What exactly does a liberal stand for?

[Kade]

This forum has gone out of it's way to define liberals for themselves...allow me, a proud liberal, and Ron Paul supporter, to enlighten some of you. Many of these issues are also why some liberals do support Ron Paul...without them, you would NOT have the melting pot of ideology that exists... In fact, calls for banning me, simply because I am dissident is rather odd in it's audacity and effective message.



Liberals first, and foremost, care about Individual Rights, and desire strongly a fair playing field in opportunity.

A liberal's main principles are:

Freedom of thought and speech
Reliable and effective justice and rule of law
Reproductive and mating freedoms
An open marketplace of ideas, culture, and pluralism
Strong limitations on the power of government
Open and fair elections
Open society
Freedom of religion
A very transparent form of government
A mixed economy

The enemies of liberalism are Totalitarian governments, police states, the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, corporatism, and established religion.

Many on this board choose to rebel and fight strongly with the ideas of a Mixed Economy, and for the most part, I agree. I do show some tendency to favor regulations of corporations. Many of the issues I take on, violate one of the principles I have named, this includes the strong ability of many of you to ignore that none of you are advocates for a total anarchist market, therefore desiring some regulation, but favoring policies that trend towards corporate and private tyranny.

I am more than willing to answer an questions or concerns, or respond about policies.

Why do I support Ron Paul?

Because I read, often, and I ignore most of his insane supporters and their ridiculous characterization of the man. I like his record, even if I disagree with some of his policies. Many of the principles I stand up for, are also supported by Ron Paul, in some fashion, and I also support based on character, and I do, really, really, like Ron Paul as a person. I think he is honest, and uncompromising, which is a strong point for me. I am a very education activist, and I hate having to explain myself like this...

I will not vote for Bob Barr. Bob Barr is a dressed up trash receptacle with a jheri-curl above his lip. If I pretend to be supportive of Bob Barr, I will also push many of my friends and colleagues around the nation into supporting the Candy as well, for which would inevitably only help McCain get elected.

McCain violates EVERY principle I have named above, with no exceptions. His election is intolerable, much more than that of Obama, hence my supportive role of Obama.

I do not believe in the welfare state or enforced affirmative action. I do not believe in heavy regulations of private businesses. I do believe that the powers of religious right, corporations, foreign investors, and centralized banking are truly destroying this country in a way we have never imagined.

Disagree with me all you want, argue with me all day. Debate me, call me out, throw a fit, and by the heel of my foot, I care not... I've not conceded on these things, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Every argument of mine has been a promotion of liberty and freedom, some of which many of you don't like, or agree with. I have no problem disagreeing with you, or exchanging the occasional flame...I care about being defined by people who seem to know little about what they are talking about... and for this, my response.

[Andrew-Austin]

Are we talking about classical liberals here or what?

[Kade]

Are we talking about classical liberals here or what?

Liberalism. We do not call it anything else...

[amy31416]

Part of the warranted criticism of "liberalism" is that it promotes reliance on another entity, whether that be welfare, socialized healthcare or people expecting the government to regulate big pharma (via the FDA--which hurts plenty of legit business) rather than educating yourself, working for yourself and using the natural forces of the market.

In this sense, it effectively dumbs down the population while promoting physical and intellectual laziness. And no, I'm not just talking about ghettos and inner-city problems.

Another big problem is that it does it at levels of government high enough to take any semblance of power away from the "little guy," a working-class individual and hands it over to the powers that be. They say you can't fight city hall, imagine fighting against the Federal Government.

For instance: Does Monsanto suck as a business? I think so. Monsanto is powerful because of a lot of help from the government and their own innovation and business savvy. In the liberal world, I would rally to get laws passed to limit their shit, laws that will likely effect smaller businesses and organic farmers, making it harder across the board for businesses to thrive and giving the gov't more reason to take more money from us to enforce it.

In the free market world, it requires people to be educated about what a shitty company Monsanto is and a concerted effort to expose them, boycott their products, buy all products from a good company and force them to either have responsible business practice or go down.

The problem is, the free market requires education and work to be successful.

And that's just part of it.

[Andrew-Austin]

Liberalism. We do not call it anything else...

Okay you seem to be talking about classical liberalism...


Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1] and laissez-faire liberalism,[2] or, in much of the world, simply called liberalism) is a doctrine stressing individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,[3] Montesquieu, Voltaire,[4] Thomas Paine and others.

Understand the majority of the planet now means something completely different when they use the term "liberal"... Of course I'm sure you know this and are just being stubborn..

[Kade]

Part of the warranted criticism of "liberalism" is that it promotes reliance on another entity, whether that be welfare, socialized healthcare or people expecting the government to regulate big pharma (via the FDA--which hurts plenty of legit business) rather than educating yourself, working for yourself and using the natural forces of the market.

In this sense, it effectively dumbs down the population while promoting physical and intellectual laziness. And no, I'm not just talking about ghettos and inner-city problems.

Another big problem is that it does it at levels of government high enough to take any semblance of power away from the "little guy," a working-class individual and hands it over to the powers that be. They say you can't fight city hall, imagine fighting against the Federal Government.

