First off, if you want to throw some Rush Limbaugh "liberals love socialism" rhetoric on this debate- start your own thread on the repubilican thread please

Izdaari though made an interesting comment though about "well, liberals used to be libertarians, now they are for the nanny state"- which is a viewpoint, though one I don't hold.

To me, with the huge shift to the right in this country, I think of liberals as more libertarian than ever before- they are against the patriot act, pro-choice, pro-same sex marriage, anti-blurring of church and state, anti-drug war, anti-corporate control of our goverment.

I think the age of the tax and spend liberal is all over, though, in all fairness, that is far more fiscally conservative than borrow and spend conservatives at this point

Since we are in no way a nanny state, as compared to Europe, heck, we don't even take care of our really poor and disabled, much less those that just choose to be lazy, that complaint against liberals is extremely over exagerated.

What is interesting to me is- a good 50 years this country was run by liberals, and it was the golden age of our country! JFK, FDR, Harry Truman, 40 years of Dem controlled houses, every road you drive on , bridge you see, darn near every piece of important infrastructure you see today, was paid for by a liberal congress. We really peaked education wise around 1968, about the time that the luster of liberalism started to wear off.

Now, to me, you can be a hawkish liberal (JFK, Lieberman) and a dovish conservative (Buchanan) so the unwillingness to go to war does not make a liberal either IMO

So, what is a legitimate liberal today? Is he/she really just a left leaning libertarian such as myself, that wants to see more controls on big business but less on private citizens private lives?

If you think the Rush Limbaugh parody of a liberal is correct, what is your basis of belief on this- and remember, we really have not had a liberal goverment or movement since 1980!

Not exactly what I said, but close enough. There was a time when liberals were essentially what libertarians are now. You're not denying that, are you, CR? So I guess you disagree that current liberals are for the "nanny state." True, for good or ill we haven't achieved the levels of cradle-to-the-grave care with the state in loco parentis that many European countries have, but some are working hard on driving us in that direction. Who exactly is doing that if not liberals?


That's a fair point, though as Hugo noted in another thread, fiscal conservatism isn't the only thing at stake here. Deficits do serve as a brake on the growth of government, and reducing the size of government is my highest domestic priority. Still, I'd prefer restraining spending to either alternative.


To be sure, there are libertarian elements even in today's liberals. Excuse some stereotyping please, since painting with a broad brush is necessarily what we're doing here.

Liberals are for free speech, though there's a dynamic tension when that speech goes against the liberal grain and they often invoke political correctness to muzzle it. They're pro-choice, though only with regard to abortion, not for school choice or the choice to own firearms. Though not all liberals are for same-sex marriage, it is liberal ideology driving the iissue, so I'll concede that one. So far as religion, I'm not sure emphasizing the "Establishment Clause" at the expense of the "Free Exercise" clause is really the more libertarian approach. I don't see many liberals opposing the Drug War, though I wish I did. Some few are openly against it, but then so too are some conservatives. Liberals against corporate control of government? Liberal activists maybe, but not liberal politicians who take lobbyist's money as quickly as anyone. But even if I stipulate that liberals are against it, they're for union control and lawyer control, which I don't see as an improvement; or am I confusing liberals with Democrats on that one?

Oh, and I forgot to address the PATRIOT Act. Well, most liberals in the Senate, including Sen. Kerry, voted for it. Now there are some Senators who want to amend it to rein it in a bit, and that sounds good to me, but those Senators aren't all liberals; some are Republicans, including conservative Republicans whose brand of conservatism is more on the libertarian side.


No argument there, and I'd like to note that Buchanan's foreign policy position (aside from trade and immigration of course - he is a protectionist and a nativist) is essentially identical to the LP's. But there's a difference between a dovish conservative and a dovish liberal, and that is that dovish conservatives aren't about to cede more national sovereignty to the UN or other international bodies, whereas dovish liberals generally are willing, even eager to do so. Another difference is that dovish conservatives would not have moral qualms about using force to protect US interests when necessary, whereas in many circumstances a dovish liberal might. Perhaps non-interventionist is a more accurate term than dovish for Buchanan and company.


