It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Claims with decreasing credibility that they want to make life better for anyone. Never actually fucking tries to do it. Keeps finding just enough no votes to make sure it never happens. Blocks anyone from running in their party who actually wants to make anything better.
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
You are correct, you are using different terms because in the US liberal is used to talk about the Democrats. Everyone else in the world, including here on Lemmy, uses liberal as in Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, both defend the status quo and wants capitalism to continue.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
Both Republicans and Democrats wants that. They are both funded by US’s billionairies, they both attend to their interests and want this system to continue. I’m not gonna deny that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but they are both still right wing parties in a two-party system.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.
In what ways do the Republicans respect equality before the law? I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Democrats are neoliberal/conservative. I’m more okay describing them as liberal because the voters tend to be, but the party itself is not.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
Capitalism coopts ideology. Liberal voters vote for a Democrat, then capitalists bribe the Democrat to do something else.
What’s ironic is that the objective fact of the genocide in Palestine is built on liberal thought.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property, and equality before the law.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
Your criticisms of the Democrats don’t seem to be that they’re liberal, but that they’re not liberal enough.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law.
“Rights of the individual”, “liberty”, “consent of the governed”, “political equality” and “equality of the law” are meangless buzzwords that should be ignored is an interesting angle.
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective. Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us. Phrases like “If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps”, “if you get sick that’s your own fault”, “if you become homeless that’s your own fault”, etc. It’s never the system in place that prioritizes profit and private property above you. It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
“Liberty” for who? If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism. Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism. They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual? Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution. You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights. Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine. The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
No, I am a liberal. These are my values.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
Perfectly said. Yes this reveals the inherent conflict between capitalism and liberalism.
Liberalism says “homeless should be housed”, capitalism says “I’m not paying for it”.
Liberalism demands the answer “yes you will” but capitalists have bought up all the media and politicians so we don’t have the power to force them.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective.
Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us.
Please separate liberal ideology from capitalist propaganda.
Conflating them like this isn’t going to convince me. The capitalist propaganda is bad, the honest liberal thinkers are not.
If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps,
That’s not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
The idea of “stimulus checks” was a liberal one.
if you get sick that’s your own fault
Not true, healthcare should be a right. You’re the one talking about getting rid of our “supposed” rights.
It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
Okay! That’s an actual argument.
That’s true. Liberalism says “that guys wrong and bad” but there’s nothing they can do until the man breaks the law.
The idea behind this is that this is a limitation in the state, not individuals.
Go punch a nazi. Go tell them to fuck off.
The state won’t do it for you, but the state also won’t censor you in return when you talk about “controversial” stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
If that’s not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
“Liberty” for who?
According to liberalism, for all.
If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
Liberals aren’t supposed to like capitalism. At most, a liberal can tolerate it in the moment while it’s working but that moment has long since passed and capitalism is the main threat to liberalism right now.
Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism.
There is lot in this short bit I need to correct.
The Republicans conserve capitalism because they’re **conservative((.
The Democrats maintain capitalism (instead of progrssing beyond it) because their party is owned by capitalists…
You need money to run a campaign, it’s impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism.
Look at Bill Clinton who is typically the example of a neoliberal.
It’s not a “new” type of liberalism, it’s just centrism.
They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Opposing capitalism doesn’t mean you know more about it.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual?
What liberal ideology says you should do is not exactly equal to what the democrats do nor exactly equal to what John Locke does.
Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution.
Capitalist liberal ideology is a contradiction.
Liberal ideology says all people are equal. Capitalist ideology says people are worth the value they produce.
These cannot coexist at the same time.
To slot them in together, capitalism would need to slice out the very root of liberalism and then wear its skin like cloth. Exactly what they’ve done.
I deny their botched surgery as the original liberalism I believe in.
You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It’s the democrats who are funding it.
Don’t blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights.
Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You’re so bad faith for no reason!
Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
I don’t even know how to respond.
It sounds like you agree with me that Israel is a settler colonial genocidal state who are violating the Palestinians so these last two comments are confusing.
Liberalism agrees with you that genocide is bad.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine.
Yeah
The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
That’s not accurate. I already cited data which shows liberals support Palestine over Israel.
Besides that’s only half the question.
Let’s say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they’d have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
A liberal would typically default into the 2 state solution.
A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn’t be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn’t have the right to violently oppose that.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with.
“Is Israel legitimate?” seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to “are they committing genocide?” is “yes”.
There is no separating capitalism and liberalism because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. You should read the recommendation from comrade Dessalines. You’re arguing for some idealistic version of Liberalism that never existed in the real world. This is not a materialistic view and goes against history itself.
Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
In the US right now? Probably none. Now if you look at China that can be a problem for example, that’s why a milenar system like the Hukou exists. A good example is about rural exodus to urban areas which is a real problem that needs proper tackling, if at a given time it is needed to be controlled, then individual liberties on that should be restricted until the issue is fixed. If that doesn’t happen, you end up with what happened here in Brasil, the formation of favelas.
