quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

First of all, we don't believe in working. We believe that the government should tax the rich and send us the money so we can buy big televisions to spend our days watching Michael Moore film fests on PBS.

Second, we believe that in addition to taxing rich people and passing the money on to us, government's primary role is to pass laws forbidding people from doing anything we don't think they should be doing, such as smoking tobacco or owning firearms. It is, however, important to note that government has no business whatsoever passing any laws that prevent us from doing what we want to do, like smoking marijuana and having abortions.

Third, nothing anyone does is their fault, unless they're a Republican. Anything a Republican does is their fault, and in fact, everything anyone who is not a Republican does is probably a Republican's fault somehow. Anyone who is not a Republican deserves an unlimited number of second chances, because they wouldn't have done it in the first place if the Republicans hadn't screwed things up so badly. All Republicans, on the other hand,  should go to jail everytime they... well... they should just all go to jail, period. It would make everything a lot easier.

Fourth, you don't know what you're talking about. Nobody does. Except us. Anytime a conservative and a liberal disagree, the conservative is wrong, because they are not a liberal. And don't even try to tell me this doesn't make sense, because like i said, you're wrong. Because you don't know what you're talking about.

Fifth, schools are not for learning. They are for building childrens' self-esteem, so that they can be confident and happy in life. They don't need to learn anything - if you raise them right, they're going to grow up to be liberals anyway, and they'll know everything they need to know. The grading system should be abolished, and all children should be passed automatically.

And sixth, we want you to pay for our health care. Because we deserve it. Any kind of health care we need, anytime, the best we can find. But we don't want your grandmother to get any health care at all, because she's going to die anyway, and the sooner she does the more money we'll have to spend on plastic surgery and hair transplants for illegal aliens.

I think that about covers it. If i left anything out, I'm sure there are a few posters who'll fill in the blanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

First of all, we don't believe in working. We believe that the government should tax the rich and send us the money so we can buy big televisions to spend our days watching Michael Moore film fests on PBS.

Second, we believe that in addition to taxing rich people and passing the money on to us, government's primary role is to pass laws forbidding people from doing anything we don't think they should be doing, such as smoking tobacco or owning firearms. It is, however, important to note that government has no business whatsoever passing any laws that prevent us from doing what we want to do, like smoking marijuana and having abortions.

Third, nothing anyone does is their fault, unless they're a Republican. Anything a Republican does is their fault, and in fact, everything anyone who is not a Republican does is probably a Republican's fault somehow. Anyone who is not a Republican deserves an unlimited number of second chances, because they wouldn't have done it in the first place if the Republicans hadn't screwed things up so badly. All Republicans, on the other hand,  should go to jail everytime they... well... they should just all go to jail, period. It would make everything a lot easier.

Fourth, you don't know what you're talking about. Nobody does. Except us. Anytime a conservative and a liberal disagree, the conservative is wrong, because they are not a liberal. And don't even try to tell me this doesn't make sense, because like i said, you're wrong. Because you don't know what you're talking about.

Fifth, schools are not for learning. They are for building childrens' self-esteem, so that they can be confident and happy in life. They don't need to learn anything - if you raise them right, they're going to grow up to be liberals anyway, and they'll know everything they need to know. The grading system should be abolished, and all children should be passed automatically.

And sixth, we want you to pay for our health care. Because we deserve it. Any kind of health care we need, anytime, the best we can find. But we don't want your grandmother to get any health care at all, because she's going to die anyway, and the sooner she does the more money we'll have to spend on plastic surgery and hair transplants for illegal aliens.

I think that about covers it. If i left anything out, I'm sure there are a few posters who'll fill in the blanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Not really liberal at all, in the classical sense, but a statist who claims the mantle. Sometimes they call themselves "progressives".

But there are some liberals still left in politics.

Most of the are Republican, or Libertarian or Independent.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Want the really scary part, Arpig?  I'm a liberal, I just think conservative methods are the best way to achieve those goals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

First of all, we don't believe in working. We believe that the government should tax the rich and send us the money so we can buy big televisions to spend our days watching Michael Moore film fests on PBS.

If that is true, then why are there so many democrats at the top of the "Richest people in the US" list?

• I think that politicians should be the servants of the people, but that it is imperative that they speak most clearly for the voices least able to be heard. Otherwise, "democracy" becomes nothing more than a bullying "majority rules".
  
• I think that legislating morality is a perversion of the legal process, and that people should be left to their own pleasures, as long as they don't carelessly or intentionally directly injure others (and for me, "injury" does not include things like bruises from Extreme Sports, residual effects of things like 2nd hand smoke, or marks from a consensual beating, etc.) -- and if they DO injure others, it is the act of -injury- that requires Justice, not the recreation, so in my book, driving while impaired places people who did -not- consent to the activity in danger and requires a law. Who buggers who where, when, and which nudie pictures they were looking at while buggering -- not.
  
