what's a "liberal"...?

redrock · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

But they do understand the 'liberal' policies and have identified some for the crap that they are. You say you are a liberal which supposed to encompass tolerance, open mindedness and generousity. Well I see none of that when you say "becasue they don't understand" when you have no idea if they understand. I guess you are not a liberal after all.

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.

inmytree · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

Let's take redrock. He.she seems to think of they are a liberal. But in action redrock seems to be missing some key components of being a liberal, that is showing tolerance, open-mindedness or generousity.

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.

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...?

RainDog · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

That's sure not how self-professed liberals act. It just goes to show the gulf between academia and reality. Does the dictionary understand the irony in the definition "favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secure by governmental protection of civil liberties"? Does the dictionary you referenced understand that in granting freedoms to one person it necessarily takes freedom from another?

Ah, yes. The blanket statement.

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.

inmytree · November 2006

The Illinoisemakers wrote:

Someone who thinks they know how to spend my money better then I do.

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...?

surferdude · November 2006

RainDog wrote:

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.

You made some great points. But what happens when the business you want to restrict is a person?

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.

RainDog · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

You made some great points. But what happens when the business you want to restrict is a person?

That's too broad of a question. Of course, whenever you restrict a business, you on some level restrict individuals. But it all depends on what that business is doing. Labor laws, for example, restrict a business or CEO for monopolizing a worker's life. However, that business was in fact restricting the freedoms of the worker; so a balance needed to be reached. And it was, thanks to those uppity liberals.

surferdude wrote:

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.

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.

Galiana · November 2006

VictoryGin wrote:

baby-killer

feminazi

welfare recipient

educated

Don't forget "athiest/secular humanist/non-Christian."

surferdude · November 2006

RainDog wrote:

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.

I think there is no right or wrong answer. Every individual defines the correct balance differently. Trying to get a consensus is getting harder and harder. In North America it looks more and more like none of the political parties want to create consensus, they all seem to have adopted a divide and conquer mentality.

surferdude · November 2006

RainDog wrote:

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").

I think trying to legislate "morality" is just another attempt at trading freedoms for security but labelled and marketed differently.

RainDog · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

I think there is no right or wrong answer. Every individual defines the correct balance differently. Trying to get a consensus is getting harder and harder. In North America it looks more and more like none of the political parties want to create consensus, they all seem to have adopted a divide and conquer mentality.

It's worked so well in the past, why quit now?

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.

RainDog · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

I think trying to legislate "morality" is just another attempt at trading freedoms for security but labelled and marketed differently.

Can't argue with that.

Restless Soul · November 2006

RainDog wrote:

Ah, yes. The blanket statement.

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.

great explanation.

mammasan · November 2006

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/liberal

Abuskedti · November 2006

surferdude wrote:

Someone who believes that government has the answer to all your problems, even in the face of empirical evidence that shows otherwise.

If that were the case - then there are very few..

polaris · November 2006

VictoryGin wrote:

baby-killer

feminazi

welfare recipient

educated

ha! ... educated ... anyhoo - my 2 cents is that it might be a generalization in its origin but now has been made to become a slag with no apparent reasoning whatsoever ... all it takes is a few people to say "liberals are ..." and boom we got a catchphrase similar to "flip flop" ...

Dino283 · November 2006

Liberal's are the idiot's that blame America for all the shit that goes on in the world.Mostly Europein's and Canadian's...ya got that right.Basically those who kill baby's,want criminal's to bee freed,gays to be together,destroy the nucular weapon's and some how create world peace.They always got somethin to bitch about

qwerty1 · November 2006

Dino283 wrote:

Liberal's are the idiot's that blame America for all the shit that goes on in the world.Mostly Europein's and Canadian's...ya got that right.Basically those who kill baby's,want criminal's to bee freed,gays to be together,destroy the nucular weapon's and some how create world peace.They always got somethin to bitch about

Hey Dino, have you ever been to Canada or Europe?

PaperPlates · November 2006

inmytree wrote:

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"....

A american liberal is an american who wishes they were european.

A euro-wanna be.

When you boil it all down.

Jeanwah · November 2006

Weird how the conservatives on here think that "liberal" has something to do with being from another country (Europe, the great land of Cananda). You people must forget that America was built on the ideals of a melting pot, home of the FREE (as in free-thinking, free to choose one's religion, free to voice an opinion about anything, free from being told what to do, what to say, etc.). One of the great things about being liberally minded is that we're free thinkers, instead of blindly following whatever dink is in charge. I guess that's what conservatives are for.

I pity any sucker that doesn't think for him/herself.

Just because we're under an ass-backwards, christian-headed, closet pediphilia, lying, "do as I say and don't do as I do" kind of gov't, doesn't mean that to be liberal has to be someone who lives in a different country. I bet deep down, you all secretly admire how free those foreigners are and wish you were the same, but you can't figure them out so you automatically dismiss the term "liberal" as one of them.

On behalf of the liberals in the states, I'd say that we feel honored that you'd compare us to our free-thinking counterparts, but we're very much American. We just can't believe the atrocities that are being acted out in America today and that Bush gets away with his criminal actions. It's a shame more people don't think more for themselves, more often.

PaperPlates · November 2006

Jeanwah wrote:

Weird how the conservatives on here think that "liberal" has something to do with being from another country (Europe, the great land of Cananda). You people must forget that America was built on the ideals of a melting pot, home of the FREE (as in free-thinking, free to choose one's religion, free to voice an opinion about anything, free from being told what to do, what to say, etc.). One of the great things about being liberally minded is that we're free thinkers, instead of blindly following whatever dink is in charge. I guess that's what conservatives are for. I pity any sucker that doesn't think for him/herself.

Just because we're under an ass-backwards, christian-headed, closet pediphilia, lying, "do as I say and don't do as I do" kind of gov't, doesn't mean that to be liberal has to be someone who lives in a different country. I bet deep down, you all secretly admire how free those foreigners are and wish you were the same, but you can't figure them out so you automatically dismiss the term "liberal" as one of them.

On behalf of the liberals in the states, I'd say that we feel honored that you'd compare us to our free-thinking counterparts, but we're very much American. We just can't believe the atrocities that are being acted out in America today and that Bush gets away with his criminal actions. It's a shame more people don't think more for themselves, more often.

I find it funny that every liberal I hear speak about how conservatives and Americans in general need to learn how to think for themselves, ALL SAY THAT IN ALMOST THE EXACT SAME PHRASING WORD FOR WORD. Free thinking my ass.

what's a "liberal"...?

Comments

Categories