This gets to the heart of the matter.

First I want to note that the controls on business affect big business less than they do small business, which is less able to afford the armies of accountants, lawyers and yes, lobbyists required to deal with the extensive (and expensive) regulation, and it is small business that is the major engine of job creation. (And who is it that's kvetching about weak job creation, hmm?) I'll not deny that some of those regulations do some good, but my opinion is the body of them as a whole have an economic impact that outweighs the benefits. I don't want to abolish them all, but I would like to trim them back to, say, half or less of the current 13% or so of GDP that is consumed per year in complying with them.

That was the pragmatic side, now for the moral issue: An old slogan of the Left is "Human rights, not property rights." The problem with that is that property rights ARE a human right, and one of the most basic of them. If I'm not free to buy and sell goods and services as I see fit, then I'm sorry, friends, but I consider that a severe intrusion into my private life, and I could not consider anyone who favors restricting me in that way to be a libertarian, whether left leaning or otherwise.

I'm not going to go into the painting with a broad brush idea, due to the fallacious nature of it, but the way I've always seen it...

Liberal - things could be better if we changed this, this, and this. Things are better now than they used to be.

Conservative - things will be better if we revert to this, this, and this. Things were better yesterday than they are today.

Libertarian - the government that governs least, governs best.



I think you can have a liberal Libertarian or a conservative Libertarian. I'm the liberal kind.

Hmm, I guess all of those describe me to an extent.

I think things could be better if we changed this, this and this, and if we revert to this, this and and this... and most of those changes need to be in the direction of the government that governs least, governs best. Things will be better in the future than they are now or have ever been, and I fully expect that they will be... if we don't blow it.

I'm glad libertarian ideas are becoming so popular that everybody at least wants to appropriate the name. If all y'all wanted to appropriate more of the substance that'd please me more.

This is a really good thread. Here in the west, I've done an informal survey among friends and acquaintances and have found that most "liberals" are really left-leaning libertarians. They are for reduced government. Many are states-rights oriented. All of them are advocates of personal rights as well as property rights. Of course, I don't believe my informal survey is anything more than anecdotal but I was surprised. So, using the Nolan chart as my guide, I like to slice liberal/libertarian/conservative differences with a different granularty. This is a rough cut and I'm not sure I actually agree completely with my categories.

libertarian
------------
increase personal rights via fewer laws
smaller government via fiscal restraint
free market needs fewer controls

liberal
--------
increase personal rights via more laws
big government via taxation
free market needs more controls

conservative
--------------
reduce personal rights via more laws
big government via deficit spending
free market needs fewer controls

I lean more to the liberal side for my view of the world. I think my slogan was something like, "great all the world needs is more conservatives". Which really has nothing to do in depth with any particular conservative or the ones in the u.s, i just don’t see to many liberals actively starting wars in the world. I guess i am just compelled for a more humane reality to live in.

As far as the states go, my issues lie in what a particular group supports. My views are closer to the green party thus liberal then any other, but all them put on a suit and tie and cater to some majority view or things for the most part. I do not fancy corporate government, or anti-environment, or any form of domination, be it of life or thought. On the flip side of things, humanity collectively reminds of a pot of boiling water and trying to figure out the specific path of the bubbles save destination(its a metaphor). So obviously some form of laws need to govern something like a society or even a world maybe, but whom or what gets that power or responsibility, the big winner? This then leads me back to the liberal label, or something progressive, not choking, in my perception.

Overall i would think that most all appreciate liberty and democracy, even if both seem to be duel in nature in context of the concepts in action.

In the classical meaning of the word, yes-you would be correct in stating that liberals are left-leaning libertarians. A strong emphasis on individual liberty, private property, with economic and social controls as being a threat to that mentioned liberty. Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo were prominent laissez-faire liberals. At the same time, I believe we need to acknowledge there were different kinds of liberals. Locke and Rousseau were liberals, but both of them had different opinions as to what kind of power "big brother" would have over society. Rousseau would've had an enlightened despot, while Locke was more of a true libertarian in that regard. Likewise, I don't believe that liberals were against any involvement in the economy, or at least some of them anyways.

