Oliver Stone to RT: ‘US has become an Orwellian state’

Einzige · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
You ever hear of the Magna Carta?

The Magna Carta was devised centuries before anyone ever called themselves a 'liberal' in any sense, and was considered a conservative document in that it was taken to simply reiterate the commonly-assumed rights of the Englishman that had existed before the Norman Invasion. It was not, at all, taken to be 'liberal' even by the standards of the day.

The notion that libertarians have some sort of common belief structure is wrong... Classical liberalism falls under libertarian, however so does anarchy (which is an impossible philosophy). Classical liberalism is just a specific idea where one would fall on the political spectrum.

'Classical liberalism' is not libertarian, in any real sense. Yes, the Liberal Party, under Gladstone and others, favored low taxes and less public spending. They also favored channeling what spending there was into social projects; Britain's 'poor houses' were almost entirely constructed under successive Liberal governments, and the People's Budget went into effect under a Liberal government.

About the closest association between 'liberalism' and 'libertarianism' you'll find in the history of English-speaking peoples are the loco focos of New York in the early 19th century. Their influence was small and they never held sway over national politics.

There are no genuine 'classical liberals' among the earliest American Administrations. The Federalists were certainly not 'liberal', classical or otherwise, favoring infrastructure spending and general social conservatism (which, at the time, meant promoting the values of the Anglican/Episcopalian High Church). The Democrats were hawkish and expansionist in the South and favored intensive social campaigns to the benefit of their immigrant Irish and German constituencies in the North. The Whigs had no coherent ideology at all.

The impact of 'classical liberalism' (by which I mean real, ideological liberalism, not "let's throw everything that sounds vaguely libertarian under the same banner") was basically nonexistent in the United States until it was ideologically codified in the 1920s. It was stronger in Britain, but bore even less resemblance to modern libertarianism than American liberalism did.

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
No, Bush is a war criminal because he authorized torture and extraordinary rendition to countries that torture.

First, define "torture", second Congress makes those decisions and so does the military.

Not to mention torture is a relative term. Progressives act like being offended is torture. I just laugh it off when people try to offend me - it's amusing to me.

I suppose my point is that it would be ignorant to use Bush as a goat when multiple people from both political parties played a role in what you deem to be "torture."

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Einzige said:
The Magna Carta was devised centuries before anyone ever called themselves a 'liberal' in any sense, and was considered a conservative document in that it was taken to simply reiterate the commonly-assumed rights of the Englishman that had existed before the Norman Invasion. It was not, at all, taken to be 'liberal' even by the standards of the day.

'Classical liberalism' is not libertarian, in any real sense. Yes, the Liberal Party, under Gladstone and others, favored low taxes and less public spending. They also favored channeling what spending their was into social projects; Britain's 'poor houses' were almost entirely constructed under successive Liberal governments, and the People's Budget went into effect under a Liberal government.

About the closest association between 'liberalism' and 'libertarianism' you'll find in the history of English-speaking peoples are the loco focos of New York in the early 19th century. Their influence was small and they never held sway over national politics.

There are no genuine 'classical liberals' among the earliest American Administrations. The Federalists were certainly not 'liberal', classical or otherwise, favoring infrastructure spending and general social conservatism (which, at the time, meant promoting the values of the Anglican/Episcopalian High Church). The Democrats were hawkish and expansionist in the South and favored intensive social campaigns to the benefit of their immigrant Irish and German constituencies in the North. The Whigs had no coherent ideology at all.

The impact of 'classical liberalism' (by which I mean real, ideological liberalism, not "let's throw everything that sounds vaguely libertarian under the same banner") was basically nonexistent in the United States until it was ideologically codified in the 1920s. It was stronger in Britain, but bore even less resemblance to modern libertarianism than American liberalism did.

You're confused...

Conservative means to "conserve" but conserve what?

Liberal means "liberty"

Libertarian means "liberty"

The Magna Carta birthed "classical liberalism" as a philosophy, however the idea/philosophy is probably about as old as humanity itself.

However none of this matters considering a person who wants to ban guns or ban happy meal toys is NOT a liberal - anyone who believes in government intervention is NOT a liberal. Liberalism is individualism.

