• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

adults and responsibility

where does the main issue lie?

  • There are factors we do not yet understand

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • these may seem like a failure of programs but are for the best for society

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
yes and no. when discussing issues of freedom, it always gets murky as there are different shades and view of exactly what we want to be free from. as a progressive (which I view as being both compatible with conservatism and liberalism) to me, the question is "free from what?". In the end, we are all subject to frailties that physical existence subjects ourselves to from instinctual drives, to biological, to emotional, to spiritual, to social needs (and other categories), which in the end makes us subjects or something whether we like it or not. some traditions of liberalism like to make a distinction between society and the individual in some cases, but I personally don't see the need for it and such a distinction as being wholly artificial. Some would promote the idea that this distinction is where the line to freedom truly is. but even then we are still subject to all sorts of forces and are our lives any better as a result?

that question, obviously is unanswerable as there is no determinism in what it asks. it simply states that without one force, we are simply better off in a metaphysical sense that may or may not control for practical benefits. so yes, modern liberalism offers freedom and so does old school liberalism, and frankly so does theocracy, communism, and any other ism, its just a matter of "which freedom". Even despotism offers freedom from the burden of choice (which can be attractive for a higher % of the population than most would suspect, unfortunately) and certain types of consequences.

In the end, we are just a mess and bundle of drives and needs a smattering of logic thrown on top for self justification and rationalization. which freedom is best? I personally am not sure. I don't see the old models as realistic, but idealistic in light of what we know about how the brain functions, yet at the same time, there is use for high expectations and stretch goals as it brings out the best in people (but then the libertarians would be in horror in that i would even see their philosophy as only useful in the same practical and social engineering considerations I see in the use of any philosophy) in certain ways, but it also brings out the worst in people as well.

So in a sense mill had it right and wrong as there is no clear standard because humans just ain't built with a single overriding drive, but a mix of competing drives which is what gives rise to all styles of political philosophy in the first place.

Exactly. All of this is ultimately put together in various different shades of gray. How objectively "desirable" any given system happens to be all depends, in the end, on what you are trying to accomplish.

While I personally lean a bit more towards the very mildly Libertarian side of things in my ideology, I am fully willing to admit that systems which provide greater or lesser degrees of freedom can be preferable under certain circumstances. For instance, during the Dark Ages, an authoritarian government which provided a person "freedom" from fear and harm in a dangerous world was preferable to democracy.

Today, there isn't as much of a need for that kind of thing, so our society has shifted to provide a much greater level of personal and political autonomy. There is nothing wrong with that.

Practicality ultimately determines what the "best" system, and the best degree of "freedom," for any given situation happens to be, IMO.

Unfortunately, however; it simply happens to be the case that people will occasionally get it wrong, and wind up supporting a broken and unsustainable system as a consequence of this. When this happens, the results generally tend to be disastrous on a long term basis.
 
That is, in essence, what modern "Liberals" attempt to do. They want to force our society, and the people living within it, to be "free" (as Liberals define the term) regardless of whether they want it or not.

As I said, it's a strange kind of paradox. It's both socially Libertarian and politically Authoritarian at the same time.

Both the liberals and the neo-cons are authoritarian. They are really both the same thing, they just get their ideas that they want to enforce from different places and both of them spend like drunken sailors. There are no actual conservative political parties right now, it's just the loony left liberals and the religious right liberals.
 
Both the liberals and the neo-cons are authoritarian. They are really both the same thing, they just get their ideas that they want to enforce from different places and both of them spend like drunken sailors. There are no actual conservative political parties right now, it's just the loony left liberals and the religious right liberals.

Absolutely.

However, I would point out that, if we want to get technical about things here, there are no "Conservatives" in the United States at all. "Conservatives," as classically defined, support either Monarchal or Theocratic forms of government.

As pretty much no one in the United States supports that, we are all "Liberal" to some extent or another. The real divide in American politics these days is simply between more Capitalistic Liberals on the one side, who favor economic freedom while supporting social authoritarianism, and Socialistic Liberals (that are honestly so far to the Left these days that they barely even qualify for the 'Liberal' moniker anymore) who favor social freedom while supporting economic authoritarianism on the other.
 
Absolutely.

However, I would point out that, if we want to get technical about things here, there are no "Conservatives" in the United States at all. "Conservatives," as classically defined, support either Monarchal or Theocratic forms of government.

