Liberalism and Socialism

kalder says on Apr 22, 2008, 04:43:

Your definition of liberalism is a good definition of 19thC 'Classical Liberalism'. But the word's pretty much changed its meaning in common parlance. A bit like the way the word 'gay' has over the years. Now 'liberalism' has come to mean (in many people's eyes) an immoral and/or naive abandonment of traditional community values for a species of moral/cultural/political relativism.

And I disagree with your definition of socialism (although I do appreciate that you wrote that "these are not complete absolutes") I believe in the welfare system and in state intervention in the market place. But that most certainly does not make me a socialist. For that I'd have to subscribe to much of the murderous, anti-humanity and anti-cultural mumbo-jumbo of the Jacobin/ Marxist tradition.

Nor do I believe that Marxism and moral relativism (or, socialism and liberalism by my attempted definition) are incompatible at all. Look at all those student Trots, Reds, Anarchists and Fellow Travellers who now run much of our government, education and media: They're pushing an anti-family, anti-God and anti-British agenda as if their lives depended on it! 'Left-liberalism', that creed for the well-heeled and ill-intentioned, is thriving as never before over here.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Apr 22, 2008, 04:46:

Well you have to know there will be some here who disagree with you and your assignment of a definition of liberals.

It is true liberalism has such a dirty connotation in the States that even liberals are hiding from the tag. You will notice that very few politicians in the US today will run for elected office with this moniker. Instead they will attempt to disguise their real philosophy. In other words they run as conservatives but govern as liberals. One of their tactics for confusing the populace is their term of being a "moderate" as if that is a philosophy. They are simple afraid of telling the voter the truth if they wish to be elected.

Obfuscation is their modus operandi. They use jargon to conceal unpleasant facts from a voter.

By your definition of liberals then both the two current U.S. presidential Democratic candidates must be Marxist.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cerealkiller says on Apr 22, 2008, 05:10:

Well thank you for your comments Kalder. I do acknowledge that the definitions are poor, but then again trying to define something that general without getting into specifics is quite tricky. Im guessing nobody would've read it had I tried to make it 100% accurate (at least not my target audience) as it would have taken too much space. Truth is my point is that of pointing out that comparing apples to pears is misleading. I agree with you in that liberalism has come to mean lack of values, but from that to saying 'liberals= socialists" there is a wide gap, again apples and oranges if we are to stick to their essence.
In another thread I mentioned this very same issue, and I really do not know what the deal is, but I have noticed that in America everyone calls socialism "liberal"... and that just boggles my mind, because even though you do make a fair point when referring to moral relativism and marxism, you could actually argue that the same principle would apply to liberalism when examining a more utilitarian perspective...so I am not sure it is that clear.
It would be cool if we could all contribute to the thread enough to get more encompassing definitions, afterall, this place is to express points of view. I just hope some of the more militant members keep it civilized.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 06:57:

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that consider individual liberty to be the most important political goal. Modern liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment.

Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion. Social progressivism, the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable rights. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.

Within liberalism, there are two major currents of thought. which often compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues, as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom. Classical liberals, believe that the only real freedom is freedom from coercion. As a result they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts the economic freedom of individuals and favor laissez-faire economic policy. They oppose the welfare state. Social liberals argue that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens. They believe that real freedom can only exist when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty. They generally favor the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a living wage. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of welfare, including unemployment benefit and housing for the homeless, all supported by progressive taxation.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 07:36:

There's a lot of confusion because classic American style liberalism was always a different creature from the European "left" and the conflation of the two go back a long way in our politics.

For example, "liberal" reforms such as child labor laws and women's suffrage was often criticized by American conservatives as communist or Red Plots. Many conservatives basically saw the New Deal as communist or socialist in nature. Try telling today an average American senior citizen their SS or Medicare is an insidious plot to take away their freedom. . . ;)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Apr 22, 2008, 07:39:

hmmmm. glaringly different interpretations, i'm guessing due to geography. both ck and esanch are describing american conservatives, almost perfectly, in their "liberalism" definitions.

fascinating thread!

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2008, 07:40:

Thank you guys (especially cerealkiller who started this thread and esanch for amplifying the information) for bringing a little information on this topic. I have noticed the lack of common terminology also which seriously hampers the debate, especially on political forum.

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2008, 08:05:

Always a good idea to understand the meaning behind the word.

Wanna' smoke a fag with me?

POSSIBLE U.S. INTERPRETATION
Would you like to join me in performing oral sex on a homosexual male?

or

INTENDED U.K. MEANING
Would you like to smoke a cigarette with me?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2008, 08:14:

What does that cowbell thingie mean, tinto?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Apr 22, 2008, 08:26:

Liberals (USA) exist in an intellectual bubble. They spend their time talking to, agreeing with and being agreed with by other liberals. Their personal one-on-one exposure to ideas that challenge their world-view is protected by their existence in the bubble, a bubble that is at once a shield from the reality of "the other" as it is a warm and comfortable intellectual bath of reassuring moral superiority.

