I’m not sure what morality you are suggesting here, but the rule should be more like “no one should be compelled to be fiscally responsible (that is, pay) for other’s expenses which they are not causally responsibility for.” I’m not sure you can remove (3) simply by suggesting that it may be unpleasant to pay for your own expenses. If something happens to me which is not my fault, and which is not someone elses fault, why it hard to understand that I am responsible for it? Why is it hard to understand that I do not have a right to satisfaction of my needs? Without such a right, how can I expect anyone else to pay for those needs? Regardless of the direness of those needs. I’m not sure your formulation is not simply a dressed up form of “its easier for rich people to pay”.
Well, laws are permision for the state to use force in a specific situation. The use of force is not a simple organizational matter. It should always have some moral justification behind it. I drive on the right side of the road because that exposes the other drives to the least risk from me (and me from them). Even in the most trivial of situations, laws have some moral component. They most certainly should. Any which don’t should be considered for repeal.
And to answer my own question, an Obligation(2) without an Obligation(1) is called tyranny.
Again, I’m not being snippy, but why? Does this rule apply if the ones doing the imposing are in a majority? Regardless, why?
Try thinking of it this way. The particular morals embodied in the constitution (or social contract more generally) may simply be those that everyone can agree to. Like, for instance, “Right and wrong are for the individual to decide”.
The constitution can be interpreted simply as a govenrmental structure to ensure that this right to decide for oneself is respected.
pervert you are being far from snippy. No worries.
What I am saying is that I believe it is always wrong to force another to agree with you. People should be free to make up their own minds. Let me try an example. One way of looking at government is as a way to answer questions. Lets say the question in need of answering is, “Should we have a state bird?” How would you have the government answer this question? For my part I think that if most people in the state want a state bird then the state should adopt a state bird. Now you could say that the majority has imposed its will upon the minority and that is a perfectly valid way of looking at it. The problem is that once the question is raised someone is going to end up being imposed upon. The only question is, will the majority impose their will in favor of a state bird upon the minority or will the minority impose their will in favor of not having a state bird upon the majority.
I was looking at it another way. I was taking “imposing your will on another” to mean “forcing them to agree with you”. In the example there is no choice but to have a bird or not have a bird but that doesn’t mean everyone has to share the opinon that the bird is a good idea. The minority can, and I think should, continue to disagree and if they convince enough others to become the majority they can flip the bird to the curb.
** I don’t think that is possible in the real world because there are so many different opinions. We can’t even get everyone to agree not to kill each other. Somehow we must chose. I think the only fair way to choose is to pick the most popular option.
I think this assumes more difference of opinion than there is. Also, I think it assumes the wrong context. Majority rule unfettered by a political context (that is free to pass any law whatsoever) is no better than tyranny. It is simply tyranny of the minority by the majority. Tyranny of the majority by the minority is only a little worse.
The point being that majority rules is a lovely ideal if kept in the correct context. If we are deciding on who should be the mayor for the next 2, 4, or 6 years majority rule is fine. If we are deciding which members of our society should be slaves, then a 99.9999999% majority opinion is not enough. The whole point of the constitution is to establish this context whithin which a majority can govern. The point being that the majority “governs” it does not “rule”. If there is an essential flaw in this system it is that a sufficient majority can scrap the whole thing if they want to. But that in and of itself is a check against the possibility that the principles embodied in the constitution no longer fit societies needs for some reason.
You can read up on the history of Athens or Rome as examples where societies struggled with these concept.
Perv:
But the reality is that we theoretically could re-establish slavery in the US with a 2/3 vote in Congress and 3/4 of the states ratifying the new slavery amendment. Would you say the constitutional process in the US is flawed?
Whether or not an act is tyrannical is an opinion. Does imposing a state bird constitute tyranny? We don’t think so but another might disagree. Is slavery tyranny? We believe so and yet 2 centuries ago it was enshrined in our Constitution. There is no absolute measure of tyranny. If a majority of the people favored a state bird I think the government should make it the state bird. If a majority of the people feel all lefthanded people should be enslaved I think that the government should enslave them.
Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t hold with slavery. I would oppose it with all my power even to the point of risking my life. But I don’t think the government should thwart the will of the majority. The government shouldn’t judge; it should just do what it’s told. I think this has to do with respect. I believe with all my heart that slavery is wrong but nonetheless I understand that other opinions are equally valid. Wrong, but valid. You, OTOH, would prevent government action even if everyone else in the country disagreed with you.
