Liberal Views Explained

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

What does Republicanism, or Conservatism, if you prefer, actually fix?

Raider5678, jackpot, conservatism from definition means trying to keep status quo...

..reluctance to accept change..

So "fix" in "conservative language" means "return to good old times"... which sounds to me often like "continue destruction of this planet as we you used to for entire century+"..

ps. And then "some people" are "surprised" nobody wants to get on the Air Force One, on the plane...

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Sensei

[interested]

14 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Gun Crime in the US resulted in the Declaration of Independence. Got it.

Gun crime in the US is the highest on the planet, can you name a country with more deaths due to guns since the 2nd world war. 

Do you view the right to carry a firearm down the street to be a good in a tolerant liberal world? Should the rest of the world adopt US gun law? Do you think the right to bear arms would make the world safer or just the weapons companies richer? 

Is the right to bear arms a good liberal view? 

I understand Washington DC used to be the murder capital of the US until guns were banded, I may be wrong. 

Not being a US citizen, and having only visited your liberal country on work, the main memory I have is of a steroid pumped 2m tall guy with a pair of pit bulls packing 2 side arms wearing paramilitary gear parting a path down a sidewalk in the middle of a tourist centre, this was way scarier than any of your amusement park rides. 

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by interested

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please stick to discussion of the OP. Not going down rabbit holes or off on tangents. 

edit: I will split or hide posts that do not comply.

 

[Raider5678]

12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Even if it was true, that wouldn't stop you answering the question.

Please do so.

What does Republicanism, or Conservatism, if you prefer, actually fix?

 

Figured it'd be better to just start another thread then go so far off topic.

[Phi for All]

12 hours ago, Sensei said:

Raider5678, jackpot, conservatism from definition means trying to keep status quo...

..reluctance to accept change..

There's always a resistance to any change in tradition. We all have certains things we imagine should stay traditional, like a holiday recipe passed down through generations. 

But I also think we can recognize when something needs to change, if we're given the full information about it. I think we often get partial information purposely, that appeals to our sense of tradition, so we vote not to change. What if the the people who wanted you to only have part of the story make a lot more money if things stay the same? Is that right for the country? Is that the right way to inform the public? 

[John Cuthber]

On 2/2/2018 at 7:51 AM, Sensei said:

Raider5678, jackpot, conservatism from definition means trying to keep status quo...

..reluctance to accept change..

Actually,  the origin of the term is that they wished for government expenditure to be conservative. The Liberals wanted liberal  spending (and, by implication, higher taxes).
If you look at the list of  "ideals" in the OP,  most of them cost money. Achieving them means paying taxes.

Edited February 3, 2018 by John Cuthber

[Ten oz]

18 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

 

Figured it'd be better to just start another thread then go so far off topic.

You are not actually attempting to, or would you be able to, address what conservative or liberal means to 7.6 billion people.  Neither the word liberal or conservative can be applied universally free from the environment where they are being used. In Afghanistan the conservative position is that women should cover their faces in public. That position doesn't apply in the western world. Please refer to the definitions below if you are confused. 

By definition the points iNow listed in the OP are liberal within U.S. society in that they are not traditional. Points 1-3 asks to protect the weak, make healthcare a right, and provide everyone with education. As a country with a history of slavery, Jim Crow, and etc the U.S. traditionally has not done 1-3. Numbers 4-7 are clarifications of positions which are often obfuscated and #8 is a call to discard traditional views which have prevented the LGBT community from living equally in society. Numbers 9-11 is more contextual clarification in my opinion, 12 is statement of belief/opinion, and the rest are calls for change to our (USA) current gun & energy policies. The OP's  points out specific political positions and states a liberal view towards them. It is not vaguely seeking to define what liberalism means beyond as applied to the positions (Education, Healthcare, Guns, LGBT, Immigration, Energy, Taxes) listed.  

lib·er·al 

adjective

1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training. synonyms:wide-ranging, broad-based, general.

noun

1. a person of liberal views.

con·serv·a·tive

adjective

1.holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

noun

1.a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

You are not actually attempting to, or would you be able to, address what conservative or liberal means to 7.6 billion people. 

!

Moderator Note

 That discussion should take place in another thread.

 

[Raider5678]

10 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

By definition the points iNow listed in the OP are liberal within U.S. society in that they are not traditional. Points 1-3 asks to protect the weak, make healthcare a right, and provide everyone with education. As a country with a history of slavery, Jim Crow, and etc the U.S. traditionally has not done 1-3.

