NationStates Jolt Archive

Many times when reading this forum, I have come accross people who get torn in about Liberals for various reasons, be it "their" beliefs, "their" ways of working, "their" attitude to American "patriotism".tm and various other interesting faults.

What is your definition of being liberal?
How does that differ with the dictionary definition of liberal and why?

AMK
xxx

lib·er·al (lbr-l, lbrl)
adj.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
5.
a. Archaic: Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete: Morally unrestrained; licentious.
n.
1. A person with liberal ideas or opinions.
2. Liberal A member of a Liberal political party.

Liberals don't have to invade other countries to love their own country. Although some liberals, it should be noted, don't love their country, which is a shame.

Liberals don't feel guilty when speaking out about something wrong that their country is doing.

Liberals don't worry about how they fold up the flag, or anything like that.

NOTE: In Australia the Liberal Party is actually conservative.

Liberals don't have to invade other countries to love their own country. Although some liberals, it should be noted, don't love their country, which is a shame.

Liberals don't feel guilty when speaking out about something wrong that their country is doing.

Liberals don't worry about how they fold up the flag, or anything like that.

NOTE: In Australia the Liberal Party is actually conservative.

Your point Pezalia is exactly why I started this thread. People automatically assign liberalism to a political standpoint when most of the definitions in Ifreann's post are apolitical.
Why do people of a liberal persuasion automatically have assumed political standing?

In Scotland the liberal party split at the end of the 19th Century into a Unionist faction and a "radical" faction. Eventually the Unionist faction became the Conservative and Unionist party and the "radical" part threw its weight behind the Labour party which was at that time socialist.
Does that perhaps illustrate the dichotomy or range of opinions that can be classed as liberal and explain why it has now such an assumed and to the view of detractors, anathemic definition?

AMK
xxx

Liberals hate themselves, their country, their gender, their race, and all religions. Liberals support immorality (sexual and otherwise) and dissent, as well as gross pacifist policies and multicultural supremacism.

Conservatives love who they are, their country, their gender, their race, and their religion. Conservatives support morality and order, and know war is sometimes inevitable for the security of its people and also have a strong pride in their own culture and know that multiculturalism doesn't work.

Liberals hate themselves, their country, their gender, their race, and all religions. Liberals support immorality (sexual and otherwise) and dissent, as well as gross pacifist policies and multicultural supremacism.

Conservatives love who they are, their country, their gender, their race, and their religion. Conservatives support morality and order, and know war is sometimes inevitable for the security of its people and also have a strong pride in their own culture and know that multiculturalism doesn't work.

So Liberals in your opinion are weak non racists who dislike killing people when they are unsure of the motives?

I'm a Classic Liberal in the Anglo-European sense. Which means I'm sceptical of government and sceptical of the concept of society. There is a very fine balance between the legitimate limitation of individual rights by society and tyranny. And in my opinion, most countries today fall into the latter category. In practice, it means I'm anti-war, anti-tax, anti-national and pro-business, pro-gay and pro-abortion.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/
Read the introduction. It's a great piece of writing.
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Liberals hate themselves, their country, their gender, their race, and all religions. Liberals support immorality (sexual and otherwise) and dissent, as well as gross pacifist policies and multicultural supremacism.

Conservatives love who they are, their country, their gender, their race, and their religion. Conservatives support morality and order, and know war is sometimes inevitable for the security of its people and also have a strong pride in their own culture and know that multiculturalism doesn't work.

Nice stereotypes. Now trying pulling your head out of that bottomless life-sucking void known as America and realise that this is why there are problems in the world because people assume that simply because one group holds different views that they are inherently evil and possess only negative characteristics.

Nice stereotypes. Now trying pulling your head out of that bottomless life-sucking void known as America and realise that this is why there are problems in the world because people assume that simply because one group holds different views that they are inherently evil and possess only negative characteristics.

