1
   

Are you liberal or conservative?

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 12:36 am
dagmaraka wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
However, if u agree to a contract with someone
whereby he has given u his car,and in return, u promise to paint 5 rooms of his house, but then paint only 3 of them, u keep the car, declaring " that 's close enuf " then you are being liberal, and in so doing, you are violating his contractual rights.
That is bad.
David
.


what on earth does that have to do with liberalism? you are musing, not defining. laziness and cheating have nothing to do with liberalism. They are laziness and cheating, no more, no less. Not something else.

And dress or tattoos do not make anyone a liberal either. Especially not in this day and age. What used to be 'deviating' is becoming more mainstream. However, belief in the supremacy of human rights, both individual and collective, would indeed indicate I might be one. Of course you'd need to know much more about my thoughts. One belief is not gonna do it, unless you're into random labeling of people.


Besides, if we were to really get into it, we'd have to discuss the original meaning of liberalism as it developed in Western Europe and its development in America, which is radically different in terms of its basic philosophical premises and political consequences... But it's 1am, and it just doesn't seem a worthwhile investment of time and energy to me.

Liberalism means DEVIATING from something;
straying from it;
e.g. Ameria s Founders were liberal as to the English Monarchy
when they DEVIATED From it.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 12:55 am
Once again, that is your musing, based on whatever's cooking inside your head. there are texts out there some of which are hundreds of years old. It has been defined and redefined... so I hate to tell you, but your own musing is a deviation.
And from the perspective that you take, just about everybody is deviating from the norm - socialists, anarchists, social democrats, agrarians, laborists...whichever stream that has developed in human philosophy and politics.... Given that, conservatives remain in marginal minority....thus deviating from the mainstream as well. In the end, every last bloody person is a deviant. You do know that liberalism did not originate in the U.S. It has a longer history, thus it is not a matter of deviation. It is a matter of choice. Neither conservatism has its roots in the U.S. Conservatives today would have little in common with those from a couple of centuries ago.... deviants as well? Sure, everybody is. Thus, it's a useless tautology.

From wikipedia....but you can just google liberalism and find hundreds of entries. Not that I expect that you'd bother.

Quote:
Etymology and historical usage
The word "liberal" derives from the Latin liber ("free, not slave"). It is widely associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom. Livy's History of Rome from Its Foundation describes the struggles for freedom between the plebeian and patrician classes. Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations writes about "...the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed... ." Largely dormant during the vicissitudes of the Middle Ages, the struggle for freedom began again in the Italian Renaissance, in the conflict between the supporters of free city states and supporters of the Pope or the Holy Roman Emperor. Niccolò Machiavelli, in his Discourses on Livy, laid down the principles of republican government. John Locke in England and the thinkers of the French Enlightenment articulated the struggle for freedom in terms of the Rights of Man.

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) indicates that the word liberal has long been in the English language with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in liberal arts; also with the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in liberal with the purse, or liberal tongue, usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776-88 imbued with a more favorable sense by Edward Gibbon and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant."

The first English language use to mean "tending in favor of freedom and democracy", according to the OED, dates from about 1801 and comes from the French libéral, "originally applied in English by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)". An early English language citation: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated."[5]

The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution tried to establish a government based on liberal principles. Economists such as Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), enunciated the liberal principles of free trade. The editors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, drafted in Cádiz, may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to express their opposition to the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy.

Beginning in the late 18th century, liberalism became a major ideology in virtually all developed countries.


Trends within liberalism
Within the above framework, there are deep, often bitter, conflicts and controversies among liberals. Emerging from those controversies, out of classical liberalism, are a number of different trends within liberalism. As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use "political liberalism" for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or a constitutional monarchy), over absolute monarchy or dictatorship; "cultural liberalism" for the support of individual liberty over laws limiting liberty for patriotic or religious reasons; "economic liberalism" for the support of private property, over government regulation; and "social liberalism" for the support of equality, over inequalities of opportunity. By "modern liberalism" we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most First World countries today, rather than any one of the pure forms listed above.

" Liberalism wagers that a state... can be strong but constrained - strong because constrained... Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. - Paul Starr, sociologist at Princeton University, The New Republic, March 2007 "

Some principles liberals generally agree upon:

Political liberalism
is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote,

" The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. "

Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and cannabis and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today.

