what's a "liberal"...?
inmytree
Posts: 4,741
I'm serious...I see and hear the term all the time...while I understand the term has a negative connotation, at the same time, it's pretty subjective...
I'm really curious as to what it "means"....
I'm really curious as to what it "means"....
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/whatis.html
This will give you an idea of what is SHOULD mean.
Briefly taken from the above:
"But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
by this definition...I'm not a liberal...
the key word here is "all"....
Terrorist.
Pinko.
Nazi.
French person.
Immigrant.
Homosexual.
Canadian.
News anchor.
the "Blame America First" crowd.
Even surferdude above seems to think he knows what a liberal is, even though his comment clearly shows he doesn't. Or, it could just be turned around - like, "a conservative is someone who believes that big business has the answer to all your problems, self regulation is the way to go, and the rich are too poor, even in the face of empirical evidence that shows otherwise."
The definition of liberal, however? There are a few, like:
*favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
*favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
*favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
*of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
*open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
*characterized by generosity.
And that was just from one dictionary website.
:eek:
I don't mind....
great read...thanks...
in reading that, I guess I am a liberal....
baby-killer
feminazi
welfare recipient
educated
cross the river to the eastside
And there's absolutely no shame in being one!!!
to hear hannity, rush, bill and bushy...liberal is a curse word....that's what I have trouble understanding...
Because it's a threat to them... because it's against their policies.. because they don't understand.
It's easier to vilify and insult someone threatening you than trying to understand and admitting that actually, their values/policies/thoughts might actually be valid!
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Read the first line of my post again......
did you read the link posted by redrock...and if so, what do you think about it...?
also, can you describe how "self-professed liberals" act...? I'm not trying to bait or argue, I'm honestly interested....
really...only the unemployed are "liberals"...?
again, what does this mean...?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Someone who thinks they know how to spend my money better then I do.
I think the link is wonderful. But it doesn't describe liberal in any way. It seems to describe a caring, compassionate person. Being a caring and compassionate person is in no way tied to or limited to being a liberal. There is nothing tolerant, open minded or generous in believing so.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Did I say anywhere I was a liberal? Read my posts again.
If one's only defense against a 'threat' is to insult, I don't believe there is much understanding there. Liberal seems to be a curse word by the right only because some people use it as such. I don't use 'conservative' in such a way..... I'm open minded. If a policy of any party seems appropriate, I'll support it. I do not reject for the sake of rejecting because it is of one doctrine or the other.
ok...I have to admit, I don't get your point about "tolerance open-mindedness or generousity"...all are subjective terms and terms I hear those who speak against "liberals" use...
are you saying since someone who proclaims to be "liberal" should not speak out or disagree...?
To answer your question, no. It's just a dictionary. It merely provides definitions. It makes no attempt at understanding abstract concepts such as irony; though I do imagine I could find the definition of irony there.
So, who's going to better protect your civil liberties - a corporation who's soley accountable to the bottom line or an elected entity accountable to an energized voting population?
As for the granting of freedoms to one person necessarily taking freedom from another? Well, the definition did say "maximum individual freedom possible." Still, though, I don't agree with your assessment of freedom; unless you're arguing that freedom doesn't actually exist in a truly literal sense. It doesn't, of course. However, as a concept, I don't find any correlation of freedom being a zero sum game - that one person becomes more free by making someone else less so. Sure, there are examples: the civil rights movement for one. White people no longer have the freedom to torch blacks with impunity. Industries no longer have the freedom to employ children for 14 hours a day. The government no longer has the freedom to scrutinize every aspect of an individual's personal life (though it's getting that freedom back with a vengence).
The truth is, both government and business have the capacity to take away your freedoms. Both need oversight to ensure our liberty. A truly "free" market isn't any more capable of protecting freedom than a totalitarian government.
However, when governments have laws written into them that limit their 'right' to hamper individual liberty, and they have the power to force business to follow the same standards, then achieving "maximum individual freedom" is possible.
but isn't that Gov't in general...? does the current adminstration contact you and ask how to spend your money...?
are you ok with the "bridge to nowhere" or 200 grand to paint a side of a plane, or spending money on abstinance education for adults...?
You can't have "maximum individual freedom", there's no such thing. All you can have is a society that has given up some freedoms in exchange for form(s) of security. Almost all political spectrums are looking for the best mix of 'freedoms' and security.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Of course you can have maximum individual freedom - as "maximum" means "most available" not "total." Defining what maximum is, however, is debatable (obviously - we are debating on this board, after all).
And I was about to comment on your political spectrums statement - but then I noticed you used the word "almost," so my point wouldn't stand. So you're right, at least in the west, most political ideologies try to balance out freedom with security (and some, to the holy hell of insanity, try to throw in "morality" - particularly intangible things such as "religious morality"). The question remains, which end of that balance - freedom or security - holds more weight for the individual? I opt for the former, because the latter isn't worth it if there's nothing left of the former to secure.
Don't forget "athiest/secular humanist/non-Christian."
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Every individual does define the balance differently, but there's more consensus I think than most let on. But, this is a thread about liberals, whom I tend to agree with more. I'll just say that I don't consider the government to be something that necessarily needs to be feared. In fact, ours was created (and called a "liberal democracy") as a government that needn't be feared - at least not by her own population. But, with the government as it currently stands, I can understand that fear - and it does seem to be something both modern liberals and modern conservatives agree on.
Liberals' "love of government" isn't quite what the right wants to define as a desire for a "nanny state." It's a desire for the government to enforce laws that protect the individual over the corporation (which, while currently classified as "individuals," were never meant to be in my opinion) - as well as ones that protect honest business from the government. And ones that protect individuals from other individuals. Part of this protection, I believe, comes from a "shared wealth" philosophy. Not in the "everyone has to have the exact same amount" kind of shared wealth, but an overall shared interest in the direction of the country and all that reside in it. And, yes, that does involve taxing the rich at a higher rate to provide more for the poor.