Now it is my turn to assure you that I am not trying to be snippy. I really am not but it looks to me that while I truly respect the opinions of others, you do not. Secure in your “natural rights” you seem to respect dissenting opinions only so long as you find them reasonable. Am I wrong? Do you understand why I see no value in the concept of “inherent rights” other than to buttress preconcieved notions of right and wrong?
No, I do not see why you see no value in “natural rights”. I disagree that all opinions are equally valid. I understand that everyone has a right to their opinions, but that does not mean that I have to repsect those opinions.
I think, that I have more respect for the opinions of others than you do. You support a majorities power to silence oposition, for instance. I believe that such power does not exist (morally, enough people or even properly armed minority might be able to silence opposition physically). Because I respect the right for people to hold opinions, does not mean that I support their attempts to force those opinions on others. You do.
Do you see why inherent rights are not only valuable, but indespencible?
I will try again. It seems to me that they are arbitrary and selfserving. Another example: Lets say I lived a couple centuries ago and have inherited a Southern plantation. I don’t hold with slavery but if I believed in “natural rights” then all I would have to do to set my conscience at ease is convince myself that I have a “right” to own those other human beings. Under my own philosophy however, things aren’t so simple. I believe mostly in the Golden Rule so in order to become comfortable with owning others I must first accept the idea that it is OK for others to own me. Not quite so easy to swallow.
Well, I am glad at least that I didn’t offend you by saying that you didn’t respect all other opinions. I was worried that I might. I am often not nearly as polite as you have been in this thread.
I can’t tell you why you should have to respect other opinions. Apparently from your worldview you don’t. For me the Golden Rule requires that I respect the opinions of others because I want them to respect mine. I suppose you could always hypothesize a “natural right” for having everyone’s opinion respected if you wanted.
How can this be when I have to respect the opinions of others and you don’t?
Ah ha! You have hit upon the democratic paradox. The one thing the majority can’t do in a democracy is vote away democracy. No, I would never support a democracy silencing minority opinions because once you silence them they are disenfranchised and if that happened it wouldn’t be a democracy anymore. Enslave people, yes. Execute them even. But disenfranchise them? Never! That would be undemocratic.
So you do agree the power exists. You just think it wrong to exercise it. Right?
I don’t think so. You are willing to impose upon me your belief that we shouldn’t have majority rule. Since you are willing to deny me an equal say in how we are governed are you not supporting those who have forced that opinion on me?
In any case, I don’t want this to devolve into merely “I’m more moral than you!” I have my philosophy and it works for me. You feel differently. I don’t need to convert you or anything, believe what you wish. I’m interested in examining our worldviews and helping you do the same.
I see. So you already assume (3) implies fiscal responsibility for something they are not causally responsible for. In that case I will simply say: your assignment of fiscal responsibility is arbitrary, and it is well within society’s right to reassign an arbitrary assignment as they (we) see fit.
I’m not sure they are my expenses.
Because you weren’t responsible for its occurance.
Who is misunderstanding that?
Again, you approach equivocation. You are not paying for my needs. You are part of a shared fiscal responsibility when no causal responsibility exists.
I’m not sure your position is “I don’t mind people that aren’t me shouldering impossible burdens.” Why do you insist on bringing it back to this silly smear campaign? I am trying to align fiscal responsibility with causal responsibility. You are trying to say, “As long as it isn’t me who has to pay, I don’t care who pays.” Someone has to pay.
And everyone driving on the left side fails to solve this problem? There is some extra-moral component to the right side of the road? Those British scoundrels!
I find that terribly distasteful in a country that ostensibly enables pluralism. Terribly distasteful. For someone keen to call redistributing fiscal responsibility when causal responsibility is lacking “tyranny” you sure are quick to push your moral perspective around.
