Liberal Ideals

[lsbskins1]

I would like to start off by saying that although I am a registered democrat, I do not so much identefy as a democrat as I identify as a liberal and am registered as I am because I believe that the democrats come closer to my ideals than the republicans, not because I believe the party is anywhere nearly "perfect". So, no one has to explain to me about the two party system being full of corruption and/or the problems with the two major parties.

Now, down to business. Conservatives are always saying that liberals do not have ideas, they only hate America and love trees more than people. They say we are hostile to business and do not understand what made this country great. They say we lack values. I say that is all hogwash. I would like to throw out there what I see as liberal values and liberal ideals and the ideas we have.

The Value of the Individual. Liberals believe that countries are not the rocks we stand on, nor the GNP, nor the institutions that opperate within our borders. The value of the nation is in it's citizens, and that which favors the rocks, money or institution over the individual does not help nor honor the country.

Power Should Seek to Enrich Quality of Life, Not Quantity of Riches. The collective will of society can only be a force for good when that will is harnessed in the interest of the people, and not in the interest of furthering the power elite, who will always seek their own selfish ends if left unopposed on the power stage. Governments purpose is to protect society, not to advance the case of those with plenty of power to begin with, therefore, those who believe that a weak government is best serve only the interests of the those who would oppress individuals.

I would really like to add more, but we will begin here and see what people have to say.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Governments purpose is to protect society, not to advance the case of those with plenty of power to begin with, therefore, those who believe that a weak government is best serve only the interests of the those who would oppress individuals.

So you are saying powerful governments are set up to help people? The most powerful states of the modern era have usually ended up infringing on human liberty, in my opinion. Examples are Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Franco's Spain, Pinochets Chile, Castro's Cuba and many more. I am leaving the US of 2005 off the list for now, because I hope the concerned folks can turn it around before it is too late...

Yes, governments are supposed to protect the weak. That is not what usually happens, because the influential folks almost always end up taking over by hook or by crook. The surest way to keep government from doing too much damage is to keep it focused on its mission and limit its power. That's what the genius Founders did in formulating a Constitution for the United States. Too bad it is being ignored.

[dotcoma]

Quote by: PatrickHenry So you are saying powerful governments are set up to help people? The most powerful states of the modern era have usually ended up infringing on human liberty, in my opinion. Examples are Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Franco's Spain, Pinochets Chile, Castro's Cuba and many more. I am leaving the US of 2005 off the list for now, because I hope the concerned folks can turn it around before it is too late...

Then how would you classify the highly successful welfare systems in the European Union?

Liberal ideals at their core seem to be simple: humanity (the real cornerstone of morality). A recognition that not everyone will succeed in our highly competitive capitalist economy, and the reinforcement of our desire to establish a standard of living for all Americans.

[lsbskins1]

So now I will add more.

Social Responsibility. Through your government, you do have a repsonsibility to your fellow citizens. You have the responsibility to insure, whenever possible, that fairness and equity exists. You have the responsibility to lessen suffering and enhance quality of life. What is the purpose of government otherwise? Government and law came into being to put power behind "culture" and "society". People band together for protection. As society and man advance technologically, the type of protection government needs to provide changes, but from the beginning, it was about regulation and limitation. The "King" was given power to make sure the members of the neighboring tribe could not steal your food, rape and kidnap your wife or run you off of your land, but he also was there to make sure your neighbor did not stomp you as well. The point was to keep everyone "in line" so all could prosper. Any deviation from this purpose is a corruption of the purpose. Government exists to protect citizens from internal and external evils. Therefore, the concept that government should be weak is counterintuitive. Government should be accountable, and controlled by the people, but it should never be weak.

Freedom Is Essential But Is Meaningless Without Fairness and Equality. Does this really need to be explained?

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Government should be accountable, and controlled by the people, but it should never be weak.

So if the government is unaccountable and controlled by elitist interests, do you still want it to be powerful?

If you can figure out a method of holding government accountable, and insuring its control by "the people", I will sign on board for a powerful government.

It hasn't happened yet; why do you think it is possible?

[Prometheus]

(1)The Value of the Individual (2)Power Should Seek to Enrich Quality of Life, Not Quantity of Riches

This is all noce and pretty. You can't argue against these ideals because they are universally positive. You could ask the reps or libs or communists, and they would argee with the same values. You can spout nice sounding values all day long, but the proof is in the pudding - how to implement those values.

