I am speaking of a Ted Kennedy liberal who would be horrified if anything ever gets “privatized”. As Teddy is right now because in 2020 there will be an “experiment” in Medicare to allow for a test of competition with one of his cherished big inefficient bureaucracies.

The spin in this statement is blantant- GM and other large corps are just as if not more inefficient than the goverment. Oversite that the average goverment agency must endure is not in attendence with an equally large corporation. I have intimate knowledge of this up here in Alaska, were the state goverment is far more efficient in a similar size agency compared to the oil companies here. The waste, cronyism, and good ol' boy stuff going on in those circles is sickening, but part of the game, of the system here. Corporate jets, super hi cost parties, all on the corporate dime, etc are all huge wastes that are "costs of doing business" in the oil companies, where this stuff is illegal in state goverment. I have first hand experiance in this, not an article by a pundit, not a study, but observed it first hand. Same goes for hospitals. A state hospital is 10 times more efficient, and gives better care per patient, than the local private hospitals. A great example is North star vs our own adolecent unit. North star is nothing more than an insurance scam, as soon as the insurance is gone, they ship the kid to us or home, no therapy or good done for the patient whatsoever, where our success rate for recidivist behavior is so much greater it is almost impossible to rate. And 90% of our employees have been head hunted by this organization, some have second jobs, but usually quit as soon as possible there, due to it's inherent unethical nature.

This is the classical liberal to me- a person that understands that some areas have no business being a business- their mission is completely uncompatable with the profit motive. Medicine is the clearest one to me- some private hospitals for the rich, that serve a small clientelle, but for the most part, medicine and the profit motive have no business combining.

You're missing the point, slowtime. "Work for me or starve" is not a choice. "Work for me or lose your house and your car" is a choice, but a very hard offer to turn down. Your employees have power in numbers and could make a change if they all turned you down, but most can't afford to, and are therefore powerless.

Really? They are powerless? 25 years ago I was making a quarter over the minimum wage. Did I consider myself powerless? Heck, no. Somehow I managed to find better jobs, move up in those jobs, and pay my way through college. This is the mantra of many liberals, that people are powerless to improve themselves without government's aid. The fact is government is much more frequently the yoke around an individuals neck.

Well, Hugo, not everyone is as ambitious or mobile as you or I, fact is, some places, it is darn near impossible to get out of that rut. How is the goverment holding these poeple down I wonder? It did help me, through low interest loans and home improvement grants, some other grants that I used to make disabled housing etc. All these gov't programs actually paid for themselves, because my property taxes went up and the local goverment got every penny back. Since direct welfare payment make up less that 1% of total goverment expenditures, I fail to see the "robin hood" aspect of goverment as well. Fact is, the real money goes to the middle and upper class and rich outside of Soc Sec and medicare.

I think the big switch in US politics in the last 20 years has come in what self described liberals believe and promote, with the exception of thier enviromental/socialist fringe, which is a much smaller minority of the movement than the radical right (religious right). Liberals in the last 20 years have never been in or had any real power, so there has been some moderating force to it, so the real 70s liberal doesn't really exist anymore, and is drifting back to the late 50s, early 60s liberal beliefs, the ones of personal self responsibility while acknowledging the need to help those less fortunate for the good of ourselves and all of society.

IMO- the balance of power, those who write our laws, are much more slanted to the advantage of management and business, with no real resemblance to "free market" or it's influences, so there is no real "Power" for these poeple to "empower" themselves, and only the very few (such as Hugo and I LOL) can truly pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

In theory, I would agree with allowing market forces to determine these things as discussed above IF the playing field was level and fair, but it is not. Also, organized labor IS a free market ideal, similar to a co op of farmers banding together to share equipment and expertise. Labor is NOT anti-free market when all rules are equal as well.

I think that I find myself being more and more anti-conservative, but since I disagree with some of the tenents of liberalism, I can't quite call myself a liberal and be honest about it, but when others call me that (in other, less informed forums ) I accept it, due to thier own inability to really be able to define liberal as anything but "anyone that disagrees with my right wing opinon" LOL

I attend Santa Monica College, a very liberal school. But liberal in a strange way. I say strange, because i also went to the University of Colorado, at Boulder last year. And that is arguably an even more liberal staff, but i didnt object because they were very intelligent and didnt let their personal opinion interfere with the material. In fact, i enjoyed the lectures a lot.

My sociology teacher last week started off class by defining liberal's as moving forward (progressive), and conservatives moving backward. This seemed to make sense to the class as they all seemed to nod or smile. This is a typical reaction when your teacher has been overtly bias in the classroom, and the students either subscribe to the teachers same ideology (which is fine), or they have no personal opinion about politics or social issues, etc... and just nod their head and agree in order to get brownie points with the professor.

I am always hesitant to give my political opinion, or jump into a debate on current issues, primarily because whenever i do i get scowls and bad looks from accross the classroom... or the teacher gives some quick witted analogy or comment to shut me up. For instance, a few weeks ago i was told that i listen to too much Rush Limbaugh. Ive never even listend to Rush, all i know about him is he got kicked off ABC sports for saying something "racially insensitive".

My professor also started giving examples of how conservatives move backward, giving examples of social issues like (1) being pro-life, (2) against affirmative action, (3) supporting the right to bear arms, etc... Well, one could say that these are very debatable issues as to whether or not they are socially degenerate topics.

I tried to argue that affirmative action and abortion were not progressive ideas, but in fact "backward moving"... sparking a typical outrage in the class supported by "man, you don't know what your talking about".

Of course i was shut down... because who do you think is going to win a political argument in the classroom... the 20 year old student (me) taking his first sociology class, or the 35 year old feminist lesbian whose been arguing with students for 10 years.

CR, I was primarily addressing the claim that employess are powerless, not disparaging government programs. Employees are not powerless. There are other jobs out there and yes, there are even government programs that will let you educate yourself on the cheap. All it requires is a bit of ambition and a lot of hard work.

I have a sudden urge to sign up for a class at Santa Monica College.

I made the mistake of leaving my comment as a generalization. What I mean is not all working class employees have much of a choice as to who or what they work for, meaning that some are powerless.

And that professor at Santa Monica College would *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** me off too if I had her. I hate professors who use their classroom as their own personal agenda pushing platform: conservative, liberal or otherwise. Way to alienate students Prof!

Maybe in Alaska but the GAO says different of government at large. The government is absolutely horrible when they have complete control. The post office is a perfect example. Could they compete with UPS or Fed X – no way. How about the registry. Ever wait in line there?

And medicine is the best example of government bungling. Medicare is a government disaster and all they have to do is manage the paper and pay.

No thanks I have not seen efficient government anywhere.

One year the Navy “lost” 600,000,000 dollars. That’s right lost it. With all the “corporate accounting” scandals few people realize the government may be worse.

But why?

Is is that a government employees are automatically rendered incompetent the minute they walk through the door?

