That's the logical solution, the Liberal solution is to use cops to arrest homeless people.
That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
I don't believe you understand Liberalism. "Scratch a Liberal and a Fascist bleeds", if you want to see it in action watch how quickly they switch the topic to Trump whenever someone critiques Genocide Joe.
Heads up, neoliberal (which is what is meant in the phrase scratch a liberal and a facist bleeds) is not the same as a liberal.
Usually just saying Liberal means Neoliberal - but for situations like this the difference helps
Even Liberalism is inherently flawed, it's still a center right ideology
do you really think about the world on such a singular spectrum
As much as liberals suck, they're not fascists. They will do fascist things in a similar way to Soviet states, playing to masculinity, bigotry, nationalism, and violent repression. They often slide into fascism and ally with fascists.
However, most of them do believe their own bullshit. Most people do. They think their fascist actions are justifiable in service of democracy. They think capitalism is compatible with democracy, and that it's even necessary for democracy.
They're willing to believe that because their jobs depend on supporting the status quo. They don't think about it consciously, as the unconscious mind can blind us to inconvenient truths. They don't perceive the contradictions.
The current mayor of Portland pushed for laws making homelessness illegal. In this case its wealthly Democrats and Republicans pushing to making homelessness illegal
Democrats are a right wing party. Republicans are a far right party. Neither are left of center.
People hate being reminded of that.
Relative to all countries on earth, not so much. In a sane world they would be, but not our world.
Maybe he means neo-liberal... Which is basically a conservative thinking society changed when he became rich.
they're being edgy online Marxist and quoting Mao. the kids these days say anything mainstream is "Liberal". it's pretty politically ignorant but don't bother starting them down the road arguing it or they'll just start quoting books they haven't fully read. to them "liberal" just marks another point on a line
they'll figure out in time that the world is more nuanced than left/right, or maybe they wont.
They're more referring to supporters of capitalism without substantial changes. Liberalism is a mostly useless term because it's so broad and varied, but words only mean what we think they mean. They often want to make the world a better place, but they're totally unwilling to do what it takes.
The colloquial definition has the downside of becoming a tool to discredit the good ideas related to Liberalism. Properly curtailing property rights can be worked into the liberal democratic model as a way to maximize freedom and stabilize society. However, the colloquial attitude of selfish naivete cannot.
funny I don't remember reading that in any Hobbes or Locke. I guess I need to review classical liberal philosophy
Locke would've just enslaved them or something for being minorities. Hobbes might point out that the state can't tolerate people living outside the system, making their very existence a threat. He might support prison slavery to maintain the system. He also might not if he had context about the modern world. Locke would definitely support modern liberalism though.
That's the logical solution, the Liberal solution is to use cops to arrest homeless people.
That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
I don't believe you understand Liberalism. "Scratch a Liberal and a Fascist bleeds", if you want to see it in action watch how quickly they switch the topic to Trump whenever someone critiques Genocide Joe.
Heads up, neoliberal (which is what is meant in the phrase scratch a liberal and a facist bleeds) is not the same as a liberal.
Usually just saying Liberal means Neoliberal - but for situations like this the difference helps
Even Liberalism is inherently flawed, it's still a center right ideology
do you really think about the world on such a singular spectrum
As much as liberals suck, they're not fascists. They will do fascist things in a similar way to Soviet states, playing to masculinity, bigotry, nationalism, and violent repression. They often slide into fascism and ally with fascists.
However, most of them do believe their own bullshit. Most people do. They think their fascist actions are justifiable in service of democracy. They think capitalism is compatible with democracy, and that it's even necessary for democracy.
They're willing to believe that because their jobs depend on supporting the status quo. They don't think about it consciously, as the unconscious mind can blind us to inconvenient truths. They don't perceive the contradictions.
The current mayor of Portland pushed for laws making homelessness illegal. In this case its wealthly Democrats and Republicans pushing to making homelessness illegal
https://www.yahoo.com/news/portland-mayor-proposed-ban-homeless-013240948.html
Democrats are a right wing party. Republicans are a far right party. Neither are left of center.
People hate being reminded of that.
Relative to all countries on earth, not so much. In a sane world they would be, but not our world.
Maybe he means neo-liberal... Which is basically a conservative thinking society changed when he became rich.
they're being edgy online Marxist and quoting Mao. the kids these days say anything mainstream is "Liberal". it's pretty politically ignorant but don't bother starting them down the road arguing it or they'll just start quoting books they haven't fully read. to them "liberal" just marks another point on a line
they'll figure out in time that the world is more nuanced than left/right, or maybe they wont.
They're more referring to supporters of capitalism without substantial changes. Liberalism is a mostly useless term because it's so broad and varied, but words only mean what we think they mean. They often want to make the world a better place, but they're totally unwilling to do what it takes.
The colloquial definition has the downside of becoming a tool to discredit the good ideas related to Liberalism. Properly curtailing property rights can be worked into the liberal democratic model as a way to maximize freedom and stabilize society. However, the colloquial attitude of selfish naivete cannot.
funny I don't remember reading that in any Hobbes or Locke. I guess I need to review classical liberal philosophy
Locke would've just enslaved them or something for being minorities. Hobbes might point out that the state can't tolerate people living outside the system, making their very existence a threat. He might support prison slavery to maintain the system. He also might not if he had context about the modern world. Locke would definitely support modern liberalism though.
I'm not sure if we live in the same reality