Nonsense. I am obligated to show up to work. But I am not morally compelled to even if I am morally compelled to work, for I could go work somewhere else. Moral obligation and societal obligation aren’t always clearly distinct, but they are not therefore the exact same thing. Perhaps in a fundamentalist religious state they are perfectly aligned…
I didn’t go all the way there. I never told JM he had to love it, only that if he didn’t leave it he had to pay for it. Still, I went to far. He doesn’t have to pay. He is free to engage in civil disobediance or whatever if he is willing to pay the price if his stand breaks the law. He is also free to complain that he shouldn’t be forced to give money to others. I think I have shown how ungrateful it is to complain about paying a share of the costs of society while enjoying its benefits but still, he is free to bite the hand that feeds him if he wishes. **
If by “work” you mean that they divide everyone up into nice, neat little boxes so you don’t have to think about what individuals really stand for then no, the labels don’t work. If instead you mean by “work” that they divide us into general catagories that allow you to make assumptions about an individual’s position with a reasonable degree of accuracy, then I would say that you are wrong. That the terms are still in use does show that people find them useful, does it not?
Can you give me a definition of arbritrary which fits this accusation? I am saying that if a person has a need that person is responsible for fulfiling that need unless he can show that another is causally responsible for creating that need. You are saying that when a person has a need that person is responsible for it only if he is also causally responsible for it. And more than that, you are suggesting that this person should be able to force a third party (whom we both agree is NOT causally responsible for the need) to become responsible for it. Ok, not A third person, but all third persons.
Perhaps my dictionary is inaccurate. It lists arbitrary as “Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”
My suggestion is based on the principle that individuals are responsible for themselves. While yours is based on [I assume] your desire to take responsibility for others or have others take responsibility for you. If this is wrong, can you explain the principle you are proposing?
OK, so you are not forcing me to be responsible for your needs. You are simply forcing me to be partially responsible for your needs. How is that morally different?
I think you may be assigning motives to me which are not accurate. I am not trying to get poor people to shoulder impossible burdens, I am trying to define a reasonable principle whereby we can limit the power of the government to force people to give up their property. I think that everyone should pay for himself. And that everyone should be free to pay for himself to the best of his ability. Furthermore, I am not objecting to anyone paying for anyone else. If you want to help someone that is fine by me. All I am objecting to is being forced to pay for others. Force being the primary objection.
Please. I thought you were talking about morals and laws. Not the trivial implementation issues. The law to drive on the right side was simply based on the prevailing tradition at the time the law was made. It would have been equally moral (if the tradition had been absent) to make the law to require people drive on the left side of the road. Of course you know that, you were just posing a super trivial aspect of a minor law to prove … what exactly?
Not at all. You are making assumptions about what my morality is. If you go back to the begining, I said I think of myself as a social liberal. I do not agree with the bible thumping wing of the conservative movement.
Remember, when we are talking about laws, we are talking about giving the government permision to use force. Are you seriously suggesting that such permision should have no justification in principle at all? Do you mean that majority rule implies that anythig goes? Or are there limits? That is all I am suggesting.
Careful. We were talking about specific senses of the word obligation. to wit “Obligation(1): moral duty. Obligation(2): legal compulsion.” Are you saying that you have a legal compulsion to show up for work? Or are you saying that you have a moral duty to do so.
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Partly, this agrees with my point. That morallity and societal obligation are not always clearly distinct nor identical is the point. Society should not force individuals to assume obligations except where we can all agree there is a moral justification for such assumption. We don’t always succeed in this, but it is one of our goals. Otherwise we are left with a tyranny of the majority and no way to decide which rights should be protected from it.
But this is all I am suggesting. I might phrase it differently. Such as “every person has a right to be free from force by others”, but it is the same sentiment. Namely that everyone has a right to be free and no one has a right to infringe on this freedom. And more importantly, that there are morals on which majority rule cannot trample. For instance, if the majority passed a law making the golden rule illegal, would you follow it?
Let me be more specific here. When I say respect I mean agree with, or aggree to disagree with. Some people have the opinion that the loch ness monster exists, for example. I respect their right to hold that opinion (and even to act on it). But I do not respect the opinion. When I say that I do not respect an opinion, however, I do not mean that the opinion should be made illegal. I know you did not accuse me of this, but I think maybe we swirled perilously close to it.
I am ruly confused by this. You claim to respect peoples opinion more than I do, and yet you would subject any minority to slavery? Have you whooshed me?
I’m not sure I ever suggested this. The thread has somehow become a defence of my thoughts, so maybe I missed something. But did I ever suggest that you not have an equal voice? You were the one who said slavery would be ok. I am arguing that it is never ok and should not be allowed even if the majority votes for it. I have never said that anyone other than the majority should elect officials. Only that these officials should have reasonable restrictions placed upon their actions.
I appreciate it very much. Many threads that touch on such sensitive issues quickly devolve into neener neener fests. If I don’t say it later, I’d like to thank both you and erislover for you considered responses.
