sorry for being retarded, but how is Rawls and Habermas considered "liberals"?
What does "liberal" mean in English? Is it related in any way to Adam Smith's Classical Liberalism?
I ask this because I'm reading pic related and he uses the word "liberal" to define Habermas and the likes of Hayek at the same time and this is really confusing me.
btw: "This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion, law, [...]"
>>1221387
hayek is liberal
>>1221387
Liberal in American English: People I don't like/leftypol
Liberal in British English: A broad group containing everything from modern day central leftist and pretty much everything right wing.
>>1221416
Is Habermas and Rawls Liberals in the American sense only? Thats what is seems to me.
On the other hand, Hayek is - of course - a diehard classical liberal and thats clear.
Whats confusing me is that the author talks about liberal-democracies and he doesn't define what he perceives as liberal before doing so
>>1221387
"Liberal" is used in politics to describe more social spending, more leaneant laws, less money from private corporations and more aggressive social programs
"Conservatives" just dispute everything the liberals belive. More safety by control, less money on social programs.
In theory, at least. Most administrations are full of shit and have alterior motives
to put it differently: in what ways is the liberalism in Hayek and Mises similar to the liberalism in Habermas and Rawls?
>>1221426
Well i'd say Rawls original position and veil of ignorance are an example of classical liberalism, but then again those concepts resonated well with most left wing people.
I think the whole term is too vague now. 18th and 19th century liberalism were progressive movements that include both Adam Smith and say Mill but then one is a descriptive book on economy while another pleads for freedom of speech and whatnot. People who are today said to be followers of classical liberalism from a European perspective (So US republicans and the Paul family) don't really have the same political and social aims and are chiefly pleading for deregulation which isn't really what Adam Smith said either.
>>1221436
>"Liberal" is used in politics to describe more social spending, more leaneant laws, less money from private corporations and more aggressive social programs
The usage is different outside of America.
>>1221449
>>1221387
They both emphasise and idealize personal freedom.
>>1221416
>pretty much everything right wing.
pictur
Are Rawls and Habermas Economical Liberals?
>>1221471
This resulted in a minor fuckup of a local newspaper here. Essentially an American study reported liberals tend to live longer, naturally the newspaper reported this and added a picture of two laughing 70+ conservative right wingers. The journalist probably didn't realize the study was actually talking about American leftwingers/democrats.
>>1221474
>implying Evola evens falls in the modern left-right spectrum
>>1221480
I am not sure if Rawls really touched economics, his most famous book was mainly concerned with social and legal stuff. I think his position can best be surmised by saying he wanted the best economic position for the lower classes.
>>1221483
Wow. I had no clue that in Europe the difference between liberals there and here was so vast.
Do Euros refer to american liberals as just "progressives" or what?
>>1221528
Well Americans only really have two parties so we don't really see the need to get tons of descriptive terms to describe them, if we say Republican or Democrat people know enough. It's only really when Hillary vs. Sanders is a news topic that one would use a term like progressive to distinguish one from another.
Maybe Chantal Mouffe is just stupid.
I have a new tactic with dealing with left-wing authors. I google their name +Venezuela. If they have shown praise for the Bolivarian Revolution at some point during the last 17 years, I automatically disconsider them.
It looks like Chantal Mouffe was still praising Hugo Chávez's legacy as far as 2015, so it's obvious that she is just a stupid commie who believes that anyone who doesn't follows her delusion is a "neoliberal shill".
>>1221474
>14 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Evolaites are non-existant in the UK, the closest are Tories who are extremely pro-privitisation.
>>1221528
>Wow. I had no clue that in Europe the difference between liberals there and here was so vast.
Liberals in Europe are most similar to Libertarians in the US, though a bit less autistic, and there are a few who are in favour of certain social programs
>Do Euros refer to american liberals as just "progressives" or what?
Democrats or left-wingers usually.
