So this is the power of the blue wave?

BOOMERS GET OUT REEEE

yeah nah

American politics take place in a very narrow space on the political spectrum. This is a fact that alt-righters, libs, "radical" "centrists" all hate.

Attached: tob.jpg (2036x2100, 1.44M)

test

You're right about that. Neither are Democrats. John Locke was a liberal. Frederic Bastiat was a liberal. I firmly hold that the co-opting of the term 'liberal' is one of the scummiest things that authoritarian leftists have ever done. But what can I say? Leftism cannot exist without deceit.

"Classical liberals" weren't market fundamentalists either, retard.

us "authoritarian leftists" have never claimed to be liberals you autist
democrats are liberals, they uphold the liberal status quo

Neither am I, shitheel.

Democrats, like Republicans, are by definition liberal or neo-liberal. There is literally no major left-wing part in the US, its all liberals.

Attached: LiberalsExplained.png (1259x506, 141.54K)

meant for

That's the usual claim when people say that the Democrats aren't liberals, which they clearly are.

That's a whole lot of words that say absolutely jack shit. I only had to find the part where it said liberals = big guv to realize that it was written by somebody who did exactly what I said and bought into the scummiest thing authoritarian leftists have ever done.

It [is] more beneficial, that many guilty persons should escape unpunished, than one innocent person should suffer. The reason is, because it is of more importance to the community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in the world, that all of them cannot be punished; and many times they happen in such a manner, that it is not of much consequence to the public, whether they are punished or not. But when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security. And if such a sentiment as this should take place in the mind of the subject, there would be an end to all security whatsoever.
— John Adams

The aim of the law is not to punish sins.
— Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free. They are the lovers of law and order, who observe the law when the government breaks it.
— Henry David Thoreau, Slavery in Massachusetts

The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.
— Thomas Jefferson

A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniences, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, and dares say to reason, `Be thou a slave’; who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? And does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.
— Cesare Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments

When your response to everything that is wrong with the world is to say, ‘there ought to be a law,’ you are saying that you hold freedom very cheap.
— Thomas Sowell

Constitutions are checks upon the hasty action of the majority. They are the self-imposed restraints of a whole people upon a majority of them to secure sober action and a respect for the rights of the minority.
— William Howard Taft

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.
— John Locke

The Founding Fathers understood what happens when you give power to people with good intentions. That’s why they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — to prevent politicians from foisting their good intentions on us. Jefferson said we must bind them down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
— Harry Browne

These are the words of liberals. Real liberals, not those shitcunts who call themselves "liberals" and use it as a label.

He's saying most people in the US believe big government equals liberals (which is wrong), you brainlet. Also, read fucking Adam Smith. The world and politics isn't fucking America. And John Locke literally argued not only for government, but a government which enforced actual gulags for criminals and enemies. Hell, by today's standards Locke would be considered a dirty "leftist" for arguing such things and for defending government institutions which involve themselves in the peoples lives.

Attached: adam-smith-all-for-ourselves.jpg (600x314 65.69 KB, 39.07K)

“All wealth is the product of labor.”
― John Locke

I find it both hilarious and telling that, out of all the people you could have chosen to attack, you chose John fucking Locke.

I didn't attack John Locke you idiot, in fact its one of the things I admired about him and someone who justifies the idea of gulags. You were the one talking about "real liberals" and citing John Locke as an example. I was merely was explaining that by your own definition of what you think a liberal and leftist is, John Locke would be a "leftist".

You're going to have to find the part where Locke justifies using political prisoners as indentured laborers in government prisons (aka gulags), because I sure as shit can't.

Locke owned shared in the Dutch East India company when their main business was slavery. He also explicitly stated that slavery was justified for war captives or something.
And we're talking about a barely constitutional monarchy here not the modern day USA.

Find. It. Otherwise you're just making unjustified asseritons, like all leftists do when they have no argument.

They literally based the government of the United States on the Roman fucking Empire, they still have faces (symbols of the Roman state) in the House of Representatives. They did this specifically to restrain the democratic will because they were wealthy merchants and slave holders.

Attached: house of representatives.jpg (768x432, 88.21K)

The "democratic will" results in tyranny of the majority, and they understood that. They understood that people are easily manipulated via emotion, and that mob rule is not justice.

...

- Two Treatises of Government

And now is the part where you show me that gulags, in the Soviet sense (because that's what you support and where you got the idea), had anything to do with any agreement between the master and the prisoner.

You are the "majority" dipshit.

