The Corruption of "Liberalism"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=liberalism

"3.  An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market, and the gold standard.

a.  A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."

As you can see, 'liberalism' appears to be essentially 'libertarianism.'  Why is it then that whenever anyone uses the term 'liberal' in the USA, they tend refer to some grotesque overextension of government authority into the private economic activities of its citizens?

come to yrup, we use the words correctly here.

liberalism=wanting to change something
now it can left wing or right wing

>>3

You're thinking of the word "progressive".

And the words Depression and Recession have juxtaposed meanings in the US, big whoop.

Just say libertarianism, crying about "corrupted" words is like moaning about how people say "Bishes" rather than "Bitches".

another source with a right wing bias.

another source with a right wing bias.

In Australia, the Liberal Party is the right wing party, the Labour Party is the left wing party.

stupid americans switched em up

>>5
>>8
its just newspeak in action
remember 'neoliberalism'? now we have 'neoconservatism'- both do the same shit except neoliberalism was like soft neoconservatism, neoliberalism was about the economic and social aspects of some greater whole to which neoconservatism is just another part of.

neoconservatism, on the other hand, is about the foreign policy (which is sort of like saying military) aspect of whatever greater undefined whole we're not allowed to tack a clear, consice, definitive word to.

Liberal parties in Europe are much like the Republican party in America, so the term 'liberal' is often misused for (moderate) left-winged ideologies.

>>10
Term liberal used to originally mean same as libertarian, except liberals have no real take on economy.

>>11

Liberals were mostly the ones who limited the power of the king, and put it into the hands of the top layer of society (rich white males), so it still doesn't compare to what the term is used for now.

>>12
"the top layer of society (rich white males)"
Let's take that apart piece by piece.

First of all they were the top layer of society because essentially they were populists at heart, using their power to perform the will of the people so that they get he people's support. They were also rich, but if they were rich due to something other than hard work and obedience to moral codes they would stand little chance as populists. Their wealth had little to do with them being evil. They were white, though mainly due to the fact that at the time nearly everyone was white.

All of the emperors of China were mongoloid, were they racist? If you think it reflects more on you than it does on me.

Lastly they were male, here is where you can cry and whine discrimination, but you cannot ignore the fact that the founding fathers ignored silly superstitions such as gender discrimination and pushed for gender equality. It was a sad state of affairs that no women had the opportunity to rise to their position, but once the land of opportunity was created many women did take the opportunity and enter the government. Unfortunately people of power are required to do things which require power to do. Would you rather they had not?

>>12
More like put it into the hands of individual human beings, rather than in kings/monarchs/whatever.

>>14
Is just a dumb person who goes OMG A WHITE MALE IS PRESENT THIS MEANS EVERYTHING IS RACIST IMPERIALIST WAAH WAAH WAAAH

>>15
>>14
>>12 is just a dumb person who goes OMG A WHITE MALE IS PRESENT THIS MEANS EVERYTHING IS RACIST IMPERIALIST WAAH WAAH WAAAH*

fix'd