Liberal Ideals

[Jack]

Classical liberalism is founded in freedom.

Ah, that explains why it bothers the right-wing so much. Illuminating.

[Monorprise]

Quote by: Isherwood Ah, that explains why it bothers the right-wing so much. Illuminating.

Actual, that’s exactly right!, Liberals today, are too overly conserved with big government and moving us away from the basic foundations of freedom, by taking away that freedom with government social programs, that effectively force us to uses them or take away more of our money for which we can do less to pay for these oppressive programs that we don't want!!
Why cant liberals really be about Freedom, and not big government Socialism?

Entitlement is not nor has it ever been about freedom, it is in fact the opposite an oppression of a man or woman’s most basic freedom of all, the freedom to chooses what programs we want! It is their for always been the American Conservative position, that our government should remain true to its founding, conserve what it was. And not expand federal government beyond the original bounds of proposes it was original made for!

So as An American, I ask you what has happened to the original liberalism?

[SteveA]

Liberalism was hijacked but neo-liberals, just like conservatism was hi-jacked by neo-conservatives

I think Thomas Jefferson was a good example of what liberalism represented a long time ago. It was about individual freedom opposed to government control and manipulation. Liberal still has a more classic connotation outside America though.

To be honest, modern Republicans (excluding federal Republican representatives) represent classical liberalism better than much of the Democrats.

Here's a ranking of state representatives in New Hampshire on how well their voting record supported both social and economic individual liberties.

http://www.lfod.org/2003/house.html

I forget how many there were, but something like the best 150 representatives were ALL Republicans! with the lower half of the table evenly mixed between Democrats and Republicans (and a few traitor Republicans at the bottom :()

I don't vote for parties anymore. I vote for issues, but the grassroots Republican movement better represents a strive for both economic and social freedoms than grassroots Democrats. Such is life. It would be nice to see the Democrats become competitive in this though because if the Republican party becomes too hijacked we won't have many justifiable alternatives left.

I think most the problems with the Republican party seem to be with the leadership (to me the federal level seems to have become corrupt or too controlled by special interests - except Ron Paul trying to save the alamo).

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Isherwood Ah, that explains why it bothers the right-wing so much. Illuminating.

Classical liberalism was focused on the idea of freedom FROM. That is true freedom. Modern liberalism is focused on freedom TO. Modern liberalism is nihilistic in nature . It seeks to destroy every tradition and deny that there is any transcendent good that is more important that what one particular individual wants at any particular time. And that is what bothers conservatives so much.

Conservatives are bothered by contemporary liberalism for exactly the same reasons as liberals are bothered "so much" by conservatives arguing that there is indeed a trancendent good that is more important that what you might want in the name of your version of freedom.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Monorprise Actual, that’s exactly right!, Liberals today, are too overly conserved with big government and moving us away from the basic foundations of freedom, by taking away that freedom with government social programs, that effectively force us to uses them or take away more of our money for which we can do less to pay for these oppressive programs that we don't want!! Why cant liberals really be about Freedom, and not big government Socialism?

Liberals are not about freedom Monoprise. Ask any contemporary liberal which is more important; freedom or equality. If they are a modern liberal and honest, they will say equality. Equality, at least the equality that they want, is not compatable with freedom. Mondern liberals aren't interested in equality of freedom, modern liberals are interested in equality of outcomes. They know instinctively that it simply is not possible to bring everyone up to a common denominator, so they are perfectly willing to settle for bringing everyone down to a common denominator. Equal misery, except for a few elites who decide what we need and how we should act.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SteveA I don't vote for parties anymore. I vote for issues, but the grassroots Republican movement better represents a strive for both economic and social freedoms than grassroots Democrats. Such is life. It would be nice to see the Democrats become competitive in this though because if the Republican party becomes too hijacked we won't have many justifiable alternatives left. I think most the problems with the Republican party seem to be with the leadership (to me the federal level seems to have become corrupt or too controlled by special interests - except Ron Paul trying to save the alamo).