For instance: Does Monsanto suck as a business? I think so. Monsanto is powerful because of a lot of help from the government and their own innovation and business savvy. In the liberal world, I would rally to get laws passed to limit their shit, laws that will likely effect smaller businesses and organic farmers, making it harder across the board for businesses to thrive and giving the gov't more reason to take more money from us to enforce it.

In the free market world, it requires people to be educated about what a shitty company Monsanto is and a concerted effort to expose them, boycott their products, buy all products from a good company and force them to either have responsible business practice or go down.

The problem is, the free market requires education and work to be successful.

And that's just part of it.

I agree with you Amy.

However, people really are stupid.

I think a strongly transparent form of government, with a piechart style taxation process, mitigates this problem nicely...

I mentioned that I do not support affirmative action or welfare, or universal healthcare for that matter.

[Kade]

Okay you seem to be talking about classical liberalism...



Understand the majority of the planet now means something completely different when they use the term "liberal"... Of course I'm sure you know this and are just being stubborn..

Economic liberalism is not a trademark of liberalism, as much as it is with classical liberalism. Although it is encouraged... I am a liberal, I am not just being stubborn...

The current understanding is that of a hijacked definition, from people who stole it from academia, the "far left" or the "secular progressives"... or any other name that has been labeled on us from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

[amy31416]

I agree with you Amy.

However, people really are stupid.

I think a strongly transparent form of government, with a piechart style taxation process, mitigates this problem nicely...

I mentioned that I do not support affirmative action or welfare, or universal healthcare for that matter.

The unfortunate part is that there aren't many liberals who don't support those things. I daresay that you're the only one I know of.

Having been on the "academia" scene for several years, I was around liberals who border on being completely socialist. Then they'd complain about taxes and the war, not making some obvious connections. And these were not dumb people. I sincerely believe they want to help people who need it, but were content to leave that to the very government they didn't trust. It just doesn't make a lot of sense.

[LiveFree79]

I agree with just about everything you've said. I don't consider myself a liberal. Nor a libertarian, nor republican, nor democrat. But central banking is not ruining this country. We do not have a central bank. We have what's called the Federal Reserve which is made up of private member banks. Of which the Federal Reserve Bank of NY is comprised of some of the most well known private banks Citigroup, JP Morgan, etc. This is one point that libertarians and Ron Paul supporters don't seem to understand. While I agree with Ron Paul that we need to do away with the Federal Reserve he doesn't make it clear WHY. The why........is because the organization is not a government entity.....not answerable to the people. It does whatever it wants when it wants. The government needs to sell more bonds to make more money..........they sell them to the Federal Reserve banks who into create the "money" out of thin air through accounting entries in their "books" meanwhile charging the government (U.S. taxpayers) compounded interest. Hence why the debt will never be repaid regardless of a new gold standard or not. As long as private banks control the money supply it doesn't matter. If we return to a precious metals backed currency like we had hundred years ago the banks will still control it like they did back then. Ron Paul supporters dismiss the question WHO should control the money supply as unimportant when it's the most important question to consider in my opinion.

[Kade]

I agree with just about everything you've said. I don't consider myself a liberal. Nor a libertarian, nor republican, nor democrat. But central banking is not ruining this country. We do not have a central bank. We have what's called the Federal Reserve which is made up of private member banks. Of which the Federal Reserve Bank of NY is comprised of some of the most well known private banks Citigroup, JP Morgan, etc. This is one point that libertarians and Ron Paul supporters don't seem to understand. While I agree with Ron Paul that we need to do away with the Federal Reserve he doesn't make it clear WHY. The why........is because the organization is not a government entity.....not answerable to the people. It does whatever it wants when it wants. The government needs to sell more bonds to make more money..........they sell them to the Federal Reserve banks who into create the "money" out of thin air through accounting entries in their "books" meanwhile charging the government (U.S. taxpayers) compounded interest. Hence why the debt will never be repaid regardless of a new gold standard or not. As long as private banks control the money supply it doesn't matter. If we return to a precious metals backed currency like we had hundred years ago the banks will still control it like they did back then. Ron Paul supporters dismiss the question WHO should control the money supply as unimportant when it's the most important question to consider in my opinion.


This is interesting, because I put the centralized bank in that last hesitantly, ironically, it was the only one I was convinced of by these boards... I will look into and research more about what you say...

[LiveFree79]

Part of the warranted criticism of "liberalism" is that it promotes reliance on another entity, whether that be welfare, socialized healthcare or people expecting the government to regulate big pharma (via the FDA--which hurts plenty of legit business) rather than educating yourself, working for yourself and using the natural forces of the market.

In this sense, it effectively dumbs down the population while promoting physical and intellectual laziness. And no, I'm not just talking about ghettos and inner-city problems.

Another big problem is that it does it at levels of government high enough to take any semblance of power away from the "little guy," a working-class individual and hands it over to the powers that be. They say you can't fight city hall, imagine fighting against the Federal Government.

For instance: Does Monsanto suck as a business? I think so. Monsanto is powerful because of a lot of help from the government and their own innovation and business savvy. In the liberal world, I would rally to get laws passed to limit their shit, laws that will likely effect smaller businesses and organic farmers, making it harder across the board for businesses to thrive and giving the gov't more reason to take more money from us to enforce it.

