Liberal

[Oldtimer]

Political: Liberal vs Conservative
Note: The terms "liberal" and "conservative" used below are general terms as there are exceptions based on individual issues. A person may be liberal on item A and conservative on item B. And there are varying degrees of each. This is not a "cut and dried" subject.

The United States of America was founded as a republic. The role of the federal government was LIMITED, as outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even within the areas where the federal government had authority, the actions of the government were controlled by 3 separate federal branches, each with designated authority to make sure the other branches do not exceed their own authority.

Certain freedoms were guaranteed in that neither the federal nor the government of the states could take them away from individuals. Freedom of religion, speech, and the right to bear arms, to name a few.

Within the broad scope of this, both states and individuals are to primarily self-reliant and independent. The federal government had no/limited responsibility towards individual persons. For example, the federal government obtained money to finance itself through means other than direct taxation of individual income. There was no mandate, at our founding, that the federal government was responsible for the "welfare"/retirement/health/education of individuals. Those were to be the responsibility of the states, counties, towns, and primarily of the individuals, themselves.

My definition of political liberal vs conservative is a follows.

Conservatives want to restore this nation to the principles embodied within the Constitution for a REPUBLIC. Individuals to be self-reliant and independent with little interference by govenment beyond what is needed to keep the peace. (Yes, there must be laws to deal with murder, robbery, operation of vehicles on highways, etc.)

Liberals want to continue to change, what little is left of this REPUBLIC into their vision of total federal government control over every aspect of individual lives. The concept of state governance should be null and void, or at most, states should act like middle managers in a business. Upper management tells middle management what to do. The concept of private business should be null and void, as government (along side of unions) should determine the operation of all business enterprizes.

In order to continue with this change from a Republic, liberals seek, in one way or another, to make every individual dependent on the federal government. For the last 100 years, the federal government has bribed both states and individuals to yield their independence. For example, the federal government gained control over education by offerng states aid with strings attached. The federal government established the Social Security System and the Medicare System with mandates to pay into them while offering future carrots for compliance. A progressive income tax structure dug deep into the pockets of individuals, limiting their ability to remain self-reliance. Pay or suffer the consequences of paying even more with fines and penalties.

To continue this change, liberals approve of the government controlling what we eat an drink (New York state banning sales of certain size soda's and the types of fat in foods). Liberals want most serious means of self-defense removed from private citizens. Liberals want the federal government to control health care. With the liberals passage of ObamaCare, the government as inserted itself between the doctor and the patient.

To bring this down to a local level, liberals want to tell me what color I can paint the front door of my house. Along with what kind of vehicle I should drive, how much food I can keep in my pantry without being labeled a 'terrorist", nulify my CHRISTIAN religious beliefs, monitor every action I take inside and outside of my home (monitoring email for example) to make sure I'm in compliance, and so much more.

As a conservative, I reserve freedoms, granted in the Constitution of this REPUBLIC, for myself. Along with the responsibility and thus accountability for my actions. As an old saying goes -- you make your bed, you lie in it. It is not the responsibility of the government, especially the federal government to tell me how many pillows I must have on my bed, the thread count of the sheets, nor to TAKE/DEMAND blankets from my neighbor to keep me warm.

 

[Oldtimer]

As commonly employed when describing one's politics, "liberal" means "leftist." Leftist is in reference to a linear scale of forms of government with totalitarianism on the left end, and anarchy on the right end.

To be a liberal means to opt for a powerful, less limited central government. To be on the right is to opt for less powerful, more limited central government.

In a nutshell. :thumbsup:
Thanks!

 

[carpro]

Liberals are people who want to "fundamentally" change America and destroy all the institutions that provided them with everything they have and made this country as great as it once was.

The liberal elite have what they want (wealth and power) and they don't want to share it, just keep it and expand it.

They are being successful by using government as a tool to accomplish their goals. The proof is sitting in the White House.

 

[poncho]

Could someone define what you mean by the term "Liberal"?

It seems whenever there is a pet issue for someone on the forum that the term is brought out with an expectation that everyone will respond with gratuitious attacks on this mythical figure of derision.

What is a "liberal"? Well, he's a horse of a whole different color today.

A liberal of today is a collectivist.

Any of several types of social organization that ascribe central importance to the groups to which individuals belong (e.g., state, nation, ethnic group, or social class). It may be contrasted with individualism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the first modern philosopher to discuss it (1762). Karl Marx was its most forceful proponent in the 19th century. Communism, fascism, and socialism may all be termed collectivist systems. See also communitarianism; kibbutz; moshav.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/collectivism

Long story short . . .a collectivist believes "for the greater good" the individual must be sacrificed. Liberals will often use the "greater good" argument to defend their positions in political discussions. These arguments are easy to spot as they can almost always be traced back to their core collectivist belief in "the greater good".

 

[kyredneck]

...A liberal of today is a collectivist....

