What is the appeal of liberalism?

nofools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then we come back to my previous question: in what way are the SJW/woke crowd "lberals? - see is you labeled them?

As you say yourself: people are a mix. I'd argue it;s very difficiult to find ANYONE who's viewpoints are entirely concistent with the adjective, to the point the labels are impossible.

The SJW/woke crowd are self titled liberals and in my experience stick quite firmly to code just like hardcore trump supporters or other right wing factions on the other side.

This same group are often very illiberal to apply the definition of the word and not the ever morphing label.

That is the point i was insuccinctly trying to make sorry.

Granadino

To the OP, what is the appeal of living your life as a conservative? Re abortion. Why are you so concerned with what someone else does with their body?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

nofools wrote: »

Yes you can.

nofools wrote: »

The SJW/woke crowd are self titled liberals and in my experience stick quite firmly to code just like hardcore trump supporters or other right wing factions on the other side.

This same group are often very illiberal to apply the definition of the word and not the ever morphing label.

That is the point i was insuccinctly trying to make sorry.

You haven't answered the question: how are you defining "liberal" in a way that makes them liberal? "Sticking firmly to a code" does not define your political views. Calling them "illeberal" or "modern" doesn't mena anything. What code?

One last chance. If you don't asnwer, I'll assume it's because you can't and move on.

nofools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You haven't answered the question: how are you defining "liberal" in a way that makes them liberal? "Sticking firmly to a code" does not define your political views. Calling them "illeberal" or "modern" doesn't mena anything. What code?

One last chance. If you don't asnwer, I'll assume it's because you can't and move on.

That would probably be best.

Too many semantics, I have explained myself clear enough

dxhound2005

silverharp wrote: »

are there no liberals left then? being for example in any way critical of third world immigration into Europe, "everyone" will class it as something verging on far right

Liberal countries don't produce enough children to sustain their rich lifestyle. That is why they want immigrants. They won't get enough of them from other rich liberal countries.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

[QUOTE=Princess Consuela Bananahammock;115303754

One last chance. If you don't asnwer, I'll assume it's because you can't and move on.[/QUOTE]

nofools wrote: »

That would probably be best.

Too many semantics, I have explained myself clear enough

QED

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Liberal countries don't produce enough children to sustain their rich lifestyle. That is why they want immigrants. They won't get enough of them from other rich liberal countries.

Ok, let's try again seeing as the last guy had no idea: how are you defininig "Liberal" in this context? Which countries would you describe as "liberal" and what's their lifestyle?

dxhound2005

Liberal as in Liberal Democracy. Doesn't always signify rich, but two of the rich countries which need immigrants are Sweden and Germany.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Liberal as in Liberal Democracy. Doesn't always signify rich, but two of the rich countries which need immigrants are Sweden and Germany.

I figured you mean liberal democracy, but what is a "liberal" democracy? The word in the quotes, please.

For now, I'll assume you're talking economically (in whcih case Germany? No chance! Maybe Berlin, but even that's a stretch!) but both countries could work just as well - and have done for many decades - without immigrants. Being open to them does not mean needs them. Waht excominc policies define them as "liberal"?

Case in point - Denmark

dxhound2005

I'm going with the Wikipedia, but it's too detailed for me to explain. This is the first paragraph.

Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is a political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. It is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)[1] or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.

Also from Wikipedia.

The German census does not collect data on ethnicity; however, in 1997 the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl, said that there was already 3 million Turks in Germany. Since the early 2000s academics have said that there is more than 4 million people of Turkish origin living in Germany. Some academics and European officials have given much higher estimates on the German-Turkish population. As early as 2005 Austrian scholar Tessa Szyszkowitz quoted a senior European official who said: "It is a little late to start the debate about being an immigrant country now, when already seven million Turks live in Germany". By 2013 Dr James Lacey and Professor Williamson Murray noted that the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said that "Germany's Leitkultur needs to be accepted by Germany's seven million Turkish immigrants". More recently, Professor George K. Zestos and Rachel Cooke also said that "presently (2020) more than seven million Turks live in Germany."

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I'm going with the Wikipedia, but it's too detailed for me to explain. This is the first paragraph.

Liberal democracy, also referred to as Western democracy, is a political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. It is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, a market economy with private property, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either codified (such as in the United States)[1] or uncodified (such as in the United Kingdom), to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract.

