An honest question for Liberals

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt
FS and Rainsford,
I am well aware of socialism and its broad range, it's not a black and white debate. Liberalism is a very inclusive term, including libertarians, republicans, conservatives, liberals and democrats. It just seems like state is in everything these days; resources, insurance, electricity, medicare, intelligence, security, infrastructure, alcohol (see beer store monopoly in ontario), education, retirement, unemployment, etc are all monopolized by government. Where are we drawing the line, you cannot say today's government is small enough and is 'just' underfunded.

I think the reasonable place to draw the line is at the place where the private sector can't (or chooses not to) be as good as the government at doing something. I see no reason Ontario (or various places in the US) should have a government run alcohol monopoly, most places that have them do not offer any advantages over the free market, and the vast majority suffer serious disadvantages (prices are insane, for example). But in the intelligence sector, for example, I think private industry would not see the economic incentives in many of the activities necessary to good intelligence.

State involvement is a touchy subject, but I'm not sure the knee-jerk reaction of trying to remove the government from everything (not accusing you of this, but some people do seem to view it that way) is just as silly as having the state run everything. I think the only real way to do it is to look at each thing individually, and think whether or not the government control helps or hinders the overall goals of that sector.

Like I said, relative to a lot of people, I'm a liberal on economic issues, but if I had my way, the government would probably be a lot smaller. I think many situations still need government oversight, but it would probably make more sense to have the private sector actually run things, with the government just supervising. Some situations would benefit from no government control at all. And some require government to do the best job for the people.

Edit: I guess I'm saying that, IMHO, the only economic outlook that makes sense is being a moderate, because there is no one size fits all solution. You really have to look at each situation individually, trying to come up with a broad ideology that you can just slap on everything isn't really the way to go, as far as I'm concerned. Of course that assumes that you're looking through the lense of classic liberalism, that is, with the best interests of the individual at the front of your mind. If your main motivating factor is making sure Enron has plenty of money, or something along those lines, it's obviously a different story.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: StuntWhy is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed?

Because what you are saying isn't true. Even you don't believe that ALL public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed. I guarantee you that if your house was on fire, you would call the public fire department without thinking twice.

Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Because fixing a lot of these social programs/institutions requires more funding, or what you would call "expansion of state." Notice I didn't say "ALL" like you did. I don't want to generalize. I think we need to improve programs that can be improved, cut fat where needed, and increase funding where necessary.

1) I would call the fire department because they have a monopoly on their business. Of course when you take away options from a person, they will follow your path, but who are you to say the path is the path we should all take. I don't want your black model T Ford, why force one on me?

Noone is forcing you to use the fire department. Hire some contractors with fire extinguishers to put out the fire for you.
Most people are satisfied with their fire departments, and you have yet to show me how they are inefficient.

2) Everything requires more funding, that's the excuse everybody uses for a service which is not sustainable. Your statements are empty ideals mirroring the effects of capitalism and a competitive marketplace. "Cut fat", "Improve", these should be expected from any organization. Government cannot create this culture as there is no fear of bankrupcy, job-loss, or loss of business. It is a massive inefficient corporation with a monopoly on businesses in the name of good while castrating our livelihood, personality and rights.

You are a rightwing ideologue. There is a reason governments exist and have always existed, and have almost always offered public services, across the world. That's what people want. If it doesn't fit your ideology, tough.

1) I'm not saying government does a bad job, just that there could be gains to be made through competition and choice. Picking a fire service should be no different than picking an insurace company and paying homeowner's tax. Forcing people to have this insurance can be done much like car insurance.

2) Governments have been growing in size, this is the time we need to reconsider the roles of our elected office and decide if we want them to sell us alcohol, electricity or medicare. As the people above mentioned, there is a broad range of socialism and saying yes to everything the government decides to go into is NOT something I accept.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: StuntWhy is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed?

Because what you are saying isn't true. Even you don't believe that ALL public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed. I guarantee you that if your house was on fire, you would call the public fire department without thinking twice.

Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Because fixing a lot of these social programs/institutions requires more funding, or what you would call "expansion of state." Notice I didn't say "ALL" like you did. I don't want to generalize. I think we need to improve programs that can be improved, cut fat where needed, and increase funding where necessary.

