A Liberal?

Tim Robbins

I was snooting about facebook and was noticing a lot of people describe their political opinions as "Liberal". I think this word is a completly meaningless term. Firstly, when people use it economically what do they mean, more taxes or less taxes? More distribution of wealth or less?

I think you could make cases that liberal means either. That the rich has man has the choice to do what he wants with his money, or that the poor man should have a range of choice that requires significant wealth redistribution?

Secondly, socially what does 'Liberal' mean? Does it mean you pro people making their own decisions on things like abortion? But that's not really anything to do with being liberal, since it's a philosophical question of when you believe life begins which can't really answered objectively?

How about does it mean that gays should have equal rights?

Again, I don't think is a matter of being liberal it's a matter of scientifically ignorant you are.

Or does liberal mean who sort of sneer and religious conservative people, well surely if you are a liberal you believe those people have a right to those beliefs and life choices?

So with so many people using the word "liberal" to describe their views are these people just trying to brand themselves with a feel good word or are they actually saying anything of substance?

I don't think any of them are saying anything of substance.

discuss...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

A liberal society requires a very conservative structure underpinning it. Therefore to be a true liberal, you have to have some very conservative principles such as people should work and should pay tax to enable wealth redistribution and crime should be punished so that people can have a strong sense of freedom.

Ergo it is impossible for liberals to define themselves in contradistinction to conservatives even though a lot of them think they can.

Liam Byrne

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about does it mean that gays should have equal rights?

Again, I don't think is a matter of being liberal it's a matter of scientifically ignorant you are.

What does the above part mean ? "Scientifically ignorant" ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Tim Robbins

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What does the above part mean ? "Scientifically ignorant" ?

There is reasonable scientific evidence to suggest being gay is not a matter of choice.

Tim Robbins

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree wealth redistribution is not a part of classic liberal thought.
But it is now.

Liberals and conservatives both agree that criminals should be punished—although they may differ on what constitutes a "crime." For instance, classical liberals object to theories of jurisprudence that regard someone who uses drugs, or who consentingly trades sexual favours for money, as a "criminal."

I think most European people would agree that someone using drugs for personal use should not have it treated as a crime. So I think in this respect the word liberal is meaningless. It doesn't really say anything about your political views.

Eliot Rosewater

As I said in the other thread, the word liberal is used in the 1922 novel Babbitt in the same way that it is used nowadays in America. I wonder when and how that usage originated. Perhaps it is because the word liberal is sometimes synonymous with change, and those in support of wealth redistribution in the Sates were fighting for a change in the status quo.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A liberal society requires a very conservative structure underpinning it.

Yes, this is a slipping ground for many centre-left campaigners. They like to complain about corporations and companies, and often have the owner set up as the anti-christ, all the while forgetting that said owner is actually providing them with a service (employment) as well as contributing tax to pay for social welfare.

Cannibal Ox

Tim Robbins wrote:

I agree wealth redistribution is not a part of classic liberal thought.

It is. JS Mill, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Paine, etc, etc. and most modern liberal theory, from Rawls to Sen to Nussbaum, is also concerned with the redistribution and/or a fairer/equitible distribution of wealth, particularly in terms of global distribution of wealth. Even libertarianism is concerned with the redistribution of wealth, albeit in reverse to utilitarian or communitarian strains of liberalism.

But, I think it'd be better to argue that classical, and modern liberalism, is concerned not with the distribution of wealth but rather with the equitable distribution and redistribution of power. Wealth enters the scene because power is most often exercised through and/or with wealth. This is why one liberal can argue for low to no taxes and another can argue for high taxes.

Which is one way I think Liberals differentiate themselves from, say, communists. In communism you either have power or you don't, power is top down, you're oppressed or you're not. In liberalism, power tends to be a little more pluralistic, you can have power, but it is relative to who you're measuring your power against. You can be middle class and powerful compared to working class, but up against upper class, you're not powerful. You can be France and be powerful relative to Algeria, but up against the US, or China, not so powerful. Communism is a bit more simplistic in that sense.

Valmont

The word "liberal", in its current manifestation, reminds me of this parody.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dr1sgcC6k4

McDougal

The term liberal means absolutely nothing in Ireland. Generally it is applied to anyone who supports gay marriage regardless of their views on anything else.

irishh_bob

McDougal wrote: »

The term liberal means absolutely nothing in Ireland. Generally it is applied to anyone who supports gay marriage regardless of their views on anything else.

+1 , we dont think in terms of conservative or liberal in this country , were you to ask someone whether they identified themselves as one or the other , in most cases you would get a blank stare

Sandvich

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Do you really think people like Glenn Beck aren't doing damage to the US?

