NationStates Jolt Archive

I've often heard the difference of meaning of the word "liberal" in Britain and America alluded to. I live in Britain. What is the difference, exactly?

In Canada we have the same use of it, i.e. a member/supporter of the Liberal Party. That's pretty well the only way its ever used, but the Americans seem to use it to mean anything that is on the left wing of the political spectrum. In Canada, the Liberal Party is actually pretty right wing, but definitely less so than the conservatives.

I would say there are many different angles on the word or concept liberal... we have the libertarians who push it to extremes, classical liberals, anarchists and so on, and we have economicly liberal parties who are more conservative when it comes to moral issues and vice versa... but if you just want the american definition, then I'll shut up now, I do, after all, live in Sweden:)

In Canada, the Liberal Party is actually pretty right wing, but definitely less so than the conservatives.
I consider them as Centre or centre left. The are slightly yet distinctly to the left of the US democratic party.

In America, a liberal is typically someone who supports greater government funding of social programs like welfare, greater social equality (usually through government programs), greater regulation of business, less regulation of individual choices (i.e. religion or abortion), and less use of the U.S. military abroad (or more U.N. supervision of U.S. military operations). Most of these statements are generalizations based on my own experience, however, so they might differ with someone else's interpretation.

I've often heard the difference of meaning of the word "liberal" in Britain and America alluded to. I live in Britain. What is the difference, exactly?

Liberal = Libertine
Conservative = Human (less the "libertine" attribute)


-Iakeo

In America, a liberal is typically someone who supports greater government funding of social programs like welfare, greater social equality (usually through government programs), greater regulation of business, less regulation of individual choices (i.e. religion or abortion), and less use of the U.S. military abroad (or more U.N. supervision of U.S. military operations). Most of these statements are generalizations based on my own experience, however, so they might differ with someone else's interpretation.

As far as regulation of individual choices, depends on the issue. They (American liberals) want more regulation of any choices that they believe harm the individual, such as smoking, overeating, education (more government schools, fewer private and no parochial), etc., and less regulation of choices that are purely for pleasure or personal convenience, such as sex, marriage, abortion, etc.

In America, a liberal is typically someone who supports greater government funding of social programs like welfare, greater social equality (usually through government programs), greater regulation of business, less regulation of individual choices (i.e. religion or abortion), and less use of the U.S. military abroad (or more U.N. supervision of U.S. military operations). Most of these statements are generalizations based on my own experience, however, so they might differ with someone else's interpretation.
I agree more or less with what you've said as I am myself a liberal. However I would like to point out that we defend greater regulation of business only in comparison to neoliberals/neocons/most republicans etc, etc. In comparison to a whole facet of political ideals that is non existant within the US we are viewed just as capitalist as US Republicans are.

I've often heard the difference of meaning of the word "liberal" in Britain and America alluded to. I live in Britain. What is the difference, exactly?

It has to do with American Political history, specifically the tide shift that occured in the early part of the 20th century. Generally speaking, liberals prior to this were generally classical liberals, meaning that they adopted and supported the views of thinkers such as John Locke, Adam Smith, David Riccardo, and John Stuart Mill: they supported the expansion of the free market, believed in limited government, and had an expansive take on human rights.

What shifted liberalism to its current format was the misery imposed upon the masses by the industrialization of America that occured in the post Civil War era. The continuing and unrelenting poverty and misery imposed on the mass of men by the upper classes of society dissillusioned liberals to the classical liberal notion that free markets unaided are the solution to poverty and economic misery, and the degree of centralization of power that occured in this era convinced liberals that free market cannot remain free without government intervention to actively break monopolies and trusts. As a consequence, while liberals retain the expansive view of human liberties, they are nevertheless wary in the extreme of unregulated free markets, and view government power as a positive when it is used to break the iron grip of a company on the economy or on the throats of its workers.