Are government agencies doomed to inefficiency by design?
Doesn't seem that way to me.

Handling problems through government has its advantages too (for instance, I wouldn't privatize the military or schooling in a million years).

If there is a problem with a government agencies, why not try and fix it rather than opt immediately for abandonment?

Government agencies are almost always monopolies. Monopolies tend to be less efficient than firms (or agencies) engaged in competition. Yes, government agencies are almost inevitably inefficient.

It seems to me that the liberals and Democrats currently in national politics have doomed themselves to minority status for the forseeable future.

Watching Ted Kennedy stand up against the Prescription Drug Bill was a thing of beauty.

The more he, and others like him, spout off about how GWB composed the war against Iraq on his ranch in Texas, they open the eyes of the vast voting public to their wackiness.

The only thing they do is stand in the way for whatever Republicans put forth. Now, I agree with them when that means quadrupling an already bankrupt subsidy, but that's just me.

Politically speaking, Karl Rove is out maneuvering them at every turn.

And, personally, I still believe that the complete lack of moral character of Bill Clinton still hurts democrats at the voting booth.

In the last three years, we've seen a very strong contrast between the completely immoral Bill Clinton and the moral, upright, promise keeping character-of-steel George W. Bush.

Am I reading this right? The cocaine and alcohol using son of a Texas millionaire politician who was AWOL from the National Guard for a year and wouldn't pee in the cup for his military physical and yearly evaluation, who claimed he didn't know Ken Lay and obfuscated about something as simple as the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln,

THIS president is the moral, upright, promise keeping character-of-steel?

Whatever. Thank God America will have a choice next year!

I am a liberal, an unreconstructed, Old School, Hubert Humphrey-type liberal* and even I see Dubya spending money like it was going out of style and creating new government agencies, and cutting into our cherished personal liberties to pursue his, not the country's, agenda. All this being done by a self-avowed Conservative.

*thanks Izdaari!

So do you prefer Teddy Kennedy? Isn’t he just a model of morality!


I will take Bush any day.



Does being liberal (or Republican) mean unquestioning loyalty to a particular person regardless of all else. How many perfect Presidents have we had? Give me a list. And don’t start with Jack Kennedy either.

(Oh, I wouldn't dream of saying that Jack Kennedy was the paragon of Presidential behavior. And I'm old enough to remember that it was Mary Jo Kopeckne (sp?) who died the night Edward Kennedy was driving her via Chappaquidick.
I just fail to see the "strong contrast" as far as morals go between Clinton and Bush. They are both liars with dirty little secrets. There will be no Walking on Water contest here!)

But back on subject: a Liberal seems to regard government as an entity created to serve its constituents to "establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

While Conservatives focus on defense and ensuring domestic tranquillity (in my opinion, of course), Liberals focus on establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. The other things seem to be a toss-up.

The term "liberal" has a wonderful meaning in the dictionary. (Of course, the opposition likes to cast aspersions on it.) It implies a progressive attitude that endeavors to be inclusive of the previously disenfranchized and marginalized members of society.

Which reminds me that on constitutional issues liberals tend to have a expansionary view on the meaning of the general welfare and commerce clauses of the Constitution. They also tend to view the Constitution as a "living" document and tend to ignore the concept of original intent.

I agree with Hugo to an extent. Liberals tend to see the document as living and expanding and contracting with times, whereas Conservatives tend to speak of original intent.

THe only problem is that conservative tend to actually believe they know what original intent was and that is what creates confusion.

I personally believe that the constitution is flexible and should keep with the problems of the day. If we continue to argue original intent we will never get anywhere. Instead we should argue cost-benefit.

This is another part of the good I see from the liberal side. They seem to elicit progress instead of stagnation. Thank goodness for this sense of thought, or I could still be working in Mr. Harris' pea field!

I think you're mischaracterizing Liberals regarding the constitution there Hugo. Rather than calling them expansionistic (versus traditionalists or whatever term you'd use to establish a binary) I prefer to look at it as a matter of Literalists versus Translationists.

A translationist is someone who looks at the constitution specifically WITH intent. What they seek to do is TRANSLATE the values of the constitution into the context of the period they are in. To use a crude example:

Lets say the constitution allows X amount of privacy.

A literalist will not change the law in consideration of circumstance. (In this case, phone tapping wouldn't be considered an invasion because it doesn't take place in the home.)

A translationist will look at the constitution WILL change the law to preserve X amount of privacy by expanding on the original laws to ensure that the value of the original document is preserved, (in this case spelling out how wire taps can be acquired by government.)

That is how I'd characterize liberals regarding the constitution. Of course these are all broad generalizations, and of course none of us would ever take those seriously...

In some cases they are translationists. In other cases, however, that cannot be the claim. The meaning of the general welfare clause did not suddenly change, nor the meaning of the commerce clause. Liberals almost unanimously reject Madison's doctrine of enumerated powers and Madison's interpretation of the general welfare clause as addressed in Federalist Paper #41. While to speak in generalities is always risky, I have yet to meet a liberal who has a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. The strict constructionist view of the Constitution throws too many burdens on imposing socialism incrementally. If you limit the powers of government to those enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution you greatly reduce the sphere of government.

This I think is part of the crux of the Liberal vs Conservative vs Moderate vs Independent debate- the hyperbole and misinformation of all sides of the debate-

You say the post office is inefficient- which is blatantly false- Fed ex can not and will not compete with the Post office in volume of mail, price etc- only in it's small niche of overnight service. NO where in the world is mail moved so efficiently so reliably and so much volume by any private or public organization. 39 cents for a letter anywhere in the US? and the tonnage that they move? Boggles the mind! Sure, overnight express type setups and very limited, compared to the post office, service, you can beat them there, but it is only one part of the equation. Fed X charges me 80 bucks for a small document envelope to Kazan Russia that they guaruntee within one week. The post office charges me 20 bucks and they guaruntee it in less than two weeks. Four times the money for twice as fast?

The military is the least efficient organization, but also more corporate (read secret to no) oversite on thier goings-on. Generals using military planes as thier own private jets etc. Happens every day, just like at GM or Enron!

The medical issue is the one I know the most about and deal with personally. Suffice it to say, it is lawmakers and PRIVATE entities that force up health care costs, create inefficiencies and kill poeple outright. Just a small example: JACHO- the accredidation agency for hospitals that, by law, is required so that hospitals can bill medicaid. This agency has no checks and balances, it is a corporate entity, maintained and created by the insurance industry. The is the first agency that should go goverment in any health care reform. It is a morally and ethically bankrupt organization with no oversite.

Once again, the difference is in oversite. The belief that certain areas should be transparent and the profit motive does not belong there, like with law enforcement. Law enforcement should not be looking to make a profit, and it should have constant and vigilant outside checks and balances to keep it from becoming abusive, which is exactly what our medical system needs.

