The thread "What is a Conservative?" was very interesting, so here is the obvious sequel.

One thing I actually like about what might loosely be called liberalism is the fact that there are a large number of subcategories to it, often in conflict. Getting liberals together is sort of like herding cats.

I can think of a few types. I'll use my own terms for them.

"Social Freedom" Liberals: By this I mean those who are strongly in favor of alternative lifestyles and sexual freedom, who oppose laws restricting at least some forms of recreational drug use and other so-called "victimless crimes," and who are in favor of strong separation of church and state.

"Social Justice" Liberals: By this I mean those who favor government programs to provide for the less fortunate members of society, who are in favor of "welfare," "affirmative action," and so on.

"Special Interest" Liberals: Overlapping quite a bit with the above two categories, I mean here people who have a particular issue that is most important to them. Feminists, environmentalists, and so on.

"The Old Left": By this I mean everything from European-style "Social Democrats" to Communists.

"The New Left": By this I mean anti-militarists, anarchists, and the like.

Obviously this is greatly flawed and oversimplified. Suggestions for corrections and addition are welcome.

Personally, I feel that I fall into the "Social Freedom" category with a strong dose of "Special Interest."

In addition to those categories there are also "Classical Liberals", many of whom now use the term "libertarian" instead. They're the ones who hold to the traditional meaning of "liberal" as in "liberal democracy" and "liberal economics", and as opposed to those newer varieties that have taken over the name.

That category would overlap quite a bit with Victoria's "Social Freedom Liberals", the primary difference being that "Classical Liberals" would also be in favor of essentially laissez-faire economics.

I disagree, Libertarian Socialism is the true form of Classical Liberalism.

Let me explain.

Todays conservatives, deem themselves the descendents of Classical Liberalism, although, I don't believe that is true.

Take for example, the Libertarian Party. They are true Capitalists. As are Anarcho-Capitalists. They believe in drastically limiting the states power because the state is regressive. It makes man a meer tool. If I may quote Humboldt.

Wilhelm von Humboldt ~

"The State tends to make man an instrument to serve its arbitrary ends. Overlooking his individual purposes, and since man is in his essense a free searching self-protecting being, it follows that the state is an anti-human institution. That is its actions, its existence, are ultimately incompatiable with the full harmonous development of human potential in its richest diversity."

Although, they were not opposed to private ownership of industry. The reason I believe, is because writing in 1792, Humboldt did not perceive what was to become of private ownership, and Corporate Tyranny.

They are opposed to Political Fascism(Totalitarianism) but are in favor of Economic Fascism(Capitalism)?

I consider myself in many ways the same kind of paleo liberal that my grandfather espoused- helping those less fortunate while working hard to never need those programs yourself, protection for the weak from the strong (labor vs management, poor vs rich) etc, with the thought that the strong will enslave the weak first and then come for the not so weak.

I am a strict seperation of church and state liberal as well, and at one time that was not a liberal position either LOL

I, like our founding fathers, fear the Christian demogogue more than any foriegn power or threatening terrorist, because they are the root of all loss of liberty.

I fit the "social liberal" to a "T"- having worked around the law enforcement field, I feel that limited resources are being used up on "victimless" crimes instead of going after some really evil poeple!

Very interesting, SocietiesPinata. I disagree of course, but I understand your opinion and respect it. However ...

You're turning established usage in political science and economics on it's head.

Classical Liberalism has an accepted meaning in political science, as outlined in this essay and Libertarian Socialism (which strikes me as something of an oxymoron) is not it.

Likewise, Economic Fascism has an accepted meaning, namely the system of economics practiced in states like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in which the means of production are nominally privately owned but in fact controlled by the State by means of edicts and regulations. That definition does in fact fit to some degree the corporate state mixed economy we have today, but you know as well as I do that that isn't the kind of capitalism that classical liberals or libertarians favor.

In short, I have no problem with your opinions on the matter, but I wish you'd refrain from turning the terminology on its head, as it only serves to confuse and muddle.

How can one be against Totalitarian Governments, and one be for Capitalism?

In its essense is the same.

As Humboldt says, The state makes man a meer tool.

How does capitalism differ?

The bourgeoisie make man a meer tool.

I think really you both are talking about syndicism, which is a type of fascism, but just which group is in power, whether like our own type of near-oligarchy of syndicism of the corporate elite that run our country, with a propaganda job of us being free or something, or not even having a propaganda type thing of trying to hide who is really in charge, with the classic Nazi fascism we talk about.

I believe our current system is not capitalist nor democratic nor republic, but a type of hybird syndicism, which is why I am so anti-right wing, since they so strongly support that status quo.

Syndicalism?

Take privately owned industry to Labor unions, trade unions etc...

Which in return would result in Direct Democracy.

Im not understanding your fascism remark...

