Protestant Classical Liberal.

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by william walker, Jul 16, 2014.

  1. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is my political ideology Protestant Classical Liberal. The basis of my views is the Protestant English Language bible, the ten commandments as the moral basis for just law. Then I move on to enforcement, adding new laws and regulations, which should be done with a protection for the basis for the law, protection of rural and regional interests, then a democratically elected part of Parliament for the consent of people through elections to pass new laws. Then fair punishment for breaking laws, once again based on the Protestant English language bible. Lastly a media free to tell the population about the government system, but no influence its operation directly.

    In short I am talking about the Church of England, Monarchy, House of Lords, House of Commons, The Courts and the Media. They should all have their own separate powers and interests within the governmental system, with the main role of the law being to reinforce the culture. As it is my belief that nations are cultures which form a state, which then create laws to reinforce the culture. Rather than nations being geographical area's with people in them. So this is the basis for the improvements I would like to make in Britain, with the aim of culture stability, economic freedom and geopolitical power.

    Nations are made up of 3 different parts individuals, families and regional cultures. For any nation to work the interests of all 3 parts must be taken into account. In Britain regional culture and families are being done away with by the government because it creates the governments control to cut people into classes, special interest groups and individuals. As some German person said "Divide and rule, a sound motto. Unite and lead, a better one". The intellectual elite seeks to divide people so it can control them, the intellectuals are based in the House of Commons and the Media. The whole purpose of the state is to unite people so it can increase its stability and wealth, the state is the Church of England, Monarchy, Peers in the House of Lords and The Courts. So I want to increase the powers of the state and limit the powers of the intellectual elite.

    Then the question is how do I do this. The way to do it in my view is take away the intellectuals money. So that means removing government programs like pensions, education, BBC, quango's, welfare, NHS, infrastructure. The government keeping control over prisons, defence, foreign policy, border protection, industrial relations and international negotiations. Everything else moved to county councils and parish councils. The Monarch should get all Crown powers returned, some could be removed also like Crown ownership of mineral rights. The Monarch must also consent it name to international treaties and military actions. The Church of England has the final vote on all matters to do with marriage and abortion, and its views must be considered by the Monarch when consenting to all social laws. The Courts will gain full control of sentencing and procedure, government control through guidelines will be removed. The full remit of hereditary peers should be returned to the House of Lords, as should the Church of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales have their establishment and remit reinstated. Judges shall remain the the House of Lords. No other religion or Church shall have seats in the House of Lords. The Queen remains The Sovereign Head of State, Defender of the Protestant Faith, Head of the Army and the Fount of Justice and Law. Parliament shall remain a Sovereign entity free from recrimination by the Monarch.
     
  2. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    uh, so we're the classically liberal about your position? From what I've read I'd rather call you an old school tory, a religious fundamentalist, a monarchist. Classical liberal wouldn't at all be in the top of the things I'd use to describe what I've read.

    I mean, there's just so many things which runs counter to what classical liberalism is all about. The ten commandments for example, are basically incompatible with it. Thou shalt have no other god before me? That takes away freedom of religion, which isn't very liberal. Returning powers to the crown isn't very liberal either.. You know, liberals actually fought to take away power from the crown.

    Are you sure classical liberal is the right description? I'd suggest old school tory.
     
  3. munter

    munter New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2014
    Messages:
    3,894
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds very Tory to me as well - like, what is so Liberal about the Church for a start? What if you don't believe in all that claptrap etc..
     
  4. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thank you for the comment. Protestantism come first, then classical liberalism. In my view classical liberalism comes from the culture of Protestantism in Holland, Britain and the US from the mid 1600's onwards.

    What do you mean old school Tory or religious fundamentalist? I support a monarchy yes.

    The law is 3 things. Laws, enforcement and punishment. So The Ten Commandments are the basis for moral law, they aren't the law themselves. So the Parliament and the Monarch has power over creation of new laws and enforcement of them along with local government. The Courts have power over punishment for said laws. Some things in the 10 Commandments can't be enforced like thoughts. It doesn't take away religious freedom because it can't be enforced by Parliament. However the 10 commandments are moral and just, they should be protected by the Church of England as the basis for the law and language of the nation.

    Yes I know Parliament wanted to take powers away from the Monarch, both the Liberals and Tories.

    I said Protestant Classical Liberal, not just classical liberal.
     
  5. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you name a more moderate which keeps and defends it moral beliefs than the Protestant Church of England? Do you no think the language of the nation should be English, from the English language bible? Or that the 10 commendment are good, as the basis for moral law? You don't have to believe in the whole bible or have faith in God, just support the language of the nation and the moral basis for law.
     