Liberalism / Collectivism

I think you're nailing it down fairly well poncho, at least in the political arena. Redistribution of wealth is at the heart and core of their philosophy.

 

[LadyEagle]

Reminds me of Jonestown.

 

[Streetsweeper]

I can appreciate concerns that rampant socialism may overtake the country, although failure of the so-called socialist experiment, is pretty well recognised the world over. I would also suggest that some centralised public administration is appropriate and does not reflect a liberal or socialist agenda.

The initiatives of Roosevelt seem to be well regarded despite their centralist administration. Clearly those New Deal initiatives were beneficial at the time and have not destroyed the country or the constitution.

Taxation seems to worry some people. A redistribution of wealth objective is ciited along with the suggestion that taxation reduces the capacity of individuals to be independent. The problem I see with this argument is that without effective taxation countries are unable to maintain and build infrastructure and services necessary to function. This has been the main source of economic woes for Greece and Italy over the last couple of years.

There has been calls for government expenditure but no willingness to accept the costs that go along with that expenditure. The US seems to be going down the same path.

A few people have mentioned the consitution suggesting Liberals are wanting to destroy it. Is there some coordinated lobby attempting wholesale contitutional rewrite, or are people here just afraid of new ammendments as per the procedures accepted for constitutional change?

 

[poncho]

Liberalism / Collectivism

I think you're nailing it down fairly well poncho, at least in the political arena. Redistribution of wealth is at the heart and core of their philosophy.

Socialism is a result of collectivism.

I can appreciate concerns that rampant socialism may overtake the country, although failure of the so-called socialist experiment, is pretty well recognised the world over. I would also suggest that some centralised public administration is appropriate and does not reflect a liberal or socialist agenda.

Right that's why the USA was founded as a republic, or the rule of law. Man must have a government to protect the individual from others.

The initiatives of Roosevelt seem to be well regarded despite their centralist administration. Clearly those New Deal initiatives were beneficial at the time and have not destroyed the country or the constitution.

It's been a slow leak. The people have been conditioned to depend on it. The real problem of corruption in government and a parasitical banking elite was never seriously addressed.

Taxation seems to worry some people. A redistribution of wealth objective is ciited along with the suggestion that taxation reduces the capacity of individuals to be independent. The problem I see with this argument is that without effective taxation countries are unable to maintain and build infrastructure and services necessary to function. This has been the main source of economic woes for Greece and Italy over the last couple of years.

The source of the Greek's economic woes is due to a political elite that has borrowed (from the corrupt global bankers) and spent the Greek people into bankruptcy.

There has been calls for government expenditure but no willingness to accept the costs that go along with that expenditure. The US seems to be going down the same path.

The source of the problem is a corrupt political elite (the state) has merged with corrupt private bankers and corporate elite (corporatism) to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers. This is not just an American problem. Corporatism has gone viral.

A few people have mentioned the consitution suggesting Liberals are wanting to destroy it. Is there some coordinated lobby attempting wholesale contitutional rewrite, or are people here just afraid of new ammendments as per the procedures accepted for constitutional change?

Collectivism demands the individual and his rights be sacrificed for the "greater good" of the collective, the U.S. constitution was written precisely to protect the individual and his rights against the collective. Collectivists dislike any laws that stand in the way of sacrificing the individual. Therefore the U.S. constitution is perceived as a threat to the "greater good".

 

[Revmitchell]

The New Deal was nothing but liberalism and was the begining of the abysss we are now headed for.

This country was founded on a very limited federal government and states mainly controlling most of the needs of the country. Liberals cannot stand that.

 

[Streetsweeper]

The New Deal was nothing but liberalism and was the begining of the abysss we are now headed for.

This country was founded on a very limited federal government and states mainly controlling most of the needs of the country. Liberals cannot stand that.

State control is fine for the majority of things, and I agree that where management is effective it should be allowed to operate at the lowest possible level. But I wonder whether the people you are labelling as liberal in the most derogatory possible sense, are really opposed to individual responsibility, or are they perhaps recognising a benefit to federal administration.

Is it being liberal to expect armed forces to be managed federally?

I'm aware that most of the New Deal initiatives have now been dismantled.
What is the abyss you are prophesying?

 

[Revmitchell]

SBut I wonder whether the people you are labelling as liberal in the most derogatory possible sense, are really opposed to individual responsibility, or are they perhaps recognising a benefit to federal administration.

Well my friend wonder no more because they are.

Is it being liberal to expect armed forces to be managed federally?

If you are trying to make an actual argument you will have to do better than this.

I'm aware that most of the New Deal initiatives have now been dismantled.
What is the abyss you are prophesying?

This abyss is the deep dark whole of debt where there are more people taking and less people giving. Greece and Spain are a good example. Obama ignorantly said we do not have a spending problem. He reminds me of my kids who believes money grows on trees.