How is it that if I don’t want to hire you I am denying yours or someone else’s right? I think people who feel instantly that if you are denied a job somewhere you have had your rights taken away from you.
Your instant fall back in brining race, gender or age in this is funny at best. I would say that the CEO and founder of the BET channel would be rather offended at that comment or for that matter the CEO and founder of MaryKay, or for that matter the Founder of Wendy’s. To continue to use that excuse that the large majority of Fortune 500 companies (which by the way insults the thousands of other companies that actually make this country run who are constantly looked down upon because they are not in that list) Some time you should go to the library and look at the Thomas Register and see just how many companies there really are and then tell me a person doesn’t have a choice.



I have been in both large corporations and small ones (private owned) and they both work the same way. While I do not argue that the large corporations such as the Wal-marts of the world did cause a lot of small as you call them “mom and pop” stores to go to the way side there are still many of them out there. It generally isn’t Wal-mart’s blame, it is the communities blame. I take for instance down town Chicago, I visit there often and although you do see the large chain stores, you see many more “mom and pop” stores. The communities support these stores and they thrive. The whole problem isn’t the large corporations but the communities that they move into. The communities choose to shop there, work there and support them by allowing their community’s government (be it city or state) to allow them in. I again reference you to the Thomas Registry to show you how many “mom and pop” not on the 500 list liberals love to reference to show you this fact.

I choose to pay a slightly higher price so I don’t support those companies I disagree with, why? Because I was pay their prices before the Wal-Marts of the world moved in and until they go out of business (which I try to help avoid) I will continue to shop there. What is funny is that people often refer to Wal-mart when K-mart has been around a lot longer and I do not remember people complaining about them when they moved in.

And although I know this happens, and by helping the mom and pop stores by giving them my business, by being apart of that community’s Chamber of Commerce (which is mostly made up of Mom and Pop business) I do understand the power these large corporations have in the political scheme of things. However, it is OUR CHOICE to give them that power. If you deny that it is your choice to give up that power, I will not let you take that power away from me though.



Yes, I am a company of 100+ employees, Yes, with the help of the chamber of commerce I am apart of I have had the ability to change some regulations to help the community and we have had a part in getting a few city officials elected, and in my industry Yes I do have the power to set predatory pricing to drive my competition out of business. However my industry is very unique in some ways. If I did so, my customers would boycott me and soon I would not have that power, would not have the ability to try to help the community, and I would not have a business.



I must disagree, I drive around looking at all the companies out there, and I am amazed that people don’t have a job. I am not ignorant to the fact that large companies lay off or fire people because of economic slow time. However, I see time and time again when people refuse to live within their means and refuse to take a job because it will not support their lifestyle. I have never turned down someone to work for me, why? Because I have never had to. They look at what I am able (note, it is ABLE not willing) to pay which is a good bit above minimum wage and the scoff at put their nose up. They choose to live a life style that makes them think they need a higher wage. I know what it takes to live single, married and with children so the yes, I know what a person can live on. It is a choice to live better, and it is a choice for them to decide to take a step back and cut their luxurious expenses in order to take two steps forward. There has only been one person who I I couldn't hired who gave me a good reason why he couldn’t, and that reason I totally respected, of which I had to apologize because at that time (I just started my business at the time) my business could not afford his need (note NEED not WANT). Now that my business is established and if that person came back to me I would hire him in an instant. Why? Because my company can afford him.

You miss my point at first then seem to understand it at then thelast of comment loose it again. One person has a choice to do with, or do with out. One person has a choice to work for me or not. Many people who have the same feelings and thoughts can choose to make a change, this has brought many companies in line. (Referring to Unions and what they originally did for the common employee against the over ruling corporation) Although Liberals continue to say the common person doesn’t have a choice should take note of the action taken by one who inspired many to make a change. (Referring to the Rosi Odonell (sp) and the Listerine boycott) I could and so could you with a bit of research come up with plenty of examples where a person or persons choices forced the large companies to change their ways. The difference I see is that as a conservative I feel it is the public’s duty to make those choices for themselves, where I see the Liberal mentality wants to give the government the power to make the choice for them so they don’t have to worry about it and don’t have to hold the responsibility of choice.

Some times people forget, that life, and liberty is a right, prosperity was not.. only the opportunity to do so. It is their choice to forget to or aspire to make it better on their own. You can list all the statistics you would like as far as all the opportunities that are “denied” to people, and in some instances (not meaning some is a small amount) is because of race, gender, age or disability. I will then again point you to the Thomas Registry and tell all the people who made it into that list and say they prove you wrong. The only difference is choice. Some choose to strive and pursue the opportunities and there are those who do not. That is what makes this country great. As large as it is, there are so many opportunities out there in is mind boggling, this coming from someone who barely graduated high school, who did not go to collage, and whose parents has always been in the lower income bracket.

If going backwards you mean expecting people to take responsibility of their own lives and their own choices then I am as far back as I can go.

Agreed to some extent Slowtime, but there is something you are overlooking. There are, without a doubt, liberals who would have us pad the world and make sure everyone has free success. However there are conservatives who would have a race war and form a White Nation. Have you ever read Southern Partisan?? John Ashcroft did...

So I think it is unrealistic to focus only on the extreme minority of liberals in a characterization of liberalism.

I like to simplify the debate between liberalism and conservatism down to one question: Is mankind inherently good or evil?
It seems that most conservatives would agree that mankind is inherently good. After all, a conservative wants no fetters on the individual at all and believe that the world will function well if people are left up to their own devices. Hence the constructionist view of the Constitution and the call for us to go back to simpler times.

Most liberals would have to agree that there is something deep down inside mankind that is evil and needs to be checked. If you leave corporations to their own devices and unchecked they will ultimately work for evil purposes. I have to admit this has been hashed out time and again and proven true. In their zeal for success people running companies have made countless, incredibly immoral decisions a la Enron, Phillip Morris, GM, Exxon, etc...
When the big wigs at Enron sat around a table and decided to push their policy forcing employees to buy Enron stock I HOPE they weren't realizing that they were literally planning the economic destruction of thousands of families. Plenty of other organizations seemed to be aware of this situation however no one put them in check. A liberal would be someone who thinks the government MUST be the organization that keeps tabs on the zeal of Big Business and watches out for the rights of the citizenry. The greatest good for the greatest number of people is NOT happening in big business with the current government and so liberals are upset. Conservatives, believing that individuals will generally do what's right believe that these situations will work themselves out without government intervention.

One thing that strikes me as odd. Right now conservatives abhor government hand-outs to people who don't deserve it but they champion government hand-outs to big companies that are crying poverty. The big three airlines, energy sector, pharmaceuticals, and insurance have all been given free money in the last two years..and on a HUGE scale. It bothers me that there are countless small companies who, in the capitalistic framework, are trying to grab business away from these ungainly corporations (that according to capitalistic ideology should be collapsing) but the government keeps running interference. Why do fiscal conservatives agree with having our government keep these obese companies on life support while young, agile companies are being starved? When will the big companies be forced to give a tug on their boot-straps to see if they remember how to tie them...or have they switched to government issue velcro?

my $.02

No, I have not read the book, but it is now on my long list, thank you for another title.

