Liberalism

[Perseus]

Today I was listening to the Neal Boortz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neal_Boortz)(Bullshit he's a libertarian. I want kill myself every time I have to listen to his dumbass show) show, and he throws the word "liberal" around, first of all, and he kept saying that liberals don't care about the individual and they want to devalue everything. He pretty much called them communist after that. I'm not liberal, for I adhere to no political ideology, and I hate listening to his show because he is so retarded. He's up there with Glenn Beck, but to liberals of VT, do you act and feel that way? Because Neal Boortz thinks you do.

[Magus]

Briefly, what's Liberalism?[plz no wiki]

[Perseus]

Briefly, what's Liberalism?[plz no wiki]

Try this. http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Modern_American_liberalism

[Korashk]

After a quick skim on his wiki page, this guy is no libertarian. He;s one of the many that claim to be but are really conservatives/republicans like Glenn Beck.

[Amnesiac]

I'm a social liberal. I believe strongly in the individual's right to speech, religion, guns, ect. I don't believe in the government regulating everyone's lives and telling us what's right and what's wrong. Everyone should be able to do what they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights or privacy of others.

However, I'm also fiscally centrist-leaning-right, so I don't really fall under the definition of "liberal" that's thrown around so much here in the United States.

[Peace God]

Sure, not everything i believe in is far left but I consider myself a liberal.

[Sith Lord 13]

I'm a social liberal. I believe strongly in the individual's right to speech, religion, guns, ect. I don't believe in the government regulating everyone's lives and telling us what's right and what's wrong. Everyone should be able to do what they wish as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights or privacy of others.

However, I'm also fiscally centrist-leaning-right, so I don't really fall under the definition of "liberal" that's thrown around so much here in the United States.

Well most social liberals are also anti-gun rights.

[Perseus]

Well most social liberals are also anti-gun rights.

There are exceptions to everything. Some social conservatives believe in gay marriage, etc.

[Amnesiac]

Well most social liberals are also anti-gun rights.

Well, I'm not in the same boat as them. Unlike those "liberals", I actually believe in giving the individual as wide a rage of rights as possible. That includes the right to possess a gun.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

However, I'm also fiscally centrist-leaning-right, so I don't really fall under the definition of "liberal" that's thrown around so much here in the United States.

Do you, by chance fall under the australian type of liberal?

[Kiko]

I think the word liberal should be retired.
On one hand it means broad-minded and tolerant
On the other it means someone who favors reform and progress

In the States "liberal" has become a venom-soaked synonym for a sort of right-winged progressive. I have liberal social views, but in no way am I a liberal.

[Amnesiac]

Do you, by chance fall under the australian type of liberal?

If you're talking about the Liberal Party, hell no. I don't know any other definition of "liberal" in Aus... am I missing out on something? :P

In the States "liberal" has become a venom-soaked synonym for a sort of right-winged progressive.

You mean left-winged. There's no such thing as a right-winged progressive, conservatism is literally the position of advocating the status-quo.

[Korashk]

Well, modern society has stolen the term liberal from the people that used to advocate it. Same with left and right wing. If I lived back "in the day" I'd be a crazy left-wing liberal advocating the government get out of the economy, stop providing social sewrvices, and leave people to their own devices.

Today's liberals typically advocate positive rights, which are just retarded.

[mrmcdonaldduck]

If you're talking about the Liberal Party, hell no. I don't know any other definition of "liberal" in Aus... am I missing out on something? :P


Yeah, I was.

In my opinion, there isnt really anything wrong with liberalism. Although, I certainly aren't a liberalist. I am more centre right. ( AUSTRALIAN LIBERAL FTW!!!)

[Sith Lord 13]

Well, I'm not in the same boat as them. Unlike those "liberals", I actually believe in giving the individual as wide a rage of rights as possible. That includes the right to possess a gun.

Isn't that more libertarian than liberal?

You mean left-winged. There's no such thing as a right-winged progressive, conservatism is literally the position of advocating the status-quo.

Your prejudice is showing again. You can be a right wing progressive. It's simply much slower and more willing to compromise. Comparatively speaking, a right wing progressive is a meeting of minds while a left wing progressive is a steamroller, putting forward their view of a better world without a care for compromise or differing opinion.

(Yes, I'm not being balanced personally, but I'm balancing you Egg.)

[Zazu]

Purely to be a dick:

I used to believe in the whole façade of politics. Then one day I woke up to it all and realised what a load of crap it all is. Greedy, money hungry people who want to have some authority / power over other human beings. We're free men and women guize, we don't need people telling us what we should eat / what we should buy / what we should do / what we should learn e.t.c. Funnily enough, we can get along just fine on our own if we want, we dont need 'them' to fall back on.