1) I would call the fire department because they have a monopoly on their business. Of course when you take away options from a person, they will follow your path, but who are you to say the path is the path we should all take. I don't want your black model T Ford, why force one on me?

Noone is forcing you to use the fire department. Hire some contractors with fire extinguishers to put out the fire for you.
Most people are satisfied with their fire departments, and you have yet to show me how they are inefficient.

2) Everything requires more funding, that's the excuse everybody uses for a service which is not sustainable. Your statements are empty ideals mirroring the effects of capitalism and a competitive marketplace. "Cut fat", "Improve", these should be expected from any organization. Government cannot create this culture as there is no fear of bankrupcy, job-loss, or loss of business. It is a massive inefficient corporation with a monopoly on businesses in the name of good while castrating our livelihood, personality and rights.

You are a rightwing ideologue. There is a reason governments exist and have always existed, and have almost always offered public services, across the world. That's what people want. If it doesn't fit your ideology, tough.

1) I'm not saying government does a bad job, just that there could be gains to be made through competition and choice. Picking a fire service should be no different than picking an insurace company and paying homeowner's tax. Forcing people to have this insurance can be done much like car insurance.

2) Governments have been growing in size, this is the time we need to reconsider the roles of our elected office and decide if we want them to sell us alcohol, electricity or medicare. As the people above mentioned, there is a broad range of socialism and saying yes to everything the government decides to go into is NOT something I accept.

Agreed!

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp
Business model doesn't work with social services.
Just simple economics. In business, the products or services are directed to those with most resources, while social services need to be directed towards those with least resources.

Odd, how come the biggest most successful companies in the world have excelled by offering services to people with the least resouces?

Walmart, Toyota, Google and many others have geared themselves towards low-cost, quality, and practical products. Do you think the US government could ever be so innovative?

Do you know any poor people, or have you ever been poor yourself? The people getting social services aren't buying new Toyotas, and if they buy stuff at Walmart, they do it with their checks from the government. Or if they go to a private doctor, the government still pays for it. So it's not the government always providing these services, often times they are already provided indirectly through private businesses with government funding.

Yes, I have been VERY poor for sections of my past...lived in a car for a while, then lived in East Cleveland back when I needed to carry a big knife to work (in an urban record store) and on the streets. And have spent a lot of time living in NYC, and a bit in Rio, and Mexico City. I went to a NY high school that EVERY YEAR called in SWAT teams for racial riots when I attended, with attendant stabbings, rapes and even gunshots. Enough about me...

Stunt said that WalMart and Toyota geared themselves towards low-cost, quality products. My point, which apparently needed better spelling out, was that these products were STILL aimed at the lower-middle and middle classes, NOT the people that really need services. This is to tie to the previous points about government services being directed at those that need them, whereas private business directs at those that can afford...

FS

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Forcing people to have this insurance can be done much like car insurance.

I consider insurance companies the biggest racket ever. The government forces you to get it. So you get it, the insurance companies find "reasons" to charge you more. When a claim is made, the insurance company tries to weasel its way out. If it can't, they pay it out, and then use it as a "reason" to raise your rates.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: StuntWhy is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed?

Because what you are saying isn't true. Even you don't believe that ALL public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed. I guarantee you that if your house was on fire, you would call the public fire department without thinking twice.

Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Because fixing a lot of these social programs/institutions requires more funding, or what you would call "expansion of state." Notice I didn't say "ALL" like you did. I don't want to generalize. I think we need to improve programs that can be improved, cut fat where needed, and increase funding where necessary.

1) I would call the fire department because they have a monopoly on their business. Of course when you take away options from a person, they will follow your path, but who are you to say the path is the path we should all take. I don't want your black model T Ford, why force one on me?

Noone is forcing you to use the fire department. Hire some contractors with fire extinguishers to put out the fire for you.
Most people are satisfied with their fire departments, and you have yet to show me how they are inefficient.