Well, I said "hybird syndicism" as opposed to the dictionary definition:

Main Entry: syn·di·cal·ism
Pronunciation: 'sin-di-k&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French syndicalisme, from chambre syndicale trade union
Date: 1907
1 : a revolutionary doctrine by which workers seize control of the economy and the government by direct means (as a general strike)
2 : a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the workers
3 : a theory of government based on functional rather than territorial representation


Well, instead of trade union domination, just make the CEOs the ones running the show, so a syndication of the corporate world into a goverment, such as what ours is now.

So my hybird would be defined as this:

1 : a revolutionary doctrine by which Corporate boards seize control of the economy and the government by direct means (such as the 2000 election)
2 : a system of economic organization in which industries are owned and managed by the CEOs and corporate board members
3 : a theory of government based on functional rather than territorial representation

And classic fascism would be what hitler did- sieze control of the country, liquidate the trade unions, and sieze control of all major industry.


One thing that strikes me as humorous about this entire debate- the fact that poeple strive so hard to really find the definition in this debate and try to say what a liberal IS, as opposed to the conservative debate, where conservatives could not say what a conservative IS, and could only describe what IT IS NOT

You're both confusing me, and we are now way the heck off topic for this thread. I'll shut up so as not to take it even further afield, and we can continue this digression elsewhere.

I don't think CR took this topic off field. And his observation of differing definition styles (what is not versus what is) hits the nail on the head.

So here's my take:

Liberal is a man looking for a woman
A woman looking for a man.

Liberal is a man,
woman looking for a man.

When it all doesn't work out
We just do the best that we can.

Liberal is a feeling
Low down dirty shame

Liberal is a feeling
Low down dirty shame

You can take that away from me
But you won't ever get back the same.

Liberal is a blues lyric sung like Taj Mahal or Etta James would do it. Get those two together in the same room and watch the sparks fly.

Liberal is not only having compassion for the downtrodden, exploited and abused, but also doing something about it. Walking in their shoes. Railing at the powers.

Liberal is worrying way too much about what's going to happen to the next generation for generations out.

Liberal is supporting progressive social programs even if oneself does not benefit.

Liberal is not voting one's pocketbook. (Same as previous, but put into CR's observed "is not" form.)

Liberal is supporting the legal rights of everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sexual orientation, politics, life choices, etc. and so on.

Liberal is not having heros, icons, exalted leaders but having a sense of responsibility to keep the charlatans at bay. Okay, that's just me. But I'm liberal otherwise

A liberal is someone who is quite generous...with other people's money.

Geez, Hugo, if you're going to plagerize G. Gordon Liddy at least get the quote right, "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

I think it is a pretty widespread sentiment. On the abortion debates you always see someone asking why the pro-lifers don't adopt all the available children in foster homes. My question is... why don't the liberals take in all the homeless? I think the truly generous do not coerce others to contribute to their charities.

You've never met my girlfriends... (Kidding. This place needed some levity.)

I'm surprised that this discussion has almost completely ignored the history of liberalism, except for this catch-all observation by Izdaari:



Classical Liberals merely adopt the elements of early liberalism that suit their political leanings; they do NOT embrace historical liberalism as a whole.

There is also of course neo-liberalism, which takes a conservative approach to politics, but has its grounding the liberalism of men like Hobbes and Locke combined with more contemporary works of people like Hayek (an academic) and David Frum (a walking talking can of verbal bile and bombast.)

In general, the liberal or progressive is that which departs from the traditional; the conservative or reactionary is that which holds to it. Politically, it is essentially the belief in the individual freedom to dissent from orthodox or established authorities in political matters.

As a philosophy, I would trace the idea of liberalism to the Enlightenment. The main "liberal" shift at the time would have been marked by a loss of faith in traditional religious sources of authority and a shift toward human rights, science, and the replacement of theocracies and monarchist autocracies with more democratic republics. The Enlightenment led directly to the American Revolution (as well as the French Revolution) and also gave rise to the Industrial Revolution. I would, therefore consider Rousseau, Spinoza, Locke, Voltaire, Franklin, Newton, Adam Smith, Hume, and Jefferson as being among the first "liberals" - some politically active, some more philosophical.

I would tend to think of "classical liberalism" as a pertaining neither to politics or economics, but to ideology and law - and feel that to bring "classical liberalism" into political debate is to muddy the waters. "Classical liberals" - Locke, Hume, Bastiat, von Mises, Hayek - are more philosophers than politicians - and their philosophy in action is probably more accurately (or, at least more clearly) defined as libertarianism. In the political arena, "liberalism" has come to have significantly different meanings.

In politics, liberal traditions vary from country to country, but tend to be related to social democracy, though a more moderate, reformist kind than revolutionary socialism. There would be elements of "classical liberalism" - especially relating to individual liberties - though without circumscribing government intervention to the extent that the libertarian tradition would. Liberals would be less radical or revolutionary than socialists, primarily promoting the extension of the franchise and advocating civil and human rights.