In the free market world, it requires people to be educated about what a shitty company Monsanto is and a concerted effort to expose them, boycott their products, buy all products from a good company and force them to either have responsible business practice or go down.

The problem is, the free market requires education and work to be successful.

And that's just part of it.

It also requires honesty, morality, integrity, modesty, generosity. All these human quailties that are even more lacking today than they were a hundred years ago in my opinion. I think most libertarians would agree that what we have in America has never been free market capitalism. Was the gilded age a true free market? What we have now is state sponsored corporatism.

Name one country or nation that has ever had a truly capitalistic free market economy, the one that Adam Smith envisioned? Capitalism is susceptible to the same human nature that all "systems" are susceptible to i.e. greed, corruption etc. In theory free market capitalism sounds great. Now is it the BETTER choice until we as human beings can come up with something even better, of course. But I'd like to think that as the world becomes more complex and interconnected we can come up with a better way to achieve prosperity for a greater number of people than through mega corporations and the stock market.

[LiveFree79]

This is interesting, because I put the centralized bank in that last hesitantly, ironically, it was the only one I was convinced of by these boards... I will look into and research more about what you say...

I suggest a book called Web of Debt. It's very much like the Creature of Jekyll Island, one which most Paul supporters give rave reviews to, but takes it a step further. Also I suggest the Lost Science of Money by Zarlenga. Another great book. G. Edward Griffin who wrote Creature is a staunch supporter of a gold backed currency hence a "goldbug"..........Zarlenga and Ellen Brown (who wrote Web of Debt) are staunch supporters of a greenback system of money. And I'm not talking about fiat money system controlled by private banks (like we have now) when I use the term "greenback" which most Paul supporters define the term as i..e the actual paper dollar. It's a much more figurative expression than literal.

[mattc2345]

I agree with most of what you say. I disagree with you on the regulation and mixed economy though. The thing about this that drives me nuts is that it is a slippery slope. A little regulation might be tolerated by me but it always leads to more regulation. Every time regulation is passed it is always supposed to fix the problem, then a new problem arises then more regulation then another problem then more regulations. Next thing you know the amount of water in your toilet and the type of light bulb you can buy are regulated. Its the constant encroachment that irritates me. On the economy I was wondering if you have read any stuff on Austrian Economics? Like at www.mises.org I have read a lot of your posts and you seem quite intelligent. I would think you may enjoy reading some of their articles even if you don't agree with them.

[LiveFree79]

I agree with most of what you say. I disagree with you on the regulation and mixed economy though. The thing about this that drives me nuts is that it is a slippery slope. A little regulation might be tolerated by me but it always leads to more regulation. Every time regulation is passed it is always supposed to fix the problem, then a new problem arises then more regulation then another problem then more regulations. Next thing you know the amount of water in your toilet and the type of light bulb you can buy are regulated. Its the constant encroachment that irritates me. On the economy I was wondering if you have read any stuff on Austrian Economics? Like at www.mises.org I have read a lot of your posts and you seem quite intelligent. I would think you may enjoy reading some of their articles even if you don't agree with them.

LOL Don't know if you were talking to me or Kade. If you were talking to me, no I haven't read much on Austrian economics and I will most definitely. My next read will be A Manifesto.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This forum has gone out of it's way to define liberals for themselves...allow me, a proud liberal, and Ron Paul supporter, to enlighten some of you. Many of these issues are also why some liberals do support Ron Paul...without them, you would NOT have the melting pot of ideology that exists... In fact, calls for banning me, simply because I am dissident is rather odd in it's audacity and effective message.



Liberals first, and foremost, care about Individual Rights, and desire strongly a fair playing field in opportunity.

A liberal's main principles are:

Freedom of thought and speech
Reliable and effective justice and rule of law
Reproductive and mating freedoms
An open marketplace of ideas, culture, and pluralism
Strong limitations on the power of government
Open and fair elections
Open society
Freedom of religion
A very transparent form of government
A mixed economy

The enemies of liberalism are Totalitarian governments, police states, the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, corporatism, and established religion.

Many on this board choose to rebel and fight strongly with the ideas of a Mixed Economy, and for the most part, I agree. I do show some tendency to favor regulations of corporations. Many of the issues I take on, violate one of the principles I have named, this includes the strong ability of many of you to ignore that none of you are advocates for a total anarchist market, therefore desiring some regulation, but favoring policies that trend towards corporate and private tyranny.

I am more than willing to answer an questions or concerns, or respond about policies.

Why do I support Ron Paul?

Because I read, often, and I ignore most of his insane supporters and their ridiculous characterization of the man. I like his record, even if I disagree with some of his policies. Many of the principles I stand up for, are also supported by Ron Paul, in some fashion, and I also support based on character, and I do, really, really, like Ron Paul as a person. I think he is honest, and uncompromising, which is a strong point for me. I am a very education activist, and I hate having to explain myself like this...

I will not vote for Bob Barr. Bob Barr is a dressed up trash receptacle with a jheri-curl above his lip. If I pretend to be supportive of Bob Barr, I will also push many of my friends and colleagues around the nation into supporting the Candy as well, for which would inevitably only help McCain get elected.

