First, let me respond to the concept of being or not being a liberal statist. My point was simply that the words liberal and conservative have become too ambiguous to have any meaning.

To the meat of the issue, though... Everytime I use a public bathroom, utlize public facilities, etc, I am participating in a crime. The realm of fire protection does not have to be a publicly run organization. Police are another matter, as they serve the chief purpose of any government, namely protecting individuals from the use of force by other individuals. So, I am not exactly advocating a complete abandonment of taxes. Whether I would be willing to deal with a personal or family crisis without the state's help, absolutely. I would be much more comfortable knowing I was on my own, than on looking forward to a position as a beggar. That doesn't mean I wish to be antisocial or alienated. Quite the opposite, I would like my social interactions and dealings with others to be purely voluntary. I do not wish to be forced to help my neighbor, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't help him on my own.

I bring the debate back to the root. When is it moral to rob from another man? You would like public healthcare, education, security, and bathrooms. Someone has to pay for it. Who should we steal from to get these things? If you agree that we need them and that the state should provide them, then you advocate theft. So, by advocating the state as provider of these things either you believe theft is moral or you are accepting immorality.

You say one cannot rob without being called immoral, and yet you say we must rob in order to act morally. You say when a man steals from another man using a weapon he is immoral. Yet when a government robs individuals using the threat of the same gun, that no immorality exists. This is an inconsistency which simply doesn't hold up under any logic. When you find you are dealing with an inconsistency, check your premises.

Quoted from Lesly-
"Here's my honest irritation: drawing on a subjective term like morality within a statist v. capitalist scope is impractical and easy to twist."

Lesly, let me ask you a simple question. If I walk down the street and kill a man I have never met before, who has never crossed by path before, have I acted immorally? Is this subjective? Morality is only subjective when spoken by those who refuse to accept the tenets of objectivity. For those who believe in mysticism, morality holds no meaning. Stealing, looting, murder, force... all subjective. That is how the statist rationalizes his position. It is ok to steal from the productive. Morality is relative. We needed his money for the common good so it was ok for us to steal it. The man in jail was immoral because he didn't have the authority to steal. This is inconsistent. Stealing is immoral. Looting is immoral. This isn't subjective. This is the objective right of the individual in a free country. If you feel it is inconsistent, check your premises.

ibelsd, you seem to subscribe to a government of anarcho-capitalism. It's an interesting idea. The logical extreme is doing such things as privatizing nuclear weapons (i.e. sell shares). However, I think your statist vs. capitalist delineation is outside the scope of this debate; it might be worth starting a new debate on. Since you're new though, you'll probably have to wait until you have a few more posts under your belt.

I don't think I am off-topic at all. One of the questions in this room is regarding the meaning of liberalism. My argument is that the meaning itself is undefinable. If it is undefinable, then so too is its polar opposite (ie conservatism). In lieue of that, I proposed shifting the topic to what is meant, namely one of statism versus capitalism.

In regards to your belief that my views are akin to anarchy (anarcho-capitalism), I believe, it is only due to my failure to fully explain. That, though, should probably occur in another posting area. Government has a function, a purpose. The question is not whether I believe government is needed, the question is in which form do I find government to act morally.

As long as we allow the nebulous debate of liberal versus conservative to continue, no real debate can occur. Kerry and Bush will spend countless hours telling the people they are neither or both. As is seen from this little chat, what that means is, well debatable. Shouldn't we demand that our elected officials talk in objective terms? They won't as long as we allow them to get away with doing otherwise. Imagine, instead of Kerry trying to convince us he is more moderate than Bush, he explained he was less statist. If he had to concede he desired a certain amount of stealing by the government. Imagine if, instead of Bush hiding behind phrases like small government, he had to admit he believed that the government shouldn't steal as much as Kerry believes. With a debate along those premises, we would see the ridiculous nature of their arguments. Their contradictions would be visible. As long as we allow them to talk without speaking, we all will get what we deserve.