Any chance of keeping this post as subjective as possible?
I am really interested to get as many people's ideas and opinions on the OP as possible without it degenerating into a slanging match between two rival factions. (As fun as that is ;) )
That is why I am not putting my political standpoint over as well, so as not to inflame those who disagree with it.

AMK
xxx

Any chance of keeping this post as subjective as possible?
I am really interested to get as many people's ideas and opinions on the OP as possible without it degenerating into a slanging match between two rival factions. (As fun as that is ;) )
That is why I am not putting my political standpoint over as well, so as not to inflame those who disagree with it.

AMK
xxx

You know that anything political on NSG eventually breaks down into a giant pissing contest anyway, I'm just facilitating the process by speeding it up with a nice dose of bald-faced assholery.

Personally I hold that a true liberal position is one that considers all things rather than jumping to a conclusion.

Nice stereotypes. Now trying pulling your head out of that bottomless life-sucking void known as America and realise that this is why there are problems in the world because people assume that simply because one group holds different views that they are inherently evil and possess only negative characteristics.

Well if it isn't another american hating canadian. Not holding to stereotypes are we?

I'm a Classic Liberal in the Anglo-European sense. Which means I'm sceptical of government and sceptical of the concept of society. There is a very fine balance between the legitimate limitation of individual rights by society and tyranny. And in my opinion, most countries today fall into the latter category. In practice, it means I'm anti-war, anti-tax, anti-national and pro-business, pro-gay and pro-abortion.

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/
Read the introduction. It's a great piece of writing.

the thing is that in our day and age society and culture are so interwined that if we were to untwine one we would untwine both.

Well if it isn't another american hating canadian. Not holding to stereotypes are we?

I thought all Canadians hated America? I thought all Americans ridiculed Canadians. It appears I thought right.
Sweet.

And aye, Kryozerkia it always does break down into a great slagging match, thats half the fun. Im trying this as a challenge to see if we can all be adult for a while and behave ;) Im usually the worst for getting torn in to idiots, but even I am witholding my Jacobean instinct and not going for the jugular! :p

AMK
xxx

I thought all Canadians hated America? I thought all Americans ridiculed Canadians. It appears I thought right.
Sweet.

And aye, Kryozerkia it always does break down into a great slagging match, thats half the fun. Im trying this as a challenge to see if we can all be adult for a while and behave ;) Im usually the worst for getting torn in to idiots, but even I am witholding my Jacobean instinct and not going for the jugular! :p

AMK
xxx

BUT HE STARTED IT!!! lol. No I'm just saying if one wants to ridicule stereotypes one should not hold his or herself to other stereotypes.

BUT HE STARTED IT!!! lol. No I'm just saying if one wants to ridicule stereotypes one should not hold his or herself to other stereotypes.

Yip, you're right. now back to the original subject....

AMK
xxx

liberalism is thinking in new ways, ways that no other person has thought of yet. It obviously doesn't advocat thinking in homicidal terms, but it does advocate thinking outside the box. A liberal is someone who is truly compassionate towards others. An intelligent liberal is someone who understands that their compassion towards someone may not always help that person and be able to accept this. A stupid liberal is someone who does not see the bigger picture and instead continues thrashing themselves against the wall of social poverty, trying to make it go away.

Is anyone at all wanting to refute my claims? cause when I was here last time there would be at last ten people by now trying to get at me.

Well if it isn't another american hating canadian. Not holding to stereotypes are we?

I don't hate Americans, I hate the country of America because it no longer is the beacon of freedom, democracy and tolerance that it once was. I hate the government of it and the people who are blind to the damage it causes.

I wouldn't think negatively of America if I hadn't been subject to bullshit when trying to get to my connecting flight. I had to go through a secondary passport check because of my name. I almost missed my flight.

I thought all Canadians hated America? I thought all Americans ridiculed Canadians. It appears I thought right.
Sweet.