We should also make distinctions between the liberal tradition and "new" or "revisionist liberalism", which I see as a compromise between "classical liberalism" and socialism. "New liberals" tend to feel that free-market liberalism has failed to protect the some of the basic rights of the individual (especially in giving undue political power to crony capitalists) and that government is the solution to many social problems. I would differ from most "new liberals" in that I would see many of their impulses as a last, rather than first, resort.

While (given the limited options) I identify myself here as "liberal", like many on the left, I prefer the term "progressive" - primarily because "liberal" in this country has recently been associated with the more centrist politics of the Democratic Party. The term "progressive" also avoids a bit of confusion with the pejorative spin Republicans have been putting on the word "liberal" for the past few decades, implying irresponsibility, unaccountability, large government, big spending, and compromised character. This is a bit odd - and immensely hypocritical - as Republicans are every bit as guilty of all of the above as Democrats or any other "liberals".

"Progressivism" represents a political philosophy focused on social change. I feel that "progressive" is a much better antonym to "conservative" (adherence to established convention and social norms and support for - and advocacy of - status quo interests).

Either way, I see "liberal" and/or "progressive" as focusing on limited political power and the extension and protection of individual rights, free from the interference of a government in which all citizens can participate.

Hugo,

Maybe it's time we took the money from the thieves who yanked it from us.

Edited to add:

Some filler to not make this a one-liner.

PROFANITY BYPASS ATTEMPT REMOVED - JAIME

Edited to add:

PROFANITY BYPASS ATTEMPT REMOVED - JAIME

Edited to add:

Yes, this is personal. And a rant.

But the thieves are hard at work right now. We liberals need to raise a stink, keep raising it and get some freaking justice. Even at the simple level of getting paid for the work we do.

We don't have to live like refugees.

So anyway, a liberal is also an angry person, having been messed with by the powers who keep yelling at us not to spend their money.

Their money? Oh, come on.

I think this article was the inspiration for my original quote, "It's Official: Stingy Liberals are Generous Only with other people's Money." by Greg Pierce, Washington Times. a bit from that article>

Generous red states


"In news sure to depress those for whom Republican stinginess and antipathy for the less fortunate is an article of faith, the Massachusetts Catalogue for Philanthropy has just released its Generosity Index 2003, which ranks states not just by how much their residents give per capita but also by how much they give relative to what they earn," the Wall Street Journal says in an editorial.


"As OpinionJournal.com reader Gabriel Openshaw pointed out to us, the resulting index shows that the top 20 states all went for George W. Bush in the 2000 election; while 15 of the 20 least generous went for Al Gore. Maybe, he suggests, the difference is that those in red states are more generous with their own money while those in blue states are more likely to be generous with other people's money."

The results of the aforementioned index

Mississippi 50 6 44 1
Arkansas 47 5 42 2
South Dakota 45 8 37 3
Oklahoma 43 10 33 4
Alabama 41 9 32 5
Tennessee 35 3 32 6
Louisiana 44 12 32 7
Utah 30 2 28 8
South Carolina 39 14 25 9
Idaho 42 20 22 10
North Dakota 46 29 17 11
Wyoming 18 1 17 12
Texas 19 4 15 13
West Virginia 48 33 15 14
Nebraska 34 21 13 15
North Carolina 27 15 12 16
Florida 21 13 8 17
Kansas 26 19 7 18
Missouri 29 23 6 19
Georgia 16 11 5 20
New Mexico 37 32 5 21
Montana 49 45 4 22
Kentucky 40 38 2 23
Alaska 25 27 -2 24
New York 4 7 -3 25
Indiana 28 31 -3 26
Iowa 36 42 -6 27
Ohio 33 43 -10 28
California 6 17 -11 29
Washington 11 22 -11 30
Maine 38 49 -11 31
Maryland 5 18 -13 32
Hawaii 31 44 -13 33
Delaware 14 28 -14 34
Illinois 10 24 -14 35
Pennsylvania 22 36 -14 36
Connecticut 1 16 -15 37
Vermont 32 47 -15 38
Virginia 9 25 -16 39
Oregon 24 41 -17 40
Colorado 7 26 -19 41
Arizona 20 40 -20 42
Michigan 17 37 -20 43
Nevada 13 34 -21 44
Wisconsin 23 46 -23 45
Minnesota 12 39 -27 46
Massachusetts 3 30 -27 47
New Jersey 2 35 -33 48
Rhode Island 15 50 -35 49
New Hampshire 8 48 -40 50


Funny, the only groups that take anything from me are local, state and federal governments. Every other economic exchange I agree to voluntarily.

What the modern liberal fails to recognize is that big government tends to strengthen the hands of large corporations and powerful economic interests, not weaken it.

Lets not forget about the liberals in the Republican party! Most people don't realize that there was a progressive Republican caucus! Republicans like George Norris(of my home state ) as well as Fiorella LaGuardia were reformist Republicans who did lots of good things for this country. It's a shame that we don't have progressive republicans today.