McCain violates EVERY principle I have named above, with no exceptions. His election is intolerable, much more than that of Obama, hence my supportive role of Obama.

I do not believe in the welfare state or enforced affirmative action. I do not believe in heavy regulations of private businesses. I do believe that the powers of religious right, corporations, foreign investors, and centralized banking are truly destroying this country in a way we have never imagined.

Disagree with me all you want, argue with me all day. Debate me, call me out, throw a fit, and by the heel of my foot, I care not... I've not conceded on these things, and they are not mutually exclusive.

Every argument of mine has been a promotion of liberty and freedom, some of which many of you don't like, or agree with. I have no problem disagreeing with you, or exchanging the occasional flame...I care about being defined by people who seem to know little about what they are talking about... and for this, my response.

After reading your post, I'd call you an intelligent conservative.
Conservatism should narrow down to a pure social purpose because that is the only reason for which the poor man within us will die. But instead we have with us today a new "neo" kind of thing that calls itself a conservative.

These socalled conservatives don't even understand the social value of our political system. They have never worked it out all the way back to our founding fathers in ancient Greece. They have never worked it out enough to have reverence for the Protestants and Puritans who carried us over a bottomless abyss unto this land of freedom.

They don't see that we have lightning in a bottle. They are in it for material gain. They aren't willing enough to be homeless for the American cause. They aren't willing enough to reject the vast counterfiet economy set up against the civil wealth our founding fathers established in our Constitution.

There was a time during ancient Greece that a conservative was someone who supported the godhood, supported the preaching of the sophists and supported the endless knowlege created by the prose of the poets. The liberals, on the other hands, were the philosophers who narrowed the godhood down to the concept of a single god (Plato's Demiurge), promoted the new endeavor of reading and writing over the preaching skills of the sophists while they created dialectics which defined the endless terms created by the poets.

The conservative view in the world at one time supported a primitive system of master class and slave class. This conservative view never changed because teachers were hired to teach the children of the rich to take their rightful place over society while the children of the poor were thought to be beyond teaching.

Socrates the liberal philosopher, a man who exhibited so much courage fighting for Athens as a soldiering hoplite that his life was spared by the victorious Spartans, took the courage to consider that the mind of a slave could improve (in Plato's dialogue entitled "Meno). This liberal idea was the seed for Western Civilization.

So, the political spectrum must continue to evolve as it has advanced quite a bit to get to the present day.

[mattc2345]

I was messaging towards Kade but you are welcome to respond. The recommendation of Austrian economics could be for all. I currently am harassing/disagreeing with you on a different topic so you won't feel left out though. :D

[Paulitician]

Liberalism to me means liberty, freedom. Both civic and economic.

I'm a liberal to the furthest extent possible. However, I am not a left-winger and I despise their political philosophy.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

[american.swan]

I don't know about this "liberal" business. So this is probably way off topic. I used to be a democrat and I used to think the best way to "help" people was to tax the people and have government help people. I have since learned that that was a crazy notion and wrong.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

It was our founding fathers who established the definition of the corrupt power of tyranny by establishing a greater power of the self evident truths for which to juxtapose them. These truths were not established on a complex political science, which fortunately voids Truth Warrior's long post, but they were established on the simple science of natural law.
So, it is only within our system that we can see that the lessor governments outside of our boundaries vainly go about the business of manipulating the corruption of powers with an equally corrupt power. While their particular citizens might be lucky to "become" citizens one day, we are established as "being" citizens by self evident truths.
While the tyrannies outside of our borders never have to claim that the formal rights of the people establish no legal precedence, because legal precedence is all that they have, the necessary evil of tyranny within the United States always make the claim that the formal Civil Purpose in the Constitution establishes no legal precedence.
Yet, one can argue that the formality of our government is the only one which establishes legal precedence because we have a Constitution -- a marriage decree between the people and those who govern over us -- and a Declaration of Independence -- a divorce decree for which the new Constitution can be compared and contrasted.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I don't know about this "liberal" business. So this is probably way off topic. I used to be a democrat and I used to think the best way to "help" people was to tax the people and have government help people. I have since learned that that was a crazy notion and wrong.

The people are the greatest power as mediators between the master and the slave at the table. The people must own the purse while the debt of their mediating rule must be unquestioned. In order to establish the people's debt, the wealth created by the master class must be established as "legal counterfeit" by the Supreme Court.
When the master class uses legal counterfeit to seperate itself from having to sit at the same dinner table as the uncomely slave class, the people must have an unlimited purse to bind the master class to remain at the table while it must have the capacity to spend whatever is necessary to free the uncomely slave to come to the same table. This is the classful not classless way in which our social government is supposed to function because any master class sitting seperate at their own dinner table is tyranny.

[James Madison]

Are we talking about classical liberals here or what?

Yeah, back around the time of the Revolution liberal would have been compareable to today's libertarianism. Now modern liberals would be statists if anything.

[MRoCkEd]

Most here seem to feel obama and mccain are just as evil
Kade, could you explain why you think obama is a lesser evil, or not evil at all?