And aye, Kryozerkia it always does break down into a great slagging match, thats half the fun. Im trying this as a challenge to see if we can all be adult for a while and behave ;) Im usually the worst for getting torn in to idiots, but even I am witholding my Jacobean instinct and not going for the jugular! :p

AMK
xxx

Hating America is not the same as hating Americans. You hate the nation, not the people; hence you hate the administration. But most people fail to make that distinction.

There is nothing wrong with going for the jugular. :)

and the people who are blind to the damage it causes.





Well I'd say most of America is pretty pissed off at the government right now for the damage its caused and to a certain extent that is refutable and to a certain extent it isn't. Currently America is slightly different from other modern democracies because it has no unified culture, no truly unified language and one equally divided political stage. So basically using 'the people' is very stereotypical and I take great offence to it. I'm sorry if I offended you with sterteotype but I was merely pointing the hypocrisy of your statement.

I don't hate americans...I hate the government of it and the people who are blind to the damage it causes.



Hating America is not the same as hating Americans. You hate the nation, not the people; hence you hate the administration. But most people fail to make that distinction.


Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy here.

Hopefully you can see the hypocrisy here.

I didn't say "the people are blind", I said "the people who are blind", which is completely different. It may require a little reading comprehension, but the difference is clear enough.

Well I'd say most of America is pretty pissed off at the government right now for the damage its caused and to a certain extent that is refutable and to a certain extent it isn't. Currently America is slightly different from other modern democracies because it has no unified culture, no truly unified language and one equally divided political stage. So basically using 'the people' is very stereotypical and I take great offence to it. I'm sorry if I offended you with sterteotype but I was merely pointing the hypocrisy of your statement.

'The people who'. It appears that you have ignored the third word, which is "who". You're reading selectively instead of all of it. If you read the whole sentence, you realise that I'm only referring to those who are ignorant of the facts at hand and not all. It's easy to take something out of context when you ignore the bloody context in the first place.

'The people who'. It appears that you have ignored the third word, which is "who". You're reading selectively instead of all of it. If you read the whole sentence, you realise that I'm only referring to those who are ignorant of the facts at hand and not all. It's easy to take something out of context when you ignore the bloody context in the first place.

Grammar mistake on my part, I read that sentence with an unintended comma after people. But since i know we're getting off topic, I'd really like to debate on the points of liberalism.

Ah well it didnt take that long for the post to get hijacked into an pro and anti america definition slagging match again.

OP anyone?

AMK
xxx

Grammar mistake on my part, I read that sentence with an unintended comma after people. But since i know we're getting off topic, I'd really like to debate on the points of liberalism.

Cheers Cheese String! :D

Ah well it didnt take that long for the post to get hijacked into an pro and anti america definition slagging match again.

OP anyone?

AMK
xxx
meh it was bound to happen. I tried to get something to happen on this topic, but I guess philosophy is a very hard subject to debate for some people.

A stupid liberal is someone who does not see the bigger picture and instead continues thrashing themselves against the wall of social poverty, trying to make it go away.

Come on, I even reposted the line I thought I was gonna nailed for. I guess the forums ain't what they used to be.

I'm away to my wanking chariot to watch some episodes of still game and then dream about neo-fascist conservoliberalism. Or girls, whatever happens first.
I'll be back to check on you all throughout the night to ensure it stays on topic... ;) have fun!

AMK
xxx

I'm away to my wanking chariot to watch some episodes of still game and then dream about neo-fascist conservoliberalism. Or girls, whatever happens first.
I'll be back to check on you all throughout the night to ensure it stays on topic... ;) have fun!

AMK
xxx

You're expecting this to stay on topic? We had a thread hijack in the first two pages. You've got exceedingly high expectations for NSG, my friend.

You're expecting this to stay on topic? We had a thread hijack in the first two pages. You've got exceedingly high expectations for NSG, my friend.