What is interesting about your list Hugo, is that poor poeple give so much more than the rich, especially by proportion of thier salary! Look at your top five on your list, and think about the populations there! The poor are far more charitable than the rich, and it shows in those states. Also, poor states tend to be more religious than rich states, (you know, praying to be able to make rent etc) and would make them conservative religious right.

I like some of Wertz's explanations as well, and once again, it sure is a huge difference in attempt to define themselves in "liberals" than conservatives!

The top few states are almost bound to be poor states due to the fact the measurement is the difference between a states income ranking and charitable giving ranking. It may not be a coincidence that poor states, that have been hurt the worst by the social degeneration caused by government programs, tend to vote for the party that touts, even though it fails to practice, limited government.

I have to disagree with the last line of Wertz's post:



I can how this may apply to some social issues. On many social issues and nearly all economic issues "liberal" and "free from the interference of a government" do not positively correlate.

Yes, that's the traditional view of the difference but I have to take issue with it. Many of us on the Right, both "conservative" and 'libertarian" are not at all fans of the status quo, but are very much advocates of progess. We just happen to think that big government, excess regulation and ever higher taxes are not progress, but rather regress, a shift away from a society of individual liberty and opportunity back toward a static status-based society in which an individual's place in society is determined by the hierarchy rather than by the individual. It isn't about who favors change or the status quo, or the status quo ante, but rather about the direction of the change.

I also have to differ with your last paragraph I quoted: that sounds to me like the definition of "classical liberalism" or "libertarianism", not of modern "liberalism". which I do not see as much interested in limiting government or in protecting individual rights, and particularly not "negative rights" (i.e., freedom from government interference) or property rights, but rather in promoting "positive rights" (i.e., rights to things at other's mandatory expense) and collective rights at the expense of individual rights.

See, I think where the disagreement here is over what "goverment interference" is worse- regulation for a large company, or regulation over our most private lives? Where the conservative politician decries goverment regulation of business, the liberal politician wants them to be held more accountable to the goverment for thier actions, where the conservative wants to regulate private lives such as the marriage of gays or drug consumption, the liberal wants the goverment out of these areas, and the libertarian appears to want both if I am not mistaken LOL

So I tend towards the liberal definition I gave a tad, because I think the goverment should not be allowed to interfere in whom a person wants to be mated with or what I wish to consume, but should regulate business to keep them in check.

So yes, "free from goverment interference" and "liberal" are definately interactive, but not in the definition the conservative is using.

One clarificatin of my (personal) definition in that final paragraph - which CruisingRam pretty much nailed. The "free from the interference of a government" was intended to modify "the extension and protection of individual rights". This would not include the extension and protection of corporate, bureaucratic, or industrial rights. It would refer primarily to civil/human rights and, from my own perspective, individual property rights.

What Izdaari is amplifying is what I would see as "new liberalism" or "revisionist liberalism" - with a touch of the "liberal" as it is applied to centrist Democrats. I should probably have left that "and/or" out of there and just stuck with "progressive".

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

Hugo: Any clue as to what those four columns of figures next to each state refer? Obviously the last column is a ranking of some description. Are the others some kind of percentage? A dollar amount? A ratio of something to something else? The number of chickens owned per family? It's difficult to assess what we're talking about without knowing what we're talking about.

One possible explanation for the generosity of the red states, whatever those figures are, though: in terms of taxation, the red states are ridiculously subsidized by the blue states. It stands to reason, then, that in terms of the tax burden - and the disproportional return in services - those red states are much more liquid than the industrialized neighbors who fund them from the pockets of their citizens....

It is also worth mentioning that in the red states, there is still a substantial cavalier class - the plantation and refinery owners - who doubtless avail of massive tax write-offs thereby boosting the the per capita "generosity" of those states. They are also more sparsely populated than the blue states so that one massive donation from a single individual can boost the average of everyone a bit, where a Rockefeller Foundation would be a virtual drop in the population bucket of a state like New York.

The tithing of the Bible Belt probably doesn't hurt either - even though much of that money goes directly back into the administration of profitable churches (and televangelist's wallets) and not to "charitable" causes at all...

I will concede, though, that it can often be the case that those who give the most can least afford it. If that is the case, it is sad that those poor, yet generous, red-state voters get so little return from the party they support.

In any event, I don't think the comparison of perceived philanthropy and voting patterns in an extraordinarily close election can be used as much of a gauge in determining the generosity or stinginess of either political philosophy, even if there were a perceptible correlation to the two right-of-center parties from which we have to choose. Nice try by the Washington Times (and Hugo), though.

First let me explain the Generosity Index

Mississippi 50 (economic rank last of the 50 states), generosity 6 (6th of the 50 states), difference 44, 1 (the largest difference between economic rank and generosity rank of the 50 states)

While this is a highly imperfect index, favoring rural and impoverished states, it perfectly reflects a difference in philosophy between those who wish for government charity and those who prefer private charity. It is also evidence that public charity may push out private charity.