Ah, ok, then we rephrase it like that. In other words, things become mine so long as they are not already caused or claimed by someone else. I thought you were attempting to align fiscal responsibility with causal responsibility. Instead you don’t seek to align them at all. At first I thought your assignment of fiscal responsibility was arbitrary. Now I see it is indeed based on a rule.
So a tornado rips down our street and everyone’s house is destroyed. Are they all my fiscal responsibility since no one else can claim them? How do I know they’re not all yours? In fact, how do I know the responsibility shouldn’t be placed on that guy two blocks over whose house wasn’t touched at all?
(And I trust you don’t intend to put forward the position that we take moral and legal action against tornados.)
Perhaps you mean to suggest that, since it is my house, it must be my responsiblity to fix it. And if I lose all my other possessions because the bank still expects me to pay for a house that’s no longer there, then it is still all mine anyway since it is my life. And if I end up starving on the streets, or living solely on charity and losing my job because I have no residence because of that, then that’s fine, just so long as the government doesn’t dare take action reassign this acausal fiscal responsibility? And the fact that I was taking care of my needs doesn’t count for anything?
Well, no. That would be theft, robbery, etc. The government will simply organize fiscal responsibility in a causal vacuum. It will do this in a manner that is most efficient and practical, given the resources and methods at its disposal which are outlined in the law.
Again, I am one step behind you. The part where what I am not causally responsible for is still mine anyway. You keep skipping this step, as I see it. I remain mystified about it.
I’m not forcing you to do anything more than ensure that individual people are only fiscally responsible for their causal actions, and that where we cannot assign causal responsibility, fiscal responsibility is shared.
No one company makes all pollution. No one is the cause of pollution. That’s why everyone has to pay to clean it up. The alternative might be to have all pollution-producers absorb the cost of cleaning it up. Which they will then use to justify some increase in the price of their products. Which more people will buy. The cost of acausal responsibility is, in many cases, distributed already by mechanisms inherent in a market and in our government. Not in all cases, though, and not necessarily efficiently.
With the direct effect that poor people will then have to shoulder impossible burdens. I find this point important. If your reasoning leads to you an unacceptable position, it is prudent to reconsider your motivations and assumptions.
I was talking about how the government does both, and you rejected that notion. You said, Well, laws are permision for the state to use force in a specific situation. The use of force is not a simple organizational matter. I indicated that it often is.
We can have everyone drive on the left, or everyone drive on the right. Neither is more moral. But we must enforce whichever one we choose.
We can have individuals who are not causally responsible become fiscally responsible, or we can have the entire public that is not causally responsible be fiscally responsible (for slightly more than the same amount of fiscal responsibility). Neither is more moral. But we must enforce whichever one we choose.
pervert says: it is up to him to pay his way out of starvation, even if it was no one’s fault that he got there.
erl says: since it was no one’s fault that he got there, it isn’t any more reasonable for him to pay than for everyone to pay, and in fact it will cost us all less if we all pay, and will also be there to ensure we don’t starve when things beyond our control happen, as they are completely likely to.
I believe I have spent a great deal of time justifying it, actually.
Well, in my case I have a legal obligation for some sort of fiscal-like responsibility to my company that will be enforced by law if I try to skirt it. I admit this isn’t always the case.
And how do you suppose you will get everyone to agree that “Individuals should be held fiscally accountable for situations they are not causally responsible for”? And once we do, what prevents us from simply saying, “Since we can assign fiscal responsibility so, we can assign it to anyone, so we’ll assign it to everyone”?
My slave plantation explanation wasn’t intended to compare our beliefs. It was offered to compare our belief structures, that is- how we arrive at our beliefs. The difference as I see it is that my conception is based upon reason. I can explain why I think a person should be free from force and that belief can be examined and debated. How can you debate “I have a right to be free from force”? You can’t prove such a right exists. I can’t prove it doesn’t. What’s to debate? . This is my problem with “natural rights”. They are arbitrary. A fellow believer in “inherent rights” could come along and tell you that they have a right to force you to do what they say. You 2 share a belief structure and yet it doesn’t seem to provide any way to reconcile this contradiction.