Limbaugh's comments show a simple overgeneralization on his part. Just as many GOP senators engage in pork barrel spending as democrats do. Furthermore, liberals might be for "socialism" for the people, but the GOP is for "socialism" when it benefits corporations and other big spenders.

Liberal and conservative have no real definitions. They are broad stereotypes used to bound debate within guidelines set by society, media, and institutions. I have yet to meet anyone I would consider liberal or conservative, people are much more complex and the use of these terms cheapens free thought and individualism.

If my words dent ring true to you then try this simple test. If you consider yourself either of these stereotypes write a list of 20 things that you think define what liberal/conservative means. Have friends with similar views then you do the same. Compare them and I highly doubt that you will have the same list.

This Tread is quite interesting.......
[personal note]
I am, or at least try to be a conservative libertarian.
[/personal note]

Hum....
I can quickly go for, "Government is good when it governs the least."
But I heavily lean conservitive on family and marriage issues.

Let me jump on the ban-wagon!!!!!!!!!
I can certainly go for state's rights -- the fed has definitely gotten TOO big.
Government officals should be able to state their religion and political believes if the clearly state it is their opinion.

It is starting to be my belief that the liberals have captured the libertarian high ground at this point- simply because of no general liberal push, in a large way to restrict any individual rights. There are no push for amendments to restrict a right, and there are at least 2 I can think of by the conservative movement at this time, possibly 3 ( flag burning, marriage, abortion rights) - so on the largest libertarian litmus test to me- no attempts by liberals at this time to contrict rigths with amendments.

But CR, asking whether a liberal or conservative makes a better substitute libertarian is like asking whether Bud Light or Coors Light makes a better substitute for Guiness Stout.

LOL good point- however- as many conservatives will strongly deny that they are religious right, there is no denying that the religious right makes a large, really the largest part of the conservative movement- and right now, the largest part of the libertarian movement is on the left.

I was walking by a gathering of young folks from College ( I am a 40 year old student) fand they were talking ABB- but what suprised me is how much they were parroting some basic stuff from the libertarian platform page. Those that follow Nader, the greens, and many from the ABB crowd are definately more libertarian than your conservative like my dad.

Right now, no matter how you slice it, the conservatives are the ones making a run on limiting freedoms. period, and in the most extreme sense, the making of actual amendments to do so.

As a left leaning libertarian, there are some parts of the libertarian platform I think of as either utopian, unrealist, or plain wierd! Having privatized police scares the crap out of me, same with the fire department!

A liberal would never privatize to the degree called on by the libertarian platform, and niether would I.

But I certainly think I am more libertarian than 99% of the conservatives that I know!

In actuality, you could argue that Coors Light is more like Guiness than Bud Light. The Democratic party is more likely to abolish the antiquated drug war, oppose imperialist expansion, as well as be concerned about civil liberties and encroachment by "big brother" on society in general. I will grant you that conservatives hold the economic edge over democrats when it comes to the economy and the role of government in it, but as of late-even that is starting to change!.

Only if you don't consider property rights and rights of association as "rights". I am not sure rather certain liberal goals are worse than certain conservative goals. What I do know is that liberals have been much more successful in pushing their unlibertarian agenda. No what liberals do is instead of proposing more amendments is undermine the 9th and 10th Amendments and continue to revise our Constitution which once limited the power of the federal government.

Passing amendments requires super majorities. Judicial activism simply requires a 5-4 vote.