I agree. I haven't pulled a straight party button in a very long time. Issues and how the candidates represent themselves on them are how I make my decisions. It is more work, and one must take the time to honestly examine the issues and be willing to extend the same honesty when evaluating where the candidate stands on it, but in the end, you hope to get better representation.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Pale RIder If in your original statement you were referring to classical liberals, then I stand corrected Sorry guy, there is classical liberalism which is the set of ideas that this nation was founded upon, and then there is modern liberalism. They are two entirely different political philosophies. Do a quick google search..you will get about 11,500 hits for contemporary liberalism and about 80,000 for classical liberalism. Hell, even the encyclopedia separates classical liberalism from modern liberalism. If you are embarrassed by the fact that modern liberalism is socialist in nature, then don’t be a modern liberal. The aim of classical liberalism was an orderly liberty based on transcendent morality. That hardly describes contemporary liberalism. Further, if you examine classical liberalism, it is clearly a political philosophy. Modern, or contemporary liberalism has left the realm of the political and has become a cultural movement. Contemporary liberalism has been moving towards a soft totalitarianism now for forty years or so. It holds a view of political authority in which citizens must concede more and more of their ability to govern their own lives. Some examples of this soft totalitarianism are speech codes, and quotas. Such things have no place within classical liberalism. The constitution is classical liberalism incarnate. Would you enjoy living in a strictly constitutional society? You know as well as I that you would not and that in and of itself should indicate to you that the liberalism of today is something quite different from the liberalism of the past. then I reiterate that modern liberalism is nothing more and nothing less than socialism. That is the thing Chris, unlike classical liberalism, modern liberalism is not an economic strategy. Modern liberalism is cultural in nature. And here is where you prove my point. Classical liberalism has nothing to do with equality “Enfranchising of the masses?” Did you borrow that line from Marx. Wasn’t that in the chapter after “to each / from each”. Your very language drips with socialism. And communes…are you kidding. The welfare state was supposed to be the mother of all communes. From each / to each on a national scale. Classical liberalism is founded in freedom. And you don’t see the irony dripping from that statement? It is the quintesential case of modern liberalism becoming that which it claimed to hate. Classical liberalism was originally a populist movement that sympathized with the producers against the political theft of the wealth that they created. Contemporary liberalism has become the very aristocrats who, by force of government, through a progressive, and punitive tax system relieve the producers of the wealth that they have created and redistribute it as they see fit in their never ending quest for the pipe dream of equality. Equality is a socialist concept and the only way it can be achieved (as demonstrated over and over) is by dragging everyone down to a common denominator. That is socialism, not freedom. Is this all you have Chris? Calling legitimate points mindless rhetoric with no basis for discussion is spineless at the very least. If you don’t think that it is a valid point, build an argument that proves it wrong. The progressive, and punitive tax structure that has come from contemporary liberalism is exactly an attempt to bring everyone down to a common denominator. Rather than reward superior producers, contemporary liberalism drags them down with punitive taxation. Maybe you don't remember the liberal heyday before Regan when some of the highest producers coughed up over 90% of their earnings to be redistributed. Mindles rhetoric indeed. Seems that your tactic is to simply attatch a tag and duck the points that make you most uncomfortable. Read back through this thread. The liberal side is obsessed with those who become wealthy and spends a great deal of time trying to figure out ways to take it away from them, or keep them from earning it in the first place. Clearly the goal is to bring them down to a lower denominator. Says you, who just attempted to equate economic eqality with classical liberalism. OK, you have an argument. I suppose that I should say in advance that simply tagging something as “mindless rhetoric, not worthy of debate” is in fact mindless rhetoric. Once again, liberalism becomes the thing that it claims to abhor.

That is the thing Chris, unlike classical liberalism, modern liberalism is not an economic strategy. Modern liberalism is cultural in nature.

So thats a no then.

Did you borrow that line from Marx.

No, its a very common term.

Enfranchise = To endow with the rights of citizenship, especially the right to vote.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enfranchise

Calling legitimate points mindless rhetoric with no basis for discussion is spineless at the very least.

You haven't justified any of your points, thus they are not legitimate. Your arguing is spinless, you are not making any points which are debatable. All you are doing is making bold statements of no value.

Qualify what you have to say, or don't sayanything.

Prove that socialism and 'liberalism' are synonamous, or face that you have been called out. You are drawing the parallel, thus the burdon of proof falls on you.

