BF2S Forums True Definition of Liberal Please?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian wrote:

libertarianism as a political ideal is viewed as a form of classical liberalism, a modern term often used interchangeably with libertarianism. This concept, originally referred to simply as "liberalism," arose from Enlightenment ideas in Europe and America, including the political philosophies of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, and the moral and economic philosophy of Adam Smith. By the late 18th Century, these ideas quickly spread with the Industrial Revolution throughout the Western world.....

Some, such as David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian U.S think tank, the Cato Institute, [11] argue that the term classical liberalism should be reserved for early liberal thinkers for the sake of clarity and accuracy, and because of differences between many libertarian and classical liberal thinkers. Nevertheless, the Cato Institute's official stance is that classical liberalism and libertarianism are synonymous; they prefer the term "liberal" to describe themselves, but choose not to use it because of its confusing connotation in some English-speaking countries (most self-described liberals prefer a mixed economy rather than a free market economy). The Cato Institute dislikes adding "classical" because, in their view, "the word 'classical' connotes a backward-looking philosophy". Thus, they finally settle on "libertarian", as it avoids backward implications and confused definitions.

Last edited by whittsend (2006-03-30 08:24:27)

Marconius wrote:

lowing wrote:

Capitalism

An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy. Investors in these private companies (i.e. shareholders) also own the firms and are known as capitalists.



Yes Yes.....I have no doubt you feel this way............unfortunately allot of people that ACTUALLY work hard for their money and their nest eggs have a hard time sharing with those that DON'T.

So tell me again WHAT exactally is it that you LOVE about being an American??.........since we ruled out our govt. and now we just ruled our belief in capitalism.......you know, the freedom basically to go out and make something of yourself and reap the rewards of your labors........But you honestly believe it is the duty of the rich and hard working to coddle the poor........coddle them instead of providing jobs for them such as they do.

Also there are about 10 million illegal immegrants that come here and have jobs in about 15 minutes from the time they pull the tarp off of the smugglers truck....

Our govt. isn't set up so it can take care of it's citizens, our govt. is set up to allow, and provide opportunity for us  to take care of ourselves.......

In America, you have the equal opportunity to succeed or fail. It is all up to you.

But I guess the old bumber sticker I saw rings true huh????......."VOTE DEMOCRAT IT IS EASIER THAN GETTING A JOB"

Your opinion of the government is a standard right-wing "every man for himself" view.  I just don't agree with that; I feel that the government owes something to the people that help put it into power...that they need to cater to the very people that are citizens of the nation, rather than coddling the Businesses, as right-wing governments tend to do.  It's just compassion.  The government needs to help it's people and preserve their granted rights of Life, Liberty, and Happiness, as it was set up to do.

Personal responsibility is indeed important, and I don't feel that a government giving back to it's people would lessen it in any way.  A government set on aiding the businesses that are growing capital for the country and not focusing on the people ends up only supporting the richer side of the market, spreading the income gap and making it tremendously hard for jobless people to get employed.  Profits over people...

As Capitalism states: 'Capitalism encourages private investment and business, compared to a government-controlled economy.'  Again, it is but a step towards Socialism, and we are currently caught in a rut with Big Business only focusing on their profits and inflating one end of the American economy, plus tying themselves into the government to gain more corporate control.  I am of the strong opinion that this is not why America was founded, and am strongly against corporate/privatized control of the government.

Last edited by lowing (2006-03-30 08:53:42)

whittsend wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian wrote:

libertarianism as a political ideal is viewed as a form of classical liberalism, a modern term often used interchangeably with libertarianism. This concept, originally referred to simply as "liberalism," arose from Enlightenment ideas in Europe and America, including the political philosophies of John Locke and the Baron de Montesquieu, and the moral and economic philosophy of Adam Smith. By the late 18th Century, these ideas quickly spread with the Industrial Revolution throughout the Western world.....

Some, such as David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian U.S think tank, the Cato Institute, [11] argue that the term classical liberalism should be reserved for early liberal thinkers for the sake of clarity and accuracy, and because of differences between many libertarian and classical liberal thinkers. Nevertheless, the Cato Institute's official stance is that classical liberalism and libertarianism are synonymous; they prefer the term "liberal" to describe themselves, but choose not to use it because of its confusing connotation in some English-speaking countries (most self-described liberals prefer a mixed economy rather than a free market economy). The Cato Institute dislikes adding "classical" because, in their view, "the word 'classical' connotes a backward-looking philosophy". Thus, they finally settle on "libertarian", as it avoids backward implications and confused definitions.

lowing wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Or you could use that $1,000,000 to fund a homeless/social program, which allows people to get themselves situated and ready to head back into the job market. Not everyone has the opinion that you do of the homeless/jobless..once again, it's a difference in compassion vs. the "dog-eat-dog" attitude. 