2

You can't point to the U.S. having slavers in the 1860s and claim that's what separates them from everyone else in comparison to their own conservative/liberal views.

Britain had colonies until World War 2, where many basically were slaves. Paid ridiculously small amounts, to do a job. That'd be considered capitalism, however, they also didn't have a choice to not work. South Africa, Indonesia, India, etc. All of these places were British colonies. I'm not comparing the United States to Britain or saying the United States is better, I am not saying slavery is alright. However, many countries have a history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and etc, and you can't solely say that only the U.S. had problems with that.

Tradition doesn't define conservatives, and the status quo can change massively in less than a decade. Comparing it to things that happened decades ago and using it isn't all that accurate.

[Ten oz]

12 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

You can't point to the U.S. having slavers in the 1860s and claim that's what separates them from everyone else in comparison to their own conservative/liberal views.

The Constitution was written well before then and still serves as the backbone for traditionalists views. There isn't an expiration date here. Additionally I also reference Jim Crow and that just ended in 1964. To put that into perspective several members of the House and Senate grew living in segregated conditions. This stuff isn't ancient history.

To the OP's points 1-3: our govt has not always protected the everyone, Healthcare is not treated as a right, and we did not have an education which equal provides for all. The positions listed are liberal because they seek to change that which has been traditional. 

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

However, many countries have a history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and etc, and you can't solely say that only the U.S. had problems with that.

I didn't say that.

24 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

Tradition doesn't define conservatives,

I already posted the definition. Caution toward change and a preference toward tradition is highlighted in every definition for the word which I know to exist. 

29 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

and the status quo can change massively in less than a decade. Comparing it to things that happened decades ago and using it isn't all that accurate.

The status qou is changed by liberals. Despite the massive changes we (USA) still follow constitution which is hundreds of years old. Decades ago is just drop in the bucket.

[iNow]

The sister thread on Conservative Views Explained badly degenerated and was understandably locked. In hopes of not repeating that same ending here, I will repeat a post I made there. This is the core message I hope to explore. Please let this serve as an anchor point when you’re tempted to drift off on tangents:

—————

The broader point is that we are each individuals with complex thoughts, unique perspectives, and varied viewpoints.

We are all textured and multi-dimensional beings. Now... I’m not saying that we travel through rips in spacetime or anything, though of course we might, but am merely saying that these so often used and bandied about flat, bland, hollow, simplistic one and two-dimensional labels... the ones that we see so often applied without consideration and so often painted with broad brushes... do us ALL a disservice.

Such labels are obstacles to intelligent discourse, meaningful dialog, and shared consensus. 

If someone calls me a liberal, they’re trying to put me into a box. They’re trying to dismiss and dehumanize me instead of addressing the merit of my point. “It doesn’t matter what he says. He’s just a liberal. Liberals think the rich are evil. Liberals just want government handouts. Liberals are snowflakes. Liberals don’t think anyone should work.”

Nonsense. Please stop addressing points I didn’t make. Please stop burning down straw me.  Stop telling me what I think. Start listening to what I say. 

That’s what promted me to share this thread. I’m not one thing. I’m not simple. I’m not some blind sheep following a herd. Im not to be dehumanized. I’m not easily dismissed. 

And neither are you. 

Speak intelligently about the merits. Stop focusing on the lazy, ignorant, simplistic labels. 

[MigL]

Then why not title the thread
'ideas for a just society'
Or something along those lines ?

By calling it 'liberal views', it automatically says that another group of society doesn't share those views.
And that isn't accurate.

You did the labelling; seems somewhat disingenuous to accuse others of following your lead.

[iNow]

I’m not perfect

[John Cuthber]

On 2/3/2018 at 2:06 PM, Ten oz said:

lib·er·al 

adjective

1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

2. (of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training. synonyms:wide-ranging, broad-based, general.

noun

1. a person of liberal views.

con·serv·a·tive

adjective

1.holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

noun

1.a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.

There's a huge problem with those definitions (and it's why I prefer the original ones based on govt spending being liberal or conservative).

 

In the UK we have a universal healthcare system but in the US there isn't one.

So "provision of universal health care" would- by the  definitions I quoted - be a Conservative ideal (keeping the status quo) here, but a Liberal one (bringing about change) in the US.
Prohibition would have been a Liberal idea, and the revocation of prohibition would also have been a Liberal idea.

 

A Liberal policy would become a Conservative policy as soon as it was enacted.