That being said, however, the other major thing that distinguishes liberals from European leftists is the lack of a true and sustained communist movement in America. However much idiots on the Right who wouldn't know Marxism if it bit them in the ass might claim that liberals are communists, liberals generally support a capitalist market-based system, albeit one that is subject to government intervention in case of market externalities. This distinguishes them from European leftists, who are almost always in favor of a transition to a communist economic model.

I will link to an article by a man who is much more articulate and expressive than I, on this and many other issues, namely Dennis Prager.

Timely for him to publish this one...:cool:

The Left hates inequality, not injustice (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/01/17/182480.html)

This article is on one of the things I figured out long ago, that made me switch from voting Democrat to Republican. Just one of many issues I have with the American Left.

Using the modern terms for the United States this is the most basic ideas of these terms:
Liberal: One that was in support of FDR's New Deal programs
Conservative: One that was opposed to FDR's New Deal programs.

Of course this is the modern terminology and it should be noted that the meanings of these words have changed greatly through out time.

/Knowing is half the battle.


EDIT:

This article is on one of the things I figured out long ago, that made me switch from voting Democrat to Republican. Just one of many issues I have with the American Left.

But what do either of these things have to do with liberals?:confused:

It should be mentioned that this article is posted on a conservative news service that makes no claims to objectivity or an attempt to present opposing viewpoints in a fair manner.

A very clear distinction needs to be made between:

liberal and Liberal

liberal is an ideology that represents social equity, humanism and individual freedoms.

a Liberal is a supporter of a Liberal party which may or may not hold liberal views. Right now the Federal (National) Liberal party of Canada is experiencing some Neo-Liberal leanings and is actually considerably more right than liberal ideals.

EDIT: The meaning also changes depending on where in the country (Canada) you are. Nationally, currently, the Liberals are taking a great deal of heat for making a few huge mistakes in federal money scandals, and are "right of centre" (conservative) where in Alberta the Liberal party is more liberal and still represents liberal ideals

However no real comparisson can be made with US politics as Democrats and Rpublicans do not have corresponding parties in Canada. They are different.

To give you an idea of how the word "liberal" got its "bad" context, it was the official code name of Julius Rosenberg

I'll shut up now, I do, after all, live in Sweden:)

see, there's your problem right there.

The Left hates inequality, not injustice (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/01/17/182480.html)

This article is on one of the things I figured out long ago, that made me switch from voting Democrat to Republican. Just one of many issues I have with the American Left.
Lol, "American left". It's almost a contradiction. There's no real difference between the two parties on the important issues. The Republicans are just as socialist as the Democrats.

To give you an idea of how the word "liberal" got its "bad" context, it was the official code name of Julius Rosenberg
Thanks Ronald!

Lol, "American left". It's almost a contradiction. There's no real difference between the two parties on the important issues. The Republicans are just as socialist as the Democrats.


Which is to say not at all? It's an odd example to use, socialist that is. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are remotely socialist. Presently both parties tend support largely laissez-faire markets. Sure they differ on some social issues but the really important part to a capitalist society is the money. :headbang:

In America, a liberal is typically someone who supports greater government funding of social programs like welfare, greater social equality (usually through government programs), greater regulation of business, less regulation of individual choices (i.e. religion or abortion), and less use of the U.S. military abroad (or more U.N. supervision of U.S. military operations). Most of these statements are generalizations based on my own experience, however, so they might differ with someone else's interpretation.

i concur w/ P-A
i have libertarian views but consider myself to be conservative, not liberal. liberals/democrats in the US seem to favor modern european models of government with greater socialist programs and more government. they are certainly less hawkish.
i do not know what the difference if any is between liberals and democrats. regardless, i disagree with their viewpoints because i believe that less government is better: make it on your own merit rather than equalizing everyone through taxation and redistribution of wealth.
this is a capitalist nation and this is probably the main reason for our nation's success, encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship.
this is not to say that the right is without it's faults - too much influence on the part of business steers conservative policies to neglect environmental and other issues that might cost the corporate sector some share holder value.
also, the religious freaks have too much sway on the republican party.

