What is Liberalism to you?

I keep hearing people slagging off Liberalism and I get a nagging suspiscion that few people actually know what it means. Essentially Liberalism (as a political philosophy) is a British invention and is basically toleration of religious groups and the allowing of personal but more importantly economic freedom. People talk about 'dope smoking european liberals' (not mentioning any names) but actually there are few European Liberals thanks to WW2 (which many see as having been a result of the inadequacy of 'wishy washy liberals'). Liberalism in the USA resulted in the Wall Street Crash and the Depression (and so arguably WW2). As I say the main reason I am isking this is because I keep hearing everything blamed on 'Liberals' but I do not believe there are many true liberals around, people just apply the term to any political group they dislike. This is NOT aimed at ANYONE in particular on the forum, actually it was spurred by an argument by an adolescent moron who blamed all that was bad on Liberals. I am asking it here because this is one of the few places where I can be sure not to be shot down by a stream of mindless abuse and branded a Liberal myself (spits at the floor in disgust, I am actually a Libertarian Socialist - or raving pinko if you prefer ).

 

Liberal have different meaning depending what continent you are talking about. The United States and Canada seem to have another definition of the word than say Europe or Australia. Which one do you mean, the North American definition?

By the way, is there really such thing as Libertarian Socialist? Isn't that a contradiction per definition?

Best regards/ Daniel

 

Yeah there is alot of talk here about liberal this and that. It usually means anyone associated with the Democratic Party or their viewpoints here.

Greg

 

I am talking about both, I am just trying to get an idea of how different people see Liberalism. As for the socialist thing, well yes actually I think it is possible. Socialism is simply the subordination of individual interests to those of the state as a whole, libertarianism is the belief in free will and advocation of liberty. If the two are put together you get what I believe, i.e. that people should be allowed to exercise their free will however this is subordinate to the good of the community as a whole. Essentially when libertarianism is added to socialism you avoid the problems of communism. It is an ideal (therefore may not be possible but should be strived for IMHO) and was developed as a school of thought in the 30's and then again in the 50's. It relies on peoples realisation that actually their betterment of a person is dependant on those around them and that the advancement of those around them is dependant on them, once people realise that society can only go forward if people move forward together then liberty is guarenteed. The reason it doesnt work is that people appear to be fundamentally greedy and so if people are all put on the same level rather than the LS ideal of everyone working together for advancement as a community, everyone works against each other and subordinates the wellbeing of everyone else to that of themselves. I think we can all agree that the ideal is something that should be striven for but unfortunatly people appear fundamentally nasty and so it 'ent gonna work. I hope that answers your question Daniel, unfortunatly it sounds a lot like a case of 'you can exercise your free will as long as it doesn't hurt me or anyone else'.

 

Not to sound nutty but, I thought it had started in france as I heard on some news program awhile ago.

 

Liberals suck. Everything that is immoral is made by liberals. From illegal drug use to dirty movies, liberals start it all.

 

Posted by V-slav:

Thats a bit harsh there, Vslav. If either liberals or conservatives dominate a government, it is a bad thing. Both are needed to balance each other in moderation. In the USA, liberals would be classified as seeking change through peacful means. In that sense, I would be a liberal leaning toward the center.

Also, Id like to see one shred of evidence showing liberals to have started dirty movies and drug use. Im sure just as many conservatives are dope heads as liberals, I believe our esteemed president has daughters who got in trouble for drug use...do they come from a liberal background?
As for dirty movies...find me someone over the age of 12 who HASNT seen at least one dirty movie!

 

V-slav: Any justification for that? Actually most illegal drugs were in use before Liberalism was invented (actually most of them were legal), pornography has existed since the Roman Empire at the earliest and fankly I do not see how Racism, Sexism, Fascism, Nazism, Terrorism, Dictatorship, or intolerance of any sort were created by Liberals. Perhapse you would prefer a less liberal system where by you could be arrested for practicing your religion (whatever that may be if any), locked up for speaking against the regieme or generally oppressed. Frankly I find your statement rather worryingly short sighted...

Carl: It all depends on what you mean by Liberalism, the term itself (as a political philosophy) was first developed in England in the 18th Century but obviously the French Revolution was all about 'Liberty' (of sorts) and the system that rose out of the termoil of early 19th Century France was very 'Liberal' by the French definition (which purpounds religious tolerance through the separation of the state from religious issues, i.e. the state remains secular and any religious issues are dealt with on an individual basis rather than the state forcing its ideas upon people.

 

Stefan, in a classical socialist society the state should be strong while in a libertarian it should almost not exist. That's why I think the terms can't be used together.

In short, liberal in Europe is the same as neo- conservative such as Bush and Blair. Pinochet is considered to be a liberal if you are looking for extreme cases. While in North America it is mostly used when talking about people from say the Green party. To say that democrats are liberlas is incorrect as they are right wing but closer to the centre than the Republican party (that's why some people say they are liberals).

Best regards/ Daniel

 

First off, Clinton (liberal democrat) inhaled and also ran to Europe during the Vietnam war. Should I also mension countless whores that he had sex with and then lied to the American public.

So who owns Hollywood? Liberals do. Guys who own some porn shop in Van Nuys. If you study Republican party they are against porn of any kind.

Drugs are illegal in U.S. Unlike in Netherlands where whores and dope are legal. So please, liberals are crackhead, anti war, and child porn lovers.

Not to mension, Russia and Netherlands allow child porn to be published.


LIBERALS SUCK

[ 09. March 2003, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: VYACHESLAV ]

 

Wow...