Also, I got more specific in that same paragraph when I talked about the right of free speech and racism as an example.
That’s not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
You’re misunderstanding me here, I didn’t meant to use that as actual argument, I was citing that as examples of the propaganda itself. I don’t believe these things, I believe the issue is the system. I should have put those between quotation marks, my bad. I’m not gonna respond to the next ones citing that, because I’m not making that argument.
Also, I don’t believe UBI is the answer, as it doesn’t fix the underlying issue, capitalism itself.
The state won’t do it for you, but the state also won’t censor you in return when you talk about “controversial” stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
If that’s not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
Here in Brasil, LGBTphobia, racism and nazism are against the law. It’s that simple. And that’s the bare-minimum.
According to liberalism, for all.
Only on paper, in practice the ones that brought it are the only ones that are free, like I already argued.
Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
All capitalism is heavily regulated. Capitalism cannot exist without state intervention. And competition is a lie. Competition naturally leads to monopolization, it is a contradiction of capitalism.
Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
Capitalism cannot purge liberals, because liberals are proponents of capitalism. Furthermore you seem to think liberalism is opposed to fascism, when historically that has been the exact opposite, every time leftists gathered enough power to challenge the capitalistic system, liberals have turned on us and helped the fascists.
The Republicans conserve capitalism because they’re conservative. The Democrats maintain capitalism.
So, the exact same thing?
You need money to run a campaign, it’s impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
That’s why we marxists don’t believe in electoralism, you’re literally pointing out how the whole thing is rigged. We believe in revolution. Electoralism is at best a tool to put our ideas out there to the population and further organize the working class.
It’s not a “new” type of liberalism, it’s just centrism.
Bruh. What kind of vibes based analysis is this? Neoliberalism is defined by making the state “smaller” which is done by getting rid of state owned companies, destroying social nets, etc. It is literally capitalism creating new markets for itself by destroying the little the working class might have of rights.
Just look at the proponents of neoliberalism: Reagan, Tatcher and Pinochet.
Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It’s the democrats who are funding it.
These liberals are opposed to the genocide because they have a lick of empathy. Both Democrats and Republicans are pro genocide, because it benefits the US capitalists at home and furthers US’s interests in the middle east. Even a younger Joe Biden admitted that, which I already linked.
Don’t blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
Capitalists are doing the genocide. Liberals are enabling them.
Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You’re so bad faith for no reason!
You said, and I quote: “The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals”. If I’m supposed to interpret that any other way than the way I responded, then you need to rephrase that. My argument is not in bad faith, I’m responding to exactly what you said.
Let’s say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they’d have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
You clearly ignore the historical context that I already provided. Israel was a settler colonial project from the get go. That is inseparable from the concept of Israel as a country, therefore you cannot accept the legitimacy of both Israel and Palestine as countries. And anyone that says that is wrong and uninformed on the issue at best, or a genocide apologist at worst.
You cannot make this claim on a vacuum like it doesn’t have a truckload of implications behind it. This is a completely idealistic view of the situation and of the world.
Again, you’re lacking tangible material analysis.
A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn’t be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
And that is still a wrong argument from the liberals. There shouldn’t have been a music festival on fucking occupied territory to begin with. Israel was literally doing a festival while starving and genociding the palestinians, but the moment the palestinians fight back and attack that festival then it is a problem for the liberal.
There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn’t have the right to violently oppose that.
Just lol. I must have hallucinated the amount of “but do you condemn Hamas” liberals I see on the internet then.
Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with. “Is Israel legitimate?” seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to “are they committing genocide?” is “yes”.
Bullshit. Palestinians have seen their life go to absolute hell in the spam of a single generation. And both questions are valid, because Israel is not a legitimate state and that needs to be acknowledged because the two state solution doesn’t exist. The only solution is giving back the land to Palestine.
Lmao, I engaged with all your arguments, but you cannot do the same for me.
What you call yourself doesn’t matter if you’re completely wrong. The only thing that matters is the tangible reality, which you are going against without providing a single evidence of why you’re right and why I’m wrong, when I argued extensively on my view.
You realize you’ve just redefined “liberal” to mean “socialist”. And also given a definition where the Democrats aren’t liberal, nor is anyone who supports the existence of the US or nation states in general
You realize you’ve just redefined “liberal” to mean “socialist”.
We get to the same conclusions I realize, but I didn’t redefine anything because we get there from different premises. Liberalism and socialism I would argue are ridiculously compatible views.
Marx’s favorite philosopher was Hegel and if you look at Marx’s dad Heinrich
Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. A classical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, which was then an absolute monarchy.
And also given a definition where the Democrats aren’t liberal, nor is anyone who supports the existence of the US or nation states in general
Give Albert Weisbord’s Conquest of Power a read.