One's definition of liberal and other political labels should be considered within the context of a given time period. Conservatives in the French revolution would've been those who favored the restoration of a monarchy, as well as keeping the status quo of the Old Regime. Liberals would've definitely been for a laissez-faire free-market orientation, only due to the fact that feudalism itself is rather dehumanizing and contrary to the interests of the new middle class(bourgeoisie) I don't believe that libertarianism arises equally among liberalism and conservatism at this point and time in history. Take that same 18th century French liberal and then dump him into a late 19th century factory, and he would probably want a more modified version of a laissze-faire market. He would want union representation and labor, safety standards passed that would not constrain his rights, but rather, guarantee them.

So, what is a legitimate liberal today?

To me, same thing as it has always been--someone who believes in using the government as a tool to correct social ills. As such, this would tend to be directly opposed to much of the libertarian movement. Socially, this would lead to the belief that the good of the many would outweigh the good of the few (hence the support of labor unions, etc)--directly contradicting protection of individual rights. I don't think this leads directly to socialism, which is a concept many get confused. Liberal in this sense is a school of thought on government, whereas socialism is an economic concept (ie--would be compared with capitalsim, not conservatism). Liberals would, I think, tend to favor policies of equality over policies of extolling nvidual virtue. Not trying to paint this as a negative picture (but probably failing in that, , please excuse any negative perception--not my intent). As believers in using the government as a tool, liberals would then also tend to be the more progressive party, with more active plans for improving on the status quo (conservatives tending to support the status quo). Liberals would also tend to be the more radical group (not even sure what a radical conservative would be, although I'm sure the liberals in the group would be only too glad to provide several examples )



Hmmmm. I'll grant you the issue of the drug war, but would have to object to opposing imperialist expansion quite strenuously, and bring up some discrepancies on the role of 'big brother'. Conservatism has historically been associated with isolationist foreign policy, not visa versa. It would therefore be more within liberal tendencies to have active foreign policies, seeking to influence foreign events, than it would be for conservatives. Also, I think it is the liberal ideology that lends itself towards big brother's enhanced role in society, rather than conservative thought, which has always historically been in favor of reduced federal government. Please don't bother responding with examples of recent policy--as has been discussed in numerous threads, these policies go against general conservative ideology.

I had several years of good natured political debate with a college classmate some years ago--she was a staunch liberal. The common ground we eventually agreed upon was that liberals were good at coming up with good things to do, while conservatives were then best at figuring out how to keep such plans within budget (current situation excepted )

Well I'd like to pose this question to you then Hobbes. When can we say that the definition of being conservative or liberal has fundamentally changed?

Granted, your historical definition is probably accurate, and it is probably accurate in a dictionary sense of things as well. However, in practice conservatives have not held to those ideals in over 20 years.

Similarly, liberals of the past 20 years have made some fundamental changes as well.

I realize that you could just as easily swap "conservative" in the sentences above for "republican" or "liberal" for "democrat" and then the answer isn't so difficult. But most people use the terms interchangeably and while that may not be correct, I believe people are changing the definitions by choosing to associate with that label.

Here's my take on this--the definitions haven't changed (nor should they), but the parties adherence to them has, primarily in efforts to court the undecided voters. What has happened is that both parties have migrated away from the extremes of a liberal-conservative scale towards the middle. I prefer to see the party's description changed to reflect their new stances, rather than the definitions of the scale adjusted. IMHO the Democratic party has made the most radical changes (since when was welfare reform a centerpiece of Democratic policy?) and would therefore be most in need of redefining its core values. Guess that's somewhat what led to this thread, no? Also, I think what most voters then need to sort out is where their allegiance stands--with their philosophy, or with their party? This dilemma is what occurs when candidates such as Perot or Nader enter the fray. The parties are straying ever farther from their core, creating a gap which 'fringe' candidates can then come in and fill, forcing each party back. Just normal give and take...

I still stand by the central definition being whether or not one believes in the government as a tool for social change. Every liberal, IMHO, should have that core belief. Now, if you don't follow that philosophy, you might still be a Democrat, but I don't think you'd qualify as a liberal. Ditto for the converse on the conservative side.

So, what is a legitimate liberal today? Is he/she really just a left leaning libertarian such as myself, that wants to see more controls on big business but less on private citizens private lives?