In my case if another relativist came along who disagreed with me on something we could discuss things and if not come to agreement then at least outline the reason for our difference. Perhaps, using the plantation example again, I am unwilling to allow others to own me if they have the power to do so and she is. We can explain why we disagree. We can have a discussion beyond “I’m right.” “No, you’re not. I am.” **
Not if I could get away with ignoring the law which I imagine I could but your question masks the issue here. A question more to the point would be “If a majority favored a law making the golden rule illegal should the government pass and enforce it?” My answer is yes. I disagree with the majority but still feel their opinon is valid. No matter how strongly I hold a belief I wouldn’t have the government take my view over that of the majority.
I would never enslave anyone. I judge that to be unconscionable. But I don’t believe the government should be in the business of judging the political opinions of the people. It should do what the majority tells it to do. If every other person favors slavery then why should the government listen to you instead of to them?
** Which restrictions are reasonable? Those you approve of? Once you put questions beyond the reach of a majority then you are denying people an equal say. You are claiming that your personal opinion is more valid than the beliefs of others. It is in this context that I was talking about respecting opposing opinions.
I’m afraid I must beg your forgiveness here. I don’t seem to be able to congeal the thoughts expressed in this paragraph into a whole. I assume by “things becoming mine” you are refering to the fiscal responsibility we were talking about. But I don’t follow your sentence “you don’t seem to align them at all”. Were you suggesting that I don’t find causal responsibility to determine fiscal responsibility? I’m sorry to seem obtuse, but I’m not even sure what question to ask to make it clearer.
Of course not. You did not cause the destruction how can rebuilding your neighborhood be your responsibility?
Because I did not cause the destruction either.
Because he didn’t cause it either.
Try thinking of it this way. If you lived on an island alone and a tornado destroyed your hut, who would you assign fiscal (or labor in this case) responsibility to? Would it not have to be yourself? What about the fact that you live near me suddenly makes the fiscal responsibility mine (even partially). Remember, I am not arguing that people should not help you. I am simply arguing that you should not claim any right to force them to help you.
Like in that song from the old movie Camelot?
Well, I didn’t say it would be fine. I’m not sure what problem you have with charity. Were you really “taking care of your needs” if you did not have insurance? And finally, I’m not even saying that governments cannot be the instruments of help in cases of catastrophic accidents. All I’m saying is that the victims should not be able to claim a right to force other so aid them. If the others wish to aid victims that is certainly within their pervue.
Essentially, I’m arguing that the principle that we are all responsible for our neighbors leads to applying this aid in emergency situation ethics to normal life.
OK, but this assumes that the government will not use force to get the money. Consider for a moment a small society, maybe ten of us, all living on an island. We don’t have any money. so when something like this happens the only way to help one another is through time and labor. How much of your time and labor (read life) belongs to the rest of us. Should we be able to force you to work collecting food, building shelters, cooking food, cleaning up after us as long as we need you to? Should we be able to do so to the exclusion of your efforts to build a boat off the island? Or your efforts to develop better hunting or shelter technologies? Where does our right to demand you time and labor end? Only with our deaths?
Perhaps this is because we are focusing on emergency morality. I think it is much better to develop a system of values based on normal daily life. And I do not think that all of the characteristics of emergencies translate well into this frame. Not all needs can be defined by who caused them. Hunger, for instance, is simply caused by the fact that you are alive. Your philosophy seems to suggest that somehow my hunger belongs to you in some fashion. Also, your philosophy seems to ignore (I may be misreading you, you have not said this directly) the responsibility individuals have to meet their own needs at least to the best of their abilities. If I am hungery because I don’t have money did I cause the hunger or not? If I don’t have money because I refuse to work am I still responsible? What if I live in a town where there are no jobs? What If there have been no jobs here for the last 30 years?
Again, I am not arguing that people do not need, nor that they should not recieve help. I am only arguing that they do not have a right to it, and that they should not be able to use force to get it.
Perhaps that is your justification, but the implementation is that you will tax me and anyone else able to produce wealth in order to give that wealth to those who cannot (or do not) produce it.
I agree with the last sentence. If you find that you are enslaving those who produce to the whim of those who do not you may want to re think your assumptions.
No, you focused on the trivial portion of that law as if it held the moral choice. The essential choice (in the context of passing laws) is whether to arrest, fine, or otherwise penalize (throgh the use of force) drivers who want to drive on the wrong side of the road. Which side is wrong is considered wrong has nothing to do with the moral dilema. The moral choice has to do with deciding if people have a right to drive on any side of the road they choose at the moment, and how to punish them if the do not.