 

Is that really what people think the words mean?

 

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

There's a huge problem with those definitions (and it's why I prefer the original ones based on govt spending being liberal or conservative).

 

In the UK we have a universal healthcare system but in the US there isn't one.

So "provision of universal health care" would- by the  definitions I quoted - be a Conservative ideal (keeping the status quo) here, but a Liberal one (bringing about change) in the US.
Prohibition would have been a Liberal idea, and the revocation of prohibition would also have been a Liberal idea.

 

A Liberal policy would become a Conservative policy as soon as it was enacted.

 

Is that really what people think the words mean?

 

You can't buy a perfect system, any more than you can save for all possibilities.

[iNow]

Ten Oz hammers regularly in these fora on the importance of discussing actual policies and actual effects, about how anything else is destined to turn to raked mud and wasted time.

He has a point. A good one.

Labels are ambiguous. Lazy. Less than ideal. They lead us away from progress, consensus, and shared achievements.

Actual policy discussions and specific comments about specific proposals? Not so much. 

[Ten oz]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

There's a huge problem with those definitions (and it's why I prefer the original ones based on govt spending being liberal or conservative).

 

In the UK we have a universal healthcare system but in the US there isn't one.

So "provision of universal health care" would- by the  definitions I quoted - be a Conservative ideal (keeping the status quo) here, but a Liberal one (bringing about change) in the US.
Prohibition would have been a Liberal idea, and the revocation of prohibition would also have been a Liberal idea.

 

A Liberal policy would become a Conservative policy as soon as it was enacted.

 

Is that really what people think the words mean?

 

In my opinion it is useless to label oneself philosophically liberal or conservative. Every person is a little more or a little less conservative or liberal towards any given individual issue within their political environment. In the the western world, I think we can all agree labels apply extremely differently elsewhere, it is the people we elect that represent us in office. If one donates money to the Labour Party and votes for Labour Party candidates than it is the Labour Party's philosophy they are supporting though action. Action speaks louder than words.

The insistence by some, not you, to filter everything through broad philosophical lenses rather than focused review of policy is bad. It is how we end in with people who agree seemingly 100% with the policies of a candidate yet won't vote for them. We saw that on display in 2016 here in the States with Clinton. On any individual issue the overwhelming majority of people  agreed with Clinton yet many still voted against her. It isn't healthy for any form of democracy for people to vote identity over policy.

[John Cuthber]

If you have a policy that says " We should spend more government money on so-and-so" then it's a clear choice; you can support it or not.
For example "we should spend more government money on healthcare"  then that's a Left wing policy.

What a lot of people get upset about is that "We should increase spending on the military" is also a Left wing policy (by this definition)

Left wing is just a label for more govt spending. (and, obviously, there's a second side to that- we  raise taxes, increase debt or cut spending somewhere else)

On the other hand " we should drop taxes on..." is a Right wing policy.
This definition isn't directly linked to race, or sex, or a whole lot of other things that are typically polarised by "Conservative / Republican vs Liberal /Democrat.

 

This thread opens with a set of ideas that someone described as "Liberal" and desirable (In their opinion, and by their definition).
The policy decision for each one is is "Should we spend money to bring about this objective?".

Well... should we?

[dimreepr]

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

If you have a policy that says " We should spend more government money on so-and-so" then it's a clear choice; you can support it or not.
For example "we should spend more government money on healthcare"  then that's a Left wing policy.

What a lot of people get upset about is that "We should increase spending on the military" is also a Left wing policy (by this definition)

Left wing is just a label for more govt spending. (and, obviously, there's a second side to that- we  raise taxes, increase debt or cut spending somewhere else)

On the other hand " we should drop taxes on..." is a Right wing policy.
This definition isn't directly linked to race, or sex, or a whole lot of other things that are typically polarised by "Conservative / Republican vs Liberal /Democrat.

 

This thread opens with a set of ideas that someone described as "Liberal" and desirable (In their opinion, and by their definition).
The policy decision for each one is is "Should we spend money to bring about this objective?".

Well... should we?

Sometimes...

[MigL]

Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but D Trump is planning to spend more money than B Obama did.
Unfortunately, He's spending this Taxpayer money, to give tax cuts to his rich friends.
He's raising taxes on one group, to finance tax cuts for the other.
By your definition either side can claim him.
Is the definition of liberal and conservative similar to visible and invisible ?
( sorry, that joke just won't quit )

If we were trying to bring about the OP ideals, Ten oz, H Clinton wouldn't have been the voter's choice ( and certainly not D Trump ).
It would have been B Sanders. Proving that even people who voted Democrat don't support the OP's ideals.

