How did liberalism start? And more importantly, how do we end it?

>How did liberalism start?
With blood and steel
>How do we end it?
With blood and steel

If you want serious answers you should do some reading instead of getting a bunch of answers here and only picking the ones that confirm your ideas and ignoring the ones that dont.

File: bioshock-infinite-founding-fathers.jpg (402KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1920x1080px

>>1835844
With the Founding Fathers. (Not even kidding.)

You wanna end it? Go back in time and kill them.

>>1835844

go ask
>>>/pol/

They'll show you the ((((redpill))))

People asked "why?" with respect to the government and authorities, and liberalism was their answer.

>>1835851
>instead of getting a bunch of answers here and only picking the ones that confirm your ideas and ignoring the ones that dont
How is that any different from what person does when they read? Most likely they are reading a secondary source, and not likely going to rummage through 50+ sources it is based on to refute each claim, so they are left with the authors interpretations and biases, not to mention their own interpretations and biases. Just face it, history is a game where the players are always changing their narrative to suit the new storyline. The truth is, nothing is certain, it is all up for debate. Anyone who says otherwise is lying on purpose to try and control, or they are already controlled.

>>1835857
Yeah see, this is proof that all liberalism isn't what people think it is. Like the modern stereo-type of liberalism can potentially share the definition of degeneracy imho. Like the modern liberal in my opinion, lives in a fantasy land.

But being open to new ways, as long as they're not goofy and degenerate, there's nothing wrong with that.

I feel like the political system though is designed to keep people stupid. Like claiming that you are either liberal or conservative, when in reality, you can be conservative, but also be open to new things and structures for the expansion of virtue or fairness or justness.

But to be a hyper-liberal, as if anything should be able to go, depending on the topic, that can be degeneracy, not liberalism.

Only no one wants to expand on this to further reinforce these symbols and definitions so we can get a more accurate definition and more accurate boundaries. People in general are too lazy for that. A lot of political arguments are done in vain even, just people who want their tweet liked or re-tweeted etc etc. Their only in it for how it makes them look.

>>1835844
>Teddy "The Original Progressive" Roosevelt
>Teddy "The Failed Imperialist" Roosevelt
>Teddy "My Party Didn't Pick Me, So I'll Sabotage Them" Roosevelt
>Teddy "I Tried To Become King Of Albania And Failed" Roosevelt

>>1835844
Jews

How did conservatism start?
And more importantly how do we end it?

>>1835900
Sentimentality with respect to the ancien regime.

>>1835900
>How did conservatism start?
Its natural human instinct to be conformist with your tribal culture.
>end it
Kill yourself.

John Locke and the individual rights of man.

>>1835881
Because published academics are subject to peer review and use proper citations, unlike fucking 4chan posters you fucking dumbass. Even if you fail to check their sources, the likelihood is still greater that they actually have accurate sources rather than pulling shit out of their asses.

File: 334712837123.jpg (67KB, 323x315px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 323x315px

>>1835900

>Its natural human instinct to be conformist with your tribal culture.
>natural

Thousands of years of human history is testament against this kind of thinking.

>>1835911
If its natural, why do so many fail to do it? Why your description of nature not account for an event so frequent that it must also be called natural? If an event does not have its source in nature, where does it come from?

>>1835923

meant for

>>1835911

>>1835919
>peer review
But it's still history, so it comes down to interpretation. Sure, there are certain areas where the facts have been made fairly concrete as to have only one interpretation, but most people don't bother arguing those points unless they want to waste time and rub salt in old wounds (6mil...really?, suff like that). The rest is based on trying to interpret from scarce evidence, and sometimes very biased evidence (just because its in writing doesn't make it truth). So a peer reviewed journal in history only means that some peer read it, determined the sources to be legit, the argument to be plausible, and it didn't touch on any of the "out of bounds" topics that historians are not allowed to interpret differently.

what an awful thread

these guys
>>1835844
>>1835911
are completely retarded

>>1835964
Even that is superior to typical 4chan asspulls.

