What is a liberal?

So, for the conservative the exercise of your brain amounts to extreme pretentiousness and elitism. You seem to prefer to see ignorance as "chic". It's the dumbing down of America that you hope for. Anybody using their brain is dangerous. Intellect is pitted against feeling on the ground that it is somehow inconsistent with warm emotion. It's pitted against character, because it is widely believed that intellect stands for cleverness, which transmutes easily into the sly or the diabolical. If something feels right, it must be treated with the same respect given something that actually is right. If something is felt deeply, it must carry the same weight as something that is true. If there are two sides to every argument - or, more importantly if there are people willing to take up two sides to every argument - then both must be right, or at least equally valid. Truth become relative to the conservative that insists that he can't abide the relativist.

What you've predictably done is to attack what I said, without showing the conservative alternative. So you've debated nothing. So.. we can assume that you 1.don't believe in the principle of fallibility. You actually assume that you're infallible. Interesting. That's a pretty lofty and elitist position to take. You're telling me and others that the conservative is infallible?
That you 2. don't believe in the principle of rational discussion with the idea of impersonally weighing your reasons for and against a theory that is definite and criticizable. We know that you don't like having your ideas criticized. So we can also know that you reject any rational discussion.
And 3. you reject the principle of the approximation to the truth through the avoidance of personal attacks. In fact, when it comes to personal attack...you're all in.

And after demonstrating this total intolerance on your part, you want to go after me for the points I made, and convince yourself that you're the tolerant person here?

That's pretty simplistic. All sports have rules to them. And most with something to be gained need referees and judges. That's what keeps it fair.
So what what's your alternative to these approaches?

 

What is a liberal? If I answered that honestly I would surely get banned....Lolz!

 

It seems to be anyone that doesn't buy into the dogma of the ideology. God forbid thinking outside the box of the ideology.

 

Being innocent, and being found not guilty are two different things.

 

Tolerance huh?

Can you tolerate a poor kid going to a better school with a voucher? Or does your strict adherence to government is best mentality prohibit you from allowing such a thing? Or will you not allow it because you can't tolerate of they go to a religious school?

Would you be able to tolerate an America that doesn't discriminate based on race?

 

How about we get out of the social security box you guys have trapped us in? Can you admit it has a major flaw by relying on the population size to grow otherwise taxes are increased as benefits are cut? Can you go that far my rational intelligent and humble leftist?

 

liberals are the future and conservatives are the past

 

What happens when you run out of money to take? You are up to 40% from the workers to government now. How much more before you are satisfied? Or is this a take from the people as much as you can until revolution sort of plan?

 

What is a Liberal ?

Liberal is still a four letter word. A Liberal in its current context is generally a paranoid dullard, completely out of touch with reality - living in a bizarre fantasy world and subject to delusions of grandeur .

 

"You are up to 40% from the workers to government now" nope, not true

 

You're a one trick pony. Try to find a new issue. This one is really stale.

 

Nahh...it's probably the most popular program ever devised, along with Medicare. Both Democratic programs. And if taxes have to rise to keep benefits, then let them rise. You'll never get rid of Social Security, so deal with it, and enjoy knowing you'll have it there when you grow up.

 

Emerson said that. Emerson said, “the basic difference was between the party of the past and the party of the future, between the party of memory and the party of hope.

 

To a conservative, Liberal is a four letter word. But who cares what they think. Bathing in stupid is no way to go. They survive by demonizing everyone. They're an ideology without a foundation, so why should they be taken seriously? They've even started demonizing the Pope.

- - - Updated - - -

He doesn't care about truth.

 

Liberalism USED to be characterized by:

back when the country was founded. Our founding fathers were liberals which would now be considered Libertarian.

The American left has been hijacked by communists, Marxists and socialists who refer to themselves as "progressives". Of course, a few always blather "boo hoo hoo not true" and then I refer them to the socialist or communist USA websites where their marching orders come from.

 

Education is important. Why can't you accept a poor kid having equal opportunity to go to a private school?

 

Liberals are another capitalist decoy struggling to convince us that justice and equality can still exist inside a slightly modified establishment .

 

Oh mutmekeep, so quick to support communism, so slow to move to a commune.

