NationStates Jolt Archive

I freely/proudly admit to being a knee-jerk bleeding-heart Liberal. You name the issue: War, poverty, drug laws, religion, feminism, abortion, welfare, the environment, handgun control, the death penalty, law and order, censorship, violence-in-entertainment...I feel absolutely that we Liberals are on the right side.

The basis to much Liberal thought seems to be that humans are inherently good and trustworthy - that we do not need any "fear-of-god" and "fear-of-authority" to be moral and law-abiding. We feel that people are much better off if we are not forced to constantly compete and fight for resources and turf.

In Canada, Western Europe and other places where education standards are high, Liberalism seems to be becoming the political and social norm - permanently. And we are obviously better for it.

When I talk to other Liberals, I invariably encounter folks who are idealistic, caring, unselfish, and self-knowing. They believe that "human nature" is not some fixed/nasty thing which must be kept in line, but a characteristic which is proven to be changeable for the better through a kind and educated society.

:lol:


Keep talking, you are way off.

:lol:


Keep talking, you are way off.

I forgot to add that Conservatives are usually incapable of calm, rational, point-by-point debate: and Nacho Child proves that each & every time he writes something on any issue. Insults and jeers are the Conservative response to any issue - now just watch him do more of them because that's all he can do.

:lol:


Keep talking, you are way off.

I forgot to add that Conservatives are usually incapable of calm, rational, point-by-point debate: and Nacho Child proves that each & every time he writes something on any issue. Insults and jeers are the Conservative response to any issue - now just watch him do more of them because that's all he can do.


:lol:


You just did what you claimed I do. :lol:

He's a little off, but essentially on the right track. It is interesting to note that the far right generally tends to fade away when education standards are high, especially when it goes along with general living standards.

NB. This does not mean to entirely equate the far left with liberalism, and to think otherwise may well indicate a youth spent in a society lacking said high standards of education.

This is great. I love a thread that starts off with a long winded comedy routine. Fairy tales and fabrication are the things that make liberals tick.

You may be on to something there, Garaj. I know that I perceive the human beings and our society as creatures of infinite potential with the ability to continuously improve ourselves as individuals as well as those groups we are parts of. I don't look to some outside figure to tell me to do this--I do it because I seek greater complexity in my understanding of the universe I inhabit. I'm generally not willing to simply accept answers provided to me--I want to know the whys and hows and most importantly, I want to know how I as a person or we as a group can do better the next time, even if we were wildly successful in our endeavor. I think that attitude is a large part of being a liberal--that sense of shared community and the idea that we as individuals are only as successful as the weakest members of our groups.

The basis to much Liberal thought seems to be that humans are inherently good and trustworthy -

Actually, the Liberals are driven by a fear of man: they do not trust man to defend himself, they do not trust man to fend for himself, they are the scourge of the 2nd amendment and of free-enterprise.

Liberals also belive that poverty is the source of all crime, this is why they believe it is the primary function of the State to provide for the people: as a result, the state grows and freedom deminishes.

I feel that education and progressivism facilitate one another. Education is the road to enlightenment, which spawns progressive ideas. Progressives support funding for schools and universities.

He's a little off, but essentially on the right track. It is interesting to note that the far right generally tends to fade away when education standards are high, especially when it goes along with general living standards.

Good point to bring up. Every time that liberals have had 4 or 8 years to improve the education standards America tends to elect a Conservative President in the next three or four elections. Smarter Americans (caused by liberals) elect Conservatives (which are elected for the good of America, by the more educated American).

This is great. I love a thread that starts off with a long winded comedy routine. Fairy tales and fabrication are the things that make liberals tick.

Can't you be a bit more scientific about the root *causes* of Liberal Disease? Is it caused by Satan, or all those smart people in universities, or the urban media?

Is Liberalism going to take over the world? What will the world be like if it does?

Or is it just maybe a valid way to be and a logical step in human development?

He's a little off, but essentially on the right track. It is interesting to note that the far right generally tends to fade away when education standards are high, especially when it goes along with general living standards.

Good point to bring up. Every time that liberals have had 4 or 8 years to improve the education standards America tends to elect a Conservative President in the next three or four elections. Smarter Americans (caused by liberals) elect Conservatives (which are elected for the good of America, by the more educated American).


Hahah! That's THE BEST argument I've ever heard. Really. I mean, even if you hold to it, you accept that liberalism make people smarter. It's just self-contradictory, unless you accept that ignorance is bliss, and conservatism is ignorance, anyway.