We all survived for millennia without people telling us THEY are the power / authority and telling us what to do. Ergo, I hate all the 'isms' of politics. I believe in respect and love for fellow human beings and living life without ill-will, vexation or hate. I could go a LOT deeper into my anarchic ideals but I won't here.

Use your free will. Don't submit it to the machine of politics and authoritarian rule.

[Kiko]

Purely to be a dick:

I used to believe in the whole façade of politics. Then one day I woke up to it all and realised what a load of crap it all is. Greedy, money hungry people who want to have some authority / power over other human beings. We're free men and women guize, we don't need people telling us what we should eat / what we should buy / what we should do / what we should learn e.t.c. Funnily enough, we can get along just fine on our own if we want, we dont need 'them' to fall back on.

We all survived for millennia without people telling us THEY are the power / authority and telling us what to do. Ergo, I hate all the 'isms' of politics. I believe in respect and love for fellow human beings and living life without ill-will, vexation or hate. I could go a LOT deeper into my anarchic ideals but I won't here.

Use your free will. Don't submit it to the machine of politics and authoritarian rule.

"Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself."

You're describing a utopia that leaves out all of the power hungry, hateful people that inhabit the earth. Getting along on our own sounds awfully nice, and it would probably work with a small group of people. However, without some form of rank and order a large society would fall apart. I'm all for your idea, but I know of plenty of people who would go out of their way to mess it up.

EDIT: Just trying to say that I don't think your comment was dickish at all

[Sith Lord 13]

Purely to be a dick:

Wasn't dickish at all. Idealistic perhaps, but not dickish.

We all survived for millennia without people telling us THEY are the power / authority and telling us what to do.

OK, I have to disagree with you here though. Humanity has always had leaders and followers. It's just taken different forms. Back when it was Ugg the caveman, he led the others because he was the biggest, strongest, and able to beat the most people up. Now, it's who's the most convincing and conniving.

[Zazu]

OK, I have to disagree with you here though. Humanity has always had leaders and followers. It's just taken different forms. Back when it was Ugg the caveman, he led the others because he was the biggest, strongest, and able to beat the most people up. Now, it's who's the most convincing and conniving.

I'll give you that. It's a point I tend to completely forget whenever I talk about all of this.

I suppose that whilst there will always be some kind of natural structure formed in society, I hate the engineered politics we have to live with these days. I also fully admit and accept that the world would work without some form of organisation. People would never be able to completely relinquish the modern ideals that they hold which lead to the 'modern lifestyle' (bar all the fucking consumerist influence we have rammed down our throats) ergo there would need to be some organisational bodies / advice bodies in an anarchic society. Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the whole idea of people having more authority over others in any form of structured society. Structure forms / emerges because some people are leaders, some advisers, some are doers, some are thinkers e.t.c. Structure is there because of the differences between human beings. It should never be there because one person is 'better' / 'has more authority' than another.

I also hate the authoritarian rule that comes with modern government (law and the judicial / punishment system). I believe that there should always be indelible rights for all human beings such as the right to life, the right to speak freely e.t.c. and that even in an anarchic society, there would need to be some form of civil court to deal with people who chose to murder / rape / steal (as this would inevitably happen). I just think that the current legal systems of the world go a little bit too far with all the bureaucracy, bullshit and intrusion into peoples' lives that there is. We are free human beings. We should be able to live as such whilst accepting that it would still be wrong (in my eyes) to kill / rape / steal as this is an equal invasion of someone's rights as the majority of the 'law' is at the moment.

[Sith Lord 13]

I have to say, I pretty much completely agree with you. :)

[Amnesiac]

Isn't that more libertarian than liberal?

Using the definitions you find in modern American politics, yes. However, using this definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism):

a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

it's liberal.

Your prejudice is showing again. You can be a right wing progressive. It's simply much slower and more willing to compromise. Comparatively speaking, a right wing progressive is a meeting of minds while a left wing progressive is a steamroller, putting forward their view of a better world without a care for compromise or differing opinion.

(Yes, I'm not being balanced personally, but I'm balancing you Egg.)

I've found that anyone who could be considered a "right-wing progressive" is really centrist. I think it's possible to be a right-winger open to change, yes, but not a true progressive, since conservatism is based on traditional values.

[KylieEatWorld]

Libertarian would make you conservative economically but you would also be liberal socially. Meaning that as a libertarian(my parents are, I haven't decided) you would not use liberal as an insult as you are in some ways, liberal.