2) Everything requires more funding, that's the excuse everybody uses for a service which is not sustainable. Your statements are empty ideals mirroring the effects of capitalism and a competitive marketplace. "Cut fat", "Improve", these should be expected from any organization. Government cannot create this culture as there is no fear of bankrupcy, job-loss, or loss of business. It is a massive inefficient corporation with a monopoly on businesses in the name of good while castrating our livelihood, personality and rights.

You are a rightwing ideologue. There is a reason governments exist and have always existed, and have almost always offered public services, across the world. That's what people want. If it doesn't fit your ideology, tough.

1) I'm not saying government does a bad job, just that there could be gains to be made through competition and choice. Picking a fire service should be no different than picking an insurace company and paying homeowner's tax. Forcing people to have this insurance can be done much like car insurance.

So you would be fine with having areas where no fire service company wants to do business not having any fire protection? Or fire service company allowing a house next door to you to burn because the owner doesn't have money to pay them?

2) Governments have been growing in size, this is the time we need to reconsider the roles of our elected office and decide if we want them to sell us alcohol, electricity or medicare. As the people above mentioned, there is a broad range of socialism and saying yes to everything the government decides to go into is NOT something I accept.

Liquor stores and utility companies are private companies for the most part, in most states and locales. Also, during CA energy crisis, most private utilities got into financial problems, except city owned LADWP, which was actually smart enough to sign cheap electricity contracts ahead of time, and made money selling excess capacity to private utilities that were going bankrupt. So a city owned utility turned out to be a better capitalist than the private companies, while at the same time providing lower rates. Also, American voters, through their elected representatives accepted all these government services, and continue to do so. That's why Bush expanded Medicare more than Clinton could ever get away with.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: StuntWhy is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed?

Because what you are saying isn't true. Even you don't believe that ALL public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed. I guarantee you that if your house was on fire, you would call the public fire department without thinking twice.

Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

Because fixing a lot of these social programs/institutions requires more funding, or what you would call "expansion of state." Notice I didn't say "ALL" like you did. I don't want to generalize. I think we need to improve programs that can be improved, cut fat where needed, and increase funding where necessary.

1) I would call the fire department because they have a monopoly on their business. Of course when you take away options from a person, they will follow your path, but who are you to say the path is the path we should all take. I don't want your black model T Ford, why force one on me?

Noone is forcing you to use the fire department. Hire some contractors with fire extinguishers to put out the fire for you.
Most people are satisfied with their fire departments, and you have yet to show me how they are inefficient.

2) Everything requires more funding, that's the excuse everybody uses for a service which is not sustainable. Your statements are empty ideals mirroring the effects of capitalism and a competitive marketplace. "Cut fat", "Improve", these should be expected from any organization. Government cannot create this culture as there is no fear of bankrupcy, job-loss, or loss of business. It is a massive inefficient corporation with a monopoly on businesses in the name of good while castrating our livelihood, personality and rights.

You are a rightwing ideologue. There is a reason governments exist and have always existed, and have almost always offered public services, across the world. That's what people want. If it doesn't fit your ideology, tough.

1) I'm not saying government does a bad job, just that there could be gains to be made through competition and choice. Picking a fire service should be no different than picking an insurace company and paying homeowner's tax. Forcing people to have this insurance can be done much like car insurance.

So you would be fine with having areas where no fire service company wants to do business not having any fire protection? Or fire service company allowing a house next door to you to burn because the owner doesn't have money to pay them?

2) Governments have been growing in size, this is the time we need to reconsider the roles of our elected office and decide if we want them to sell us alcohol, electricity or medicare. As the people above mentioned, there is a broad range of socialism and saying yes to everything the government decides to go into is NOT something I accept.

Liquor stores and utility companies are private companies for the most part, in most states and locales. Also, during CA energy crisis, most private utilities got into financial problems, except city owned LADWP, which was actually smart enough to sign cheap electricity contracts ahead of time, and made money selling excess capacity to private utilities that were going bankrupt. So a city owned utility turned out to be a better capitalist than the private companies, while at the same time providing lower rates. Also, American voters, through their elected representatives accepted all these government services, and continue to do so. That's why Bush expanded Medicare more than Clinton could ever get away with.

It was CA goverment regulations that kept companies from signing long term contract prices. Goverment regulation was part of the problem.