Hey guess what, drugs are illegal in the United States...guess who has the bigger problem? By letting people use softer drugs the rate of hard-core ones like heroine is down in the Netherlands. Lets face it: the war on drugs is a complete failure. For all the tons we stop at the border probably 10 times that makes it through. Gang-wars are caused over drug money, and it is a lethal profession wherever it may be. If anything, I would say it would be safer if the US Government regulated the sale of marijauna...might just work to our benefit, and it would bring in a tidy profit too.

Posted by Vslav:

That is perhaps the most idiotic statement ive ever seen posted. Youve based your evidence on Bill Clinton, who has yet to be charged with anything regarding child porn. What about old Dick Nixon, the moral representative of conservatives everywhere? If your statement is true, that means conservatives are bible-thumping war-mongering fascists hell-bent on planting the American flag over the corpses of anyone who dare to stand up to us. Please...

 

There’s much being talked about theoretical pronounced societies from the aspect of its citizens. A country, the incumbent society, lives by government of its leaders, the policy they make and their measures to enforce it. To say, ’Socialism is simply the subordination of individual interests to those of the state as a whole’, is saying the people work for the good of the State, and, it follows that the State will act in the interest of its people. However, who makes the rules, who decides? People work best if they are a (a) working for themselves, and (b) doing work they want to do. If the State decides it needs carpenters and bus drivers, when you reach working age, these are the choices you are given because this is what the State needs. You want to work in IT, tough, they don’t need IT people. Then, you are given a set measure of work to do. Do less and you’re not fulfilling your quota. No more and you’re depriving another citizen of work. Moreover, you will receive the same payment irrespective. Sounds like communism? That’s exactly what it is! You do what the State wants of you and the State will look after you according to your needs. As this is the only chicken and egg order available, the State decides what you are to do and therefore predetermines your needs. In the pink/red Soviet you could still have some a choice in your size of family. In red China you are told how many children you may have!

When considering a national leader, don’t look at which socio-political philosophy they claim to follow, consider the degree of autonomy they employ to pursue it.

When talking of ‘illegal’ drugs, the establishment says they’re illegal and varies its explanation between claims it’s (a) what the public (society) wants, and (b) because it’s morally right and in the interest of society. The term ‘illegal drugs’ has long been abandoned in favour of the more accurate term ‘controlled substance’. Alcohol is a ‘drug’ which alters your mental state, powers of reason and decision and ultimately your physical condition. ‘Dirty movies’, or ‘blue films’ usually get labelled ‘pornography’. Pornography material liable to corrupt or deprave. So, a film of a healthy adult couple having a jump ‘corrupts or depraves?? If the subject matter is two elephants, then that’s a natural history film?? If the subject matter is human, it’s pornographic??

No.9

 

That is perhaps the most idiotic statement ive ever seen posted. Youve based your evidence on Bill Clinton, who has yet to be charged with anything regarding child porn. What about old Dick Nixon, the moral representative of conservatives everywhere? If your statement is true, that means conservatives are bible-thumping war-mongering fascists hell-bent on planting the American flag over the corpses of anyone who dare to stand up to us. Please... </font>[/QUOTE]In Europe there is a complete different lifestyle that people have. In U.S people are different then in Netherlands. One of the reasons why Netherlands has a no drug law is for tourist reasons.

Second, look at Liberman. He decided to go after Fox Network one time just because he felt like their shows are too adult like. He never went after a porno shop or a Playboy, he went after Fox because they are conservative media.

Just like I said LIBERALS SUCK

 

Guess what

Rap promotes drugs and we all know there is no conseritive in the rap industry.


Guess what

Western Europeans on http://engforum.pravda.ru/

are racist and liberals

Guess what

E.U. is a liberal organization and it seems now East Europeans counties don't want to join it.


Add more?

 

Hmm.... so by that analogy, the US is fascist!

No.9

 

Hmm.... so by that analogy, the US is fascist!

No.9 </font>[/QUOTE]No, by that the E.U. wants to become a world power and control worlds economy.

U.S is an will be a world power

 

I have a few questions.
1. Do you think Stalin was a liberal since he was a socialist ?
2. How about Hitler ? {National Socialist Party }
3 What's a conservative doing in the porn capitol of the world ? (Los Angeles)
4 Do you think Bush Sr is a liberal because he let Saddam slide 12 years ago or was he just a dumb conservative ?

 

Actually V-Slav, I can find pleanty of forums inhabited by Racist Conservative Americans, just as I could find pleanty inhabited by Racist Conservative Brits, Germans, French, South Africans and anything else you prefer. I like your argument that Americans are different to everyone else (and by implication some how better). Where did I last hear that? (whistles Horst Wessell). Next, Rap may not be conservative but that doesnt automatically make it liberal, particularly as it is hardly tolerant. I think you will find that Holland does actually have drug laws, have you ever been there? Drugs are better controlled there than anywhere else on the planet and whilst I may not agree with their use I would rather they be used under safe circumstances with the government monitoring it than end up having gang warfare on the streets.

I wish I hadn't started this thread now, so much for 'intelligent responses', please if you are going to post here dont just say 'liberals suck' or 'such and such are fascist' without explanation. Shall we say 24 hours before someone contacts a moderator?

 

Vyacheslav, thanks a lot for destroying this thread. Without you and your stupid senseless rethoric this thread could have been great. I really think you should behave better.

To everyone else, I'm sorry if I sound mad but I really hate when people destroy discussions like this.

Best regards/ Daniel

[ 10. March 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: charlie don't surf ]