I disagree strenously. One is far more immoral. How about if I put it this way. I am causally responsible for the balance in my bank account. That is, I earned every dollar that is in there. How is it in your philosophy that you are able to remove a causal benefit from me and give it to someone who is patently not causally responsible for it?
Of course. I may partake of charity. I will certainly apply my talents to rectifying the situation. I will never imply or agree to the proposition that you should be enslaved (even a little bit) to feed me.
This assumes several things not in evidence. First of all it assumes that we all are “completely likely” to be in danger of starvation. This is quite silly. Very few people are in danger of starvation anymore. I don’t know how you think it will cost other less to pay for my starvation than for me to pay for it. Also, if you all pay for me and I spend the money, how will it be there for you to use if you need it?
If I may say, you seem to have made some headway in defining a statist philosophy in terms of fiscal expenses. I think the analysis may be flawed in that life cannot be reduced to a set of fiscal expenditures. Much of life consists of activity to build and aquire values (money, respect, glory, fame, self-respect etc.). Your philosophy gives me no credit for building monetary assets. If I have money, I am simply the one holding on to it in case others need it. This turns the concept of private property (and personel freedom from which it is derived) on its head.
I’m not sure at all that the first sentence is true for common values of “reason”. How can you debate “a person should be free from force” while I cannot? I never said that I am the ultimate arbiter of rights. I never said that anyone else must agree with me. All I ever did was express my opinion. And dispite claiming that you respect others you have now calle mine unreasonable.
And to answer you last question, there are an infinite number of things to debate about any assertion. What is the nature of the term right. What constitutes force in this context. What exactly does it mean to be free from force. We could start a whole thread on the implications of the first sentence I quoted.
I’m not sure where you arrived at this assertion, but it is not true. If natural rights exist (and of course I think they do) they are not arbitrary but a part of nature. We might as well call gravity arbitrary.
I think I may see a little of the confusion. If 2 people believe in “natural rights” do they believe the exact same thing? Must they always agree? If we both see a cloud in the sky I can say it is a horse while you may maintain that it is a house. Why must you argue that it does not exist? The fact that we have different concpetions of rights does not mean that they don’t exist nor that I am unable to discuss them reasonably.
Unless you were too busy working on the plantation in the first place
No, I am not claiming that my opinion is more valid than others at least not simply because one is mine and the other’s are not. Quite the opposite. I am claiming that respect for others opinions implys that you must not allow those opinions to be squased by the mob. Regardless of the size of that mob.
Meanwhile, some proposals are more valid than others, but it has little to do with who (or how many) believe in them. If I believe that gravity is a force of nature and every other human being on earth voted to declare it a national holiday, I would not respect their opinion any more than I do the flat earth society’s.
Obviously, you cannot have some oligarchy which is the final arbiter of the constitution. In the end a super majority can change any or all of it. This seems to me a good comprimise. Not a perfect system, but certainly better than any other ever proposed.
It goes without saying, that when you and your relativist pals get enough votes and declare me a slave, I’m grabbing my gun and heading to the hills.
No one’s not “allowing” the economy to create jobs. If strengthening the economy creates jobs and therefore fights poverty, then a TRUE LIBERAL* will support that. By and large. But there’s a point of diminishing returns. The amount of money spent on the able-bodied poor is not very significant in the taxes vs. jobs equation. Further cuts will probably hurt the poor more than they will create jobs.
You don’t seem very sure, and you shouldn’t be. You know perfectly well that people will give less money when it’s voluntary.
It’s liberal to say “There must be better solutions. Let’s find them”. It’s conservative to have already made up your mind without proving it. If it ain’t fixed, don’t break it.
That may be the left-wing approach, but the liberal approach is to constantly re-evaluate any given situation. The conservative approach is to spend less money on a problem in hopes that it will go away.
Besides, people, liberalism is about a lot more than simply government programs to help the poor, etc. Like defending our liberties against religious fundamentalists.
It was all too predictable that someone would drag out the “no true Scotsman fallacy” fallacy. So a true liberal is someone born in Liberalland? :rolleyes: Kindly point that out on a map. I’m asserting my equally valid opinion as to what liberalism means:
Liberalism - A willingness to challenge prevailing attitudes in society, including one’s own.
Leftistism - Support for policies designed to remedy percieved past inequities.
That’s open to dispute, unlike identifying a Scotsman.