Einzige · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
You're confused...

Conservative means to "conserve" but conserve what?

Liberal means "liberty"

Libertarian means "liberty"

I'm not even certain what you're trying to say by this.

The Magna Carta birthed "classical liberalism" as a philosophy, however the idea/philosophy is probably about as old as humanity itself.

The Magna Carta certainly did not 'breed' 'classical liberalism' as a philosophy, and if anything the party that derived the most influence from the document were the (high tariff, pro-Corn Law protectionist) Tories of the 19th century.

However none of this matters considering a person who wants to ban guns or ban happy meal toys is NOT a liberal - anyone who believes in government intervention is NOT a liberal. Liberalism is individualism.

Tell it to Asquith.

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Einzige said:
I'm not even certain what you're trying to say by this.

The Magna Carta certainly did not 'breed' 'classical liberalism' as a philosophy, and if anything the party that derived the most influence from the document were the (high tariff, pro-Corn Law protectionist) Tories of the 19th century.

Tell it to Asquith.

The Magna Carta is from 1215. The document certainly did birth classical liberal ideas - at least etched them in stone. Our Bill of Rights and Constitution in general are based on those classical liberal ideas.

Magna Carta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice how the word "liberty" (hence liberal) is continually used.

BTW, back in 1215 it was the conservatives who supported Monarchies and Theocracies, the liberals (mostly peasants) opposed Monarchies and Theocracies..

Guy Incognito · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
First, define "torture", second Congress makes those decisions and so does the military.

What constitutes torture is not a decision made by anybody, least of all Congress. Torture is defined according to a legal principle called "jus cogens," compelling law, which transcends national sovereignty. Simply put, no sovereign government can redefine or circumscribe what torture is. Waterboarding is torture, even if the United States government illegitimately claims it isn't.

Not to mention torture is a relative term. Progressives act like being offended is torture. I just laugh it off when people try to offend me - it's amusing to me.

No, it isn't. At least not legally. And legally is the only usage of the word torture that I'm concerned with. I don't care about your personal opinions about torture (although your views are kind of monstrous).

I suppose my point is that it would be ignorant to use Bush as a goat when multiple people from both political parties played a role in what you deem to be "torture."

No, you are clearly the ignorant one here.

Einzige · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
The Magna Carta is from 1215. The document certainly did birth classical liberal ideas - at least etched them in stone. Our Bill of Rights and Constitution in general are based on those classical liberal ideas.

I'm very well aware of what the Magna Carta is. What I'm also aware of is that the Magna Carta was nothing more than a codification of the "Rights of the Englishman" that had been simply assumed as a matter of law before the Norman invasion. The Magna Carta existed for no other reason than to restore what had been previously taken as a matter of course. It granted no new liberties and expanded no rights or privileges. It was not a liberal document.

BTW, back in 1215 it was the conservatives who supported Monarchies and Theocracies, the liberals (mostly peasants) opposed Monarchies and Theocracies..

This is hilariously historically inaccurate, also. You would later have peasant groups like the Levellers and Diggers (proto-communist, mind) and theocratic supporters of Cromwell who opposed the monarchy in its then-current form. Much more often the peasantry was the bastion of support for the Crown and the nobility, because they were seen as the main source of protection for the small peasantry from looters and crop thieves. Most organized opposition to the nobility came much later, and it came out of the burgeoning middle-classes.

God, American 'libertarianism' has completely falsified world history to fit into a simplistic concept that bears no relation to reality.

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Guy Incognito said:
What constitutes torture is not a decision made by anybody, least of all Congress. Torture is defined according to a legal principle called "jus cogens," compelling law, which transcends national sovereignty. Simply put, no sovereign government can redefine or circumscribe what torture is. Waterboarding is torture, even if the United States government illegitimately claims it isn't.

No, it isn't. At least not legally. And legally is the only usage of the word torture that I'm concerned with. I don't care about your personal opinions about torture (although your views are kind of monstrous).

No, you are clearly the ignorant one here.

