The real definition of the word Liberal

[Kibbo]

A classical liberal is this:

Someone who believes that the State should play no role in the economy.
Someone who believes that the State should not regulate personal behaviour.
Someone who believes that the State should be completely removed from religion.
Someone who beleives that the State is made up of individuals.
Someone who believes that those individuals should have their rights recognized.
Someone who believes that no person or group should act in such a way that impinges on the rights of another.

Why is this so wrong?

 

[Dissipate]

Misleading title, you say "The real definition of the word liberal" then go on to define a classicial liberal, which has nothing to do with liberalism today. In fact, classical liberalism has been re-named libertarianism. But even further, not all classical liberals fit under that definition. Some believe in a small amount of government intervention in the economy, especially for patents and IP.

 

[Czar]

hmm I thought todays libertians were actualy the very few true conservatives

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: Czar
hmm I thought todays libertians were actualy the very few true conservatives

frankly thats what I thought too

 

[Kibbo]

You are right, Dissipate,

Some also advocated government action to prevent Monopolies.

The thing is, IIRC, Rawls was the birthfather of modern "Liberalism," yet his basic priciple was more of a class-biased Utilitarianism than an evolution of Liberalism.

Really what he did was justify Socialism in a non-Marxist framework. Mostly for American consumption. Largely due to the fact that American enmity to Communism (a misnomer in itself) precluded any rational discussion of Socialism.

Czar,

Classical Conservatism includes Monarchism and Mercantilism. "Libertarianism," a word co-opted from the Anarchists, is now very close classical Liberalism.

 

[Czar]

conservatives used to want less government, less government involvement in peoples life and respect for the constitution with the gun rights and all, thats exactly what libertians are going for right?

 

[digitalsm]

less government, less government involvement in peoples life and respect for the constitution with the gun rights and all?

thats basically what classical liberalism is/was.

 

[Painman]

Libertarians are not socially/culturally conservative, at least not ideally.

The Republican party has assimilated social conservatism and created a kind of paradoxical mutation from that idea and their traditional, limited gov't, "leave us alone" platform. Now it's, "leave us alone, unless you're talking about someone who's not one of 'us', in that case, please regulate with impunity".

Democrats look to gov't for many of the wrong reasons as well, but at least they're the party of social inclusiveness. Or, at least they're supposed to be. They sure as hell didn't use to be.

I'm somewhere between 66 and 75% libertarian, I like the platform, but I'm personally in favor of more social cohesion (what some would call "statism") than a typical all-out libertarian.

 

[nageov3t]

it does kind of annoy me when "liberal" is thrown around as an insult.

I listen to the republicans calling Kerry a "Massachusets Liberal," and I'm thinking to myself "yeah, and that's exactly why I'll end up voting for him in November."

Kerry and Edwards are the top liberal senators... well, great! that actually inspires a lot of confidence from me.

 

[NightCrawler]

Liberal:

Tax and Spend
Huge Government Programs
Moral Freedom

Conservatives:

Tax Cuts
Smaller Government
Moral Authority



Today's politicians don't fit the stereotype of what they are suppose to be anymore.

 

[DeeKnow]

to be honest, liberal here can mean literally anything the poster wants it to mean...

i've asked several times but never had a satisfactory answer (and I'm not american so I wasn't brought up with this vocabulary)

will someone explain who/what is a liberal/conservative/neocon/republican/democrat/transvestite...?
ok so i know about the last one, but all the others ..??

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Liberal:

Tax and Spend
Huge Government Programs (usually with emphasis on social programs)
Moral Freedom (but sometimes backfires with government intervention)

Conservatives:

Tax Cuts and Spend and big deficits.
Huge Government Programs (just different)
Claimed Moral Authority
Decreased personal freedom (Patriot act) Jose Padilla scenarios.



NightCrawler, that seems to fit my sense of what many consider liberals and conservatives to be. Like the OP, I think the definitions are wrong, and I believe that there are points of both philosophies which have merit, and some which are not workable

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Liberal:

Tax and Spend -bloated socail systems with employees who abuse position and do nothing
Huge Government Programs (usually with emphasis on social programs, generally that only help those who don't help themselves, punishment for ambitions and reward laziness)
Moral Freedom (only when pertains to that which they deem worthy, generally first amendment rights go down the tubes)

Conservatives:

Tax Cuts (unfortuantely though these are brought about to remedy economic situations left over by previous dems/libs)
Small Government programs for social services and big spending on Tech such as Space admin and Military, move of a move to privatization.
More moral concern
Personal Freedom



NightCrawler, that seems to fit my sense of what many consider liberals and conservatives to be. Like the OP, I think the definitions are wrong, and I believe that there are points of both philosophies which have merit, and some which are not workable

Fixed that for ya winston.

 

[daveshel]

Word games.