[lsbskins1]

Liberals (at least this liberal) do not want to pull everyone down to achieve equality. This is diversionary argument. It may be an unintended consequence of some attempts, but it is not the desired end. And what I would stive for has to do with eqality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. I will go to small extremes to illustrate my point. You have 2 students, each with an IQ of say, 140. One comes from a very wealthy family, one from a very poor family. Though eqitable funding of public education, they have access to the same books and same teachers. The poor family gets subsidies that pay for some form of childcare so that the parent can work and put food on the table and the poorer child is not hampered in their developement though poor nutrition. The poor kid might get a scholarship to help defray the costs of higher education. What you do with those opportunities is going to vary. I would not guarentee anyone a certain wage, or equal advancement in career. Eqality of opportunity and equallity under the law. It benefits all, because either/or both of these intelligent individuals may discover the cure for cancer. The idea is to make the individual able to take advantage of whatever gifts nature or god or whatever has blessed them with. Equality of opportunity and equality under the law. This is the equality liberals seek.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Monorprise Actual, that’s exactly right!, Liberals today, are too overly conserved with big government and moving us away from the basic foundations of freedom, by taking away that freedom with government social programs, that effectively force us to uses them or take away more of our money for which we can do less to pay for these oppressive programs that we don't want!! Why cant liberals really be about Freedom, and not big government Socialism?

The difference really is that conservatives are for giving everyone a chance and seeing who floats to the top. Liberals want to take all the floaters and push them down to the bottom so the people who cannot or choose not to succeed don't feel bad about themselves. Instead of letting people rise to their level of success, liberals want everyone forced down to the lowest common denominator.

Pathetic, isn't it?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees Prove that socialism and 'liberalism' are synonamous, or face that you have been called out. You are drawing the parallel, thus the burdon of proof falls on you.

I already did. Sorry you missed it. Were the words too big or were you so busy repeating "mindless rhetoric" (with a gomer pyle accent) (think Citizens aareast citizens aareast) over and over that it just slipped by you?

Mindless rhetoric. Interesting phrase. Lets examine it.

Mindless - adj. - Lacking intelligence or good sense; foolish

Rhetoric - n. - The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively

Yep the two words used together are incompatable...an oxymoron.

If you don't believe that the points that I made, and illustrated, are valid, then explain why you don't think that they are. Then I will rebutt your answer. That is how a debate works. Skipping over the tough parts by claiming "mindless rhetoric" is not how it works.

[Chris the Chees]

I already did

A fallacy, but if you think it is so obvious then you quote me where you have proven or even substantiated your comments.


Yep the two words used together are incompatable...an oxymoron.

I am sorry that you have not read beyond a few lines of a dictionary, if you care to read further you will note the following: -

Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

Thus the two words are not an oxymoron. Quite the reverse, especially in this case.


If you don't believe that the points that I made, and illustrated, are valid, then explain why you don't think that they are

I already have, you have not provided any logical explanation with backing evidence (such as reference to actual relevent historical or political factors) for your claims, and thus they are devoid of material to debate, in short you are posting nothing which can be debated, you are taking nothing but cheap shots.

Currently you have offered nothing to debate. All you have done is provide a worthless statement claiming that socialists and liberals are synonymous. I have challenged you to prove your point, you have failed.

[Pale RIder]

OK Chris. I can see that you aren't up to the debate. That is ok. It is obvious that you are sensitive about being a socialist. Personally, I wouldn't hold a political philosophy that I was embarrassed about, but then that is just me.

By the way Chris. You didn't take on a single point that I made. You simply said that they were inarguable...Inarguable to you maybe, but that is a reflection on you.


Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.

I suggest that you look at the language of your own "rebuttal" (wink wink).

[SteveA]

Though I think some of the liberal gripes about some large corporations and government being in bed together and causing disparities in economic circumstances have some truth to them, instead of concentrating more on those issues first, the proposals seem to just be to redistribute things so there's little differences available economically. (This philosphy doesn't work, as so many people and failed governments have demonstrated)

I'd prefer to see liberals concentrate on what issues are causing these disparities, and either rectify injustices or emulate successes. There are also people that need assistance but this can be done both more efficiently with greater benefit through true charitiable actions - proposing to use police/IRS as a form of "charity" is destructive.

Just the simple example of providing housing - you don't expect everyone to fit in and share a single home because that doesn't provide new housing. The only way to see new housing available is to assure people that work for a home receive the benefit from it (and this frees up homes for other people also, so it indirectly benefits everyone).