I do not disagree nor did I over look the fact that there are extreme sides to both view points and philosophies that are liberal and conservatism. I can only base my opinions on what I experience, what I read and what I see. We must always (or should) agree that there will always be extremes on both sides. I see this and I constantly fight against both.



Although I would have to agree with you there, I am wondering the “why” the two sides see it as such. Since I can only speak about what I have experienced in my life I can say that I am almost 90% of the time have a positive and optimistic out look on life. I do not harbor on the bad things, but I do not ignore them either. I fight every day to grow not only myself but help if I can grow the people around me. I will also not deny the fact that there are numerous examples of bad apples such as your examples given. However, the way I see it, being a conservative and associating with such on the majority, I also look at the multitude numbers that far exceed those individual giants that make them pale in comparison. This is one of the things I see different between the two philosophies, One consentrates hole heartily on the negative aspects and focuses their entire effort on those, where the other splits their concentration in too two, one on the positive the other on the negative. It has been a long time when I have spoken with a Liberal thinking person and have herd one positive thing from their lips. I honestly don’t think they can see the positive, or just choose (yes there is that bad word again) to ignore it.

As far as the Enrons of this world, I hope and pray that people who ran that company one day find themselves in the same ditch they put all those people into. I myself worked for a company who did the exact same thing, I was smart (not lucky) and saw the writing on the wall, I read the company P&L statements as well as their annual earnings reports and projections and even with out an accounting degree I was able to understand their math was misleading. In the end, the company did exactly what Enron did, and even though it was on a much smaller scale (close to 800 employees nation wide) it had the same effects on the immediate area I lived in. I detest those that run the company to better their individual pocket in the short term only to screw themselves out in the long term. (on a side note, one of the ex-exectutives of this former company now works at a jiffy lube so some of my wish has come true *smile*).



Yes, this is where I part from the view point of the mainstream (sorry just my experience) Liberal. I do think the individuals will generally do what is right. I am no fool, and I know they don’t. However, If more people looked at what was going on, and acted on it, such as not supporting the company with our dollars I ask you how many of these companies would survive? None. You can not tell me that individuals who when think alike, act alike change can not be made. It doesn’t take government to make these changes. It takes us, it takes our choices, it takes our individual deeds to make them. It wasn’t the government who started the unions, it was individuals wanting a change. It was the government who fought against these unions, and in the end, who won that battle? What happened to that attitude?



I would have to disagree again with you. A conservative (take into account from my own experiences) champion hand outs to people who don’t deserve them, and champion government hand outs.

How many years ago did Southwest Airlines come into the seen? How many years ago did JetBlue come into the sceen? They have been around a lot less then the big three and are actually making grounds on the big three. The reason why which I do not agree on but understand, is because just as people are complaining about job loss, the economy, and their life style being hindered, they also complain that these large corporations employ thousands of people, and it would cause a great deal of harm to the economy if even one of these goes out. It is I agree with you, the short sightedness of our Republican and Democrat representatives who continue to let the week continue while the strong, fresh struggle. But, as with my examples above, the strong grow, and eventually the week fall off, example being PanAm (The largest air line at its time).

Unfortunately, we are an aggressive race, and true nature I feel does apply with us. The week (meaning those who do not want to work hard and endure the hardships of life) will fall of and the strong (those who do strive and do endure the hardships of life and do not give up while doing so) will rise to the top.

As far as when will those companies be forced to survive on their own? As soon as the people put representatives in that will not cow tow to the special interests groups who push for those measures. When people begin to take stock of what goes on in washingtong, in their state and in their city and make a choice to change them. It takes work, it takes dedication and it takes time. Although we may disagree on many things, one thing I think we both can agree on is never stop the fight to make things better. Although we differ in how to about it, we all I feel, want the same thing.

I'm wondering how this applies to coal miners, factory workers, garbage collectors, construction workers, et cetera. Will everyone who works really hard in the coal mine "rise to the top?"

It may be somewhat natural to associate hard work with financial success - after all, for most people who are financially successful, it was hard work that got them there. The problem is, it is too simplistic to universalize this association. The fact that it takes hard work for (most) people to become successful does not automatically mean that that's all it takes for anyone.

When I look around me, what I see is that those who achieve financial success have achieved it due to a combination of hard work and circumstance. Call it "luck" if you will. To me, this is really the key factor in liberalism. We recognize that only a minority of people will ever rise to the top, or even past the middle, based solely on their desire and hard work. I think luck plays a huge role in our lives. It's not simply enough to have the goods or the talent - you have to be at the right place, at the right time. The right set of factors must fall into place.

I think even conservatives recognize the "luck factor" when it comes to many parts of their lives (that is, if they don't believe that everything is predestined), but tend to ignore it when it comes to "success" in a financial sense. How many random factors had to happen just the way they did for most of us to have met our spouses, to have been born where we were, when we were? Not only environmental factors, but the roll of the genetic dice, as well. Some are born with higher intelligence, greater musical talent. Some are better looking, some have the genes of great athleticism. I personally don't believe we chose any of those things, and yet, there they are.

Let me make an hypothetical example:

Two people. Identical in intelligence. Both are fit, good looking, raised with a strong work ethic. One is born in a middle class suburb, one is born in a West Virginia coal mining town.

The suburbanite (Joe) goes to a school with an honors program, AP classes, well paid excellent teachers. Joe's father is a lawyer and pays for Joe to attend university. Joe goes to law school, and when he graduates, he goes to work at his father's firm.

The coal miner's son (John) goes to a run down school that can't afford enough textbooks. There is no honors program. John gets through high school well enough, in spite of having to work at the DQ, because his family needs the money just to pay all their bills. John gets offered a scholarship to a good college. As he is about to leave (he wants to study law), his father is killed in a mine collapse (happens fairly regularly). His mother (who works at the laundromat) cannot support herself and John's two little sisters. John decides to put off school to help his family. He takes the best paying job he can get in town - working in the mine. John still dreams of going to law school some day, but there's not even a junior college nearby for him to take classes when he's not working. That's ok, he'll work till his sisters graduate, and then go to college. Hopefully he'll still be able to get a scholarship. But a year later, he meets and falls in love with a local girl. They get married, and she is soon pregnant. Now John has responsibilities - a family of his own he must look after, plus he's still helping his mother. John works hard, long hours in the mine. Before he knows it, he is 60 years old. He has worked hard all his life.

Of course, I offered extreme examples to show the point - but can anyone deny that there are factors beyond one's control? Not everyone will succeed, and while working hard is a factor of success, it cannot guarantee success.