And now to quote Wertz



The key question here is; what is your perspective on individual property rights? Is not every dollar in my pocket (note: I am an individual, not an evil corporation) also my property? Let us look at programs the modern liberal supports, social security, medicare, healthcare and welfare. All these programs are transfer payments; they take one man's property (in this case usually in dollars) and hand it over to someone else. Look at the difference between liberals and conservatives on the inheritance tax. From my perspective, rights to property is a key component of individual rights. From my perspective, liberals are the greatest aggressors against the right to property.

As a businessman, and from a strictly practical aspect, I see that progression of individual property rights as unrealistic and crazy as utopian communism. There is a debt you owe your society for the ability to earn that dollar, and no, as a debt, it is not strictly YOUR dollar. A portion of it is, but not all of it. As a real estate investor, the infrastructure neccesary for me to do business, plus the public sector service of home inspections, permitting process, public safety (fire, police), and yes, welfare so we don't become Calcutta and the poor problem there, are all neccesary for me to earn my money off of real estate, and nearly every business in this country are in the same boat. The need is to balance those public issues and business issues so that business grows while the public interest is maintained. So, the "money is my property, and the goverment has no legal claims to my property" is bogus on the face of it, because the goverment is so neccesary for the business of doing business.

This is the area of the extreme property rights crowd should go to India or Indonesia where there are little or no social programs and see how well the public interest is served and how large the middle class vs the poor ratio is!

I daresay, if 90% of the poeple that call themselves "conservatives" got thier wish in regards to cutting goverment programs, they would themselves be out of a job in a depression of such magnitude it would probably change thier entire political thinking

So it is my practical thinking of "conservative vs liberal" that makes me shy away from the conservative ideas here, because social programs are so neccesary to the economy, as much as investment and labor and actual capital!

Now it is when the balance is shifted too far one way or the other that the problems occur IMO- and we have never hit that point in social programs for the poor- welfare direct payments are only 1% of the federal budget, with the majority of the "social programs" going to poeple that have actually paid into the system, ie- social security, medicaid medicare, mostly for the elderly, which of course paid thier debt!

I make 80% of my income from real estate investing also. Yes, I do need the police, conservatives and liberals and even most libertarians agree with that. Thank you for showing what a liberal is, someone who believes welfare relieves misery, not propagates it. Liberals believe that the welfare state is the reason there are no Calcutta's in the US. Others believe that there are no Calcutta's in the US due to the free market, and that transfer payments have slowed the free market but not prevented it from rising the standards of all Americans. Liberals ignore the fact that India had a highly socialist goverment for 40 plus years after independance that mired it's citizens in deep poverty. The free market produces goods, those unhappy with their lot under the free market resort to government to steal the property of others. Liberals are basically the champions of legalized theft and mob rule.

I agree with you that we could not eliminate government jobs and programs overnight. That is a sad reflection of how large our government is, and how they have created a dependancy on government.

On the positive side liberals are also the champions of uninhibited sex and drug use.

Uh-huh. And this is a funhouse mirror, but it perfectly reflects your likeness, Hugo.


First, taxation is supported by both liberals and conservatives (or, at the very least, Democrats and Republicans). They may quibble over a few percentage points and may try to tip the scales to favor their constituencies, but none but the most insanely unrealistic advocate an absolute abolition of taxation any time soon. Taxation in some form is essential for securing the infrastructure of the state - and where liberals tend to differ from conservatives is how far that infrastructure should extend into the fabric of "the social contract".

Unlike CruisingRam, I don't mind indulging in a bit of utopianism. I feel it is our responsibility as a society to see that none of our people are dying in the streets, that our elderly are cared for, and our sick ministered to. At this point in history, this obviously involves a bit of "transfer payment" - though, in my ideal world, as minimal as possible (and it should be noted that it is not just taking "one man's property", it is taking a bit of every man's property - and every woman's, for that matter - for the well-being of our society as a whole). As would be my position on many social programs (affirmative action, for example), I would ideally see such things as welfare or medicaid designed for obsolescence, as interim stopgap programs until we have eliminated unemployment and ensured affordable health care (or insurance) for everyone. Where I would tend to disagree with many liberals - and agree somewhat with you - is that I find some liberals (and most Democrats) a bit too aggressive in making free with the right to property (not that Republicans are that much more conservative in this regard).

That said, the "right" to private property, such as monetary income, is not absolutely unassailable from my perspective. Just as there are limitations on the right to free speech (slander, libel, reckless endangerment, obscenity, etc.), there are also limitations on the right to private property (taxation to support the infrastructure of the state and the well-being of the society, provide for the common defense, etc.) Ideally, these limitations should be as limited and unobtrusive as possible, requiring the minimum to keep the wheels of society running smoothly.