These values are meaningless unless the method to these goals is also stated. Everyone wants a utopia. Unfortunately, no one can agree on how to get there.


I kind of had to grinn as #2 though, coming from a democrat. That "value" imples that quality of life is seperate from money, when in fact, the dems try to raise quality of life by giving people unearned money. (I am not saying that is a pajoritive sence - that's just what it is)

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Yes, governments are supposed to protect the weak. That is not what usually happens, because the influential folks almost always end up taking over by hook or by crook. The surest way to keep government from doing too much damage is to keep it focused on its mission and limit its power.

I do believe in limiting the power of government, in that the mechanisim must always be in place to remove individuals who would turn the power to selfish ends. But again, when you weaken government to the point of impotence, what is it's use?

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Prometheus I kind of had to grinn as #2 though, coming from a democrat. That "value" imples that quality of life is seperate from money, when in fact, the dems try to raise quality of life by giving people unearned money. (I am not saying that is a pajoritive sence - that's just what it is)

.

So charity is a "bad" ideal? The idea that society has an obligation to say, widows and orphans and the like is a force for evil? My point is that there is a ligitemate place for this kind of support, but just as the government must protect you from a business or an foreign power who would "cheat" you, it also must protect you from those who would take advantage of any aspect of corruption. Conservatives seem to believe that it is acceptable to "throw the baby out with the bathwater", as it were, and condemn all social charity because there are individuals who would attempt to steal from those individuals truely in need.

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Power Should Seek to Enrich Quality of Life, Not Quantity of Riches. The collective will of society can only be a force for good when that will is harnessed in the interest of the people, and not in the interest of furthering the power elite.

*yawn*

So typical.

People will make up the weirdest garbage even just to justify in their minds why some people are richer than them.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: lsbskins1 when you weaken government to the point of impotence, what is it's use?

Show me a government like that!

[Prometheus]

Quote by: lsbskins1 . So charity is a "bad" ideal?

I never said it was. Please don't start this thread with a straw man. I stated specifically that I was not charictarizing it as pajoritive. I was mearly stating that value #2 is ironic given the way that democrats seek to implement it.


I do have issues with what democrats call charity, but I wasn't going to start an argument on it unless you want too. I would rather have you explain haw your value #2 can imply that riches are exclusive from quality of life, when the democrats use money as the sole method for improving quality of life.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: lsbskins1 So now I will add more. Social Responsibility. Through your government, you do have a repsonsibility to your fellow citizens. You have the responsibility to insure, whenever possible, that fairness and equity exists. You have the responsibility to lessen suffering and enhance quality of life. What is the purpose of government otherwise? Government and law came into being to put power behind "culture" and "society". People band together for protection. As society and man advance technologically, the type of protection government needs to provide changes, but from the beginning, it was about regulation and limitation. The "King" was given power to make sure the members of the neighboring tribe could not steal your food, rape and kidnap your wife or run you off of your land, but he also was there to make sure your neighbor did not stomp you as well. The point was to keep everyone "in line" so all could prosper. Any deviation from this purpose is a corruption of the purpose. Government exists to protect citizens from internal and external evils. Therefore, the concept that government should be weak is counterintuitive. Government should be accountable, and controlled by the people, but it should never be weak. Freedom Is Essential But Is Meaningless Without Fairness and Equality. Does this really need to be explained?

As a conservative, I find this particular mindset especially offensive. As a conservative, I would argue that you...personally...have a responsibility to your fellow citizens. Paying taxes doesn't relieve you of your duty to roll up your sleeves and actually help people. When the government does it for you both you and those being helped loose something very valuable. You loose the feeling that you get when you personally help someone else and the recipient looses the feeling that someBODY actually cares about them.

The government should be in the business of protecting our rights, we should be in the business of taking care of each other. Government is not good at compassion. Look at what the welfare state (with the best of intentions) has done to the black family over the past 60 years.

And equality. That one always gets me. Equality is an illusion. It sounds nice on paper but the only way that it can be achieved is by dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator. Cuba comes to mind. The bulk of the population are equal there...equally miserable. Ditto for china, and the former soviet. Far better to simply be free. The quest for equality inevetably hurts far more than it helps. Now, if you can offer a viable plan for pulling people up to more success that doesn't involve hand outs, then I am with you.

