Will the real liberals please stand up?

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think one of the issues hampering a clearer discussion is that the word "liberal" has become quite confusing.

Liberalism developed into quite a distinct ideology in the late 19th and early 20th century. However, in more recent times in the US its been used as a catch-all term for anyone from socialists to centrists and is often used as shorthand for "anyone who disagrees with me".

It's since been re-imported across the Atlantic and any time it's now used in discussions here there's always the question of what definition of "liberal" your interlocutor is using.

Fair point, maybe this is why lots of modern lefties seem to hate fascism except when it comes in the guise of a religion full of brown people.

recedite wrote: »

Lets move the debate on to something else then. Take the gun control issue in the USA. Donald J Trump wants to retain the right to bear arms.
Those who identify themselves as "the liberals" want to restrict that freedom.

But on the legal availability of marijuana issue, the liberals tend to reverse roles and be in favour. Surely a liberal should be relatively tolerant of both guns and drugs for responsible users?

But are the gun laws in America really liberal, the NRA is hardly full of NY liberals. Sane gun restrictions is common sense stuff to me as they are for the greater good. Inaction is largely down to fear of the NRA and their political power at the ballot box, I don't believe that is healthy in a liberal democracy.

Relaxation of drug laws would be a liberal issue, but only extremes such as Libertarianism would see complete legality as freedom!

On religion, yes freedom to express religion but our laws and constitution should respect different views and be secular, above religious tenets and dogma.

recedite wrote: »

Yes, gun laws in the US are very liberal compared to Europe. I'm not arguing for or against restrictions, just pointing out what the meaning of liberal is. It doesn't always coincide with the Alt Liberal agenda.

Then again, conservatives generally wouldn't be as pro gun as they are in America. It's a sign of how fecked up the debate has gone there.

It goes back to how others have pointed out liberalism tends to mean left now in American politics, that wouldn't be the traditional meaning of the term. Sanders had a liberal view on guns as an Independent, Democrats basically want some checks and restrictions on what is currently there.

This whole painting whole groups of diverse opinion in one word is just dumb. It's impossible to have a proper debate too.

recedite wrote: »

Your definition is consistent with mine and the OP's. Although the word "group" as inserted there is somewhat unnecessary, and possibly a Freudian thing associated with the groupthink of an Alt Liberal.

Hmm. I'm not sure that the word "Freudian" means what you think it means. And, while we could discuss whether the reference to "groups" in this context is necessary or not, the view that it's the product of "the groupthink of an Alt Liberal" might surely with equal justification be said to be the product of thr groupthink of Libertarians?

I think what's playing out here is differing attitudes to the individual and the community. This is a separate issue from liberalism and cuts across it, or intersects with it.

I suggest that liberals basically value freedom and, in particular the freedoms that enable humans to flourish, to grow, to develop, to reach their potential etc.

Where the different schools of liberalism disagree, I think, is in identifying which freedoms are more important for this purpose. This isn't just an individual/community thing; it also depends on what you understand by flourishing/fulfilment. There's a tradition of libertarianism identified with (but by no means exclusive to) America which understands this primarily in economic/material terms, and lays enormous stress on the sanctity of property rights, for example. A different emphasis, but I think one with an equally valid to the "liberal" label, would see good physical and mental health as a prerequisite for human flourishing, and so would guarantee medical care to all, and would subordinate property rights to that to the extent of taxing citizens to provide universal healthcare. These two traditions are both committed to freedom; they are just priotitising freedoms differently.

Right. There's a view of human personhood which lays great emphasis on our relationships and connections with one another. On this view, humans are social animals; we can't flourish without good networks of family, sexual, social and community relationships. We're justified in restricting (or even required to restrict) some freedoms to some extent in order to create an environment which is supportive of good human and community relationships, since thi is part of freeing people to develop and flourish.

So, for example, we forbid a business owner from refusing to deal with Blacks, or Jews, or Gays, or Muslims. A strict libertarian view would say that it's his restaurant and his food; he can sell it to who he wants and on what terms he wants and if you don't like it you can dine elsewhere. But a more communally-minded liberal would say no, it's not enough that someone can go and get a coffee elsewhere and their property rights are not infringed by not being able to get one here; this kind of behaviour is corrodes and destroys the network of social and community relationships that society requires if humans are to be free to flourish; therefore we ban it.

On similar arguments we might ban other forms of discrimination like, say, racial vilification. Or, we might not. Some people would be comfortable banning discrimination in the restaurant, but not in banning pure speech. The point is that what's going on here is a recognition that, to be truly free, we need to live in a supportive society and to enjoy supportive relationships, and behaviour which tends to destroy this is corrosive of true freedom. I think more individualist liberterians see this are comparatively unimportant and will accept only limited restrictions on other freedoms for this purpose (or, in extreme libertarian cases, none at all) , whereas more communitarian libertarians see it as comparatively important. They're both liberals, though, and the difference between them is not that one is more liberal than the other.