Liberals (at least this liberal) do not want to pull everyone down to achieve equality. This is diversionary argument. It may be an unintended consequence of some attempts, but it is not the desired end. And what I would stive for has to do with eqality of opportunity and not equality of outcome. I will go to small extremes to illustrate my point. You have 2 students, each with an IQ of say, 140. One comes from a very wealthy family, one from a very poor family. Though eqitable funding of public education, they have access to the same books and same teachers. The poor family gets subsidies that pay for some form of childcare so that the parent can work and put food on the table and the poorer child is not hampered in their developement though poor nutrition. The poor kid might get a scholarship to help defray the costs of higher education. What you do with those opportunities is going to vary. I would not guarentee anyone a certain wage, or equal advancement in career. Eqality of opportunity and equallity under the law. It benefits all, because either/or both of these intelligent individuals may discover the cure for cancer. The idea is to make the individual able to take advantage of whatever gifts nature or god or whatever has blessed them with. Equality of opportunity and equality under the law. This is the equality liberals seek.

First of all, money has a lot less to do with learning than people think. It's harder to attend a prestigious institution without money, but then it's that part of the reward for being rich?

My aunt and uncle homeschooled their 9 children on an income that only provides lower-middle class living conditions (hey, it costs money raising children) and they're all very smart kids. The oldest is now a multi-million and buying a boat to take his family and sail around the world in.

We've got people that come to this country with virtually nothing (except, yes, some government assistance) and within a few decades have a family business and their children heading off to college - we've also got native born citizens with plenty of opportunities that they don't take advantage of. Life isn't easy - why make it even harder by encouraging yet more people to take the easy way out. Evenone wants to sit in the wagon, but few people are willing to pull.

My bedroom was a closet and most my learning came from walking to libraries, bookstores or a local Radio Shack. If people think an education can be handed on a sliver platter to someone, they're already selling themselves short.

Sure, the kid in the above example might well find a cure for cancer with an adequate education - it might be worth it getting a loan or some assistance through some private foundation, or even just going to work and learning on the job (I'd say learning on the job, even if you have to work your way up, gives the most concrete and useful knowledge anyway).

And in any even, doing this through the Federal government is a bad idea. If public education programs exist, there needs to be some independence in them so that better methods providing education can be tried. And honestly, the Constitution is rather specific in what powers the Federal government was granted and I never remembered seeing anything about a national education system anyway.

I think education is very important but too many people are locked into the mindset that there's only one way to do it. I can personally guarantee that's not true and there are plenty of other people that have shown it can be done differently too.

[Pale RIder]

Steve A - I agree with you that it would be far better to take the conservative path and bring up those who are under achieving than to bring down those who are overproducing. Unfortunately, the bringing up can't be done in a short period.

If the government were to actually ask me how to greatly reduce poverty in this country, I have an answer. Education. Not education as it is being practiced now as it is clear that we are failing now. I would suggest that beginning at the pre school level, all of our kids begin getting a comprehensive financial management education.

We would have to require that the teachers be exquisitely qualified, pay them out the ass, and require that they pass rigorous requalification testing every 3 years in order to keep their jobs. The students would be required to pass their financial management courses every year in order to advance to the next grade. I would even go for starting an account of 100 dollars or so for each and every student that could be manipulated as part of thier continuing financial education but could only be withdrawn at the end of their senior year of high school upon reciept of thier diploma.

Can you imagine if each and every student that graduated had 12 to 14 years of genuine financial education under their belt? Hell, even the 10th grade dropouts would have more financial education than most bankers do today.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Pale RIder OK Chris. I can see that you aren't up to the debate. That is ok. It is obvious that you are sensitive about being a socialist. Personally, I wouldn't hold a political philosophy that I was embarrassed about, but then that is just me. By the way Chris. You didn't take on a single point that I made. You simply said that they were inarguable...Inarguable to you maybe, but that is a reflection on you. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric. I suggest that you look at the language of your own "rebuttal" (wink wink).

I note you still haven't substanciated your argument.

[oranged]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 *yawn* So typical. People will make up the weirdest garbage even just to justify in their minds why some people are richer than them.

It's obvious your not generous and caring because, you seem to only like rich people, so are you rich and selfish, or poor and suicidally stupid. I know why some people are richer than me, because they are white american conformists.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I note you still haven't substanciated your argument.

