View Full Version : What is your reason for being liberal?
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 03:43
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
KukriKhan
03-25-2006, 04:04
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
Because, if I have no personal property, and your property was obtained on the backs of me and my brothers - either by design or by result, then my options are: take (some of) your so-called property myself through force (revolution), or work within the existing system, and garner the agreement of other like-minded or sympathetic citizens. Option #2 gets me less dead. So I am lib'ral.
Big_John
03-25-2006, 04:14
That's a damned good question. What compels people to be liberal?a moment of clarity? just a guess.
KukriKhan
03-25-2006, 04:23
I dunno, you impute freeloader-ism and can't-think-ism to an entire political dynamic... sounds like your mind is made up, rather than seeking understanding, as your first post in thread seemed to indicate.
edit: BTW a reminder: I'm only another poster here, subject to forum rules, same as everyone
KukriKhan
03-25-2006, 04:44
To answer the second question:
GCWhat compels people to be liberal?
Oppression... or the perception of oppression, or sympathy for the plight of the perceived oppressed. Any or all makes one a Lib'rul.
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 04:46
Because, if I have no personal property, and your property was obtained on the backs of me and my brothers - either by design or by result,
What if your (and I mean you, not a random evil guy who you imagine) property was obtained by hard work?
then my options are: take (some of) your so-called property myself through force (revolution), or work within the existing system, and garner the agreement of other like-minded or sympathetic citizens. Option #2 gets me less dead. So I am lib'ral.
What about option #3?
KukriKhan
03-25-2006, 04:56
What if your (and I mean you, not a random evil guy who you imagine) property was obtained by (your personal) hard work? My edit added.
Then you recognize that your hard work resulted in actual property, as it should - because the system worked for you and your inherent advantages... and that other's hard work, folks without your inherent advantages, resulted in their hard-scrabble existance(s). And you try to figure out ways to equalize that treatment.
What about option #3?
Which is... ?
KukriKhan
03-25-2006, 05:21
Riddle me this then: What entitles you to take something of mine, and distribute it amongst the so-called need?
The very question the Sheriff of Nottingham must have asked Robin Hood.
Not to get all mythological, but it's the "something of mine' and how it was obtained (whether by you or your father, or grandfather... or any of their compatriots) - and how the same options to 'obtain' are not open to all, that's the issue.
And maybe we ought to take "Lipstick Liberals" ( = opportunists who use Liberalism as a campaign promise they'll never champion in reality; Ms. Clinton, for example) off the table so we don't confuse them with Lib'ruls.
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
Your thread title and your post question don't jibe. I'm a die hard liberal and a believer in private property and the rights of the individual. To confuse being liberal with being a communist is to confuse being conservative with being a nazi.
I am a liberal because I see the function of the government as being for the good of the people, not merely a business and military center of operations. A government, by its nature, exists to facilitate the collective good of the people; to represent their interests, economic and political, as well as having the authority to enact and enforce laws that reflect the values of the people.
Those values change from country to country. In Canadaland, we see the government as having not only the economic and technical clout to provide health care for the public, but indeed see it as the highest responsibility of government.
If you look at the government as parents, which is a fair analogy, why would your parents only spank you, take part of what you make selling lemonade on the corner to help pay the bills, stop the kid next door from beating you up, but then refuse to tuck you in or give you medicine when you're sick? "Sorry son, you're on your own. Goodnight."
The government should not only be interested in the gross national product, but in the gross national happiness. A country is a team. A team leader needs to be more than a banker and a cop, he needs to be someone who the players can go to for help, someone who is understanding. If this isn't true, then why not just make the head of the Federal Reserve the president? I mean, if we're true capitalists isn't it all about the money?
If you look at the government as parents, which is a fair analogyYou're a liberal all right. :wink:
Then you recognize that your hard work resulted in actual property, as it should - because the system worked for you and your inherent advantages... and that other's hard work, folks without your inherent advantages, resulted in their hard-scrabble existance(s). And you try to figure out ways to equalize that treatment.Charity? That's what I dont get. Why libs think that the government, something inherently ineffecient, corrupt and wasteful, is the best and only choice to help the disadvantage... If you think 50% of your income should go to help those less fortunate, then donate it.
You're a liberal all right. :wink:
Thanks. :bow:
Mind you, if you don't see the government as having any "parental" responsibilities, then do you agree that they should stay out of all arguments concerning values?
Like abortion, drug use, patriotism, and religion, to name a few.
Or is the government juuuuust a little bit pregnant?
KukriKhan
03-25-2006, 05:43
You're a liberal all right. :wink:
Charity? That's what I dont get. Why libs think that the government, something inherently ineffecient, corrupt and wasteful, is the best and only choice to help the disadvantage... If you think 50% of your income should go to help those less fortunate, then donate it.
I'm with you, but:
government = force, the use of, to achieve the needs of the entire population. Wasteful, inefficient... no argument, Democracy is like that; noisy... all those 'masses, clamoring to be free', and all.
But when all is said and done, force, sadly, enforces all. And the control button of that force (the custody of which) is what we argue about.
Major Robert Dump
03-25-2006, 05:51
Nice sentence to start a thread with, guy.
The idea of liberalism that i uphold to has less to do than the outright redistribution of wealth, and more to do with the fact that a successful government can and should have the means to help the lesser people within its society. The fact that the government is inefficient, the fact that the government cant police its own spending, the fact that generally good ideas like social security are ruined thanks to mismanagement and outright theft (IOUs) does little to make me believe any less that people in need should be helped.
Of course this will breed people who work the system, and it has the potential to implode and ruin an entire system due to lackeys who refuse to make their own way. The sheer abuse the welfare system recieved in the 70s and 80s with paper food stamps is still shocking, not just from the people who cheated, but from the grocers who let them and the DHS who wouldn't hold anyone accountable (and still doesn't). What happened with cash welfare in regards to "breeding" is IMO a shameful part of our modern history. Sometimes I wonder if the system was desigend to fail, or perhaps if someone had a bright idea that pumping more money to welfare moms meant we would always have a solid working class to build industry on. Either way, it failed, and entire families and communities have been tainted. Look at it now, it still doesn't work or we wouldn't be having illegal immigrants whining that their free money is about to be taken away. The bigger something gets the harder it is to manage.
I could tell you my tough-love idea of what would make certain types of welfare work, but of course it would offend many liberals and you probably wouldn't listen anyway, since you are ever so convinced that anyone with money/property/success obviously worked their way up from a minimum wage job in a one-room shack in kentucky and by god anyone else can too, and no buttf****** ever goes on anywhere in the name of making a buck
The correlation of welfare=higher taxation just isn't there like it used to be. The whole "my tax dollars" argument is as stale as the idea of small government in 2006.
All other ideas typically associated with liberalism aside, just because a premise won't work thanks to percieved or proven inefficiency doesn't mean the initial premise is bad. Will socialized medicine in the US work? No, it would be a financial train wreck. But that DOESN'T mean the idea is wrong, its just not workable.
Other than that, I don't know what you mean about the government having more right to my property. If you are talking about the Supreme Court ruling, those weren't liberal opinions, they were opinions of old people suffering from dimentia
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 05:56
KK, that's a false analogy.
I work well over 70 hrs a week and go to grad school full time. When I was 18, I was picking cans from trash to recycle them for food. Now I own a home, and I estimate that with 80 hours a week between two jobs, I can make nearly $200k US a year within the next five years.
The system is- those who work hard get rewarded. I have worked hard and I am getting rewarded. I did not take property from anyone to earn this. In fact, I work now, and will continue to work, in public service.
I dont understand why you think that you should be entitled to my property. I have been at the bottom of the barrel, with no family help or inheritance, and I chose option #3: work your butt off and earn your living.
Beirut, I know you as a huge fan of social medicine. Fine, I will agree with you that medicine may become a function of government, similar to the post office. I believe that research proves competition is the most effective stimulant for growth in any sector, and America's world-class hospitals are proof of that. Do we need a solution for the issue of expense for the masses? Yes. But that is another topic for another thread.
Liberalism and expanded government are one in the same. The liberal interpretation of the constitution means to allow for every possibility that the constitution may have meant in order to expand the power of the government. The problem with this is that liberals are inconsistent, and this is why I equate liberal theory to redistribution theory: Liberals would consolidate power into the hands of the federal administration, and have done so through the commerce clause and supremacy clause (Raiche Vs. Ashcroft). Liberal interpretation also made it so "emminent domain" for the public good included taking property from one person and giving it to another so that they can make the government more money with taxes (Kelo Vs. New London). But yet, liberal interpretation stops there. What about the 2nd amendment? What about the absolute and total errosion of the 9th amendment with rulings like Kelo and Raiche which expand government power beyond that which is enumerated? What about the same issue with the 10th amendment?
Liberal interpretation is about expanding government power. Liberals are autocrats and believe (Benevolently or malevolently I know not) that the government knows best and that power should be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Liberals believe that the common people are too stupid and too lazy to work hard for themselves and so they must be cared for.
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
DA, you've been smoking too much Rush Limbaugh again. Somebody has socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) and liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) mixed up. Also, last time I checked, the "conservatives" currently in power are doing more wealth re-distribution than Lyndon Johnson or FDR did in their day. If you want to find the people who want to spend your money, look at the mooks you voted for.
Go ahead. Look at them.
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 07:24
DA, you've been smoking too much Rush Limbaugh again. Somebody has socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) and liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) mixed up. Also, last time I checked, the "conservatives" currently in power are doing more wealth re-distribution than Lyndon Johnson or FDR did in their day. If you want to find the people who want to spend your money, look at the mooks you voted for.
Go ahead. Look at them.
I am very clear on the errors of the current administration. "Social Conservatism" is a code word for religios liberalism. Instead of endeavoring to strictly interpret the constitution, these people promote culture restrictions under the banner of conservatism. They are NOT conservatives. They desire to expand government power to instill their brand of autocracy just like constituional liberals.
I hate them even more because they pretend to be sheep when they are wolves.
The concept of "conservative" and "liberal" applies ONLY to constitutional interpretation.
WE HAVE ALL BEEN DECIEVED! THE DEBATE CHANGE TO "SOCIAL" INTERPRETATION AND RIGHTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM US EVER SINCE!!!!!
Thank you. I'm in the same boat as DA here. I've been at the bottom of the rung my entire life--even homeless at one point. I don't have a Highschool Diploma and I just recently got my GED. Does that mean I need government help? Maybe. But I don't need Handouts consisting of other peoples' hard-earned coin. I begin Community College in the summer, and from there I'm taking a 2-year assosiative arts degree that will synchronize me with the local 4-year university. After that, who knows? I fancy the idea of Law School, personally. How will I do it? Hard work. Something that still counts for more than any stolen government handout. At worst I'll take advantage of Student Loans, with every intention of paying them back. But I'd rather not even do that.
So if people like DA and myself can do it.. where are the so-called needy? Is it the "gangstahs" in the Ghettos? With their culture of crime and general lack of respect? I don't want my money going towards those ingrates. The ones that are worth it get out of there ASAP anyway. Is it the homeless, then? I've been there, and let me tell you most of them have mental defects to the degree that you can't help them anyway. Who is it then? Where? I don't see it.
Your pride prevents you from seeing them. Plus your "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps why can't you" attitude that makes me gag every time someone expsouses it. The very idea that everyone can do what you did, the way you did it, is stupid and ignorant in the extreme. :wall:
The needy take many forms, me for example. I never had a real job (real job being one that wasn't handed to you by a family member) until November 05 at the age of 24. Why? lots of reasons. All of them in my personality. I graduated from high school, went to the community colledge, had some work experience handed to me by my dad. But I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will. Plus I'm a wired twitchy high anxiety level guy who had trouble maintaining eye contact at the best of times. Add the pressure (real or mental) of a job interview and I make autistic people look normal. I needed help getting my life moving in a more meaningful direction. I got it in the form a program run by the local municipal fire department. It got me my current job placement at a computer wholesaler.
So now you've heard of someone in need who benefited from a government handout program. Just not you government.
Tachikaze
03-25-2006, 07:53
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
I don't work and develop wealth only for myself. That would be selfish and greedy. Part of my income is for me to spend where I see fit; part is for distribution in my society.
At election time, I vote for the people who I feel will best distribute the portion taken from my paycheck.
I think this is a perfectly good system. It echos the village system of people taking care of each other for mutual benefit, not selfish people who compete for ever-greater luxury against their fellow citizens.
Sasaki Kojiro
03-25-2006, 08:01
@div and gc:
Why do we have a duty to answer the draft but not help the poor? You're willing to fight but not pay?
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 09:34
But I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will.
GC has got you libs pegged. This is the worst of the breed. "I dont want to work. give me your money". Hmmm, I've heard that before? Oh yes, from criminals. So liberal economic theory is just institutioanlized theft by the mob of lazy? Hardly qualifies as a logical argument, my friend.
I don't work and develop wealth only for myself. That would be selfish and greedy. Part of my income is for me to spend where I see fit; part is for distribution in my society.
At election time, I vote for the people who I feel will best distribute the portion taken from my paycheck.
I think this is a perfectly good system. It echos the village system of people taking care of each other for mutual benefit, not selfish people who compete for ever-greater luxury against their fellow citizens.
Excellent! So donate to charity! Or do you believe that people are naturally greedy and will not give to charity? I assume this is your perception. SO, you believe that YOUR values of "charity" and "community" should be forced on others by law? Sounds like somebody else I know: "Religious Liberals". Also know as the Christain Right, those liberal bastards disguised as social conservatives! Thank you for being smarter than me and telling me how to live and thank you for stealing my property to meet your moral agenda! Yay! Let's make tithing law, too! That goes to a good cause! Yay!:balloon2: /sarcasm
Why do we have a duty to answer the draft but not help the poor? You're willing to fight but not pay?
That is not an answer to the question. That is a redirect. I will answer your question and ASSUME that you will still come back and answer mine instead of staying on your little topic.
We need some government. But just a smidge. And we have a duty to pay into this system. But the system should only exist to faciliate the ability to pursue our own ambitions within the law. All the extra crup is just to meet the agenda of freeloaders like Lars and moral elitists like Tachikaze.
So lets recap the best answers so far to get a good sense of the liberals out there shall we?
my options are: take (some of) your so-called property myself through force (revolution), or work within the existing system, and garner the agreement of other like-minded or sympathetic citizens.
In other words: "I want what you have and you will give it to me. I will either take it through violence or I will join a large group of people who also want your stuff and we will take it togther using the law as a figleaf".
and that other's hard work, folks without your inherent advantages, resulted in their hard-scrabble existance(s). And you try to figure out ways to equalize that treatment.
Or in other words, "nobody should be rewarded for having greater ability, vision, or commitment".
the same options to 'obtain' are not open to all, that's the issue
So in other words, "nobody should be rewarded for having greater ability, vision, or commitment".
If you look at the government as parents.