[kombayn]

Because he would have a better White House Cabinet than John McCain, which would be filled with "win-the-surge" members. Obama will have a cabinet with "end-the-war" members. It'll get done, something that needs to be done. Four years, and if he hasn't changed anything else besides the war then get new leadership. John McCain is not four years we need, I'll gladly take four years with a smooth talking black man over some old senile ventriloquist doll.

P.S. When Liberalism first began, it was created by some of the greatest human figures in the Age of Enlightenment. Truly which paved the way for at a chance for a more peaceful society. It's a shame that it's been hijacked by the Progressives and the Neo-Con talk radio shows use the word as dirty word.

[SeanEdwards]

George Will gave what I thought was a pretty good analysis of the philosophical disagreement between modern liberal and conservative thought in his recent appearance on the Colbert Report. He said that liberals tend to focus on equality of outcome, leveling the playing field, etc. While conservatives were more focused on individual freedom, and willing to accept unequal outcomes.

See the interview here:

http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=171135

[Nirvikalpa]

Because he would have a better White House Cabinet than John McCain, which would be filled with "win-the-surge" members. Obama will have a cabinet with "end-the-war" members. It'll get done, something that needs to be done. Four years, and if he hasn't changed anything else besides the war then get new leadership. John McCain is not four years we need, I'll gladly take four years with a smooth talking black man over some old senile ventriloquist doll.

P.S. When Liberalism first began, it was created by some of the greatest human figures in the Age of Enlightenment. Truly which paved the way for at a chance for a more peaceful society. It's a shame that it's been hijacked by the Progressives and the Neo-Con talk radio shows use the word as dirty word.

End-the-war members? How about Obama's Pakistan war he wants so badly? Or the Iran war he wants so badly?

[Andrew-Austin]

Economic liberalism is not a trademark of liberalism, as much as it is with classical liberalism. Although it is encouraged... I am a liberal, I am not just being stubborn...

The current understanding is that of a hijacked definition, from people who stole it from academia, the "far left" or the "secular progressives"... or any other name that has been labeled on us from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

So why do you consider your breed of liberalism better then classical liberalism when it comes to economics?

In what kind of situation, is government interference in the economy and business affairs acceptable? Because from what I've seen, pretty much all the problems we have with corporations today were government induced.

[Kludge]

Pure libertarianism

Freedom of thought and speech
Reliable and effective justice and rule of law
Reproductive and mating freedoms
Open free markets of ideas, culture, and pluralism
Strong limitations on the power of government
Open and fair elections
Open society
Freedom of religion
A very transparent form of government
A mixed free economy
When are we getting strikethrough capabilities?

[kombayn]

End-the-war members? How about Obama's Pakistan war he wants so badly? Or the Iran war he wants so badly?

Chuck Hagel for one is a big supporter. He did say that he would attack Iran if they attacked Israel, he's trying to stop them from getting a nuclear program. Which I think is a mistake, if America & Israel didn't come out pointing the finger at Iran, they probably wouldn't be thinking about doing it now.

I do disagree with Obama with the redeployment of the troops from Iraq to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to go after terrorist cells, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. I think we need to chuck our losses and head back home, invest it into the country to secure the borders.

But I much rather have Obama in office than McCain, and lets face it... It'd be the biggest fuckin' miracle on the planet if someone other than those two parties wins the nomination.

[Carehn]

I don't know about this "liberal" business. So this is probably way off topic. I used to be a democrat and I used to think the best way to "help" people was to tax the people and have government help people. I have since learned that that was a crazy notion and wrong.


GOOD GOD SON! What cured you of this mindset??? What was it that brought you to the light??? If you remember let me know. Let us all know so we can wake the people.

[werdd]

modern liberalism = redistribution of wealth, and less financial freedom, higher taxes.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

modern liberalism = redistribution of wealth, and less financial freedom, higher taxes.

A liberal really means something in the primitive political systems of Europe while such means very little in the more moderate American system.

[werdd]

A liberal really means something in the primitive political systems of Europe while such means very little in the more moderate American system.

So, liberal means more, in the case of politics, more goverment. Contrary to what Ron Paul and his followers fundamentally beleive.

[Mini-Me]

Kade, when people on this forum hear "liberal," most of us think of Hillary Clinton rather than Thomas Jefferson, and when we hear "neoconservative," we think of Dick Cheney. In both cases, we think "statist." When we think of "conservative," we think of Ron Paul - but most people in America probably think of George Bush instead.

I suppose my point is that the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" have been hijacked so much throughout the country's history that they can be very vague and amorphous when used in conversation today.

I certainly wouldn't call you a "liberal" based on the modern understanding of the word. Rather, you seem like a 19th century classical liberal who is trying to bring the meaning of liberalism back to its roots and restore sanity...much like most Ron Paul supporters are trying to revive the earlier 20th century meaning of conservatism (which, ironically, closely resembles 19th century classical liberalism ;)). There's an interesting discussion about this in the Wikipedia article on classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Disputes_over_whether_modern_ liberalism_is_derived_from_classical_liberalism), by the way. This isn't a new phenomenon, either...back at the start of our country, the Anti-Federalists were the real federalists, and the Federalists were, well...nationalists? In any case, they advocated a stronger central government than true federalism would imply.