Objectivity would force me to ask if you are a violent schizophrenic, a soldier, or believed the man to be a mortal threat to your person when you killed him, and so on before I draw a moral conclusion. The devil is in the details.


True/false moral absolutes seldom have leg room for exceptions or circumstances. It looks precise on paper but without interposing the merits of my character, not to mention perception, I am immoral by the standards of the religious men I listened to as a kid. That's their absolute.

The odd (refreshing?) thing is conjecturally sizing the distribution of wealth to fit morality instead of the other way around as it relates to two guilty ideologies according to you. Don't get me wrong, I think there are a few universal truths. However I'm of the opinion that societies don't recognize rights and morality so much as define them.

Quick example: I kill deer to eat. It takes a lot of time and energy to hunt, not to mention physical risk. You come along. Instead of competing we agree I'll chase the young and injured into a quagmire, since I'm the faster, and you cast the spear. A man stronger and faster than both of us shows up. He kills the deer and we go hungry. This man has as much a right to kill and eat as many deer as he likes as was the case with us before he arrived but we condemn him nevertheless. You and I just formed a society.

As it relates to your previous posts technically I'm not only a thief for using public facilities/services and willing victim for paying an admittedly smaller portion of those services myself, but I'm also bereft of any guilt associated with immorality by recognizing the needs of the community for national security, parks, mass transit systems, etc., is greater than the need to keep all my earned money. (Insert clause for interpretation of what constitutes necessary spending; liberals blah this, conservatives blah blah that.)

How much of the American population do you think could accurately define the politics of a Liberal?

Oh that's easy. The same number of Americans that consider themselves liberal-leaning.

I'm trying!

Let's take your example. A bigger man takes a deer we had planned on taking. No moral position here. We just got beat. We form a plan to beat that man next time by building a better deer trap (god how cheesy that sounds). No moral position still. He still manages to get the deer. Good for him despite our seething and possible name calling. Our hunger intensifies and we decide to club him in the middle of the night and beat him until he promises to provide us with 25% of his meat. We needed the meat. We had force on our side. Did we act morally?

Of course this concept of morality is defined socially. In a capitalistic, Judeo-Christian social construct, the individual has rights that are held above all else. This is what makes us different than the Chinese, the Marxist, or the Islamic fundamentalist. There is an objective truth out there. It may not always be obvious or visible, but that is no excuse for refusing to look. I have seen the path of the Marxist. I have seen the consequences of allowing individualism to be snuffed out. This is why the true debate is not one of liberalism versus conservatism. It is statism versus capitalism. It is collectivism versus individualism. People, will claim there are no absolutes, that one cannot know truth, that nothing is objective. That is rarely heard from a capitalist. My car either runs or it doesn't. I am either alive or dead. I am either free or a slave. Partially free is still a slave. Our college professors, our leaders, our philosophers have brought up generations of people who scream that there is no such thing as truth. As a consequence, we find no one willing to lead. No one willing to take responsibility. We hear the same basic responses such as, "It isn't my fault," or, "You can't blame this on me, since it would have occured anyhow. It was just the natural course of things." These are the words of our modern mystics. They don't believe in the power of the individual. They damn the world, too scared to look inward.

I'm not sure how I should proceed here with this debate. If I understand you correctly, you believe that all actions not explicitly recompensed is theft. If that is so, how do things like natural resources square with your model? The air I breathe is a common resource shared by all. Am I stealing it? The water I drink is also a common resource. If I wash my hands in a river, is it theft?

To be honest, at some level I can agree that phrasing things in purely economic transactional terms has an appeal. Indeed there is a lot of writing on free market environmentalism which has this notion. What confuses me is the "stealing" part. You seem to be making a moral statement here about stealing and then somehow connecting it to individual economic transactions. I guess I'm not following that line of reasoning or rather I'm not making the logical leap with you.

Odd, I would find moral relativity a quality of individualism. It doth preach that morality is subjective to the viewer, does it not? I can think of no thing that is more individualistic. Yet you say:

If Capitalists were really on the for-front of individualism, wouldn't they embrace relativity to the more "statist" belief that there is one moral code, effectively wiping out an opposing moral position?