Thus, as a liberal, I support social spending. I'm not talking about making everyone equal; I'm not an idiot. However, it is my belief that to blame a person for their poverty or their lack of success is cruel and unrealistic - it flies in the face of what I can see to be true in the world. Are there people who can be blamed for their lack of success? Sure. There are also people who will always be rich, no matter how lazy they are. So lazy poor people get punished, lazy rich people don't. I guess if you're lazy, you better hope you were lucky enough to be born wealthy! I'm not saying that poor people should be given $50,000 a year. I do support, however, programs that ease their burden, and give them the opportunity to make the kind of choices that people born to middle class families have by right of birth.

You can't control all the factors that might leave you wanting for food or clothing. You just can't. Why should people be punished for that?

Often, conservatives will point out the "welfare queen" scenario - that there are people who abuse the system. Well, that's true. But that's also true of any system. There will always be a small minority of people who will abuse any system - from CEOs to, yes, welfare recipients. Fortunately, the cost to the taxpayer is a lot less when someone abuses welfare than when the government bails out industries - look how much the S&L scandal cost us! In short, if we were to eliminate every program that gets abused, there would be nothing left! So that's not really a valid argument for ending entitlements. And I'm not just speaking of government programs - how many people here at AD "abuse" the system at their workplace by spending hours per day browsing this website?

I'm a liberal because I believe everyone deserves a decent shot at pursuing the excellence they choose. Private charity is good, but it is not enough, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that. It has never been enough. Maybe someday it will, that would be nice. But I live in the real world, I am not an idealist.

To that I say amen.. yet..



Your example is a great example which proves my point that it is all about choice. Yes, you may look upon the next few words and say I am harsh and un-realistic. If you consider the first quote then look in your story and tell me that this “John” never got a shot is so wrong.

Everyone in this life comes to a point where they have to make a choice. To some it is easy, to others it is life changing and hard.

In your example which happens all across this world, John had a choice. He chose to stay. He had the opportunity to go to school, he had the opportunity to go after his dream and yet he chooses to stay. Sadly his life’s dreams were never fulfilled. But you can not tell me he did not have the chance. That is a hard choice to make, self or family. Unfortunately choices like that which will take that person down a path opposite of their dream is sad yes, unlucky? Hardly. He had a choice, and he made his choice and multiple ones afterwards.

I don’t believe in luck and you are correct. For at the same time you see the poor coal miner’s son wanting to be a lawyer I can probably point you to the Lawyer’s son who wants to be an artist or a construction worker yet because of family pressure made a choice to be led down the path someone else chooses for him.

This is my entire point right here. If people would stop putting the blame on other things or other people because of the choices they make they will always be were the are. If people continue to look to someone or something else to make their life better the society in whole we never be happy and never be successful. I for one do not attach money with success or with happiness, sad that others must.

It's one thing to place the blame for not being more successful, but quite another to step on others in order for yourself to succeed and say it is that person's fault because he/she had a choice.

This is what an extreme connservative can do. Not help level the playing field but rather just blame the people over and over.

What is a liberal? One who realizes that America was created with the ideal that the American Dream should be reachable for all. One who realizes that equality whether it be race, gender or economic status must be achieved if we are all to have a chance at that dream.

Like I said before, I don't agree with everything liberals do, but I do agree with their desire to create equality - so that those overflowing with cash can't just look at others and say "You had a choice like the rest of us".

Yes, you are correct, John had a choice. He could choose to abandon his family's needs and pursue his dream. Yet conservatives often consider themselves "pro-family," and have made an issue of "family values." The choice you are advocating here is a purely selfish one. Yes, technically it is a choice. But to follow this philosophy through, you are advocating creating an even greater disconnection between people and their sense of place and family. At a certain point, though you are correct about there being choices, the argument becomes silly. Surely, a man may find himself in a position where he can choose to buy food for his family, or a pair of spiffy shoes for himself. To adopt your "choice" mantra, you seem to be advocating people getting punished for choosing their familial needs instead of their purely selfish desires.

And yes, I would say it is unlucky that John was faced with that particular choice. George Bush's children are faced with all sorts of choices too, but it is highly unlikely that those choices will be very difficult. What if one of the Bush twins wants to be an artist? Say she chooses to follow that dream. But then, as she is walking down the street, a piece of sheet metal drops from the sky and severs her hands. She can no longer paint. Unlucky. But will she face a life scraping by on the charity of others as a result? Not very likely at all. Why? Because she was lucky enough to be born to very wealthy parents.

I was not making my point in order to discount choices, in any case. Certainly, we all face choices every day. But we don't choose where we are born, nor to whom. We do not choose to be crippled and unable to work through an accident at the meatpacking factory. We do not choose to be ugly or beautiful. We do not choose to be born with an IQ of 180 or 40. These things just happen.



Your example in no way explains how there is no luck. Why were you born where and when and to whom you were? Is it all God's plan? So God plans for people to be born to lepers in Calcutta and die of malnutrition and disease at the age of five? Yet if that is the case, then you undermine your own argument about choice. For if God micromanages our lives, and plans for Lakshmi Bharana to be born with three fingers to a leper in the slums of Calcutta, wouldn't he also be guiding our every choice for a reason?



I agree 100% (though you accidentally negated your second sentence by the end of it). But this really supports the concept of luck. I too do not attach money to the concepts of success and happiness. However, that's not really what I'm talking about. This isn't about blame. Let's say an accident befalls you which renders you completely unable to work. Whether you blame someone for it or not, you are still faced with the same situation. Now, blaming someone (or something) for random happenstance is a sure way to unhappiness and discontent. But even if you blame no one, the situation is still what it is. The point is not that money brings success and happiness, rather its obverse - having nowhere to sleep, or not having enough food (which in our society are definitely tied to the concept of money) can certainly increase one's unhappiness and suffering.

Frankly, I'm having a hard time believing that you really think luck does not exist. By luck, I do not mean some sort of force (as in, I have good luck, therefor I will win when I play the slots); I mean luck as in randomness. Take the lottery. A random number is generated. Did the person who bought that winning ticket win the jackpot by plan? Were the Bush twins born into wealth because they chose to be?

I don't want to take this too far into the realm of philosophy, but I think you are half right. We should not blame others for our misfortune, certainly. Also, however, we must be careful not to take credit for happenstance which goes our way. If there is a forest fire, and your neighbor's house burns down while yours remains standing because the wind shifted, would you take credit for that? Would you think your neighbor was to blame for his house burning down?

To me, a liberal is someone who owns their mistakes, takes responsibility for their actions - and at the same time, recognizes that "stuff happens," which we cannot control, and which we did not choose. You talk about not blaming, but your being too narrow, because you are blaming. You are blaming people for being poor.

1. People born into poverty are much more likely to remain in poverty than to escape it. This is a fact.

2. People, whether born rich or born poor, are equally capable - there is a roughly equal allocation of brains, sense, and ethic across all economic levels. This is my belief.

