Liberalism

[ciba]

liberalism is alive and well in the Democratic party.

From another thread, I thought I would burst someone's bubble. Democrats are only socially, not economically liberal. They have even less respect for property rights than republicans do.

 

[Pandaren]

The only real liberals are the Libertarians 😀

 

[Caminetto]

Originally posted by: ciba

liberalism is alive and well in the Democratic party.

From another thread, I thought I would burst someone's bubble. Democrats are only socially, not economically liberal. They have even less respect for property rights than republicans do.

You are full of sh*t.
When a pipeline company wanted to appropriate part of my property for a comercial venture to run a gas and jet fuel pipeline strictly to increase their profits, it was only the democrats in the state legislature and on the state supreme court that stood up to fight them.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
The only real liberals are the Libertarians 😀

I'd argue that Libertarians are more conservative than liberal. They are for lower taxes and smaller govt, the exact opposite of liberals.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Pandaren
The only real liberals are the Libertarians 😀

I'd argue that Libertarians are more conservative than liberal. They are for lower taxes and smaller govt, the exact opposite of liberals.

I'd have to agree with ntdz. the libetarians are anti-authoritarian conservatives.

 

[Stunt]

liberals and conservatives come in many stripes. Both are are alive and well.
however i do not see them alive and well in either american political party 😛

 

[SuperTool]

From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

and massive military and police expenditures.

so yes they are for big "social" governmnet.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

AKA big gov't...laws = enforcement, judiciary, punishment.

Ban abortions, you have to deal with malpractice of all the doctors that help, controlling illegal substances like pills, have to accuse women for the crime itself, etc etc.

Big gov't

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
The only real liberals are the Libertarians 😀

True. Now if only:

a) more people understood that Liberalism was originally about and gave birth to the ideas of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property.

b) the Socialists who run the Democratic party would tell the truth about who they are.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Pandaren
The only real liberals are the Libertarians 😀

I'd argue that Libertarians are more conservative than liberal. They are for lower taxes and smaller govt, the exact opposite of liberals.

You're right that they are for lower taxes and smaller government, but those aren't conservative ideologies. They are historically Liberal, but the Socialists managed to hijack the "Liberal" Democratic party in the 1920's-30's and it's been all downhill from there.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Seems like a decent, if simplified, summation to me 🙂

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

Yeah, you know, things like "no, you can't have sex with the consenting person of your choice in the privacy of your own home! We'll toss your lovely human-ass in jail for packing the fudge, you sinner!"

Yeah, definitely bigger on the Social issues. Yikes.

Jason

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

While that is true in theory, in practice it is very different. Today's so called conservatives are not advocates of laissez faire economic policies. In fact, they are socialists to a great degree. Today's so-called conservative politicians are really advocates of maintaining the status quo, and ensuring that the rich stay rich. This inevitably involves the transfer of property titles from hapless citizens to the corporate elite. See the chapter on conservative socialism in the book linked to in my signature entitled: "Why socialism is morally indefensible." The depressing state of politics today is an absurd debate between conservative socialism and social democratic socialism. Social democratic socialism is advocated of course by the liberals. Social democratic socialism says that instead of transferring property titles to those who have "merit," (as the conservative socialists advocate) we should instead transfer property titles to the poor. Hence, in a nutshell, today's political debate basically just boils down to which brand of socialism you prefer. Even worse though, there are only two brands to choose from.

Libertarians are really the only group who are for laissez faire economic policies, although once again I question how this really plays out in practice. Government power corrupts, and even so-called libertarians, if they ever took power would probably end up like the Republican Party is today (a bastion of conservative socialism).

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: ciba

liberalism is alive and well in the Democratic party.

From another thread, I thought I would burst someone's bubble. Democrats are only socially, not economically liberal. They have even less respect for property rights than republicans do.

Actually to clarify this, today's liberals are egalitarian liberals while the liberals of the past were classical liberals. Classical liberalism is basically what we call libertarianism today. Egalitarian liberalism is the doctrine that has been adopted by today's liberals. Egalitarianism being the belief that people should be made equal, especially in terms of economic status.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

While that is true in theory, in practice it is very different.

Hey, you got that from Plato. I recommend A little Aristotle to help you cure you of your infection.

Jason

PS: Otherwise a great post, you clearly understand the topic 🙂

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: ciba

liberalism is alive and well in the Democratic party.

From another thread, I thought I would burst someone's bubble. Democrats are only socially, not economically liberal. They have even less respect for property rights than republicans do.

Actually to clarify this, today's liberals are egalitarian liberals while the liberals of the past were classical liberals. Classical liberalism is basically what we call libertarianism today. Egalitarian liberalism is the doctrine that has been adopted by today's liberals. Egalitarianism being the belief that people should be made equal, especially in terms of economic status.