The fact that practically all of the settlers were poor has led to a sort of idealization in the United States of the poor and common man. In England one would fain forget his common stock; not so on this side of the Atlantic. Yet poor must not be confused with proletarians The mass of emigrants forming the basic “mother class,” a class so large that it believed no other classes existed, and thus no classes at all, was composed neither of proletarians nor of bourgeois but of petty bourgeois middle class elements, trying to find prosperity and plenty. In the Western hemisphere, the idea of class was dissolved into its matrix of mass; that is, there were masses but no classes!
The lack of great capital and the resultant absence of clearly-defined classes in the West have given many historians the idea that democracy flourished in the West from the beginning. This is not the whole truth by any means. The West has not only given us Democracy; it has also provided us with a wholesome contempt for all government.
It must never be forgotten that Democracy is essentially a type of State in which the people are supposed to control political affairs, either directly or through representatives. Democracy includes in its fundamental characteristics not only the right to vote and to hold office, but also a host of civil liberties in which the right of free speech, press, and assemblage are the most prominent. Now, in moving West, the tendency of the pioneer and frontiersman was to move away from all government and state laws, however mild. It was not a case of “liberalizing the law"; on the frontier the hand of the law was not to be found at all. Whatever action was necessary was effected by a posse made up directly of the people involved. There were no courts, no police, no prisons, no armed force of the State, no tax- gatherers. The original state of the frontier can best be described not as one of primitive Democracy, but as one of primitive Libertarianism.
We get to the same conclusions I realize, but I didn’t redefine anything because we get there from different premises. Liberalism and socialism I would argue are ridiculously compatible views.
Ok, but this is wildly different to how the vast, vast majority of the world uses the word liberal, including liberals. Realize that the definition for liberal that you’re a applying to yourself is incredibly divergent to how most people use it, and consider that you might have less misunderstandings if you just say socialist.
Marx’s favorite philosopher was Hegel and if you look at Marx’s dad Heinrich
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that he agreed with him on everything. Yes, marxism grew out of liberalism, but liberalism in turn grew out of feudalism. It doesn’t mean they’re the same or even aligned.
Give Albert Weisbord’s Conquest of Power a read.
Yes, that’s all well and good, but it still not anti-capitalist or marxist.
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history.
I’ve been told to read a lot of stuff haha. I’m not unaware of the issues you raise though so I’ll respond.
from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists.
Can you clarify what you mean? When I think “founder of liberalism” my brain goes first to John Locke.
John Locke says.
To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.
Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he’s only thinking of the white ones?
Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
That’s true. Saying “all people are created equal” and making all people equal are two different things.
Liberalism set the goal to strive for, and it gave us the tools to notice the contradiction and flaws in our society like lack of rights for women, black people, indigenous or other minorities.
When we raised our kids to be liberal, they grew up, saw the oppression and inequality to these groups and one by one, civil rights, Vietnam War protests, woman’s suffrage, right to abortion, gay rights were secured as they grappled with the contradictions of this injustice done by the state and the ideology that says the state shouldn’t act that way.
All social justice movements today have their roots in this liberal enlightenment philosophy.
For example, you don’t get a Karl Marx without first having liberalism. Take his father Heinrich:
Largely non-religious, Heinrich was a man of the Enlightenment, interested in the ideas of the philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire. A classical liberal, he took part in agitation for a constitution and reforms in Prussia, which was then an absolute monarchy.
The values liberals teach their kids allow liberalism to evolve towards societies way freer than the parents could have ever imagined or maybe even accepted from their biases at the time.
Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he’s only thinking of the white ones?
John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company), and also helped author the constitution of the carolinas that enshrined slavery. He also justifies it as captives taken in a “just war” . From his two treatises:
captives taken in a just war forfeited their lives and, with it, their liberties. [They were slaves] ‘subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters’.
Locke on indigenous peoples:
When he sought to challenge the march of civilization, violently opposing exploitation through labour of the uncultivated land occupied by him, the Indian, along with any other criminal, could be equated with ‘one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security’, and who ‘therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger’. Locke never tired of insisting on the right possessed by any man to destroy those reduced to the level of ‘beasts of prey’, ‘savage beasts’; to the level of ‘a savage ravenous beast that is dangerous to his being’.
This is all out in the open. I suggest you read the book I linked above.
John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company)
That’s horrible, what a hypocrite.
When he sought to challenge the march of civilization, violently opposing exploitation through labour of the uncultivated land occupied by him, the Indian, along with any other criminal, could be equated with ‘one of those wild savage beasts with whom men can have no society nor security’, and who ‘therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tiger’. Locke never tired of insisting on the right possessed by any man to destroy those reduced to the level of ‘beasts of prey’, ‘savage beasts’; to the level of ‘a savage ravenous beast that is dangerous to his being’.
Yes this is what I was asking for. Fantastic argument.
I think your book might be misleading with its commentary, the original passage doesn’t seem to reference Indigenous peoples.