Well since you know you are doing wrong you know to stop and start debating the original post. Also the discussion on whether or not this will stay on topic is beginning to turn into a thread hijack itself so...

Back to the OP ladies, gentlemen and animals.

AMK
xxx

Is anyone at all wanting to refute my claims? cause when I was here last time there would be at last ten people by now trying to get at me.
It's hard to respond to it because you're mixing so many different world views and ideologies together to form your particular image of what 'liberal' means. I can refute your claims by saying that what you're describing isn't liberalism, but that wouldn't mean anything.

For whatever strange reason, the word liberal has become associated with the political left in the US, and as such with issues like poverty and inequality. That's not the sort of liberalism I would describe myself with.

So yeah, what you're saying probably makes sense from your point of view, but not from mine. And that's all I can say.

Ah well it didnt take that long for the post to get hijacked into an pro and anti america definition slagging match again.
I thought my post was pretty worthwhile. But no one bothered with it. :p

Well, at least in the US, there are two dimensions (at least) that the conservative-liberal spectrum can operate on. Being fiscally liberal implies a willingness to implement higher taxes and increase spending on social programs such as welfare, education, social security, etc., thus being "liberal" in one's spending habits and encouraging bigger government. On the other hand, there is a litigious/moral (which, even then, can be separated into two separate dimensions of analysis) axis upon which the liberal-conservative spectrum is applied. A liberal policy will probably be more likely to encourage social heterogeneity versus its conservative counterpart spurring on homogenization.

That's usually how I've seen the liberal-conservative dichotomy approached in my political science classes, at least. There's a lot more that can go into it, but that strikes me as the bare minimum (unless your last name is Converse, in which case you're an arrogant and incorrect prick:p). Personally, I find myself liberal on both axes. For a while I was fiscally conservative and morally liberal, but I've slowly come to the realization that the only way that set up can maintain itself is through a corporatist regime (not even libertarian, as a libertarian government still implies a somewhat sizable government) and there's a whole can of worms that opens up that I'd rather stay closed (same reason I don't support anarchism, because it inevitably becomes corporatist as groups compete for resources and interests).

For a while I was fiscally conservative and morally liberal, but I've slowly come to the realization that the only way that set up can maintain itself is through a corporatist regime (not even libertarian, as a libertarian government still implies a somewhat sizable government)...
Explain.

I think the idea of a libertarian government would be to constitutionally limit the effect government has so much that trying to gain favour with government becomes a bad way for lobbyists to spend their time and money.

Of course there'll be corporatism in the strict polisci sense in that there will be bodies of people which exhibit unelected hierarchies. But since joining and leaving those is easily done, I don't see the problem with it.

Many times when reading this forum, I have come accross people who get torn in about Liberals for various reasons, be it "their" beliefs, "their" ways of working, "their" attitude to American "patriotism".tm and various other interesting faults.

What is your definition of being liberal?
How does that differ with the dictionary definition of liberal and why?

AMK
xxx

I suppose, seeing room for improvement and wanting change. Questioning of authority, not so much anti-authority for the point of being anti-authority, simply not respecting authority just because it's authority.

I do not consider "liberalism" and "patriotism" to be mutually exclusive. I consider myself to be politically liberal. The main reason I am extremely dissatisfied with the Bush administration is because they've, in my opinion, done a lot of damage to the country.

I suppose the exact definition of "liberal," unless you go by what it says in the dictionary, is kinda subjective. And what that translates to in issues depends on the time we're talking about, as issues change. Things that are huge political issues right now, in 100 years, probably won't be.

Well, at least in the US, there are two dimensions (at least) that the conservative-liberal spectrum can operate on. Being fiscally liberal implies a willingness to implement higher taxes and increase spending on social programs such as welfare, education, social security, etc., thus being "liberal" in one's spending habits and encouraging bigger government. On the other hand, there is a litigious/moral (which, even then, can be separated into two separate dimensions of analysis) axis upon which the liberal-conservative spectrum is applied. A liberal policy will probably be more likely to encourage social heterogeneity versus its conservative counterpart spurring on homogenization.

