authoritarian. They are general philosophies.
Now you're just admitting ignorance of socialism, which permits private property & even markets. Socialism only demands public ownership of the "means of production". It doesn't reject personal property & only extreme varieties demand public ownership of practically everything.
Even so, your objections don't imply a rejection of the core propositions mentioned before: the core propositions are distinct from & independent of the criticality of property rights or markets. "Generally supported" in your quote does not mean always or necessarily, only often. What do we call a philosophy that accepts the core propositions without the elements you object to? Liberal: your objected elements aren't essential to the philosophy.
Moreover, changing economic systems wasn't a historical consideration (no alternative was conceived) at the time, so economic system wasn't a historical or necessary part of the philosophy, either.
Finally, counterexamples have already been provided: liberal socialism.
So, do you accept the moral proposition that individuals inherently have fundamental rights & liberties independent of legal status, all individuals are categorically equal, authority is legitimate only when it protects those rights & liberties? If so, then believe it or not, you're liberal.
If we're going to drag in the performance of actual governments, though, then liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including those social democracies you dismiss beat most communist states (China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality: check out the detailed view of this world map of gini coefficients.
Only, North Korea achieves low economic inequality, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Counterexamples (liberal socialist philosophies & governments) have already been provided. Your denial of fact doesn't make it untrue. You don't speak for all socialists.