Liberal

[Revmitchell]

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.​

unsubstantiated? What is unsubstantiated is this post.

 

[poncho]

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

I haven't been describing my standards. I merely answered your question of "what is a liberal". A liberal is a collectivist. At his core he believes the individual and his personal liberties should be sacrificed for the "greater good".

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.

Yeah I could tell by your second post that you were playing some kind of game. Liberals often to try to draw out reasoning they are incapable of understanding through the lens of collectivism.

Usually it either ends up in a smear campaign or an attempt to use government force to restrict the rights of individuals who disagree.

Collectivists are also authoritarians. Some examples would be Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

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.
​

Sure I'll clarify it. Hitler was a collectivist, Mussolini was a collectivist, Mao was a collectivist, Stalin was a collectivist, Marx was a collectivist, Barrack Obama is a collectivist, Bill and Hillary Clinton are collectivists.

All of them have worked to increase the power of the "state" over the individual for the "greater good". The end game whether the individual liberals who went along or go along with these collectivist "leaders" know it or not they are calling for the destruction of their own liberties and their complete subjugation to the "state". In other words, those who follow collectivist leaders are bound and determined to hang themselves with the same rope they're using to sacrifice the individual.

History is full of examples of how collectivist governments almost always end up as totalitarian governments. I say "almost" because there may have been a collectivist government that hasn't turned into a totalitarian government but I haven't seen any in history.

For a detailed description of how a government is founded on individualism. SEE THIS.

 

[saturneptune]

Not particularly helpful.
The opposite of this must be someone whose mind is so closed no knowledge can get in.

Come on be a little serious. What is a sensible definition of 'liberalism' and why is liberalism so offensive to some people on this forum?

I will try and answer this from a different angle. A liberal person is one who:

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

On this board, we use the term in the narrow sense of our present situation in this nation. It implies a person that does not take responsibility for themselves, has no self worth or sense of accomplishment, sponges off of the efforts of others, etc.

However, the term is a positive quality in many circumstances. If we were living in Germany in the 1930s and early 40s, we would all be liberals, as in this case, the term would stand for change, and that change would be liberty, freedom, and the ability to be responsibility for our own destiny. The same could be said if we lived under the rule of Stalin, Mao, Caesar, and other monsters of history.

During the administration of Abraham Lincoln, those who wanted to end slavery were considered liberal.

The problem is the linking of terms that are not intended to be linked together. Think about it. Most all on this board despise the present policies of the federal government because they limit freedom, liberty, and basically, want to give away to those who will not work the fruits of what we have earned. The government promotes a policy of dependence, and is basically dumbing down the population to the freedoms the Constitution guarantees us.

Isn't it a fact that this is so entrenched, that, if you follow the definition correctly, we are the liberals. We are the ones that want change from the status quo. In other words, to be called a conservative in modern day America, one wants to keep things the way they are.

IMO, we have warped the terms. Therefore, if I take the quotes made in the first post, like "liberalism is a fatal disease," in essence I am saying that I want things the way they are, the way things are going (trending for you modern people).

In our posts, I believe in this area we have totally lost the meaning of the terms liberal and conservative, and use them daily in an exact opposite manner that they should be used. I know it sounds kind of odd to say Old Regular and Rev Mitchell are liberals, but in fact, IMO, they are radically liberal, and deserve a badge of honor for being such.

 

[InTheLight]

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

The difference is that defense is specifically spelled out in the Constitution as a necessary function of government. Social Security is a program born in the FDR era. That said, defense spending should be trimmed as part of an overall reduction in spending initiative. Adjustments should be made to Social Security.

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

Then Texas needs to cut spending or raise taxes to fund their transportation system. Only when transportation becomes inter-state should the federal government become involved.

 

[Salty]

In a nutshell:

Liberal = to give freely

A fiscal liberal demands that I give MY MONEY to the govt so that those taxes can be given away freely for any ole govt program, especially those that will help the politician get re-elected. Further those programs tend to keep recipients as slaves to the program - so those politicians can keep getting re-elected.

A fiscal conservative prefers to use HIS MONEY for organizations that he sees fit will help the individual to pull themselves up by the bootstraps - which in turn will make them productive members of society as well as taxpayers.

Taxes should be used for constitutional needs - roads, military, post office, REASONABLE govt admin expenses.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So would a liberal or a conservative think that the federal government should tell state how they must define marriage?

 

[InTheLight]

So would a liberal or a conservative think that the federal government should tell state how they must define marriage?

True conservatives would think the state should regulate that sort of thing. True liberals would want the federal gov't to handle it.

Fact is, both conservatives and liberals deviate from their orthodox stances when it suits their purposes.