Sect. 172. Thirdly, Despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another, to take away his life, whenever he pleases. This is a power, which neither nature gives, for it has made no such distinction between one man and another; nor compact can convey: for man not having such an arbitrary power over his own life, cannot give another man such a power over it; but it is the effect only of forfeiture, which the aggressor makes of his own life, when he puts himself into the state of war with another: for having quitted reason, which God hath given to be the rule betwixt man and man, and the common bond whereby human kind is united into one fellowship and society; and having renounced the way of peace which that teaches, and made use of the force of war, to compass his unjust ends upon another, where he has no right; and so revolting from his own kind to that of beasts, by making force, which is their’s, to be his rule of right, he renders himself liable to be destroyed by the injured person, and the rest of mankind, that will join with him in the execution of justice, as any other wild beast, or noxious brute, with whom mankind can have neither society nor security. And thus captives, taken in a just and lawful war, and such only, are subject to a despotical power, which, as it arises not from compact, so neither is it capable of any, but is the state of war continued: for what compact can be made with a man that is not master of his own life? what condition can he perform? and if he be once allowed to be master of his own life, the despotical, arbitrary power of his master ceases.He that is master of himself, and his own life, has a right too to the means of preserving it; so that as soon as compact enters, slavery ceases, and he so far quits his absolute power, and puts an end to the state of war, who enters into conditions with his captive.
From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.
In that situation, we have a right to end the war and then keep the combatants captive only until we can reintroduce the social contract and return their rights.
I’m thinking or post Civil War reconstruction and partly agreeing we needed to do a better job of shutting down those slavers.
Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology? He wasn’t a hypocrite, he correctly believed that slavery was a compatible part of liberalism.
From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.
So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has “forfeited their rights” and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?
Wrong again. John Locke (the founder of liberalism), owned shares in slavery-concerns, and openly defended slavery. The 3 liberal countries (US, UK, and Netherlands), all heavily engaged in the slave trade, (britain and the US especially). The US genocided an entire contintent and hundreds of native tribes, under a liberal form of government.
Nazi germany explicitly tried to emulate the US model (Doing to eastern europe what the US did to turtle island), and failed. In fact the only thing you can say with regard to fascism vs liberalism, is that liberalism is far more effective form of government for genocide than fascism was.
Oh I see what’s going on here. You’re not separating the ideology of philosophical liberalism from the actions of a state power that is labeled as “liberal”.
Wrong again. John Locke (the founder of liberalism), owned shares in slavery-concerns, and openly defended slavery.
To my point.
If a person is capable of separating ideology from the actions of state powers they might have considered the possibility “John Locke was a hypocrite”.
It’s disingenuous to accuse liberals of supporting every single action a supposedly “liberal” state power might make. State powers aren’t ruled by ideology alone, there are a bunch of different parties compromising and corrupting and grabbing power for their own interests that has nothing to do with liberalism.
The US genocided an entire contintent and hundreds of native tribes, under a liberal form of government.
Oh it was so much more horrific than you can put into words.
“Liberalism for me, not for thee” should be the Americans national motto.
Tecumseh is considered a national war hero in my country for that exact reason. They had the right to defend their land and our liberal democracy recognizes that.
Before the Treaty of Fort Wayne, Tecumseh was relatively unknown to outsiders, who usually referred to him as “the Prophet’s brother.” Afterwards he emerged as a prominent figure as he built an intertribal confederacy to counter U.S. expansion.
In August 1810, Tecumseh met with William Henry Harrison at Vincennes, capital of the Indiana Territory, a standoff that became legendary. Tecumseh demanded that Harrison rescind the Fort Wayne cession, and said he would oppose American settlement on the disputed lands. He said the chiefs who had signed the treaty would be punished, and that he was uniting the tribes to prevent further cessions. Harrison insisted the land had been purchased fairly and that Tecumseh had no right to object because Native Americans did not own land in common. Harrison said he would send Tecumseh’s demands to President James Madison, but did not expect the president to accept them. As the meeting concluded, Tecumseh said that if Madison did not rescind the Fort Wayne treaty, “you and I will have to fight it out.”
In the War of 1812, Tecumseh joined his cause with the British, recruited warriors, and helped capture Detroit in August 1812. The following year he led an unsuccessful campaign against the United States in Ohio and Indiana. When U.S. naval forces took control of Lake Erie in 1813, Tecumseh reluctantly retreated with the British into Upper Canada, where American troops led by Richard Mentor Johnson engaged them at the Battle of the Thames on October 5, 1813, in which Tecumseh was killed. His death caused his confederacy to collapse. The lands he had fought to defend were eventually ceded to the U.S. government.
This is probably my biggest regret in history.
Britain wanted to establish a native “buffer nation” between Canada and the US which Tecumseh was heavily rallying for. The US said “no way”.
It’s like banging your head against a brick wall inevitably causes you to see the truth, but at that point your brain is so addled that you are hallucinating the truth, despite your best tries at avoidance.
I feel we’re playing different games, or using different terms.