What do you think forced the majority of the jobless into their position?  Business lay-offs and outsourcing to maximize profits.  When the businessman invests your $1,000,000 into a business, it will be evaluated in a way to keep the profit margins high, jobs will open up and will either be outsourced or taken by the current employee market.  It also spawns the concept of the Ownership Society; market opportunity does not spur Personal Responsibility as you feel...rather it tends to increase risk in market stability, thus causing people to be wary about success in the job market.  There is too big of a gap between trusting opportunity and flexing personal responsibility, so the government should step in and help out.  You can't give back to the society if you are in no advancable state of doing so.

And yes, indeed you do have the right to pursue freedom for yourself.  The government is here to make sure that those freedoms aren't constantly infringed by outside sources/events, such as business practices that neglect the community and only fork up their profits and pander to the government leaders that they help fund to look the other way.

Well ok..........do know why all of our jobs are being outsourced Marconius?.........it is because ( for example ) a union worker on a car manufacturing assy line with no skill other than folding "flap A into slot B" gets paid 25-35 bucks an hour, not to mention the other benefits.........Also it has been shown the American work is stereo-typed as a lazy non-productive worker who wants maximum compansation for minimal labor......ya know why.cuz it is true......I am in the airline industry I speak from experience......even I admit to have fallen into this stereo-type..........the unions have over valued the essentialness of the American work force and has demanded so much from the businesses that employ them that profit margins are suffering. and lets see.....the democratic party/liberal mentality is supported by unions. Nehhhhhh gotta be a coincidence

Horseman 77 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

The majority of conservatives lean towards the Right wing, so naturally they are opposed to anything that the Left favors.

This is just untrue. You are trying to imply that Conservatives have a " knee jerk " Anti-stance to anything or thought you may put forward.
This is Stereo typical in opinion and The direct opposite of the very thought process you as a Liberal claim to employ.

" Free from bigotry, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others, broad-minded. " Sound familiar?

Though I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but It seems you are guilty of being a hypocrite.

Marconius wrote:

Conservatives tend to not want direct progressive reforms on "tried and true" aspects of a system.

Why would you "want to Reform " something that's " Tried and True " ?

" this computer is Running well and We all depend on it, .. let me see if I can make it just a little bit better.. hmm... ( It is usually a Disaster)

I never Tinker or mess with anything Really important or Anything that isn't Owned Exclusively by ME ... ( GET IT ) ?

Marconius wrote:

If there must be change, it needs to be slow and gradual.
Conservatives are opposed to liberal reforms as most of the reforms are created for fast change.

Try replacing the Words  ( Slow and Gradual ) with ( Deliberate and careful ) replace (Fast) with ( Reckless ) Then how does your sentence sound?
Doesn't fast imply Reckless anyway when dealing with something important and delicate. 

Do we often hear " Get your hair done by her, she's fast"
" Boy he sure is one fast brain surgeon! "
" Bring your kid to that doctor He's the Fastest!"

When you Trouble shoot something important that doesn't belong to you, But you are responsible for it, what system would you use?

Marconius wrote:

Both parties will do anything to prove that they are more correct,

You have to speak for yourself here. I wouldn't sell out or troops who are Currently in Harms way, to Reclaim the White House.

Marconius wrote:

therefore both sides are basically out to demonize each other.

Again By your very definition of the World Liberal " to demonize " would make you a hypocrite,
Are all liberals hypocrites then?

I realizes in some ways I am Predisposed in many matters of opinion I openly admit it. For instance, I think most Liberals are hypocrites. You seem to be buttressing my point.

Marconius wrote:

Liberals want compromise to progress the government, Conservatives won't budge

No bias here! lol. In my Experience Liberals want compromise when they are in the minority and hold no power, When they Have power. The want a dictatorship. again  I am Predisposed in many matters of opinion I openly admit it. I believe that makes me honest.

Marconius wrote:

political polarization is constantly pushed and attacked here.

I should hope everyone would be against polarization, aren't you?

Marconius wrote:

Liberals tend to want a stronger, more central government run by the people, and Conservatives tend to want a smaller, more privatized government, offering more control to corporations.

Try replacing ( Stronger ) With ( Larger ) Note: Larger dose not mean Better. Example Does israel have the Largest Army ? Can you fuck with them and live?

Marconius wrote:

the line between Patriotism and Nationalism is constantly being erased.