While ideological intersection does occur between liberalism and libertarianism, it is minimal at best. Libertarianism is about minimal government intrusion in private interaction. Liberalism is largely about government intrusion, even on issues regarding drugs and gay marriage. For example, a liberal demands the government to pass a law stating that drugs are legal. A libertarian wants no such law, taking the position that such a choice should be private and self evident in a free society. They seem to be accomplishing the same thing right? But they're not! The difference is that one ideology imposes itself on an entire society, whereas the other ideology contains itself to individuals.

For example, if a libertarian were to become governor of Massachusetts, their solution to the gay marriage issue would be to relinquish the state's involvement with marriage entirely and let marriage be defined by private individuals. If a liberal were elected to the job, their solution would be to pass laws to permit such marriages.

So, on the surface and in some cases liberalism and libertarianism look the same, but in reality there are fundamental differences in their implementations.

I really do want to understand libertarianism, so please don't take this as a jab at libertarianism...

Let's assume that is the scenario, I'm just not sure how libertarian philosophy would work in practice. The problem I see is that if you were to take this approach then ultimately, the matter would end up before the judicial branch because of one group or another filing a complaint (could be from either side).

The result would be the judicial branch effectively governing via case law.

I don't think having case law as our basis of law is to our advantage. Too few people are responsible for creating it, and if you have an incompetent lawyer on either side or a biased judge you can end up with unexpected results.

It seems to me that a certain level of law making is required. You could substitute gay marriage in this case for a myriad of issues, I believe the result is the same.

Anyway, just trying to understand the other side a little bit.

I suppose we're all familiar with the stereotypes:

Conservative: Anti-business controls, Anti-tax, Pro-life, mostly nationalist, anti-gay marriage, religious, for government controls on personal freedoms, against government control on economic freedom.

Liberal: Pro-business controls, pro-tax, pro-choice, mostly internationalist (ie the UN), pro-gay marriage, secular, against government controls on personal freedoms (some say responsibility), for government controls on economic freedom.

Now the truth is that these definitions are, to a high degree, inaccurate, and cannot account for the broad political spectrum in the United States. "The Political Compass" has a slightly better indicator, but not a lot of labels (http://www.politicalcompass.org/).

Classically, a "liberal" has meant someone who is in favor of change, egalitarian, tolerant, and holds human rights (including property rights) as the highest value. They have been highly individualist, but not always in favor of allowing the individual to do anything he wants. Also, because of this, liberals have often been sharply divided on economic policies, especially in the last century--most are capitalists are heart, but few are laissez-fair enthusiasts.

Liberal libertarians, a large group today, are mostly people in favor of maximum personal freedoms and also in favor of capitalist economics--where they differ from conservative libertarians is their opinion over how much economic regulation should exist. Liberal Libertarians usually aren't protectionists, but do tend to favor workers' rights over gung-ho capitalism (ie they disdain expanded rights for corporate America), claiming that economic freedom doesn't mean the right of business owners to make money at the expense of certain human rights. Liberal Libertarians include people like Ralph Nader, Michael Moore (to a degree), Al Franken, Arianna Huffington, Noam Chomsky, and Dennis Kucinich.

Conservative Libertarians agree with their liberal friends insofar as supporting maximum personal freedom, but believe that absolute economic freedom is the only truly justifiable position. They claim that social safety nets not only constrain the best in society, but immorally "steal" money away from those who have earned it. They are as close to laissez-faire supporters as exist today. Conservative Libertarians include Ayn Rand (and most of her disciples), Milton Friedmann, and Murray Rothbard. Nowadays, however, there seems to be a closer union between groups of conservative and liberal libertarians who are appalled at the growing government power over the personal lives of citizens. Conservative libertarians, too, have been sharply divided over the War on Terror, some taking a non-interventionist position and others sharply in favor of U.S. Nationalism.