You might have a few sprinkles of modern liberalism in you, but...I've read many of your posts, and while I disagree with your views on regulation (although I would have agreed about six months ago), you definitely belong much more with the Ron Paul crowd than any other. You're a hell of a lot smarter than some other posters I've seen (not naming names). ;) I've noticed you feel like you're an underappreciated or unwelcome presence on these boards, but in my opinion, you're an asset. At the very least, you keep the rest of us honest and force us to consider the other side of arguments - when really, your disagreements with the libertarian segment here are much smaller than those of garden variety Republicans and Democrats. It would probably get pretty dull in here if it was a constant incestuous lovefest of absolute agreement on everything, and all of us need as much debate practice as we can get. We're all up against some pretty unreceptive audiences in the general public.

I guess the bottom line is, regardless of what anyone says about how much of a flaming liberal you are, I think your similarities to the average poster here are much greater than your differences.

[IRO-bot]

So, liberal means more, in the case of politics, more goverment. Contrary to what Ron Paul and his followers fundamentally beleive.

The twisted version today yes.

What Kade believes, and the older more pure version (Classic Liberalism) are not.

Classic Liberalism is similiar to Libertarianism. The OLD Liberals in Europe would be comparable to the Old Right of conservatism. It's backwards, or something.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Because he would have a better White House Cabinet than John McCain, which would be filled with "win-the-surge" members. Obama will have a cabinet with "end-the-war" members. It'll get done, something that needs to be done. Four years, and if he hasn't changed anything else besides the war then get new leadership. John McCain is not four years we need, I'll gladly take four years with a smooth talking black man over some old senile ventriloquist doll.

P.S. When Liberalism first began, it was created by some of the greatest human figures in the Age of Enlightenment. Truly which paved the way for at a chance for a more peaceful society. It's a shame that it's been hijacked by the Progressives and the Neo-Con talk radio shows use the word as dirty word.

Change for the sake of change is no better than no change at all. The naive media define change as a movement and vice versa.
To the contrary, the American movement in history was a political phenomenon that attracted both liberals and conservatives to the common cause of reestablishing and reconsecrating both the U.S. Constitution and the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

A) When Andrew Jackson the most popular U.S. President ever was elected as a champion for "state rights," he shined a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

B) Ralph Waldo Emerson and American Transcendentalism established a less cruel American culture over our prior Puritan culture by shining a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and on the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

C) Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address shown a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and on the orginal Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers before he proceeded to reestablish the Union by both binding the masters and granting liberty to the slaves in the United States.

D) The American Union movement, The New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement all served to shine a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and on the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

[Truth Warrior]

"Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues, as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom.

Classical liberals, believe that the provision of negative rights, that is freedom from coercion alone, constitutes freedom. As a result they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts freedom when enforced coercively by law, emphasize laissez-faire economic policy, and oppose the welfare state.

Social liberals argue that freedom from economic as well as physical coercion is necessary for real freedom. They generally favor such positive rights as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation."

[Mini-Me]

"Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought that often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues, as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom.

Classical liberals, believe that the provision of negative rights, that is freedom from coercion alone, constitutes freedom. As a result they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts freedom when enforced coercively by law, emphasize laissez-faire economic policy, and oppose the welfare state.

Social liberals argue that freedom from economic as well as physical coercion is necessary for real freedom. They generally favor such positive rights as the right to vote, the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation."

Just wanted to point out..."right to vote" is not exclusive to modern liberalism, e.g. it's "good liberal," not "bad liberal." ;) Similarly, even "laws against pollution of the environment" can easily fit into the classical liberal framework:
"Right to vote" is obvious - no taxation without representation, and government derives its legitimate powers from the consent of the governed. It just took a while before people overcame their prejudices and applied the concept equally to all adults.
"Laws against pollution of the environment" are often put forth by modern liberals, but classical liberals would certainly support any that were based on property rights.

[Truth Warrior]

Just wanted to point out..."right to vote" is not exclusive to modern liberalism, e.g. it's "good liberal," not "bad liberal." ;) Similarly, even "laws against pollution of the environment" can easily fit into the classical liberal framework:
"Right to vote" is obvious - no taxation without representation, and government derives its legitimate powers from the consent of the governed. It just took a while before people overcame their prejudices and applied the concept equally to all adults.
"Laws against pollution of the environment" are often put forth by modern liberals, but classical liberals would certainly support any that were based on property rights.
The quote is from a probably "liberal" encyclopedia. :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So, liberal means more, in the case of politics, more goverment. Contrary to what Ron Paul and his followers fundamentally beleive.