As pretty much no one in the United States supports that, we are all "Liberal" to some extent or another. The real divide in American politics these days is simply between more Capitalistic Liberals on the one side, who favor economic freedom while supporting social authoritarianism, and Socialistic Liberals (that are honestly so far to the Left these days that they barely even qualify for the 'Liberal' moniker anymore) who favor social freedom while supporting economic authoritarianism on the other.

I really don't care how it's been defined in the past or in other countries, only how it's been defined traditionally in the United States and what we have now are not traditionally-defined conservatives, it's just various flavors of liberals and that's really why this country is going to hell in a handbasket because liberalism of either variety simply doesn't work.
 
The bolded isn't generally the case, as practiced today in our society. American liberalism has come to represent the idea that the ideal place for power resides in government, and that the individual is only secondary, and only desirable if it happens to coincide with what the group values.

No, 'liberal' means the same thing it always has. Look it up, and if the people you're describing don't fit the definition, they aren't liberals.
It's like identifying a tree from the Audubon guide.
 
No, 'liberal' means the same thing it always has. Look it up, and if the people you're describing don't fit the definition, they aren't liberals.
It's like identifying a tree from the Audubon guide.

Yes, I am aware of what it means.
 
Maybe the word you're thinking about is libertarian. Liberals aren't like that. Liberals are people walking in lockstep who want to control what you can say and think (political correctness). They don't want you to be personally responsible for your own actions, they want the government to tell you what to do.

I know what liberal means, I've been one all my life. If I didn't know what it means, I'd look it up. Maybe you should do that, look it up. If the people you're describing don't fit the definition (and they don't), then they aren't liberals, are they. It's a common tactic among conservatives- describe something negative and call it liberal. Don't worry if it's the truth, just keep saying it.
Wanting the government to tell you what to do is the exact opposite of liberal. Walking in lockstep is opposite to liberal. Those are more conservative traits, obedience and strength-in-numbers.
 
Yes, I am aware of what it means.

Then you know that, "the ideal place for power resides in government, and that the individual is only secondary," is the opposite of liberalism.
 
Then you know that, "the ideal place for power resides in government, and that the individual is only secondary," is the opposite of liberalism.

Yes, I do. That was one of my points. The other point was that what we call liberalism here in the US these days, isn't really liberalism for the most part, but more along the lines of collectivism.
 
No, 'liberal' means the same thing it always has. Look it up, and if the people you're describing don't fit the definition, they aren't liberals.
It's like identifying a tree from the Audubon guide.

I couldn't disagree with you more. The term liberal has been totally redefined. The classical liberal is someone who believes is small government, individualism, states rights, free markets. Today many who call themselves "liberal" are far from the true definition but the polar opposite. They are Welfare Liberals who promote big government, believe in collectivism, and are more in favor of practicing corporatism over capitalism. Today a true conservative is closer in line with a classical liberal than many of those who call themselves liberals.
 
Except that's not how it works in practice. If everyone was just free to do and believe whatever they wanted, you wouldn't have so many vocal liberals out screaming about racism and sexism and gay marriage and all of that. It would be acceptable for whoever wanted to believe those things to believe those things and so long as people didn't act on their beliefs to discriminate against others, they should be free to think and say what they want. We all know that's not how things work in liberal circles.
There's the rub ...
 
Yes, I do. That was one of my points. The other point was that what we call liberalism here in the US these days, isn't really liberalism for the most part, but more along the lines of collectivism.

Ah. I misread, sorry.
 
I couldn't disagree with you more. The term liberal has been totally redefined. The classical liberal is someone who believes is small government, individualism, states rights, free markets. Today many who call themselves "liberal" are far from the true definition but the polar opposite. They are Welfare Liberals who promote big government, believe in collectivism, and are more in favor of practicing corporatism over capitalism. Today a true conservative is closer in line with a classical liberal than many of those who call themselves liberals.

No, the term hasn't been redefined. I just checked. What you wrote, 'small government, individualism, states rights, free markets', is a pretty accurate description of liberalism (minus the 'states rights', but that too might be a part of liberalism in an American context). Anyone who calls himself liberal but believes in 'big government' and collectivism doesn't know what liberal means and definitely isn't one. Ditto for anyone who says that liberals believe in big government, collectivism, etc- they don't know what liberal means, either.
Liberals may have gotten scarce but that's no excuse for those who think that repeating a falsehood often enough turns it into truth.
 