On the same note, Southwest airlines is still paying 30/barrel for oil because they signed long term contracts.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Witling
Jaskalas, I've got to admire a guy who can raise the Patriot Act in a thread about what's wrong with liberals.

Stunt, let me give you one example of why unbridled capatilism is not a good idea. In straight-eight capitalism, environmental effects don't come in to the equation. If I can increase my profits by flushing my waste down the river, hit it colt! One practical example of this is that California outlawed hydraulic mining during the gold rush because streams were literally being ruined. Chrysler and Harley Davidson would be out of business in straight capitalism.

Did you read the sub title in the topic? This is regarding "liberals" as in those who want a bigger stronger government.

Do you deny that Bush has been very liberal in growing government? Just because the party decided he was the other man on the ballot does not mean I support all, or even half of his views. I'm extremely against him in that regard and to ANYONE who is "liberal" for big brother government.

It would a mischaracterization to think this issue of big government belongs to one party and I hope you don?t fail to see it belongs to both parties.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Witling
Jaskalas, I've got to admire a guy who can raise the Patriot Act in a thread about what's wrong with liberals.

Stunt, let me give you one example of why unbridled capatilism is not a good idea. In straight-eight capitalism, environmental effects don't come in to the equation. If I can increase my profits by flushing my waste down the river, hit it colt! One practical example of this is that California outlawed hydraulic mining during the gold rush because streams were literally being ruined. Chrysler and Harley Davidson would be out of business in straight capitalism.

Did you read the sub title in the topic? This is regarding "liberals" as in those who want a bigger stronger government.

Do you deny that Bush has been very liberal in growing government? Just because the party decided he was the other man on the ballot does not mean I support all, or even half of his views. I'm extremely against him in that regard and to ANYONE who is "liberal" for big brother government.

It would a mischaracterization to think this issue of big government belongs to one party and I hope you don?t fail to see it belongs to both parties.

I love how people try to pass Bush as a liberal. The last 5 years has shown that the party of big government is the Republican party. The party of waste is the Republican party. And the ideology of big brother is CONSERVATIVE.

 

[Proletariat]

Its true, we need a revolution not only of the organization of people.

But of the mind, body and soul.

Once that is done than we can truly move forward as the human race. I believe there are many members of our species that are/have been alive today such as this.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Business model doesn't work with social services.

Just simple economics.

In business, the products or services are directed to those with most resources, while social services need to be directed towards those with least resources.

You're making me cry :thumbsup:

Meantime those that are rich would like those that aren't to just die and go away.

Simple greed as illustrated by the young both here in the U.S. and north of the border.

Disgusting

 

[BoomerD]

Picking a fire service should be no different than picking an insurace company and paying homeowner's tax. Forcing people to have this insurance can be done much like car insurance.

Well, I don't know what part of Utopia you live in, but most of America has serious problems with un-insured drivers. We even pay EXTRA for our insurance to cover us in case we happen to "meet" one personally.
In your world of multilple fire departments, if you happen to live next to Acme Fire's station and have a fire, but you're covered by Smith Fire, does that mean that you have to wait for Smith to show up, and the Acme folks just stand around roasting marshmallows? Why would Acme help out, since you're a subscriber to Smith's services?
There have been several cases of people who don't pay the fire department assesment, and the fire dept. just stands by, and watches their property burn, while protecting surrounding (and paying) member's properties...

 

[CSMR]

Originally posted by: Stunt
As I indicated in the post you quoted I asked if these nations even come close to the quality of care offered in the US. Are aesthetic/cosmetic operations covered by some insurance plans included? Are wait times calculated and how about user satisfaction? Heathcare cannot just be compared on a GDP basis...

There is a decent quality of care. Aesthetic/cosmetic operations are generally not done at public expense (with exeptions), only privately. The fact that there are more cosmetic operations done in the US as part of the cost does not say to me that the system is good. I do not regard these operations as very valuable. The main potential value in my view is that the ability to have these operations increases the incentive to work among vain people (leading to higher tax revenue) and the operations are themselves taxable. However the first effect I imagine is pretty weak and cosmetic operations are not taxed particularly heavily in the US I don't think.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Stunt
As I indicated in the post you quoted I asked if these nations even come close to the quality of care offered in the US. Are aesthetic/cosmetic operations covered by some insurance plans included? Are wait times calculated and how about user satisfaction? Heathcare cannot just be compared on a GDP basis...