To give you an idea of how the word "liberal" got its "bad" context, it was the official code name of Julius Rosenberg
I never heard this before. Whose code was that -- Rosenberg's or the feds? Because if it was the feds who called him that, then that's an indicator that there was anti-liberal feeling in the US before the Rosenberg case. (Notice how I assume you're not just citing it as some kind of smug knock against liberals, as if it proves that all liberals are communists.)

Anyway, I don't believe the current anti-liberal feeling among the American right wing has anything to do with communism. In fact, I don't think it ever did. I think it has to do with the American liberal push for regulation of business. This has been an ongoing political conflict in the US since the dawn of the Progressive movement more than a century ago.

Socialist, Liberal, Progressive -- all of these words have more or less different meanings but all have become tangled together in American politics. That's why American liberals are different from European Liberals. We're a mix of what would have been several parties -- especially the Progressives.

The other day Dennis Prager and I were hanging out and we decided to build a straw man and then we destroyed it and then we went out and voted Republican.
And then I helped him write a news column that didn't so much report on the news as it advocated social change. But at least it wasn't like any of his columns where he supported the promotion of Right-wing values in public schools. And it certainly wasn't like any of his columns where he supported the record of Antonin Scalia, who despite being the most influential right-winger in the judiciary, contends that judicial activism is not a bad thing (and I suspect most right-wingers agree with him, despite their confused rhetoric).



Anyway, since the term liberal has become so convoluted these days, a lot on the left here in the USA now prefer the term progressive. Whatever that means.

Lol, "American left". It's almost a contradiction. There's no real difference between the two parties on the important issues. The Republicans are just as socialist as the Democrats.

I agree that they're virtually the same, but "socialist" is not the word I would use to describe them

I consider them as Centre or centre left. The are slightly yet distinctly to the left of the US democratic party.
They're small-c conservatives. They aren't anywhere near to being left-of-centre. And as far as the US Democrats go, even the Conservative Party of Canada sits to the left of the Democrats, so it's not saying much.

To get back to the question, and after reading many of the posts I can spot some confusion, and maybe the following over-simplifies the situation;

Liberals tend to be more middle class (although not exclusively). Some are libretarian in their views towards economic policy, in that there should be a largely unhindered free market. Others in terms of social policy and tend to be very moralistic and principled, believing that all should be treated equally and that no-one should have an advantage over someone else. For example, these believe in free education for all and the redistribution of wealth. Hence, liberalism cannot be explained via the political compass.

The other day Dennis Prager and I were hanging out and we decided to build a straw man and then we destroyed it and then we went out and voted Republican.
And then I helped him write a news column that didn't so much report on the news as it advocated social change. But at least it wasn't like any of his columns where he supported the promotion of Right-wing values in public schools. And it certainly wasn't like any of his columns where he supported the record of Antonin Scalia, who despite being the most influential right-winger in the judiciary, contends that judicial activism is not a bad thing (and I suspect most right-wingers agree with him, despite their confused rhetoric).



Anyway, since the term liberal has become so convoluted these days, a lot on the left here in the USA now prefer the term progressive. Whatever that means.
At least the Progressives used to be an actual American party. In fact, they were 3 parties -- link: http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761558633/Progressive_Party_(United_States).html

The Progressive movement in the US has always interested me because it seems to become active whenever the extreme right wing gets too aggressive or when the government in general gets too corrupt. And they seem to operate on the idea that social justice is not a left wing/right wing issue. It seems to be a "core values" movement. Lots of movements claim to be that, but the Progressives seem not to profit much by their actions, so I think they really may be concerned with values.

Which is to say not at all? It's an odd example to use, socialist that is. Neither the Republicans nor Democrats are remotely socialist. Presently both parties tend support largely laissez-faire markets. Sure they differ on some social issues but the really important part to a capitalist society is the money.
Both support a form of mixed economy, but I would not consider them to be socialist as much as corporatist/pleutocratic. I was just trying to use his terms in my reply.

i have libertarian views but consider myself to be conservative

then you are deeply, deeply confused at a very fundamental level. libertarianism is not in any way compatible with conservativism. not even in it's pro-capitalist vulgar form.