Personally I think this to is closer to your Wings Display <<  Patriotism --- Nationalism >> I am not sure there is really a distinct line. During a WAR I am not sure there should be. I would readily call myself a nationalist During a War, Later I can apologize. Can you Imagine People Announcing to the Japanese in 1945 " Hey those Kamikaze attacks are Killing us ! Truman Sux ! Halsey is an Asshole, We may lose yet.

What effect would it have had on our Enemies?  On our troops? You would have to be pretty naive not to see it.

Marconius wrote:

War tends to bring out the worst in people,

In my experience War or adversity Brought out the best in people or at the least exposes them for what they really are.
War and adversity are very hard on Cowards and The Weak and thus they are exposed as such.

Horseman 77 wrote:

This is Stereo typical in opinion and The direct opposite of the very thought process you as a Liberal claim to employ.

" Free from bigotry, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others, broad-minded. " Sound familiar?

Though I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong, but It seems you are guilty of being a hypocrite.

wannabe_tank_whore wrote:

Marconius wrote:

And I DO tolerate white christian males.  Show me a white christian male that doesn't support religious infringement on public property and wants to keep Church and State forever separate, plus has no 'holier than thou' attitude and we'll have a deal.

So, for you to tolerate a white Christian male they must adhere to certain rules for that to happen?  And you call that tolerance? Why then can't I say, "I'll tolerate homos if they never have a parade, never show their affection in public, and never tell anybody they're gay?  When this is done I tolerate them."  Tolerance has no conditions... you either tolerate them or you don't.

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Marconius wrote:

Or you could use that $1,000,000 to fund a homeless/social program, which allows people to get themselves situated and ready to head back into the job market. Not everyone has the opinion that you do of the homeless/jobless..once again, it's a difference in compassion vs. the "dog-eat-dog" attitude. 

What do you think forced the majority of the jobless into their position?  Business lay-offs and outsourcing to maximize profits.  When the businessman invests your $1,000,000 into a business, it will be evaluated in a way to keep the profit margins high, jobs will open up and will either be outsourced or taken by the current employee market.  It also spawns the concept of the Ownership Society; market opportunity does not spur Personal Responsibility as you feel...rather it tends to increase risk in market stability, thus causing people to be wary about success in the job market.  There is too big of a gap between trusting opportunity and flexing personal responsibility, so the government should step in and help out.  You can't give back to the society if you are in no advancable state of doing so.

And yes, indeed you do have the right to pursue freedom for yourself.  The government is here to make sure that those freedoms aren't constantly infringed by outside sources/events, such as business practices that neglect the community and only fork up their profits and pander to the government leaders that they help fund to look the other way.

Well ok..........do know why all of our jobs are being outsourced Marconius?.........it is because ( for example ) a union worker on a car manufacturing assy line with no skill other than folding "flap A into slot B" gets paid 25-35 bucks an hour, not to mention the other benefits.........Also it has been shown the American work is stereo-typed as a lazy non-productive worker who wants maximum compansation for minimal labor......ya know why.cuz it is true......I am in the airline industry I speak from experience......even I admit to have fallen into this stereo-type..........the unions have over valued the essentialness of the American work force and has demanded so much from the businesses that employ them that profit margins are suffering. and lets see.....the democratic party/liberal mentality is supported by unions. Nehhhhhh gotta be a coincidence

American workers actually have some of the highest productivity, not the lowest.  And outsourcing is not just because of unions driving up wages, it's because the poor schmuck in the country where the jobs are outsourced make nowhere what any American earns.  I read a magazine article a little over a year ago about the wages of Indian workers.  The guy over there does the same thing I do here makes about $4-5K per year.  I'm sorry, but you can't survive in the US on $4-5K per year.

Let's also not forget that bottom lines are being hurt by execs that have wages 100's of times higher than their average worker, not to mention bonuses, stock options, and whatever else they can get.  And when all is said and done, whether they leave or get canned, they often walk away with "golden parachutes" the size of a small nation's economy.

So don't sit there and tell me that unions are the only thing causing problems with the bottom line of US companies.

Marconius wrote:

Just trying to cater to your intellectual and logical handicaps, Horseman.  You are the one that started up with hostile comments to what I wrote here.  It seems to me that you don't understand the difference between using the term "you" objectively and "you" personally...you seemed to take a lot of what I wrote and interpret it as if I was speaking in absolutes that only applied to You, whereas that is what I was trying to stay away from in this thread.

Last edited by lowing (2006-03-31 18:28:57)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

its good to know that some people on these forums can talk intelligently, no?

@Marconius:  gotta represent my man KEN (even if he does belong to a cult)  BTW, you guys are on the west coast, lets battle some time.