3. People who are born rich, are much more likely to remain wealthy than to become poor. This is a fact.

If what you believe is true, and assuming you agree with point number two, then movement across economic levels should be universal. Just as many rich people should become poor, as poor people who become rich. What strange philosophy would lead one to believe that only poor people make bad choices? The fact is that poor people cannot afford to make many bad choices. The Bush twins can afford all sorts of bad choices without going hungry, or abandoning their family.

Used to be a liberal was a liberator, like in the French and American Revolutions. Yet nowadays, the liberal is the exact opposite. Who put most of the seatbelt laws in? Liberals. Who aways rose taxes instead of cutting spending? Liberals. Need I go on? No, it is clear that liberals are not what they used to be, they are constrainers. After each of Gore's speeches a television network had a follow up and pointed out every lie he told (half his spech was ripped apart). Liberals want to save the environment instead of educating our children.

Todays liberalism is bad, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

Is cutting taxes and raising spending conservative?

My advocating people take responsibility for their choices as well as live with them is all I am advocating. I am not nor ever will advocate what you are trying to do which is twist my words. Never once did I say he should have made the choice to drop his family and run, nor did you see me say he made the wrong choice in staying. I just said he made his choice. I will had he or all those like him needs to gut up and deal with it instead of crying foul because of their life choice.



True that she may live life easy, but the whole “pursuit of happiness” doesn’t continue along with saying “which means how wonderful the things surrounding you will be or that you will live in a life of luxury.” Her happiness is gone, but perhaps she could be taught how to paint with her feet or mouth..

The word luck and all of its synonyms can be used in many different ways. Is it luck for a person to be born one way or an other, be it deformed, pretty, or yes even in an extremely wealthy family? I can’t honestly say. I would have to say at this point in time it isn’t luck as I look at it. It is life.

Is it luck, good or bad, if a person’s hands are chopped off, or if a person wins the lottery? That I would most certainly say yes that could be looked at as luck.



No, I do not blame people for being poor. What I understand is that while there are a number of government programs to help people who have a huge amount of bad luck, like the example you gave with the house burning down are a good thing, the other government programs that make it easier for people to climb the same ladder I have to. Such as affirmative action (one example and not wanting to list more so I do not make this thread go astray) is a bad thing.



And yet, those people although it may be hard can climb the ladder and jump those hurdles life throws at them. But do not expect me to enjoy the government taking something from me in order to help them. I did it, so can they.



I agree, however, I also agree, nor have I said other wise, that people born in wealth do have more opportunities afforded to them. I have never said life was easy, nor that it should be a path with rose petals for everyone to walk on. So all though they (wealthy people) have more opportunities, doesn’t mean all people will have the same difficulties and that is the way life is.



I believe a choice with your life is not a bad choice if you can live with it. I believe that if I make a choice to rob a bank that is a bad choice. If I choose to stay in a coal mine to raise or take care of my family that isn’t a bad choice, and unless I can’t live with it, it isn’t the wrong choice. But I dare not ever blame anyone because the choice I made.

The fact that poor people can not afford to make bad choices where the wealthy people can is not fair true, but who in this world has ever said this life is fair?



Here, what you may call luck I call life. Never once did I bring up God or claim it is God’s plan, nor do I blame any deity for life. Where did you even come up with the idea that I even come close in that thought? The only thing I give God or any deity credit for is giving us free will that comes with a choice. The old saying rings true that you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink it. That is the difference I see between the two philosophies. The Liberal view is lead to water, try to force the horse to drink, and if that doesn’t work, force me to try to force the horse to water. My conservative view is spank the horse on its rear and say if you are smart you will find the water and you will drink it. If the horse doesn’t have a means to find it, show it to him then let him choose to drink. (may be a bad analogy because I could see someone saying “what if the horse doesn’t have a mouth! To those I say /shrug that’s life….)

Life is not fair, nor should it be nor will it ever be. Being born poor although not fair is not a tragedy. Your house burning down because of a forest fire you could not control is. You can't combine those two to make an argument. They are apples and oranges. Well, you can, that is your choice, but to me they don't fit in the same catagory. Some one poor as you said, has the same ability as someone who is born wealthy. Different life hurdles yes, but they have the same ability.

Thanks for helping with my point Quark.

It's to easy to make these sweeping analyses of "types" of people and talk about people who work hard and succeed and those who are lazy and want help from the government. Before making these generalizations I think people need to walk through a city and talk to some pople. Talk to a homeless person. Find out who they were before they came to their present state. You WILL be surprised. Many families are two months of pay away from complete poverty and yet they live in upper-middle class neighborhoods..or nicer. When they lose their job a la Enron and suddenly the family is living in a car is it because they are lazy? These are NOT exaggerations, I know people in those situations. I work with a man who was homeless for nearly ten years. he had been a math teacher and lived in a very nice town with a house, wife, children, etc... He worked hard to get his life back and he has it. However he couldn't have done it without homeless shelters and a list of other services provided him by the government. It is simply crass to imply, out of what can only be naivete, that he deserved his fate because he must not have worked hard enough.

As far as Wlfare and abusing the welfare system goes, I read somewhere recently that the greatest abusers of welfare are the upper-middle and upper class. Those people know the system, are educated, and have the means to falsify paperwork. I read one estimate that 70% of welfare abuse was done by the wealthy. Here is one example
I will try to find more numbers on this but I think everyone cna understand how this works. I can tell you without a doubt that wealthy people soak public education for MUCH more than do the poor. Every day I see wealthy people go into the school and demand extra services for their children. They often send lawyers to the meetings without attending themselves. They pressure the school to label their child as special Ed. in order to get extra tutoring, extra time on tests, etc... These children, who often actually score above average or better, get the services that should really be afforded to needy students, whose parents often don't even know how their rights.
As a reference, in Connecticut the average cot per pupil per year is somwhere around $7,000. That's what it costs to send a normal kid to school. Special ed kids, on the other hand, can often cost upwards of $50,000 or more.
Wealthy families regularly get themselves a piece of that pie when their children actually have no needs.

The abuse of government programs cannot be an argument against liberalism or social spending. I'd liek to see how many wealthy families use school vouchers to send their kids to the ultra expensive private schools that, even with the vouchers, normal people can't afford anyway. Nice going there....


Anyway, I'm all for tough love but let's be real, there are so many ways people can be sunk in this fast paced world, we need to pay for some liferafts now, because none of us know when we will be doing the sinking...

Actually Hugo, your answer is incorrect, course so is Voltair's.

Both parties have done both. But, neither party are liberal or conservative.. still trying to figure out what they are though

"Why won't those gosh dang liberals leave them seatbelts alone?" So what 40% less people die in car crashes each year? Liberalism is still "bad".

This is the problem with extreme conservatives. Even when statements don't make sense, they use it. Just because whoever said it was conservative. What happened to democracy and freedom of choice? This is what I believe liberals stand for. A CHOICE. Not a blind commitment to a party and all its beliefs, regardless of how crazy some might sound.

If Washington could see us now...