There is a decent quality of care. Aesthetic/cosmetic operations are generally not done at public expense (with exeptions), only privately. The fact that there are more cosmetic operations done in the US as part of the cost does not say to me that the system is good. I do not regard these operations as very valuable. The main potential value in my view is that the ability to have these operations increases the incentive to work among vain people (leading to higher tax revenue) and the operations are themselves taxable. However the first effect I imagine is pretty weak and cosmetic operations are not taxed particularly heavily in the US I don't think.

The US government spends 2.3% of GDP on Medicare/Healthcare, this does not represent the number you are using. Americans do spend more for health services; but there is a massive difference between 12% of GDP paid by US citizens and 6% spent by the UK government. I would really like to see more statistics on this subject. Healthcare is not something generic you just buy, there is a huge customer satisfaction side (wait times, quality). Cosmetic while I don't see a need for it, could significantly skew the numbers as private insurance plans will pay for such services. If you don't consider these operations as "valuable", please ensure you are not touting gdp numbers with this information included. Another area I see could be misrepresented are drug plans; the US government and the pharma industry have had a history together, usually to overextend drug prices. Almost every country in the world pays less for the same drugs compared to Americans. This represents a significant expense, and might be excluded for the sake of a more direct comparison of healthcare operations.

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: CSMR

Originally posted by: Stunt
As I indicated in the post you quoted I asked if these nations even come close to the quality of care offered in the US. Are aesthetic/cosmetic operations covered by some insurance plans included? Are wait times calculated and how about user satisfaction? Heathcare cannot just be compared on a GDP basis...

There is a decent quality of care. Aesthetic/cosmetic operations are generally not done at public expense (with exeptions), only privately. The fact that there are more cosmetic operations done in the US as part of the cost does not say to me that the system is good. I do not regard these operations as very valuable. The main potential value in my view is that the ability to have these operations increases the incentive to work among vain people (leading to higher tax revenue) and the operations are themselves taxable. However the first effect I imagine is pretty weak and cosmetic operations are not taxed particularly heavily in the US I don't think.

The US government spends 2.3% of GDP on Medicare/Healthcare, this does not represent the number you are using. Americans do spend more for health services; but there is a massive difference between 12% of GDP paid by US citizens and 6% spent by the UK government. I would really like to see more statistics on this subject. Healthcare is not something generic you just buy, there is a huge customer satisfaction side (wait times, quality). Cosmetic while I don't see a need for it, could significantly skew the numbers as private insurance plans will pay for such services. If you don't consider these operations as "valuable", please ensure you are not touting gdp numbers with this information included. Another area I see could be misrepresented are drug plans; the US government and the pharma industry have had a history together, usually to overextend drug prices. Almost every country in the world pays less for the same drugs compared to Americans. This represents a significant expense, and might be excluded for the sake of a more direct comparison of healthcare operations.

Stunt,
You DO know that there is a real, and substantial, private medical sector within the UK, do you not? That many employees of larger corporations do indeed get private healthcare packages and insurance from their employer to suppliment NHS care, which allows them to find either a government provider for routineor emergency treatment, and use private physicians for more complex, difficult to schedule, or personal treatments?

You would need to factor that figure into any GNP analysis of corresponding healthcare, not only of the cost, but the relative levels of service (and the private care in London rivals that in NYC).

Future Shock

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Stunt
If you disagree with this comment, tell me what social program in your eyes works well.

Medicare. It is more efficient than private health insurance, and people tend to be more satisfied with their healthcare under it.

About 2% of medicare's spending falls under administration. Private healthcare usually has 10%+ spending for administration.

Talking about satisfaction in terms of health care -- a recent Harris Poll among western democracies found that Canadians were ranked #1 in terms of patient satisfaction. You might find that interesting, considering Canadian healthcare is a government run social program.