I don't know what you want Chris. I have made my points and substantiated them. Was I to subtles? Didn't you understand the words? What?

There are 4 primary tenets to socialism:

1. Abolition of private property.

What this is speaking to is the means of production although the liberal side of the Supreme Court recently took a giant step towards relieving you of your personal property for practically any reason as well.

Actual ownership of the means of production proved to be such a dismal failure as evidenced by China and the Soviet that all good socialists have taken a lesson from the national socialist of the 30's and 40's and have learned that government doesn't actually have to own the business if it can be sufficeintly controlled.

Punitive taxation, excessive regulation, and the presence of "friendly" unions (all courtesy of modern liberalism) achieve this end quite nicely.

2. Equality of income (“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” – Karl Marx)

Need I say more. Minimum wage paired with progressive taxation is a means of moving towards equality of income. Hell, modern liberal/socialists almost unanamously agree that equality is more important than freedom. Are you any different. Are you willing to sacrifice any sort of state sponsored attempt at equality for genuine freedom to achieve or fail on your own merits? I didn't think so. Neither would any other socialist.

3. Class interests oppose each other (class struggle)

Hell, you said it yourself. Enfranchsement of the masses. Modern liberalism/socialism thrives on class struggle. It is what keeps you in the news. It is how you keep the poor shmucks who are dependent upon your state welfare handouts voting for you. Modern liberalism/socialism is all about the class struggle.

4. Government is, or should be the progressive representation of the interests of the working class.

You want to deny that this also is the ultimate goal of the modern liberal/socialist? Contemporary liberals look to government for every thing under the sun.

So...how do the basic tenets of socialism differ from the aims of contemporary liberal/socialists?

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: oranged It's obvious your not generous and caring because, you seem to only like rich people, so are you rich and selfish, or poor and suicidally stupid. I know why some people are richer than me, because they are white american conformists.

Has it never occured to you that some may be richer than you because they are smarter? That they have better ideas? That they are more motivated? That instead of sitting at this board complaining that some are richer than they, they are working instead? That when you have gone home for the day that they are working hours beyond what is required of them?

Has it never occured to you that some may be richer because they are just better at life than you? Or doesn't your illusion of equality allow you to grasp that equality simply does not and can not exist. That some people are just naturally better at things than others?

[SteveA]

Quote by: Pale RIder Steve A - I agree with you that it would be far better to take the conservative path and bring up those who are under achieving than to bring down those who are overproducing. Unfortunately, the bringing up can't be done in a short period. If the government were to actually ask me how to greatly reduce poverty in this country, I have an answer. Education. Not education as it is being practiced now as it is clear that we are failing now. I would suggest that beginning at the pre school level, all of our kids begin getting a comprehensive financial management education. We would have to require that the teachers be exquisitely qualified, pay them out the ass, and require that they pass rigorous requalification testing every 3 years in order to keep their jobs. The students would be required to pass their financial management courses every year in order to advance to the next grade. I would even go for starting an account of 100 dollars or so for each and every student that could be manipulated as part of thier continuing financial education but could only be withdrawn at the end of their senior year of high school upon reciept of thier diploma. Can you imagine if each and every student that graduated had 12 to 14 years of genuine financial education under their belt? Hell, even the 10th grade dropouts would have more financial education than most bankers do today.

I'd be game. Though economics, in general, minus the Keynes stuff, might be even better. Also give parents the option of swapping in some real science/chemistry/physics/mathematics to the course if they feel their child can handle it.

Move education down to the state level, instead of the federal and we'll see a much greater chance of reform.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: SteveA I'd be game. Though economics, in general, minus the Keynes stuff, might be even better. Also give parents the option of swapping in some real science/chemistry/physics/mathematics to the course if they feel their child can handle it. Move education down to the state level, instead of the federal and we'll see a much greater chance of reform.

Sorry, I don't guess I was clear. I was talking about financial management, saving, investing, diversifying, etc. Actual real world edcuation on how to handle one's money and avoid getting into debt. There aren't many people who couldn't vastly improve thier situation (no matter how little money they make) by simply making wise money decisions.


Yeah, I graduated from high school in 1964. Oddly enough it was the last year that the states were in charge of education within their borders. The fed took over in 1965 and by some strange coincidence, SAT scores immediately began to fall and have continued to do so ever since even though the test has been dumbed down to the point of uselessness.