Or in other words, "The government knows right from wrong better than you do. You should rely on them to care for you."
I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will.
In other words: "I never got a real job. One because I could never see a way to get a job that I wouldn't hate and not even try at. 2 I didn't want to work, still don't probably never will. "
I love when liberals talk about their ideals. This is why the Democratic party is getting destroyed. Whenever liberals start explaining why they are liberals, they begin to make these really proufoundly absurd statements. These statements are all shockingly self-sefeating. I dont really even have to do anything. You guys dig your own darn grave. Its awesome! I love it! I think we should let the liberals talk all day and all night, as long as they talk about "liberal values". But is this the kind of honesty that our citizens get? No. We get spin, half-truths, and political posturing. The reason for this is clear: Liberals can't sell liberalism. They have to paint it as something else "oh... we're progressive". Liberals are terrified by their own situation because they realize that no freedom-loving citizen would ever vote for them after making statements about what they really stand for. Liberalism is a self-defeating, elitist, autocratic movement of individuals who refuse to accept personal repsonsibility for their lot in life and instead rely on the more capable and intelligent members to do their work for them.
The concept of "conservative" and "liberal" applies ONLY to constitutional interpretation.
That's rather selective on your part. Bah, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless slogans tossed around for petty gain by politicians and demagouges. Both are good words that have been perverted for partisan profit.
You want to talk about liberalism? America is the most liberal experiment in world history. We're the offspring of the Enlightenment, we're a liberal wet dream. Let everybody vote? Divide state powers to limit corruption and autocracy? Give states their own rights? Ban state-sponsored religion? Allow the citizens to be armed? Freedom of speech, assembly and worship? There wasn't a more liberal concept at the time. To equate liberalism with socialism is to slander our nation.
And conservatism? That's a beautiful tradition in which we measure twice and cut once, if at all. Careful, cautious, with a healthy regard for tradition, conservative. It's supposed to mean the opposite of revolutionary. It's got jack-all to do with promoting a public cartoon version of Christian values, or spending the nation into a black hole with pork and corporate handouts, or creating vast new entitlements for the elderly. How is a fire-breathing blow-hard like Rush Limbaugh "conservative"? How is a corrupt fake Christian like Ralph Reed "conservative"? How is a bribe-taking, pork-pushing slimebag like Tom DeLay "conservative"? And how is an incompetent idealogue like Bush "conservative"?
Both words have been warped and perverted beyond meaning. As far as this lemur is concerned, people who want to push vast social programs are "socialists," and people who want to push vast right-wing social agendas (coupled with insane spending) are ... hmm, there isn't a very good word for them. I've heard "Christianists" tossed around, but that doesn't do justice to their fiscal insanity. Suggestions?
The nature of this argument is Government Redistribution of Wealth vs. Government Staying the Duece Out of My Money.
If you look at post #1 in the thread, DA was specifically using the word "liberal." And he's been off about "liberals" multiple times, when he means "socialist." And again, the current administration is doing just fine spending our money. It doesn't make it any better that they're doing it with a credit card rather than cash. The bills have to be paid someday, and I'd argue it's more irresponsible to do it on credit.
I don't see a party talking seriously about spending less. The Republicans have demonstrated that they're even bigger pigs at the feed trough than the Democrats were. So are you gents advocating the concept of smaller government in the abstract?
Crazed Rabbit
03-25-2006, 09:54
That's rather selective on your part. Bah, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless slogans tossed around for petty gain by politicians and demagouges. Both are good words that have been perverted for partisan profit.
You want to talk about liberalism? America is the most liberal experiment in world history. We're the offspring of the Enlightenment, we're a liberal wet dream. Let everybody vote? Divide state powers to limit corruption and autocracy? Give states their own rights? There wasn't a more liberal concept at the time. To equate liberalism with socialism is to slander our nation.
You're right. What we call liberals in the US should be called leftists. Calling them liberals is an insult to true liberals.
The funny thing is, right now I'm a lowly worker, the kind the leftists say they're helping. And I don't want a d*** thing to do with them. I don't want to join a union and pay dues to work somewhere, I don't want to pay social security to the government so they can keep it until they think I'm ready to have my money paid back to me.
I think this is a perfectly good system. It echos the village system of people taking care of each other for mutual benefit, not selfish people who compete for ever-greater luxury against their fellow citizens.
I'm sick of people claiming that the gov't taking my money to give to other people is akin to 'charity'. It is not, in any way, shape, or form. Nothing is charity when it is taken. Don't dare try and claim this is similar to kind hearted people helping each other out; it is akin to the mob demanding money. Nothing more.
Crazed Rabbit
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 09:55
Your entire post refered only to social conservatism and socia liberalism... At least until the end their.
That's rather selective on your part. Bah, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless slogans tossed around for petty gain by politicians and demagouges. Both are good words that have been perverted for partisan profit.
And YOU are rather selecrtive for your comments directly below, which all relate to the social perspective rather than the constituional perspective.
You want to talk about liberalism? America is the most liberal experiment in world history. We're the offspring of the Enlightenment, we're a liberal wet dream. Let everybody vote? Divide state powers to limit corruption and autocracy? Give states their own rights? Ban state-sponsored religion? Allow the citizens to be armed? Freedom of speech, assembly and worship? There wasn't a more liberal concept at the time. To equate liberalism with socialism is to slander our nation.
I don't give a damn about what history came before us. You can take your historicism and leave it at the door, bud. I care about right now. The only thing that matters is constitutional interpretation.
And conservatism? That's a beautiful tradition in which we measure twice and cut once, if at all. Careful, cautious, with a healthy regard for tradition, conservative. It's supposed to mean the opposite of revolutionary.
Social perspective. I hate religious liberals just as much.
It's got jack-all to do with promoting a public cartoon version of Christian values, or spending the nation into a black hole with pork and corporate handouts, or creating vast new entitlements for the elderly.
Christian values are a social perspective issue. Spending is a fiscal issue, and I concur with you. Vast new entitlements and corporate handouts are fiscal policy and I agree with you. No restraint. A complete lack of control. Disgusting.
How is a fire-breathing blow-hard like Rush Limbaugh "conservative"?
Most of his comments are that of a constitutional conservative. These comments I agree with. You should listen. He is pretty pissed about spending, sounds a little like you sometimes on the spending.
How is a corrupt fake Christian like Ralph Reed "conservative"?
Religious liberal who wants to expand government power and enforce morality. "banner of conservatism". He can go pound sand.
How is a bribe-taking, pork-pushing slimebag like Tom DeLay "conservative"?
And if he is guilty he will go to jail. I do not agree with his fake religious liberalism and overspending either.
And how is an incompetent idealogue like Bush "conservative"?
He isn't. He is a religious liberal who spend money like water.
Both words have been warped and perverted beyond meaning. As far as this lemur is concerned, people who want to push vast social programs are "socialists," and people who want to push vast right-wing social agendas (coupled with insane spending) are ... hmm, there isn't a very good word for them. I've heard "Christianists" tossed around, but that doesn't do justice to their fiscal insanity. Suggestions?
None of that really made a lot of sense, you know.
If you see the picture through the frame of the constitution, I promise you will be changed forever. I am sure that we agree on many more points, as well.
I guess I would just like to see "liberal" and "conservative" mean something real again. I take DA's point about Constitutionalism, but frankly, both parties are liberal in their interpretation of the founding document.
Neither party is truly liberal, for neither party supports individual liberty in any meaningful sense. And neither party is conservative.
We need to get back to the sort of thing that makes this country work -- divided government. I was arguing for it in '04, and I'm arguing for it in '06. Letting any one party get a deadlock on the government is a bad, bad, bad idea. Want to see lower taxes? Then you need to see less spending. Want to see less spending? Get a divided government back in place. Remember the glory days of Clinton/Gingrich? Remember the balanced budget? That was divided government at work.
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 10:12
I guess I would just like to see "liberal" and "conservative" mean something real again. I take DA's point about Constitutionalism, but frankly, both parties are liberal in their interpretation of the founding document.
Neither party is truly liberal, for neither party supports individual liberty in any meaningful sense. And neither party is conservative.
We need to get back to the sort of thing that makes this country work -- divided government. I was arguing for it in '04, and I'm arguing for it in '06. Letting any one party get a deadlock on the government is a bad, bad, bad idea. Want to see lower taxes? Then you need to see less spending. Want to see less spending? Get a divided government back in place. Remember the glory days of Clinton/Gingrich? Remember the balanced budget? That was divided government at work.
Ahhhhh. I KNEW IT!
That is just it, my friend! It all comes down to constitutional interpretation. A narrow interpretation of the constitution ensures that enumerated powers are followed, that 9th and 10th amendment are not eroded to worthlessness, and that power will return to the states.
Nothing else matters.
Major Robert Dump
03-25-2006, 10:26
And one could easily argue that more police, better highways and grants to state colleges is redistribution of wealth based on percieved need.
I didn't reralize this was going to turn into a "look what I overcame thread" and "all people on welfare are ghetto bangers" thread, but okay, I'll take my turn.
For those of you who made good from foul circumstances, congratulations, but please don't dub you "public service" imto my face because it has feck all to do with anything. Furthermore, the idea of "donating to charity" instead of having our precious "tax dollars" used is an entirely different animal because you can't control what your charity spends its money on, although you can control (control used very loosely here, jokingly in fact) what your government spends money on through votes and feedback. Of course this is all a pipe dream in fact since government is now sold to the highest bidders and the pacs with the cash (why else do you think mccain was sympathizing with the illegals?), but the original idea still remains, a government controlled by the people should mean that if welfare is being spent on undeserving people then the voters and john q public put an end to it.
And the idea of "helping out your neighbor" and "community charity" is nothing but a farce. It doesn't happen. Americans are tightwads, and they want compensation for their pizza having onions on it, even though they didn't ask for no onions. You have no idea how many people I know who used pre-paid legal services, then get pissed because it doens't get them out of a ticket when they get caught doing 70 in 35 zone. FFS.
You guys who overcame harsh situations have a lot more in common with me than either of us would like to admit, and oddly enough I or my family have never used in any way shape or form any of the welfare system, with the notable exception of social security for the old folks; and please take note that only recently has social security been coined as "welfare", perhaps due to fiscal concerns, whereas its remained a sacred cow for generations and none of our conservative leaders prior to now have ever considered demonizing it, yet all of the sudden its "welfare", and its all the fault of the liberals
For every guy who overcomes the odds and makes good for himself, theres some little bitch whose mommy and daddy pays for his college and credit cards so he gets out of school with perfect credit and no job history and can buy a house, a dependable car and score a sweet job with his phat C average (a lot of those turn out to be liberals btw). And for every one of those little bitches, theres someone in a meduim sized town with no mass transit, who doesnt have a car and who has to walk to his minumum wage job, then gets fired because he shows up late on a rainy day. God forbid we toss that person some foodstamps.
Conservatives like to imagine that every tax dollar taken from them is spent on welfare and programs they don't agree with. Not a cent of it went to anything else, right?
Stop demonizing the idea and instead demonize the system that grew to reward no-gooders. Believe it or not, unions were actually good at one point, and they did what the federal government wouldnt do amidst the 1920s manufacturing scumbags like Henry Ford who put the dollar above liberty and dignity. Now look at unions, they are a sham. It's the same with welfare.
Liberalism and expanded government are one in the same. The liberal interpretation of the constitution means to allow for every possibility that the constitution may have meant in order to expand the power of the government. The problem with this is that liberals are inconsistent, and this is why I equate liberal theory to redistribution theory: Liberals would consolidate power into the hands of the federal administration, and have done so through the commerce clause and supremacy clause (Raiche Vs. Ashcroft). Liberal interpretation also made it so "emminent domain" for the public good included taking property from one person and giving it to another so that they can make the government more money with taxes (Kelo Vs. New London). But yet, liberal interpretation stops there. What about the 2nd amendment? What about the absolute and total errosion of the 9th amendment with rulings like Kelo and Raiche which expand government power beyond that which is enumerated? What about the same issue with the 10th amendment?
Liberal interpretation is about expanding government power. Liberals are autocrats and believe (Benevolently or malevolently I know not) that the government knows best and that power should be concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Liberals believe that the common people are too stupid and too lazy to work hard for themselves and so they must be cared for.
You are thinking more about liberalism than liberals do. I'm not going to argue that what you said there is untrue, because its not. There are plenty of liberals in high level government and universities who genuinley want what you say, be it for their own personal gain or their percieved good of the nation. But for the 45 year old guy who loses his job at thr jeans factory and needs some food stamps to get by for the month, consolidated power and a socialist movement are likely the farhtest things from his mind.
You guys are taking broad political labels and applying them to society that is based on money, money, money, votes and more money, thanks to a government made up of careerists and opportunists. We have had a conservative administration and congress now for a good while, yet welfare remains virtually unchanged. why is that? could the same taint that affects their inaction also affect the actions of the liberals in office? $$$$$$$$$????
Tribesman
03-25-2006, 10:26
Wow this thread has got me really confused .
What exactly is one of these liberals , how do you be a liberal ?
The real difference in American politics these days seems to be whether or not you want abortions.
Hmmm.. so lets try this . If someone doesn't like abortion , that means they are generally conservative , right . If they also think that the government should not be allowed to tell people what they can do with their own bodies then they are conservative , right . Yet if they are against the government telling people what they can do with their own bodies and that people have freewill and the right to choice then they are liberals .
Soooo.....What exactly is one of these liberals ?
Major Robert Dump
03-25-2006, 10:33
Don't ask me, I'm a liberal with a gun, a job, no gay friends and a subscription to the National Review. Apparently I don't know
Divinus Arma
03-25-2006, 11:32
MRD, you're an articulate guy and most of the time you come across as joe sixpack with a chip on his shoulder. That's a good thing. Because when it all come down to it, the one who all this really matters too is joe sixpack. Or, the one who it really effects but never cares, that is...
But there is a serious problem with your logic, hero. You oversimplify everything and overglorify your perspective. You champion the right of the little guy, who, what... Who gets fired for walking to work in the rain and is late once? Great arguments for your avergae guy, but try and think outside of that box. Either you have been watching too much mainstream news or you had some bad experiences. Point being- why not shoot straight across the board? Got a problem with inheritance? I'll bet you leave whatever you have to your kids when you kick the bucket. I'll bet you hope they succeed and your grandkids are the ones with the car, the C ave, and the house with no credit, huh? You knock the system, all the while benefitting from it and following the same rules of the game.
When I posted my comments did you see me knocking social security? Did I tear down welfare? Did I make any specific comment about any specific government institution whatsoever? (aside from health care speculation)
No. I din't. And guess what, most of what you through down makes great sense. I agree that a compassionate society should have safety nets for unforeseen circumsatnces. Of course we need infrastructure. As I said before, the government's sole reason for existence should be to empower the citizens to succeed at their own hands.