Under that description pretty much every westernised country is a liberal democracy.

Also - I asked how YOU are defining it. If you have to quote a resource verbaitim, is it because you don't actually know?

Also from Wikipedia.

The German census does not collect data on ethnicity; however, in 1997 the Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Kohl, said that there was already 3 million Turks in Germany. Since the early 2000s academics have said that there is more than 4 million people of Turkish origin living in Germany. Some academics and European officials have given much higher estimates on the German-Turkish population. As early as 2005 Austrian scholar Tessa Szyszkowitz quoted a senior European official who said: "It is a little late to start the debate about being an immigrant country now, when already seven million Turks live in Germany". By 2013 Dr James Lacey and Professor Williamson Murray noted that the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, said that "Germany's Leitkultur needs to be accepted by Germany's seven million Turkish immigrants". More recently, Professor George K. Zestos and Rachel Cooke also said that "presently (2020) more than seven million Turks live in Germany."

I'm aware of the history - I live in Berlin - I'm asking how it effects the liberal policy of "needing immigrants".

Turks have been in Germany for the last half century and a lot of them run and own their own businness, be it Spatis (corner-shops/off licences) or restraraunts and fast food places.

You said "liberal countries don't produce enough children to sustain their rich lifestyle. That is why they want immigrants" - I'm pointing out that correlation is not causation. This proves nothing. Again - there is no "need".

dxhound2005

This is the headline from the EU stats.

The EU-27's population is projected to increase from 446.8 million in 2019 and peak to 449.3 million in 2026 (+0.6 %), then gradually decrease to 441.2 million in 2050 and to 416.1 million in 2100, thus with an overall decrease of 30.8 million (-6.9 %) from 2019 to 2100.

Not a problem if the balance between the numbers working and those underage and retired from work is maintained. But a sympton of the rich liberal lifestyle is falling birthrates, and this leads to a need for immigrants. Also even if there are a lot of native working age, they will want more of the high level jobs, and not want to take lower status jobs.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dxhound2005 wrote: »

This is the headline from the EU stats.

The EU-27's population is projected to increase from 446.8 million in 2019 and peak to 449.3 million in 2026 (+0.6 %), then gradually decrease to 441.2 million in 2050 and to 416.1 million in 2100, thus with an overall decrease of 30.8 million (-6.9 %) from 2019 to 2100.

Not a problem if the balance between the numbers working and those underage and retired from work is maintained. But a sympton of the rich liberal lifestyle is falling birthrates, and this leads to a need for immigrants. Also even if there are a lot of native working age, they will want more of the high level jobs, and not want to take lower status jobs.

Again - while may or may not be incorrect - fails to illustrate your point or answer any of the questions asked. Ageing workforce has nothing to do with liberalism one way or the other in the same way it's got nothing to do with conservtism or any other political theory.

I'm going to leave the thread now. No one here seems to know what a "liberal" policy or code or democracy is and , despite that, everyone seems intent on making up or portraying evils and pretending that "liberalism" is the problem without any clear causational link whatsover.

Have fun.

dxhound2005

I should have said another result of rich liberal lifestyle, is increased longevity. Which is going to unbalance the population mix further, when accompanied by a decreased birthrate.

nofools

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ok, let's try again seeing as the last guy had no idea: how are you defininig "Liberal" in this context? Which countries would you describe as "liberal" and what's their lifestyle?

You really are a pedant aren't you

iamstop

I consider myself liberal so here goes.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

I could never really understand the appeal of having a liberal outlook on life. The US election got me thinking about this again. To give a bit of background, I grew up in a conservative household. Both sets of grandparents could only be described as conservative. And I get it. I have thought through their positions and they just make sense. I suppose classical conservatism, as I understand it, is that some values never change. These values are paramount to society.

You work hard to get a good job to support your family. You love your country, even if it means you have to sacrifice your life for it. You love and honour God as your creator and (hopefully) your final destination.

Nope on the God stuff. And with that one simple sentence you've shown me to not but a deep thinker. Not thinking for yourself and accepting God as fact and your final destination. Not for me.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

Strong families are the bedrock of society. The welfare state promotes laziness and wasted lives. Social justice means equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. (This list is in no way exhaustive).