That's usually how I've seen the liberal-conservative dichotomy approached in my political science classes, at least. There's a lot more that can go into it, but that strikes me as the bare minimum (unless your last name is Converse, in which case you're an arrogant and incorrect prick:p). Personally, I find myself liberal on both axes. For a while I was fiscally conservative and morally liberal, but I've slowly come to the realization that the only way that set up can maintain itself is through a corporatist regime (not even libertarian, as a libertarian government still implies a somewhat sizable government) and there's a whole can of worms that opens up that I'd rather stay closed (same reason I don't support anarchism, because it inevitably becomes corporatist as groups compete for resources and interests).

I actually find a liberal socialist stance tends to support conformity rather than homogenuity. Examples: France, Spain, and Russia .
In France they were able to create a bill to enforce this conformity with the no wearing of religious symbols in some sort of public place, I'll find the specifics of the bill later. In Russia in large part due to the amount of governmental influence in the lives of its people, it has essentially amounted to a dictatorship. In Spain its pretty much the same situation in France where Islam is persecuted in order to support 'Spainish culture'.

Liberals hate themselves, their country, their gender, their race, and all religions. Liberals support immorality (sexual and otherwise) and dissent, as well as gross pacifist policies and multicultural supremacism.

Conservatives love who they are, their country, their gender, their race, and their religion. Conservatives support morality and order, and know war is sometimes inevitable for the security of its people and also have a strong pride in their own culture and know that multiculturalism doesn't work.

On a related note, I'm now willing to sell the slogan "Conservatives hate the Constitution" to Democratic strategists for $100,000 or best offer.

I actually get really confused with US definitions of 'liberal', in the US a liberal is someone on the left, while the 'Liberal' party in my country is the conservative party, and in fact liberalism and socialism are basically the antithesis of each other.

It seems that the majority of the constructve discussion is coming from the American point of view, which is probably indicitave of the polarisation and closeness of the American political playing field.
Does anyone have any examples of liberalism around the world?
Taking the prevalent American theme. What is it about liberalism, if people can suggest, that is so anathemic to the conservative vote?
It would appear the definition of liberalism is one of equality and giving to those who are without. Is that a defensible or reprehensible stance to take?
If you are anti-liberal, why? What are your reasons and what events or experiences made you as such?
If you are liberal, the same questions apply.

AMK
xxx

Explain.

I think the idea of a libertarian government would be to constitutionally limit the effect government has so much that trying to gain favour with government becomes a bad way for lobbyists to spend their time and money.

Of course there'll be corporatism in the strict polisci sense in that there will be bodies of people which exhibit unelected hierarchies. But since joining and leaving those is easily done, I don't see the problem with it.

That's actually exactly the problem I see with a libertarian government. It emphasizes a privatization of most, if not all, of those things which a government is supposed to provide. While private corporations are generally more efficient than the bureaucratic mess all governments tend to become, they are simply striving to make money, rather than having any kind of idea of a public interest in mind. This leaves a lot of people by the wayside simply due to the fact that helping them isn't profitable. As I said, this leads to a kind of corporatism where efficiency and profit is likely to trump dignity and personal rights. It also results in a situation where, though it may be easy to leave the hierarchy, your options are limited to situations that are similar if not identical to the one you just left.

Anyway, I'm a bit hung over so I'm having trouble focusing on what I'm talking about and my explanation of my stance on the matter is likely suffering from it. I'll try and return to this thread later to better clarify, but I think I've marked out the framework of my argument against "small government" policies.

I actually get really confused with US definitions of 'liberal', in the US a liberal is someone on the left, while the 'Liberal' party in my country is the conservative party, and in fact liberalism and socialism are basically the antithesis of each other.

that is weird....Maybe it comes along because our liberalism is so prevalent in your country that the outside thinkers are considered the liberals.

