Well it's quite elementary you see, allow me to explain with this quick primer

.play chicken jockey

>>240772
if anyone has a sincere answer then my hands are ready to give them the wedgie of a lifetime

liberalism is like do things, but good things, often

I've seen Max Stirner on glegle so I assume ya'll're chill with egoism?

>>240839
who's max stirner? are they cool?

>>240820
i thoght liberalism was about doing things that give people more freedoms and stuff

>>240846
Well I'm not that well read on him yet but my grasp on him is that ethics should be well put together rather than vibes, with the vibes based ethics being morals. Have only learned about him through youtube and "Art and Religion", so grain of salt.

>>240850
possibly. I think there’s some natural law worked in there originally

>>240846
>>240855 (me)
Oh and the idea that people acting in their own interests can behave ethically to eachother, because it's mutually in their interests to do so, but not in an altruism way because he was skeptical of the idea of a "truely selfless action." Which is probably just splitting hairs idk it just seems like altruism.

>>240940
hmm i do agree that true selfless altruism doesn't rly exist in the way we think abt it
but then that's no excuse to be mean... it's nice to treat the bags of meat walking around us like people just like us
do the jesus thing and treat others the way u wanna be treated... you know...

that includes being mean to people when you think they're bein stupid!! course correction n all that

>>241000
Agreed

liberalism is like about freedom and basically uhhhh yeah

liberalism is when the government doesn't do stuff, the less stuff it does, the more liberaler it is

thousand different answers. liberalism is kind of more of a family resemblance than a single unified thing. at its broadest you could summarise it as "universal egalitarian individualism", but ofc diff't variants will assign diff't weights to each of those elements. e.g. the various kinds of liberal socialism will emphasise egalitarianism first and foremost, continental state liberalism will deemphasise individualism while Anglo-American Manchester liberalism will emphasise it, &c. i think this board's Schelling point is smth like r/neoliberalism's idea of liberalism: a largely free market lightly regulated for efficiency combined w/ an efficient welfare state, rule of law, civil liberties, and cultural liberalism. ofc there's ways you can stretch basically liberal principles into things that contradict a lot of assumed liberal bona fides—Hans-Hermann Hoppe's flavour of anarcho-capitalism, for instance, takes the Lockean principle of property rights as paramount and turns it into a defence of feudal monarchy, which is what the OG liberals were trying to overthrow in the first place. Marxism and left-anarchism are also, basically, extensions of basically liberal ideas, albeit in the exact opposite direction. so there's a lot,

>>240772
in america liberal basically means true neutral political sphere. u want everyone to do well, but you are still corrupt and pro establisment and basically 100% of your policy is as long as the country is stable you must be doing something right. you dont make things better, but you also dont make them worse. and then very rarely you have some progressive W mixed in that you ride for 50 years to try and appear progressive.

you say that you are there for the working person, the minority, the gays and such but all of them are lesser when compared to an oil company or something like that.

liberalism is when you dont want feudalism, most modern ideologies are liberal

i think its when youre gay or something dunno

>>308420
never seen this format before, really cool

>>308420
this is actually bars

>>312132
i've seen this get reposted all the time on leftypol

>>308420
nuuuuu muh heckin' profit margins!

>>312192
>goes to leftypol

>>314179
I used to, now I'm bored of it

>>240772
>How does liberal theorycrafting (and praxiscrafting for that matter) work?
the closest thing to a serious theoretical attempt at justifying modern liberalism is probably rawls (specifically A Theory of Justice)
the tl;dr is that you're supposed to imagine laying out the principles of societal organization while not knowing which position within that society you'll occupy, and he thinks if you do that the rule you'll end up following is trying to maximize how good the worst-off people in that society have it in absolute material terms, and concluding that it's fine if large inequalities exist so long as the worst-off are better off materially than they would be in the counterfactual where you didn't allow those inequalities
i'm not that familiar with leftist critiques of rawls, though i'm sure they must exist. nozick had some interesting criticisms from the (economic) right.