KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (09/12/86)
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@LLL-MFE.ARPA
In the old days, there were only liberals and conservatives.
Liberals wanted change, conservatives wanted status quo.
Things were never this simple. When exactly were these old days?
Was Abraham Lincoln a liberal because he wanted to eliminate slavery?
Or was Jefferson Davis a liberal because he wanted to secede from the
Union?
There are many forms of change. And almost as many views of what
the status quo is.
You forgot "reactionary" and "radical", the purported endpoints on
this simplistic one dimensional chart. At least this is how it was
explained to me in high school. And they never even mentioned
libertarians.
Later the term liberal also became synonymous with "pacifist"
during the era of George (get out of Viet Nam) McGovern and Barry
(bomb the Chinese) Goldwater. So now there is a new movement
which is pacifist but is against government aid, so they have
coined a new phrase: "libertarian". ...
No. Most libertarians aren't pacifists. And libertarian philosophy
has its roots in the 18th and 19th centuries, not in the 1960s.
Thomas Jefferson would be regarded as a libertarian by today's
standards, as would most of the signers of the Constitution.
If I directly use Fagin's definition of valuing "individual
liberty, the free market, and social tolerance", then my
conservative brain conjures up an image of Ronald Reagan... Is
President Reagan a libertarian? ...
When it comes to economics, he certainly leans in that direction.
But he is lacking in "social tolerance". We have all seen his
administration's views on drugs, homosexuality, and pornography.
...Keith
-------