If that's so we're better off dead, and progress is a disease.

what makes them tick? the ability for freedom of thought and free choice. simple, i know, but if i am correct, socialism is a liberal sect, so almost all of europe ticks along that route.

He's a little off, but essentially on the right track. It is interesting to note that the far right generally tends to fade away when education standards are high, especially when it goes along with general living standards.

Good point to bring up. Every time that liberals have had 4 or 8 years to improve the education standards America tends to elect a Conservative President in the next three or four elections. Smarter Americans (caused by liberals) elect Conservatives (which are elected for the good of America, by the more educated American).


Hahah! That's THE BEST argument I've ever heard. Really. I mean, even if you hold to it, you accept that liberalism make people smarter. It's just self-contradictory, unless you accept that ignorance is bliss, and conservatism is ignorance, anyway.

If that's so we're better off dead, and progress is a disease.Let me let you in on a little secret--the world is becoming more liberal every day, and has been throughout human history. Jay's point only makes sense if you look at very small sections of human history, but look at just the history of the US--the 228 years of it. US society has become far more liberal in that period of time. Slavery is outlawed. Women have the right to vote, to own property, and are protected against discrimination. Humans are recognized as having specific rights regardless of ethnicity, religious belief, or sexual orientation. We have social programs in place to help the weakest in our societies survive. All of these changes are examples of a more liberal, more enlightened society. And regardless of the efforts of those who would push us back into a male-dominated theocracy, we're going to continue toward societies of greater complexity. It is inevitable.

[quote=Jay W]This is great. I love a thread that starts off with a long winded comedy routine. Fairy tales and fabrication are the things that make liberals tick.

[Can't you be a bit more scientific about the root *causes* of Liberal Disease? Is it caused by Satan, or all those smart people in universities, or the urban media??Scientific? I don't believe in science per se. Science keeps disproving everything they originally hold as fact. A Disease? The downfall of humanity, would be a better way to say it. Satan? No, even Satan wouldn't be cruel enough to come up with an idea like liberalism. That took the mean-heartedness of man. The smart people in univesities? They are the ones who support Conservatism. The Urban Media? No, they only support the idea they didn't cause it.

Get the idea of how ludicrous your ideas are?

[Is Liberalism going to take over the world? What will the world be like if it does??Question 1: If Liberalism or Conservatism was going to take over the world it would have already happened. People will always have opposing ideals.
Question 2: If Liberalism were to take over the world, all prohibitive laws would be overturned. Thereby, you end up with a lawless world. You would also have a world where no laws would be allowed because any law enacted would violate someones civil rights.

Want extreme answers? I can go a lot deeper.

[Or is it just maybe a valid way to be and a logical step in human development?The logical step in human developement is for man to realize that without prohibitive laws and rules, to follow, man will degenerate into a more animal state.

He's a little off, but essentially on the right track. It is interesting to note that the far right generally tends to fade away when education standards are high, especially when it goes along with general living standards.

Good point to bring up. Every time that liberals have had 4 or 8 years to improve the education standards America tends to elect a Conservative President in the next three or four elections. Smarter Americans (caused by liberals) elect Conservatives (which are elected for the good of America, by the more educated American).


Hahah! That's THE BEST argument I've ever heard. Really. I mean, even if you hold to it, you accept that liberalism make people smarter. It's just self-contradictory, unless you accept that ignorance is bliss, and conservatism is ignorance, anyway.

If that's so we're better off dead, and progress is a disease.That is unless you hold to the fact that once Americans get a taste of what Liberalism can do to them, they kick them out of office for the good of everyone in the nation.

Bah! Liberals :evil:

I have a few problems with the statement that Garaj Mahal made to begin this thread. First, you agree with Liberals all of the time. No person or group of people is right all of the time. Claiming that anyone or any group is infallible and by assiciation, because you agree with with thier every utterance, you are infallible seems to me to by the hieght of arrogance and conciet.Second, it appears to me that the basis of Liberal thought is that governments are good and moral and trustworthy.Third, idealistic people are what you invariably encounter. Ideals are fine, but without realistic practice ideals are dangerous. As superior as idealists think they are, they need realists to make anything work.

Please stop it with this stupid binary political model. It does not exist outside of the mass media.

I love this argument that after electing a liberal, the ppl realize its horrible and elect a conservative. Maybe its the other way around. They get a conservative, hate it, and throw in a liberal.

