Liberal vs. Conservative: Who favors liberty?

[Morgan_Freeman]

In my edit war regarding the "American Liberalism" article on Wikipedia, someone has made the following claim:

"[It is an] incontrovertible fact that liberals favor, [and] conservatives restrict individual liberty."

I contend that this is nonsense. Both liberals and conservatives are enemies of liberty in their own unique way, neither more than the other. Thoughts?

[bishop]

waste of time imo.. unless you can actually get a definition of the two terms that everyone can agree on.. but, we both know that's a near impossible endeavor..

if you're going to say that the groups are anti-liberty, you at least need to have a static definition of the two terms.

[Osborn F Enready]

My static definition of Liberty for this situation:
autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence

My static definition of Anti-Liberty for this situation:
coercion: non-soverign

Both major parties, the Republicans and Democrats, have voted consistently, and between members, to support ANTI-liberty aspiring bills, and constitutional amendments.

I think both major parties want to disect, and remove "inalienable rights" from our individual ability, and the BOR in the Constitution clearly and definitively limits governments ability to do this.

Also, for clarification I want to define my use of the term "inalienable rights".

The term inalienable rights (or unalienable rights) refers to a set of human rights that are said to be absolute, not awarded by human power, not transferable to another power, and incapable of repudiation. Several different sets of inalienable rights have been suggested by philosophers and politicians. Inalienable rights are defined as natural rights, but natural rights are not required by definition to be inalienable.

The only party I see in politics right now that FULLY respects the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the National Libertarian Party. Compared to the Libertarian Party, both major parties are near-fascist in comparison of inalienable rights issues.

That is my opinion.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman In my edit war regarding the "American Liberalism" article on Wikipedia, someone has made the following claim: "[It is an] incontrovertible fact that liberals favor, [and] conservatives restrict individual liberty." I contend that this is nonsense. Both liberals and conservatives are enemies of liberty in their own unique way, neither more than the other. Thoughts?

The problem lies with the two conceptions of liberty that Isiaah Berlin highlighted, of negative and positive liberty. Negative liberty being freedom from direct, human restraint to act, while positive liberty means the ability to utilise oppurtunity. While only an idiot would suggest Conservatives or American liberals pursue negative liberty, it is possible to argue that they pursue positive liberty. So a Conservative may argue that by making drugs illegal, they are discouraging their use, theirby preventing the debilitating affects of drugs which prevent an individual from maximising oppurtunities. The liberal on the other hand may support affirmative action, which they would argue allows whichever minority to utilise freedoms.

Arguements for positive freedom have been dominant for much of the last century, to the expense of negative freedom. What the supporters of positive freedom don't understand is that if negative liberty is to be retained, positive liberty can only be sought by individuals, not by government.

Back to the title question, to argue that either American liberals or conservatives support liberty more than the other is to miss the point, both are seeking to maximise one element of positve liberty to the bast detriment of positive liberty.

[brien]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman In my edit war regarding the "American Liberalism" article on Wikipedia, someone has made the following claim: "[It is an] incontrovertible fact that liberals favor, [and] conservatives restrict individual liberty." I contend that this is nonsense. Both liberals and conservatives are enemies of liberty in their own unique way, neither more than the other. Thoughts?

That is mere nonsenese, as you so eloquently put it Morgan. Whoever wrote that jibberish is as blind as a bat.

Liberal policies, if one defines Liberals in the sense of the way it is defined in political parties today, one finds that " Democratic Liberal" policies usually result in an individual sacrificing their liberty at the alter of government control.

Example: The Social Welfare system of LBJ"s Great Society. This program, and the policies contained within, almost did more to destroy the African American Family than did slavery in the 19th Century. It made those dependent upon Welfare a ward of the state. Where is the Liberty in this?

Conservatives, as defined in the recent "Republican Party" composition can easily be tagged with political policies that restrict Liberty. Anti abortionists are one glaring example and the passage of the Patriot Act is another.

The person who wrote that statement may not understand modern American politics and merely seeks to promote a "Liberal Democratic" agenda in Wikapedia by attacking what he/she thinks is a misunderstood Conservative agenda.

Liberal and Conservative are terms that have been coopetd by the two big political parties in order to paint each other with the very statements we see this individual making in WIkapedia. It is trivial, trite and quite transparent.

[lsbskins1]

I submit that neither affiliation is , of essence, more or less protective or destructive of liberty. I submit that both "parties" or "ideologies" believe that their individual policy initiatives are aimed at increasing liberty. I say you are interjecting your own bias into the equation. I say there are both good faith conservatives and good faith liberals who place liberty in the proper place of esteem and your contention that they are "both enemies of liberty in their own way" attaches blanket blame to a governmental system that is over-stated and verges on paranoia. I say these (see the following) are definitions of conservative and liberal that are fairly accurate and in no way point to ideologies that are "enemies of liberty".


conservatism: A political ideology generally characterized by a belief in individualism and minimal government intervention in the economy and society; also a belief in the virtue of the status quo and general acceptance of traditional morality.

lib·er·al·ism: A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.


Now, if you want to argue that certain policies or people advancing certain policies, leave the bounds of practicality and introduce undo harm to our liberties, fine. But these blanket indictments are, in my opinion, a farce.

[Dalton]

Like Democracy, free markets, elections, etc. "liberty" is just another one of the emotion-laden words that have no meaning.

Democracy doesn't = elections.

Elections don't = freedom

Free Markets DO = globazalition, deregulated markets that foreign corporations (the least patriotic segment of our population) can exploit with paying any consequences.

Liberty, in my opinion, is in some way supposed to encompass all of the above. No one, of any party, or no party, can argue against it. It doesn't mean being spyed on, listened to on the phone, accepting an encroaching police state in the name of security. Liberty implies being told the truth, so that one is able to ascertain if our "representatives" including the Executive Branch, are making decisions in our best interests.

911, Guantanamo Bay, secret "Black Prisons", lies and omissions on a truly breathtaking scale -- Liberty? No. That's why I no longer belong to any political party.

[US Independent]

Both parties say that they support Liberty. However the conservative philosophy trumps the liberal philosophy. I am not saying that the actions of each party is better than one another, I am just saying that one principle is better than the other.

Conservatives philosophy consists of less government regulation, strict adherence to the documents that protect our liberties, less taxes, and a strong military to protect our liberty.
While the actions of conservatives and Republicans haven't mirrored their philosophy exactly, the conservative view shines a brighter light on individual liberty, instead of the liberal philosophy of government controlled and regulated liberty.

[Aeris]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman In my edit war regarding the "American Liberalism" article on Wikipedia, someone has made the following claim: "[It is an] incontrovertible fact that liberals favor, [and] conservatives restrict individual liberty." I contend that this is nonsense. Both liberals and conservatives are enemies of liberty in their own unique way, neither more than the other. Thoughts?

I agree with you - in part.

Both are for the the restriction of liberty equally. But liberals tend to be more free with personal liberties and less so with economic liberties and conservatives tend to be the opposite. I don't necessarily consider them "enemies" of liberty as they're both so self-absorbed in the battle with each other that they don't pay attention to the rest of us. Its a constant cycles of the types of liberties that are granted and taken away.

But for general liberty? Niether of them - not one more than the other.

[Dalton]

Robert Frost is one of my favorite poets as well, but I have to disagree. In it's purest form, what you wrote tends to be true.
The reality now is we should pay our taxes to the Pentagon and shut up. It's a distortion of conservative's conception of Liberty.

Like dividing us into "red states and blue states", it serves no purpose for us to argue among ourselves while the national treasury is being looted.

[Osborn F Enready]

free-will = liberty.