Help me understand.
Firstly. Let’s define words: I’m assuming/using my view of a US-centric Liberal vs Conservative.
Liberal: Democratic party, wants to make life better for the larger segment of the population.
Conservative: Republican party, wants to consolidate power and wealth in the hands of a few.
That’s my personal and biased broad-strokes view of the political landscape.
Conservatives have managed to gather enough popular support that people will vote against their best interest for either perceived economic gain or for ‘hurt the other people more.’
Stepping back even further, what is your end-goal? How do you respect the desires of millions of people without some sort of representation, and if you have such, how do you ensure that the representative aligns with the goals of their constituents?
Sadly, I’m offline for the day, but I’d be happy to continue this conversation.
Claims with decreasing credibility that they want to make life better for anyone. Never actually fucking tries to do it. Keeps finding just enough no votes to make sure it never happens. Blocks anyone from running in their party who actually wants to make anything better.
Heres how I define Liberal:
People who follow the Liberal ideology, this mostly involves “free market” capitalism as defined by classical liberal thinkers. Today its a violent imperialist ideology that supports the US status quo. Both parties in the US are Liberal as are the Libertarians, simply different flavors of liberal.
Now as for me, im a Syndicalist. If you want to learn more about my beliefs read these: One Big Union and Think it Over
https://dessalines.github.io/essays/crash_course_socialism.html#democracy
Bookmarked
You are correct, you are using different terms because in the US liberal is used to talk about the Democrats. Everyone else in the world, including here on Lemmy, uses liberal as in Liberalism. Both Democrats and Republicans are liberals, both defend the status quo and wants capitalism to continue.
Both Republicans and Democrats wants that. They are both funded by US’s billionairies, they both attend to their interests and want this system to continue. I’m not gonna deny that the Democrats are to the left of the Republicans, but they are both still right wing parties in a two-party system.
What?
From your link
In what ways do the Republicans respect equality before the law? I can’t accept this label. They are conservatives/fascists. Not liberal.
The Democrats are neoliberal/conservative. I’m more okay describing them as liberal because the voters tend to be, but the party itself is not.
If you arent distinguishing between ideology, party and individual then I don’t think you fully understand capitalism.
Capitalism coopts ideology. Liberal voters vote for a Democrat, then capitalists bribe the Democrat to do something else.
What’s ironic is that the objective fact of the genocide in Palestine is built on liberal thought.
The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals, they do not have liberty, they have not had an election allowed to be held since 2008, they have no political equality, they have no right to private property and settlers can kick them out, they are not equal to Jews under the law.
Your criticisms of the Democrats don’t seem to be that they’re liberal, but that they’re not liberal enough.
Any true liberal would support Palestine from your own source.
The first sentence from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism:
From the first paragraph of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_property[1]:
That’s what liberals believe. Liberals are those who support capitalism, which both Democrats and Republicans do.
Not to be confused with personal property. ↩︎
“Rights of the individual”, “liberty”, “consent of the governed”, “political equality” and “equality of the law” are meangless buzzwords that should be ignored is an interesting angle.
Most Republicans also believe in those things, though they quibble with Democrats over the details. Only fascists, monarchists, etc. don’t.
The Republicans are abducting citizens to El Salvadorian death camps…
And Democrats aided & abetted a genocide until they lost control of the executive branch four months ago.
You’re taking the definition linked at face value and not doing further investigation into what it means and its material repercussions.
In a capitalistic society capital and the right to private property is above all, including the individual, it is by all means sacred and must be respected. This means that despite having more empty homes than homeless people, these people can’t be located into these empty homes because the property is above them, they don’t matter.
The supposed “rights of the individual” is just the individualization of the self in detriment of the collective. Despite us being social animals that depend on each other, said rights and constant capitalistic propaganda sells us the idea that we are single individuals that are responsible for everything around us. Phrases like “If you get get fired its your own fault and you should pull yourself by your own bootstraps”, “if you get sick that’s your own fault”, “if you become homeless that’s your own fault”, etc. It’s never the system in place that prioritizes profit and private property above you. It also doesn’t matter that someone is racist because that’s their individual right of free speech, despite that hurting society as a whole, it’s the individual above the collective.
“Liberty” for who? If your choice is to pay rent or be homeless, that’s not a choice. If you have to worry about keeping a roof above your head, not getting fired, if you can pay your bills, if you can afford food, then you’re not free. The only ones that are free are the bourgeoisie, as they hold all the power in a capitalistic society.
The Republicans maintain capitalism, just like Democrats do. They are both liberals because liberalism is the status quo of capitalism. Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism. They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Furthermore, what do you mean with distinguishing ideology from party and individual? Ideology is present in both these things. Capitalistic liberal ideology as the status quo, maintains itself by being ever present in the collective mind of the people as the only viable solution. You can’t separate these things because they are deeply interlinked, both the individual and the party are not separated from ideology.
