Liberal principles themselves are ungrounded idealism. Equality is a myth. Private actors are more than capable of being tyrants, as even other iterations of liberalism recognized.
taking into account people's personal investment in the system and the rights that correspond with that investment.
George Soros has more investment in the system than you. Should he get more rights?
The way people use the word "equality" nowadays is several steps removed from the liberal principles of legal and political equality. The idea that all people should be equal in every way, in every context, was never part of liberalism.
Fun fact, the word "equality" doesn't even appear in the US Constitution.
George Soros has more investment in the system than you. Should he get more rights?
Yes, if the law were written that way, but it's not, and for good reason. The US Constitution was written to find balance between the tyranny of the many and the tyranny of the few. If someone was a citizen and owned property, they could vote (because they have a vested interest in the country), but they didn't scale the political influence of voters based on wealth either.
Liberalism is concerned with equal application of the law, not making everyone equal.
Fun fact, the word "equality" doesn't even appear in the US Constitution.
I know. "Equal" does appear in the DoI however.
The US Constitution was written to find balance between the tyranny of the many and the tyranny of the few.
When you say Constitution, are you including the Bill of Rights?
If someone was a citizen and owned property, they could vote (because they have a vested interest in the country), but they didn't scale the political influence of voters based on wealth either.
This is just motivated reasoning on both your part and the part of the liberals at the time. Suffrage was doled out this way to produce results friendly to the ruling class, just as it always has been.
Liberalism is concerned with equal application of the law, not making everyone equal.
In practice, liberalism is concerned with obfuscating power relations and destroying impediments to profits, including traditions, where applicable.
When you say Constitution, are you including the Bill of Rights?
Yes, the original ten amendments in particular. The more recent amendments are debatable.
This is just motivated reasoning on both your part and the part of the liberals at the time. Suffrage was doled out this way to produce results friendly to the ruling class, just as it always has been.
What motivated reasoning? I'm just stating historical fact.
What ruling class? They had to basically force George Washington to be President. There was so little power in the federal government at the time, it was considered a burden... an act of servitude, to serve in Congress.
In practice, liberalism is concerned with obfuscating power relations and destroying impediments to profits, including traditions, where applicable.
OK. Don't forget it was a fight to get them in there...
What motivated reasoning? I'm just stating historical fact.
I interpreted you as approving of the fact that only property owners could vote. It's something a lot of right liberals say today.
What ruling class? They had to basically force George Washington to be President. There was so little power in the federal government at the time, it was considered a burden... an act of servitude, to serve in Congress.
I don't understand this argument. You are implying that the lack of power in the Presidency means there is no ruling class.
Can you back this up with anything?
Sure. You can see liberalism obfuscating power relations in a topic we are discussing now, restricted suffrage. This topic obfuscates power relations when it comes up in its usual form because the implication is that society is going to shit because we gave too much power to the wrong type of plebes. In reality, it's going to shit because of the people with the most amount of power.
As I said, to Gizortnik, history backs up my claim that liberalism destroy traditions. What traditions are being preserved by liberalism? How is it even helping?
Liberal principles themselves are ungrounded idealism. Equality is a myth. Private actors are more than capable of being tyrants, as even other iterations of liberalism recognized.
George Soros has more investment in the system than you. Should he get more rights?
The way people use the word "equality" nowadays is several steps removed from the liberal principles of legal and political equality. The idea that all people should be equal in every way, in every context, was never part of liberalism.
Fun fact, the word "equality" doesn't even appear in the US Constitution.
Yes, if the law were written that way, but it's not, and for good reason. The US Constitution was written to find balance between the tyranny of the many and the tyranny of the few. If someone was a citizen and owned property, they could vote (because they have a vested interest in the country), but they didn't scale the political influence of voters based on wealth either.
Liberalism is concerned with equal application of the law, not making everyone equal.
I know. "Equal" does appear in the DoI however.
When you say Constitution, are you including the Bill of Rights?
This is just motivated reasoning on both your part and the part of the liberals at the time. Suffrage was doled out this way to produce results friendly to the ruling class, just as it always has been.
In practice, liberalism is concerned with obfuscating power relations and destroying impediments to profits, including traditions, where applicable.
Dol?
Yes, the original ten amendments in particular. The more recent amendments are debatable.
What motivated reasoning? I'm just stating historical fact.
What ruling class? They had to basically force George Washington to be President. There was so little power in the federal government at the time, it was considered a burden... an act of servitude, to serve in Congress.
Can you back this up with anything?
DoI = Declaration of Independence
OK. Don't forget it was a fight to get them in there...
I interpreted you as approving of the fact that only property owners could vote. It's something a lot of right liberals say today.
I don't understand this argument. You are implying that the lack of power in the Presidency means there is no ruling class.
Sure. You can see liberalism obfuscating power relations in a topic we are discussing now, restricted suffrage. This topic obfuscates power relations when it comes up in its usual form because the implication is that society is going to shit because we gave too much power to the wrong type of plebes. In reality, it's going to shit because of the people with the most amount of power.
As I said, to Gizortnik, history backs up my claim that liberalism destroy traditions. What traditions are being preserved by liberalism? How is it even helping?