I think perhaps the reason people tend to be more dissatisfied with their government programs isn't because those programs are worse than the alternative(which they may be) -- but that people are invested in those programs. Think of all the taxes you pay! You'd better be getting your moneys worth...

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Stunt
As I indicated in the post you quoted I asked if these nations even come close to the quality of care offered in the US. Are aesthetic/cosmetic operations covered by some insurance plans included? Are wait times calculated and how about user satisfaction? Heathcare cannot just be compared on a GDP basis...

You want to talk about satisfaction? In that poll I mentioned above the US ranks LAST among western democracies in terms of satisfaction. LAST.

 

[J Heartless Slick]

OP,

Your question is directed towards federal government spending:

Going to the moon
Interstates
Military
Louisiana Purchase
School lunches
TVA
Hoover Dam
(Personally, I went to public schools, a State grant university, and my father earned his living in industrial military businesses for over 30 years.)

Are examples of government spending that can be considered to be successful.

I have noticed that conservatives do not complain about government spending that benefits them, their family and friends, and people who look like them.

I read somewhere that a federal government program exists because it supplies a service that the public sector can not or will not provide to everyone.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Future Shock

Originally posted by: Stunt
This is one of those crucial questions I ask myself relentlessly as I discover myself politically (a never ending process in my opinion).

I find it noble that liberals want what's best for all people through institutions run by people themselves. As you may notice from my posts here there are many issues where I disagree with the liberal mindset. This is merely because I feel liberals tend (some more than others) to turn away from the practical application of what they preach. Now don't take this the wrong way, conservatives can be no better; inflating numbers, being over-optimistic and turning away from facts they don't want to hear.

My question to Liberals is: Many of you preach a stronger role of government, more control of currently private jurisdictions, and more collective/inclusive social programs. Why is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed? Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

If you disagree with this comment, tell me what social program in your eyes works well. In my experience, I find the private sector has been far more concerned with my business and issues than any government institution. Maybe this is because businesses are customer focused and must achieve quality/service excellence or else they will go under and get replaced by the next guy. Can the state really offer the flexibility and needs of a diverse nation's people or is it really as easy as saying everyone gets the same.

Private industries certainly have the resources and motivation to research what people really want and can evolve to suit, government can not. For me, social programs are like a Model T Ford...domestic, works, black and that's it. Why disappoint everybody when competition, flexibility and motivation can give you many brands, options and character?

One man's view...cheers.

When you realize that your entire definition of "liberal" is based upon something more akin to "socialist", then we can begin to define what liberals truely are and think. As long as you equate these two very different viewpoints as the same thing, then you will not realize what "liberalism" is all about.

Let me put it simply:

Socailism is an economic viewpoint that champions government control of much of the economy, either through direction, legistlation, or ownership. Socialist governments look to use legislation to drive much of the economy by plan, or at least maintain some "balance".

Liberalism is a social and political doctrine (not economic!) that seeks to advance the populace away from the hidebound ways of the past, and into a more enlightened mindset. Historical Liberal views in this context have included the end of slavery, women's sufferage, fair employment and labour practices such as the end of sweatshops, equal rights for minorities, et al. Sometimes (but not always) liberalism relies upon the passage of laws and government intervention - sometimes it relies upon educating the population.

But Liberalism often does require legal changes to put such practices into effect, and it seems that this is where your confusion lies. Just because both viewpoints sometimes require legislation (as does conservativism, of course!) does not mean that they are one and the same. And while there is a lot of overlap in people that believe in both, that STILL does not make them the same thing...

Future Shock

Very good point re: Liberalism. Very good.

Liberalism may involve a larger government than a Libertarian view but that larger government is not *controlling* peoples' lives. Rather, it is helping to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves and prevents corporations from raping the land and taking advantage of workers all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Conservatism, imo, has been twisted into respecting corporations over and above the interests of the people. Corporations have too much power in today's government..

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Stunt
This is one of those crucial questions I ask myself relentlessly as I discover myself politically (a never ending process in my opinion).

I find it noble that liberals want what's best for all people through institutions run by people themselves. As you may notice from my posts here there are many issues where I disagree with the liberal mindset. This is merely because I feel liberals tend (some more than others) to turn away from the practical application of what they preach. Now don't take this the wrong way, conservatives can be no better; inflating numbers, being over-optimistic and turning away from facts they don't want to hear.