[quote=logophage,Jul 31 2004, 03:14 AM] [QUOTE=ibelsd,Jul 30 2004, 05:52 PM]I'm not sure how I should proceed here with this debate. If I understand you correctly, you believe that all actions not explicitly recompensed is theft. If that is so, how do things like natural resources square with your model? The air I breathe is a common resource shared by all. Am I stealing it? The water I drink is also a common resource. If I wash my hands in a river, is it theft?

To be honest, at some level I can agree that phrasing things in purely economic transactional terms has an appeal. Indeed there is a lot of writing on free market environmentalism which has this notion. What confuses me is the "stealing" part. You seem to be making a moral statement here about stealing and then somehow connecting it to individual economic transactions. I guess I'm not following that line of reasoning or rather I'm not making the logical leap with you. [/quote]
I believe every man's production is entitled to compensation. Water is natural resource. We pay for its delivery, not for its existence. No man can, as of yet, claim his production results in the existence of water. But, if I wish to not search for a stream, desalinate a bucket of ocean water, or beg, I purchase it.

I don't the think the logic is derived by making a leap. Currently, we have a system which is increaingly being tailored to the victim. Look at healthcare. The debate always centers around how to get medical aid to the needy. The center of the debate is need. The work of the doctor, his skill and precision are taken for granted. His compensation is considered secondary to the need of others. Should anyone have the right to tell a doctor how much he should expect as compensation for his skills? Those who expect his production for free or for less than he deems his skills are worth, are stealing from him. I am not talking about a barter between two men. I am talking about a government, using the threat of force, to limit his compensation. This is stealing. The statist believes compensation is should be based on need hence punishing the productive for producing. Think about the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning.

P.S. Regarding the person (not the one I quoted here) who is attempting to speak with some sort of biblical cynysism, if you wish for a real discussion, write as though you are a serious person.

Ibelsd, that still makes no sense to a lot of people. Free health care is not stealing from those who decide to enter the medical profession. My own country has free health care, are we out there robbing our doctors blind? Our NHS doctors are still well paid, it is taxation that helps pay their salary. Taxation is not immoral. What is immoral, in my view, is turning the other cheek to those in need.

Furthermore, I think you will find most people in the medical professions are there because they want to help, not because they want the money. To think that the priority of a doctor is to keep his Mercedes Benz in the drive is a very bleak take on human existence.

Biblical references are appropriate I feel. I am not religious, but as far as I can remember, greed is a sin. Taxation of the productive is not punishment, all they are doing is giving a little towards their state, which in turn will be used to fund many services they may take for granted. It also is used (or should be used) to help those less fortunate. That is my opinion. I respect yours, but I doubt you are going to win over any people by debating this issue. Either people agree or they don't.

This, I concur, is now off topic for what constitutes a liberal definition.

Oh, but I have been arguing the liberal definition. I have simply been arguing it for what it is, without using the pretense that anyone is arguing for anything else. What is liberalism supposed to imply? Isn't that the core of this debate? Progressive? Morality? Helping one another? These are just euphemisms for the real prize behind what a statist is after. Control. The difference is that I don't see conservatism and liberalism as any different from one another. Different means to the same end. It is dialogue which looks to further cloud the discussion. There is no meaning to liberal and conservative. Kerry, who has a "liberal" voting record has convinced half of America that he is a moderate candidate. So, are liberal policies realy moderate policies? Bush, has long been regarded as a moderate conservative. If both Bush and Kerry can be considered moderates, then what use are labels like liberal and conservative? They play well for political candidates, but the words no longer carry meaning. I believe, we can more accurately describe the actions of politicians as statist and individualist. It seems most in here are statists. Fine. I disagree with your point of view. At least be honest enough to back away from the disengenuous and ambiguous terms such as liberal and moderate. I am an indivdualist. I don't know or care if this makes me a conservative or liberal. It does pit me squarely against anyone who considers himself a statist and those who refuse to admit to either. Like a noted earlier, if someone admits they are a statist, the implications are clear. The motive is obvious. When someone claims to be a liberal, moderate, or conservative they purposefully hide their motive and cloud the means they wish to use. If you take a single penny from a man by use of force, you are a thief. Your need and motive are irrelevant. No court of law in this country excuses armed robbers based on their need, excet when that robber is santioned by government force. This seems to be a paradox. One or the other must not be moral nor just. You cannot claim to be in favor of two sides of a paradox. The motor of the world either turns or it does not. Place man's mind in chains and eventually the world will follow.

