Why principles matter: Let the so-called ‘liberals’ of the left stand for the destruction of liberty

We of the Pro-Liberty Right have the better ideas, we have no need for Liberty control.
For people who take on the pretense of being ‘Liberal’, the nation’s Socialist-Left sure spends an excessive amount of time attacking Liberty. What began with assaults on the commonsense human right of self-defence has branched out to attacks on free-speech and media outside the Left’s echo chamber. Meanwhile, they still persist in using false labels that imply advocacy of freedom.

Leftist or Liberal?

The situation has reached a point that people will not answer when they are asked a question that distinguishes between those two political identities. They inherently know that the mask has slipped too far and they can no longer keep up the pretence of being ‘Liberal’. The dictionary doesn’t Lie – Leftist and Liberal are two very disparate political identities.
Compare the relevant portion Oxford English Dictionary definition of Liberal:

1.1Favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms
1.2(In a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
Origin
Middle English: via Old French from Latin liberalis, from liber ‘free (man)’.

To the relevant part Oxford English Dictionary definition of Left:

2 (often the Left) [treated as singular or plural] A group or party favouring radical, reforming, or socialist views:
Origin Old English lyft, left ‘weak’ (the left-hand side being regarded as the weaker side of the body), of West Germanic origin.

Please note that one favours ‘individual liberty, free trade’ while the other favours the opposite in collectivism [Socialism].

Why follow those who are opposed to Liberty?

Is there any reason to emulate the Left in their assaults on freedom? At present we have the very disturbing developments from the Trump administration in ‘taking a look’ at the regulation of Google. Consider what would have been the reaction if that had been the Obama administration instead. Does it make more sense if it’s ‘our side’ forwarding the proposal? Is there any point in going over the cliff with the liberticidal Left?

This is why principles matter.

We of the Pro-liberty Right need to stand for more than just ‘winning’. We need aware that we have basic principles for a reason, not just as a handy talking point or for a laudatory self-label. In point of fact, these principles will see us winning the debate because they are superior, but that is not the reason to tightly hold to them.
We hold onto the basic principles of Liberty because it is the right thing to do. There is a reason the American Revolution had superior results over the blood soaked French Revolution. The American Revolution emphasised limited government to protect individual rights. While the French Revolution emphasised absolute government power with people only having collective [Read: Non-existent] ‘rights’.
The principle of limited government protecting individual Liberty means having more speech, not less. Our ideas are better, and in the long run they will win the debate. We should have no need to adopt the Liberty destroying tactics of the so-called ‘Liberals’ of the Socialist-Left.

A Tale of two revolutions: Why Individual Liberty is vastly superior to collective slavery.

José Azel of the PanAm Post  recently wrote an article on the American, French and Cuban Revolutions entitled: A Tale of Three Revolutions.
In which he made these observations comparing the principles that undergirded the American and French Revolutions:

The American Revolution was philosophically grounded on rights to “life, liberty, and property.” It promoted Constitutionalism and limited government as articulated by John Locke. On the other hand, the French Revolution was influenced by the philosophy of Rousseau. Rousseau’s ideas ultimately led to a government of absolute power and complete control over society. The French struggle for “liberty, equality, and fraternity,” is self-contradictory. Government-imposed equality is inconsistent with liberty.

The American Revolution engendered a “Bill of Rights” to protect individual freedoms. The French Revolution produced a very different document in the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen,” which, although advancing basic rights, conceives the absolute power of the state. Its third article reads: “The principle of any sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No group, no individual can exert authority which does not emanate expressly from it.”

The Takeaway.

The outcome of the American Revolution was vastly superior to the French Revolution because it fostered Limited government and individual Liberty as are the true precepts of Liberalism. The Left has the unfortunate tactic of adopting certain facades and falsehoods for the cynical expedient of attaining power. After which they ignore their supposed principles in lieu of their raw exercise of power. They co-opted the labels of ‘Liberal’ or ‘Progressive’ to falsely imply the antithesis to their statist agenda. Just as they bolted-on the false label of ‘democratic’ to their ideology of socialistic slavery. They have to use these deceptions and Lies because their ideas do not work, and that has been the case since they were first articulated in the book ‘Utopia’ published in 1516.
Our principles of Limited government and individual Liberty are vastly superior to Left’s principles of authoritarian governance and collective [read: non existent] rights. We will win because of our principles, there is no point in giving them up for the temporary expediency of ‘winning’. That would take us down to the base level of the nation’s Left. Who in their right mind would want to do that?

 Originally published on the NOQ Report