Democrats are the quintessential Centrists, trying to appeal to everyone they can (but not doing a stellar job at the moment). They favor moderate government controls over business and tend to be divided on their views over how much personal freedom should be allowed (ie Drug laws, gay-marriage). Some are strong free-traders (like Bill Clinton and John Kerry), while others take a more restricted view (like Al Sharpton and Dick Gephardt). On the whole, Democrats are not half as liberal as most people (especially Republicans) believe, and are still solidly a right-wing authoritarian party (sort of "Republican-lite" alternative, which many believe is no alternative at all).

Socialists are a rare breed these days, and most who call themselves socialists are hard-core left-wing liberals who are increasingly disillusioned and disgusted with the capitalist system. Socialists are no longer in the big-government, proletariat-dictatorship types they once were. Their big concerns today are socialized health care, promotion of human rights for Third World workers, and sharp critiques of corporatized America. There are a few true Communists left, just like there are a few Fascists, but they don't exist in any major groups or governments. "Socialists" today include Michael Moore (this is the other aspect of him), Howard Zinn, and many Catholic radicals, including Third World Jesuits (and some say John-Paul II himself).

Republicans, particularly since the 1980's, have become a significantly right-wing, authoritarian party, consisting of strong groups of religious fundamentalists, militaristic nationalists, and corporate globalists. A large number of Republicans, notably figures like John McCain, have become worried about the heavy partisanship and "neo-conservatism" in their party. A large number of Republicans want to return to the days of fiscal responsibility and small-government initiatives. The small number of "neo-conservatives," however, are powerful interests and include figures like George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Michael Savage. Even other right-wing figures, like Pat Buchanan, disdain the interventionism and corporate globalization that is taking over the Republican leadership.

This, of course, doesn't really cover everyone, but it's better than the traditional left-right/liberal-conservative scale.

What ? Neither Friedman or Rand can be labeled conservative. They both support minimal government. They do not support socially conservative policies. They are pure libertarians. Meanwhile your so-called liberal libertarians are pure liberals. When you support tyrannical economic constraints on the free market and personal freedom you are a liberal. Chomsky, Nader and Moore libertarians?, that is hilarious.

So, what is a legitimate liberal today? Is he/she really just a left leaning libertarian such as myself, that wants to see more controls on big business but less on private citizens private lives?

I think this is an unanswerable question. Political leanings are so open to interpretation that there is no concrete definition.

To me, it seems that there are only subtle differences between liberals and conservatives.

The number one giveaway that someone is liberal is their willingness to exploit the general welfare clause for the supposed benefit of society.

Those who support legislation that allows the federal government exercise power they do not have are liberal in my eyes. For example, you are likely a liberal if you think the federal government has or should have the authority to provide healthcare to those they deem needy. Likewise, you are a liberal to me if you have decided that the federal government has Constitutionally granted authority to regulate our education system.

Libertarians seem to be closer to conservatives than liberals, although the blurry lines come in to play. I think that a true conservative believes that the Constitution is a limiting document, and that the government can only do what it says and nothing more. Of course, this is way off base from the neo-con, but are they really conservative anyway?

If a true conservative believes that the government can only do what is specified in the Constitution, and a libertarian believes that the government who governs least governs best, then libertarians and conservatives are certainly closer together than libertarians and liberals. The willingness to exploit the general welfare clause does not parallel libertarianism.

Just my thoughts...

Mike

Okay, so anyone who calls herself a conservative that doesn't fall into your definition of conservative is therefore not a conservative? You've redefined conservative in such a way as to mean basically libertarian. There are many folks who call themselves conservatives who believe in big government (e.g. grow the military) that would never even remotely fit into the libertarian camp.

Also, I fail to understand how supporting legislation to allow the government to exercise power it doesn't have must therefore define a liberal? There are many legislative acts that grow government power (in ways it didn't have) which are not liberal, such as drug enforcement.

From a libertarian perspective, conservatives and liberals behave very similarly, that is, they want to use the government to solve their problems. Now, the problems that each camp wants to "solve" may be different but the approach is the same.

Holy cow! That is one obvious misquote!