It doesn't matter. Hell you're torturing me right now - maybe you're the war criminal :lol:

No one can define torture because we all have different thresholds - torture is relative to the individual.

Also, like I said - you cant make a goat out of George Bush because he wasn't the only one making decisions. Presidents aren't dictators (despite the fact progressives want them to be). So if you want to place blame then blame everyone 537 people in total.

Guy Incognito · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
It doesn't matter. Hell you're torturing me right now - maybe you're the war criminal :lol:

Well, no, I'm not. What is or is not torture is an objective matter, not a subjective one.

No one can define torture because we all have different thresholds - torture is relative to the individual.

You can keep saying this bull**** but it won't make it true.

Also, like I said - you cant make a goat out of George Bush because he wasn't the only one making decisions. Presidents aren't dictators (despite the fact progressives want them to be). So if you want to place blame then blame everyone 537 people in total.

George Bush may not be the only one who is culpable but he is personally culpable as well. He also confessed. That should be the end of the matter, if there were any justice in the world it would be. Unfortunately, justice often takes a back seat to pragmatic concerns. And when there are so many people like you in the world-- monster who don't care if their government tortures-- then torture will continue to persist. It is our nation's shame. Shame on you for contributing to it.

Bronson · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
There is no difference between a liberal and a libertarian.

Liberals aren't "liberal" they're authoritarian progressives. The word liberal is consistently misused. One may as well call a hat a bowl or a towel a napkin.

Collectivist Authoritarians actually

Fascism is alive and well in the United States. They all vote Democrat.

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Einzige said:
I'm very well aware of what the Magna Carta is. What I'm also aware of is that the Magna Carta was nothing more than a codification of the "Rights of the Englishman" that had been simply assumed as a matter of law before the Norman invasion. The Magna Carta existed for no other reason than to restore what had been previously taken as a matter of course. It granted no new liberties and expanded no rights or privileges. It was not a liberal document.

This is hilariously historically inaccurate, also. You would later have peasant groups like the Levellers and Diggers (proto-communist, mind) and theocratic supporters of Cromwell who opposed the monarchy in its then-current form. Much more often the peasantry was the bastion of support for the Crown and the nobility, because they were seen as the main source of protection for the small peasantry from looters and crop thieves. Most organized opposition to the nobility came much later, and it came out of the burgeoning middle-classes.

God, American 'libertarianism' has completely falsified world history to fit into a simplistic concept that bears no relation to reality.

WOW, how can you sit here and claim the Magna Carta was not a liberal document?? notice the routine use of the word 'liberty" in the wiki article?

Weather the prerequisite was set for liberty before the document was passed doesn't change the fact the document was liberal based. Hell I even asserted liberal ideas are much older than the Magna Carta and one could argue the Bible is a "liberal document" (but I wouldn't make that argument)...

The point I'm trying to make is that liberal means "liberty" and conservative means to "conserve" and libertarian means "liberty."

One can be a conservative - it just depends on what is being conserved. One can be a libertarian, however libertarian is a generic term for one who embraces liberty and limited government or no government at all - and classical liberalism falls into that category.

Anyone who believes in big government is NOT a liberal, they're fascist authoritarians..

People can rewrite history all they like and redefine words all they like because it makes them feel better, however that doesn't make these pursuits honest or correct.

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Bronson said:
Collectivist Authoritarians actually

Fascism is alive and well in the United States. They all vote Democrat.

I agree they're collectivists to boot, but they're only collectivists because they're brainwashed with authoritarian ideas (in some cases totalitarian). Unions are a fantastic example of this.

Authoritarian, fascism and collectivism go hand-in-hand.

Einzige · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
WOW, how can you sit here and claim the Magna Carta was not a liberal document?? notice the routine use of the word 'liberty" in the wiki article?

The German National Socialist Workers’ Party is not a party exclusively for labourers; it stands for the interests of every decent and honest enterprise. It is a liberal and strictly folkish Party.

- The 25 Points

Anybody can use the terms "liberal" and "liberty" because they sound good. The Magna Carta does guarantee some liberties that had last been seen during the reign of Edward the Confessor and which had been promised, but not kept, by Henry I. The Magna Carta is, nevertheless, not a liberal document.