Eh? I thought it was a legitimate point. What was more shocking, however, was that, while my original point about morality was devoid of any biblical reference, you immediately made that connection by calling me a biblical cynic. There are many more ethical theories than the biblical one. Would believing in any one of these (Intuitionism, Kantianism, Naturalism, Utilitarianism) make me a cynic in an individualistic society? As I said, the belief that there is a single Moral code we should all follow seems like a statist quality to me. Relativism would at least allow us to our own beliefs, a neccesary virtue in an individualists world.

I still do not see what relevance this has to the definition of a liberal. Clearly, liberals and conservatives have different views. Taking a step backwards and saying that, basically, liberals and conservaties are the same because they tend to believe in government, is too broad a statement to have any bearing on what a liberal is. Great Danes and Yorkshire Terriers are very different, but it is true that they are both dogs. If asked to describe what a Yorkshire Terrier is, saying simply 'a dog' is not really addressing the question. Defining a liberal as a statist is a reasonable point (with which I do not agree), but it is hardly enlightening.

What is off topic, is the debate of morality of government, taxation and the desire for control, which is what this seems to be about.

ibelsd, this is really another debate you wish to have. So, far you've defined liberalism and conservatism in such a way as to fit into your category of "statism". You've defined individualism in such a way as to fit into your category of "capitalism". You've redefined terms from their conventional notions and expect us to understand what you mean when you state them. If you wish to engage in such a debate which sounds interesting, you should start a new one. We need to understand what you mean when you use certain terms. Overloading them, such as you have, is not only confusing but I believe defeats your purpose.

So, for the sake of this debate, I will infer that you believe that "liberalism" cannot be demonized since you believe it is a poorly understood concept. Furthermore, you believe that self-identified conservatives are fooling themselves when they think their ideology has significant differences from liberals. Correct?

An individualist would look for objective morality. Being objective, means it is not at the whim of individual belief. Being an individualist confines one to being the master of their own production, not the production of others. From this standpoint, there is only one truth. The statist looks to control the individual and, therefore must attempt to create a morality that fits each person's needs. Such a morality, then, can only be subjective.

Is this statement neccesarily true? I don't think it is. It is possible for someone to reflect upon their own morality and consider it subjective. Thus, one can simultaneously be an individualist and a relativist.

That "product" can be relativity. My ethics are relative to my experiences. They would then consider that to be the objective truth.

Unless your "product" has more than one truth or denies the existence of a truth. Of course, according to you, that would be the objective truth.

By your reasoning above, morality is subjective anyway. Each person acquires what they believe is morally true and their ethics are relative to them. There would be no consensus on morality in an individualistic society. Thus, their beliefs would be relative to what they believe.

Furthermore, it would seem more likely for a statist to create a single moral code under which to govern (IE: Disobeying the government is evil. Those who do so are evil). Whereas an individualistic society would say: "Believe whatever you want to believe! What is morally correct is for the individual to decide.

I know it is very popular to announce we cannot know anything, that truth doesn't exist, and that everything is relative. I won't stop you. Next time your car breaks down and the engine does not start, let me know how subjective truth works for you. After all, how can you know the engine has died? Who's to say you haven't already arrived at your destination? Hope your boss understands that you couldn't really say whether or not you were late for the afternoon meeting since there is no way to really know whether you were at the meeting or broken down in the middle of the highway. I am sure the customers won't mind and will understand the delay of their orders since nothing can be done about natural accidents of which no one really understands.