You edited out the first two sentences I wrote that clearly stated my opinion. It's ok that we disagree-- I'm used to it.



As I said...



Oh, but they are liberal. Conservatives conserve the Constitution. If you are conserving the Constitution, you are preserving its principles. It was written as a document that limits the power of government, so any power the government has assigned itself that is not layed out in the Constitution is not warranted. I consider that to be a liberal read of the Constitution (non-explicit mandates), and those who support those policies to be liberal, at least to a certain extent.

If you are for the federal government exercising powers that it was not granted in the Constitution or by amendment, then yes-- you are liberal in my opinion. It doesn't matter if you call yourself liberal or conservative.


I agree, but would consider that more of a Democrat/Republican issue than a liberal/conservative issue. There are a lot of conservatives like me who are not Republicans, and a lot of liberals who are not Democrats as well. Partisan politics run the country after all.

I didn't mean to bring the Constitution into this, honest. I'll stop now.

Mike

No disrespect intended, but I think you are really missing the boat with this explanation. Let's take drug laws as an example. First, since it is laws which have made drugs illegal, making them legal involves mostly repealing existing laws, not writing new ones. If drugs are illegal, where is the personal choice? Only when there are no proscriptions against drug use can someone make a free private choice. Opponents of the War on Drugs will often use statements like "we must legalize drugs," but perhaps you are mistaking this sort of statement with what the actions involved in doing so would really be - in other words, the actions which would fulfill the rhetoric are subtractive, not additive.

Having known many liberals, and many libertarians, I must say that when it comes to drug laws, their positions are often identical.

Like Mike, I think this is basically an unanswerable question. We all define these words, and then, based on our definitions, judge others accordingly. Even Mike's point about the Constitution is subjective, because at a fundamental level, he has decided that his interpretation (and it is an interpretation) of the words in the Constitution can be classified as truly constructionist, whereas those who disagree with his views are, necessarily, the ones bending the words of that document. Eh. This is one reason why political debate so rarely changes peoples' minds. We are all wearing filters of our own making, each insisting that the reality we see is the 'true' reality.

But it's still fun, anyway!

Mike- actions that define a political movement are more important to define that movement than your own personal definition.

When has the movement that defines itself as conservative, acted as conservative in your definition in the last 30 years? If almost never, perhaps you want to modernize your definition of conservative? LOL

Same with liberal- when has liberals, acted in the manner you call liberal, in the last 30 years? I say, in thier defense of personal liberties, THEY have in fact, behaved more libertarian, and in fact, more to your CONSERVATIVE definition, than the large part of the nation that identifies and defines itself as conservative!

Liberal and libertarian, What is a liberal really?

Liberals and Libertarians are very similar, and as pointed out earlier, both stem from Classical Liberal thought. The thought comes from an understanding of human nature, and that man is born "to enquire and to create [and] these are the centers around which all human pursuits, more or less directly revolve". If this is in fact human nature, then a decent society, should restrict coercion by an external force. That will allow human beings to reach their full potential.

For instance, they believe in limiting the state intervention because it "tends to make man an instrument to serve its arbitrary ends", and is extrinsic to human nature, and thereby "its existence is ultimately incompatible with the full harmonious development of human potential".

Also, they emphasize the importance of limiting the power of the church.

This is where modern Liberals and Libertarians separate. IMO, Liberals tend to take the arguments against the state, and apply them to all forms to authority. This includes the institutions and social structures that arise from industrial capitalism. Take the wage slavery system. The worker doesn't perform his actions with truly human energies, seeing how man is born to inquire and to create, and human energies can never be the result of instruction to external demands, then it follows that this is anti-human, and an obstruction to liberty.

I'm basically saying that the Classical Liberals were in favor of limiting all forms of power, whether the state, church, or private. I know the author of the thread didn't want to turn this into a "liberals love socialism" thread, but I do believe that's true. Of course not State Socialism, but rather direct worker control of industry. My concept of Liberal ideology, would mean it would also oppose industry run by the state, for the reasons already stated.