 

[Streetsweeper]

This abyss is the deep dark whole of debt where there are more people taking and less people giving. Greece and Spain are a good example. Obama ignorantly said we do not have a spending problem. He reminds me of my kids who believes money grows on trees.

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Does this mean you support higher taxation?

 

[Revmitchell]

Perhaps I have misunderstood you. Does this mean you support higher taxation?

Uh no....it means I support less spending.

 

[Streetsweeper]

Uh no....it means I support less spending.

So among things such as social security reductions you would regard a reduction in defence spending as appropriate.

How does this play out in the state context? Texas for example is unable to fund its transportation system.

 

[poncho]

State control is fine for the majority of things, and I agree that where management is effective it should be allowed to operate at the lowest possible level. But I wonder whether the people you are labelling as liberal in the most derogatory possible sense, are really opposed to individual responsibility, or are they perhaps recognising a benefit to federal administration.

Is it being liberal to expect armed forces to be managed federally?

State control is fine if it follows the law that binds it. (See the U.S. Constitution) The problem is liberals believe the state itself and the majority of the people (collective) should be able to decide which powers the state is allowed to have over the individuals who make up the state.

Collectivism almost always leads to oppresion and tyranny of the state over the individual.

Are you a liberal testing the waters here Streetsweeper? It's starting to sound that way to me. Liberals are also known to ask many questions and proposing many "what if" scenarios without answering any questions or posing solutions that benefits the individual instead of sacrificing him and his rights for "the greater good".

 

[Revmitchell]

So among things such as social security reductions you would regard a reduction in defence[sic] spending as appropriate.

The constitution provides for the military. Not sure why that is a focus for you. I do know that is the first things liberals usual trot out as an argument.

How does this play out in the state context? Texas for example is unable to fund its transportation system.

Not sure you really know what Texas can do. But why in the world would every other state need to prop up Texas.

 

[Streetsweeper]

The constitution provides for the military. Not sure why that is a focus for you. I do know that is the first things liberals usual trot out as an argument.

People here, if not yourself, have accused liberals of wanting to reduce the size of the armed services, but that seems to be an unavoidable consequence to the reduction in spending you are proposing.

Not sure you really know what Texas can do. But why in the world would every other state need to prop up Texas.

Pretty sure I don't know that state's capacity either, but their budgetry problems seem to be of interest to financial journalists around the world.

I would expect other states to support Texas for the same reasons that Germany is supporting the Italy, Greece and Spain. It is better for the entire union if each part is functioning.

The alternative is to discard the cancerous elements.

This is an extreme position to take in regard to Texas. I imagine their financial woes are far less than would require such action.

 

[Revmitchell]

People here, if not yourself, have accused liberals of wanting to reduce the size of the armed services, but that seems to be an unavoidable consequence to the reduction in spending you are proposing.

Not at all. although we should stop sending money we do not have to places like Egypt.

I would expect other states to support Texas for the same reasons that Germany is supporting the Italy, Greece and Spain. It is better for the entire union if each part is functioning.

Apples and refrigerators

This is an extreme position to take in regard to Texas. I imagine their financial woes are far less than would require such action.

Extreme to liberals maybe. But when you start from the extreme then any move to common sense will seem so.

 

[Streetsweeper]

State control is fine if it follows the law that binds it. (See the U.S. Constitution) The problem is liberals believe the state itself and the majority of the people (collective) should be able to decide which powers the state is allowed to have over the individuals who make up the state.

Collectivism almost always leads to oppresion and tyranny of the state over the individual.

Are you a liberal testing the waters here Streetsweeper? It's starting to sound that way to me. Liberals are also known to ask many questions and proposing many "what if" scenarios without answering any questions or posing solutions that benefits the individual instead of sacrificing him and his rights for "the greater good".

I certainly get the feeling I am liberal by your standards, although I am conservative in Australia.

Sure I'm playing devils advocate here. No appologies for that. There is so much unsubstantiated anti-liberal [edited] here, I'm trying to draw out the reasoning behind it.


Could you clarify the following? I'm not sure what you are saying

State control is fine if it follows the law that binds it. (See the U.S. Constitution) The problem is liberals believe the state itself and the majority of the people (collective) should be able to decide which powers the state is allowed to have over the individuals who make up the state.

Collectivism almost always leads to oppresion and tyranny of the state over the individual.​

 

[carpro]

I certainly get the feeling I am liberal by your standards, although I am conservative in Australia.

Sure I'm playing devils advocate here. No appologies for that. There is so much unsubstantiated anti-liberal [edited] here, I'm trying to draw out the reasoning behind it.


Could you clarify the following? I'm not sure what you are saying

State control is fine if it follows the law that binds it. (See the U.S. Constitution) The problem is liberals believe the state itself and the majority of the people (collective) should be able to decide which powers the state is allowed to have over the individuals who make up the state.

Collectivism almost always leads to oppresion and tyranny of the state over the individual.
​

I see we have another troll.

Well, la di da. Imagine that.

Framing an argument purely to sow discord.