People are stupid, irresponsible, and lazy. Both government and our national elites encourage them in this.
 
No, the term hasn't been redefined. I just checked. What you wrote, 'small government, individualism, states rights, free markets', is a pretty accurate description of liberalism (minus the 'states rights', but that too might be a part of liberalism in an American context). Anyone who calls himself liberal but believes in 'big government' and collectivism doesn't know what liberal means and definitely isn't one. Ditto for anyone who says that liberals believe in big government, collectivism, etc- they don't know what liberal means, either.
Liberals may have gotten scarce but that's no excuse for those who think that repeating a falsehood often enough turns it into truth.

No it isn't an excuse but that is what has happened.
 
I know what liberal means, I've been one all my life. If I didn't know what it means, I'd look it up. Maybe you should do that, look it up. If the people you're describing don't fit the definition (and they don't), then they aren't liberals, are they. It's a common tactic among conservatives- describe something negative and call it liberal. Don't worry if it's the truth, just keep saying it.
Wanting the government to tell you what to do is the exact opposite of liberal. Walking in lockstep is opposite to liberal. Those are more conservative traits, obedience and strength-in-numbers.

If you were a liberal, you wouldn't identify yourself as "other" would you? You're welcome to think what you like about liberalism and identify yourself any way you like, but when it comes to people who actively self-identify as liberals, they don't think the way you do. Maybe it's you who is using the label incorrectly.
 
There's the rub ...

Indeed. Unfortunately, many liberals are not out to stop people from acting incorrectly, or at least not in the best interest of all, they want people to stop thinking in a manner contrary to liberalism. This is quite clear when talking about gay marriage. Not only do they want gay marriage to be legal, they want people who oppose gay marriage to accept homosexuality as normal and natural and acceptable. It's not just about changing the laws and the culture, it's about stamping out thoughtcrime.
 
Indeed. Unfortunately, many liberals are not out to stop people from acting incorrectly, or at least not in the best interest of all, they want people to stop thinking in a manner contrary to liberalism. This is quite clear when talking about gay marriage. Not only do they want gay marriage to be legal, they want people who oppose gay marriage to accept homosexuality as normal and natural and acceptable. It's not just about changing the laws and the culture, it's about stamping out thoughtcrime.
Many liberals, yes, but I don't believe the majority of liberals believe that. The majority of outspoken liberals might. Ah, the impatience of youth. LoL!
 
To be fair here, the attitudes he describes are quite applicable to modern "Liberals" when it comes to their views on social and moral matters. The modern Left is very much "anything goes" when it comes to traditionally "taboo" behaviors, with individualistically centered personal gratification being the only goal they view as being in any sense salient or worthy of consideration in pursuing them.

i.e. "If it feels good, do it."

I think this would be more generally indicative of "Libertinism" than "Libertarianism," however.


What is being described are really statist

Statist come in both socially liberal and socially conservative forms. Liberal statists generally want to influence food, gun and similar purchases. Conservative statists (US) tend to want to enforce religious based morality. Both want the government to put the policies in place and make law when possible
 
If you were a liberal, you wouldn't identify yourself as "other" would you? You're welcome to think what you like about liberalism and identify yourself any way you like, but when it comes to people who actively self-identify as liberals, they don't think the way you do. Maybe it's you who is using the label incorrectly.

No, I checked. Merriam-Webster's. I got it right.
 
Many liberals, yes, but I don't believe the majority of liberals believe that. The majority of outspoken liberals might. Ah, the impatience of youth. LoL!

I think the majority of self-identified liberals believe it. Certainly that's the way the Democrat Party operates and it purports to represent liberals. Where's your evidence of this vast, mute liberal audience who thinks otherwise?
 
I think the majority of self-identified liberals believe it. Certainly that's the way the Democrat Party operates and it purports to represent liberals. Where's your evidence of this vast, mute liberal audience who thinks otherwise?
Nothing but anecdotal evidence and a sense of recent (5 decade) history. My generation grew up with the "do your own thing" motto, which had the unspoken assumption that you didn't hurt people. That's a very ("classic") liberal stance. Some liberals have gone off the rails and taken it too far but I've seen no evidence that it's endemic.


I have as yet to see the Dems insist on controlling people's thoughts - at least, any more than any other political organization. They push for anti-discrimination laws (or getting rid of discriminatory laws) but I've not seen much evidence of thought police.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom