Much I write starts as an answer to an idiot on Facebook, then I recall who and what I am and what I hope to be in the recollections of my grandchildren, then I mellow out and make my point in a more civil manner. So what was on my mind over on Facebook just now was:Gainsaying liars without being one.
And I planned to say something like this to an Oxford-JC-trained, somewhat literate fool. Using Solomon’s definition for fool, btw.
All who disagree with my chosen definition of liber and all it’s kin and kenners, you know,
feel free to correct your state of dis-ing my calmly-carrying-on chosen herd. But don’t go callin’ out the mob to shout how misguided I, and those who agree, have chosen to be.
feel free to correct your state of dis-ing my calmly-carrying-on chosen herd. But don’t go callin’ out the mob to shout how misguided I, and those who agree, have chosen to be.
In this post-Babel reality we live {I said live, not live in}, private meanings of words are as common as dirt. Liberal is a good way to be, as a person, or a herd of persons, a tribe, or clan, a city, maybe nations, maybe, even, whole worlds — but mobs can’t be liberal.
Mobs are mindless tools, fooled, not fools, by liars reared on lies Plato never told.
(Reference to the audio book Republic, where his character, Socrates (so crates, is fine, don’t be dis tracting….
Too poseur parvenu, eh, tu brutishus colonial provenicialus?
Too poseur parvenu, eh, tu brutishus colonial provenicialus?
Trailer park, literacy is plenty high to comprehend that rich kids who were taught to think of them selves as the guardians of the herd of peasants, could have some wrong ideas way
deep down, in their elitely-educated souls.
White mans’ burden, so non-liberally picked up by the owners of all earth’s means of production, save our con-join-able minds….
White mans’ burden, so non-liberally picked up by the owners of all earth’s means of production, save our con-join-able minds….
We’ll pick this up later, if me becomes we in the interim. This parenthetical expression ends after this sentence, wrong teaching about how Plato and Paul thought ought to be correctable as easily as rich communities can correct crossed eyes.)
Back to the point
Liberalism is a good. Tyranny in the guise of liberal, is not.
Here are two widely sown definitions of the -isms imagined to grow from a cluster of liberal persons doing life liberally:
1. Mises’ definition, most concise —
The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production.
… All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.
2. As defined by former U.S. Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr., when he was Mayor of Philadelphia, described the modern “liberal” position very frankly in these words:
To lay a ghost at the outset and to dismiss semantics, a liberal is here defined as one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice at the municipal, state, national, and international levels…. A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society which attempts to carry Christian principles of conduct into practical effect. (Atlantic, July 1953, p. 27)
{kp. probably those who prefer this definition would demand removal of the word Christian. Which platform change, I agree, ought be made, in all clear con science.
both quotes come from this site: https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/ }
both quotes come from this site: https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition/ }
Mises’ definition I can grow with, especially if I read his economic thinking (read means, listen -Hoopla, Overdrive, LibriVox or Audible) in light of his era relative to my own kin and country. Thus, having started with
Mises’ Liberalism from The Bexar County BiblioTech library— the world’s first all-digital library, I am compelled by my own faith in me being able to finish anything I start, one way or another, to read at least Mises 4 biggies mentioned in the frontmatter .
Okeh, may be this is a chapter, not a post, but it just would not have matured well on facebook, right?
Liberal is a good way to be, but, as I will say again, if your definition of liberal disagrees with mine and the Corinthian kind, you are define-ed-ly challenged, which could be said in a much more condescending way, but I am speaking from ground level in the hierarchy of idea spouters and I can’t descend any further. This is where I stand. And where my very next step starts.
1 Corinthians 16:3 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem.
2 Corinthians 8:2 | View whole chapter | See verse in context
How that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their liberality.
Liberty responded to with an ability we all have, the ability to govern our own actions, empowers the liberated. Liberty reacted to with proud abandon of bounds, enfeebles the free for nothing. Freedom does not mean releasing the bonds that link you to your reality grip. Thumbs. Almost all they do is help us get a grip on things nearby, though legends tell
of old King Cole poking his thumb plumb through a lead pie plate, which made him crazy, while complementing his own boyish goodness
All poking aside, liberally use the tools or means or mind or faith you find worthy, dis that you do not value light enough to conserve unto the end.