>>1835966

triggered

classical and new liberals have created a Christianity without god, which means just hedonism disguised as progress and ''educating the pleb so that the pleb be free, free as in ''do what you want, entertain yourself'' [without the means to have it, perhaps, but more importantly without being blamed for your actions]. The same people equally dream of making the humanity non-hedonistic. Hedonists are crushed by their hedonism and dream, more so when they are bored, only of making people better, which is precisely being not hedonistic.

after the fall of positivism and their contradictory/ retarded faith in the fantasy of the universality in the human rights plus the fucking abysmal lack of idea of what to do with their creation which is the middle class [beyond making these people work and enjoying themselves outside of work], these people are led to embrace various doctrines for salvation, but more importantly, the doctrine which would save them would still be a doctrine
-which is not Christianity, since liberals have taken powers from Christians [which bring liberals love to hate Christians]
-allows the care free attitude towards the world [''do what you want as long as you pay my taxes''] on a pragmatic level [like people still must be able to go on vacation every few months, to take picture of their shitty meals abroad, sleep around but still feel good for calling fuckers degenerate, listening to music, enjoying yourself watching products from the entertainment industry...]
-still hide enough the above hedonism so that people can feel better about being animals, by pretending to seek a higher power on a weekly basis

>>1836058

THese fuckers have failed to make the middle class something else than clients. these people have tried to make the pleb
-citizens, but it turns out that the fantasy of educating the pleb so that the pleb vote for more classical.new liberalism is super expensive once you have billions of fuckers to convert and even worse, the humanity being hedonistic in nature, people remain hedonistic no matter what
-employees, but employees are disposable by definition and this fantasy is lost
-clients, where people can be moral [=adhering to the human rights] when they buy stuff form amazon or ebay

these liberals have tried to seek salvation in building a society with the asian doctrines, but the asian doctrines are
-foreign the notion of society, like buddhism
-or they say >muh tradition, but the liberals despise the tradition differing form the ''republicanism''

so they are left with the fucking savage societies where ten people eat plants in the amazonia or the jews and the muslism and the sharia which is indeed the best fusion of
-a civil law like any liberal dream of, so that liberal can control their people
-the higher power so that it puts an end to relativism and epxlicit hedonism

the sharia is what chrisitanity has failed to produce, which means it is what the christians without god crave,

>>1835844
Whyy ? Why don't you like freedom and happiness and unlimited fun ? Are you muslim ?

File: Robespierre.jpg (135KB, 800x1014px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 800x1014px

>>1835844

>How did liberalism start?

The French revolution

>how do we end it?

We don't.

>>1835844
its started with people be assholes
it will end when they stop

>>1835885
That is because with the beginning axiom of liberalism, the logical end point must always necessarily be emancipation. If you take away aristocracy, there is no logical reason to extend it to women, blacks, gays and so on. If you are not born into temperaments, the difference between peoples must necessarily also be negligible other than what line on a piece of paper they were born inside.

>>1836058
>classical and new liberals have created a Christianity without god

Stopped reading there

>>1835844
There's quite a few elements to what is commonly called liberalism, they have different roots and are quite incongruous with each other.

But mainly there's the ideas of:
- individualism
- democracy
- progress
- freedom
- equality

Obviously you have conservative liberals moaning about how you can't be both equal and free. But there's more, for instance in liberal democracy it's not always quite clear whether you vote as an individual person, or as a part of the nation. Does the elected official represent you, or the nation? Does he represent you even if you didn't vote for him?
What is meant by equality? Does it apply to everyone or just the citizens who vote. Etc.
Obviously all of those have been explained with some degree of success, but they can still be put into doubt. The way to defeat it is by exploiting those inconsistencies.

>>1836058
what is this post

>>1836107
>all those words I don't understand

Thanks for making me feel like an idiot, but also forcing me to use a dictionary.

But see, that's why I believe there are variables. Liberalism that focuses and intends to break moral fiber, all in the name of freedom, is the beginning of a potential nasty outcome. The slip into degeneracy, is real imo. But freeing employees from oppression, which would be a liberal act if the oppression is written law, I'd support, and be classified as a liberal.

This is where I shouldn't accuse people of be lazy, since I'm lazy af myself. But trying to micro manage definitions to identify the variables, can be toilsome.

As for introducing hierarchies into this discussion, my fault for being thick but I don't see the connection entirely. I mean I vaguely understand what you're trying to say. That the freeing only comes by way of something already established?