Anyone who believes in big government is NOT a liberal, they're fascist authoritarians..

Again, tell it to Asquith.

The 1909 People's Budget was a product of then British Prime Minister H. H. Asquith's Liberal government, introducing many unprecedented taxes on the wealthy and radical social welfare programmes to Britain's political life. It was championed by Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George and his strong ally Winston Churchill, who was then President of the Board of Trade; the duo was called the "Terrible Twins" by contemporaries.[1]

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Einzige said:
- The 25 Points

Anybody can use the terms "liberal" and "liberty" because they sound good. The Magna Carta does guarantee some liberties that had last been seen during the reign of Edward the Confessor and which had been promised, but not kept, by William II. The Magna Carta is, nevertheless, not a liberal document.

Again, tell it to Asquith.

You act like societies don't turn hypocritical in a quick second.

Just because a society mocks a definition of a word or idea doesn't mean the definition changes with society.

No one can redefine what was already established.

"Liberal" is nothing more than a slogan that is continually misused to the point that it has no meaning whatsoever. One may as well call a car a bike.

Besides, it shouldn't be too difficult to see that libertarian and liberal have the same root word and meaning attached which is liberty. Neither have different meanings just different thresholds under the same concept.

Are you familiar with Whole Language?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language

Einzige · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
Just because a society mocks a definition of a word or idea doesn't mean the definition changes with society.

No one can redefine what was already established.

The point is that you're historically ignorant of the "established" meaning of 'liberalism' as used in the context of 'classical liberalism'. The actual classical liberals - Gladstone, say, who built the workhouses for the poor out of the general budget, or Asquith - had no problem with social spending. They simply wanted to keep it within the means available to the government, and to do it while raising as little new revenue as possible.

They were not libertarians. They had few ideological points of contact with modern libertarianism. And for modern libertarians to call themselves the whole-hog inheritors of classical liberalism is to disgrace the men who were themselves classical liberals.

I admire Gladstone, and consider myself very influenced by the man intellectually. But I want absolutely not a thing to do with American-style Hayekians or Austrians.

Besides, it shouldn't be too difficult to see that libertarian and liberal have the same root word and meaning attached which is liberty. Neither have different meanings just different thresholds under the same concept.

Nonsense. 'Conservationism' and 'conservatism' have the same root word. Yet most conservationists and most conservatives deplore each other.

Longstreet · Dec 30, 2012

"Democracy is like an old ugly whore who must drop her drawers faster and faster
for less and less."

Shame on those fret about minutia while actually thinking our clapped-out system
can be repaired. Hopefully, economic and social stresses with collapse this farce
of government. Beyond repair, strip it down and build something better.

Dittohead not! · Dec 30, 2012

Wow! I looked at this thread expecting to totally disagree with Oliver Stone, but he is actually making a lot of sense.

Oliver Stone: I think under the disguise of sheep’s clothing he has been a wolf. That because of the nightmare of the Bush presidency that preceded him, people forgave him a lot. He was a great hope for change. The color of his skin, the upbringing, the internationalism, the globalism, seemed all evident. And he is an intelligent man. He has taken all the Bush changes he basically put them into the establishment, he has codified them. That is what is sad. So we are going into the second administration that is living outside the law and does not respect the law and foundations of our system and he is a constitutional lawyer, you know. Without the law, it is the law of the jungle. Nuremburg existed for a reason and there was a reason to have trials, there is a reason for due process – ‘habeas corpus’ as they call it in the United States.

The bush policies continue unchanged, even amplified, the government has no respect for due process or the rule of law, the Constitution is increasingly being shoved under the table, and individual rights are being trampled.

Orwellian. Maybe not to the degree of the Big Brother society, but getting closer all the time.

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Einzige said:
The point is that you're historically ignorant of the "established" meaning of 'liberalism' as used in the context of 'classical liberalism'. The actual classical liberals - Gladstone, say, who built the workhouses for the poor out of the general budget, or Asquith - had no problem with social spending. They simply wanted to keep it within the means available to the government, and to do it while raising as little new revenue as possible.