To get back to the question, and after reading many of the posts I can spot some confusion, and maybe the following over-simplifies the situation;

Liberals tend to be more middle class (although not exclusively). Some are libretarian in their views towards economic policy, in that there should be a largely unhindered free market. Others in terms of social policy and tend to be very moralistic and principled, believing that all should be treated equally and that no-one should have an advantage over someone else. For example, these believe in free education for all and the redistribution of wealth. Hence, liberalism cannot be explained via the political compass.
True. Small 'L' liberalism is a social philosophy. Like all such things, it has its own internal spectrum of opinions/beliefs. Anyone who can legitimately be called a liberal would fall somewhere on that spectrum. And any liberal can be a Republican as easily as a Democrat (Arlen Specter, anyone?).

A Liberal Party is a political party and as we've seen plenty of times, parties can call themselves anything they like, regardless of what they believe. So maybe it's harder to define a Liberal (capital 'L', European) than a liberal (small 'L', wherever in the world).

I've often heard the difference of meaning of the word "liberal" in Britain and America alluded to. I live in Britain. What is the difference, exactly?

In the United States, liberal means more left-leaning concerning economics, and libertarian concerning social issues. A number like to call themselves 'progressives', and some will even take offense if you call them liberals instead.

The other day Dennis Prager and I were hanging out and we decided to build a straw man and then we destroyed it and then we went out and voted Republican.
And then I helped him write a news column that didn't so much report on the news as it advocated social change. But at least it wasn't like any of his columns where he supported the promotion of Right-wing values in public schools. And it certainly wasn't like any of his columns where he supported the record of Antonin Scalia, who despite being the most influential right-winger in the judiciary, contends that judicial activism is not a bad thing (and I suspect most right-wingers agree with him, despite their confused rhetoric).



Anyway, since the term liberal has become so convoluted these days, a lot on the left here in the USA now prefer the term progressive. Whatever that means.

Doesn't anyone know the difference between "news" and "opinion"?

Here is Dennis Prager's brief bio from townhall.com, along with a list of his most recent columns posted there, showing his many areas of interest:

About Dennis Prager:

Dennis Prager, one of America's most respected radio talk show hosts, has been broadcasting in Los Angeles since 1982. His popular show became nationally syndicated in 1999 and airs live, Monday through Friday, 9am to 12pm (Pacific Time), 12pm to 3pm (Eastern) from his home station, KRLA.

In 1994-95, Dennis also had his own daily national television show. He has frequently appeared on C-SPAN as well as on shows such as Larry King Live, The Early Show on CBS, The Today Show, The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball, Hannity & Colmes, and the Dennis Miller Show.

Dennis has written four books, the best-selling Happiness Is A Serious Problem (1998, Harper Collins; Think a Second Time (1996, Harper Collins) described by Bill Bennett as "one of those rare books that can change an intelligent mind;" Why the Jews? The Reason for Anti-Semitism (reissued in 2003 by Touchstone), and The Nine Questions People Ask about Judaism (1986, Touchstone), still most used introduction to Judaism in the world. The latter two books were co-authored with Joseph Telushkin.

New York's Jewish Week described Dennis Prager as "one of the three most interesting minds in American Jewish Life." Since 1992, he has been teaching the Bible verse-by-verse at the University of Judaism.

Dennis has engaged in interfaith dialogue with Catholics at the Vatican, Muslims in the Persian Gulf, Hindus in India, and Protestants at Christian seminaries throughout America. For ten years, he conducted a weekly interfaith dialogue on radio, with representatives of virtually every religion in the world.

From 1985 to 1995, Dennis Prager wrote and published the quarterly journal, Ultimate Issue. From 1995 to 2000, he wrote The Prager Perspective. His writings have also appeared in major national and international publications such as Commentary, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times. His newsletter essay on homosexuality and civilization was awarded the $10,000 Amy Foundation First Prize.