>>1835844
Liberalism started with the French Revolution, those lefties wanted free market economics so you didn't have to be a monarch to profit off of the workers.
>how do we end it.
Dismantle the market capitalist economy/anthropocentric value system and progress to a glorious resource based value system.
Tell your free market reps that they are dumb.

>>1837651
Also tell your your socialist reps that they are dumbos for trying to fix the broken system

>>1836131
Its so funny how liberalism thinks individualism + equality = freedom.

liberalism has two options. Allow actual individualism to exist, which by its nature will lead to an illiberal system of hierarchy, or impose equality by force which eliminates both individualism and freedom eventually leading to totalitarianism.

File: Top wew.png (55KB, 570x585px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 570x585px

>>1835844
Liberalism was a retaliation against tyranny. Liberal governments are reactionary in nature, like democracy, capitalism, etc. Yes, i said it; Capitalism is liberal. In fact, it's one of the reasons America was founded (by liberals), so they could escape taxation and regulation, so they could be free "liberal".

But "freedom" isn't what they got. The constitution and bill of rights lays out an idea for practice (by people doing trade), that one man's product isn't stolen from him, that he has a right to his property. While it seems "free", it actually isn't, because there's only way to enforce that land claim, and that's by force (military). Cities like New York don't require that you have a good heart with strong morals; it only requires that you obey the law. This is why New York (as an example), is so diverse; it cuts out the people, and replaces people with progress, financial progress.

Modern Social Justice warriors are VERY privileged. They go to starbucks, clothing stores, buy things on ebay, and have all kinds of hipster memorabilia. Karl Marx admitted that Communism was a transition of capitalism, and I think that reflects itself in the people. The oppressed are just as materialistic as the oppressor, and that's because they follow the same dialectic. The middle class are none the wiser, because they're just in it to be conservative when it comes to conformity; they'll vote for whomever their friends and family voted.

We need a new system.. And it doesn't even have to have a rule book. It's simple. if you're my family, I won't steal from you. if you're my race, i won't cheat you. If you're my ethnicity or religion, I won't lie to you. Govern with honour, and man will avoid crime for fear of shame by his fellow; govern with law, and man wont know who his fellow is, and will avoid crime for fear of punishment.

>>1835844
>Pericles.
>Stop Athens and Sparta going to war whilst he is alive.

>>1835844
>And more importantly, how do we end it?
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2014/02/14/pump-and-dump/
>https://radishmag.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/fair-sex/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/
>http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/09/the-sexodus-part-2-dishonest-feminist-panics-leave-male-sexuality-in-crisis/
Take Teddy's advice and fight back with information and the truth.

>>1837651
>Liberalism started with the French Revolution

"no"

Liberalism started with John Stuart Mill and John Locke, and the U.S was founded on liberal principles in 1776, 13 years before the French Revolution.

Classical liberalism was the justification rich european men referred to when committing acts which in present day would be considered crimes against humanity.

I honestly don't know when and how 'liberal' gained its current meaning.

>>1837820
"crimes against humanity" was invented by European men as well faggit.

Or did niggers in the jungle have laws against "crimes against humanity?"

>>1837820
>was the justification rich european men referred to when committing acts which in present day would be considered crimes against humanity.

What are you referring to here?

>>1837807

>Liberalism started with John Stuart Mill

The idea was being discussed about 200 years before On Liberty was even being written.

>>1837872
>The idea was being discussed about 200 years before On Liberty was even being written.

Your point? The idea clearly didn't have any political clout until he wrote that, and the U.S was founded.

>>1835844
how did liberalism get the meaning of leftist relativist in the USA? in the rest of the world it means pro free trade person.

>>1837897
because Americans are retarded

>>1837747
>I won't steal from you. if you're my race, i won't cheat you. If you're my ethnicity or religion, I won't lie to you
What does race or ethnicity have to do with any of it?

>>1837883

>Liberalism didn't have any political clout until 1859

I think its fair to say that Mill's writings signaled the start of the international movement of liberalism, but there are so many highly distinguished liberal theorists that pre-date him (his own father included) that I wouldn't classify him as a true pioneer of the philosophy.

>>1837918
>until 1859

What? Did you even read my original post?