Frankly I don't think either make sense since if that was the case, why does it keep changing at all?

I love this argument that after electing a liberal, the ppl realize its horrible and elect a conservative. Maybe its the other way around. They get a conservative, hate it, and throw in a liberal.

Frankly I don't think either make sense since if that was the case, why does it keep changing at all?I think that this fellow is on to something. Perhaps the problem lies less then with the individuals that we plug into the system than with the system itself. A radical restructuring is in order.

If you hadn't geussed by my other posts, I'm a 'liberal' by US standards (the Liberal Party here are actually our conservative party, they are in power at the moment but they wont be for long, Iraq has pissed off a fair number of people here and we don't appreciate Howards a**e licking)
, so, ofcourse I'm going to biased. I'm centre left on the politcal spectrum (which seems to be a dirty word to US conservatives, can't figure out why)

About 'liberalism' being how human society is progressing, there is some truth to it. Look at the world under laize-fare (sp?) capitalism in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Workers had very few rights, there was no social welfare and the rich enjoyed a life of almost unfetterd privledge. It was thought the 'free market' without any controls could run itself, act responsibly and all memebers of society will benefit, which, frankly, didn't happen. From what I understand, conservatives seem to want to return to this period of human history (I can't see why)

Whilst many advances have been made towards a 'liberal' society, there has been over the past decade or so a right-wing resurgance such as privatisation, repealing workers rights and greater corporate power.

What I think will happen (I may be proved wrong by history, but s**t happens) is the world, particualrly parts that are most open to US corporate intrests will slowly drift back to 19th century models of society then the working class will decide this sucks (again) there will be unrest (again) and we''ll go back to more 'liberal' society (again) and we'll just keep on repeating the cycle.

I think blind nationalism is more a result of poor education, not conservatism. It's easier to be nationalistic if you're ill-informed.

[Is Liberalism going to take over the world? What will the world be like if it does??If Liberalism were to take over the world, all prohibitive laws would be overturned. Thereby, you end up with a lawless world. You would also have a world where no laws would be allowed because any law enacted would violate someones civil rights...The logical step in human developement is for man to realize that without prohibitive laws and rules, to follow, man will degenerate into a more animal state.

How then do you explain that in Liberal-run Canada and Western Europe, there is less crime and greater safety than in Conservative-run places?

We Liberal countries have not got rid of laws - what a ridiculous idea! We do handle law differently though by concentrating more exclusively on violent crime and not throwing millions of non-violent people in jail with sinister policies like "War-On-Drugs" and "Three Strikes". By concentrating mostly on stopping violent crime, we've made our societies safer.

The problem is that everyone wants to talk about raidcal conservatism and radical liberalism and forget anything in the middle. The radicals on either side could cause huge societal problems. Obviously, getting rid of all laws would be bad. Obviously, reinstituting slavery would be bad.

Younger people have a tendency to be more liberal. Why? Because young people are often optimistic and want to change things for the better. So they try and work on that. I would agree that many liberals have a more optimistic view of humanity and tend to see inherent good in it.
Problem is, they make some changes and get older and decide they have society where they want it and they become more and more conservative and start idealizing the past and thinking that "X never would have happened in my day...." These people don't want to see any more changes because they think they already found the ideal society and all these liberal wackos are trying to change it.
Or, they are so radically liberal that they can never get society the way they want it to be. *watches and waits for the PETA protests about to go on on campus this week*

I would label myself a conervative liberal, or maybe a liberal conservative. I hope I actually stay that way too. =)

Scientific? I don't believe in science per se. Science keeps disproving everything they originally hold as fact.

Actually, science holds nothing as fact, merely theory. Science acknowledges that we don't know everything, and all work is done based upon a proposed falsifiable hypothesis. In this way, work can be checked and rechecked, so we can continue to approach a more correct understanding of the world.

This is what separates science from dogma. Would you actually call the lack of the possibility of our understanding of something to be proven incorrect a good thing?

Please stop it with this stupid binary political model. It does not exist outside of the mass media.

Here here! Actually, that's not true. The media creates such people.

Megadittos, FOE!

Please stop it with this stupid binary political model. It does not exist outside of the mass media.

Here here! Actually, that's not true. The media creates such people.

Megadittos, FOE!

And I third the motion! The 2 and 3 axis models may be lacking, but at least they are more accurate.

I feel absolutely that we Liberals are on the right side.

Lol. so to speak.