Yeah, disgusting concept, really. One should take a good long watch of Harrison Bergeron for a good representation of Egalitarianism's true meaning. The movie doesn't appear to be available on DVD, sadly. One of the rare cases where the movie is actually *far* superior to the story upon which it is based.

Jason

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

ALTHOUGH libertarians say they are for small govt. in moral/ social issues, in practice most of them (at least most of them I have encountered on the web) seem happy to go along with Bush's repressive moral and social agenda, perhaps because they support his economic agenda (or at least, they prefer it to a Democrats/ liberal economic agenda) and are willing to allow their committment to increased social freedoms slide if they think they will get their way on economics.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

Bush is spending vast sums on abstinence education, making foreign aid to Africa dependent on abstinence being taught, talking about amending the constitution of the USA, he supports the right of the government to outlaw things like sodomy, abortion, etc., directing large amounts of public monies to churchs (faith based initiatives), if that isn't "big government" I don't know what is. But then, I guess Bush isn't a conservative, he's more of an authoritarian/ fascist.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

ALTHOUGH libertarians say they are for small govt. in moral/ social issues, in practice most of them (at least most of them I have encountered on the web) seem happy to go along with Bush's repressive moral and social agenda, perhaps because they support his economic agenda (or at least, they prefer it to a Democrats/ liberal economic agenda) and are willing to allow their committment to increased social freedoms slide if they think they will get their way on economics.

You're right on that count. In general, the Libertarian party has very little sense of itself. They do have some of the most brilliant and honest minds in politics, but at the same time they've also got a huge bunch of folks who are only registered as Libertarians because they want to be "free to get high". It's really a sad image they bring to a party whose ideas are serious, well thought out and pretty well aligned with what the founders of the United States believed.

Jason

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

ALTHOUGH libertarians say they are for small govt. in moral/ social issues, in practice most of them (at least most of them I have encountered on the web) seem happy to go along with Bush's repressive moral and social agenda, perhaps because they support his economic agenda (or at least, they prefer it to a Democrats/ liberal economic agenda) and are willing to allow their committment to increased social freedoms slide if they think they will get their way on economics.

There are some so-called libertarians like that, but almost all of the libertarians I have run into on the Internet hate Bush. Bush's economic policies have been absolutely terrible. Yeah, he passed some meager tax cuts, but is now is racking up enormous deficits in order to fund an insane war in Iraq.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

Bush is spending vast sums on abstinence education, making foreign aid to Africa dependent on abstinence being taught, talking about amending the constitution of the USA, he supports the right of the government to outlaw things like sodomy, abortion, etc., directing large amounts of public monies to churchs (faith based initiatives), if that isn't "big government" I don't know what is. But then, I guess Bush isn't a conservative, he's more of an authoritarian/ fascist.

Translation: He's a Conservative.

Jason

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

Bush is spending vast sums on abstinence education, making foreign aid to Africa dependent on abstinence being taught, talking about amending the constitution of the USA, he supports the right of the government to outlaw things like sodomy, abortion, etc., directing large amounts of public monies to churchs (faith based initiatives), if that isn't "big government" I don't know what is. But then, I guess Bush isn't a conservative, he's more of an authoritarian/ fascist.

Translation: He's a Conservative.

Jason

My point was that Bush, a supposed/ alleged conservative, is actually into big government re: social issues.

Bush is also into big government re: the economy, imo, just a different form of big government than liberals. That makes him an authoritarian, using SuperTool's scheme.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: SuperTool
From my AP government
"Consevative": For small govt in economics, big govt in moral issues
"Liberal": For small govt in moral issues, big govt in economics
"Libertarian":For small govt in moral issues, small govt in economics
"Authoritarian":For big govt in moral issues, big govt in economics.

Basically right. Conservatives aren't for "big govt" in social issues, as in literally a bigger govt, just sticter laws.

Bush is spending vast sums on abstinence education, making foreign aid to Africa dependent on abstinence being taught, talking about amending the constitution of the USA, he supports the right of the government to outlaw things like sodomy, abortion, etc., directing large amounts of public monies to churchs (faith based initiatives), if that isn't "big government" I don't know what is. But then, I guess Bush isn't a conservative, he's more of an authoritarian/ fascist.

Translation: He's a Conservative.

Jason

My point was that Bush, a supposed/ alleged conservative, is actually into big government re: social issues.

Bush is also into big government re: the economy, imo, just a different form of big government than liberals. That makes him an authoritarian, using SuperTool's scheme.

Ding ding! We have a winner! :thumbsup: