"in the hands of government", but not in the hands of of the Bourgeoisie? What exactly is the difference between the two?


What issues? Maybe a bit more specific?

A pink tutu? C'mon....

I thought this forum was for serious debate

::Edit::
I thought I should also mention John Stuart Mill was an advocate of utilitarianism

I recognize no bourgeoisie that controls my life. I do recognize a government with strong coercive powers that liberals wish to empower even more. What is funny is that powerful corporations use big government to their advantage. Pharmaceutical companies utilize the FDA to increase barriers to entry, trucking companies use the DOT. Result, less competition and higher profits.

J.S. Mill was educated in utilitarianism, he turned away from it. The issues that liberals tend to think should be decided on as a collective group is a bit short of enforcing pink tutus on individuals and in social areas they are more libertarian than conservatives, in areas concerning private property is where you see the liberals espousing the tyranny of the majority in action.

The classical liberal recognized that big government would simply increase the powers, not dilute the powers, of corporations. The modern liberal does not recognize this fact.

Perhaps you should recognize the bourgeoisie.

As you are saying "Modern Liberals" or Neo Liberals, Like I stated before use Government against Corporations. Follow me...

"Government is the shadow cast by business over society."

What Neo-Liberals do is use their own tool against them. Like I stated before, The government has a defect, It's potentially democratic, Corporations have no defect. You believe they should be able to do as they please? I was saying that Libertarian Socialists use labor Unions, trade unions, while Neo-Liberals, use government.


Deregulation empowers corporations. Like I stated before, Im in favor of Worker communes and such, as opposed to Government. Although with Corporate Media, somehow convincing us that Unions are evil, I don't think the social revolution will happen very soon.

So like i've been saying Libertarian Socialism = Classical Liberalism...


"Property is Theft", All Property should be owned by masses. "The tyranny of the majority"? Or you sure it's not the Tyranny of Corporations or if you like, The Bourgeoisie.

How is the majority tyranical?

Are you insinuating that the worker is tyrannical to the corporation? Im very confused, please clearify, So I stop speculating...

I will agree you are very confused. Hard to take an oxymoronic position without being confused. I was a union member for 8 years, the union steward for 6, I saw no superiority to union leadership over government or corporate leadership. Another liberal idea, that somehow unions do not have the same flaws as corporations. I am afraid they all consist of flawed human beings. The only intelligent position is to not allow any group to obtain too much power. Sadly, liberals today grant more and more power to government. Only government threatens me with prison unless I obey their rules. Unions should be neither supported or impeded by government.



That is hilarious. Most liberals don't believe this, it is off topic. This is only believed by the most delusional of Marxists. I just ate an apple, before the masses could all take their bite. Them masses sure are aggravating at times.

Many progressives feel that government needs to regulate businesses because of market imperfections.

Yes, its probably true that no one needs to regulate the production of my cocoa pebbles because the competitive market will probably make sure that they use quality ingredients, in fear of losing my business. But many companies in other industries exert more power over the marketplace than Post cereal does. Most of the time this is because they exist in natural monopolies. Electricity is a good example of this. I don't have a choice of whom I get my power from. If the power industry were allowed to set the price of electricity to whatever they wanted, many people would have to go without.

Healthcare is another good example of an industry that progressives feel should be under governmental control (a good one from another part of this thread). This is an industry where we as people feel no one should be left without. The theory most conservatives believe is that this industry would work better and more efficiently if it were left open to the competitive market. This would have some benefits. The competition would lead to better quality in the more expensive procedures (such as heart surgery). But as with other industries the lesser profitable procedures would be more lacking. You can already see this today by the shear number of plastic surgeons compared to general practitioners in the United States contrasted to the same ratio in countries that have national healthcare coverage (I'm looking for the actual statistics in my old public policy textbook from college, if anyone else could find it too I'll post it). Also what happens if a profit-seeking firm finds that there is not enough market for their product? They close down operations to save money. This means that in the healthcare industry, you might see hospitals close down in areas that they can not make profit in, forcing people in more rural areas to travel father for healthcare services.


Anyways to get back on subject...