-----------

When the Neo-Conservatives want to put a ban on gay marriage, that is liberal? I can understand your economic constraints, but personal freedom?


To call Locke a "true libertarian" is absurd. I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but just to look at the The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina:


The carolina constitution does grant the right to freedom of religion, but not expression. Then again, his primary concern of power was the church.

So what exactly did you mean by:
"So, what is a legitimate liberal today? Is he/she really just a left leaning libertarian such as myself, that wants to see more controls on big business but less on private citizens private lives?"

It's your question. You asked, I answered.

If you were looking at it on a national scale as in the liberal movement, you may have wished to specify that. But as it is, you asked what a legitimate liberal is on the individual level.

I gave my answer.

Maybe the revisionist definitions of conservative that the media portrays is actually wrong, in the classical sense of conservative and liberal? I guess that's not possible-- the conservative must have the wrong definition.

Look at this definition of conservative. What a joke! Is it unfathomable that "conservative" in politics may mean "desiring to preserve the Constitution?"

The definition of conservatives has been successfully bent into that of people who oppose change at any opportunity, and want to impose their own family values on others.

That is the wrong definition, and that is partly why I think the libertarian party is popular among young people. Libertarians want less government, and true conservatives want the same.

Liberals, by my definition, want more from their government. There are two ways they can do this. The right way-- a Constitutional amendment, and the wrong way-- assumption of power they really don't have. Yes, that puts a lot of supposed conservatives as liberals. But, they are applying a liberal read of the Constitution, and that makes them liberal.

As I said before, there is little difference between modern liberals and conservatives. They all apply a generous read on the Constitution to push their illegitimate agenda. The ends are different, but the means are the same.

Any way you look at it, you asked a completely opinion question, and I gave you a completely opinion answer.

Mike

I agree with mike somewhat on the question really leads to open ends. Instead of liberal and conservative one could look at history or any single nation and ask what is its conservatives vs. its liberals. It more or less comes down to the ideas the group supports, and where those ideas set. My ideas come closer to what is liberal today then what is conservative, i dont really like libertarian because i know rape should not be legal. Thus if you apply laws then whom gets that say, i guess the libertarian party in power over time would separate into its own groups really.

Do all of them come under change, i guess America goes through change and the government and its groups are made of Americans, so i would vote yes on that one.

liberal and conservative collectively reflect difference in modern Americas thought.
Libertarian is most likely someone trying to run from its effect

That’s my two cents!

I guess if I had ever argued that neo-cons were libertarians...your question would make sense. I defended Friedman and Rand as libertarians, not Bush and Cheney.

When are all these liberals actually going to champion the elimination of drug laws? I see little effort in this arena. I see a lot of effort in economic tyranny.

Say what, Nile? I've been involved with the libertarian movement and the Libertarian Party since 1972 and I don't remember meeting even one libertarian who wanted rape to be legal. No, not even the small anarchist faction since they want it to be illegal under a private legal code enforced by private police forces. (Never mind whether such a system could actually work; if you say it couldn't, 90% or so of libertarians and maybe 98% of Libertarian Party members would agree.) There are of course anarchists who don't want even a private legal code but they don't generally call themselves libertarians.

And Mike, now that I know how you define conservatism, I understand why you don't want to make libertarian a separate option on the sidebar. By that definition I certainly am a conservative, since strict adherence to what the Constitution actually says is my main political principle.

Hugo, you know Rand would be turning over in her grave at being called a libertarian? She was one of course; she just hated the term since she refused to distinguish between her philosophy and her politics, and considered that libertarians weren't for real since they didn't have a consistent philosophy.

You took me out of context. I asked, when the Neo-Conservatives want to put a ban on gay marriage, is that liberal? I never called them libertarians, and i'm still waiting for the answer...


I doubt anytime soon. When are libertarians going to put an end to the 'war on drugs'? Again, that doesn't mean they don't want to, they just aren't in the position to change our policies.