Mr. Prager was a Fellow at Columbia University's School of International Affairs, where he did graduate work at the Middle East and Russian Institutes. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the U.S. Delegation to the Vienna Review Conference on the Helsinki Accords. He holds an honorary doctorate of law from Pepperdine University.

Mr. Prager has lectured on all 7 continents, in 45 U.S. states and in 9 of Canada's 10 provinces. He has lectured in Russian in Russia, and in Hebrew in Israel. Hundreds of his lectures are available on tape at his website www.dennisprager.com .

He has made and starred in For Goodness Sake (1991) , a video directed by David Zucker (Airplane), shown on Public Television and purchased by hundreds of major companies. For Goodness Sake II (1999) directed by Trey Parker (South Park). In 2002 Dennis produced a documentary , Israel in a Time of Terror (2002), a compelling look at how the average Israeli deals with the daily threat of terror. It has been shown at colleges, universities, churches and synagogues across the country.

Dennis periodically conducts orchestras, and has introduced hundreds of thousands of people to classical music.
Recent Articles by Dennis Prager:

* Jan 17, 2006 - - The Left hates inequality, not injustice (column)
* Jan 10, 2006 - - "Munich" and revenge (column)
* Jan 4, 2006 - - Explaining Jews, part one: What is a Jew? (column)
* Dec 28, 2005 - - On the suicide of a child and parents' luck (column)
* Dec 20, 2005 - - Jews who support the Christian right (column)
* Dec 13, 2005 - - If you're thinking of marrying...part II (column)
* Dec 6, 2005 - - If you're thinking of marrying: Part I (column)
* Nov 29, 2005 - - Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands (column)
* Nov 22, 2005 - - The left hates inequality, not evil (column)
* Nov 15, 2005 - - Jordanians are shocked -- shocked! -- that a wedding would be blown up (column)
* Nov 8, 2005 - - Happy people make the world better (column)
* Nov 1, 2005 - - Who believes in American Exceptionalism? Judeo-Christian values part XXIV (column)
* Oct 25, 2005 - - The difficulty of intellectually engaging the Left (column)
* Oct 11, 2005 - - How the Left harmed America this week (column)
* Oct 4, 2005 - - The Bennett libel divides the decent left from the indecent left (column)
* Sep 27, 2005 - - The left and hysteria (column)
* Sep 20, 2005 - - First fight yourself, then society: Judeo-Christian values: part XXIII (column)
* Sep 13, 2005 - - The feminization of society: Judeo-Christian values: part XXII (column)
* Aug 30, 2005 - - Just one question for opponents of the war (column)
* Aug 23, 2005 - - The rejection of materialism (Part XXI) (column)
* Aug 16, 2005 - - Stem cells, Nazis, Jews and Christians (column)
* Aug 9, 2005 - - There is no viable alternative: Judeo-Christian values Part XX (column)
* Aug 2, 2005 - - The challenge of the transgendered: Judeo-Christian values, part XIX (column)
* Jul 26, 2005 - - What the world owes Palestinians and the Left (column)
* Jul 19, 2005 - - Murderers must die: Judeo-Christian values: Part XVIII (column)

Doesn't anyone know the difference between "news" and "opinion"?

Here is Dennis Prager's brief bio from townhall.com, along with a list of his most recent columns posted there, showing his many areas of interest:

About Dennis Prager:

Dennis Prager, one of America's most respected radio talk show hosts, has been broadcasting in Los Angeles since 1982. His popular show became nationally syndicated in 1999 and airs live, Monday through Friday, 9am to 12pm (Pacific Time), 12pm to 3pm (Eastern) from his home station, KRLA.

<snip>
"respected ... talk show host" -- that's hilarious!!

Anyhoo, I think the earlier post was objecting to an even earlier post that quoted Dennis Prager as if he was giving news, instead of opinion -- or as if a talk show host's opinion should matter more than, say, Tom Cruise's. So I guess the answer to your question is, no, people don't know the difference between news and opinion. :D

then you are deeply, deeply confused at a very fundamental level. libertarianism is not in any way compatible with conservativism. not even in it's pro-capitalist vulgar form.