None of us are perfect, iNow.
You posted a set of guidelines for establishing a better society ( notice I did not say they are liberal guidelines ).
Some of these guidelines have to be weighed with respect to some of the others.
For  example, and I mentioned this on the first page ( what happened to post numbers ? ), a fair, living wage paid to all, makes global competition difficult with countries that don't have that requirement, or have a lower standard of living. Your choice is, then, to lose industries and viable employment, or to enact trade barriers, tariffs and controls.

What is a good split ?
Does the government pick specific industries to be 'winners' and 'losers', and by extension, their employees ?

These are all worthwhile and lofty ideals you posted, but as I've said before , the devil is in the details of implementation.

[John Cuthber]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Unfortunately, He's spending this Taxpayer money, to give tax cuts to his rich friends.
He's raising taxes on one group, to finance tax cuts for the other.

That's another issue I overlooked.

In the same way that you have to decide how much money goes to which projects, you also have to decide how much tax is paid by which groups.
If Donald was elected on the basis that he was going to tax middle earners more and rich people less- or even negatively- and that's what he's doing then how can anyone complain?
Cutting tax isn't spending more (which would be Left wing) it's cutting tax (and thus spending less) which would be Right wing.

Is he spending more overall in the year than Obama did, or less?

If it's more (adjusted for inflation) then he's Left wing. The observation has already been made that neither the Conservatives, nor the Liberals recognise Trump as "one of ours".

[iNow]

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

Trump is planning to spend more money than B Obama did.
Unfortunately, He's spending this Taxpayer money, to give tax cuts to his rich friends.

I think you’re conflating a reduction in revenues with a spending program. They are different things in important ways. 

35 minutes ago, MigL said:

You posted a set of guidelines for establishing a better society ( notice I did not say they are liberal guidelines ).

I posted something I saw on FB that pushes back against many of the common strawmen we hear about what liberals think. I’ve grown tired of being dismissed as liberal instead of debating on the merits, hence the clarification I made later in this thread. 

If you’re accusing me of being hypocritical, that’s unfortunate, and certainly not how I hope to act nor be perceived. If you are making some other point, I’m unclear what that is. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by iNow

[Ten oz]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I think you’re conflating a reduction in revenues with a spending program. They are different things in important ways. 

Yep, Trump is both spending more and reducing revenue.

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

a fair, living wage paid to all, makes global competition difficult with countries that don't have that requirement, or have a lower standard of living. Your choice is, then, to lose industries and viable employment, or to enact trade barriers, tariffs and controls.

Not really, no. The idea is that we can shift focus and that in economics there’s a concept of creative destruction. A simplistic example is the death of coal and the growth of renewable energy. We don’t need to think in zero sum terms. We can think of multipliers and evolution of new industries. It’s not simple, though, and I don’t mean to imply otherwise. 

33 minutes ago, MigL said:

Does the government pick specific industries to be 'winners' and 'losers', and by extension, their employees ?

Every single day, especially through the tax code. 

[Ten oz]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

If we were trying to bring about the OP ideals, Ten oz, H Clinton wouldn't have been the voter's choice ( and certainly not D Trump ).
It would have been B Sanders. Proving that even people who voted Democrat don't support the OP's ideals.

In the Democratic Primary Clinton receive 3.6 million more votes than Sanders ( I voted for Sanders in the Primary). Additionally Sanders and Clinton agreed on nearly every single issue. To say it would have been Sanders over Clinton doesn't make any sense. Not only did Clinton receive more votes than Sanders she received more votes than Trump and her individual policies were well regarded by all. Those who refused to vote for her did so for reason unrelated to policy. 

44 minutes ago, MigL said:

a fair, living wage paid to all, makes global competition difficult with countries that don't have that requirement, or have a lower standard of living. Your choice is, then, to lose industries and viable employment, or to enact trade barriers, tariffs and controls.

Creating new industries is critical to moving economies forward. Not protecting old ones. Companies like Apple, Amazon, FaceBook, Google, Microsoft, Tesla, and etc have created incredible amounts of money for the U.S. economy. None of those companies even existed a few decades about. Lowering wages in North America to better compete with Bangladesh labor isn't a good idea in my opinion. The U.S. has been trend setters and need to continue to be trend setters. New companies producing new products that create new markets is the way forward.