 

They already have that. They always have. People have been free to send their kids to private schools for as long as the country has been established. Every person in this country has the right to an education, and those schools are provided. If you want something else, then pay for it yourself. Why don't you provide people with enough welfare to move into a wealthy neighborhood while you're at it, so they can send their kids to the local school that is doing really great? You want the taxpayer to pay for a private school? Why not have the taxpayer pay for a new house in a wealthy suburb with a great school? There's nothing wrong with the public schools. In the suburbs, they're great. It's the inner city schools that are suffering, and that's all about economics. They get the short end of the stick.

Private schools can discriminate on who they admit. Public schools can't. What you want is to be able to discriminate at the taxpayers expense.

 

Here's what Liberals AREN'T. They aren't crazy.

Jim Garrow Reveals Obama's Secret Plan To Use Aliens And Canadians To Plot Against America -

Jim Garrow today appeared on Erik Rush’s radio show to promote the Operation American Spring rally, where he predicted that President Obama will try to distract Americans from his supposed scandals…by claiming that he is now in touch with alien life. This must be Obama’s Plan B, as Garrow previously claimed that Obama almost launched a devastating nuclear attack on the US with the goal of killing 90% of Americans in order to help George Soros make money. “What we’re going to see soon is an unveiling of the concept that we have in fact been contacted by and have been in communication with people from other civilizations beyond earth and that will be part of the great deception that is forthcoming soon from Mr. Obama,” Garrow told Rush. Another guest, Nancy Smith of the Tea Party news show “Politichicks,” said she is not shocked by Obama’s latest scheme: “Personally I’ve already heard some other sources saying the very same thing that you’re saying.” -

Garrow added that Obama will claim he is in contact with aliens as part of “the greatest deception that mankind has ever faced” all in order to increase his popularity and help his low poll numbers. But according to Garrow, the man who revealed the details of the plan, which he says was devised in the 1960s, was murdered by Obama in Hong Kong! Rush, unsurprisingly, seemed to believe all of this. -

As for the Americans who rise up against Obama and aren’t deceived by his alien plot, Rush predicted that patriotic civilians and soldiers will fight Obama’s Chinese-United Nations army. Garrow even said that Obama will send in troops from Canada to bring down the insurgency: “Obama can ask [Canadian Prime Minister] Harper to send troops into America to help quell the rioting and vice versa.” “Now we’re bringing in a new element, a group of people who could be armed and could be in a position to shoot American civilians who have never sworn allegiance to the Constitution,” he said. -

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...use-aliens-and-canadians-plot-against-america

https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/garrow-exposes-obamas-alien

https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/garrow-obama-will-fake-alien

https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/garrow-canadians-will-repress

Check it out for real entertainment.


If you check out the links, you'll hear the actual radio interview with this loon from the Right. Conservatives are "off the rails" insane. Today, anybody that thinks these people are certifiably nuts, would be called a liberal. So call me a liberal. This person is ready for a padded cell, and the radio host is just as nuts for entertaining this kind of moron.

 

I suppose we have to accept that the definition of liberal is subjective and arbitrary, in terms of philosophy. For philosophically, as I've already explained, socialism and similar ideologies seek a kind of freedom and can thusly be called liberal. They believe true freedom cannot be achieved unless there is first equality. Interesting as this gap between those two sides which hold different understandings of what freedom, equality, justice and power is, it matters not for the definition of liberalism, because both Adam Smith and modern progressive liberals are included under it. I'm lead to the conclusion that the definition of liberalism is due to history rather than being a philosophically consistent one, for in my view there is no clear philosophical line between modern liberalism and socialism, not a big enough one anyways. So yes, I agree with you that communism is a form of liberalism, philosophically, but that it's not counted as such because of historical chance.

I don't think it's fair to judge by the consequences. Ideologies are per definition about ideas, and about world views, and about what ends to pursue. They are defined by these abstract things. Thus, I don't think one could disqualify any ideology from being consider liberal based on that it indeed results in loss of freedom. Nay, for this matter it's the intent that matters. Yes, communism did lead to a loss of freedom that most liberals didn't like, but the goal was extreme freedom, so I must consider it to be liberal.