IMO, the only choice many liberals stand for is concerning abortion.
Let's see overall,
School choice (vouchers)..........nope
Choice re: 2nd Amendment.......nope
Associating with like minded people, regardless of skin color or sexual orientation...............................nope
Investing retirement savings, not the SS ponzi scheme.....nope
Choices of what to put in your body.......nope (both parties are guilty)

I realize these are some extreme liberal positions, but let's be clear that:
This is the problem with extreme liberals. Even when statements don't make sense, they use it. Just because whoever said it was liberal.

Okay I apologize. I meant choice for all, not just the select few. And not choices that harms others
School Choice (vouchers) - a select few. Forget the rest.
2nd Am Choice - Forget the harm in that I guess. Just use "self-defense" a lot more
"Assoc...regardless of skin color or sexual orientation" - yeah, we see a bunch of conservatives in support of gays.

And skin color? Well, we'll just ask the President of Penn. State's College Republicans what he feels about that. Penn State 'College Republican' Defends Dressing In Black Face

For some reason, I just feel that equality "regardless of skin color" pits better with liberals.

And the retirement savings plan? We all know who that hurts, everyone born after 1964 (baby boomers).
Oh yeah and the last one: Choice of what to put in your body - It is the most extreme of liberals pushing for that choice.

So to rephrase what I said before, it stands for a CHOICE...as long as you aren't hurting others just to have your choice.

Hey Dontreadonme,
I know I need ot shorten my posts but take a look at my teacher's view of vouchers a few posts back. I am one of the teachers who would have ZERO problem with allowing parents and kids to choose a school they like and go to it.
the reality is that only the wealthy can take advantage of school vouchers as they have been presented by the Republican party. A poor family receiving $5,000 stipend to send their kid to a $20-25,000 private school is laughable. They won't be able to do it. However, the wealthy families just got a nice little pick me up on their education costs for their spoiled kids....

It has already been shown that bussing kids around to different schools does not work. I live, and teach, in the state that piloted the whole thing and guess what, the family that sued for it to happen in the case Sheff vs. Oneil have publicly stated they don't think it works now. Black kids move out of the city schools into the suburban schools and voila..suddenly the white parents are pushing for a new system of class leveling. Next thing you know you have all "honors" classes with 98% white kids and "regular" classes with 80% black kids...

Presently there is no equality in education because prejudice is a subtle thing.
And when there is no equality in education it's going downhill quickly for the rest of the country...

Ok, found some examples of Jonathon Kozol. Honestly I think he sometimes get's a bit too "feely" for me and his politics shows right through his science, but what he has seen and what he shares is unavoidably poignant. He has seen the unjustice of racism and shown how it works its way into schools..
Some excerpts from his books, I personaly was shocked by his depiction of East St. Louis and the schools there Read if you dare

That's bring up another important liberal viewpoint.

Faith in regulation.

It doesn't seems so unreasonable to my own liberal mind that another pressure might be substituted for those of the open-market competition in order to receive the same effect.

I'll take the military again (an extreme [for lack of a better word, no aspersions cast] example I know]. Clearly, there is a system without competition (in the business sense, looking at more of a peace-time example) and yet it has imposed a set of rules rewarding achievement and punishing failure.

Might not the post office do the same?

All businesses reward achievement and punish failure. Wal-Mart and K-Mart both share this attribute. One is threatening to join Montgomery Wards the other is not. Without competition noone ever really knows if a company is efficient.

Liberals cry out against corporate oligarchys and monopolies while encouraging government monopolies. Liberals cry out against the concentrated powers they see in the corporate world while concentrating more power in the hands of government.. Liberals cry out against much of the nation's media being concentrated in a few hands, they fight to the death any attempt to reduce the influence a couple teacher's unions have over the minds of our children.

You guys are slipping into the old habit of attempting to pigeon hole liberals into the negative "there is no regulation a liberal doesn't like" etc- when in fact, most regulation exists because of an abuse, then a reaction. Rarely is a regulation PRO-ACTIVE vs Re-Active. For instance, all the regulations on the oil companines up here are because of spills, bribes, corruption, lack of oversite etc in the oil business, "liberals" didn't write these regs, poeple put in charge of writing these regs by lawmakers REACTING to corporate abuses.

The entire labor movement , and the communist/socialist movement is simply a reaction to horrible abuses by horrible poeple, with the former actually lasting because it became part of the fabric of capitalism.

I find it very simplistic and more than a little annoying hearing how "liberals" did this or "liberals" did that- and then I ask, oh yeah, which liberal was that? Did he/she do it all by themselves, or do you have a list of liberals that did this horrible thing?

Now, let's take the FDR programs that a couple of folks have derided so heavily. Some of these programs were definately not designed to become an american icon so to speak, but did, this is the real danger with every good idea. However, they do, overall, serve to the greater good of our nation, not less. Social security, for all it's flaws, makes our mobile population possible, and therefore, one of the main parts of our society possible, our mobility and ability to uproot and go somewhere else for employement or business opportunities. The main reason in other societies for the lack of mobility is taking care of family members. This is true even in parts of Europe today, with extended families living in one home or compound either by neccesity or culture.

I agree that business and the market are overall positive forces, however, they must be kept in check to enable us to even have civil liberties, when, as in the turn of the century, there was a more sophisticated form of slavery, though it was still slavery, if you have no choice but to starve or work for the only game in town, and have no choice but to take what they say, it is still slavery. This is reality, not really a political philosophy.

Does reality make me a liberal then?

I would say my more liberal views tend to be on the socialized medicine side of the argument, not in my (reasonable) regulation of business and corporations!

The only pro-active "regulation" I can think of in big government is GW's present international policy. Oh, wait, so is the Patriot Act.....


An another note, Hugo's "definition" of a liberal leads me to think he is not a conservative but an Anarchist (read for definition)

If government's role is NOT to promote the general welfare of the people living in it then what else is it to do? Is our governement just REALLY expensive wrapping for our military?

Hugo, after all we have seen in this world of human lust and greed can you really say that nearly 300 million people in the U.S. don't need to be regulated?
I know for a fact that I could live in harmony with a group of people in a lawless, classless society. I would never get the urge to steal from them and I would make trades that benefit both of us, if for no reason than I want them to do well so we can trade again....

Can you honestly say everyone would act that way?
And if not should we just let them go unregulated anyway and hope to deliver justice after the fact?

Also, if someone thinks that any national or local government agency is a "monopoly" then they simply don't understand the system in which we live.
All individuals and departments in government are subject to dismissal or downscale at any time. This can be done as easy as a Califormia recall vote...
Also, to be a monopoly one would have to do business in order to exert a sphere of influence. Governments, by their nature, only spend money they don't make money. I will predict the "yeah what about taxes" argument and remind people that taxes are essentially a communal piggy bank. We lump all of our money together (see also The Social Contract) and trust elected officials to use it wisely and in our best interest. Does that always happen? Of course not and it seems to be increasingly less common. But there is a bigger picture:
We draw from our participation in this society a level of comfort, safety, health, and well-being that we could NEVER achieve alone. That is what your taxes are paying for. When we pay taxes we are paying off an investment in our own futures. If we feel that is no longer happening the Founding Fathers accounted for this...
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
- Declaration of Independence

First, the definition I find most relevant is simply this: Liberals encourage the government to provide for the general welfare, conservatives do not. As a conservative, I would add that there is certainly little, if any, proof that the government is ever the way to most efficiently solve most 'welfare' problems, which is where the conservative skepticism stems from. With that as a foundation...