Right now, the invasion of private property (in terms of our pocketbooks) is relatively minimal - at least compared to similar societies elsewhere in the world - and much of its expenditure should (ideally) be making us money back: be it through safer communities, educated children, better roads, or healthier employees. It could, of course, always be even less intrusive - but our society could also run a bit more smoothly than it currently does.

One note: I do not see corporations as inherently "evil". I see them as inherently driven by profit. This is no bad thing of itself, obviously, but it (necessarily) implies that things like worker safety, consumer protection, and the environment will always be a lower priority than the bottom line - a much lower priority. That is why regulation of business and industry is essential. Self-policing, voluntary monitoring, eschewing monopolies and cartels, and willing conformity to minimum standards simply do not work. There is no motivation for them to work.

I believe that most Americans want a balance between government spending and programs, versus private ones. I don't think they want the government completely out and want a laissez-faire style government. I think they appreciate having food inspected(despite having some departments with oversight responsibilities gutted financially) and they want some programs that they see as being beneficial. I think that is a problem with the Libertarian party and is a main reason why they've stagnated in recent elections. Being against excessive government spending is one thing, but to be against every program? Most people have one or two programs that they believe are beneficial. Job corps, peace corps, pell grants, student loans, etc. At the same time, they don't want a society that is present in Scandinavia. They don't want half of their income to go to the government to truly pay for cradle to grave programs. We have nothing like that here in this country and most people feel that there is a good balance.

I think when we start talking about regulation of businesses we are entering an area that is not exclusively in the domain of liberals. I, a libertarian, recognize that there are often costs imposed on third parties in economic transactions that must be controlled. Sometimes civil lawsuits is the answer to controllin these costs, other times regulations are needed. Examples of "liberal" regulations that definitely are not needed are the ADA and smoking prohibitions in private enterprise. Liberals have a tendency to limit individuals right of association and to eschew the property rights of business owners.

Liberals view businesses to be inherently taking money from people they should not be taking. Liberals believe there is no way to fix this other than taking the money back via government taxation.

Liberals do not believe fairness is at all possible via the economic model of regulating for monopolies and coercion(which includes hidden third party costs).

------

The 'us versus them' philosophy is not constructive. It is present in conservative ideology, too. Such a philosophy is legalized coercion.

*****

Liberals believe it is best to think of 'well being' in terms of groups as opposed to individuals. A liberal will like a policy if they view it will help the community overall even if some individual will be hurt by it.

------

Are not groups no more than a collection of individuals? Would not 'well being' be maximized if the individual's desires are respected?

Hugo- I don't entirely disagree with you in philosophy, however, in practise, it is a pipe dream IMO- like communism, sounds great, where our motivations are for personal satisfaction vs material wealth, kinda of a star trek utopia LOL

But the inherent immorality and corruption in a purely capitalist system makes the low regulation/small goverment ideal most Libertarians dream of impossible IMO.

I have read the libertarian platform/website, and though there is much I like, there is much I find as silly as Peta poeple, kinda "way out there"

I think that liberal/libertarian views in the current political scene is much closer than conservative/libertarian, simply because the current conservative lives by none of the actual ideals that they used to have LOL

And that is why there is the liberal ACLU, which defends and fights for some of the most marginalized people in our society, many whom conservatives and liberals alike might despise.

I believe that liberals truly try to make allowances for most people. But we do view corporatists with a jaundiced eye, and we would like them to be more willing to share the wealth to help the disadvantaged in our society, many of whom work in their own corporations.

Um, right Paladin, but unfortunately ACLU stands for American Civil Liberties Union, not American Civil Liberals Union. Since they do not defend civil liberties that don't suit their political bias -- have you ever heard of the ACLU defending a gun rights case, or a property rights case? -- I perceive a need for a new replacement ACLU that does defend civil liberties of all stripes, free of ideological bias other than being consistently pro-individual rights and pro-Bill of Rights.

Actually, I agree that the achievement of a totally libertarian society is a pipe dream. The same factor that makes free markets work, call it self interest or greed, prevents a libertarian society from being politically possible. Individuals will always seek to gain from government what they cannot gain on their own. My only hope is a more libertarian society, to stem the growth of government and actually reverse the growth of government. Most people thought the Socialist Party of 1928 were a bunch of dreamers. By 1980 they had suceeded in establishing most of their 1928 party platform. My only real goal is to move the political center toward less government. Actually, you are seeing some success on social issues, where libertarians and liberals often agree. No success on economic issues where the growth of government under a Republican administration and Congress shows there is no longer a major party that favors less government.

Back on topic. Liberals are at least honest with themselves. On economic issues they favor more government and tell us so. On social issues they tend to be libertarian, though often supporting group rights over individual rights. The exception is a contempt for private property rights that goes beyond economic issues.

Led me add that I am definitely generalizing here. I am more concentrating on the net effect of the masses of liberals who have varying philosophies.

