Reclaiming Liberalism

[BasketCase]

A lot of people seem to perceive a political platform as being logically valid if and only if it agrees with their own. God knows I've seen plenty of CFC'ers post stuff along those lines. "If everybody did things my way, the world would be a better place", or "anybody who disagrees with X is dumb/delusional/idiotic" blabbity blah.

The first thing one needs to be clear on is that not everybody is going to think the same way. One can start with the following basic ideas from the OP:

Therefore, if we wish to reclaim liberalism, we must start at a base. This base is Freedom.

Proceeding from this base, one must recognize that, Freedom to perform acts that harm other individuals necessarily is harmful to society as a whole. The base must be revised.

....and still come to varying conclusions, largely centering on where to draw the line amongst various conflicting human freedoms.

Lots of folks are worried that there's no party out there that presents everything they want it to, but in a nation with 300 million people, we can't have 300 million political parties. Every ballot would be the size of a phone book.....

So no worries here.

 

[CaptainF]

I find it funny when blowhard pundits decry liberalism as a mental disorder, when it was what our country was founded on.

 

[Elrohir]

I find it funny when blowhard pundits decry liberalism as a mental disorder, when it was what our country was founded on.

To be fair, though, modern day liberalism is different from classical liberalism. I'm pretty sure when the "blowhards" are talking about liberalism, they're talking about the modern day variation.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Lots of folks are worried that there's no party out there that presents everything they want it to, but in a nation with 300 million people, we can't have 300 million political parties. Every ballot would be the size of a phone book.....

Perhaps, but the two party system basically rules over American politics. Not all democrats and republicans are exactly the same, but third-parties don't have a shot.

Wikipedia says: Like all liberals, social liberals believe in individual freedom as a central objective. However, they are unique in comparison to other liberals in that they believe that lack of economic opportunity, education, health-care, and so on can be considered to be threats to their conception of liberty. Social liberals are outspoken defenders of human rights and civil liberties, and combine this with support for a mixed economy, with a state providing public services that social liberals intend to ensure that people's social rights as well as their civil liberties are upheld.

I tend to believe in this line of thought. In our current form of society, the government (unfortunately) has to step in to gurantee some people their freedom. Let's face it, if the government had simply let the American people decide over slavery, it might have lasted longer. Sometimes, the government has to gurantee these rights, which might not exist in a Libertarian-esque society, as some people might take them away.

 

[GenMarshall]

I dont know where I fall under since I am socialy conservative but fall under the moderate spectrum in economics .

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

Just leave me the hell alone and stop taking money out of my wallet.

I don't care what you do and who you do it with; just stop taking my money.

I am not Bill Gates, you do not have a right to what is in my wallet.

Illegal immigration is by definition a crime. Go home and fix your own country.

Sorry for being intolerant. Go home.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Just leave me the hell alone and stop taking money out of my wallet.

I don't care what you do and who you do it with; just stop taking my money.

I am not Bill Gates, you do not have a right to what is in my wallet.

Illegal immigration is by definition a crime. Go home and fix your own country.

Sorry for being intolerant. Go home.

The government has the responsibility to try to provide freedom for everyone. Programs like welfare and health care and others help provide this, and give people a chance to excersize all of their rights. I don't believe that I am right in just saying "screw everyone else, and government, don't help them, I don't care if they aren't free."

And the US policy on immigration is stupid. Waste national guard troops to guard the border. Who cares. Immigrants provide labor and an influx of new culture and ideas. We shouldn't worry about it so much, nor should we be devoting so much time to try to stop it.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

tomsnow, I apologize in advance.

The government has the responsibility to try to provide freedom for everyone. Programs like welfare and health care and others help provide this, and give people a chance to excersize all of their rights.

Programs like welfare and health care take money out of my pocket to make me provide for others.

Leave me the hell alone and I won't need any government handouts. If the government wasn't taxing me in 6+ different ways, I'd be flush.

And no, I am in no definition of the word, wealthy.

And just for debate, people who don't pay taxes should not have the right to vote.

IIRC, this is still a free country. This is my two cents.

 

[Eukaryote]

Just leave me the hell alone and stop taking money out of my wallet.

I don't care what you do and who you do it with; just stop taking my money.

I am not Bill Gates, you do not have a right to what is in my wallet.

Illegal immigration is by definition a crime. Go home and fix your own country.

Sorry for being intolerant. Go home.

1. I don't care where you have you freakouts, don't do it here, do it somewhere else. Maybe you should march up to the White House and show 'em who's boss!
2. Less money would be taken from your wallet if people cared less about immigrants. Remember, they add to the work force.
3. Half your taxes fund the military, and what have they done for you latley? Do you give a damn about what happens in Iraq? No, right? So I don't blame you for being mad but still, control yourself man!
4. Because there's no free health care in America, Americans could die if they can't afford the treatment they need. And that includes you! You said it yourself, your not rich. It's important to remember that free health care is not ment to be a form of charity, it's ment to be a form of insurance. Having free heath care is basicly the same as having car insurance nessessary in order to drive, but instead of it being about traffic accidents, it's about health.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

So I don't blame you for being mad but still, control yourself man

You're right. I'm an old bitter fart. One of the mods told me never to leave SG world and they were correct.