No, a genocide doesn’t stop being wrong when the genocided population have rights. Also you completely ignore Palestine as a country, which grants the Palestinians rights, even tho Israel doesn’t since it is a settler colonial genocide entity.
Anyone with a shred of empathy supports Palestine. The question of a liberal supporting Palestine or not on ideological grounds is settled in if the liberal believes in the legitimacy of Israel or not, and anyone that does believe that, doesn’t support Palestinians in any way whatsoever.
Israel is not a legitimate state, it was a settler colonial project from its very inception. That’s why we have 75+ years of a genocide happening that the world brushes off and does nothing about.
No, I am a liberal. These are my values.
Perfectly said. Yes this reveals the inherent conflict between capitalism and liberalism.
Liberalism says “homeless should be housed”, capitalism says “I’m not paying for it”.
Liberalism demands the answer “yes you will” but capitalists have bought up all the media and politicians so we don’t have the power to force them.
Get specific. My right to freedom of movement from one state to another is detrimental for the collective why?
Please separate liberal ideology from capitalist propaganda.
Conflating them like this isn’t going to convince me. The capitalist propaganda is bad, the honest liberal thinkers are not.
That’s not true. Unemployment exists and liberals constantly argue to expand welfare and introduce UBI.
The idea of “stimulus checks” was a liberal one.
Not true, healthcare should be a right. You’re the one talking about getting rid of our “supposed” rights.
Okay! That’s an actual argument.
That’s true. Liberalism says “that guys wrong and bad” but there’s nothing they can do until the man breaks the law.
The idea behind this is that this is a limitation in the state, not individuals.
Go punch a nazi. Go tell them to fuck off.
The state won’t do it for you, but the state also won’t censor you in return when you talk about “controversial” stuff like LGBTQ rights, communism, etc.
If that’s not a compelling enough reason feel free to argue against that specific right.
According to liberalism, for all.
Agreed. The type of capitalism liberals consented to was heavily regulated and based on competition.
Liberals aren’t supposed to like capitalism. At most, a liberal can tolerate it in the moment while it’s working but that moment has long since passed and capitalism is the main threat to liberalism right now.
Capitalists are trying to purge the liberals from making reforms and replacing them with fascists, which is pushing people further left from that for better allies.
There is lot in this short bit I need to correct.
The Republicans conserve capitalism because they’re **conservative((.
The Democrats maintain capitalism (instead of progrssing beyond it) because their party is owned by capitalists…
You need money to run a campaign, it’s impossible for any ideology (no matter how hostile to capitalism) to end up as a major party (at least in our current system) because it requires the capitalists to donate to those parties to have anywhere close to the resources needed to run a campaign.
Of course there is neoliberalism too, but as the name implies, it is a “new” type of liberalism.
Look at Bill Clinton who is typically the example of a neoliberal.
It’s not a “new” type of liberalism, it’s just centrism.
They are by all metrics liberals. Further right than the Democrats, sure, but liberals none the less. They fit into defending the things I explained above, just like the Democrats also do.
I’m literally talking to you from a marxist instance. I don’t claim to know everything about capitalism, but I do think I have a better grasp than most liberals on this.
Opposing capitalism doesn’t mean you know more about it.
What liberal ideology says you should do is not exactly equal to what the democrats do nor exactly equal to what John Locke does.
Capitalist liberal ideology is a contradiction.
Liberal ideology says all people are equal. Capitalist ideology says people are worth the value they produce.
These cannot coexist at the same time.
To slot them in together, capitalism would need to slice out the very root of liberalism and then wear its skin like cloth. Exactly what they’ve done.
I deny their botched surgery as the original liberalism I believe in.
Yes I can. The majority of liberal voters oppose the genocide. It’s the democrats who are funding it.
https://truthout.org/articles/poll-finds-6-in-10-democratic-voters-now-back-palestinians-over-israelis/
Don’t blame liberals when capitalists are the ones doing this shit.
Are you genuinely kidding me? Lmfao. You’re so bad faith for no reason!
I don’t even know how to respond.
It sounds like you agree with me that Israel is a settler colonial genocidal state who are violating the Palestinians so these last two comments are confusing.
Liberalism agrees with you that genocide is bad.
Yeah
That’s not accurate. I already cited data which shows liberals support Palestine over Israel.
Besides that’s only half the question.
Let’s say a liberal accepts the legitimacy of Israel. The next step is that they’d have to accept the legitimacy of Palestine on equal terms.
A liberal would typically default into the 2 state solution.
A liberal may condemn Oct 7 and say the music festivals shouldn’t be a valid target, but that is a rare exception in a one sided war waged on Palestinians by Israelis.
There no way a liberal could look at the settler violence and decide Palestine doesn’t have the right to violently oppose that.
Yep, then people were born into that situation and now wr have to deal with.
“Is Israel legitimate?” seems like a bit of a distraction personally when the answer to “are they committing genocide?” is “yes”.