 

[Revmitchell]

I haven't been describing my standards. I merely answered your question of "what is a liberal". A liberal is a collectivist. At his core he believes the individual and his personal liberties should be sacrificed for the "greater good".

The greater good according to a liberal.

 

[Bob Alkire]

True conservatives would think the state should regulate that sort of thing. True liberals would want the federal gov't to handle it.

Fact is, both conservatives and liberals deviate from their orthodox stances when it suits their purposes.

I have to agree!
When I was kid most conservatives wouldn't take a union job or work for the government. Any form of work that paid was based on time or time in grade was called liberal, conservatives believed pay should be based on quality of work. Times change.
When JFK ran he was looked upon as a liberal, even by Harry Truman. When Reagan ran he wasn't much more to the right than than JFK, about 10 percent or a little more and he was called a conservative.

 

[Streetsweeper]

So would a liberal or a conservative think that the federal government should tell state how they must define marriage?

Is this really a liberal vs conservative issue?

I would expect the dichotomy between the two poles to be about the scope of marriage rather than who regulates it.

Both liberal and conservative can be prescriptive over the definition and control of marriage. The level of government at which marriage is defined is only important for maintaining national consistency.

 

[mont974x4]

It very much is a liberal vs conservative issue.

It wouldn't be if the government got out of the marriage business.

 

[LadyEagle]

Is this really a liberal vs conservative issue?

I would expect the dichotomy between the two poles to be about the scope of marriage rather than who regulates it.

Both liberal and conservative can be prescriptive over the definition and control of marriage. The level of government at which marriage is defined is only important for maintaining national consistency.

Liberals want same sex marriage. Conservatives don't. I expect if same sex marriage included being marred to several spouses at the same time or allowing marriage between animals and humans, most liberals would suddenly turn conservative and say "no." But then again, I could be wrong.

If same sexes are allowed to marry and marriage is defined by the federal govt, then why are people limited to only 1 spouse at a time? Who decided that? The fed govt?

It's a slippery slope once the slope gets started.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Well my friend wonder no more because they are.

Proof that Mitch has no idea what individuals believe, but in his deluded worldview, everyone left of the John Birch Society are evil, baby-murdering, anti-American, socialist, communist, nazi, anti-business, anti-gun bunch of idiots on earth. His broad brush shows the ignorance of such a view.

 

[Alcott]

What does Target selling Pillsbury biscuits have to do wit this?

 

[Revmitchell]

Proof that Mitch has no idea what individuals believe, but in his deluded worldview, everyone left of the John Birch Society are evil, baby-murdering, anti-American, socialist, communist, nazi, anti-business, anti-gun bunch of idiots on earth. His broad brush shows the ignorance of such a view.

Awww...now you have gone and hurt my feelings. Does it not bother you to misrepresent someone else view. Even a little bit?

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Awww...now you have gone and hurt my feelings. Does it not bother you to misrepresent someone else view. Even a little bit?

You didn't seriously just write that did you? Maybe I am missing your evil comedy genius. :thumbs:

 

[Revmitchell]

You didn't seriously just write that did you? Maybe I am missing your evil comedy genius. :thumbs:

A real class act.

 

[mont974x4]

MP is just angry that McCarthy was right and more and more people are aware of it.

 

[saturneptune]

Proof that Mitch has no idea what individuals believe, but in his deluded worldview, everyone left of the John Birch Society are evil, baby-murdering, anti-American, socialist, communist, nazi, anti-business, anti-gun bunch of idiots on earth. His broad brush shows the ignorance of such a view.

Aside from mischaracterization of Reverend Mitchell in the above quote, both sides are wrong. Liberal was never intended to be a word to describe the present policies of the Obama administration's socialist agenda, or his inept Congress. Liberal is one who advocates change. In the correct sense, that we have a leftist government in place, the Republicans are liberal (which in fact they really are) and Democrats are conservative in the fact they do not want to change. Both terms are grossly misused.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Liberals want same sex marriage. Conservatives don't. I expect if same sex marriage included being marred to several spouses at the same time or allowing marriage between animals and humans, most liberals would suddenly turn conservative and say "no." But then again, I could be wrong.

If same sexes are allowed to marry and marriage is defined by the federal govt, then why are people limited to only 1 spouse at a time? Who decided that? The fed govt?

It's a slippery slope once the slope gets started.

Emotional and sensational arguments aside we still have to ask ourselves a question.

In the light of the 10th amendment does the federal government have any right to tell the states how to define marriage?

It seems to me that a true conservative constitutional constructionist would have to say that defining marriage is up to each state. It would require a liberal interpretation of the the constitution to say otherwise.

The point is that these labels are tossed about way too freely. Everyone is 'liberal' in some areas and 'conservative' in others.