I would generalize by saying that liberals are those who dare to question. THis is not saying it is always a good thing, and I definitely do not agree with everything liberals do, but I believe that the US of A was formed around democracy, and that no one person has all the answers. We need to question sometimes, and if there is nothing else I like about liberals, it is that the elected party officials are held accountable, and this is what I believe there needs to be more of.

I would also liken the liberals vs. conservatives as the conservaitves being the chalk plant and the liberals being the environmentalists. The country would not be what it is without both sides combatting, because each brings something good to the table (In this scenario, it would be chalk and clean air).

However, I do believe that when one becomes too much more powerful than the other, the imbalance shifts the "best for our country" to the "best for our party", and I think that is what is happening right now.

What is a liberal? About to be rich,
What is a conservative? About to be richer.

My two cents...
I concur with Wertz that the pure meaning of liberal is that one is open to suggestions. That is to say that there is no assumption the old way is the best. This is a trait I share rather strongly (tradition is rarely a compelling interest, in my book).

The current meaning (tainted as it is by association with a narrow set of partisan battles) is belief in better living through government. That the government, rather than being as "small" as possible should be active in the promotion of the successes of it's citizens. Of course, that also mean giving government the power to do so.

That's my personal philosophy, though it is understandable that conservatives tend to worry about the government's abuse of this power leading to the "small-government" mantra.

Philosophy is life after all...

That may in general be true, but it doesn't distinguish liberals from say, libertarians, who are also open to new things and not particularly impressed with tradition as an argument. I could even think of some conservatives who think that way, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich being one -- whatever you may think of his politics, he is a practicing futurist and always interested in new ideas and new ways of doing things.

I've been told that I'm a bit to the left of George Carlin. I've learned that makes me a "liberal." I never really cared to research exactly what all those terms meant; but I seem to have been labeled this way because I think for myself, and I ask questions. I was never able to listen for hours on end to the rantings of Rush to Limbo and say "Amen, brother."

I have seen repeated statements that being a liberal means that we "tax and spend." I saw an article in yesterday's Detroit Free Press about just how "Conservative" George W. Bush's spending habits are. I went to search for it, and learned that it is not exactly news.

My search for "Bush + spending" returned "TOP 20 WEB RESULTS out of about 1,070,000." I started to browse through the top of the list.

Item 1) Bush's spending binges by Jonah Goldberg (archive) June 13, 2003 begins:
(Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a TownHall.com member group.)

Item 2) Bush's Spending Priorities are a Threat to US Democracy, an article by Scott Loughrey, begins:
Item 3) Right raises thunder over Bush spending , an article in the Chicago Tribune - July 21, 2003, by William Neikirk, Tribune senior correspondent begins:
For this administration it seems, the motto is "Tax cut and spend." Somehow, to me, that seems a far less pragmatic course. Questioning this administration though, has often left me labeled as "unpatriotic." I think I prefer the term liberal, but I really never saw any value to standing up and saying, "This is my liberal point of view. Because you're a conservative, you can completely ignore my opinions as uninformed."

Edited to add, I found the Free Press article that started me on this search. Dollars say Bush is big spender , is an article written By Ron Hutcheson of the Free Press Washington Staff and published in their Dec. 4, 2003. It begins:
In other parts of the article we are told: and
If George W. Bush is the current model of a modern conservative, I'm proud to be labeled left, or liberal, or totally off my rocker by his followers. They should be aware though, that conservative think tanks are starting to look at his policies and ask questions. He may be strapped into a rocket sled for a fast ride down a set of greased rails leading to next year's re-election; but he might want to check to see if this is the rocket sled used to test his resistance to G-forces, or the demolition testing one with the concrete wall at the other end.

Yes Bush does seem to be spending like a liberal but we have to say that the recession and the war have a good deal to do with much of it. He has NOT raised taxes though as we know he has lowered taxes across the board for which conservatives should give him the credit he deserves.

I think of liberals as folks who have a nearly religious faith that the government can do what needs to be done better (and cheaper) than the private sector. Numerous GAO audits tell us this is not the case but the myth continues.

Conservatives IMO believe government should be as small as possible and serve to “level the playing field” with laws and regulations for the private sector.

So aside from the conservative opinions this statement is distilled from, what leads you to believe this? Are you speaking of all Liberals or just the democratic party? And how do you account for the fact that Reagan and Bush have both overseen the two largest expansions in U.S. government history?

It kind of depends on what you consider liberal. By todays standards Nixion would be considered liberal while Carter would be considered a staunch conservative.

I disagree that the ACLU is truly representive of a liberal ideology, though they have been tagged that by the right. Gun rights and property rights have plenty of defenders, and religious rights issues usually run counter to actual freedom, with the religious issues trying to force thier religion on others. So the ACLU does not need to duplicate it's issues with property rights. But I have seen them, or should I say, have read about cases they take that are extremely politically incorrect, which runs counter to the "liberal" tag. For instance, the black ACLU lawyer that represented the KKK cross burning as a freedom of speech. Liberal blacks, etc castigated the ACLU and kicked this black lawyer out of his job with the NAACP (it has been awhile since this case, 3-4 years as I recall, I will try to look it up) though the ACLU stood by his right to free speech etc. Taking unpopular stands against the erosion of civil liberties is wha the ACLU does, and they anger right and left alike quite often.