I agree strong families are important. I don't fully agree that social welfare promotes laziness. It does in some cases but I don't think it does as a whole.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

On the other hand, my view of liberalism is that we just do whatever we want; we redefine social values (many of which have been established for 1000s of years, going back to Ancient Greece) and create totally new ones.

Eh...what are you on about? What values specifically?

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

Then I see the so-called 'liberal darlings': spending lots and lots of money, unrestrained immigration (especially from non-European countries), ecology and an emphasis on elevating various minorities onto a pedestal. Sometimes these 'darlings' seem to conflict with one another - this was shown when #Muslims are right about women was trending on Twitter.

I'm sure you'll find that liberals spend, on average, about the same amount of money as anyone else.
As stated previously, I'm not about that God stuff 1 bit. No matter the name of the particular God.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

And liberalism's greatest achievements, gay marriage and abortion, frankly disturb me. Especially abortion. I mean, when we get to the very bottom of it, past all the jargon, past 'fetus' this and 'termination' that, what are we really left with?

I'm 100% in favour of gay marriage. Love is love. Gay and Trans people have every right to exist and to engage in the ceremony and practices of marriage as much as any other human being.
I, as a man, believe women have the right to make choices about their own bodies.

Aubrie Thousands Suspicion wrote: »

That is my take on the issue. I share it to start a discussion. Maybe someone could enlighten me as to what is the appeal of liberalism?

Good luck with that.

8kczg9v0swrydm

Granadino wrote: »

To the OP, what is the appeal of living your life as a conservative? Re abortion. Why are you so concerned with what someone else does with their body?

For me, conservatism squares with right reason.

This was really brought home to me after I read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. A human being exists in a certain way, he is hard wired in a certain way, he had what Aristotle would say, a certain nature. We are not a tabula rasa, a blank slate. Therefore, by examining ourselves and our surroundings, we can deduce a manual for right living, for flourishing as a human being.

Take the God issue. Despite what the media would have you believe, most people in the West believe in God, believe that they are His creation. Most people in modern Ireland believe in God. Heck, the ancient Greeks believed in gods (Plato and Aristotle already saw that there must be only one). I am not going to submit arguments here for the existence of God, I have done this in plenty of other threads and it derails the entire discussion. What follows? If I believe in God, I am His creation, I owe Him honour and worship as a matter of justice. If I believe God exists, then it is going to have to be a pretty big deal in my life. Conservatism supports this view, liberalism does not seem to.

Next, family and nation. By observation and experience, I can see that man, woman and child flourish in strong, well ordered, heterosexual families. Especially for children, a strong family is paramount to their physical, mental and emotional well-being. Conservatism supports strong families, liberalism does not seem to.

The nation. By the way I am made, I have a strong affinity for people who have the same culture, the same roots and (very broadly) the same outlook when it comes to values (eg free speech, proper treatment of women, rule of law etc). By what Aquinas calls the ordo caritatis (the order of charity), this is right and proper, just as it is right and proper for me to have a higher degree of affinity and care for members of my family than for complete strangers. Conservatism supports strong nations, liberalism does not seem to.

Work and social welfare. "If any man will not work, neither let him eat". This has to be interpreted properly, with due regard for people's circumstances, but this sentiment carries something important in it. There is no free lunch. If you are able to work, there is work available, but you will not work, then there is something wrong. Conservatism supports this view, liberalism does not seem to.

Re abortion. Why are you so concerned with what someone else does with their body?

I am concerned that a defenseless baby's life is snuffed out. The child is never given a shot at life. Many a time it is 'terminated' because the parents just could not be bothered about raising it. The state should not allow it.

How do I know it is a baby? With these fun facts:

18 days from conception: Heart begins to beat, with the baby’s own blood.
28 days: A baby has eyes, ears, and even a tongue!
30 days: Child has grown 10,000 times to 6-7mm (1/4”) long. Brain has human proportions. Blood flows in veins.
44-45 days: 99% of muscles are present, each with its own nerve supply.
10 Weeks: The unborn baby will bend fingers around an object placed in his/her palm. The unborn baby’s body is sensitive to touch. He/she squints, swallows, puckers up brow and frowns. Eyelids, fingerprints and even fingernails are evident.