They were not libertarians. They had few ideological points of contact with modern libertarianism. And for modern libertarians to call themselves the whole-hog inheritors of classical liberalism is to disgrace the men who were themselves classical liberals.

I admire Gladstone, and consider myself very influenced by the man intellectually. But I want absolutely not a thing to do with American-style Hayekians or Austrians.

Nonsense. 'Conservationism' and 'conservatism' have the same root word. Yet most conservationists and most conservatives deplore each other.

You see you're just proving my point. You continue to use individuals (er collectivists) who called themselves liberals but were NOT liberal.

You may as well use Nancy Pelosi as an example next.

One cannot be a liberal and advocate for larger government, just like one cannot be an anarchist and advocate for a leader.

Show me an "authoritarian liberal" and I'll eat my hat because both those concepts contradict one another.

Einzige · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
You see you're just proving my point. You continue to use individuals (er collectivists) who called themselves liberals but were NOT liberal.

You may as well use Nancy Pelosi as an example next.

One cannot be a liberal and advocate for larger government, just like one cannot be an anarchist and advocate for a leader.

Your problem is that you're taking the word of non-liberals, who lived decades (or even centuries) after the hayday of political liberalism in a classical sense, at face value.

The men who lived and breathed 'classical liberalism' defined what classical liberalism actually was. And it was, indeed, concerned with over taxation and with free-markets. But it was also concerned with social welfare and the use of the government to improve the lives of the lower classes. The men who formed the Liberal Party and brought it into its period of political ascendancy in the last two-quarters of the 19th century did not regard these two ideals as at loggerheads. Their opposition to over-taxation came out of a concern for the pocketbooks of the lower classes.

They were not libertarians. And for Hayek to claim they were, and to claim himself a direct descendant of Gladstone, is intellectual and historical heresy.

But you would know this, if you read a biography of Gladstone or Asquith or a history of British politics in the 19th century and put down The Road to Serfdom.

Mr.Nick · Dec 30, 2012

Einzige said:
Your problem is that you're taking the word of non-liberals, who lived decades (or even centuries) after the hayday of political liberalism in a classical sense, at face value.

The men who lived and breathed 'classical liberalism' defined what classical liberalism actually was. And it was, indeed, concerned with over taxation and with free-markets. But it was also concerned with social welfare and the use of the government to improve the lives of the lower classes. The men who formed the Liberal Party and brought it into its period of political ascendancy in the last two-quarters of the 19th century did not regard these two ideals as at loggerheads. Their opposition to over-taxation came out of a concern for the pocketbooks of the lower classes.

They were not libertarians. And for Hayek to claim they were, and to claim himself a direct descendant of Gladstone, is intellectual and historical heresy.

But you would know this, if you read a biography of Gladstone or Asquith or a history of British politics in the 19th century and put down The Road to Serfdom.

You do realize you can't have it both ways? that a nanny state and individual liberty are impossible?

Einzige · Dec 30, 2012

Mr.Nick said:
You do realize you can't have it both ways? that a nanny state and individual liberty are impossible?

You do realize that the men who are today called 'classical liberals' were not ideologues, and the abstract contradiction between 'liberty' and 'security' (which, ultimately, is a false dichotomy anyway) mattered to them not an iota when formulating concrete policy plans, right?

j-mac · Dec 30, 2012

Einzige said:
You do realize that the men who are today called 'classical liberals' were not ideologues, and the abstract contradiction between 'liberty' and 'security' (which, ultimately, is a false dichotomy anyway) mattered to them not an iota when formulating concrete policy plans, right?

The line since then has moved, and as for European thoughts on how the US should run itself has long since been determined...I think 1776 was the dateline.

Oliver Stone to RT: ‘US has become an Orwellian state’

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.

Mr.Nick

Mr.Nick

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.

Mr.Nick

Guy Incognito

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.

Mr.Nick

Guy Incognito

Bronson

Mr.Nick

Mr.Nick

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.

Mr.Nick

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.

Longstreet

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

Mr.Nick

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.

Mr.Nick

Einzige

Elitist as Hell.

j-mac