Our government has two other primary roles: regulate interstate commerce, and conduct foreign relations. I could make an argument that 'promote the general welfare' was never intended to be the primary role of the government. However, I would prefer to argue against this primarily on the efficiency angle. The government is simply a completely inefficient mechanism, in general, for promoting the general welfare. So, why is it then that the majority of our federal budget is spent on something the government is not really very good at doing, and has only a quasi-mandate for to begin with? The answer is simple--politics. Taking money from the rich and giving to the poor is a great way to win political favor--heck, look what it did for Robin Hood; we're still talking about him hundreds of years later. Granted, there are certainly many within the liberal ranks who act primarily out of genuine compassion. But, if that were the primary motivation, wouldn't it be better to support policies that actually solved the problems efficiently? Welfare reform is a classic example. This wasn't passed earlier simply because the system created a vast number of voters who had every reason to continue to support the hand that fed them. Those on the left were reluctant to give up such a large voting block.

I would have to say that I'm a "social justice" liberal. I'm gung-ho about a lot of government programs-WIC,AFDC,G.I. Bill,landgrant university bills of the 1860s, as well as Americorps and the like. What is interesting to me, is that on domestic issues, liberals largely agree with one another(it's hard to find an anti-gay marriage liberal who is also a social justice liberal) but it is very prevalent to find liberals who agree on social matters, but disagree on foreign policy. I know people who think government isn't big enough, but who also believe that Bush is doing the right thing overseas. I'm not sure what category they would fall into, but it is interesting to see how they are more "hawkish" than some isolationist Republicans!

Your all missing a very important point...

"Government is the shadow cast by business over society" ~ John Dewey

Look at Classical Liberalism, yes we all know it is against state intervention. Although more importantly is the reasoning behind it.

The state is regressive, makes man a meer tool, etc..

Classical Liberalism when percieved with a understanding of Industrial Capitalism, directly reflects Libertarian Socialism. I tried making this point earlier, although some couldn't grasp the ideology of a Libertarian Socialism.

How can you regulate Business without the government? Labor Unions, Trade Unions, etc.

Take over Industry, Commerce, Finiancial Institutions.

What would be put in place? The Industrial Organization of Society.

Sadly Libertarian Socialism doesn't exist today, but it can be seen throughout the Spanish Revolution.

The point I am trying to make, is that Liberalism is against the State as well as Private ownership of industry. Modern Liberals do use the State to regulate industry.

Government has a defect, in a tyrannical sense of the word. It is potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect, they are pure tyrannies.

As much as I would like to see Labor Unions, Trade Unions, etc. regulate industry. 10%(is it not sure) of Americans are in Labor Unions, so what is their to regulate Corporations(Pure Tyrannies)?

An Anarchist calls himself a Libertarian Socialist, when he doesn't want to be mistaken for other's who call themselves anarchists.

Libertarians are Anarcho-Capitalists. Although, If I may quote Bakunin, "To be an Anarchist, one must be a Socialist". Libertarians may disagree with that, they themselves may not be Anarcho-Capitalists, but that is the stem of their beliefs.

Just take a look at the political spectrum.
Anarchists(Libertarian Socialists) - Bottom Left
Neo-Liberalism(State Socialists) - Top Left
Neo-Conservatism(State Capitalists) - Top Right
Anarcho-Capitalists(Libertarians) - Bottom Right

The reason I consider Neo-Liberalism, State Socialism, is that Neo-Liberalism uses the state against Privately Owned Industry. I would agree with this somewhat, in our present system. Although, I would like to see Labor Unions, Trade Unions, or Workers Communes control Industry.

The reason I consider Neo-Conservatism, State Capitalists. Well, Just look at Bush, or even yet the Reaganites. The Reaganites where for "Free-Trade", yet they double import restrictions, didn't enforces workers rights laws(right to organize etc..), Gave out loads of money for Corporate Bailouts(Corporate Welfare).

In reading everyones posts, Most people on here I believe fall into the Lower Right, and Lower Left Quadrants.

Ok, I'll stop this biast post...

"Democracy requires dissolution of private power. As long as there is private control over the economic system, talk about democracy is a joke. You can't even talk about democracy until you have democratic control of industry, commerce, banking, everything..."
~ Noam Chomsky

Societies Pinata,

I understand very well the concept of Libertarian Socialism, I just think the economics of it are impossibly non-functional, in much the same way as you'd probably characterize the kind of laissez-faire capitalism that I favor. I also see the two terms as being an oxymoron, since socialism cannot happen without coercion (defined as physical force or the threat of physical force) and coercion is the antonym of liberty. I'm not interested in arguing the point -- we could go round and round on it for days non-productively; I just want to make sure we understand each other. I don't miss your point at all, I just don't buy any of the theories your analysis is based on, and I suspect you'd say the same of my theories.

Most Libertarians, and certainly myself, would probably cheerfully admit to being Anarcho-Capitalist as an ideal, though not more than 10% (and probably less) think we could get along without at least a small government, thus nearly all Libertarians support a very limited government, a "night watchman state". So the description as Anarcho-Capitalists is inaccurate except with a modifier such as "in spirit."

Coercion?
(Try's to understand)

How do you see Libertarian Socialism being unable to operate without Coercion?

I understand that the Corporatization of America is not your idea of Capitalism. Although, to me, it is Capitalism in its truest form. I can't understand how Capitalism is for liberty. It is for the Liberty of the Bourgeoisie, but not the Proletariat.

Industrial Workers of the World


As I stated...

It is the stem of Libertarian Belief...

When unions become so powerful they actually control industry, they become (very inefficient) coercive forces. That is rule of the mob. Effectively, the opposite of classical liberalism, which values the individual.

Rule of the mob?

Direct Democracy is in opposition to Liberty? Where each Individual has equal say in decisions that will affect them, is in opposition to liberty?

Maybe I'm just slow

Or perhaps Concentration of Wealth is synonymous with Liberty?

This is just my two cents worth: To me, liberal and conservative is in the eye of the beholder, it's a perception and an opinion. Ones ideology cannot be totally categorized because of peoples personal experiences and how those experiences influence their perception.

Classical liberals believe that on many issues the individual should be sovereign over the issues that effect him. A mob of 51% should not be able to decide I look better in a pink tutu and force me to wear it.

No, concentration of wealth, in the hands of the government, is diametrically opposed to liberty.