What is your reason for being liberal?

[Ironside]

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 .

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 .

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 ), namely sound sence (or healthy sence). But as this is the US you're doomed on this matter.

[Beirut]

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]

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?

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]

the easy chicks

[KukriKhan]

the easy chicks

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.

[Lazul]

a moment of clarity? just a guess.

.... my answer was going to be five minutes of hard thinking, a moment of clarity works as well.

[Proletariat]

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.

[lars573]

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]

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]

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. )

[Sjakihata]

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]

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]

Why do you believe that the government has more right to your personal property than you do?

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]

Yes, yes, yes, no, yes and yes. Finally, someone gets it.

The goverment should bother about religion is school, but not in general?

[Soulforged]

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.

[Lemur]

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]

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]

I'm too lazy to type a well-thought answer, so...

...I'm a liberal because I want to be

[Beirut]

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]

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?

[Reverend Joe]

It's very simple: us Americans (and especially the conservatives) don't have a clue what "liberal" actually means.

[Byzantine Prince]

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]

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]

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...

EDIT: In a political mind sort of way...conservative..

[Big_John]

I like you...

no sodomy here.. liberal..

[Beirut]

It's very simple: us Americans (and especially the conservatives) don't have a clue what "liberal" actually means.

Neither do we Canadians. But it sure does liven up the crowd when we use the word.

"Defecation to the oscillation. And hurry!"

[lars573]

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.

[Viking]

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.

[Keba]

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.

[Beirut]

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.