Hey bozack, if you're going to attempt to pass off your tripe as someone else's, the least you could do is check your spelling.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Liberal:

Tax and Spend -bloated socail systems with employees who abuse position and do nothing
Huge Government Programs (usually with emphasis on social programs, generally that only help those who don't help themselves, punishment for ambitions and reward laziness)
Moral Freedom (only when pertains to that which they deem worthy, generally first amendment rights go down the tubes)

Conservatives:

Tax Cuts (unfortuantely though these are brought about to remedy economic situations left over by previous dems/libs)
Small Government programs for social services and big spending on Tech such as Space admin and Military, move of a move to privatization.
More moral concern
Personal Freedom



NightCrawler, that seems to fit my sense of what many consider liberals and conservatives to be. Like the OP, I think the definitions are wrong, and I believe that there are points of both philosophies which have merit, and some which are not workable

Fixed that for ya winston.

Well no you didn't. What you did was provide unsubstianted rhetoric and show why I have no respect for many of those here. There are good points to both philosophies and those I don't like. Nothing is perfect. Of course liberals are pretty much evil and conservatives gods by your definition. Since your post takes no credible position, it is void of merit, except as an example of why those in power need to go, since they seem to endorse a completely worthless POV.

 

[Yo Ma Ma]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
A classical liberal is this:

Someone who believes that the State should play no role in the economy.
Someone who believes that the State should not regulate personal behaviour.
Someone who believes that the State should be completely removed from religion.
Someone who beleives that the State is made up of individuals.
Someone who believes that those individuals should have their rights recognized.
Someone who believes that no person or group should act in such a way that impinges on the rights of another.

Why is this so wrong?

Well dear fellow, this isn't so wrong. That is why you do not hear someone being called a "Classical Liberal" as an insult.

 

[daveshel]

Kibbo makes some good observations here as to what it means today, as opposed to NightCrawler, whose observations are culled from past conservative campaign slogans.

But the problem with this entire analysis is this: it is mired in faulty Aristotilian logic. This logic says a glass is either half empty or half full. The thing is, anyone can look at the glass and see that it is BOTH half empty and half full. That is why this exercise is little more than a word game.

 

[dmcowen674]

"The real definition of the word Liberal"

Anyone that does not agree and heed to Rush, Hannity, CAD & Co and the Fearless Liar.


Fixed your Title for you.

 

[Moonbeam]

A liberal is a person who looks within himself for self understanding and applies that understanding to the world. A conservative is a person who applies that wisdom as it was propounded in the past. A liberal is tomorrow's conservative.

 

[Thump553]

Liberal and Conservative are grossly misused labels these days. Both major political parties are in favor of a big strong central government and "activist" judiciary, but differ as to the policies that big government should follow.

The OP's definition fits to a T what most of us consider to be a libertarian, which is very much a fringe school of political philosophy in the US.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't tax and spend money, what government is suppose to do?

If there werent taxes, how the hell would government work? Strictly by donation? Ha.

It's kind idiotic to call people "tax and spend" as if it's some sort of insult.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Misleading title, you say "The real definition of the word liberal" then go on to define a classicial liberal, which has nothing to do with liberalism today. In fact, classical liberalism has been re-named libertarianism. But even further, not all classical liberals fit under that definition. Some believe in a small amount of government intervention in the economy, especially for patents and IP.

Nicely put!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well no you didn't. What you did was provide unsubstianted rhetoric and show why I have no respect for many of those here. There are good points to both philosophies and those I don't like. Nothing is perfect. Of course liberals are pretty much evil and conservatives gods by your definition. Since your post takes no credible position, it is void of merit, except as an example of why those in power need to go, since they seem to endorse a completely worthless POV.

Much like what you did to nightcrawlers post...

 

[MAW1082]

Classical liberalism essentially means "laissez-faire."

Today's conservatives are closer to classical liberals than today's "liberals."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well no you didn't. What you did was provide unsubstianted rhetoric and show why I have no respect for many of those here. There are good points to both philosophies and those I don't like. Nothing is perfect. Of course liberals are pretty much evil and conservatives gods by your definition. Since your post takes no credible position, it is void of merit, except as an example of why those in power need to go, since they seem to endorse a completely worthless POV.

Much like what you did to nightcrawlers post...

Lets look at that again. Apparently NightCrawler hasn't a problem with it, since I addressed his points, but didn't quote it like he said it.

Both love to spend money, but on different things. For this time in history Reps represent what conservatism has become, and the Dems liberalism, or so both sides claim.

Dems do it by raising taxes, the reps by passing on in the form of defecits.

If you also note the last line. Both sides have good and bad points. I could have made it an entirely flame Bush thread. I like my right to bear arms. If Kerry had the power of the Congress behind it that would be more of a concern.

Perhaps you feel NightCrawler needs your aid. I do not. He can make his reply as it suits him. Perhaps he feels just as you. Let's find out.