Liberals tend to get their political theory from John Locke with a healthy side of John Stuart Mill, and if they get religious philosophy from anywhere, it tends to come from people like Jesus or the Buddha. This is a contradistinction with conservatives, who tend to get their political philosophy from Hobbes, and if they have religious philosophy, it tends to come from people like St. Anselm and John Calvin.

What is the difference? Well, mostly what Garaj Mahal said: liberals tend by and large to have a more optimistic view of the world, as well as a greater belief in the ability to mold human behavior. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to believe that man's character is fixed and determined (usually egoistic, which is a large part of the reason why conservatism and lassiez-faire capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand), and have little if any confidence in the ability of man to change and better himself.

How then do you explain that in Liberal-run Canada and Western Europe, there is less crime and greater safety than in Conservative-run places?

We Liberal countries have not got rid of laws - what a ridiculous idea! We do handle law differently though by concentrating more exclusively on violent crime and not throwing millions of non-violent people in jail with sinister policies like "War-On-Drugs" and "Three Strikes". By concentrating mostly on stopping violent crime, we've made our societies safer.

Come visit me here in Japan. You will find a very conservative country with low crime, especially in comparison with Canada or Western Europe. Or try Saudi Arabia, far more conservative than any of the above, and lower crime yet.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Sorry, the above link was to murder stats. The following stat is quite interesting:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri


Crime: Top 100 Total crimes

Country
Description
Amount
1. United States 23,677,800 (1999)

2. Germany 6,264,723 (2000)

3. United Kingdom 5,170,831 (2000)

4. France 3,771,849 (2000)

5. South Africa 3,422,743 (2000)

6. Russia 2,952,367 (2000)

7. Canada 2,476,520 (2000)

8. Japan 2,443,470 (2000)

9. Italy 2,205,782 (2000)

10. India 1,764,629 (1999)

How interesting that western Europe, Canada, and Japan are all in the top 10.... :?

Liberals tend to get their political theory from John Locke with a healthy side of John Stuart Mill, and if they get religious philosophy from anywhere, it tends to come from people like Jesus or the Buddha. This is a contradistinction with conservatives, who tend to get their political philosophy from Hobbes, and if they have religious philosophy, it tends to come from people like St. Anselm and John Calvin.

What is the difference? Well, mostly what Garaj Mahal said: liberals tend by and large to have a more optimistic view of the world, as well as a greater belief in the ability to mold human behavior. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to believe that man's character is fixed and determined (usually egoistic, which is a large part of the reason why conservatism and lassiez-faire capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand), and have little if any confidence in the ability of man to change and better himself.

Sorry, wrong. Locke is the conservative and Rousseau is the liberal, with both decending from Hobbes.

Liberals tend to get their political theory from John Locke with a healthy side of John Stuart Mill, and if they get religious philosophy from anywhere, it tends to come from people like Jesus or the Buddha. This is a contradistinction with conservatives, who tend to get their political philosophy from Hobbes, and if they have religious philosophy, it tends to come from people like St. Anselm and John Calvin.

What is the difference? Well, mostly what Garaj Mahal said: liberals tend by and large to have a more optimistic view of the world, as well as a greater belief in the ability to mold human behavior. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to believe that man's character is fixed and determined (usually egoistic, which is a large part of the reason why conservatism and lassiez-faire capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand), and have little if any confidence in the ability of man to change and better himself.

Sorry, wrong. Locke is the conservative and Rousseau is the liberal, with both decending from Hobbes.

How do you figure? Most liberals trace their beliefs back to the 2nd Treatise, not to Emile. Heck, most liberals I know consider Rousseau's conception of the "noble savage" to be downright idiotic, as man's nature is neutral, not necessarily good and corrupted by society. This is more in keeping with Locke's belief in tabula rasa than anything else.

I freely/proudly admit to being a knee-jerk bleeding-heart Liberal. You name the issue: War, poverty, drug laws, religion, feminism, abortion, welfare, the environment, handgun control, the death penalty, law and order, censorship, violence-in-entertainment...I feel absolutely that we Liberals are on the right side.It is impossible for anyone person to be correct all of the time. Thus you are not "on the right side". You get it right sometimes, you get it wrong other times.

The basis to much Liberal thought seems to be that humans are inherently good and trustworthy
Wonderful idealism, and it would be nice if it was true. Unfortunately thousands of years of human existence speaks otherwise.
The fact is we are not inherently good or trustworkthy, as these standards are dictated by the culture one is born in. You don't pop out a saint or a sinner, you just pop out.