There is no separating capitalism and liberalism because liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. You should read the recommendation from comrade Dessalines. You’re arguing for some idealistic version of Liberalism that never existed in the real world. This is not a materialistic view and goes against history itself.
In the US right now? Probably none. Now if you look at China that can be a problem for example, that’s why a milenar system like the Hukou exists. A good example is about rural exodus to urban areas which is a real problem that needs proper tackling, if at a given time it is needed to be controlled, then individual liberties on that should be restricted until the issue is fixed. If that doesn’t happen, you end up with what happened here in Brasil, the formation of favelas.
Also, I got more specific in that same paragraph when I talked about the right of free speech and racism as an example.
You’re misunderstanding me here, I didn’t meant to use that as actual argument, I was citing that as examples of the propaganda itself. I don’t believe these things, I believe the issue is the system. I should have put those between quotation marks, my bad. I’m not gonna respond to the next ones citing that, because I’m not making that argument.
Also, I don’t believe UBI is the answer, as it doesn’t fix the underlying issue, capitalism itself.
Except when they do.
Here in Brasil, LGBTphobia, racism and nazism are against the law. It’s that simple. And that’s the bare-minimum.
Only on paper, in practice the ones that brought it are the only ones that are free, like I already argued.
All capitalism is heavily regulated. Capitalism cannot exist without state intervention. And competition is a lie. Competition naturally leads to monopolization, it is a contradiction of capitalism.
Capitalism cannot purge liberals, because liberals are proponents of capitalism. Furthermore you seem to think liberalism is opposed to fascism, when historically that has been the exact opposite, every time leftists gathered enough power to challenge the capitalistic system, liberals have turned on us and helped the fascists.
Also related: Malcolm X: White Liberals and Conservatives
So, the exact same thing?
That’s why we marxists don’t believe in electoralism, you’re literally pointing out how the whole thing is rigged. We believe in revolution. Electoralism is at best a tool to put our ideas out there to the population and further organize the working class.
Bruh. What kind of vibes based analysis is this? Neoliberalism is defined by making the state “smaller” which is done by getting rid of state owned companies, destroying social nets, etc. It is literally capitalism creating new markets for itself by destroying the little the working class might have of rights.
Just look at the proponents of neoliberalism: Reagan, Tatcher and Pinochet.
These liberals are opposed to the genocide because they have a lick of empathy. Both Democrats and Republicans are pro genocide, because it benefits the US capitalists at home and furthers US’s interests in the middle east. Even a younger Joe Biden admitted that, which I already linked.
Capitalists are doing the genocide. Liberals are enabling them.
You said, and I quote: “The genocide in Palestine is wrong because they cannot have a right as individuals”. If I’m supposed to interpret that any other way than the way I responded, then you need to rephrase that. My argument is not in bad faith, I’m responding to exactly what you said.
You clearly ignore the historical context that I already provided. Israel was a settler colonial project from the get go. That is inseparable from the concept of Israel as a country, therefore you cannot accept the legitimacy of both Israel and Palestine as countries. And anyone that says that is wrong and uninformed on the issue at best, or a genocide apologist at worst.
You cannot make this claim on a vacuum like it doesn’t have a truckload of implications behind it. This is a completely idealistic view of the situation and of the world.
Again, you’re lacking tangible material analysis.
And that is still a wrong argument from the liberals. There shouldn’t have been a music festival on fucking occupied territory to begin with. Israel was literally doing a festival while starving and genociding the palestinians, but the moment the palestinians fight back and attack that festival then it is a problem for the liberal.
Just lol. I must have hallucinated the amount of “but do you condemn Hamas” liberals I see on the internet then.
Bullshit. Palestinians have seen their life go to absolute hell in the spam of a single generation. And both questions are valid, because Israel is not a legitimate state and that needs to be acknowledged because the two state solution doesn’t exist. The only solution is giving back the land to Palestine.
Also, you ignore how the vast majority of Israel’s population is pro-genociding the Palestinians. Hell, there were protests in Israel for the right to rape Palestinians.
I’m liberal, you aren’t.
The only definition of liberal you will allow is one I do not hold, a strawman that completely contradicts all of my values.
That’s the end of the conversation then. I’m sorry you wasted your time typing this up.
If you have anything beyond semantic arguments on labels I would lead with that next time.
Lmao, I engaged with all your arguments, but you cannot do the same for me.
What you call yourself doesn’t matter if you’re completely wrong. The only thing that matters is the tangible reality, which you are going against without providing a single evidence of why you’re right and why I’m wrong, when I argued extensively on my view.
They gave you an incredibly lengthy response and you’re just going to cut and run?
You realize you’ve just redefined “liberal” to mean “socialist”. And also given a definition where the Democrats aren’t liberal, nor is anyone who supports the existence of the US or nation states in general
We get to the same conclusions I realize, but I didn’t redefine anything because we get there from different premises. Liberalism and socialism I would argue are ridiculously compatible views.