That's actually exactly the problem I see with a libertarian government. It emphasizes a privatization of most, if not all, of those things which a government is supposed to provide. While private corporations are generally more efficient than the bureaucratic mess all governments tend to become, they are simply striving to make money, rather than having any kind of idea of a public interest in mind. This leaves a lot of people by the wayside simply due to the fact that helping them isn't profitable. As I said, this leads to a kind of corporatism where efficiency and profit is likely to trump dignity and personal rights. It also results in a situation where, though it may be easy to leave the hierarchy, your options are limited to situations that are similar if not identical to the one you just left.

Anyway, I'm a bit hung over so I'm having trouble focusing on what I'm talking about and my explanation of my stance on the matter is likely suffering from it. I'll try and return to this thread later to better clarify, but I think I've marked out the framework of my argument against "small government" policies.

And I've already mentioned my problems with a socialistic government other than the lack of productivity.... Thank you for responding, I
really want to debate this topic.

Liberalism, to me, means the broad set of western political philosophies that encourage the protection of the individual, civil government, constitutions, open trade and transparent governance. Oh, and some degree of democratic ideals as well.

I actually get really confused with US definitions of 'liberal', in the US a liberal is someone on the left, while the 'Liberal' party in my country is the conservative party, and in fact liberalism and socialism are basically the antithesis of each other.

It's got a lot to do with the fact that the US political structure developed as a dichotomy focused around a center, and because there is such a national consensus around this center.

and in fact liberalism and socialism are basically the antithesis of each other.

How so?

Liberals hate themselves, their country, their gender, their race, and all religions. Liberals support immorality (sexual and otherwise) and dissent, as well as gross pacifist policies and multicultural supremacism.

Conservatives love who they are, their country, their gender, their race, and their religion. Conservatives support morality and order, and know war is sometimes inevitable for the security of its people and also have a strong pride in their own culture and know that multiculturalism doesn't work.

The fact that you never came back illustrates just how much of a tissue tiger this particularly virulent brand of patriotism is. Or, in the words of Mark Twain:

"Patriot: n. He who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about."

Well if it isn't another american hating canadian. Not holding to stereotypes are we?

Oh, please. Are you seriously so bankrupt intellectually that you'll look for hypocrisy in the point of view of ONE citizen to stand for ALL citizens?

Come on, I even reposted the line I thought I was gonna nailed for. I guess the forums ain't what they used to be.

They can be, but the OP has asked for rational thought, which is not something that the majority of NSG wants when they come here, and for the most part, that's what's happening with this thread. Cheers to all posters continuing that relative civility.

As far as the definitions and practices of being either conservative or liberal, they are what those who report political news and political agenda say they are. All you need do to hear that in action is tune in to any AM radio talk show of the Hannity/Limbaugh/Drudge/O'Reilly/Larsen variety for the lines the Right is feeding its base, and then listen to the other side, represented on Air America/The Daily Show/Newsweek/The Nation/Harper's/and the corporate TV media (on SOME issues, certainly not ALL of them -- their first job is to make money, after all, so they're only as liberal as they who own them and as the ratings allow). You will find -- and if you're sufficiently steeped in history or favor a balanced view, this will depress you to no end -- that what is "news" is now broadcast and published in different "flavors". Which means that for any event that happens, you can now choose whose "truth" you're going to "consume".

It isn't news anymore when nobody can agree on who has a truly objective point of view, and who is spinning or seeking the company, party or societal line with which they agree. Don't like what ABC is telling you? Go to FOX. Don't like what FOX is telling you? Try NPR or the BBC.

The end result is a continued division and splintering of public opnion to the point where anyone who wants to gain any kind of favor in this country, be they celebrity or candidate (or, increasingly, both), has to attempt to appeal to either the largest of the splintered markets or be so appallingly bland as to appeal to as many markets as possible.

