NationStates Jolt Archive

There are three types of liberals:

Classic liberals - like our name sez, we're a classic :D
Free-thinking liberals - may or may not include the above mentioned 'classic liberals, but you are a liberals who thinks. freely. sometimes *too* freely
Feel-good liberals - this is for all intents and purposes, the 'pansy' - they feel too good to make a judgement about anybody else. Unless of course, they are opposed to your personal ideals. ;)

Free thinker. I am politically in between the "feel-good"/leftist liberals and the right-wing classic liberals.

I guess I'm free thinking because while I'm a Liberal, I still have some ideas that many consider conservative. Mainly in foreign policy.

I'm a classical liberal, well, actually a libertarian, but I hear they're one-in-the same.

liberals... yucky.

I guess I'm free thinking because while I'm a Liberal, I still have some ideas that many consider conservative. Mainly in foreign policy.
ACtually I imagine you as being a sort of Woodrow Wilson "old skool" American liberal. For the workers and the people, but assertive in the world.

Girville, that is spam.

I am with a classical liberal, a.k.a. a libertarian. Super-Power, at least there are six of us.

Heh, those funny liberals. Never cease to make me laugh.

Can I vote? I consider myself to be pretty liberal among the christians/ conservatives.

I'm kicking it old school, dog.

Heh, those funny liberals. Never cease to make me laugh.

Can I vote? I consider myself to be pretty liberal among the christians/ conservatives.
Wow, the conservative Christian people you know must be like the Christian Taliban. Didn't you once say that homosexual sex should be banned?

liberals... yucky.

lol

They're not THAT bad. Unless you ask some of my more conservative friends, according to whom liberals will usher in doom and socialism into America. Actually, maybe they're right........ ;)

lol

They're not THAT bad. Unless you ask some of my more conservative friends, according to whom liberals will usher in doom and socialism into America. Actually, maybe they're right........ ;)
remember classical liberal usually means libertarian.

Wow, the conservative Christian people you know must be like the Christian Taliban. Didn't you once say that homosexual sex should be banned?

The Christians I know are good, honest, and loving people. And, no, I never said that. I said that it should be banned in public, which it is. The government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your bedroom.

I'm a classic liberal. I believe that no one on Social Security (let alone welfare!) should be allowed to vote. You can get money from the government or you can vote for the government, but you should not be allowed to do both and vote for the government to give you more money.

So you think that people who worked all their lives shouldn't be allowed to vote because the government lets them have some of their own money back when they retire?

There are neo-liberals too

The government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your bedroom.

Only as long as you in turn don't demand that the government picks up the bill for the consequences of what you do do in the privacy of your bedroom. But as long as, say, we have public schools, I don't see how you can possibly have any principled objections to government intervention into your sex life. It is the ultimate hipocrisy to say indignantly that it's none of my business what you do in your bedroom and then the next moment demand that I pay for educating your children. I want your childrearing expenses to be none of my business as well.

So you think that people who worked all their lives shouldn't be allowed to vote because the government lets them have some of their own money back when they retire?

It's not THEIR money - it's somebody else's money. Their money was spent decades ago on a mohair subsidy to Tom Brokaw or something like that. Social Security is nothing but a massive wealth redistribution program. And the founder of classic liberalism John Stuart Mill, who personally fought for (and almost singlehandedly won) universal franchise in the UK was very clear that wards of the state should not be allowed to vote.

The Christians I know are good, honest, and loving people. And, no, I never said that. I said that it should be banned in public, which it is. The government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your bedroom.
Ah, OK, sorry I must have confused you with another poster.

I like the Christians I know too. It's a pity that the extremists give the majority a bad name.

I'm a classic liberal. I believe that no one on Social Security (let alone welfare!) should be allowed to vote. You can get money from the government or you can vote for the government, but you should not be allowed to do both and vote for the government to give you more money.
That's never going to happen. The true classic liberal would get rid of social welfare, not prohibit its participants from voting.

It is the ultimate hipocrisy to say indignantly that it's none of my business what you do in your bedroom and then the next moment demand that I pay for educating your children. I want your childrearing expenses to be none of my business as well.
So do you suggest mandatory homosexuality? ;)

It means no children!

Your suggestions are interesting, and show points of conflict between social liberalism and economic liberalism.

That's never going to happen. The true classic liberal would get rid of social welfare, not prohibit its participants from voting.
By denying people to vote you would use state intervention, seems kind of Orwelians and I would oppose it.

im a free thinker liberal, north eastern quakers dont tend to be very conservative

I'm not any type of "liberal" but I am a very libertarian communist.

Classical, I don't like these 'new' definitions of liberal...

Liberty should mean freedom. Freedom for all!

It's not THEIR money - it's somebody else's money. Their money was spent decades ago on a mohair subsidy to Tom Brokaw or something like that. Social Security is nothing but a massive wealth redistribution program. And the founder of classic liberalism John Stuart Mill, who personally fought for (and almost singlehandedly won) universal franchise in the UK was very clear that wards of the state should not be allowed to vote.

Yet another one who would rather live in the 1800s. :rolleyes:

This thread is inane, but some comments are less enlightened than others.

*is a Free-Thinker*

You can see just where I stand by looking at my sig.

It's not THEIR money - it's somebody else's money. Their money was spent decades ago on a mohair subsidy to Tom Brokaw or something like that. Social Security is nothing but a massive wealth redistribution program. And the founder of classic liberalism John Stuart Mill, who personally fought for (and almost singlehandedly won) universal franchise in the UK was very clear that wards of the state should not be allowed to vote.

Funny, the government sends me a letter every year noting exactly how much money I've put into SS in my lifetime, and I doubt getting it back would make me a 'ward of the state.' And in Mill's time, wards of the state were most often people receiving government allotments through patronage, not people whose own money was held by the government with a prospect of later return, so the analogy is not valid.

*is a Free-Thinker*

You can see just where I stand by looking at my sig.

thinking freely or freely thinking? that is the question. wait, no: to be or not to be? was the question. my bad. ignore that post.

thinking freely or freely thinking? that is the question. wait, no: to be or not to be? was the question. my bad. ignore that post.

Good idea.

Yet another one who would rather live in the 1800s. :rolleyes:

This thread is inane, but some comments are less enlightened than others.

I'd rather live in Palestine, 1098 AD.

Yet another one who would rather live in the 1800s. :rolleyes:

This thread is inane, but some comments are less enlightened than others.
I agree, in fact, entirely.