Back on topic though, I think where Hugo and I and perhaps some conservatives disagree, and I will try to pinpoint this a little further, is corporate rights vs individual rights, which I think has a lot to do with the debate. The fact that a corporation has rights to snoop into your private life that the goverment does not even have carte blanche' to do is what really bothers me. The urine samples, the right to spy on you, to keep you from opening your own business (no compete clauses etc) is very anti-freedom. In one science fiction book I read (red mars) the quote was "why do you have to check the constitution and your rights at the door of your employer"- which is very apt. Right now the balance of freedom and liberty is heavily in favor of the corporations and the religious establishment. These two institutions should have no legal ability to affect your life whatsoever, outside of the corporation having the basic right to manage (in the labor/management definitions laid out under FLSA) .

Where I might be called a "liberal" is my wanted to see massive reforms of managment powers and accountability in the corporate sector, and a "freedom from religion" amendment to the constitution. But IMO- this creates greater freedom for individuals, not less.


Phaedrus- can you please elaborate further on your Nixon/Carter comment? I would like to understand your comment better as to why you believe this- I am very curious.

Wouldn't this also be corrected through a purely capitalist system, wherein corporations that get painted in this light find their customers unwilling to buy their products? If not, wouldn't this indicate that these are, in fact, issues that consumers are not concerned about?

It is MY right to own and run a company. That company is MINE. It is MY right to deny, restrict, or accept the sell or trade of MY goods made or traded by MY company to anyone.

It is MY right to set restrictions and procedures in MY company
It is My right to set qualifications and screenings, including drug test, background tests and so forth for someone seeking employment in MY company. It is the prospected employee’s right to agree or disagree to MY qualifications and screenings set by MY company and his/her right not to work for me or work for me.

It is not nor should it be YOUR right to tell me how to run MY company.

That is the difference I see in the two sides. One wants to defend MY right to run MY company MY way. Were the other wants to enforce THEIR beliefs and THEIR policies on me and how I run MY company.

Anyone has the right not to do business with MY company, as well as to do business with it. They have a right to protest MY ways and MY policies, but they should not and do not have the right to force me or MY company into doing things THEIR way.

The definition of a Liberal is taking something that is MINE and giving it to someone else. In an economical, political and religious definition that is.

Philosophy: they are open minded about new things, willing to accept different cultures and able to accept people for who they are regardless of their moral stances.

The Liberals in politics, the ones I have followed, are not what I would call true liberals. I share many things in common with people who call themselves a liberal, all except politics.

You know as well as anyone here, slowtime, that while your prospective employees may have the right to turn down a job offer, they do NOT necessarily have the power. Liberals make it their business to empower all individuals to exercise their freedoms, for what good are rights you can't exercise?

What power is greater than choice?

The prospective employee has the power to choose to work for me with my rules or to choose not to.

slowtime,

and where is the choice when every Fortune 500 company but to are white? Add to the recent study that those applicants with "black" names instead of "white" names are much less likely to be hired? And the study that a person is more likely to be hired by a person of his/her same color? And this is just on the racial aspect. Let's not even get on the subject of gender, age and disability discrimination

I get tired of hearing people saying, "It's my right" to deny other people's rights to an opportunity. Like I said before, I do not agree with everything about liberals, but I get tired of hearing SOME (not all) conservatives feeling that they are somehow the "chosen" people, who has rights they feel should never be violated regardless of the implications it has for other people.

Democracy is freedom TO, not freedom FROM.

Reality is slowtime, that the small company that is privately owned doesn't have the luxury of much of what you are talking about- whom to hire etc, they take what the market offers, which is fine by me. However, PUBLICALLY owned companies are forces unto themselves, with the power to get officials elected etc that allow them to whittle away at the balances set by market forces.

You keep saying MY company, but there are darned few of them that can compete with the PUBLICALLY owned company- look at the failure of Mom&Pop grocery stores Vs Wal mart- a level playing field here is absolutely neccesary, or eventually you don't have any small business.

Slowtime- here is the question I ask all poeple with this point of view- are you a company owner with over say, 100 employees? Do you have the ability to set local community regulations just from your ability to get some one elected through power of the buck? Do you have the wherewithal to participate in predatory pricing to drive your competition out of business and then become a monopoly? If you are a wage slave, working for someone else, not in a professional field that allows a great deal of mobility, then you will possibly be having those rights tested!

Very interesting...though I believe you forgot my own category. Not sure what to call it, it's just that I didn't really fall into those categories. The Cynic, perhaps. I don't really know if I can think of a good category to accurately describe my liberal tendencies. Ah well. Very interesting, though. I suppose more of a Social Justice type...(though I don't believe in affirmative action)..