What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow

To be revealed as one through cluster analysis, having falling within range of a set of ever changing values. So largely meaningless.

The list looks like it's attempting to retroactively invent fundamental propositions based on current liberal stances.

Edited, Jul 31st 2012 8:15am by Allegory

It's living outside of reality.

gbaji's a raging liberal? Who knew?

Classically, to be liberal is to be for the most part, conservative; that is, one who espouses a free market view that includes liberties from all but the most essential constraints. However, over time the term liberal was co-opted by the Left and came to stand for the diametric opposite of that definition. In its' place it now commonly means freedom to behave in a narrow fashion that is accepted by those outside the norm or mainstream of society. In more recent history, to be a liberal is to be a throwback to early 18th century ideals where property and wealth are viewed as corrupting and bourgeious in the Marxist/Leninist worldview. The Occupy Wall Street movement and the Left's embracing of it is a prime example of this philosophy.

Totem

Something like this.

A liberal being more likely to support trying a promising novel, untested, or more radical solution to a problem. Whereas a conservative would be more likely to support either a hands-off approach, or a less radical solution where the pros and cons are better understood.

I was watching Intelligence Squared last night, and one of the ones I watched was a debate (read: an actual structured debate, not a bunch of pundits bickering) over whether the two party system has made America ungovernable and I really liked the way P.J. O'Rourke (on the opposing side, so in favor of the two party system) summed up the dems and the reps.

"The Democrats are the ones who say 'Government will make you richer, it'll make you taller, thinner, and it'll even get the crabgrass off your lawn.' The Republicans are the ones who say 'Government is useless!" and then when they get elected, they prove it. Basically, we have the silly party, and the stupid party. I belong to the stupid party, and I vote republican because they have less 'ideas'." Note: He makes it clear in the video that he's referencing the dems as the "silly" party and the reps as the "stupid" party, and that he is a republican.

It was a pretty interesting debate, over all, though I can't say I was necessarily shocked by the outcome.

I've not done more than skimmed the article. I just posted it as candy for the question to be answered. My master plan was to get some answers, then listen to the program...but it all fell apart.

So anyways, how about that corn on the cob?

I love the word "pleebs." Soooooo much fun to say.

Well, not conservative governments, natch.

My husband was talking about an article he read recently that basically defined liberals as those whose primary focus was the "world" at large, future generations, etc. and a conservative as those whose primary focus was the here and now, and mostly on themselves.

It may have been a scientific study, actually, using these definitions... I can't remember exactly. I just remember the definitions.


Edited, Aug 1st 2012 3:11am by Belkira

The problem is in defining the difference between those two. How does one decide if that millionaire gained his wealth by "hard work". More importantly who gets to decide this? Hell. What is "hard work"?

I suppose this also touches on an interesting difference between liberal and conservative economic views. Conservatives tend to believe that the free market (with some minimal regulation of course) is the best way to ensure that if someone has wealth it was gained via positive actions rather than negative. It's not "hard work" that is rewarded, but providing others with goods and services which are valued collectively by those others higher than the cost to produce. If I spend 5 million dollars on equipment, raw materials, labor costs, etc, and the result of putting those things together is some volume of products that people are willing to freely choose to buy for a total of 6 million, than the 1 million profit I just made is my reward for being the guy who took the risk guessing that what I would do would be worth something to others and did it right. If what I build isn't of sufficient value to others, then my business will fail and I'll lose my investment. It's self correcting.

I think that Liberals try to over fix something that isn't really broken, and in the process actually make things broken. Is there need for regulation to prevent abuses in a free market? Absolutely. But there's a difference between saying "you can't dump raw sewage into a river" and "you must pay higher taxes so we can provide free health care to people who aren't even working for you". I think that many liberals justify what they (or their party really) do with arguments that big business makes too much money, or makes it unfairly, or pollutes too much, or whatever. But IMO those really are just excuses. And pretty thin ones at that. Take the current push by Obama and the Dems to raise taxes on income over $250k/year. That affects all people or businesses which make that much. Clearly, that flies in the face of the claim that it's just about making sure only people who've earned the wealth and property they have get to keep it. Regulations on business practices are sufficient to accomplish that. Raising taxes on everyone who makes over X dollars is absolutely just about punishing success.


I just think that if we have a choice between allowing people's free choices to decide how much money people make and having the government do so, I'll take the people any time. We just don't need a government deciding that some people "make too much money" and no amount of flawed justifications make it a good idea.

to be fair, I think many people, regardless of their politics, would consider the boogeyman and/or goblin-monsters to be more reliable and consistent than people.

My general feeling is that conservatives distrust government (more than liberals, at least) because of the combination of three things: elected officials have incentives rooted in political self-interest (i.e. getting re-elected) that don't always align with the best interests of the electorate; the federal government has vastly more power, influence and money than they should compared to the power held by the individual states, and; in a philosophical sense, governments only exist to restrict individual freedoms.

Or that's my take, at least. Which is kind of the antithesis to the original question asked (about "liberals").

Edit: also, please don't confuse conservatives generally with "conservatives like Gbaji." It's really like comparing apples to pedantic, delusional blowhards.

Edited, Aug 1st 2012 6:16pm by Demea