I apologize for venting here.

I suggest that if liberals want to take back the US they consider how to win back middle of the road gun idiots like me.

I'll shut up now

and really I have nothing against free speech unless u have a JD.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Just leave me the hell alone and stop taking money out of my wallet.

I don't care what you do and who you do it with; just stop taking my money.

I am not Bill Gates, you do not have a right to what is in my wallet.

Illegal immigration is by definition a crime. Go home and fix your own country.

Sorry for being intolerant. Go home.

These arguments never hold any sway with me.

You know why? Cuz you use a lot of those things that taxes pay for, whether it be healthcare, education or even roads or public toliets.

 

[Eukaryote]

@ Admeral Kutzov: Sweet sig man, sweeet!

 

[YNCS]

tomsnow, I apologize in advance.



Programs like welfare and health care take money out of my pocket to make me provide for others.

Leave me the hell alone and I won't need any government handouts. If the government wasn't taxing me in 6+ different ways, I'd be flush.

And no, I am in no definition of the word, wealthy.

And just for debate, people who don't pay taxes should not have the right to vote.

IIRC, this is still a free country. This is my two cents.

For many of the conservatives and libertarians I've encountered, ideology trumps all other considerations. It doesn't matter how much death, destruction, or suffering is caused, because the importance of the ideology is more important than any of those considerations. This is often because the ill effects of said ideology are never seen as being applicable to the conservatives or libertarians in question, presumably because they are better/smarter/harder working/etc. than those to whom the ill effects will apply.

 

[tomsnowman123]

tomsnow, I apologize in advance.



Programs like welfare and health care take money out of my pocket to make me provide for others.

Leave me the hell alone and I won't need any government handouts. If the government wasn't taxing me in 6+ different ways, I'd be flush.

And no, I am in no definition of the word, wealthy.

And just for debate, people who don't pay taxes should not have the right to vote.

IIRC, this is still a free country. This is my two cents.

No apology neccesary, you're entitled to your opinion. I would support massive cuts in military spending and the like, those tax dollars would then go to things like halth care and welfare, and education, without adding a lot of taxes to what we already have. I do believe in some taxes like wealth, inheritence taxes, etc., but we spend way too much on the military.

 

[ComradeDavo]

No apology neccesary, you're entitled to your opinion. I would support massive cuts in military spending and the like, those tax dollars would then go to things like halth care and welfare, and education, without adding a lot of taxes to what we already have. I do believe in some taxes like wealth, inheritence taxes, etc., but we spend way too much on the military.

I would point out that I always used to advocate 'massive cuts in military spending' when i was younger, but have now coem to realise that actually miltary spendature has it's uses - creating alot of jobs being one, peacekeeping in places that needs assistance another, and also in soliders being well equipped to help in disasters such as moving people out of an area or getting supplies in.

So the issue for me is more actually military spendature that benifits the country, rather than 'wasting' cash on updating nukes that will never be used and so forth.

 

[tomsnowman123]

I would point out that I always used to advocate 'massive cuts in military spending' when i was younger, but have now coem to realise that actually miltary spendature has it's uses - creating alot of jobs being one, peacekeeping in places that needs assistance another, and also in soliders being well equipped to help in disasters such as moving people out of an area or getting supplies in.

So the issue for me is more actually military spendature that benifits the country, rather than 'wasting' cash on updating nukes that will never be used and so forth.

A purely defensive military is what I want for right now, plus it would be a lot cheaper.

 

[ComradeDavo]

A purely defensive military is what I want for right now, plus it would be a lot cheaper.

Whilst thats a nice idea, its really idealogical rhetoric, pratical concerns dictate that you must have forces able to strike at potential enemies.

Just because you may disagree with how Bush and Blair and alike are fighting 'terrorism' doesn't mean you should just ignore the treat, fact is that there are peopel out there who seek to bring down western democracy, so having forces able to strike at them is common sense.

And after all, the best form or defence is as they say attack.

 

[tomsnowman123]

And after all, the best form or defence is as they say attack.

I think that just stirs up the pot. If we just ignored them, and didn't butt into the middle east, we wouldn't need an aggressive military. A defensive military that could prevent any attack, if one should take place, works for me. And again, the money saved could be used for better purposes. Too much of my dollar goes to the military. There are greater places for it to go to.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I think that just stirs up the pot. If we just ignored them, and didn't butt into the middle east, we wouldn't need an aggressive military. A defensive military that could prevent any attack, if one should take place, works for me. And again, the money saved could be used for better purposes. Too much of my dollar goes to the military. There are greater places for it to go to.

I'm sure there are alot of savings to be made, but not 'massive cuts' as that would leave the military struggling and unable to perfom effectively. Don't think of cutting military spending as a money tree for stuff like education and healthcare!

 

[tomsnowman123]

I'm sure there are alot of savings to be made, but not 'massive cuts' as that would leave the military struggling and unable to perfom effectively. Don't think of cutting military spending as a money tree for stuff like education and healthcare!

I don't think of it as a money tree, I just believe that our military spending could be cut by about 75% if we made it into a strictly defensive military. That money could do a lot of things.