Here is another confused individual:

A "firebrand libertarian" according to "Daily Variety," best-selling author and radio talk-show host Larry Elder (http://www.larryelder.com/index.html) has a take-no-prisoners style, using such old-fashioned things as evidence and logic. Larry shines the bright light of reasoned analysis on many of the myths and hypocrisies apparent in our system of government, our society, and the media itself. He slays dragons and topples sacred cows using facts, common sense and a ready wit.

Larry Elder has been on KABC Talk Radio in Los Angeles since March, 1994, hosting "The Larry Elder Show," a top-rated daily program from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. (PT) on KABC 790, and began a nationally syndicated daily talk show for ABC Radio Networks on August 12, 2002. Known to his listeners as the "Sage From South Central," Larry sizzles on the airwaves with his thoughtful insight on the day’s most provocative issues, to the delight, consternation, and entertainment of his listeners. The "Sage" engages political and cultural leaders in meaningful debates over race, government, personal responsibility and education that have elevated the talk radio genre. A blend of fiscal conservative and social liberal—with attitude—Elder’s libertarian views have fueled controversy and made him one of the most in-demand radio personalities in the country. In May, 2003, Elder shifted his political party registration from "Decline to State" (which, in California, means independent) to the Republican Party. He continues to support the libertarian principles of limited government and maximum personal and financial responsibility.

In his best-selling book, The 10 Things You Can’t Say in America, Larry skewers the crippling myths that dominate the public agenda. Larry punctures all pretension, trashes accepted "wisdom" and puts everyone on notice that the status quo must be shaken up. In his new book, Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America—released in Fall 2002—Larry again takes on liberals, victicrats and the politically correct. He currently writes a nationally syndicated newspaper column which is distributed through Creators Syndicate.

"The Ten ThingsYou Can't Say in America" spent several weeks on the "New York Times" and "Los Angeles Times" best-seller lists. "Showdown" debuted at number 24 on the "New York Times" extended list and appeared on the "Los Angeles Times" paperback best-seller list. He also won a Los Angeles local Emmy for best news special. He received a Congressional proclamation for
contributions to America for his radio program.

Born and raised in South Central Los Angeles, Elder attended Brown University, receiving a BA in Political Science in 1974. He then attended University of Michigan, School of Law, graduating in 1977. Immediately following graduation, he worked with a large law firm in Cleveland, Ohio, where he practiced litigation. He then opened "Laurence A. Elder and Associates," a business specializing in recruiting experienced attorneys. At the same time, he hosted a topic-oriented television show in Cleveland, first on PBS, then on the local Fox affiliate.

Larry was also host of the television show, Moral Court, distributed by Warner Brothers Television. Elder was the subject of a profile by "60 Minutes" and "20/20" and sat in for the vacationing Geraldo on CNBC’s "Rivera Live." He was the reporter on the groundbreaking PBS "National Desk," including the segment, "Redefining Racism: Fresh Voices From Black America," for which he won a 1998 AEGIS Award of Excellence, a 1998 Telly award, and a 1999 Emerald City Gold Award of Excellence. He has portrayed himself on sitcoms ranging from "The Hughleys" to "Spin City."

The left hijacked our name after they had given socialist and the like a negative connotation. So then we either had to make a distinction by calling ourselves classic liberals, or libertarians. The latter term of which, the left is trying to tarnish again with their reputation (oxymoronic libertarian socialism *grumble*)

fiscal conservative

this is a completely meaningless term, unless one means by it 'supports spending state money on traditionalist projects'

The left hijacked our name after they had given socialist and the like a negative connotation. So then we either had to make a distinction by calling ourselves classic liberals, or libertarians. The latter term of which, the left is trying to tarnish again with their reputation (oxymoronic libertarian socialism *grumble*)

so remind me again how many times we've taken down this bit of anti-historical mythologizing on your part?