Overall, it's got me pretty disgusted with my nation, despite the fact that I love it.

How so?

He's talking about european liberalism which is basically american libertarianism

small government+ socialism dont realy fit together

He's talking about european liberalism

I was under the impression that he was speaking of liberalism more broadly... maybe not.

which is basically american libertarianism

If we go by your interpretation, that Andaras Prime was simply abiding by regional usage, then no, not at all; John Howard is no libertarian.

The USA has nothing liberal about it, exept when you include the <5% of the population that experiment with other kinds of political/constitutional theory, rather than the forms of conservative-capitalist-federal structures it seems to be made up of.

My view of the USA is that it's just 2 big camps at each others thoats, except when the media gives them a common enemy. ( e.g the British -> The Native americans -> the confederates/unionists -> the communist -> the muslims and arabs)

TANGENT TIME

However, it's not all the US' fault. Too much of the world is made up of sheep with powerhungry shepherds, and with all the individuals too few and too far between to form any resistance.

The result of all this is a plethora of problems; fear, oppresion, discrimination, racism, intolerance, lies and greed to name a few.

All humanity will suffer until it realizes that it doesn't matter if they worship a big bearded sky man or not, or if what people do in their bedrooms/ to their bodies is their buisness, or if earning lots of money is the only thing worth doing.

This thread is just a continuation of a pointless rivalry, which wont end with compromise or any form of goodwill.

And the cherry on top is;

No gods
No borders
No rulers
No war but the class war

However, it's not all the US' fault. Too much of the world is made up of sheep with powerhungry shepherds, and with all the individuals too few and too far between to form any resistance.

The result of all this is a plethora of problems; fear, oppresion, discrimination, racism, intolerance, lies and greed to name a few.

All humanity will suffer until it realizes that it doesn't matter if they worship a big bearded sky man or not, or if what people do in their bedrooms/ to their bodies is their business, or if earning lots of money is the only thing worth doing.



So what? Its ok for a man to watch his neighbor get abused day after day? Is the thought of the world that maybe if I keep my eyes shut then people dont actually suffer?


Any ways I have an opinion of American liberals and world policies or national policies.
I think that American liberals think, figuratively, that if you put more money into to fix bad things that they will magically get better.
i.e. feeding North Korea, or any country that people starve in. North Korea's leader sends all government money from his own country to the military of his own country while the rest of the world provides aid to feed his country, but this is ok. And the other country's, maybe if we spent an equal amount of money (and still feed them) trying to educate the people to "fish" then maybe someday we wouldn't have to feed them any more.

Conservatives are also ignorant, but the original question was about liberals.

I'm Libertarian, which also has its flaws.

And it does matter which GOD I worship. If some one else has a different choice I will do no harm or treat them no differently, but it does matter. I will pray for them and you.

It emphasizes a privatization of most, if not all, of those things which a government is supposed to provide. While private corporations are generally more efficient than the bureaucratic mess all governments tend to become, they are simply striving to make money, rather than having any kind of idea of a public interest in mind.
Well, it's all rather more complicated than that.

1. There is no seperate public interest, there is just the aggregation of individual interests. Even taking a utilitarian standpoint, redistributing resources involves taking from some and giving to others which needs to be subjected to cost-benefit analysis. And from an objectivist standpoint, it's downright evil.

2. The inefficiency of the bureaucratic mess means there is some amount of resources that doesn't help anyone. In a functioning market system at least all resources are utilised and there is no slack.

3. Making money is not a bad thing. Making money from something is first and foremost an indication that you did something that someone else thought was so great to give you a bit of cash in return. Speaking in very general terms, every dollar you earn is at least one dollar you made others better off by.

4. Government certainly doesn't hold a monopoly on philanthropy. The Bill & Melinda Gates foundation is but one example of a whole bunch of new ventures and foundations that have sprung up. Most people don't have to be threatened with jail to help each other.