The problem that I have is not with welfare or with socialized medicine or social security. I dont give two turds about student grants, low interest government loans, or the post office.
I care about one thing, my man, and that is the constituion of the US of A. Every year, our rights have been eroded further and further due to constituional liberlaism. And these were mostly Republican justices! If you think I am some watery-eyed Republican hack, then you failed to read the rest of my posts in this thread.
Liberal constituitional interpretation coupled with a "government knows best" phiosophy spells disaster across the board. Do you have any clue what the supreme court has done to our liberties? Screw the kid in the rain. How about the old folks who had their beautiful Riverside home stolen by Pfizer so the company could build a parking lot?
That ios the trasj I am primarily concerned about. Liberal interpretation, meaning, "however we can make the constitution bend", is destroying this country. The GOP is a crock and so are the Dems. But parties scuk nuts, but at least the GOP dont try to fool us with lies about what they stand for. You see a republican candidate you know what the hell is in that snake oil: Religious influence, reduction of regulation, privitization, big military, etc. When you see a Dem, who knows what the hell they try to cram through the system. Worse yet is their motives. They want your stuff, mrd. They want your stuff and they will take it, as was evidenced so clearly in this thread.
Ironside
03-25-2006, 12:42
The principle of socialism is one after each abilities and one after each needs.
When it comes to taxes we can clearly consider that we're stuck with it, it originates from paying the bully to protect us from other bullies.
So why can't we make something useful for those money that isn't gonna be used properly 95% of the time (AKA defend the taxpayers from invasion)?
As for the schools and infrastructure, it's investing money that will be benefical with time.
Public healthcare is also benefical for the state (healthy workers works better), while it's at the same time a system that is helping you from bad luck in case you got sick (or severly wounded) and that sickness is expensive (impossible to work and/or expensive treatment).
I'm not sure what a libertarian view is here, letting the person die if they can't pay? Or making the family lose thier pension money (you did remove pension remember?). Maybe only bankrupsy, lets only hope that they'll be good enough for working afterwards then.
Pensions are set up as a reward system, pay more taxes, get more pension. Keeps the children from the burden of being forced to pay for the parent in case things got bad (see above). Doesn't give any economical disadvantages outside the not working part anyway, in both cases the money is back in the money flow, unless you save in the mattress.
Now it comes to the big issue: welfare.
First we got the part for the sick and disabled (mentally or physically). Medical check is first needed to make sure that they are sick/disabled and then I consider it important to find out how much work they can do. Then you put the disabled at work through some king of arrangement.
As for them to even end up in this category they'll work less good than an average worker, they'll never end up with a proper job and as the options is: a) Let them works as well as they can. b) Do nothing and pay them to make them survive. Or c) Do nothing and let them die. Suggestion a) seems best for me by some reason :inquisitive: .
For the sick try to make them come back into work ASAP, without them end up sick again. Why waste a good worker if they can come back?
Now to the unemployment. Give them a few month and if they haven't found job yet, do some arrengments to get them into working for their payments. Good enough money to live on, but not enough for a rich life (to keep them searching for better jobs). Bad luck and trouble finding a job is one thing, bad working morale is something different.
For extra taxes on the rich.
Good and hard job that needs high education is supposed to be rewarded, but at some point it's simply too much. I cannot see how a person that is working as a director on a large company for 2 years is working so good that he has earned 30 times the pay of a regular worker and then is rewarded with 3 times the average pay a month for the rest of his life, regardless what he does next. And that when the company goes from black to red numbers in profit.
The point of being socialist is that you've realised that there's enough wealth in the world for everyone to survive, that people is different and that not all from rough conditions can become a stunning success by themself, thus it's your duty to help them make something decent of themself. And because people is some greedy bastards, it's better to tax people with a faceless system (with checks and controls to make it work well) than hoping that charity will work that way. And by keeping all people into the system, odds is that you'll get better people on all places as the competition is higher.
This is the ideal from my point of view, it may be flawed due to inefficency and abuse, but it isn't more flawed than your ideals. And it's a much nicer ideal :2thumbsup: .
And DA call yourself constitutionalist please, it's easier than change the meaning of a work into something completly different. I'ts complicated enough with American liberal and European liberal. Making a definition that would make Panzer into a liberal is confusing to say the least.
For the constitution itself, I would say keep to it and the changes made should follow the direct translate of the Swedish words for common sence (common sence is oddly enough not common :inquisitive: ), namely sound sence (or healthy sence). But as this is the US you're doomed on this matter. :laugh4:
Since some of you look upon the government/parents analogy as a negative, I would ask again; do you believe the government should stay out of all moral issues and manage only the economy and defence?
If anti-liberals are for less government and less governmental intrusion in people's lives, do you agree that the government should stop talking about marijuana use, abortion, gay marriage, religion in schools, religion at all, and a hundred other social issues?
As a liberal living in a liberal country, I can tell you that the level of intrusion by the state upon the individual you insinuate is an illusion. I would submit that there is more intrusion into private lives in a conservative government, with far worse effects upon the individual, than with a liberal one.
A liberal government will raise your taxes to pay for the other guy's well being; a conservative government will jail you for behaving inappropriately based on the personal moral views of those in charge.
Which one is truly less intrusive upon the lives of the individual?
Liberal governments allow. Conservative governments imprison. I'll take freedom over a bigger paycheck any day.
Marcellus
03-25-2006, 13:53
The reason I am liberal is because I believe that government should not interfere in personal choices that only affect the individual.
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
This really has nothing to do with liberalism. Whatever 'liberal' often means in the US, liberalism does not mean socialism. I would assume that our word 'liberal' comes from the latin libertas, meaning 'freedom'.
Taffy_is_a_Taff
03-25-2006, 15:00
the easy chicks
:2thumbsup:
KukriKhan
03-25-2006, 15:41
the easy chicks
:2thumbsup:
:laugh4: :laugh4:
I guess DA didn't really want to know "What is your reason for being liberal?", afterall. Rather, he looked to pass some time on a quiet Friday night.
a moment of clarity? just a guess.
~D .... my answer was going to be five minutes of hard thinking, a moment of clarity works as well. :laugh4:
Proletariat
03-25-2006, 16:02
Since some of you look upon the government/parents analogy as a negative, I would ask again; do you believe the government should stay out of all moral issues and manage only the economy and defence?
Yes.
If anti-liberals are for less government and less governmental intrusion in people's lives, do you agree that the government should stop talking about marijuana use, abortion, gay marriage, religion in schools, religion at all, and a hundred other social issues?
Yes, yes, yes, no, yes and yes. Finally, someone gets it. :2thumbsup:
You're excuse is that you simply didn't want to take a job you didn't like? Wow.
No, that I couldn't see any opportunities for a job I wanted to do. And that when I actually went and tried to get jobs I failed at the interview badly. That was a real kick in the nuts, I always though that it was lack of trying that kept me more or less unemployed.
GC has got you libs pegged. This is the worst of the breed. "I dont want to work. give me your money". Hmmm, I've heard that before? Oh yes, from criminals. So liberal economic theory is just institutioanlized theft by the mob of lazy? Hardly qualifies as a logical argument, my friend.
I was never at that point. I live at home. And worked for almost nothing with my dad like I said. But a real job that didn't pay peanuts eleuded me for the reasons I stated.
And I believe that any private institution is much more corrupt and out for my money and property than any government institution. A government, as long as it pretends to care about what the public thinks, is accountable to that public. Private organizations aren't accountable to anyone but those in charge and share holders. So they can get away with much more legalized theft and extortion than any government. I mean look at mortgages, there are millions of people in north america that live in homes they don't own. They think they own but the bank who owns the mortgage does, and just let's them live there so long as they got the money to make those payments. If they don't on they ass they go.
So to sum up I fit into DA twisted definition of liberal because I'd rather give my money to the lesser of two evils (the government).
Major Robert Dump
03-25-2006, 17:16
You're right, Div, I do have a chip on my shoulder, but its not from watching television (I don't watch tv) and has more to do with my peers growing up and the people who were my "friends" in college, but that has little to do with any of this.
Sorry for sidetracking the thread with talks of welfare and social security, to say I oversimplify things is a vast understatement. It's also safe to say I don't speak for most liberals.
taking broad strokes on the peopel who interpret and affect the constitution and labeling them libs or cons doesn't do the argument justice, as you pointed out that the SCOTUS justices were republican, and you have pointed out on many occasions that you are disgusted with certain aspects of the republican party. At this point it has less to do with lables and parties and one-liners and more to do with constitutional interpetation and how (or if) it trickels down to affect the rest of us
So whatever makes my little hungover liberal mind tick doesn't have anything to do with the governments right to our property, and I think you'll be hard pressed to find a "liberal" who thinsk that way without also finding either a politician, a professor or some elitist, prick mastermind who dreams of socialism granduer.
Reverend Joe
03-25-2006, 17:28
What is your reason for being liberal?
Conversations like this? And my resulting desire to make my own way, instead of listening to everybody else?
Honestly, I just sat down one day, and imagined what it would be like if every form of government could work perfectly, and figured out which one I would most like to actually see work, and I came up with socialism. In fact, I am often accused of being conservative becase I am an old-school style socialist, and I believe extremely strongly in the rights of the individual man to do what he wishes- and that means no government involvement in Gay marriage, or church; so, if some church says two gays can't get married, who the hell are we to say otherwise?
On the other hand, if the locals start becoming overbearing, and start restricting the individual rights of the gays, it is time to do something, because the people have crossed the line into government territory.
I will not bother arguing any of this, because frankly my time would be better spent shouting at a brick wall. (Or, better yet, listening to my old "Chess" records. :2thumbsup:)
Sjakihata
03-25-2006, 17:55
Loads of welfare, not spending my life on work, eating well and reading books, while others work for me - that's not counting the wild parties and yes, the easy (and good looking) chicks
Proletariat
03-25-2006, 18:00
We need to get back to the sort of thing that makes this country work -- divided government. I was arguing for it in '04, and I'm arguing for it in '06. Letting any one party get a deadlock on the government is a bad, bad, bad idea. Want to see lower taxes? Then you need to see less spending. Want to see less spending? Get a divided government back in place. Remember the glory days of Clinton/Gingrich? Remember the balanced budget? That was divided government at work.
The sooner we have four years of Lemur in White House, the better.
Let the moderates fill the streets and chant, "We want gridlock! We want gridlock! We want gridlock!"
doc_bean
03-25-2006, 18:12
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
Without having read the rest of the thread, I already feel the need to point out that this isn't 'being liberal'. Liberal refers (or should anyway) to freedom of lifestyle choices. 'Liberal' is the social equivalent of the economic 'libertarian', it is the believe that people can decide what is best for themselves and should be able to live their life as they see fit (as long as they don't hurt others, who don't want to be hurt, etc.).
Why do you hate freedom ?
Ironside
03-25-2006, 18:55
Yes, yes, yes, no, yes and yes. Finally, someone gets it. :2thumbsup:
The goverment should bother about religion is school, but not in general? :inquisitive:
Soulforged
03-25-2006, 19:33
Since some of you look upon the government/parents analogy as a negative, I would ask again; do you believe the government should stay out of all moral issues and manage only the economy and defence? That is simply called paternalism. We've a lot of that here, and it isn't good.A father is an authority from any point of view, a father talks down to you and says you what is right or wrong, that cannot be the function of the state because it will grow to much power, it will hold the higher moral ground and you'll have to obey. Conclusions of paternalism are the following: forced presence in any trial of the defendant, intromision of cameras in public and semi-public places, intromision in telephonic lines, the defendant always has to have a lawyer to declare, etc... Don't get me wrong socialist policies are good, but they've to be measured with the scale of liberalism to stablish what's reasonable and what's not. Taxes to help the poor is ok because the state is the best organism to distribute the riches, you don't need another one, but I don't justify it on the paternal view of the state because it disgust me.
If liberalsare for less government and less governmental intrusion in people's lives, do you agree that the government should stop talking about marijuana use, abortion, gay marriage, religion in schools, religion at all, and a hundred other social issues?Historically speaking not all liberals were like that, Weber for example feared that the government will achieve such level of abstraction that the bureaucracy will reing untamed. All those things you said seem reasonable to me, except for abortion, wich should be only allowed in cases with risk of grave injuries to the mather, and gay marriage, wich cannot be marriage because marriage derives from "mater", mother, a new word has to be created, but it already exists, as far as I know, it's called "civil union".
As a socialist living in a socialist (?) country, I can tell you that the level of intrusion by the state upon the individual you insinuate is an illusion. I would submit that there is more intrusion into private lives in a conservative government, with far worse effects upon the individual, than with a liberal one.That's because ideologies are not introduced in pure form in any part of the world. USA cannot be complety liberal, reality makes you group a certain number of principles and uphold them higher than the others, and when anothr situation comes you put down those principles and uphold a new flag, or perhaps you're a constant mixture. My point is that there isn't perfect socialist or liberalist countries. Many say to be liberal and carry up a lot of socialist policies, simply because social order and coherence need them.
A socialist government will raise your taxes to pay for the other guy's well being; a socialist government will jail you for behaving inappropriately based on the personal moral views of those in charge.Corrected, because both results are potencial of the socialist view.
Which one is truly less intrusive upon the lives of the individual?The liberal one, different from socialist, different from conservative. The conservative is that possition that tries to defend to death an specific group of principles that they judge fundamental, a possition that I cannot understand and appears to be archaic in terms of how a society moves today.
Near the bottom of page two and DA still hasn't improved his use fo the word "liberal." DA, I'm getting the impression that by "liberal" you mean "bad." Does that sort of sum it up? So if Bush does something you don't like, he's a liberal. And if Pat Robertson does something bad, he's a liberal. And I guess if the Republicans ruling Congress are nasty and greedy, that's because they're bad, i.e. "liberal."
Am I getting it right here? Liberal = Bad. And as you said earlier, to hell with any historical meaning. Or linguistic, for that matter.
Crazed Rabbit
03-25-2006, 20:45
Now to the unemployment. Give them a few month and if they haven't found job yet, do some arrengments to get them into working for their payments. Good enough money to live on, but not enough for a rich life (to keep them searching for better jobs). Bad luck and trouble finding a job is one thing, bad working morale is something different.
I like that you realize we should make the unemployment people work and not get permanent benefits. But I think a better way would be to have the government pay half (or so, depending on the job) of their wages in a new job for a month or two. This would encourage employers to hire more, and the people to get a job.
For extra taxes on the rich.
Good and hard job that needs high education is supposed to be rewarded, but at some point it's simply too much. I cannot see how a person that is working as a director on a large company for 2 years is working so good that he has earned 30 times the pay of a regular worker and then is rewarded with 3 times the average pay a month for the rest of his life, regardless what he does next. And that when the company goes from black to red numbers in profit.
Do you know why CEOs are paid more than the average assembly line joe? Because there are loads of people who can do assembly line work, and not nearly as many people who can be good CEOs. I will agree that they sometimes get paid too much for what they do, but the answer is not high taxes.
