Why is the word "Liberalism" being conflated with "Egalitarianism" in America?

[Arsene]

A socialist party can't be liberal, they can be for civil liberties, but that's only one part of liberalism. It's principally incorrect to call those leftist democratic politicians of America liberals. Socialism strives to achieve equality-of-outcome economic egalitarianism, but when talent & intelligence differ, when individuals are factually not the same, the only way to reach that equality is to coerce against certain individuals, hence taking away their LIBERTY! The state is only there to take your freedom away, now classical liberals believe that the only freedom or liberty we do not deserve is to coerce others (because than one individual takes the freedom away of another), therefore we need a state, a small coercion which only function is to prevent other coercion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism#Social_egalitarianism

​

[Libertus]

The left has distorted the meaning of so many words, it's hard to see through all the bullshit. Liberalism, anarchism, capitalism, society, freedom, ... all terms that used to mean something else.

[Cuffy_Meigs]

The left has distorted the meaning of so many words, it's hard to see through all the bullshit. Liberalism, anarchism, capitalism, society, freedom, ... all terms that used to mean something else.

 

Perhaps the most egregious is "racism", which has now become no more than an infantile squeal of anguish.

[Toys4]

It fits right in to the American lefts distortion of concepts an reality. They know that when you control concepts, words and meanings you can control a lot of people. They see success in it so the keep doing it, The left is also very good at shaming people and twisting to make people look bad if they have views that differ, and the instill fear of broad thinking. More of us have to wake up to it and call them on their bull sh*t that's the only way it'll stop.

[dsayers]

It fits right in to the American lefts distortion of concepts an reality. They know that when you control concepts, words and meanings you can control a lot of people.

Yes. This is why for about 11 years now, I've been big into language specificity. I think the most egregious example is the word "law." In science, laws are binding upon all. By calling commands backed by threats of violence "laws," they not only conceal the aggression, but also poison the well by portraying it as irrefutable and not at all arbitrary or whimsical.

[Libertus]

let alone the "justice system"... what, you're against justice?

"social security"... so, you're for anti-social insecurity?!?

[Cuffy_Meigs]

"Health & Safety" long since diverged from health or safety...

[Libertus]

The only things "liberals" are liberal about are how much they tax you, how much they infringe on your individual rights and handing privileges to the state.

[AnarchoNEET]

Well, when you don't believe in property rights, but only allow property for practical reasons, it's "liberal" to redistribute property to free people from the restraints of natural scarcity and the consequences of their actions.

[dsayers]

Well, when you don't believe in property rights, but only allow property for practical reasons

What does this even mean? Like if I said to you that somebody doesn't believe in unicorns, but allows them for practical reasons, would you have any idea what I was saying?

 

Show me one person that doesn't believe in property rights AND LIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS BELIEF. Otherwise, I must reject the scenario you are painting.

[AnarchoNEET]

What does this even mean? Like if I said to you that somebody doesn't believe in unicorns, but allows them for practical reasons, would you have any idea what I was saying?

 

Show me one person that doesn't believe in property rights AND LIVES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS BELIEF. Otherwise, I must reject the scenario you are painting.

So the fact that leftists aren't consistent means that they don't use this as a defense for why it's not theft to redistribute wealth and install common ownership of the means of production? By the way, I wasn't trying to make the case for this belief, but isn't that the basic (faulty) logic behind (left-wing) anarchism, left-libertarianism and nowadays liberalism?

[dsayers]

I apologize if my post seemed personal. I try to address ideas, not the people putting them forth. Still, I wonder if the part I quoted before couldn't be expressed in a more sensical way.

 

While I think that left-anarchism and left-libertarianism are oxymorons, I definitely accept that any form of political theory dispenses with property rights. Which is why I'm always right there to break through the logical inconsistencies.

[AnarchoNEET]

No offense taken, and I suppose I could have expressed that part more clearly.

Basically, I think the leftist thinkers and politicians I was mostly referring to are full-blown socialists and communists who begrudgingly admit that their utopia is unfeasible at the moment and they can't just socialize all property right now, but they can work their way towards it in the name of social justice, social liberties and all that nice-sounding stuff.