  6. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, calling yourself classical liberal is kind of misleading though, because you are quite simply not one. Two of the most important principles of liberalism, and the major historical goals of liberals, was to get rid of official religion and crown power. You are in favour of those, so it makes no sense to call yourself a liberal. It's pretty much an oxymoron actually.
     
  7. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not calling myself an old classical liberal. I am calling myself a Protestant classical liberal. It is a new thing. They didn't do very well at removing power from the Church and Monarchy, because they wanted economic freedom more. It wasn't until the Progressive Liberals became the main people in the Liberal party that it changed.
     
  8. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It makes no sense to use "liberal" to describe this new position, because its core is not liberty, nor its policies patticularily liberal, and it's very far away from other kinds of liberalism. I mean, you ought npt call yourself A when youre actually B.
     
  9. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The core is freedom from government within a framework of laws designed to protect property and persons. I want to remove taxation and make it illegal, I want region banks to be able to create their own currencies, I want parish and county councils to have more powers. Just because I want people to stop murdering babies and stick to a vow they make when they get married, doesn't take away from the economic freedom which Protestant Classical Liberalism would bring. You can't have a power balance or liberty or justice when all the power is held in one place, that being the Commons.

    You are thinking of Liberalism from the current era, not from the Classical era, which economic freedom and justice was valued above anything else. A classical liberal 150 years ago wouldn't even have thought about allowing mothers to have abortions as they do now, nor would they have supported the government contract over the religious vow when it comes to marriage. They wouldn't have made any major treaty, army or foreign policy move without the direct support of the Monarch. This started to change with the Progressive Liberal era, they is me trying to put across that many things the Classical Liberals supported were improvements on want when before and it the core of their policies was Protestantism. I am not calling myself a Classical Liberal, I am calling myself a Protestant Classical Liberal, a different thing.
     
  10. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    I don't see the Classical Liberal part. To paraphrase, and make sure I understand, you're saying that you believe that the culture makes the state, and thus the state's job to promote the culture. The culture in this case is based upon Protestantism. This in effect makes it a theocracy. But the key here is that it's still supposed to promote freedoms, based upon enlightenment teachings.

    Now here's where the problem is. What you're saying doesn't really work together. Religion did not like Enlightenment for two reasons. One, it weakens their influence. In the age of Absolute Monarchies, a king's power comes from god. Enlightenment taught that it was the people, not god that was a rulers source of power. The second is the scientific part of Enlightenment, a key to it as it goes to the idea of progress. In the American Colonies, there was the Great Awakening, a backlash to the rising influence of Enlightenment in the British colonies. This was because of the same notions as before, undermining the role of religion in a community Thus you broke Enlightenment's tenets of reason (let's be honest, religion really isn't based upon logic), and progress. From what you're telling me so far, you seem to be more of a Classical Conservative that economically leans to Classical Liberalism, or like Edmund Burke.
     
  11. martin76

    martin76 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2013
    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm afraid you confused some concepts. Protestantism is not liberal, although it´s true that a group of economic, social and political theories acquired great force in Britain (and Holland) do not have a sole origin or British or Protestant .. Adam Smith is British, and Stuart Mill, but Montesquieu, a French Catholic ... great social and economic movements don´t have a unidirectional origin, but build on previous thoughts.

    It is funny the words "liberal" and "liberalism", in its modern concept (based on a political movement), don´t come from English or Dutch but from Spanish (a very Catholic country): I know liberal came from Latin, but lack of political and economic value).

    In Spain, the Liberales, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context,[15] fought for the implementation of the 1812 Constitution for decades — overthrowing the monarchy in 1820 as part of the Trienio Liberal and defeating the conservative Carlists in the 1830s. By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started to be used as a politicised term for parties and movements all over the world

    So, Spain is not a Protestant country (in fact It´s been the enemy number One of protestantism for centuries).. nor Smith nor Montesquieu nor French Revolutionaries, nor American revolutionaries used the word "liberal" or "liberalism"..like political or economic concept... It was in Spain, in 1812/1814 where it firstly appeared the word. (Emil J. Kirchner, Liberal Parties in Western Europe, Cambridge University Press, 1988, ISBN 978-0521323949).

    By other side.. the great school of liberal thought in the world was School of Wien... and Wien stands in Austria.. another catholic country.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School

    Maybe you can say.. School of Wien was established XIX and early XX century and, of course, It was influenced by Adam Smith, Stuart Mills, Montesquieu etc... ok, you are right but also Smith, Mills etc were influenced by other thinkers... in their case by the also catholic School of Salamanca

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca

    And School of Salamanca formulated as interesting proposals as price of money, individual liberty, supply and demand etc etc that two centuries later retook British thinkers like Adam Smith.

    And School of Salamanca was consisted by catholic priest....:omg: Joseph Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis (1954): School of Salamanca most deserve to be considered the founders of economics as a science.