Since some of you look upon the government/parents analogy as a negative, I would ask again; do you believe the government should stay out of all moral issues and manage only the economy and defence?
If anti-liberals are for less government and less governmental intrusion in people's lives, do you agree that the government should stop talking about marijuana use, abortion, gay marriage, religion in schools, religion at all, and a hundred other social issues?
Here's another thing I'm sick of. Leftists always say that conservatives are imposing their morals on everybody, as if gay marriage were the only moral issue. Everything is a moral issue. Laws against stealing, murder, assualt, etc., are there because people morally feel they are wrong. All laws are based on morality.
As a liberal living in a liberal country, I can tell you that the level of intrusion by the state upon the individual you insinuate is an illusion. I would submit that there is more intrusion into private lives in a conservative government, with far worse effects upon the individual, than with a liberal one.
A liberal government will raise your taxes to pay for the other guy's well being; a conservative government will jail you for behaving inappropriately based on the personal moral views of those in charge.
Which one is truly less intrusive upon the lives of the individual?
Liberal governments allow. Conservative governments imprison. I'll take freedom over a bigger paycheck any day.
Please. Leftists are always trying to impose their morality. How can conservatives be guilty of doing what they feel is morally right on issues like abortion, which I feel is murder, and the left isn't guilty of imposing their morality when they try to force gay marriage on people? How does that work? Like the leftists are fighting for something that is good according to the natural laws of the universe, while those dirty conservatives are trying to 'impose their twisted morality'.
And no, leftists do not want to allow more. They want to force people who have no effect on anyone to stop doing what they enjoy, criminalize perfectly harmless pursuits, and have the goveernment seize what they don't like. They want to stop people from speaking opinions they don't like, they want government control over people's finances, who gives them medical help, etc. And what do they allow that traditional American conservatives wouldn't? A few puffs of marijuania. So don't try and claim leftists are less intrusive, just because you happen to agree with the morals, or lack thereof, that they are imposing.
Crazed Rabbit
Alexanderofmacedon
03-25-2006, 21:02
I'm too lazy to type a well-thought answer, so...
...I'm a liberal because I want to be:inquisitive:
And no, leftists do not want to allow more. They want to force people who have no effect on anyone to stop doing what they enjoy, criminalize perfectly harmless pursuits, and have the goveernment seize what they don't like. They want to stop people from speaking opinions they don't like, they want government control over people's finances, who gives them medical help, etc. And what do they allow that traditional American conservatives wouldn't? A few puffs of marijuania. So don't try and claim leftists are less intrusive, just because you happen to agree with the morals, or lack thereof, that they are imposing.
Crazed Rabbit
What perfectly harmless pursuits do liberals want to criminalize?
I've lived in a liberal country for forty-two years and I have yet to have the government ever seize something of mine that they didn't like (except for my Uzi - but I could keep my Galil. Go figure...). Also, having been a newspaper columnist for almost ten years, I have yet to have one word of my criticisms censored by the government.
To your other point, the government takes no control over my finances save for saying they want x-amount in taxes each year. I keep what I want where I want when I want.
My point, in response to the thread title, is that conservative governments jail more people than liberal governments. As I said, I'll take higher taxes over imprisonment any day.
Bohdan, Lord of Courland
03-25-2006, 21:05
Ummm... since when is the idea of liberalism for a "parental government"? Sorry, but isn't that idea known as conservatism? True liberals, by definition, are against government intervention in both financial and personal matters.
Did I missunderstand something? :inquisitive:
Reverend Joe
03-25-2006, 21:18
It's very simple: us Americans (and especially the conservatives) don't have a clue what "liberal" actually means. ~:joker:
Byzantine Prince
03-25-2006, 21:28
You people need to read up on philosophical liberalism as layed down by its fathers. You know, John Stuart Mill, his father, and even Bertrand Russell.
Everything that has been stated about lieberalism that doesn't have its core in these people's writing is inherently ignorant.
doc_bean
03-25-2006, 21:28
Please. Leftists are always trying to impose their morality. How can conservatives be guilty of doing what they feel is morally right on issues like abortion, which I feel is murder, and the left isn't guilty of imposing their morality when they try to force gay marriage on people? How does that work? Like the leftists are fighting for something that is good according to the natural laws of the universe, while those dirty conservatives are trying to 'impose their twisted morality'.
The difference is that liberals only care when it affects other people (to a reasonable extent, everything has an effect somehow). So homosexuality and most other sex acts do not fall into 'our' sphere of moral control. Gun control is also against the basic liberal principle imho, as are laws against hunting (besides basic safety laws and laws to protect endangered species and such).
Most countries/governments you hate so much aren't as much 'liberal' as they are 'socialist', which are very opposite points of view. Socialism is government by the majority for the majority, liberalism is focused on the individual first. European government tend to be economic socialist (taxes, medical care, etc.) and 'morally' liberal (allowing gay marriage and such).
And no, leftists do not want to allow more. They want to force people who have no effect on anyone to stop doing what they enjoy,
Like homosexuals getting married ?
criminalize perfectly harmless pursuits,
like sodomy ?
and have the goveernment seize what they don't like.
Like has been done for ages in the so-called 'War on drugs' ? Who started that again ?
They want to stop people from speaking opinions they don't like,
Like a president selecting journalist who can be at his speeches depending on how they write/talk about him ? Or using arguments like 'Why do you hate freedom ?' when someone disagrees with any action the government takes ?
they want government control over people's finances,
'cause the conservative world has no tax system...
who gives them medical help, etc.
I agree here, giving medical help to people in need is just a waste of money ! If they need help and can't afford it they should just start their own charity like everyone else ! It's not like people in the US are still dying/suffering from third world diseases...
And what do they allow that traditional American conservatives wouldn't? A few puffs of marijuania.
..and the ability to have a peace rally without CIA agents watching you. And HPV vaccins that could save thousands of lives, condoms and other contraception which would limit the amount of abortions (the US still has a higher abortion rate than evil liberal Western Europe)...
So don't try and claim leftists are less intrusive,
It costs more sure, but that's about it.
just because you happen to agree with the morals, or lack thereof, that they are imposing.
It's a relative freedom of morality you gain, a chance to make your own decisions in live.
Alexanderofmacedon
03-25-2006, 21:33
The difference is that liberals only care when it affects other people (to a reasonable extent, everything has an effect somehow). So homosexuality and most other sex acts do not fall into 'our' sphere of moral control. Gun control is also against the basic liberal principle imho, as are laws against hunting (besides basic safety laws and laws to protect endangered species and such).
Most countries/governments you hate so much aren't as much 'liberal' as they are 'socialist', which are very opposite points of view. Socialism is government by the majority for the majority, liberalism is focused on the individual first. European government tend to be economic socialist (taxes, medical care, etc.) and 'morally' liberal (allowing gay marriage and such).
Like homosexuals getting married ?
like sodomy ?
Like has been done for ages in the so-called 'War on drugs' ? Who started that again ?
Like a president selecting journalist who can be at his speeches depending on how they write/talk about him ? Or using arguments like 'Why do you hate freedom ?' when someone disagrees with any action the government takes ?
'cause the conservative world has no tax system...
I agree here, giving medical help to people in need is just a waste of money ! If they need help and can't afford it they should just start their own charity like everyone else ! It's not like people in the US are still dying/suffering from third world diseases...
..and the ability to have a peace rally without CIA agents watching you. And HPV vaccins that could save thousands of lives, condoms and other contraception which would limit the amount of abortions (the US still has a higher abortion rate than evil liberal Western Europe)...
It costs more sure, but that's about it.
It's a relative freedom of morality you gain, a chance to make your own decisions in live.
I like you...:2thumbsup:
EDIT: In a political mind sort of way...conservative..
Big_John
03-25-2006, 22:58
I like you...:2thumbsup:no sodomy here.. liberal.. :brood:
It's very simple: us Americans (and especially the conservatives) don't have a clue what "liberal" actually means. ~:joker:
Neither do we Canadians. But it sure does liven up the crowd when we use the word.
:director: "Defecation to the oscillation. And hurry!"
How wrong you are... Private Instutions are far more accountable. You only give money to them when you want a service. If that service is not provided, there are a myriad of ways to go about dealing with that. The same cannot be said for the government, which is not only difficult to hold accountable, but also takes your money involuntarily.
Keep dreaming. Private institution are far far far harder to keep accountable. A governments mis-spending is easier to find. Private institutions just lie about their financial blunders. Granted both will eventually come out. But a government will actually have to do something. Privates just declare bankrupcy and get off without a hitch.
What`s in name? My views doesn`t change whether I declare myself a liberal or not. I don`t know if I am liberal, but I don`t care; I don`t like to label myself.
Political positions are all a matter of view. I know I have been labeled, as the following: Communist, Radical Liberal, Conservative, Fascist, Capitalist (where I come from, it is a category in itself), Extremely Conservative and also Radical Centrist.
Now, which one of all these am I? I dunno ... I have my ideas and stick to them.
As far as social security goes, I gladly pay my taxes to the goverment ... in return, they make sure that I don't have to go around with a gun to shoot anyone in my way, and that in my old age, I can at least have some standard of living. The taxes also guarantee that I can at least get admitted to a hospital if I am ill.
IMO, taxes are a way of keeping a big wall repaired, a big wall that keeps out chaos and bad things (such as particularly bloody revolutions and such).
As far as corruption goes, it is everywhere ... it can be dealt with. It is certainly better that in previous times.
You don't have to give your money to a corporation unless you want to get something from them. You have to give money to the government whether you want what they're giving or not.
There are lots of corporations that get your money whether you want them to or not. Didn't Enron rip of Californians to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in power rates manipulation? What are you going to do, kill the main breaker in the house and declare your independence from the corporation while the food in the fridge goes bad and the house gets cold?
When oil companies fix and raise prices, and make galactic profits, will you ditch your car and walk twenty miles to work or simply quit your job and hope welfare kicks in before the kids get hungry?
When the health insurance provider says "give us more or else...", do you cough up a little extra or simply drop your insurance and hope for the best?
Many corporations get your money whether you like it or not.
Tribesman
03-26-2006, 03:00
Yes, it'll get worse, but only because the demand is getting higher. Not because the oil companies have a big consipiracy to rip you off.
So in that case there wouldn't be groups in the oil industry forming cartels to fix prices and remove competition so they can fleece the consumer ?
Because that would be a conspiracy to rip you off wouldn't it .
I wonder how may other sectors of industry also don't form cartels to rip off people .
GC wake up , you must be dreaming of another world .:dizzy2:
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-26-2006, 03:53
We don't need to buy gas, either. We'll just use public transportation. :laugh4:
Lemur for President '08!
Soulforged
03-26-2006, 04:29
It's apples and oranges though. Corporations do not run the country (spare me the conspiracy theories). The government does.No conspiracies theories there GC. It could be argued that money means everything in business and that's what liberals want, all separate business. That's what we live on today, corporation making business and money rules in all plains, specially the justice one. When you say that the government rules, it's of course formally, because actually the government can be transformed in the machine that operates for the ruling clase, as it has always been with the state, a box were you put a lot of ideas and it starts to work, who puts the ideas...well I'll risk myself and state that in USA it's the big corporations and industries.
KukriKhan
03-26-2006, 05:10
What's wrong with Public Transportation? Works for me.
Bwahahahaha! In a thread named: What is your reason for being liberal, that takes the cake, when typed by an anti-liberal. Priceless!
Well played, mate! :thumbsup:
Tribesman
03-26-2006, 05:10
You're acting like Oil is a god-given right.
Can you read GC ?
Since when are Cartels anything to do with God or rights ?
Or are you under the illusion that the illegal practices and rip offs do not occur .
How many examples would you like of companies being convicted for running illegal cartels to rip off the consumer ?
It's just another product that is manufactured and sold.
Yes , as long as it is manufactured and sold in accordance with the law then there is no problem , when they are in violation of the law it is a problem .
But of course , as I said it isn't only the oil companies , you had a big problem over there with the Cartel in the pre-mix concrete business a little while back .
Reenk Roink
03-26-2006, 05:14
Lemur for President '08!
Man...touche there :2thumbsup:...
He'll be the best interim leader while I mature and prepare to rule... :yes:
I'm surprised noone has asked the obvious question...
When did the American view of 'liberalism/liberal' diverge from its original/european meaning? And why did this happen?
KukriKhan
03-26-2006, 05:25
I'm surprised noone has asked the obvious question...
When did the American view of 'liberalism/liberal' diverge from its original/european meaning? And why did this happen?
WWI and umm, WWII. In short. IMO.
AntiochusIII
03-26-2006, 05:52
This thread...bugs me.
Greatly.
How ignorant.
Therefore, I shall waste time on a different, unrelated argument on an irrelevant point instead of the topic, because it's a better use of my time. (Sorry, BP :) ):
Everything that has been stated about liberalism that doesn't have its core in these people's [Mills, Bentham, etc.] writing is inherently ignorant.I disagree. The term "liberal" is extremely vague and its meaning changes continuously, throughout history, varying depending on location and time. Are you claiming that there can only be one definition for such a term, despite the history of it?
Mills's and Bentham's philosophy could be better argued as utilitarianism the term in which they coined. Their philosophies...have flaws, IMO.
WWI and umm, WWII. In short. IMO.Quite right. Though it had not been a revolutionary process as much as an evolutionary one. American hatred of socialism go waaaay back, like, in the Prussian German Empire days. I think they hated Nietzche. On the other hand, the degrading term for that bunch of unionists struggling to carve a place in a social darwinist society was socialism. A liberal in the days of William Graham Sumner (ca 1880s) would be a fiscal conservative by the American Deragatory Partisan's Dictionary of Modern Terms (by me) and a social darwinist. A liberal during the Progressive movement would, well, that's really hard to define. A liberal during the 1920s was still in the realm of classical liberalism, associated with Locke and that bunch of Natural Rights people, not with Marx and others, though it began to change by that time; Hoover, in a bid to challenge the perception of him=conservative vs FDR=liberal, even gave a speech proclaiming "true" liberalism as the old classical liberalism.
The real change was during the New Deal; and the degradation of it during the Cold War.
As of this thread, I shall refer to the American Deragatory Partisan's Dictionary of Modern Term (of course, it does not exist) that liberal means: commie bastard.
Samurai Waki
03-26-2006, 06:05
Why am I liberal? cause the beer tastes better!
There are lots of corporations that get your money whether you want them to or not. Didn't Enron rip of Californians to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in power rates manipulation? What are you going to do, kill the main breaker in the house and declare your independence from the corporation while the food in the fridge goes bad and the house gets cold?There's people (not many) that get paid by the power company instead of paying a bill. They generate enough themselves to power their households plus add some back to the grid via wind, solar, whatever. However, most people dont have the interest to take on something like that. More realisticly, you conserve power when it get's too expensive- you can also choose another power provider if you wish.