However, some trends within liberalism reveal stark differences of opinion:

Economic liberalism, also called classical liberalism or Manchester liberalism, is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible. 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. Some economic liberals would accept government restrictions of monopolies and cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also allow market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as no coercion is used. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of the mid 19th century. Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are forms of economic liberalism. (See also Free trade, Neo-liberalism, liberalization)
Social liberalism, also known as new liberalism (not to be confused with 'neoliberalism') and reform liberalism, arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Generally speaking, social liberals support free trade and a market-based economy in which the basic needs of all individuals are met. Furthermore, socially progressive ideas are commonly advocated by social liberals, based on the idea that social practices ought to be continuously adapted in such a manner as to benefit the well-fare of society. According to the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. These positive rights, which must be produced and supplied by other people, are qualitatively different from the classic negative rights, which require only that others refrain from aggression. To the social liberal, ensuring positive rights is a goal that is continuous with the general project of protecting liberties. Schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries are to be supported by taxes. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages ("minimum wage laws.")
The struggle between economic freedom and social equality is almost as old as the idea of freedom itself. Plutarch, writing about Solon (c. 639 - c. 559 BCE), the lawgiver of ancient Athens, wrote:

" The remission of debts was peculiar to Solon; it was his great means for confirming the citizens' liberty; for a mere law to give all men equal rights is but useless, if the poor must sacrifice those rights to their debts, and, in the very seats and sanctuaries of equality, the courts of justice, the offices of state, and the public discussions, be more than anywhere at the beck and bidding of the rich. "

Economic liberals see positive rights as necessarily violating negative rights, and therefore illegitimate. They see a limited role for government. Some economic liberals see no proper function of government, while others (minarchists) would limit government to courts, police, and defense against foreign invasion. Social liberals, in contrast, see a major role for government in promoting the general welfare - providing some or all of the following services: food and shelter for those who cannot provide for themselves, medical care, schools, retirement, care for children and for the disabled, including those disabled by old age, help for victims of natural disaster, protection of minorities, prevention of crime, and support for the arts and sciences. This largely abandons the idea of limited government. Both forms of liberalism seek the same end - liberty - but they disagree strongly about the best or most moral means to attain it. Some liberal parties emphasize economic liberalism, while others focus on social liberalism. Conservative parties often favor economic liberalism while opposing social and cultural liberalism.

In all of the forms of liberalism listed above there is a general belief that there should be a balance between government and private responsibilities, and that government should be limited to those tasks which cannot be carried out best by the private sector. All forms of liberalism claim to protect the fundamental dignity and autonomy of the individual under law, all claim that freedom of individual action promotes the best society. Liberalism is so widespread in the modern world that most Western nations at least pay lip service to individual liberty as the basis for society.

0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Aug, 2007 06:52 pm
Lemme get back to u.

I ll try to explain it more clearly.
( I m probably going away for the weekend. )
0 Replies
 
pstewart
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 05:37 pm
I think most people see themselves as neither, because one size doesn't fit all. Libertarian is about as close a label as I'd feel comfortable with, but any label is misleading and doesn't say enough. In my case:

I am not religious in any way at all.
I have no problems with nativity scenes in public squares...they are charming and pretty.

I think prostitution and drugs should both be legal.
I think the govt should tax drugs and prostitution just as they tax liquor and tobacco, and have regular inspections from the health department of needles, drugs, and hookers.

I think everyone has a right to do drugs and anything they wish as long as it harms no one else.
I think the govt must stop giving free treatment to drug users... let them die if that's the natural consequence of their choice.

I think voting should be completely honest and free from the cheating that goes on now (which will require ID cards to be shown, which is not the case in most places now), and that all voters should be encouraged to cast their ballots.
I think the voting age should be raised to 25. Before you are supporting yourself, have achieved ownership by hard work, and are paying taxes to the govt who will use them, you are still in child mode, used to have necessities given to you, and you can't fully comprehend the value of capitalism.

I think the govt should help those people who really CANNOT help themselves.
I think our current entitlement budget at 60% of our entire govt spending is so far off base that we may never recover sanity.

I think we should practice some "live and let live" in the world and not stick our noses into every other country's business.
I think we should have a much larger defense budget and more military for those inevitable times when we will be attacked.

I think the govt should help to fund education, both for kids and for adults who need job training to turn their lives around.
I think the govt should not be pushing a political agenda in schools so I am very much against public schools being the only free schools. Vouchers for private schools will encourage schools to compete and they will do a better job of teaching as a result.

I think large corporations should pass on some of their profits to their employees through decent salaries and benefits.
I don't think unions or govt should be able to influence business decisions in order to help the workers, since the business managers themselves know best what their company needs to be successful. Excessive regulations and restrictions hurt far more than they help.

I think every woman should have the right to abort a fetus she doesn't want.
I think no woman should have the right to abort a fetus that has reached a stage of development where it can survive outside the womb... the partial birth abortions, for example.

And so on.

I like what I see on both sides. And I dislike what I see on both sides. Perhaps there are way more of us than the pollsters think?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 09:22 pm
Could you rephrase the question?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Aug, 2007 09:32 pm
I'm liberal in some things and conservative in others. A whole lot of in-betweens, actually.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 08:20:13