Marx’s favorite philosopher was Hegel and if you look at Marx’s dad Heinrich
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx
Give Albert Weisbord’s Conquest of Power a read.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/conquest2.htm
Again, Marxism and Liberalism aren’t necesarily disagreeing.
Ok, but this is wildly different to how the vast, vast majority of the world uses the word liberal, including liberals. Realize that the definition for liberal that you’re a applying to yourself is incredibly divergent to how most people use it, and consider that you might have less misunderstandings if you just say socialist.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean that he agreed with him on everything. Yes, marxism grew out of liberalism, but liberalism in turn grew out of feudalism. It doesn’t mean they’re the same or even aligned.
Yes, that’s all well and good, but it still not anti-capitalist or marxist.
Please read Losurdo - Liberalism, a counter-history. Because from its very inception, in all of liberalism’s founding authors and countries, liberalism has meant unlimited freedom only for rich, white, male, property-owners / capitalists. Colonized peoples, the poor, workers, and women have always been and were explicitly excluded from the community of the free.
The history of liberalism is one of theft, disposession, and slavery.
I’ve been told to read a lot of stuff haha. I’m not unaware of the issues you raise though so I’ll respond.
Can you clarify what you mean? When I think “founder of liberalism” my brain goes first to John Locke.
John Locke says.
Why does John Locke say all creatures of the same species are equal when you claim he’s only thinking of the white ones?
That’s true. Saying “all people are created equal” and making all people equal are two different things.
Liberalism set the goal to strive for, and it gave us the tools to notice the contradiction and flaws in our society like lack of rights for women, black people, indigenous or other minorities.
When we raised our kids to be liberal, they grew up, saw the oppression and inequality to these groups and one by one, civil rights, Vietnam War protests, woman’s suffrage, right to abortion, gay rights were secured as they grappled with the contradictions of this injustice done by the state and the ideology that says the state shouldn’t act that way.
All social justice movements today have their roots in this liberal enlightenment philosophy.
For example, you don’t get a Karl Marx without first having liberalism. Take his father Heinrich:
The values liberals teach their kids allow liberalism to evolve towards societies way freer than the parents could have ever imagined or maybe even accepted from their biases at the time.
John Locke was a shareholder in the royal african company (a slave trading / capturing company), and also helped author the constitution of the carolinas that enshrined slavery. He also justifies it as captives taken in a “just war” . From his two treatises:
Locke on indigenous peoples:
This is all out in the open. I suggest you read the book I linked above.
That’s horrible, what a hypocrite.
Yes this is what I was asking for. Fantastic argument.
I think your book might be misleading with its commentary, the original passage doesn’t seem to reference Indigenous peoples.
https://english.hku.hk/staff/kjohnson/PDF/LockeJohnSECONDTREATISE1690.pdf
From what I’m reading here, someone only forfeits their rights when they put themselves into a state of war with another.
In that situation, we have a right to end the war and then keep the combatants captive only until we can reintroduce the social contract and return their rights.
I’m thinking or post Civil War reconstruction and partly agreeing we needed to do a better job of shutting down those slavers.
Did you miss the part where he listed taking slaves as part of his ideology? He wasn’t a hypocrite, he correctly believed that slavery was a compatible part of liberalism.
So you do accept that unilaterally declaring that someone has “forfeited their rights” and taking them as a slave with no due process is compatible with your beliefs?
Liberals don’t consider people outside their country as human
Also, liberalism doesn’t consider people who don’t own property as human
That should resolve the contradictions
Those are fascists. Not liberals.
Wrong again. John Locke (the founder of liberalism), owned shares in slavery-concerns, and openly defended slavery. The 3 liberal countries (US, UK, and Netherlands), all heavily engaged in the slave trade, (britain and the US especially). The US genocided an entire contintent and hundreds of native tribes, under a liberal form of government.
Nazi germany explicitly tried to emulate the US model (Doing to eastern europe what the US did to turtle island), and failed. In fact the only thing you can say with regard to fascism vs liberalism, is that liberalism is far more effective form of government for genocide than fascism was.
Oh I see what’s going on here. You’re not separating the ideology of philosophical liberalism from the actions of a state power that is labeled as “liberal”.
To my point.
If a person is capable of separating ideology from the actions of state powers they might have considered the possibility “John Locke was a hypocrite”.
It’s disingenuous to accuse liberals of supporting every single action a supposedly “liberal” state power might make. State powers aren’t ruled by ideology alone, there are a bunch of different parties compromising and corrupting and grabbing power for their own interests that has nothing to do with liberalism.
Oh it was so much more horrific than you can put into words.
“Liberalism for me, not for thee” should be the Americans national motto.
Tecumseh is considered a national war hero in my country for that exact reason. They had the right to defend their land and our liberal democracy recognizes that.
This is probably my biggest regret in history.
Britain wanted to establish a native “buffer nation” between Canada and the US which Tecumseh was heavily rallying for. The US said “no way”.
I wish they got their land.