When oil companies fix and raise prices, and make galactic profits, will you ditch your car and walk twenty miles to work or simply quit your job and hope welfare kicks in before the kids get hungry?The only price fixing is done by OPEC- not the oil companies. But again, there are alternatives- alternative fuels, more fuel effecient vehicles or *gasp* public transport.
When the health insurance provider says "give us more or else...", do you cough up a little extra or simply drop your insurance and hope for the best?Not the best example. US healthcare is already fairly socialized and far from a free market system. Its a mess. I think it's telling that our healthcare is becoming more expensive and less effecient the more socialized it becomes. As more retirees go on medicare and new entitlements are added it will only get worse.
Many corporations get your money whether you like it or not.Many corporations get our money- but we almost always have a choice. It's just that most of us are not willing to do without the convenience offered by the goods and services of those companies. At the very least, you're getting something tangible in return for your money. This is often not the case with taxes- Ill likely never see anything from my Social Security taxes.
Let's get a few things out of the way:
1) I believe that the ideal world is a confederation of small communities. Those communities decide their own way and freely associate with others to do things they can't on their own.
2) Number 1 is a pipe dream in my lifetime, maybe my great great grandkids.
3) Social Liberalism is a damn good idea. Gays should be able to marry; marijuana should be legal (with restriction similar to alcohol), etc.
4) Fiscally the government should try to make sense, there are things that we need to spend money on, there are a hell of a lot that we don't.
5) I consider myself very liberal.
All that said the government should act to serve the people, and therefore should provide certain services that are to the benefit of the nation.
Things like the military, education, highways, CDC, and law enforcement we need to spend money on.
Things like the Peace Corps, The Smithsonian, national parks, and NASA are nice, but only if we can afford them.
Things like funding for Historically Black Colleges (that to me is institutionalized racism), the small business administration, and the national endowments for the arts are unnecessary and the government should not be involved with.
So no, I do not want the government taking my property, I am willing to give some of my property to the government so that they can give it back to me as roads, an education, and a safe community. They do all of this with my, and every other citizen's, oversight.
It's apples and oranges though. Corporations do not run the country (spare me the conspiracy theories). The government does. You don't have to give your money to a corporation unless you want to get something from them. You have to give money to the government whether you want what they're giving or not.
Not always true. You have to buy power, water (if you don't live on a well), and heat. All of which have the potential to come from private corporations. I have to buy kilowatt hours from Nova Scotia power, and our tree killing moderator has to buy his from Quebec hydro. It's not like we could go across the street to the other power company, because there isn't one. NSP has been a private company for 15 years. And they have been ripping us off for 14 years.
Then ofcourse there is car insurance which you have to buy in order to drive a car. Legalized extortion, all perpetrated by private companies.
What a load of hooey. Enron ripped off shareholders.
One very quick example.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/01/eveningnews/main620626.shtml
As for oil companies ripping people off? Rubbish.
You're right. How could I have ever thought that the oil companies would stoop to unscrupulous behaviour. What a shmoo I am. :shame:
You're right. How could I have ever thought that the oil companies would stoop to unscrupulous behaviour. What a shmoo I am. :shame:They dont need to. Right now, they're in an incredible position to make buckets of money- without the need for price fixing or any other balogna. Although, I suspect we could fill up a whole seperate thread with oil company bashing.
Tribesman
03-26-2006, 08:47
They dont need to. Right now, they're in an incredible position to make buckets of money- without the need for price fixing or any other balogna.
Yet they still do it . Only last week 8 oil companies were found guilty of running an illegal cartel to rip off the consumer by rigging the market for home heating oil .
And two were caught last month smuggling petroleum to avoid tax ,boost profits and rip off consumers .
Then again I suppose that is their God given right eh :idea2: :dizzy2:
Crazed Rabbit
03-26-2006, 09:50
You're acting like Oil is a god-given right. It's not. It's just another product that is manufactured and sold.
Everything a leftist wants becomes an inalienable right. They want it and don't want it cheaper, so they claim its a right and screech at anyone who dares to make a profit.
Yet they still do it . Only last week 8 oil companies were found guilty of running an illegal cartel to rip off the consumer by rigging the market for home heating oil .
And two were caught last month smuggling petroleum to avoid tax ,boost profits and rip off consumers .
Then again I suppose that is their God given right eh
Any proof, as in links to reputable sources? And are you trying to use heating oil companies to incriminate traditional Big Oil?
Crazed Rabbit
P.S. I don't remember all the leftists whining about big oil when a barrel was $25 several years ago. But, oh noes!, they're making a profit because of the millions they risked and invested, and that just can't be had. We have to subvert their property and rights for the good of the people.
Tribesman
03-26-2006, 10:23
Everything a leftist wants becomes an inalienable right.
Very good rabbit , congratulations , you quote a rant about something that was not stated and give it the big "ME TOO":no:
Any proof, as in links to reputable sources?
Links ? from me ? you have got to be joking .
P.S. I don't remember all the leftists whining about big oil when a barrel was $25 several years ago. But, oh noes!, they're making a profit because of the millions they risked and invested, and that just can't be had. We have to subvert their property and rights for the good of the people.
Read what is written , it isn't that hard , or are you not able to ?:book:
Yes , as long as it is manufactured and sold in accordance with the law then there is no problem , when they are in violation of the law it is a problem .
Would you like it in bigger letters ?
Are there some words there that are too complex for you to understand ?:inquisitive:
Everything a leftist wants becomes an inalienable right. They want it and don't want it cheaper, so they claim its a right and screech at anyone who dares to make a profit.
I recently saw a liberal politician refer to Internet access as a basic human right. :dizzy2:
Kanamori
03-26-2006, 11:52
I'm still confused what confiscating property has to do with Liberalism. Conservatives in the US have mutated the word into something that is just contra their positition. Why do you have to tag the word on there anyway? Frankly, I don't miss American politics at all.
Tribesman
03-26-2006, 12:14
I'm still confused what confiscating property has to do with Liberalism.
If you want to get confused Kanamori , try and make sense of this rant.....
They want it and don't want it cheaper, so they claim its a right and screech at anyone who dares to make a profit.
....it must mean something , because there is words there and everything , but does it actually mean aything at all ?:laugh4:
doc_bean
03-26-2006, 12:16
I recently saw a liberal politician refer to Internet access as a basic human right. :dizzy2:
Well, we're moving that way here, but only because so many government services are now provided through the internet to cut administration (and paper) costs. It certainly isn't a basic human right, but it can be seen as a right in some circumstances.
Computers with internet are available for free in pretty much any public library here.
doc_bean
03-26-2006, 12:20
P.S. I don't remember all the leftists whining about big oil when a barrel was $25 several years ago. But, oh noes!, they're making a profit because of the millions they risked and invested, and that just can't be had. We have to subvert their property and rights for the good of the people.
Erm...isn't it traditionally the right that whines about oil prices ? The left traditionally complains about the companies' immoral practices and their hold on the government.
Tribesman
03-26-2006, 12:40
recently saw a liberal politician refer to Internet access as a basic human right.
Well perhaps that it because that is one of the things that the world bank uses to measure countries by . You know along with access to water , medicine , employment , levels of corruption , wages , housing , food prices taxes .
Now we may not consider internet access to be such a basic essential , just like some other things on the list .....telephones , electricity , radio reception .
But the W.B. does , and you can hardly call them Liberal can you .
Or on another note can you explain what the politician was talking about when he said it ? You know, that little thing called context :inquisitive:
Was it about governments restricting peoples access to information over the internet because they want to control what information their population can access?:idea2:
In South Korea, perhaps.
Or china perhaps , or maybe North Korea .
Goofball
03-26-2006, 19:12
Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do? :book:
I don't. I think the government should keep their greazy mitts out of my wallet.
I do, however, hate freedom.
So I guess I am a liberal.
Now, riddle me this (since the whole point of this thread seems to have been to reduce an opposing philosophy to a single indefensable viewpoint):
What is your reason for being conservative?
Why do you believe the government is qualified to dictate personal morality to all of us?
Soulforged
03-27-2006, 00:21
I recently saw a liberal politician refer to Internet access as a basic human right.That's basic populist and socialist policy. Since the low substracts of society are, for any given reason, unable to reach certain capital to buy certain things, then the government tries to minimize the breach between the maximum and the minimum average. It's not unreasonable, what's unreasonable is always the rethoric used. In this particular case I find it pleasant, since almost everyone, even here, even with the most mundane of jobs, has a lot of use for a computer and internet. Society today is not reduced to organical needs like sleeping or eating. though that should have been provided since a long time ago.
I do, however, hate freedom.
Really? Me too.
Are you going to the meeting tonight? :shifty:
Harald Den BlåToth
03-27-2006, 02:10
Liberalism is an ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology), philosophy, political tradition, and current of political (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) thought, which holds liberty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty) as the primary political value.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal#_note-0) Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government and religion (and sometimes corporations), the rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law), the free exchange of ideas, a market economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy) that supports private enterprise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_enterprise), and a system of government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_of_government) that is transparent. This form of government favors liberal democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy) with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law, and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism) assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Right_of_Kings), hereditary status, and established religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion). Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation.
I've been pretty puzzled for a while, here in US, by the so called "liberal" perspective. It actually isn't liberal at all. Those claiming to be "liberals" in US are nothing but neo-communists in disguise. Their political convictions are a mixture of sleazy social-democracy, hysteric christianity and sheer stupidity.
No offence! I like to think of myself as a liberal but it's obvious that I'm not, at least according to the american standards of liberalism.
I can't really come up with an explanation for this gross misuse of the term "liberal", nor for the placidity with whom the scholars, the politicians, the columnists and so on, do accept the perpetration of this misuse.
According to the so called "liberals", the government should literally help those in need instead of providing them with the means to help themeselves.
The rich should unconditionally help the poor and they should never dare to ask the poor "Hey, poor man, how come I've been helping you for more than 50 years and yet you're poor?".
The majority should renounce to its privileges (democratically won) for the sake of the minorities and it should not annoy the minorities with its cultural, political an religious views because it wouldn't be "politically correct". In other words, the smaller is the number, the greater are the rights.
"Politically correct" is an expression both utopian and meaningless at the same time.
Within the bounds of democracy, for any reasonable human being, holding any of the decent political views from the right to left, "politically correct" would mean the dominance of the democratically elected majority.
But not for the liberals...They would turn the other cheek. Instead of Easter they would celebrate the muslim Eid, or maybe the hindu Maha Shivaratri.
They would ban heterosexuality as it is discriminative. By law, we all should become bisexual. More than this, we should have sex with partners of different sex and etnicity in the same proportion as they are found in the general population --ie, having slept with more chinese men than their actual proportion should be regarded as a felony.
We should return to those times of cave liberalism in wich the father used to be "semper incertus".
They would embark the whole nation on Volkswagen mini-vans, driving its way towards rebirth as a huge flower-power multiethnic tribe.
Why all these? Because they're a minority in this country, don't you get it? ...and the identity of the minorities, be they social, religious, ethnic or sexual, MUST be preserved even with the risk of losing the identity of the majority....at least this is what they say they'd do.
In what I'm concerned, I think they're a bunch of crooks and demented idealists as dangerous as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Charles Manson.
On one hand they proclaim their support for gay marriage. On the other, they do not agree with polygamy. Not that I do...but it's not quite what one would expect from a "politically correct" american "liberal", is it?
Liberalism in US is mere BULLSHIT.
Reenk Roink
03-27-2006, 02:16
Really? Me too.
Are you going to the meeting tonight? :shifty:
Man, it's at my house :balloon2:....
Sasaki Kojiro
03-27-2006, 02:25
Why don't we just settle on "progressive" and leave it at that?
Soulforged
03-27-2006, 03:04
Progressive has good connotations. I think Socialist is the best description. Liberal is just the "kinder" way of saying it here.Socialist has good connonations too, maybe not to you, but it has. And talking about seeing the world in black & white. Some comments here forget objectivity at the best.
Goofball
03-27-2006, 03:11
I've been pretty puzzled for a while, here in US, by the so called "liberal" perspective. It actually isn't liberal at all. Those claiming to be "liberals" in US are nothing but neo-communists in disguise. Their political convictions are a mixture of sleazy social-democracy, hysteric christianity and sheer stupidity.
No offence! I like to think of myself as a liberal but it's obvious that I'm not, at least according to the american standards of liberalism.
I can't really come up with an explanation for this gross misuse of the term "liberal", nor for the placidity with whom the scholars, the politicians, the columnists and so on, do accept the perpetration of this misuse.
According to the so called "liberals", the government should literally help those in need instead of providing them with the means to help themeselves.
The rich should unconditionally help the poor and they should never dare to ask the poor "Hey, poor man, how come I've been helping you for more than 50 years and yet you're poor?".
The majority should renounce to its privileges (democratically won) for the sake of the minorities and it should not annoy the minorities with its cultural, political an religious views because it wouldn't be "politically correct". In other words, the smaller is the number, the greater are the rights.
"Politically correct" is an expression both utopian and meaningless at the same time.
Within the bounds of democracy, for any reasonable human being, holding any of the decent political views from the right to left, "politically correct" would mean the dominance of the democratically elected majority.
But not for the liberals...They would turn the other cheek. Instead of Easter they would celebrate the muslim Eid, or maybe the hindu Maha Shivaratri.
They would ban heterosexuality as it is discriminative. By law, we all should become bisexual. More than this, we should have sex with partners of different sex and etnicity in the same proportion as they are found in the general population --ie, having slept with more chinese men than their actual proportion should be regarded as a felony.
We should return to those times of cave liberalism in wich the father used to be "semper incertus".
They would embark the whole nation on Volkswagen mini-vans, driving its way towards rebirth as a huge flower-power multiethnic tribe.
Why all these? Because they're a minority in this country, don't you get it? ...and the identity of the minorities, be they social, religious, ethnic or sexual, MUST be preserved even with the risk of losing the identity of the majority....at least this is what they say they'd do.
In what I'm concerned, I think they're a bunch of crooks and demented idealists as dangerous as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Charles Manson.
On one hand they proclaim their support for gay marriage. On the other, they do not agree with polygamy. Not that I do...but it's not quite what one would expect from a "politically correct" american "liberal", is it?
Liberalism in US is mere BULLSHIT.
You forgot to mention that liberals practice twisted rites by the light of the full moon that almost certainly involve the riual sacrifice of children and the subsequent feasting on their bodies.
:laugh4:
Harald Den BlåToth
03-27-2006, 04:12
What difference would it have made? The sum of their already acknowledged defects is worse than "twisted rites by the light of the full moon that almost certainly involve the riual sacrifice of children and the subsequent feasting on their bodies."
Papewaio
03-27-2006, 08:07
The Australia Liberal Party... which has been in charge of Australia for ten years now... is the Conservative party in Australia... the equivalent of the Republicans one may say.
So Liberal in Australia does not mean what it means in the US.