Attached: Pyramid_of_Capitalist_System.jpg (763x990, 741.51K)

1)In a state of war (say, a class war, or just the plain civil war that happened in Russia)I have full rights to do anything to stop my enemies, including execution, which is what he said in that paragraph.
2)If I don't actually kill my enemies that's just mercy on my part, and slavery is worthy fate for them to repay the harm and the threats they have placed upon me.
3)Class enemies are a just gulag fodder.

No, I am most certainly not. The majority does not think. They sacrifice their will and their freedom for the false promise of security. They throw away logic and rationality in favor of emotional rhetoric. That's what the Founding Fathers were afraid of, and is why they built what the built the way they did, so that those inherent flaws of humanity would not lead to unjust rule, to the tyranny that the Democrats and other leftists are trying so hard to enforce.

He's saying that in such a fashion that one is imprisoned as a war captive in a conflict with the government, that person has the choice of coming to an agreement with his lawful conqueror to either be pressed into service or, as said before, allow the victors "right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction".
More or less what this justifies, and what it was used to justify, was the taking of slaves and the pressing into service of war captives, including those captives of opposing political factions who fought against the government. This applies to nearly everything that could viewed as a war, from civil war to expansionism to revolts.

4)If you want to be a free, independent job creator all you need to do is stop eating your prison rations and die already.

So, "give me liberty or give me death"? Yeah, I'm pretty much fully behind that.

Why do Zig Forumsyps constantly feel the need to make any class issue about "race"?

"You'd better enjoy servitute or else you dying, biatch."
Jonas "Lock me up" Locke - 1689

You’re a worker dumbshit. Muh founders weren’t afraid of mass hysteria, they were afraid of workers because they were ruling class. That’s the “majority” they were afraid of.

Attached: C50DE4C0-1792-4722-9A52-38D3E8B9BAAE.jpeg (800x450, 47.11K)

Locke literally argued that the people sacrifice their unlimited freedom to do as they want in a binding contract they form with it. In exchange the state promises to ensure certain freedoms and provide security.
Also, Marxists (which is what we are) do not argue on emotion. Were against moralism of any sort and its why we don't cry over muh gulag prisoners and the like. For us all that matters is cold historical necessity, nothing more. Even slave society for time was justified as it built up the productive forces of society. Once it was no longer necessary, it was discarded. youtube.com/watch?v=vM2Arjuw43I

And what happens when the state breaks those promises? You aren't fooling anyone. You don't see yourselves as the "people", you see yourselves as those who just don't happen to be the masters yet. Once you are, you'll do the same shit leftists have always done.

Defend ourselves from the unbridled, unrelenting holy war waged against us from the capitalist powers? Yeah, probably.

Attached: 70DD97E9-E926-44BA-83B4-9718F0957E9E.jpeg (299x450, 34.42K)

To begin with, I'm not a liberal, so I don't exactly give a shit about Locke besides the few things I agree with him on. The point about bringing him up was to explain how your view on what is liberal and leftist is deluded and incorrect. I don't see myself as a master, if anything I'll be doing the same trade work I do now under socialism. The USSR did what it promised, it ensured the workers rights outlined in its constitution and imprisoned its enemies, both within and abroad, who sought to dismantle it and remove those rights. It promised socialism, and that's what it provided. When Gorbachev and then Yeltsin betrayed those promises, it led to the 1993 crisis in which people attempted to defend both the Congress and Supreme Soviet from Yeltsin's unconstitutional dismantlement youtube.com/watch?v=bjBmtkW3Tl8.
Reminder all current liberals and neoliberals, Democrats and Republicans, get the wall.

Attached: b27a148353f9ae5dd7362b93f712f73c9599b8fabcfecb3cc2a559f8bc63fb63.jpg (193x255 54.34 KB, 11.05K)

So I guess you’d prefer the tyranny of the minority eh cuck? Faggots like you only denounce democracy because you’re just so sure that when elitists denounce the mob they’re not talking about you. You’re so certain that you’re not part of the unwashed masses that these people hate, when in reality you are. You can either stand up and exercise power over yourself, or you can be a sniveling little bootlicker and let the parasites walk all over you. Your choice.

Attached: 87E97651-0338-46DA-BF47-53AB181E86A6.png (662x638, 604.95K)

/liberty/fags are even more obnoxious and attention seeking than Zig Forumsyps. prove me wrong

We are not Democrats, we are communists, retard. We don't care about Shillary & co.

Anything to the left of your position is nearly the same to you as long as it's not what you believe.

Attached: Capture3.PNG (529x601, 210.71K)

As well as to the right. Sean Hannity is called a "Nazi", despite espousing numerous liberal values.

Him being a liberal/neoliberal is bad enough of an insult, we don't even need to call him a Nazi or think he is to be opposed to what he says.