• I think that there is a purpose for government, and that purpose includes assuring the safety and well-being of the constituency.
  
• In some of the immediate debates, my views on what is "just" and "humane" include the realization that healthcare, properly managed, whether privately or publically, can NEVER be a profit-earning venture, because by its nature, healthcare is a loss-based industry. People get sick, and caring for them costs, and that is just the fact, so there is NO way that anyone, public or private, who properly attends to the health of a population can -make- money off that process, so to me, it is irrelevant whether such a thing is managed by the government or by non-profit private organizations, but it is -inhumane-, -unjust-, and ethically -wrong- to deny fellow humans care because it will cut into the profits, and to me, the idea that that is even a -discussion- is such a miscarriage of justice that I can barely comprehend it.
  
• In terms of the issues of minimum wage, I believe that consigning people to slavery, where they are bound to a job because they cannot otherwise manage to live is inhumane and unjust, and that if a company is strong enough to employ individuals, a plan to provide a living wage should be part of that process. If it is NOT, and if a company is developed around the idea that paying slave's wages which tie an employee to the company through the burden of the debt of simple existence is the way the business will be managed, I think that business -should- fail. I agree with regulation of things like the minimum wage because I think that it offsets the profit-centric focus that will eat up fellow human beings as fuel for company profit, without acknowledgment of complicity in those human beings' essential enslavement.
  
• In terms of 'freedom of speech', I believe that every person has the right to speak hir mind. Period. I may -despise- what she is saying, but the true -test- of freedom of speech is whether or not I am willing to allow that person whose words make the skin on the back of my neck crawl hir voice--because if I expect free speech for myself, then it must be free for any who have something to say. That being said, I think that I have a personal, ethical responsibility to consider whether what I say might cause harm to someone else. I think that those who are in the career of journalism have an even -more- profound ethical responsibility to make sure that what they present while ON the job is balanced and accurate AND does not risk the security of the nation. As an adjunct to this, I also think that we do NOT have the "right" to know everything about everything, and sometimes there is a legitimate reason for things to be kept confidential.
  
• In terms of capitalism and the earning of profits, and in terms of government fiscal responsibility, I think that every action has a "cost", and that if we run into the negative in our cost structure, it is like running a car on fumes -- eventually, we will stall and fail. However, I believe that a company that does business should do so in an ethical manner, and that includes paying a living wage -- and if one cannot run a company ethically, then one should reconsider running a company. I also believe that a government needs money to run, and that money must come from somewhere. If I do not want to -pay- for the operation of my government, then I have no room to complain when 3rd party interests step in and not only foot the bill, but hijack my political system. In the same terms, my government has a responsibility to ME to avoid corrupt dealings and to keep itself lean and efficient, and if it is no longer doing so, then I have not only the RIGHT but the RESPONSIBILITY to join my fellow citizens in "cleaning house" and discarding all the waste.
  
• In the same way, serving in the government is (or should be) a privilege, and when one no longer serves ones constituency, and instead serves 3rd-party interests and makes laws based on the depth of one's pockets and who fills them the most, OR if one is an entity corrupting the process of representation in such a manner, then one has breached the bounds of justice. I think that "lobbying" is unethical and immoral, and is basically an act of corruption in the purchase of politicians, and that either side is equally tarred with the same brush.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Not really liberal at all, in the classical sense, but a statist who claims the mantle. Sometimes they call themselves "progressives".

But there are some liberals still left in politics.

Most of them are Republican, or Libertarian or Independent.

Firm

The idea that modern day liberals are 'not really liberal at all' doesn't really stand up when examined.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Yes: pre 20th century government was concerned with justice and defence alone. But the thinking of Classical Liberals e.g. Cobden/Goldwin Smith/Bright made ideas around redistributive public finance possible - rather like Nietzsche made Freud possible (though the nature of their beliefs weren't identical - one was a stepping stone to the other).

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Classical liberals and modern day liberals have much in common as follows: anti-imperialist/a dislike of a big army and excessive military spending/a dislike of conquest which is generally seen by liberals (classical and otherwise) to be in the interests only of narrow economic interests/a preponderance with free trade and peace/international law rather than realpolitik etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

I've heard you describe yourself as a classical liberal Firmhand - but you have far less in common with them than modern day liberals. For example: your support of a big army/excessive military spending/realpolitik etc were not the domain of Classical Liberalism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Ultimately: liberals - from John Locke to the classical liberals to modern day liberals - have a particular view of the world which suggests that we are reasonable and as such nations can live together in peace under international law without resort to ventures such as Iraq. I believe you have argued 'it is them or us' in the past (which is more akin to conservatives such as Thomas Hobbes and his successors who argue for realpolitik - the classical liberals did not view the world in such a manner).