So Liberal in Australia does not mean what it means in the US.
So true -
Kanamori
03-27-2006, 11:28
No, the word has been twisted to mean something it most certainly does not mean to fit the goals of others. If you have a problem, express it words that are actually descriptive rather than using political jargon.
The Australia Liberal Party... which has been in charge of Australia for ten years now... is the Conservative party in Australia... the equivalent of the Republicans one may say.
So Liberal in Australia does not mean what it means in the US.
Same here more or less. The Danish Liberal Party is the largest party right now and the main party in government. The lesser partner is the Conservative Party.
I can just imagine a meeting of party representatives coming to a Republican convention. "Hello, we are the representatives of the Danish Liberal Party, you allies in Denmark." Republicans would reel at that notion... And a lengthy and troublesome situation could evolve. And i wouldn't help if the Danes used the main name of the party as that is 'Left' (old name from the creation of the party when they were sitting to the left of the party 'Right', the old conservative party that died around 1900)...
Harald Den BlåToth
03-27-2006, 18:36
According to F. A. Hayek's Liberalism http://www.angelfire.com/rebellion/oldwhig4ever/ :
(...)It should be mentioned here that the USA never developed a liberal movement comparable to that which affected most of Europe during the nineteenth century, competing in Europe with the younger movements of nationalism and socialism and reaching the height of its influence in the 1870s and thereafter slowly declining but still determining the climate of public life until 1914. The reason for the absence of a similar movement in the USA is mainly that the chief aspirations of European liberalism were largely embodied in the institutions of the United States since their foundation, and partly that the development of political parties there was unfavourable to the growth of parties based on ideologies. Indeed, what in Europe is or used to be called 'liberal' is in the USA today with some justification called 'conservative'; while in recent times the term 'liberal' has been used there to describe what in Europe would be called socialism. But of Europe it is equally true that none of the political parties which use the designation 'liberal' now adhere to the liberal principles of the nineteenth century.
At present the defenders of the classical liberal position have again shrunk to very small numbers, chiefly economists. And the name 'liberal' is coming to be used, even in Europe, as has for some time been true of the USA, as a name for essentially socialist aspirations, because, in the words of J. A. Schumpeter, 'as a supreme but unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate the label'.
http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldbergprint121801.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/images/page_2001_goldberg-print.gif The Libertarian Lie
Responding to Nick Gillespie and Virginia Postrel.
December 18, 2001 3:35 p.m.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Yesterday I responded to Andrew Sullivan. Today I respond to the libertarians, primarily Reason magazine editor Nick Gillespie (http://reason.com/hod/ng121401.shtml) and former Reason editor Virginia Postrel (http://www.dynamist.com/scene.html). Virginia, whom I consider a friend, has also linked to numerous other sites taking me to task. I know that many readers are uninterested by these doctrinal squabbles. But others are, and I think they're worthwhile. Regardless, I promise this is the last you will hear from me about such things for a while. I'll be getting back to meat-and-potatoes G-Files starting tomorrow.
Lighten Up, Libertarians
Before we get to the heart of all this, let me address perhaps my biggest peeve about libertarians. Trust me, it's relevant. They are, without a doubt, the most defensive and thin-skinned group on the Right — far more so than Christian conservatives, gay Republicans, whoever. Maybe it's because so many of them became libertarians in the first place in order to escape criticism of any kind, or maybe it's because there's something about libertarianism that excites the region of the brain responsible for religious utopianism, or maybe it's the accumulated resentment at being in the backseat of the right-wing coalition — I don't know. But I am continually amazed by how so many libertarians can maintain a tone and posture of reflexive defensiveness and moral superiority, simultaneously.
Out of the hundreds of e-mails I got from angry libertarians, a sizable majority simply asserted that I didn't understand libertarianism. Not that I was wrong in the application of my analysis, or that I was being unfair or overly broad — but that I simply don't "get" it.
Now, as I conceded yesterday in my response to Andrew Sullivan, last Wednesday's column was not surgical in its argumentation, so I'm open to some thoughtful criticism on that score. But I get these letters anytime I write anything critical of libertarianism. Liberty magazine runs regular squibs mocking me for my obtuseness. Harry Browne, the 2000 Libertarian Party candidate, went out of his way to lecture me — on NRO (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-browne030701.shtml) — to explain how I don't get it.
Virginia Postrel suspects that my "anti-libertarian outbursts" stem from a desire to get her and other libertarians to link to my site. Well, we can put aside the suggestion that it's a web-traffic bonanza to get linked on something called "Libertarian Samizdata" (I actually lose traffic when I indulge my anti-libertarian bent). But Postrel seems to believe my arguments are so silly that they're better explained by some sort of cynical ploy. Hell, I've even got my own Greek chorus at LewRockwell.com, which can barely go a week without singing some tune about how I'm slow on the uptake (or how Abraham Lincoln tempted Eve into taking a bite of the apple).
So let me just say once and for all: I'm sorry, but your philosophy ain't that complicated. I think I've got a handle on it: The government uses force, so we should keep it limited; open society; maximize human freedom; respect contracts; free minds, free markets, blah blah blah. I get it. Good stuff. Thanks.
In fact, I thought the whole point of libertarianism was that it's simple. I mean, whenever I hear libertarians trying to convert people, they always make their creed sound so uncomplicated. They begin their sentences with, "We libertarians simply believe X"; or, "Libertarianism is just a partial philosophy of life." Harry Browne says conservatism is worse than libertarianism because it can't give you "one sentence" answers on every political issue. In fact, he makes libertarianism sound like a warm bath you can slip into to melt all your political cares and concerns away.
And that's all fine. Except for the fact that when criticized, all of a sudden libertarianism becomes this deeply complex body of thought with all sorts of Kantian categories and esoteric giggling about "rational fallibility" flying all about (many of my blogger critics actually sound like self-parodies). On offense, you guys are like the "Drink Me" bottle in Alice in Wonderland, or Morpheus's pill in The Matrix. But on defense, you turn on the smoke machines and cloud the room up with faculty-lounge verbiage. You can't have it both ways.
And besides, there's nothing particularly wrong with simple philosophies — which is why I'm pretty much a libertarian when it comes to the federal government. Regardless, please spare me the more-sophisticated-than-thou crap. When smart people (and I've always said libertarians are very smart) — whether they're Marxists, libertarians, whatever — claim that other smart people "just don't get" very simple ideas, they only lend credence to the impression that their intellectual adherence is the product of a religious impulse. Or, they just sound obnoxious.
Gillespie's Pose
Which brings me, inexorably, to Nick Gillespie's response to my column last Wednesday, which Virginia Postrel tells us is "the best so far (of course)." To his credit, Nick doesn't resort to a fog of jargon, merely a typical tone of smirking self-amusement and condescension (but who am I to criticize tone?). We do actually agree on quite a bit. I've long argued that libertarianism will be the real challenger to conservatism, and I've long conceded that I'm — to use his word — "anxious" about it. Nick makes this observation sound like this is some sort of penetrating analysis of the subtext when in fact it's pretty much just the text.
Let's be clear about a few other observations Nick seems eager to pass off as penetrating insights. He chuckles, "It's a funny thing, but conservatives are never so quick to call Rorschach on one of their own: For instance, when it came to light a few years ago that George Roche III, the fabled president of conservative Hillsdale College, had been carrying on with his unstable and suicidal daughter-in-law for years, that twisted scene carried no definitive ideological import."
It's an even funnier thing that Nick uses this example — since it was National Review, specifically my colleague John Miller, who broke the story of George Roche III in the first place (http://www.nationalreview.com/06dec99/miller120699.html). Not only did NR make a big deal about Roche, we did it first and more than once — despite a long association with Hillsdale College and Mr. Roche. If Gillespie cannot find the "definitive ideological import" in National Review's integrity in policing the Right, that's his shortcoming, not ours.
But then Nick has, I think, a much harder time "getting" National Review than I have understanding Reason. "Nothing exercises National Reviewers quite so much as the sense that despite their standing athwart history yelling stop, it still keeps on a rollin' without them," Gillespie writes. He later adds: "[i]t only makes sense that conservatives and libertarians would start to line up on different sides of the barricades that surround the battleground of individual choice and autonomy."
That's all cute and fine, and I'm sure it plays well in letters to subscribers. But it's worth noting that while I am against drug legalization, Bill Buckley and the editors of National Review called for — and continue to call for — an end to the drug war, and for the legalization of drugs, when Reason was little more than an obscure pamphlet.
Nick might read a bit deeper into Hayek as well. Like so many other libertarians, Nick pulls out Hayek's excellent essay "Why I am Not a Conservative" as some sort of grand trump card. I admit this is another peeve of mine, but Hayek did not call himself a "libertarian" in that essay, as Nick gamely suggests. In fact, he explicitly rejected the label, calling it "singularly unattractive." "The more I learn about the evolution of ideas," wrote Hayek, "the more I have become aware that I am an unrepentant Old Whig — with the stress on the 'old.'"
Old Whig just so happens to be the same appellation the founding father of conservatism, Edmund Burke, used for himself — as Hayek approvingly notes several times.
More important, the conservatives in "Why I Am Not a Conservative" aren't even the ones Nick has so many problems with. Hayek was referring to the conservatives of the European tradition (de Maistre, Coleridge, et al), and he was a great deal more generous even to them than the folks at Reason are to the American conservatives of today.
Which is a shame because, as I pointed out in my column last Wednesday, Hayek argued that United States was the one place in the world where you could call yourself a "conservative" and be a lover of liberty — because we want to defend those institutions which preserve it. And that's why — despite a lot of propaganda from the folks at Reason — most conservatives are closer to classical liberals than a lot of Reason-libertarians.
Cultural Libertarians, Again
And that gets us, finally, to the meat of our disagreement. I say "cultural libertarians" are people unwilling to draw value judgments between various personally defined lifestyle choices, or "personal cultures." In response, legions of libertoids cry: "Not fair!" "You're talking about 'libertinism,'" say some. "Libertarians are just unwilling to use the state to coerce others into subscribing to our value judgments," say all.
Again, fine, fine — I get it. But I'm also not talking about most of the people who read my column and refer to themselves as libertarians. Most of these folks are fairly conservative people; they want a smaller government, and, hey, so do I. That's why I put the word "cultural" in front of the phrase in the first place. I'm beginning to think we should simply call such people " anti-state conservatives (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg120501.shtml)" and let the Reason types have the "singularly unattractive" label of "libertarian" all to themselves.
The people I am talking about are people like Nick Gillespie and the chirping sectaries on these various blog sites. These people quite proudly proclaim that maximizing individual liberty, and minimizing coercion by the state or the culture, is their mission. It's shouted from the rooftops in just about every issue of Reason. In fact, it's odd that Virginia cites Nick's rejoinder as the best so far — for a number of reasons, among them that he more or less concedes the lion's share of my argument. Nick concedes that he wants to maximize the "right to exit from systems that serve them poorly."
Porn Versus Christianity
Take this porn thing. Virginia is fighting mad at me for writing that she won't draw distinctions between pornography sales and Christian-bookstore sales. But she admits that she has no opinion on the issue, and concedes that many of my libertarian critics think Christianity, even in a liberal order, is a "bad thing." Meanwhile she also raves about this fellow Will Wilkinson who, according to Virginia, "makes the good (and obvious but not to Jonah) point that 'If you ask whether porn or Christian books are better, you have to ask "better in what respect?"'" "Goldberg owes us moral arguments against porn… if he wants to be taken seriously."
Touché, I suppose. But doesn't this make my point? Cultural libertarians are uncomfortable with, and quite defensive about, drawing distinctions between such bedrock components of Western civilization — in this case a little thing called "Christianity" — and the latest installment of On Golden Blonde. According to these guys, the burden is on me to explain why and how porn is worse than Christianity. I'd be glad to do it sometime (though I'm hardly an anti-porn zealot); it doesn't sound too tough.
Meanwhile, let's stay on track. Cultural libertarians, as Nick readily concedes, don't "blindly respect 'established authority' the way conservatives tend to." The "blindly" is, of course, a cheap shot, but we'll let it go. That's my point. We're not talking about the state here; we're talking about the culture — the thousands of ingredients which, in various amounts, combine to form the recipe for Western civilization generally and American culture specifically.
Virginia even faults me for not making the positive case for Western civilization in the same column — which, aside from being a fairly high standard for any argument, also seems to underscore the point that these folks don't see its superiority as a given. To the cultural libertarian, all authoritative cultural norms should be scrutinized again and again.
But just to be clear, some of the ingredients for Western civilization I have in mind are such categories as Christianity and religion in general, sexual norms, individualism, patriotism, the Canon, community standards of conduct, democracy, the rule of law, fairness, modesty, self-denial, and the patriarchy. Obviously, all cultures have these things (or their equivalent). But it is the combination of ingredients — and their relative potency toward one another — that make the recipe for Western civilization unique.
The Libertarian Dodge
It's also obvious that — just like conservatives, liberals, and the unaligned — cultural libertarians like some of these things a great deal, and some only a little, and others not at all. We all have our own suggestions for how we should improve the culture. But when criticized on their cultural priorities, they get all defensive and claim they aren't making a subjective cultural argument. "We're just neutral. We just want the state out of things." But then they go right along mocking the cultural choices of conservatives, and of anyone who respects the established cultural authority more than they do. Nick makes it sound like it's a concession to allow cultural conservatives to make their arguments at all, though I doubt he would be so grudging about allowing a polygamist make his arguments.
Because I won't brag about my past experiences with drugs or extrapolate from those experiences a pro-drug stance, Nick grandiosely says that my hypocrisy is "the vice virtue pays to tyranny" (taking, in effect, the position that current or former gluttons should always proclaim that gluttony is good for everybody). Well, if hypocrisy is such a crime, what about the persistent hypocrisy of those libertarians who say that they are "neutral" on cultural questions while they constantly make undeniably cultural arguments?
Nick is on record denouncing America as a "grotesquely prohibitionist society" when it comes to drugs, and he's nigh upon orgiastic about the spread of pornography (http://www.reason.com/0112/cr.ng.pornocopia.shtml). If the anti-state conservatives who prefer the label "libertarian" want to tell me that the editor of Reason is unrepresentative of libertarianism, fine. But maybe you should consider the possibility that it's you who are unrepresentative of libertarianism.
Look, the libertarian critique of the state is useful, valuable, important, and much needed. But, in my humble opinion, the libertarian critique of the culture — "established authority" — tends to be exactly what I've always said it was: a celebration of personal liberty over everything else, and in many (but certainly not all) respects indistinguishable from the more asinine prattle we hear from the Left. (The great compromise between libertarians and conservatives is, of course, federalism see " Among the Gender Benders (http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg120501.shtml)").
Personal liberty is vitally important. But it isn't everything. If you emphasize personal liberty over all else, you undermine the development of character and citizenship — a point Hayek certainly understood.