I think it would make sense to say that modern Liberals are to some degree concerned with the overall freedoms people have, whereas "classical liberals" such as yourself are more concerned with how it looks on paper. Libertarians are generally the ones claiming to be Classical Liberals these days.

It's far too easy to say "We should have this freedom. Don't make a law against it."

And ignore totally the wider effect of someone having that freedom. For example incitement to hatred may fall under "freedom of speech" in some areas, but when people are actively preaching a hateful message, and it is presented as acceptable, then it is going to influence people. A child tuning in who doesn't know right from wrong could have their moral framework shaped by it.

"Wealth redistribution" makes sense because it puts people one a more equal playing field. Modern Liberals are concerned with equality, and practical freedoms rather than "legal" freedoms.

It's pretty evident with Libertarians that it IS about how it sounds on paper. The "Is a man not entitled to the sweat on his brow" approach. Arguments with libertarians always hit these walls. Basically, areas where it's clear that people are basically going to have to suffer or die before things sort themselves out, if ever. I do not believe that is in the spirit of "Liberalism".

Health care is a good example. No matter what, with no public healthcare, people are going to fall through the net. It's going to happen, and you can't avoid it. The same with welfare - inevitably, some people will fall through the net and be unable to support themselves.

The counter to this is that these "Classic Liberals" are trying to build a culture based on self reliance and that welfare promotes a negative attitude. If someone gets sick and dies, it's their prerogative to look after them.

Why should I have to pay for someone else's illnes!?!?

But the fact is that this means that SOMEONE DIES. This is inevitable. We can have a world where you are "forced" to pay for someone else's illness, and one where they aren't. Libertarians choose the one where more people die.

It becomes evident that many libertarians do not care about people dying. In any culture, there is a degree of "acceptable loss", you can't wrap everyone in cling film, but we don't feel good about it. With this moral framework, it's not even a concern.

I think it's extremely naive to blame all oppression on the government and ignore the effect people can have on one another, or to think a corporation can do no wrong, or that circumstances can just plain go out of control.

Sandvich

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

As I said in the other thread, the word liberal is used in the 1922 novel Babbitt in the same way that it is used nowadays in America. I wonder when and how that usage originated. Perhaps it is because the word liberal is sometimes synonymous with change, and those in support of wealth redistribution in the Sates were fighting for a change in the status quo.



Yes, this is a slipping ground for many centre-left campaigners. They like to complain about corporations and companies, and often have the owner set up as the anti-christ, all the while forgetting that said owner is actually providing them with a service (employment) as well as contributing tax to pay for social welfare.

That's fallacious reasoning, the same used when complaining about publishing socialist themed works through capitalist means.

When dealing with a largely economically right leaning society, you have to work with the framework. That's what society means, and society is largely a "socialist" concept.

You cannot do anything without, ultimately, using something that someone you may not agree with made. There's a very interesting talk on TED pointing out that no one person knows how to make a Computer Mouse from scratch.

We have to rely on each other, no matter what. If that means relying on a more capitalist society, it has to be done to get anything done. It doesn't mean that a more liberal society wouldn't have issues getting things done. Sweden is more left leaning overall yet still has it's own successful multinationals. A lot of liberals are happy with that sort of situation.

There are areas of agreement and disagreement, but this is one area where you're flat out wrong, since if you're correct, it would make it near impossible to spread a message disagreeing with capitalist society without being hypocritical. That is not an artifact of capitalism, but of society. Having capitalist underpinnings does not mean you are endorsing capitalism - it could simply mean you are endorsing society, which is what socialists and liberals hold up in positive light. It might not be a great society, but at least it's not bloody Objectivism, let's make it better please.

Sandvich

Tim Robbins wrote: »

A liberal society requires a very conservative structure underpinning it. Therefore to be a true liberal, you have to have some very conservative principles such as people should work and should pay tax to enable wealth redistribution and crime should be punished so that people can have a strong sense of freedom.

Ergo it is impossible for liberals to define themselves in contradistinction to conservatives even though a lot of them think they can.

I don't think "People should work" is entirely a conservative concept.

I think that's wholly unreasonable. I think the whole point with modern liberalism at least is that you have to accept some degree of infringement("forced" to pay taxes etc.) to prevent a much larger degree of infringement on your rights.

Also conservatives these days tend to not like paying tax...

timespast

A Liberal always replies with " I agree with you, but........"

Eliot Rosewater

Sandvich wrote: »

That's fallacious reasoning, the same used when complaining about publishing socialist themed works through capitalist means.

But these centre-left people aren't suggesting a change from the market. Their ideal society is based on the market, albeit with a high tax high spend government. The point is that they moan about the rich people even though it is these rich people paying for their social schemes.

Of course socialists have to work within the current framework. It becomes ridiculous when they morph into those they attack. Chmosky charging $12,000 for a speech? Christ, he's more of a capitalist than I am!

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/6222