Or maybe, an objective truth may exist after all.

ibelsd, now you're conflating notions of objective morality with notions of objective truth. The burden of proof is on you to show how these two concepts are inextricably linked. Feel free to use Kant, Hegel, Berkeley, Russell, Wittgenstein and any number of other moral and epistemological philosophers to make your case. However, we are way, way, way outside the boundaries of this debate. I'd suggest creating a new thread.

That is not my opinion. I simply point out that, in a society concerned for the individual, moral "truth" is inherently relative to the individual. It would make no sense to have an individualistic society that embraced a single, objective morality because the ethical choice would reside within the individual. Thus, morality would itself be relative to whatever the individual embraced.

And, theres my other point. That an individual could come up with relativity and still be an individual. I see no contradiction. In their personal search for the objective truth, they may find the qualities of evil to be a lot like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

I tend to like the liberal side of things more for many reasons, and i will list them hopeing it will aid the debate topic.

I find that liberals tend to want to liberate shall we say the lesser groups of society. America is not a small village in the amazon, with related population size. America has millions of people, and each is a indiviual in thier own right and should be treated like such i believe. The point being is humans give birth to dependent offspring unlike some other organisms. Human babies dont just pop out and become ceos on wallstreet. Its not a very difficult idea to understand that a culture or specific patterns of interaction with what surrounds you has an impact, save chilidren in america all speaking chinese dialects for some reason
I dont think one has to look far in thier owns lives to see this in action. How much do you yell at a kid for spilling something on the carpet, does it depend on age, at what age do people get to own firearms, do you think everyone is understanding the responsibility of such, why or why not. Overall i tend to like the fact i believe liberals understand and accept that life is rather complex, and that overall humanity is not all knowing of a great many things. TO get back to the original starting of this topic, not all people tend to see reality with the same eyes, and to go along with simple america values such as liberty, how does this all work out. Feminism for example in america. The simple thing of getting women the ability to vote was a stuggle against the modern day conservitives of the time, and this equates with all social groups and subcultures that make up the american fabric. Such as americas homosexual population and its current struggle to be treated like "normal" people and have the ability to have "normal" lives in the open. This subject is heated and i dont find directly any reason for them not to be able to save some people that really just dont like them for the reality they were giving does not accept them. Liberals tend to help these people i think.

Another issue important to me is environmentalism. I have yet to see a green conservitive, and its like the statement with oil being infinite. Earth does not have infinite mass in the first place. i cant really belive such things can be said and people will listen. i guess its easy when you dont have an educated group of people to talk to, and i am not just aiming for supporters, thier are a tone of dumb liberals in the world, like the ones that kick in nike signs with nike shoes on. The liberal party has been the main one really, thus democrats for the most part to take on careing about the environment that allows for us and other living things to live, without it we die, its a very simple concept.

On to the topic of moral relitivty, something that is very real. How can america make laws on how you should raise your children and how you should suck air and be a place of liberty. The last time i checked most of our laws are based around actions a person can commit that strips liberty from another. If such laws were enforced, would this still be america, or just a certain groups nation. would you like for your family to have to live and accept the reality of morales as by a sect of mormons, or maybe some other idea that states how one should live and what they should do? i think the question really answers itself, and in the base sense seems to be a hypocritical platform in the modern day conservitive movment, that in a way seems to only cater to certain people and placeing them as the correct ones over all others, rather then accepting a more open stance towards people and thier diversity. Liberals tend to aim for making the american public open to americasn, and the related components of such like work, or education, or even being in the military to defend a nation you may care about.

To taxes and social programs. i see and feel that some things are better in the social realm, that is my opinion. To go on about the general welfare clause, one could assume it means all familys in america get a can of beens from the government once a decade. I take it another way, in that people should be able to get an education and some form of healthcare regardless of social stance in terms of money. i believe that would be the general welfare of the people in my eyes. Liberals tend to think of the social situation of americas people not just some of them.

I will save the reader the rest of my personal opinion. I do hope this helps the debate. Oh and high from the mideast, its very hot these days