Kids are born barbarians, as Hannah Arendt noted. Without character-forming institutions which softly coerce (persuade) kids — and remind adults — to revere our open, free, and tolerant culture over others, we run the risk of having them embrace any old creed or ideology that they find most rewarding or exciting, including some value systems which take it on blind faith that America is evil and, say, Cuba or Osama bin Laden is wonderful. That's precisely why campuses today are infested with so many silly radicals, and why libertarians in their own way encourage the dismantling of the soapboxes they stand on. For cultural libertarians this is all glorious, or at least worth the risks. I just wish more libertarians had the guts to admit it.
AntiochusIII
03-28-2006, 07:23
Harald, sorry but...
...the many massive links you posted all referred to something I presume most of us here are aware: all your sources refer to liberalism in its tradition--before modern--term known in its full name (to distinguish from the modern "liberalism" known in the American Deragatory Dictionary of Partisan Terms :P) often as classical liberalism. This is a product of the Enlightenment generation, as you probably are aware. I sometimes heard it referred to as Republicanism but that was not exactly the same thing, despite many overlapping grounds--Republicanism is not, of course, the Republican party, but something else, and was more communal--liberty meaning something different than what we know, more like political liberty or the unit's liberty than social or individual--than libertarian, the radical form of classical liberalism.
As of my position, I am a living conflict between what you called neo-communism, a deragatory term of no meaning, and classical liberalism--not taking into account social conservatism, which I adamantly oppose.
I've posted earlier in this thread arguing against Byzantine Prince's position that liberalism only means something Bentham and Mills want them to mean, which I disagree. This term is extremely dynamic.
And your, I apologize, rant against modern liberalism is really not worth responding to. It shows your position to be carved into the stone, and whatever I say will not convince you to the Dark Side.
By the way, welcome to the Backroom. ~:) And I think The Konservative Klub wants to recruit you. :2thumbsup:
Tachikaze
03-28-2006, 19:22
Conservatives in the US have mutated the word into something that is just contra their positition.
This is the most intelligent statement I've read in this thread (except for the misspelling).
Harald Den BlåToth
03-28-2006, 21:50
The most liberal document I have ever read is the Declaration of Independence. That's pure earnest liberalism. I can't think of anything to add or in need of a slightest adjustment. The terms are unequivocal. That thing is perfect. Do you agree Antiochus? Or your conflictual state of mind doesn't allow you to take a stance on this?
The very purpose of liberalism is to keep the government out of my life&property, to limit its capability of coercing me to make certain decisions and to provide the individual with the greatest amount of economical, social and religious freedom as long as the state does not degenerate into anarchy. This is what the classical liberalism states and I agree with it 100%.
The modern liberalism aka social liberalism is quite different as it doesn't stick to the criterias listed above. They couldn't have possibly stuck to them as long as their doctrine have been gradually perverted by socialist ideas. They no longer crave for equal rights, now they shout out loud that equal rights are not enough, and the people should be provided with equal resources too...This sounds like...you know...1917...Russia...
Modern liberalism (social liberalism), the way it exists in US, is not accepted anywhere in Europe (excepting France perhaps). In Europe socialists are Social-Democrats, liberals are Liberals (mostly classic), conservatives are Christian-Democrats. It is true that a social-democrat government might be forced to act liberal and a liberal one to act in a socialist fashion. This fact spawns some confusion indeed...but, eventually, in Europe, most parties are what they claim to be.
First of all, modern liberalism has nothing to do with the liberal doctrine anymore. The doctrine has been twisted so bad that it's beyond any recognition. Some would say F.U.B.A.R. Why don't the american liberals simply call themselves socialists? It would be fairer. Because, the americans utterly reject everything related to communism (you have to acknowledge that social democracy is a sort of evolved perestroika; it's just the way a neadhertal man is to his older fellow H.sapiens; a bit more evolved, yet a caveman). So why wouldn't they lie themselves? Why wouldn't they call the old, red, clumsy, retarded bear, a liberal? Huh? Just because it looks the way it looks, just because it sounds the way it sounds and there are some 30 milion alleged to have dissapeared in its insatiable belly? Come on...This would be discrimination. Obese anonymous, Retards anonymous, Greenpeace plus a smart gay lawyer and you have a revolution. Dare to disagree and you'll be mocked as conservative, religious fundamentalist, homophobe, narrow-minded, antiprogressist, imperialist prick, war-junkie, neo-nazi, not worthy answering to and so on...
Liberalism here isn't as much a political movement as it is a social one. Consequently, their political agenda comes on the second place. That's a shame because they really do have some issues there.... And I must agree with some issues they hold to. Healthcare System, for example, sucks big time. It requires an urgent and serious reform. What do they do about it? Nothing much I'd say. Why? Because they're already wearied by their social agenda wich comes first.
Practicality is their first enemy. Being practical wouldn't allow them to pose as elitist intellectuals whose enlightened ideas are mocked, despised and ultimately rejected by the barbaric narrow minded crowds. If they would choose to make things happen, they would be forced to do politics. It's not what they really want. Politics is the art of compromise, and compromise is not exactly what they're after. The overwhelmingly noisy stance they assume over juicy topics like racism, gay rights and minorities is a prerequisite for legitimizing their very reason to be, and the dissent they cause is actually the acknowledgement of their martyrdom as modern Jesus Christs. Doing draws criticism, shouting draws attention. Hysteroid frustrated individualls desperatly trying to convince themselves and the world that they do matter. This is what they are. Or, at least, this is what they let me see they are.
You know what I think Antiochus? I think a lot of dorks in this country claim to be liberals just because its "cool", it's trendy "cool shit" to be envolved in...I mean, suddenly they're special, they're against the main stream, they're pissing against the wind. It gives them a sense of usefullness and accomplishment.
What do you mean by this?
...the many massive links you posted all referred to something I presume most of us here are aware: all your sources refer to liberalism in its tradition--before modern--term known in its full name (to distinguish from the modern "liberalism" known in the American Deragatory Dictionary of Partisan Terms :P) often as classical liberalism. This is a product of the Enlightenment generation, as you probably are aware. I sometimes heard it referred to as Republicanism but that was not exactly the same thing, despite many overlapping grounds--Republicanism is not, of course, the Republican party, but something else, and was more communal--liberty meaning something different than what we know, more like political liberty or the unit's liberty than social or individual--than libertarian, the radical form of classical liberalism.
Did you want to show me that you got it right? Wow! Smart boy ...So what were you aiming to? Were you sneering at my redundancy or you were just reasserting my eloquence?
And here comes the dorky "liberal" side of you:
As of my position, I am a living conflict between what you called neo-communism, a deragatory term of no meaning, and classical liberalism--not taking into account social conservatism, which I adamantly oppose.
So you had to twist it a bit huh? You had to prove that you, a pure bred intellectual, distinguish the shades, as opposed to those rudimentary conservative apes whose awareness is only of black or white.
What do you mean by living conflict? Are you french mate? French are a living conflict between stupidity and frustration. They just can't make up their mind...And if you're in a conflictual state, wouldn't it be wiser to wait until the conflict concludes? You'd offer me a clearer target to shoot at: a lingering socialist or a perverted interpreter of classic liberalism.
This fact, that you're able to spot the shades in-between black and white, is a "great leap forward". Now that you've earned my respect, could you answer me a question if you please?
How many shades or intermediary states do exist in-between reason and total lack of it?
PS-The latest "liberal" subversive idiocy I have heard, reffers to the cruelty and the savagery of lethal injection. A greatest evidence of hypocrisy I have never seen. Why not say simply "I'M AGAINST DEATH PENALTY"? I would have understood and respected that. But to say that the convicts are dying in extreme pain after being injected with penthothal, this is bloody insane....I mean how stupid do they think I am? Or maybe one of those liberal "doctors" that have come to this staggering conclusion may want to rewrite the barbiturate sedatives& intravenous anaesthetics chapter in the pharmacology books. This one was low...really low.
All that has been said already thousands of times. Is that the purpose of the thread?
Crazed Rabbit
03-28-2006, 22:33
Any proof, as in links to reputable sources?
Links ? from me ? you have got to be joking .
Well, don't expect yourself to be taken seriously.
P.S. I don't remember all the leftists whining about big oil when a barrel was $25 several years ago. But, oh noes!, they're making a profit because of the millions they risked and invested, and that just can't be had. We have to subvert their property and rights for the good of the people.
Read what is written , it isn't that hard , or are you not able to ?
Yes , as long as it is manufactured and sold in accordance with the law then there is no problem , when they are in violation of the law it is a problem .
Big Oil is in violation of no laws. Leftists simply want to tax them more.
Would you like it in bigger letters ?
Are there some words there that are too complex for you to understand ?
You'd do better to worry about your own understanding of English first.
Conservatives in the US have mutated the word into something that is just contra their positition.
No, it is the liberals (American version, AKA leftists) who have twisted its meaning. It is they who proclaim that they are liberals, even though their polices have no attachment to true liberalism.
Erm...isn't it traditionally the right that whines about oil prices ?
Not that I know of.
Crazed Rabbit
PS-The latest "liberal" subversive idiocy I have heard, reffers to the cruelty and the savagery of lethal injection. A greatest evidence of hypocrisy I have never seen. Why not say simply "I'M AGAINST DEATH PENALTY"? I would have understood and respected that. But to say that the convicts are dying in extreme pain after being injected with penthothal, this is bloody insane....I mean how stupid do they think I am? Or maybe one of those liberal "doctors" that have come to this staggering conclusion may want to rewrite the barbiturate sedatives& intravenous anaesthetics chapter in the pharmacology books. This one was low...really low.
I'm not a liberal, though I agree with them on some of their political issues, but you are resorting to arguments as devoid of substance as theirs typically are. Being against the use of lethal injection because it may cause extreme pain has legal grounds. As I see it the constitution (which I do not believe you are agruing agaisnt, are you?) provides very generally for two things with regards to the current conversation: A society with equal rights for all and a government, reflecting the will of the people, endowed with the power to protect those rights. The system that was put in place to replicate this model was our legal system. Laws of course limit the actions of people, enforcable with punishment, in order to guarantee that people's rights are protected, but in order for the government to be a machine under the control of the people, it MUST also be limited by a set of laws (initially created, presumably, with the mandate of the people and able to be modified by mandate of the people). One such law has to do with cruel and unusual punishment, and has its basis in classical liberalism, the rationality of which I don't believe you find fault with. It would state that anything delivered by the government other than the exact punishment, say, "imprisonment" or "death", is illegal, including excessive and prolonged pain. Of course there is a vast gray area here, but if the guidelines are kept in mind then a solution in the spirit of the more fundamental law can be arrived at. Thus, if lethal injection was found to cause extreme and prolonged pain, especially if that could be avoided with other methods of execution, then its use should be abandoned.
Now if YOU want to make an argument against this, which is not at all the point of the thread until somebody else, a liberal perhaps, brings up the issue and makes an attempt to argue for it, you would want to focus on the area of "how much pain does it actually cause". If not then you would want to say that given their limited manpower and limited time, the liberals should be focusing on more worthy issues, which I would agree with. If not that, then a remaining choice is to bring arguments to bear against classical liberalism.
And I've also found that there are dorks a plenty in the conservative realm, just as in the liberal realm, and that they are just as untrustworthy as humans as the latter, in only transparently different manners.
AntiochusIII
03-29-2006, 00:05
Ahh...you wish to cross swords, then. Much obliged.
The most liberal document I have ever read is the Declaration of Independence. That's pure earnest liberalism. I can't think of anything to add or in need of a slightest adjustment. The terms are unequivocal. That thing is perfect. Do you agree Antiochus? Or your conflictual state of mind doesn't allow you to take a stance on this?Perfection...is false. ~;)
But I agree it is a document I wish to base my society on, for now. At least, it's better than, say, Mein Kampf.
The very purpose of liberalism is to keep the government out of my life&property, to limit its capability of coercing me to make certain decisions and to provide the individual with the greatest amount of economical, social and religious freedom as long as the state does not degenerate into anarchy. This is what the classical liberalism states and I agree with it 100%.Then that is your opinion. As we happen to agree on, there are many kinds of liberalism. Why are we debating that?
The modern liberalism aka social liberalism is quite different as it doesn't stick to the criterias listed above. They couldn't have possibly stuck to them as long as their doctrine have been gradually perverted by socialist ideas. They no longer crave for equal rights, now they shout out loud that equal rights are not enough, and the people should be provided with equal resources too...This sounds like...you know...1917...Russia...I love the Russian reference, and the "omg socialist" fears. They're so popular as excellent argumentum ad misericordiams. As perhaps you are aware and pretend you do not, Bolshevism is quite a far cry from mainstream American liberalism. And communists of the 1930s were quite excellent people and loyal Americans to boot. And of course, your claim that they "no longer crave for equal rights...with equal resources too" is not based on any real substance. I don't think many modern liberals would want that. Not at all.
Modern liberalism (social liberalism), the way it exists in US, is not accepted anywhere in Europe (excepting France perhaps).Ya...
Ask our European patrons...
In Europe socialists are Social-Democrats, liberals are Liberals (mostly classic), conservatives are Christian-Democrats. It is true that a social-democrat government might be forced to act liberal and a liberal one to act in a socialist fashion. This fact spawns some confusion indeed...but, eventually, in Europe, most parties are what they claim to be.Such generalizations. Europe is a continent of many countries of diverse backgrounds and conditions. And their politicians...
Again, ask our European patrons, and yes Britain is European, so Blair (or as he is popularly called around here by a group of prominent British patrons, Bliar) is included. Fire away, my Tory friends. Or better yet, a disgruntled Old Labor if one's around.
First of all, modern liberalism has nothing to do with the liberal doctrine anymore. The doctrine has been twisted so bad that it's beyond any recognition. Some would say F.U.B.A.R. Why don't the american liberals simply call themselves socialists? It would be fairer. Because, the americans utterly reject everything related to communism (you have to acknowledge that social democracy is a sort of evolved perestroika; it's just the way a neadhertal man is to his older fellow H.sapiens; a bit more evolved, yet a caveman). So why wouldn't they lie themselves? Why wouldn't they call the old, red, clumsy, retarded bear, a liberal? Huh? Just because it looks the way it looks, just because it sounds the way it sounds and there are some 30 milion alleged to have dissapeared in its insatiable belly? Come on...This would be discrimination. Obese anonymous, Retards anonymous, Greenpeace plus a smart gay lawyer and you have a revolution. Dare to disagree and you'll be mocked as conservative, religious fundamentalist, homophobe, narrow-minded, antiprogressist, imperialist prick, war-junkie, neo-nazi, not worthy answering to and so on...So you believe that you can change how millions of Americans identify themselves because you feel the term they used have been "twisted" (what a claim!) from what you believe it is to be. And a nice Red Herring analogy, too, by the way, claiming that social democracy is "caveman." And you also messed it up: Homo Sapiens...are us. Neanderthals? All dead, methinks.