I would favor government programs that demand success and have serious strings attatched. The GI Bill comes to mind. It is probably the most successful government program ever devised. It requires work, and commitment and if you don't hold up your end of the bargain, they expect their money back and will come after it.

[bishop]

this country was founded on liberal ideals.. every major progression in this country, be it the end of slavery, the end of segregation, the right of suffrage for all americans, the abolition of child labor, etc. - all were rooted in liberal ideals.

the two primary definitions for liberal:

# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. # Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

now, with that definition, it's clear that you can have MANY different political ideologies - all of which can be considered liberal. the opposite of that could, then, be called "conservative" which would be the opposite of liberal ideals. today's self-proclaimed "conservatives" (eg. bush supporters/apologists) tend to fit that opposite definition of liberal imo.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: bishop this country was founded on liberal ideals.. every major progression in this country, be it the end of slavery, the end of segregation, the right of suffrage for all americans, the abolition of child labor, etc. - all were rooted in liberal ideals.

Don't confuse classical liberalism which is the set of ideals that this country was founded on with modern liberalism which is no more and no less than socialism which is diametrically opposed to the ideals of classical liberalism.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: bishop the end of slavery, the end of segregation, the right of suffrage for all americans, the abolition of child labor, etc. - all were rooted in liberal ideals.

If these are rated liberal, then I qualify for liberalism. I would add that the anti-war movement has been led from the left, too. Let's call it the Peace Movement, heh. Sounds better. Most libertarians support leaving other nations alone, too, leading many conservatives to think we are lefties...

The Empire mentality seems to be proceeding from the right these days. It wasn't always so. Liberals in the Vietnam days supported the anti-communist agenda that ran us down into the quagmire of Southeast Asia.

[bishop]

i don't believe i did confuse the two pale rider..


it's a frequent mistake for people to try to apply these broad, almost philosophical terms, to political ideology.. it's also a waste of time to try to define yourself according to broad ideas such as liberalism. better to look at things issue-by-issue. i also think that people who spend a lot of their energy trying to identify with these particular groups and/or bashing the natural opposite of your group are a bunch of clueless lemmings who need other people to lead them.

as the definition goes:

# Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. # Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

hard to apply that definition to individual acts that have been committed in the name of either liberalism, conservatism, freedom, whatever.. some terms are so inherently broad, that they're pretty much useless - unless you're an academic philosopher.

[Pale RIder]

You seem to be suggesting that conservatives don't want change. That isn't the case at all. Conservatives simply prefer that change to be slow and deliberate. If change is slow it is likely to be more intelligent and less disruptive, and relative stability makes it easier for people to organize their lives productively. Also, if the change is at a slower pace, it is possible to see unintended consequences coming before they make things worse than they were in the beginning.

[bishop]

again, you're trying to take philosophical terms and apply them to political ideology..

taking the definition of liberal, conservative is the opposite:

Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

politically, conservatism manifests itself in many different ways, just like liberalism. some want slow, gradual change.. some want to subvert changes that have happened in the past - "roll back the clock" so to speak.. some want to conserve trees... your definition of conservatives as being people who favor gradual change is just one variation amidst a spectrum of other variations.


why do i characterize myself as a moderate? because i'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others. seems a hell of a lot more accurate than trying to characterize myself as belonging to one side and not the other. black and white dichotomies are for the mentally weak imo.

[GodBlessAmerica]

This country was founded on rugged individualism, not a collective like the Borg in Star Trek.

We have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we are not guaranteed happiness.

Liberals want to run most things through the government, and they live IMO by the old saying “Each according to their needs” but on another’s nickel.

As far as their core values, they don’t have any among them and had a recent meeting to discuss what they might be just the other month!

Liberals cannot win a values argument on helping the poor.
How many millions are given to charity by the religious right?
How many social programs are supported and run by churches?

Liberals try to use the words of Jesus against conservatives, but Jesus taught us to personally help the poor as "individuals".

We believe in helping the poor. We do it.
It’s not the job of the government.

[mr.perfecto]

Quote by: GodBlessAmerica This country was founded on rugged individualism, not a collective like the Borg in Star Trek.

Actually GBA, that is untrue. This country was founded on a distinctly Christian brand of moralism that places emphasis not only on the individual, but on the just and proper role of an individual within a society. Individualism, to the extent that it denies the existence of involuntary, moral obligations with regard to how a person should treat another person, is an ineffective worldview.