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

The classical liberal non-conformist view and the desire to spread political power as far and wide as possible is in essence the domain of modern day liberals. Unlike Edmund Burke - the father of modern day political Conservatism - who argued that the established order should not be tinkered with as it has stood the test of time and any tinkering will inevitably lead to the destruction of civilised society - classical liberals and modern day liberals argue that a change to the status quo is necessary in order to protect the freedom of the individual from state coercion. It is only a short step from the likes of Cobden and Adam Smith and John Locke to acknowledging that just as the state can coerce so can business (witness the political power held by narrow economic interests today and at the turn of the 20th century) and therefore individual liberty demands freedom from the coercion of business - hence the modern day liberals' argument for the regulation of business activities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Furthermore: at the turn of the 20th century it was clear that the classical liberal argument had failed in its belief that free trade would negate war and coercion toward war. The poem Dulce et Decorum Est captures perfectly how the state/established order prepares men for a war which isn't in their interests. So it inevitably followed from the classical liberals desire for peace and balanced political power that Liberalism would have to look within itself to redress the failings of Classical Liberalism. The result was an acknowledgement that education/health/the general well-being of society would have to be improved in order for men of all classes to make an informed decision and protect their freedom; experience had shown that the invisibile hand of the free market was not sufficient; the government had a role to play. I'd argue that were the likes of John Locke and Cobden able to look into the future and see that free trade did not improve the lot/freedom of the comman man i.e. they were still being coerced into wars at the turn of the 20th century - then they may have argued for a government role and redistributive public finance in social matters. Free trade was merely the means to the end; the means failed to achieve the end (peace/prosperity/balanced political power).

quote:

money...you are liberal if you spend it and conservative if you don't...but really do but say you don't

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWoody

I wouldn't have the gold standard in there, it may have been something that famous old liberals took a stance on at the time, but it's a specific issue, not a main point of ideology...the overarching idea was gloabl free trade, and using a gold standard for that these days is hopelessly out of date....especially considering how close some people seem to be getting to sythesising gold economically. I'd also be slightly suspicious of the exact definition of  'property rights', but other than that I'd agree very much with that list.

Not sure how much else of what you wrote I agree with though.

quote:

I add one thing to my beliefs that aren't strictly in the mainline beliefs of a "classical liberal", which is why I sometimes say I'm actually a "classical liberal with a twist", and that twist is the belief that religion - or reinforcing beliefs systems, at any rate - are a necessary prerequisite to a sane civilization.

In other words, faith has an important place in human nature and society. Primarily, because when you deny it, it rears it's head anyway, and usually in ways that are counterproductive to all the other classical liberal beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Want the really scary part, Arpig?  I'm a liberal, I just think conservative methods are the best way to achieve those goals.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Voltaire,

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW

quote:

I add one thing to my beliefs that aren't strictly in the mainline beliefs of a "classical liberal", which is why I sometimes say I'm actually a "classical liberal with a twist", and that twist is the belief that religion - or reinforcing beliefs systems, at any rate - are a necessary prerequisite to a sane civilization.

In other words, faith has an important place in human nature and society. Primarily, because when you deny it, it rears it's head anyway, and usually in ways that are counterproductive to all the other classical liberal beliefs.

FHK,

I would like you to elaborate on this. As an individual who does not lean on 'faith' as the foundation of my beliefs, and since someone earlier clearly labeled me as a 'liberal', I would like to know -which- religious beliefs are a necessary pre-requisite to a "sane civilization"?

Historical evidence would indicate that religion, rather than being fundamental to a sane civilization, actually leads to fragmentation, divisiveness, cruelty, hatred, bigotry, and validation of violence, as well as the ostracizing of perceived fringe elements, including those who manage to survive, thrive, and behave in a humane, just, and ethical manner without attachment to a religion. Can you explain how this behavior, documented throughout history, actually promotes "classical liberal beliefs" and "sane civilization"?

I want to be clear that I do NOT deny a person's right to belief, or practice, as xhe sees fit -- however, I question the implication that political leanings MUST, in some way, attach themselves to religion or 'faith' in order to be able to function, and, in fact, religion and spirituality's role in politics in any way, shape, or form.

Dame Calla

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

money...you are liberal if you spend it and conservative if you don't...but really do but say you don't

That's right. Because borrowing isn't really spending.

Ask any credit card vendor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

First of all, we don't believe in working. We believe that the government should tax the rich and send us the money so we can buy big televisions to spend our days watching Michael Moore film fests on PBS.

If that is true, then why are there so many democrats at the top of the "Richest people in the US" list?

Because todays many of politicians make it a career choice, and not a vocation.