I am beginning to feel your so-called eloquence is not much but an irrational hatred. I would not so much bother to respond to the last part.
Liberalism here isn't as much a political movement as it is a social one. Consequently, their political agenda comes on the second place. That's a shame because they really do have some issues there.... And I must agree with some issues they hold to. Healthcare System, for example, sucks big time. It requires an urgent and serious reform. What do they do about it? Nothing much I'd say. Why? Because they're already wearied by their social agenda wich comes first.Again, you pretty are generalizing an entire political spectrum of the United States. Are these millions of Americans OMG communists? Shall we deport 'em all? Healthcare System, by the way, is both social and political. Those two sometimes are quite well interconnected.
Practicality is their first enemy.Nice strawman. Let's pretend modern liberalism is at war with pragmatism! Or better yet, freedom!
Being practical wouldn't allow them to pose as elitist intellectuals whose enlightened ideas are mocked, despised and ultimately rejected by the barbaric narrow minded crowds. If they would choose to make things happen, they would be forced to do politics. It's not what they really want. Politics is the art of compromise, and compromise is not exactly what they're after. The overwhelmingly noisy stance they assume over juicy topics like racism, gay rights and minorities is a prerequisite for legitimizing their very reason to be, and the dissent they cause is actually the acknowledgement of their martyrdom as modern Jesus Christs.:laugh4:
What I love even more than the omg communist allusion is the omg Jesus is a liberal allusion. Excellent form, good sir!
Doing draws criticism, shouting draws attention. Hysteroid frustrated individualls desperatly trying to convince themselves and the world that they do matter. This is what they are. Or, at least, this is what they let me see they are.Correction: this is what you see them, not what they are. And if we're gonna play the blame game (I don't really want to...), I guess the grand "Conservative" coalition includes some of the worst bunch of loud evangelists there are. Pat Robertson is a Conservative. ~;)
You know what I think Antiochus? I think a lot of dorks in this country claim to be liberals just because its "cool", it's trendy "cool shit" to be envolved in...I mean, suddenly they're special, they're against the main stream, they're pissing against the wind. It gives them a sense of usefullness and accomplishment. I've heard this before...
...somewhere...
The Cold War? Vietnam? Damn hippies. They will destroy the ozone layer. No seriously, they will. Just read some issues involved in the ozone layer and all those CFCs.
Did you want to show me that you got it right? Wow! Smart boy ...So what were you aiming to? Were you sneering at my redundancy or you were just reasserting my eloquence?I was doing neither. I was just pointing out that most of us know that, with the knowledge that you are unaware of that.
Why are conservatives so rude and hysterically defensive? [/generalization]
And here comes the dorky "liberal" side of you:Ta da da...personal attack.
So you had to twist it a bit huh? You had to prove that you, a pure bred intellectual, distinguish the shades, as opposed to those rudimentary conservative apes whose awareness is only of black or white.
What do you mean by living conflict? Are you french mate? French are a living conflict between stupidity and frustration. They just can't make up their mind...And if you're in a conflictual state, wouldn't it be wiser to wait until the conflict concludes? You'd offer me a clearer target to shoot at: a lingering socialist or a perverted interpreter of classic liberalism.As I've said, why are conservatives so rude and hysterically defensive?
This fact, that you're able to spot the shades in-between black and white, is a "great leap forward". Now that you've earned my respect, could you answer me a question if you please?
How many shades or intermediary states do exist in-between reason and total lack of it?The other side of Reason is Historicism. And I am proudly a moderate historicist; not a Nietzshean nor a Michel Foucault, neither am I a Plato.
I am just me; let me be or I'll start typing like Dr. Seuss, whose name I probably spelt wrong.
PS-The latest "liberal" subversive idiocy I have heard, reffers to the cruelty and the savagery of lethal injection. A greatest evidence of hypocrisy I have never seen. Why not say simply "I'M AGAINST DEATH PENALTY"? I would have understood and respected that. But to say that the convicts are dying in extreme pain after being injected with penthothal, this is bloody insane....I mean how stupid do they think I am? Or maybe one of those liberal "doctors" that have come to this staggering conclusion may want to rewrite the barbiturate sedatives& intravenous anaesthetics chapter in the pharmacology books. This one was low...really low.What a cheap attack. Every idea every guy has in the world against you seems to be now recognized as a bunch of liberal BS, applying it, again, to a very massive crowd of the American population.
Such a long post, and little substance.
Please, sir, try again with true eloquence.
Harald Den BlåToth
03-29-2006, 00:11
Now if YOU want to make an argument against this, which is not at all the point of the thread until somebody else, a liberal perhaps, brings up the issue and makes an attempt to argue for it,
No. I don't want to make an argument against it. I simply don't have an opinion upon (in)appropriateness of death penalty. I'm sure there are a lot of arguments pro and against it. Unfortunately I have never thoroughly pondered them. If they assume a stance against death penalty it's ok with me. It doesn't necessarily have to be wrong just because the "liberals" endorse it.
The problem is not them being against death penalty but the way they're putting it. There is no scientific evidence to support their assertion. Not a single MD has endorsed their assertion since then. Nevertheless, they've generated a groundless debate over an imaginary problem.
"how much pain does it actually cause"
Answer: NONE. Sodium Thiopental (Pentothal) is a ultra short acting barbiturate used in the induction phase of general anaesthesia or to induce controled comas. It actually puts you asleep. If the dose is big enough, the sleep is so deep that it decreases even the pontine and medular automatisms (respiratory and circulatory center). It actually can do the job all by itself.
So...death penalty might be immoral but in no way painful.
And I've also found that there are dorks a plenty in the conservative realm, just as in the liberal realm, and that they are just as untrustworthy as humans as the latter, although in different manners.
I totaly agree.
The problem is not them being against death penalty but the way they're putting it. There is no scientific evidence to support their assertion. Not a single MD has endorsed their assertion since then. Nevertheless, they've generated a groundless debate over an imaginary problem.
Hm I'll have to read up on that. Np then I guess, except for your stuff being same-old and out of place.
Harald Den BlåToth
03-29-2006, 01:20
Antiochus...the only thing you are right about and I was wrong is the H sapiens and the Neanderthal issue. Indeed, I've flipped the terms in the sentence and I'm deeply sorry.
You still haven't answered my question.
"Historicism" is not an answer. It's an excuse.
If I decide to mate a german shepherd with a caniche, the resulting bastard won't guard the sheep nor will be cute.
I strongly belive that there are things that cannot be mixed.
What makes you belive that mixing equal amounts of liberalism and socialism results in a different breed of liberalism? If you study the doctrines of the two you will undoubtly conclude that the socialist doctrine may be forced to include the liberal doctrine without renouncing to any of its doctrinaire milestones. Unfortunately, the other way around will give the same result: a socialism a bit more liberal than the average. It definitely has some liberal ideas in it. No doubt. Yet it's not liberalism.
It's like comparing Stalin with Gorbachev...One could unmistakably state that Gorbachev is obviously a liberal when compared to Stalin...yet none of them was a liberal.
Whatever.
I'm tired.
Harald Den BlåToth
03-29-2006, 03:07
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/draw.php?p=6&e=7
ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
The political description that
fits you best is...
.
CENTRIST
CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government
control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on
the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention
and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.
Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,
tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what
they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 70%.
(Please note: Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)
......................................................................
5,775,804
.
THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES THE QUIZ
HAS BEEN TAKEN SO FAR.
(Results are renewed after each submission.)
......................................................................
How People Have Scored
Centrist 30.26 %
Right (Conservative) 7.56 %
Libertarian 34.76 %
Left (Liberal) 18.80 %
Statist (Big Government) 8.62 %
......................................................................
Other Political Philosophies
Right (Conservative)
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,
while endorsing government action to defend morality and the
traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong
military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market
economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.
Left (Liberal)
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
Statist (Big Government)
Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the
economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether
economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in
today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support
high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose
diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
(http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html)
US political map (for dummies).
“The most liberal document I have ever read is the Declaration of Independence. That's pure earnest liberalism. I can't think of anything to add or in need of a slightest adjustment. The terms are unequivocal. That thing is perfect.” Well, except, of course for the Slaves. Then the Indians…
Harald Den BlåToth
03-29-2006, 21:22
well...sometimes a man got to do what a man got to do...
Perhaps they were a litlle backward to appreciate it then. But they certainly appreciate it now...I mean, their descendants...There are no more slaves in US, I hope you're aware of that, are you not?
“There are no more slaves in US, I hope you're aware of that, are you not?”
The 4th of July 1776, the declaration of Independence is ratified. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris recognised the US. In 1865, with the end of the Civil War came the abolition of Slavery. 100 years after the Civic Rights Acts of 1964 prohibits discrimination of all kinds based on race, colour, religion, or national origin (13th amendment of the US Constitution).
However:
February 27, 1973 Wounded Knee: “ It began as the American Indian’s stood against government atrocities, and ended in an armed battle with US Armed Forces. Corruption within the BIA and Tribal Council at an all time high, tension on the Pine Ridge Indian reservation was on the increase and quickly getting out of control. With a feeling close to despair, and knowing there was nothing else for them to do, elders of the Lakota Nation asked the American Indian Movement for assistance. During the preceding months of the Wounded Knee occupation, civil war brewed among the Oglala people. There became a clear-cut between the traditional Lakota people and the more progressive minded government supporters. The traditional people wanted more independence from the Federal Government, as well as honouring of the 1868 Sioux treaty, which was still valid. According to the 1868 treaty, the Black Hills of South Dakota still belonged to the Sioux people, and the traditional people wanted the Federal Government to honour their treaty by returning the sacred Black Hills to the Sioux people. After 71 days, the Siege at Wounded Knee had come to an end; with the government making nearly 1200 arrests. But this would only mark the beginning of what was known as the “Reign of Terror” instigated by the FBI and the BIA. During the three years following Wounded Knee, 64 tribal members were unsolved murder victims, 300 harassed and beaten, and 562 arrests were made, and of these arrests only 15 people were convicted of any crime: A large price to pay for 71 days as a free people on the land of one’s ancestors.”
I think I know History.:laugh4:
Harald Den BlåToth
03-29-2006, 22:43
What does it have to do with nowadays liberalism? The debate here is upon the extent by wich social(modern) liberalism may be regarded as (classical) Liberalism.
Anyway...should I sue the Pope for the Inqusition or rather deny the whole Catholic Church because of it?
I'm anxiously waiting for your answer...
My legal counsellors too...
Don't keep me waiting...I'm running out of cigarettes...
Soulforged
03-30-2006, 00:15
Anyway...should I sue the Pope for the Inqusition or rather deny the whole Catholic Church because of it?It would be a good idea. But you won't sue the Pope, instead you'll sue the entire Catholic Church, as an institution, the result probably: ban it, anc close it, it will be so much good actually.
Alexander the Pretty Good
03-30-2006, 01:38
That wouldn't be a probable or likely result. A likely result would be a small article in the news and then everybody forgets about the whole thing and the suit is rejected. At least, I would hope so.
The modern Catholic Church does some good, like charity type stuff. Its stopped burning heretics for the most part.
Evil_Maniac From Mars
03-30-2006, 02:09
ACCORDING TO YOUR ANSWERS,
The political description that
fits you best is...
.
STATIST
STATISTS want government to have a great deal of power
over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently
doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom
are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust
the free market, support high taxes and centralized
planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles,
and question the importance of civil liberties.
The RED DOT on the Chart shows where you fit on the political map.
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 20%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 40%.
(Please note: Scores falling on the Centrist border are counted as Centrist.)
......................................................................
5,795,125
.
THAT'S HOW MANY TIMES THE QUIZ
HAS BEEN TAKEN SO FAR.
(Results are renewed after each submission.)
......................................................................
How People Have Scored
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Centrist 30.28 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right (Conservative) 7.58 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Libertarian 34.74 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left (Liberal) 18.78 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statist (Big Government) 8.62 %
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
......................................................................
Other Political Philosophies
Left (Liberal)
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal
matters, but tend to support significant government control of the
economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net"
to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation
of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations,
defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action
to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.
Libertarian
Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.
Centrist
Centrists espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control
of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue,
they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes
support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on
keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and
emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.
Right (Conservative)
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business,
while endorsing government action to defend morality and the
traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong
military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market
economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.
I think I know History.:laugh4:
Maybe, Maybe Not. :inquisitive:
“Maybe, Maybe Not.” Something is inexact in the chronology? :sweatdrop:
Meneldil
04-10-2006, 13:43
What a bunch of crap in this topic. People like DA and GC seem to think that the American left (that they call 'liberal') is composed of die-hard socialists allied with some 50's-stalin-like communists.
Get your head out of your *** please. Your bad bad liberal, like I guess, Clinton or the loser that tried to get elected last time and whose name is already lost in History would be seen as quite right-minded in most of Western Europe.
Stop to whine about the leftist taking away your (sometimes silly) constitutionnal rights and your freedom while supporting Bush (a guy who would have no problem with arresting people without charges, putting a FBI agent behind every citizen, invading countries based on crappy assumptions, imposing religious crap as a scientific teaching, fighting abortion, gay rights and so on) in every single topic we can read on this board.
Modern liberalism (social liberalism), the way it exists in US, is not accepted anywhere in Europe (excepting France perhaps).
The biggest falacy I ever read on this board, yet I read a whole lot of crap here.
Do you think people in Germany, Italy, Spain, etc. are happy to work for low wages, to be possibly fired for 'economical reasons', to have sucky welfare system, and overall, to live in half-poverty, like many people do in the US ? If so, I advise you to speak to someone in Europe (and I'm not speaking about France).
Furthermore, I didn't know Germany, Italy and Spain weren't social democracies anymore. Sure they made some reforms in favor of economic liberalism (reforms that are, ASAIK, quite disliked by the major part of the population), but folks there still have access to some social rights.
As for France, it's different. Although I understand social democracy isn't as effective as a governement system as it was in the 60's, I perfectly understand that people are willing to fight for the rights they acquired during the last century (like, having a minimal wage, a great welfare system, working only ~40 hours a week, having a single job during one's whole life, etc.). If we don't reform my country and get rid of or reform some of these rights, France is doomed, and will likely became the sick-man of Europe (which it kinda already is), but I'd rather fight than simply let my governement claim "Social democracy doesn't work anymore, we're going for die hard liberalism. You all will get low sucky wages, will have to work 60 hours a week, all the rights your parents fought for are trash, and if you're not happy, our companies will move to China, alright ? That's globalization you know, we can't do anything against it, heh :-/".
In the 2nd half of the last century, the western world, and especially Europe, achieved to create the best form of modern governement. Now, some people would like us to forget about it, "because there's China and all that y'know". What a step back in the history of the modern civilization.
Sorry for the thread digging, but since I have been away for a while, I had to rant about something :balloon2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.