Most Americans are moderate because of our system. The established 2 party system tends to avoid the extremism of the more primitive Europe, the Eastern Hemisphere and the tyranny that exists outside of our borders in general.
When the national media classifies a state red or blue, it naively gives the impression that each state is 100% either red or blue. What is hidden is how America is mostly moderate.
In the American system, the people weren't manipulated to "become" citizens by a complex political science but they were established as "being" citizens by the development of simple self evident and inalienable truths founded on the science of natural law.
Our founding fathers did not attempt to defeat the corrupt power of tyranny by dividing up the people but they established a greater power in the self evident truths which established all of the people. In other words, this truth reduced inalienably beyond political differences to be written on the conscience of every American soul.
When considering the more primitive European systems of government, tyranny vainly maniputates the corrupt power of tyranny with the corrupt power of tyranny. The effect is futile. Our founding fathers were able to isolate the corrupt power of tyranny by juxtaposing it with a greater power that comes from the self evident truths.

[Truth Warrior]

This phenomenon explains why candidates must go to the party extremes to secure the party nomination in the primaries , by pandering to all of the extreme party faithful, tried and true, for both money and votes.

Afterwards staging a mad dash back to the apparent "mainstream moderate middle and the independents", pandering all the way to one and all for both money and votes, while "apparently" distancing themselves from the party extremes for the general election.

Politics is a slimy, scumbag, sleaze ball, hypocritical "business". That's why the lawyers so often excel at it. :p The "best" pandering spineless sleaze ball phonies win, from whatever party.

The governments are chock full of these real "winners???". :rolleyes:

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

This phenomenon explains why candidates must go to the party extremes to secure the party nomination in the primaries , by pandering to all of the extreme party tried and true.

Afterwards staging a mad dash back to the apparent "moderate middle", pandering all the way to one and all, while "apparently" distancing themselves from the party extremes for the general election.

Politics is a slimy, scumbag, sleaze ball, hypocritical "business". That's why the lawyers so often excel at it. :p The "best" pandering spineless sleaze ball phonies win, from whatever party.

The governments are chock full of real "winners???". :rolleyes:

"Bah dee ah . . . bah dee ah . . . bah dee ah . . . while campaigns belong to the tyrants, American Movements belong to the people . . . err . . . thats all folks!" -- porky pig right after his house got blown over by a wolf.

[Truth Warrior]

"Bah dee ah . . . bah dee ah . . . bah dee ah . . . while campaigns belong to the tyrants, American Movements belong to the people . . . err . . . thats all folks!" -- porky pig right after his house got blown over by a wolf.I see that you too "had a dream".

Enjoy it!

[amy31416]

Kade, when people on this forum hear "liberal," most of us think of Hillary Clinton rather than Thomas Jefferson, and when we hear "neoconservative," we think of Dick Cheney. In both cases, we think "statist." When we think of "conservative," we think of Ron Paul - but most people in America probably think of George Bush instead.

I suppose my point is that the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" have been hijacked so much throughout the country's history that they can be very vague and amorphous when used in conversation today.

I certainly wouldn't call you a "liberal" based on the modern understanding of the word. Rather, you seem like a 19th century classical liberal who is trying to bring the meaning of liberalism back to its roots and restore sanity...much like most Ron Paul supporters are trying to revive the earlier 20th century meaning of conservatism (which, ironically, closely resembles 19th century classical liberalism ;)). There's an interesting discussion about this in the Wikipedia article on classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Disputes_over_whether_modern_ liberalism_is_derived_from_classical_liberalism), by the way. This isn't a new phenomenon, either...back at the start of our country, the Anti-Federalists were the real federalists, and the Federalists were, well...nationalists? In any case, they advocated a stronger central government than true federalism would imply.

You might have a few sprinkles of modern liberalism in you, but...I've read many of your posts, and while I disagree with your views on regulation (although I would have agreed about six months ago), you definitely belong much more with the Ron Paul crowd than any other. You're a hell of a lot smarter than some other posters I've seen (not naming names). ;) I've noticed you feel like you're an underappreciated or unwelcome presence on these boards, but in my opinion, you're an asset. At the very least, you keep the rest of us honest and force us to consider the other side of arguments - when really, your disagreements with the libertarian segment here are much smaller than those of garden variety Republicans and Democrats. It would probably get pretty dull in here if it was a constant incestuous lovefest of absolute agreement on everything, and all of us need as much debate practice as we can get. We're all up against some pretty unreceptive audiences in the general public.

I guess the bottom line is, regardless of what anyone says about how much of a flaming liberal you are, I think your similarities to the average poster here are much greater than your differences.

Well said.

[Kade]

I agree with most of what you say. I disagree with you on the regulation and mixed economy though. The thing about this that drives me nuts is that it is a slippery slope. A little regulation might be tolerated by me but it always leads to more regulation. Every time regulation is passed it is always supposed to fix the problem, then a new problem arises then more regulation then another problem then more regulations. Next thing you know the amount of water in your toilet and the type of light bulb you can buy are regulated. Its the constant encroachment that irritates me. On the economy I was wondering if you have read any stuff on Austrian Economics? Like at www.mises.org I have read a lot of your posts and you seem quite intelligent. I would think you may enjoy reading some of their articles even if you don't agree with them.

I think that the slippery slope works both ways... but I don't entirely disagree with you.

[Kade]

Kade, when people on this forum hear "liberal," most of us think of Hillary Clinton rather than Thomas Jefferson, and when we hear "neoconservative," we think of Dick Cheney. In both cases, we think "statist." When we think of "conservative," we think of Ron Paul - but most people in America probably think of George Bush instead.