My question to Liberals is: Many of you preach a stronger role of government, more control of currently private jurisdictions, and more collective/inclusive social programs. Why is it that almost every person on the planet thinks all public systems are inefficient, poorly administered and executed? Before we advocate an expansion of state, can we not focus on fixing the current social programs/institutions we have today?

If you disagree with this comment, tell me what social program in your eyes works well. In my experience, I find the private sector has been far more concerned with my business and issues than any government institution. Maybe this is because businesses are customer focused and must achieve quality/service excellence or else they will go under and get replaced by the next guy. Can the state really offer the flexibility and needs of a diverse nation's people or is it really as easy as saying everyone gets the same.

Private industries certainly have the resources and motivation to research what people really want and can evolve to suit, government can not. For me, social programs are like a Model T Ford...domestic, works, black and that's it. Why disappoint everybody when competition, flexibility and motivation can give you many brands, options and character?

One man's view...cheers.

As far as "expansion of the state" you're wrong. They both do and both don't like expansion - Liberals do not perceive any particular tyranny inherent in such things as Social Security. Some conservatives do especially on the collection side (taxes). Liberals do see tyranny in torture, executions, domestic surveillance, and of course war and the taxes to pay for them while conservatives don't. Both are pragmatic in thier own way of thinking; i.e. looking to government to solve problems we can't solve as individuals. So I;m afraid I must reject your premise and subsequent questions. Just look how much Reagan and the Bush's run up in debt to pay for expansion of governement. (they were/are conservatives according to lore)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Love

A government of lovers will.

 

[JacobJ]

Lovers know themsevles so well that they see other people instead of seeing themselves. There is joy in the free will that each of us have. Those without love are only able to see their own free will.

Rejoice! in the wonderment of what will happen next -- let the everyones uniquenss spread through your muscles as they surprise you. Love the surprise. Let them live and be and love them because they choose not because of what they are.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Very good point re: Liberalism. Very good.

Liberalism may involve a larger government than a Libertarian view but that larger government is not *controlling* peoples' lives. Rather, it is helping to provide for those that cannot provide for themselves and prevents corporations from raping the land and taking advantage of workers all in the name of the almighty dollar.

Conservatism, imo, has been twisted into respecting corporations over and above the interests of the people. Corporations have too much power in today's government..

Liberalism is good...unfortunately you do not know what liberalism is.

Liberalism includes all conservative/liberal/democrat/republican parties today. Hell look at the definition of "classic liberalism"; "supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract. The watchword of this form of liberalism is "free enterprise". It advocates laissez-faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market."

Basically saying people like Dissipate (anarcho-capitalists) are forms of classic liberalism. Go figure eh conjur? I guess that makes Dave a cummunist

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: Stunt
If you disagree with this comment, tell me what social program in your eyes works well.

Medicare. It is more efficient than private health insurance, and people tend to be more satisfied with their healthcare under it.

About 2% of medicare's spending falls under administration. Private healthcare usually has 10%+ spending for administration.

Talking about satisfaction in terms of health care -- a recent Harris Poll among western democracies found that Canadians were ranked #1 in terms of patient satisfaction. You might find that interesting, considering Canadian healthcare is a government run social program.

I think perhaps the reason people tend to be more dissatisfied with their government programs isn't because those programs are worse than the alternative(which they may be) -- but that people are invested in those programs. Think of all the taxes you pay! You'd better be getting your moneys worth...

Canadians ranked as #1 satisfaction?! Everyone in the country complains about healthcare. Trust me, this is not a system that "works well". Do I have the ultimate solution; no, but I know if we are the happiest in the world, that's a sad state of affairs.

I don't want to turn this into a healthcare debate, there are many other areas government is involved (see my list above) for no apparent reason.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Basically saying people like Dissipate (anarcho-capitalists) are forms of classic liberalism. Go figure eh conjur? I guess that makes Dave a cummunist

Sounds right in theory but in reality laissez-faire capitalism (corpratism) is a conservative trait in modern times.