I think a liberal is someone who generally feels that taxes are not a bad thing. It is someone who feels that government is not necessarily the biggest threat to freedom from oppression (many corporations have the power and income of small countries). I think a liberal is also someone who feels that people owe a certain obligation to help out those who are less fortunate than they are because they might not have had the same opportunities they had. They also feel that people who become rich do not become rich just because they worked hard, and that some of the credit to their success goes to the system they live in and the opportunities they were given.

I agree Hugo, I think that Pinata is tilting at windmills here...

The Proletariat, given a chance, would become the Boureosie given half the chance. There are no "have nots" only "have not yets".

It is delusional to believe that humans, stripped of hierarchy and property would bend their heads to their neighbors' best interests and their backs to the plow.
From the moment we spring from our mothers we experience desire in the form of hunger and the need for human contact. From there the needs never stop growing and expressing themselves: Love, safety, health, attention, warmth, friendship, etc... Each of these to be defined differently by each person who needs them. Somehow I can't see how these desires (needs?) can be met without values being placed on them. And when you have value you have a market. Where there is a market there is the potential for gain. Where you have gain you have more needs....

It is this type of liberalism that makes liberals look bad....and confused. A classless society can never exist for more than a moment. Because humans are individuals we place different values on different things. If we were complete cattle we could have a classless society. I see no chance for it as things are now...



Real liberals, I think, are people who neither trust the government OR the individuals in it. They seem to desire to have a system that self-regulates. Individuals greed can be countered by governmental controls. Governmental controls can be adjusted by a body of individuals. This sort of system would have to be constantly fluctuating and re-examining itself.

The major difference I see in conservatives is that they don't think the system needs to change so much. They believe that, while controls are needed, it doesn't have to be so reactive to individuals. The system "as is" works fine and those who stray from it should simply pay the penalty for doing so. Changing everything every time a new variation occurs is senseless.


I find myself agreeing with both at different times.

Actually, It's right on topic.

Read Humboldt's work, and compare it to Marx.



It is completely on topic. Marxists are Liberals! The topic is "What is a liberal", It's not "What is a Moderate Liberal".


Hahaha, How exactly can the Proletariat become the Bourgeoisie? And you think I'm confused


Their neighbors best interest is their best interest.


Of course you can't see how, we live in a Capitalist Society.


Or The Bourgeoisie! "Government is the shadow cast by business over society", when you understand that, you might see things differently


You are in favor of not allowing people into "power". But you are in favor of Capitalism! Now isn't that a Contradiction?

We already have threads addressing Marxism and it's inherent inefficiencies and it's inevitable result: tolitarianism. Yes, there are a radical few liberals who still accept marxist ideas, just as there are a radical few anarchists on the right.. Marxism is dead, it has failed the test of history. Someone might need to try the Why Communism? thread, ot the "Does Capitalism have flaws" debate.

Marxists today only serve as political ammo for the right.

Bakunin said, "Take the most radical revolutionary, and place him on the throne of all Russia, or give him Dictatorial power and before a year has passed, he will become worse then the Czar himself."

You can agree with Marx, and not agree with the transitional phase....

Well clearly you didn't actually READ my post about the inevitable aspects of being human and having needs... Our striving for survival turns into striving for success by it's nature. As soon as we are able to achieve things that others cannot we have become the bourgeoisie. Prove to me that, in their "natural state", humans will share their successes with those around them and I will start to listen to you... Using the "rolleyes" emoticon doesn't bolster your position or make you seem more intelligent...it has the opposite effect.



So when my neighbor wants the food I worked hard to save up for Winter stores because he didn't do the same, is it in my best interest to give it to him?
Or when he want's my children to help with his labor instead of the labor on my farm? Or my wife for his procreation and not mine? (apologies for the patriarchal argument) Show me how my neighbors best interest is always my best interest and you might become a functioning contributor to this discussion.



You seem to think that this one quote is a panacea. Is this also the name of God, the key to Enlightenment, and the ninth path of the Buddhist monk??
Simply because everyone seems to be ignoring your all-important quote doesn't mean we don't understand it...it means that it simply isn't really that important.
Everyone can understand the idea that, in a society of ownership, our lust for things and the business that springs up because of it determines the nature and function of our government. You seem to forget that our government is ALSO based upon our BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS that are completely apart from materialism. Do you deny that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are not based on materialism?? If so you have some serious contradictions in your argument....but would you even see them? Here, I'll give you a hint:
If we can't have "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" without material wealth then your version of communism can never possibly exist. However, if we CAN experience those basic things without material possessions then your favorite quote is flawed in its assessment of our government. Do you get it??? Shall I use an emoticon?