    So, the liberalism had a slow development process, which began in Spain among School Salamanca priests acquired maturity with the British thought of the eighteenth century and its theoretical maximum expansion with the Austro-Hungarian thinkers in Belle Époque ... therefore in the formation of liberalism was involved both Catholic (Spanish, Austrian, French etc..) and Protestant (British and Dutch). None (as any major movement) an unidireccinal origin, not a single "father" ... but various sources, in various places ..

    Smith was not an Island... liberalism came from catholicism and protestantism...in fact, a country protestan like Netherland lacked of a theoretical school like Salamanca or Wien.

    Regards
     
  12. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When I say that the core isn't freedom, I'm not saying that you're opposed to it. I'm just saying that the emphasis seems to lay somehwere else. As you said the basis of your views is the protestant english bible and the ten commandments. It would be better if you had a name which better reflects that basis.
     
  13. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not it makes it a Parliamentary Monarchy, like Britain was after the English Bill of Rights. The best form of government ever created.

    The key part of the enlightment from my point of view wasn't the stupid attacks on religion which don't make any sense. Rather the move to free trade and away from mercantilism. Sure the intellectuals for the enlightenment brought about the Progressive era in the late 1800's and took away much of the economic freedom enjoyed earlier in the century. That era century period was the high of British power, in my view directly because of the cultural stability and economic freedom which was their at the time. As a Protestant Classical Liberal, I don't seek progressive or change, I seek improvement and the truth. The idea that progress or change it good, stikes me as being a lie and often not the case.

    No what happened in the 13 colonies was because of the British total war chest policy used to fight the 7 years war. The British government borrowed money from British people and was taxing the Americans to get it back. The Americans didn't like the fact this was happening and said they wanted their own Parliament or seats in the British Parliament, ofcourse the British Parliament said no and the French, Spanish and Dutch used this to support a proxy force in North America, this became the US war of independence, but should really be known as the North American proxy war. Then after the war the US setup a federal system, but put in protections for religions known as the first amendment. The scientific mothod isn't always logical and doesn't always lead to improvement for people or a nation. No I am a Protestant classical liberal, it is a new thing.
     
  14. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Protestant really reflects the basis for my views being the Protestant English Language bible, does it not?
     
  15. Mr. Swedish Guy

    Mr. Swedish Guy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, but there's nothing at all particularily classically liberal about what you've said so it makes no sense to add it. Might as well call yourself a commie while your at it.
     
  16. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The economic policies are classically liberal, as I said.
     
  17. Kranes56

    Kranes56 Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2011
    Messages:
    29,311
    Likes Received:
    4,187
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    If you say so.

    You say you seek improvement, problem is that's also known as progress. I get what you're saying, but you're not being logical. You say you support improving, but you don't stand for progress. You say you you support the truth, but you treat it as one idea, not a changing one. Protestantism has changed over the years, and it's going to keep changing, just like everything. You cling to the past as a nationalist, seen through what you believe was the highlight of the British empire. You tie your ideas to that highlight. You have the trappings of a classical liberal, but you don't have same principals. You're not a protestant classical liberal, you fall under the category of US conservative. But if you claim this is your ideology, then go for it. You know what you believe better then we do.
    Nice history, but the Great Awakening took place well before the American Revolution. So moot point there. As for the scientific method, we owe scientific advancements to this idea. It became the basis for all science.
     
  18. william walker

    william walker New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Progress just means moving forward to something, it doesn't mean you are making anything better. Some as change, it just means change as if change is always good when often it isn't. Yes because progress isn't the same as improvement. Well the truth is the truth, it doesn't change. The basis for Protestantism hasn't change, just the way people think of it has. I am a nationalists, however I don't care about the Empire, I care about Britain at this time Britain was culturally stable, economically free and geopolitically powerful, indeed the first Pax power since Rome. The key thing is through culturally stable, from that everything else will come. This is the great weakness of the US, it has no cultural, just laws. It will in the end be ripped apart by this friction. I don't think of it as my thought, but the truth Britain for 60 years from 1820-1880 was everything I would want it to be. I thought classical liberals were the ones who believed in economic freedom above anything else, the Progressive liberal believe in social freedom above anything else?

    I am a Protestant Classical Liberal, I am to the right of the Conservatives on economic issues, to the left on right when it comes to foreign policy and to the left on social issues. The problem you and others are having is that I want a power balance between the different parts of the governmental system, you think I want the Church and Monarchy to have more power, in reality I want the Commons and Media to have less power. I can't take these powers away to be brought back at a later date, so I must spread the powers around competing interests.

    Thank you. Do we really owe all scientific advancements to the method? Given that it wasn't around before the enlightenment.
     

Share This Page