When I talk to other Liberals, I invariably encounter folks who are idealistic, caring, unselfish, and self-knowing. They believe that "human nature" is not some fixed/nasty thing which must be kept in line, but a characteristic which is proven to be changeable for the better through a kind and educated society.When I talk to ANYONE I find this, regardless of political ideology. But, by that same token, I also find people who classify as assholes, again, from the entire political spectrum.

Liberals tend to get their political theory from John Locke with a healthy side of John Stuart Mill, and if they get religious philosophy from anywhere, it tends to come from people like Jesus or the Buddha. This is a contradistinction with conservatives, who tend to get their political philosophy from Hobbes, and if they have religious philosophy, it tends to come from people like St. Anselm and John Calvin.

What is the difference? Well, mostly what Garaj Mahal said: liberals tend by and large to have a more optimistic view of the world, as well as a greater belief in the ability to mold human behavior. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to believe that man's character is fixed and determined (usually egoistic, which is a large part of the reason why conservatism and lassiez-faire capitalism tend to go hand-in-hand), and have little if any confidence in the ability of man to change and better himself.

Sorry, wrong. Locke is the conservative and Rousseau is the liberal, with both decending from Hobbes.

How do you figure? Most liberals trace their beliefs back to the 2nd Treatise, not to Emile. Heck, most liberals I know consider Rousseau's conception of the "noble savage" to be downright idiotic, as man's nature is neutral, not necessarily good and corrupted by society. This is more in keeping with Locke's belief in tabula rasa than anything else.

Hmm... I wonder if we are running into the old liberal and Liberal confusion.

I'm a liberal too. :D

Sorry, the above link was to murder stats. The following stat is quite interesting:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_tot_cri


Crime: Top 100 Total crimes

Country
Description
Amount
1. United States 23,677,800 (1999)

2. Germany 6,264,723 (2000)

3. United Kingdom 5,170,831 (2000)

4. France 3,771,849 (2000)

5. South Africa 3,422,743 (2000)

6. Russia 2,952,367 (2000)

7. Canada 2,476,520 (2000)

8. Japan 2,443,470 (2000)

9. Italy 2,205,782 (2000)

10. India 1,764,629 (1999)

How interesting that western Europe, Canada, and Japan are all in the top 10.... :?

On that same page, it say "Definition: Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalance." Therefore, it makes much more sense that W. Europe, the US, Canada, and Japan are all in the top ten, because they have mroe developed crime enforcement systems in place and can report more. Also, the deffinition of crime varies form country to country, so if the nations listed above have stricter/more laws than less developed nations, their ranking would be higher.

I believe that the failing of both liberals and conservatives is their lack of understanding of the needs of the people that they have in mind when voting on issues. I Clarify: a "liberal" imagines a poverty stricken family living in the inner city, with 5 children because they couldn't get an abortion, who lack the comforts of the liberal's suruban home: car, computer, television, gym memebership. The conservative Thinks of the same family and believes that they could work harder to get themselves out of their position in life if they so desired, but the poverty stricken family is relatively content with their lot in life because they have known nothing better, and/or they are waitng for the bleeding heart liberals to vote for stronger wellfare to rescue them from their plight.

DP

Right, I stand corrected. :)

((bump))

The archetypal liberal is as follows. Every morning, he walks out of his apartment building to go to work. And every morning, he drops a dollar into the lap of the same homeless man living outside his apartment. And at night, when he walks home from work, he blaims conservatives for the fact that there is a homeless man living outside his apartment.

You are all trying to define what "Liberal" is and what a "Conservative" is. The problem is, you can't do that. I am a conservative when it comes to the handling of the government, but I lean to the left on some issues regarding the rights of people. I do not believe that the government should provide as much welfare as it does in the US, but I believe that government education programs should be offered to help those people who need it.

The issue stands as such: Liberals paint Conservatives as uncaring, greedy, self-serving pigs who would just as soon outsource jobs to other countries than to try to help rebuild an economy. Conservatives, likewise, paint the Liberals as radical, government overthrowing, communist hippies who would rather take money from those who have earned it than encourage someone to get a job. Neither of these are correct though. Most large business owners outsourcing jobs are Liberals, and most radical government topplers are Conservatives.

What it boils down is that Liberals and Conservatives are both right and wrong at the same time. The government needs a balance of both liberal progression and the upholding of conservative government practices. But that is idealistic and impractical.