>>1837928

I might be being retarded, but I read your post to mean that the idea (liberalism) didn't have any political clout until Mill wrote On Liberty, which was 1859?

>>1837938
But why would you focus on Mill when I also mentioned John Locke and the founding of the United States?

I can also mention Thomas Paine if that helps stop you being a pedantic fucktard.

>>1837949

>why would you focus on Mill

Because the first question OP asked was how liberalism started and I don't think Mill enters into that discussion, he came after centuries of liberal theorists had already coined the concept.

Also, there's no need for the aggression, this isn't /b/ or /tv/ friendo.

>>1835844
Before the first attempt at democratic government, Athens was ruled by a series of archons or chief magistrates, and the Areopagus, made up of ex-archons. The members of these institutions were generally aristocrats, who ruled the polis for their own advantage. In 621 BC Draco codified a set of "notoriously harsh" laws that were "a clear expression of the power of the aristocracy over everybody else." This did not stop the aristocratic families feuding amongst themselves to obtain as much power as possible.[5]

Therefore, by the 6th century BC, the majority of Athenians "had been 'enslaved' to the rich", and they called upon Plato's ancestor Solon, premier archon at the time, to liberate them and halt the feuding of the aristocracy. However, the "enfranchisement of the local laboring classes was succeeded by the development of chattel slavery, the enslavement of, in large part, foreigners."[6]

Solon, the mediator, reshaped the city "by absorbing the traditional aristocracy in a definition of citizenship which allotted a political function to every free resident of Attica. Athenians were not slaves but citizens, with the right, at the very least, to participate in the meetings of the assembly." Under these reforms, the position of archon "was opened to all with certain property qualifications, and a Boule, a rival council of 400, was set up. The Areopagus, nevertheless, retained 'guardianship of the laws'".[7] A major contribution to democracy was Solon's setting up of an Ecclesia or Assembly, which was open to all male citizens. However, "one must bear in mind that its agenda was apparently set entirely by the Council of 400", "consisting of 100 members from each of the four tribes", that had taken "over many of the powers which the Areopagos had previously exercised."[5]

of course before any of this someone must have had the idea. I doubt anyone knows the details about that, though.
to end people's wish for agency, kill all life in a global nuclear war.

>>1837897
BC in America opposition to free trade is racist.

>>1835844
>How did liberalism start?
Jews wanted more money
>And more importantly, how do we end it?
With fascism, ov coursh

>>1837747
>The constitution and bill of rights lays out an idea for practice (by people doing trade)
The constitution and the bill of rights didn't establish capitalism

>>1837685
all men are created equal bruv

pay those taxes so I don't need to work cunt

File: 1474036742608.png (146KB, 339x348px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 339x348px

>>1837907
We have natural preference for people we honour. "White privilege" is a good example. Had there not been "progressive" or "Utilitarian" devices (Such as capitalism, liberalism, or a post-national state), there'd be a ethnic semi-state, because people would trust their own kind more than another kind.

>>1838011
That's not what I'm saying. Statist government inevitably exists to provide protection. If a merchant class is protected, whether or not you're in a capitalist system, then the merchant class will build up capital until it can control the masses. States like to use the merchant class to exert power over the people (creating tyranny).

>>1837897
Because a protected merchant class will always inevitably lead to protected trade. Protected trade (or trade rights) leads to the incentivizing of immigrant workers, immigrant rights, etc. The rhetoric of Hillary Clinton, for example, is very globalist in nature, as globalism seeks to knock down borders, knock down governments, for INDIVIDUAL benefit, not collective benefit.

>>1835844
Liberalism probably started with John Locke and the life, liberty, property thing.

Liberalism went on to be a really beloved movement, so beloved in fact that it became essentially unfeasible to claim to be anything but a liberal in politics, especially in democracies. So it was that socialists (who stand between liberals and conservatives in the classical stance) began calling themselves progressives and liberals and the cause was soon co opted. Now the liberals that were still true liberals got lazy and didn't do anything to clear up what they believed, and eventually they died out because liberalism came to mean nothing.

Liberalism probably really died when FDR called himself one, and it's only now that the term can probably come back since we live in a more interconnected world where it's easier to actually parse the meanings of words originally, and the people that once called themselves liberal call themselves progressives or socialists straight out.