I suppose my point is that the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" have been hijacked so much throughout the country's history that they can be very vague and amorphous when used in conversation today.

I certainly wouldn't call you a "liberal" based on the modern understanding of the word. Rather, you seem like a 19th century classical liberal who is trying to bring the meaning of liberalism back to its roots and restore sanity...much like most Ron Paul supporters are trying to revive the earlier 20th century meaning of conservatism (which, ironically, closely resembles 19th century classical liberalism ;)). There's an interesting discussion about this in the Wikipedia article on classical liberalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Disputes_over_whether_modern_ liberalism_is_derived_from_classical_liberalism), by the way. This isn't a new phenomenon, either...back at the start of our country, the Anti-Federalists were the real federalists, and the Federalists were, well...nationalists? In any case, they advocated a stronger central government than true federalism would imply.

You might have a few sprinkles of modern liberalism in you, but...I've read many of your posts, and while I disagree with your views on regulation (although I would have agreed about six months ago), you definitely belong much more with the Ron Paul crowd than any other. You're a hell of a lot smarter than some other posters I've seen (not naming names). ;) I've noticed you feel like you're an underappreciated or unwelcome presence on these boards, but in my opinion, you're an asset. At the very least, you keep the rest of us honest and force us to consider the other side of arguments - when really, your disagreements with the libertarian segment here are much smaller than those of garden variety Republicans and Democrats. It would probably get pretty dull in here if it was a constant incestuous lovefest of absolute agreement on everything, and all of us need as much debate practice as we can get. We're all up against some pretty unreceptive audiences in the general public.

I guess the bottom line is, regardless of what anyone says about how much of a flaming liberal you are, I think your similarities to the average poster here are much greater than your differences.

I really appreciate this post Mini-Me, and you are exactly correct in every consideration. I would like to bring back "liberal", as I wear it proudly. In my circles, I have a tremendous amount of influence, and the positions I come from allow me to interject many of the principles we all share, into groups that would normally be off limits to the right and center libertarians. I think this country would benefit more from a two party system made of major differences between libertarians, then between the current parties. A liberal libertarian and conservatives. I will always, without reservation, voice my opinions with passion, just as I am always be willing to be proven wrong, or convinced wrong. There are disagreements, but I am very willing to listen, I only ask that in return.

Thanks. :)

[Truth Warrior]

I really appreciate this post Mini-Me, and you are exactly correct in every consideration. I would like to bring back "liberal", as I wear it proudly. In my circles, I have a tremendous amount of influence, and the positions I come from allow me to interject many of the principles we all share, into groups that would normally be off limits to the right and center libertarians. I think this country would benefit more from a two party system made of major differences between libertarians, then between the current parties. A liberal libertarian and conservatives. I will always, without reservation, voice my opinions with passion, just as I am always be willing to be proven wrong, or convinced wrong. There are disagreements, but I am very willing to listen, I only ask that in return.

Thanks. :)

< ROFLMAO! >

[Kade]

< ROFLMAO! >

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moron

[Truth Warrior]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moron
http://www.lawrence.edu/sorg/objectivism/socfasc.html

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I think that the slippery slope works both ways... but I don't entirely disagree with you.

Forget the slippery slope, is it even possible to not entirely disagree with someone?

[kombayn]

Change for the sake of change is no better than no change at all. The naive media define change as a movement and vice versa.
To the contrary, the American movement in history was a political phenomenon that attracted both liberals and conservatives to the common cause of reestablishing and reconsecrating both the U.S. Constitution and the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

A) When Andrew Jackson the most popular U.S. President ever was elected as a champion for "state rights," he shined a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

B) Ralph Waldo Emerson and American Transcendentalism established a less cruel American culture over our prior Puritan culture by shining a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and on the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

C) Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg address shown a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and on the orginal Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers before he proceeded to reestablish the Union by both binding the masters and granting liberty to the slaves in the United States.

D) The American Union movement, The New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement all served to shine a light on the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and on the original Civil Purpose established by our founding fathers.

Alright thank you for the History lesson. It doesn't CHANGE the fact that either a Democrat or Republican, presumably Barack Obama or John McCain are going to become the next President of the United States. So in the end, I don't have to vote for either of them but I can make a preference of choice and I do that with Barack Obama. People on this board and who support the liberty movement need to get involved with politics whether that's the democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians, etc. But we're stuck with 2 choices right now.

[mattc2345]

Kade,

You are right that it is a slippery slope in both directions. I guess one end would be statism of some sort and on the other end anarchy. Both of those are no good. I feel like I have solid footing where I stand and I know you feel the same about yourself. I guess we just have to disagree at this point.

-Matt

[werdd]

so classical liberalism = more personal freedom
modern liberalism= more goverment

I think of andrew jackson, a democrat who beleived in a strong central goverment, but killed the bank. Thats a good example of a classic liberal i think.

Kind of like lou dobbs, they have the right idea but do not have faith in the free market of ideas to take controll itself, like anarcho capitalist.

[Kludge]

John Tyler was a kickass classic liberal (vetoed a bill that would've established the first national bank [among many other awesome vetoes], for which he was excommunicated from the Whig Party for).