You see in black and white only don't you... Well suppose this, Maybe, perchance, one can have a systems of capitalism that is overseen by am elected government whose job is to ensure that basic rights and freedoms are not lost to corporations??? It's called "checks and balances" and you should look it up. Do ya think??? Shall I use an emoticon???
Personal Attack removed

Maybe, just maybe, in place of Government, we put Worker Communes and such, and that will result in Direct Democracy!

You seem to forget, that Property is Theft, so nothing belongs to your neighbor that doesn't belong to you. I don't see husbands and wives as property....


Of course we have needs, who doesn't realize this? You need to food, shelter, social bonds, etc.


Have you no sense of community?


It explains exactly what government is. I'm having a hard time understanding where you are coming from. We were talking about classical liberalism, and then you bring in state intervention...

It sounds to me that you think Human Nature is to be greedy. In a capitalist society our nature is to be greedy. We gain success by stabbing our fellow man in the back, and turn our heads away from the less fortunate. Now in a communal sense, do you think corruption would be something that would be respected? Or do you see it as something that would be shunned upon by the community?

In our Capitalist Society, the ones who are corrupted, are the most successful. Take for example Corporations. Their workers are wage slaves, they exploit man, to enrich themselves. Yet they are not shunned by Society.




I wanted to see what he said

We have a good example of extreme contempt for private property and an extreme belief that the magical 51% (democracy) should control all areas of your life. A more moderate version of these beliefs is shared by many liberals. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

Who says ALL area's of your life? The people should control Industry, if you don't believe this to be true, who do you propose should run industry? Private Citizens? Is that not Tyrannical to the Proletariat, and Liberty for the Bourgeoisie? To someone who believes in Liberty, I find it hard to believe that you would be for Liberty, for only a select few...

There is a certain kind of far left liberal who use a lot of words and slogans they picked up and consider repeating these words and slogans as constuctive debate. This type of liberal is totally irrational. Having any reasonable discourse with him is highly problematic.

I would say the most influential group of economic liberals is the Keynesians, they tend to share a belief that government needs to side on the cause of the employee over the employer, unlike those on the far left, bound by totally irrational feelings and an ignorance of human nature, Keynesians tend to look at regulations and labor laws as a means to provide protection to the worker.

Then we have your environmentalists who espouse regulations and also look at government to inhibit corporations. Liberal environments tend to prefer government owned lands over private property solutions.

Sorry for straying off topic, I just see that its important to get an understanding of where liberal belief stems from.


Thanks for the Compliment

I don't think Hugo is too far off base there, I do think your main stream liberal (self described) economic liberal is somewhat more fiscal conservative than your 40s liberal, but protections for the employee from the employer would be a admirable goal, considering that the real abuses in our country come from the employer, not the employee.

The big problem with extreme enviromentalist movement is what it does to the true conservationist. I absolutely detest the entire PETA movement, and would love to see a violent counter movement to that one, but I am also in favor of controls on extraction industries, especially ones that need huge "welfare" checks to make it profitable- like the logging, ranching and mining industries, or contraints on the super powerful oil companies.

Yes I agree. This is where statements like “tax breaks for the rich” came from. These are the folks who deride the war with Iraq and have no solution after 12 years of stonewalling by Iraq.

The same folks who could not believe we had Communists in the government (or didn’t care) in the 50s.

Waste of time debating with a slogan or irrational belief.

Tax breaks for the rich? How do you come up with is?

12 years of stonewalling by Iraq? 8 of those 12 had UN sanctions(sponsered by the US) which resulted in 500,000 children dead(UNICEF). Lets not forget Saddam was put in power by the US(1963 by CIA under the Kennedy administration-I have sources). We supported him during the gassing of the kurds as well as other major atrocities.

Im still wondering where "tax breaks for the rich", came from. That is a Conservative policy.

Communists in our government? Hahahaha