See above. Ideologies must be judged by their ideas and their worldview. Communism seek freedom, and must be judged by that in this case. That it leads to hell is another thing, which has little to do with where it stands philosophically.

A society is perfectible in theory, so my point is that in theory liberalism wouldn't always want to be in favour of change, but in fact bound to support the status quo were that to serve liberty best. I'll admit that the practical impossibility of perfections means that liberals will mostly always be in favour of change, but that's not the same as change being the end of liberalism, which I do not believe it is.

Conservatism has its source in the experience and history of its land and people, unlike liberalism which draws from a universal set of abstract principles of freedom and equality. Thus, conservatism varies just like the experiences and histories of lands and all peoples vary due to the unique circumstances each have been shaped by. American conservatism is opposed to an American monarchy, the British conservatives are monarchists, just to show what seems to be a contradiction within conservatism, but which really isn't if one looks at the rationale behind it.

All national conservatisms are bound to be different because all people are different, but some peoples have more in common than others, and so do their conservatisms. The west is called the west for a reason, and that's because its people share many experiences, Christianity and a Greco-roman heritage most importantly, but also other things by virtue of having been part of the same cultural sphere for more than a thousand years.

I realise I do not differentiate. What is the difference? The philosophy is what I'm talking about, while the ideology is the 'doctrine' by the political figures and authors? If so, I'll say liberalism too has that, both a philosophy and a doctrine.

Again, you'll have to help me clarify the difference between ideology and philosophy. I've treated them somewhat synonymously.

As I understand it, ideologies are about ideas -and that's in the name even- and ideas doesn't have much to do with information or facts. It's a moral matter, and as we know, morals have nothing to do with information or facts.

I wouldn't want to disagree with Hayek, but it does of course depend on what kind of conservatism and in what manner he uses it. As a reaction to what progressive forces seek to do, yes, conservatism doesn't lead. But if we think of it as this mindset and worldview I've been talking about, it can lead indeed.

Seems I'm part of the anti-enlightenment then, as I agree with Burke and Kirk. The enlightenment is all about applying man's reason in a purposeful effort to solve problems, and I agree with Burke that society and traditions do a far better job at that, and France gives us a perfect example of how flawed man's reason really can be.

I agree with Burke again. Of course freedom is a goal, as part of the welfare of all, but freedom isn't to be pursued at the expense of the public good. I'd be a consequencialist libertarian, as opposed to a moral one.

Indeed, the justification for government is to serve the public good, and that is done by setting up rights, which are about restraining others from doing certain actions. The rights are negative (and I assume you need no elaboration on what that means), so they are indeed about restraining others as opposed to providing another. Your right to free speech for example doesn't mean that I have to provide you with the means to make yourself heard, only that I have no right to with force hinder you. I respect it by 'not doing', as opposed to 'doing'.

Rights then, are the legal boundaries in which persons are free to do whatever they want, without the government or others second-guessing their intentions. This is in fact a classical difference between the left and right. Consider a businessman. The right will say that he is free do have as ill intentions as is imaginable, as long as he stays within the legal boundaries. Because that's what rights are: to have actions allowed, regardless of motive. And this is justified because the system gives a positive benefit to society.

But the left would rather have the businessman directly contribute to the public good, and thus they will question his ill intentions. For the left, rights are not boundaries in which the private persons enjoy immunity from the potential action of the state. And why is that? Because the left deems man capable of directly solving these problems, thus it's unnecessary to allow the businessman's evil when he can just be dealt with directly. Contrast that with the right which views man as faulty, and thus not capable of properly solving this problem directly and instead relying on that the system set up will give us the good results we seek.

As I understand it a rule is, unless stated otherwise, absolute. Perhaps that's not the case. I have at least proven that the rule isn't absolute.

And that's not the case with any ideology? Why single out conservatism like this when liberalism -and all other ideologies- do exactly the same? Liberalism arbitrarily puts freedom to be the most worthwhile end, I can't see how that can be any less foundation-less than conservatism. Perhaps I should ask you what you mean by conservatism. I mean it to be that of Burke, which very clearly has a foundation.