The left hijacked our name after they had given socialist and the like a negative connotation. So then we either had to make a distinction by calling ourselves classic liberals, or libertarians. The latter term of which, the left is trying to tarnish again with their reputation (oxymoronic libertarian socialism *grumble*)
I disagree with you on that. I know some liberal libertarians, but I know some others who are borderline fascists. What defines a libertarian has a lot more to do with the relationship between government and the individual and is not dependant on a philosophy of social justice. Liberalism is about social justice, whether it's views on that are right or not. Liberalism doesn't have to be concerned with government or politics at all -- it can be about any social interaction.

so remind me again how many times we've taken down this bit of anti-historical mythologizing on your part?
I'd be learning it for the first time. ;)

this is a completely meaningless term, unless one means by it 'supports spending state money on traditionalist projects'

I thought "fiscal conservative" meant 'supports spending as little public money as possible while meeting basic government mandates (defense, public safety).'

At least, that's how Larry Elder makes it sound...;)

I thought "fiscal conservative" meant 'supports spending as little public money as possible while meeting basic government mandates (defense, public safety).'

At least, that's how Larry Elder makes it sound...;)

well, some people claim it means that, but these people are either delusional or lying. the most obvious demonstration of this is that they all seem to hold ronald reagan to be a 'fiscal conservative'.

I will link to an article by a man who is much more articulate and expressive than I, on this and many other issues, namely Dennis Prager.

Timely for him to publish this one...:cool:

The Left hates inequality, not injustice (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/dennisprager/2006/01/17/182480.html)

This article is on one of the things I figured out long ago, that made me switch from voting Democrat to Republican. Just one of many issues I have with the American Left.

By that article, I'm not sure if Dennis Prager understands what justice is. Justice is giving to a man what he deserves and refraining from giving a person what he doesn't deserve. The poor in this country often have a hard time getting what they deserve and avoiding what they don't because they lack the money to insure a fair verdict. The judge who he condemns in that article, by righting those economic inequalities, is also serving the cause of justice.

american= left wing
rest of world= member of lib party

They're small-c conservatives. They aren't anywhere near to being left-of-centre. And as far as the US Democrats go, even the Conservative Party of Canada sits to the left of the Democrats, so it's not saying much.
The Liberals in Canada aren't anywhere near to being left-of-centre? I totally dissagree.

By that article, I'm not sure if Dennis Prager understands what justice is. Justice is giving to a man what he deserves and refraining from giving a person what he doesn't deserve. The poor in this country often have a hard time getting what they deserve and avoiding what they don't because they lack the money to insure a fair verdict. The judge who he condemns in that article, by righting those economic inequalities, is also serving the cause of justice.

Social justice, or giving the poor man what he needs, is not the province of the judiciary, at least not in the United States of America. That is not according to the constitution.

If you want to right social wrongs, you must elect politicians to enact your agenda, not get courts to rule in your favor by creating laws without any input from the electorate. The legislature is supposed to legislate, create laws, as representatives of the people.

Judges do not represent the people. They are supposed to administer justice. Legal justice, not social justice.

And that is the point that Dennis was making.

I'd be learning it for the first time. ;)

well, for starters, the "yay for capitalism!" usage of the word 'libertarian' came about 110 years after being drafted by the anarchists from the even older debates about free will. joseph déjacque published a magazine in new york called "le libertaire" starting in 1858, which was the first anarcho-communist journal in america. and we were still using it when these whipper-snappers showed up - the oed even feels a sentence about the 'libertarian left' from 1969 makes for a good example.


for a second helping, i'd assume that the free-marketeers of the libertarian party would find a few things to complain about in the writings of some of the well-known actual classical liberals. like support for restrictions on corporate power, arguments in favor of guaranteed basic incomes and an old age pensions for everyone, early attacks on some of the foundations of private property as we know it, etc. the people we refer to as classical liberals were a rather diverse bunch, some branch of which historically did develop into modern u.s. liberalism (by way of j.s. mill and general revulsion at the horrors of 19th and early 20th century capitalism).

They are supposed to administer justice.

socrates time: what is 'justice'?