Laurence Fox

Angilion said:
left and right are not on the same spectrum as liberalism and illiberalism. If you knew what liberalism was, you'd know that.

The phrase "classic liberal" is an attempt to recover liberalism from the anti-liberal bigots who've usurped and corrupted it. The authoritarian bigots who call their ideology "progressive". Which, of course, it is to them. Just like every other ideology. "Progress" just means "more of what the person using the word wants". Self-styled progressives want authoritarianism, lying and irrational prejudices so an increase in those things is progress to them.
Click to expand...
yeah sure. Of course it is.
 
I don't like him, but it’s good to have dissenting voices because so much of politics (both left and right) is now so utterly submissive to the brand of capitalist liberalism that seems to actually drive the direction of the world now.

Politicians were meant to be the representatives of the people to engage with the elite. It could be argued politicians are now the representatives of the elite to engage with the people.

So it is obvious those who feel unrepresented will look elsewhere and for figureheads who are saying something different to the mainstream, Fox has capitalised on this....as did Trump / Farage etc etc.

It's up to the mainstream politicians to engage with the public again and try to recapture their trust.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
left and right are not on the same spectrum as liberalism and illiberalism. If you knew what liberalism was, you'd know that.

The phrase "classic liberal" is an attempt to recover liberalism from the anti-liberal bigots who've usurped and corrupted it. The authoritarian bigots who call their ideology "progressive". Which, of course, it is to them. Just like every other ideology. "Progress" just means "more of what the person using the word wants". Self-styled progressives want authoritarianism, lying and irrational prejudices so an increase in those things is progress to them.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. "classic liberal" or "classical liberalism" was coined back in the 19th century to distinguish social and democratic (modern) liberalism from economic liberalism or libertarianism.

Modern (19th C and post) liberalism is about moral freedom to and from for the individual. Classical liberalism is about amoral economic freedom.

That you want it to mean something about subversion by progressive (liberals!) shows what little you in fact know about liberalism. Classic or not. Go read some Locke.
 
Classic Liberals

Individual liberty
Economic freedom
Limited government

Modern 'Liberals'

Group conformity (cancel/censor those who don't conform)
Excessive regulation (government controlling all aspects of industry)
Big government (trading freedom/privacy for the illusion of security)

If you actually look into it Modern Liberalism has more in common with Nazi Germany and I woud argue China today are closer to that model than they are Communism but then the Nazi's themselves saw themselves as Socialists. Different heads of the same beast.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
No it isn't. "classic liberal" or "classical liberalism" was coined back in the 19th century to distinguish social and democratic (modern) liberalism from economic liberalism or libertarianism.
. . .

Go read some Locke.
Click to expand...
I guess you mean "John Locke"?

The Wikipedia entry on Liberalism can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

But I suspect that that is really of no more use than reading The Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital, Mao's Little Red Book or Mein Kampf in making sense of current everyday abusage of terms and none of it really has much to do with Laurence Fox and his barmy ideas.
 
Last edited:
inogen said:
No it isn't. "classic liberal" or "classical liberalism" was coined back in the 19th century to distinguish social and democratic (modern) liberalism from economic liberalism or libertarianism.

Modern (19th C and post) liberalism is about moral freedom to and from for the individual. Classical liberalism is about amoral economic freedom.

That you want it to mean something about subversion by progressive (liberals!) shows what little you in fact know about liberalism. Classic or not. Go read some Locke.
Click to expand...

Since there are now three different things called "liberalism", words are being used differently to some extent. For people today, what was modern in the 19th century is now classical. A better naming scheme would be a good idea, one not tied to relative time by words like "classical", "modern", etc.
 
Angilion said:
Since there are now three different things called "liberalism", words are being used differently to some extent. For people today, what was modern in the 19th century is now classical. A better naming scheme would be a good idea, one not tied to relative time by words like "classical", "modern", etc.
Click to expand...
Are you all trying to be like 'New' Labour?

What you are looking for is conservatism: Fear of change.

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/jordan-peterson-is-conservative-not-classical-liberal
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
Since there are now three different things called "liberalism", words are being used differently to some extent. For people today, what was modern in the 19th century is now classical. A better naming scheme would be a good idea, one not tied to relative time by words like "classical", "modern", etc.
Click to expand...

All well and good. Make up some new names and see if they stick. As it stands classical liberalism already means something and it’s not about how old it is.

and really, libertarianism vs liberalism does fine. It only gets confused by libertarians who want to disassociate themselves from actual liberals, but still want to allude to being non authoritarian.
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
My guess is that you've read too much philosophy and not enough politics. Or news.
Click to expand...

Lol. If you mean I've not been sucked into the vacuous nonsense that this country describes as "news" I suppose you're right. Although I feel constantly exposed to it. I prefer to keep abreast of current affairs through some alternative and somewhat trusted media (The Economist, Private Eye and Viz are examples of my printed media subs) and I do have a fairly advanced education in political science, so you're not on the right track there at all.

And it's difficult to read too much philosophy. And I do like a bit of sci-fi. I'm a big fan of Kurt Vonnegut. I like Ray Bradbury too. I've even read Dune.

Anyway, if you can't get on with John Locke (it is quite hard going) David Hume is good.
 
Last edited:
On the one hand, white British, protect the environment have less kids.

In the other hand we need more immigrations to do jobs.

On the other hand in some countries with vastly higher birth rates....

Screenshot-20210309-215919-Chrome.jpg
 
The Running Man said:
On the one hand, white British, protect the environment have less kids.

In the other hand we need more immigrations to do jobs.

On the other hand in some countries with vastly higher birth rates....

. . .
Click to expand...
Is this bizarre family planning plea in any way connected with Lawrence Fox?
Are you suggesting that his parents should have stopped at two?
 
The Running Man said:
On the one hand, white British, protect the environment have less kids.

In the other hand we need more immigrations to do jobs.

On the other hand in some countries with vastly higher birth rates....

Screenshot-20210309-215919-Chrome.jpg
Click to expand...
Pretty much the last place in the world I'd have expected to read those words! It's a start.
 
The Running Man said:
On the one hand, white British, protect the environment have less kids.

In the other hand we need more immigrations to do jobs.

On the other hand in some countries with vastly higher birth rates....
Click to expand...

You have your Tory utopia, for a long time.
Back in the real world, actual human beings are just trying to get through life he best they can
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom