My body and my mind are not mine because I declare them so; they are mine because I (and not you) were born with them. Neither did what I’ve acquired with them did not pop into existence out of my imagination.
(That was a very strange argument from you anyway, given that you want to reserve to yourself the use of “Daniel” in refering to you.)
It increases anarchy maybe — freedom for some at the expense of others. But since you’re in your “property ownership is evil” mode, I need your computer for my wife.
Besides, you’re wrong. Property ownership is the very essence of liberalism: “The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production… All the other demands of liberalism result from his fundamental demand.” — Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism in the Classical Tradition, 1927
Like Sentient already said, some people seem to confuse liberalism with socialism.
Because they haven’t chosen a specific label to attach to themselves which distinguishes them from other conservatives. Moreover, the shrill ones on the conservative side make their particular home in one of several distinct subgroups, eschewing any sense of common identity save being on the Right.
I am making no moral judgement here; I am merely pointing out a political mistake.
First off, no. The US is much more turned toward capitalism than western Europe. It is not, however, particularly authortarian or plutocratic, though we do have a handful of successful political dynasties. It certainly neither authortarian or plutocratic compared to most of western Europe, which has a much tighter group of elites who have considerably more power over the citizenry.
I love listening to talk radio. I believe that here you can witness how the word ‘liberal’ became a dirty word – I’m waiting for them to start bleeping it to protect our sensitivities. All the popular hosts have mastered the art of putting in as much venom and hatred into that little word as they can muster. It’s a great curse word, actually, especially when you take out the middle e. Those god damned lib’ruls are traitors to the country! Godless lib’ruls!! See? It’s pretty fun!
You can’t really put that much spite into the word ‘conservative.’ It’s just too long. Same with ‘progressive.’ The only way they can smear that one is if they link it with the word liberal in some way – usually involving the word closet. And that’s almost a two-fer since then you have an easy segue into those cavorting homosexuals.
Why is it that lately, you turn every debate with me into a morality judgment? If you’re not going to debate, just stop engaging the issue. Next time, before you toss out a snarky misrepresentation like “only because you seem to define liberty in terms of private property”, and dismiss my viewpoint as “a semantic issue, not a real issue”, why not stop and ask yourself whether you’re interested in a susbstantive discussion in which you hold yourself to the same harsh standards that you hold me?
I think part of the problem stems from the practice of the press. Conservatives are almost always “right wing”, but Liberals are never “left wing”. There is a benefit to conservatives to have the “right wing” label: it immediately makes it easy to talk about the extreme right wing, distancing it from the (moderate) right wing. Liberals are talked about as “liberals” or “the left” or now, “progressives”. This does not allow them to easily separate themselves from the extreme wing of the ideology. So, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Ward Churchill, and Cindy Sheehan get the same label as Chris Mathews, Bill Clinton, Diane Feinstein, and Joe Lieberman.
I hope you are not suggesting that all of those are liberals!
DSeid, I think that your post (#19) is an excellent description of the meaning that liberal still holds for me. Conservatives have brought another meaning to it and, unfortunately, many otherwise liberal leaders have sold out because of that mischaracterization.
Nope. The liberal would tell Arnold when she is offended by his speech choices. That is different from censoring or forbidding his words. The choice is still left to Arnold.
Well, that’s an easy one to agree on. Where we probably differ is on what is sufficient for the common welfare. Contrary to what you have suggested, generally liberals don’t want to provide for every conceivable need.
OK Lib. Since you call yourself “Liberal”, you are nullified by your own definition.
Based on your own statement, the only way you can avoid nullifying yourself is not to associate with either the left or the right. Am I correct so far?
If no, please explain where your Libertaria fantasyland places you. Left, right, center, out-of-the-box, with no chance of prevailing in the Congress/White House/Supreme Court. Can you do anything except PR marketing about how good the Libertarian Utopia is going to be? Let’s face it, Lib, the Golden Rule does not apply to you, because you simply do not have the Gold.
Treasongate means that you pretend you care about 250 millions of your fellow citizens, while you really don’t give a sh*t, sending 2,000 of them to die for no reason. That is what I call “being morally weak”, which you have already admitted publicly you are.
So, what is a weak moral person doing here talking about “suppression of liberty”.
Re. the OP, obviously you are way to the right of the “political center”, while you subterfuge and camouflage yourself under the name of “Liberal”. Wishy-washy.
Why is it that your appearance in these threads always remind me of priests playing with the alter boys, or Scooter Libby writing dirty books about 10-year old girls making love to bears? Are you as “Liberal” as him?
I have noted many inconsistencies in your 24,000 posts with very few credible references to support your not-so-humble opinions. Would you like to open a Pit thread, or would you like me to start one? Your choice…
But that isn’t what I’ve suggested. In fact, I’m suggesting the opposite. The OP is about perception of the term liberal: It seems to me that most on the right who are “conservatives” are proud of the label while those on the left run away from the term"liberal". I’m saying that there is no reason to run away from the term liberal. It is a proud word with a proud tradition, born of man’s noblest endowment — his free and willful consent. “Liberal” and “socialist” are not synonyms.
Truth be told Zoe, I think that Lib shares more in principals with what you and I consider to be worthy of the label “Liberal” than do many others who go around calling themselves by that name. As you wisely point out, the difference are merely in what we each consider to be providing for the common welfare, and how we balance competing imperatives in individual cases. Our conclusions may often differ, but the basic principals are in common. I think that he’d endorse all three of my “You are ready to be a Liberal” points as well; the key difference is that when it comes to the second point, he’d insist on that personal responsibility to society being met entirely on a voluntary basis, and expects that most would do so. (Correct me if I misrepresent you, Lib.) I have no problem with madates so long as the degree of greater good justifies the imposition and the burden of proof of greater good is on the one desiring the mandate.