But conservatism does offer an alternative: the already existing, inherited and by experience shaped social systems like marriage, civil society, free market et cetera. The conservative position is that mankind cannot -or will do a poor job rather- solve problems directly by applying reason and intelligence in a purposeful effort. It's out of fear of course: fear that society will fare ill. I see nothing bad with fearing that.

Language is actually a perfect example. It's needed, and it arose by itself, regulated by all of society with no central planner. Same with the free market. They have shortcomings of course, but when we look at the attempts to create a 'perfect' system we get Esperanto and the failed USSR economy, clearly showing that a language and an economy (especially the latter) is much too complex a system to be fully understood by men.

Perhaps, but it is a change to the status quo, and my aim was to disprove that rule you claimed were. Although, seemingly rules are not absolute so I merely proved an exception (of which there are many).

Of course they are subjective, and thus I ask you somewhat the same question: How can you know you are right? My conception of right and wrong is as valid as yours, and ours as valid as anyone else's, because morality really has no anchor in this world but in our perception of it. It all exists in our minds of course, and there's no standards to measure against other than the combined average of everyone's arbitrary, subjective and foundation-less morals. Thus, the only thing I really can do is to try to appeal to the common sense of right and wrong, subjective as it is.

Yes Indeed.

I'm afraid I don't know the difference. I'm merely studying philosophy on an ad-hoc and amateur level, from my computer, thinking by myself, and reading books. I assume you have gone to university and studied philosophy, something which I too would like to do someday, if I ever get the time away from all my other interests. But I'm guessing I'm more like Bentham, from the little I know of him, and that I'd consider myself both a utilitarian and a libertarian. I don't know of Nozick, but know that I am not a moral libertarian, but a consequencialist one, hence why there isn't any incompatibility with libertarianism and utilitarianism.

Another of my tenets, inspired by Machiavelli, is the danger and relative uselessness of theorizing with one's imagination, because by doing so one might see slavery as just, because it's justified by one's abstract thinking of principles and paradigms, because they are in many cases flawed. My starting point is my morals, which I know are subjective and illogical, and from there I work to find a pattern and justifications. If my theories leads me the conclusion that something I know is wrong is good, I value my morals over the theory and draw the conclusion that the theory is wrong at some point and needs to be looked over, until it's in accordance with my morals.

This is one of the annoyances I have with some libertarians and anarchists. They might say stupid things like, and I'm paraphrasing, "I want my freedom, and I don't care about the results". This is an example of where they have theorized with the imagination, come to the conclusion that freedom is everything and thus that the public good is secondary: something which runs contrary to the common sense of most people, but which is justified because of the their ideological blindness.

Thus, I'm perhaps not fully a utilitarian.

Likewise, a pleasure.

 

Private schools accepting vouchers cannot discriminate against any protected classes. Government can discriminate based on zip code, it is used as a proxy for race in nearly every democrat run school district.

Public schools also discriminate based on merit like magnet schools. Just because you say it is so doesnt make it so.

You just like the current system because it keeps the poor out of your schools. That is why most rich democrats who send their kids to private school fight it. They don't want them in their schools.

Notice none of your arguments are about what is best for the students. You are always harping on a race card or "we take the money by force and we tell them what to do and it better be a union run school and I don't give a damn about the results." Just not in so many words.

No possible way to fix the inner city schools for a few generations. The unions insist the same people failing be allowed to continue for life and the Dems won't allow that to be challenged they run all those school districts. When change is made especially for the better they run you out of town. Michelle Rhee and Jaime Escalante learned that the hard way. Success is measured in dollars for the union. Not results.

Our public suburban schools are not good. They get trounced too worldwide. Especially to places like Belgium and Sweden that have a competitive voucher model. Chiles voucher model graduates more Hispanics there then we do here as a percentage.

 

I'd preferable have vouchers. How do you like that idea?

 

Can I start posting truther websites and claim you are crazy because of it?

Also, there is nothing liberal about you or the left. You want to take by force and tell what to do. None of that resembles freedom, it is at the core of your ideology. You can't name an area or policy they hold not based on that ideology unless it is something mundane.

 

Hey you have vouchers in your country. Can you tell the left here it doesn't harm public schools it
improves them? They don't believe competition ever helped a business make a better product but other then education and health I don't hear them calling for more monopoly power.