There is shock and anger when he ventures forth from the respectful cocoon of the ever-adoring left-wing mainstream media.

"A second marked characteristic of the liberal-in-debate-with-the-conservative is the tacit premise that debate is ridiculous because there is nothing whatever to debate about."

It is never, ever a dawning reality that there is quite another world-view out there held by thoughtful and honest people who simply disagree in good faith. The liberal mania insists that what they know is equivalent to a revealed truth. To quote Buckley: "...it is usually necessary (for the liberal) to berate the person who brought the matter up."

We must coax outside into the warm sunshine of honest debate those liberals on duty holding on desperately to an increasingly frightened, timid, stereotypical, reflexively mean-spirited and condescending philosophy. The liberal mania.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cerealkiller says on Apr 22, 2008, 08:36:

Aztec, I don't know you very well, but you certainly do not sound like a socialist, so I don't get the liberal bashing. Where do your political tendencies lie? What are your thoughts on the role of governments in markets?

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Apr 22, 2008, 08:38:

here ya go, des...

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 08:38:

jajajja so true Aztec

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 09:01:

Let's change a word here:

Conservatives (USA) exist in an intellectual bubble. They spend their time talking to, agreeing with and being agreed with by other conservatives. Their personal one-on-one exposure to ideas that challenge their world-view is protected by their existence in the bubble, a bubble that is at once a shield from the reality of "the other" as it is a warm and comfortable intellectual bath of reassuring moral superiority.

There is shock and anger when he ventures forth from the respectful cocoon of the ever-adoring right-wing conservative mainstream media (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Weekly Standard, Policy Review, etc)

The difference between a liberal and a conservative is a difference of values, and a different concept of what "freedom" entails.

It also depends where you grew up and where you live. Cities tend to be more liberal and have more taxes because when you cram 8 million people into a small area, you will have a madhouse otherwise. In other parts of the country, where the density is much less, then you don't need lots of taxes, the values and lifestyles are different, etc. etc.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 09:02:

Its so funny, people in Washington are quibbling about the details of the economic stimulus package, nearly everyone agrees with its basic idea: that our ailing economy needs Uncle Sam to play doctor and hand out some $150 billion in consumer spending money. But this sort of government intervention is not the cure for our economic troubles. It is the cause.

People have to realize that the key economic activity that causes growth is not consumer spending but production.

Economic growth means an increase in the amount of wealth that exists in a country--and all wealth must be produced. Houses, health care, air-conditioning and transportation do not come readymade from nature. We have them only to the extent that individuals and businesses bring them into existence.

The focus of today's stimulus packages on consumer spending is therefore completely backward. Consumption is a consequence of production. This fact is ignored by the Bush plan, which attempts to achieve prosperity through $100 billion in deficit-spending. Though this might bring the appearance of prosperity, in the same way that an unemployed man appears prosperous if he goes on a shopping spree with his credit cards, the reality will be the opposite.

The fact is that consumer spending is slowing because production is slowing. There have been massive misallocations of capital witness, for instance, the housing market--which are now coming home to roost. The resulting financial losses, economic uncertainty and the more messed up job market are all contributing to the American consumers inability or unwillingness to spend.

If the Bush spending plan cant productively stimulate the economy, what government economic plan can? None. Production does not need stimulation from the government; it needs liberation from the government . What a productive, dynamic economy requires of a government is that it restrict itself to protecting property rights from force and fraud, and refrain from interfering in free production and trade.

Now it is of course popular practice to blame economic problems, not on government intervention but on the free market. But observe that all of the most prominent problems today--problems with housing, financial markets, health care, oil--involve some of the least-free sectors of our economy, those with the most government intervention.

Consider the extent of government culpability in the current subprime meltdown. There is the Federal Reserve, which wrought havoc with the markets by manipulating interest rates, first setting them below the rate of inflation and then quintupling them.

The Fed's initial policy convinced subprime borrowers that if they took out mortgages tied to Fed rates, they could afford homes that they ordinarily couldn't. The Fed's artificially low rates fueled a borrowing spree and housing bubble that were instrumental in the subprime meltdown. Then there is the network of entities backed by the government, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were big champions of subprime lending and big propagandists for the idea that everyone needs to own a home to live the American Dream. Finally, there is the government's long-standing policy of assuring large financial institutions that they are "too big to fail," which encourages short-range, high-risk investments.

Given all these influences, is it any surprise that so many people with poor credit bought expensive homes, that so many financial institutions lent them the money and that all hell broke loose once the unsustainable could no longer be sustained? In an unhampered market, private lenders and borrowers don't behave this way.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg of how our government today stifles economic productivity through its gargantuan regulatory and welfare state. Try to project the impact on productive businesses of the vast burden of federal and state regulations--regulations that render off-limits a huge range of productive endeavors.

For example: If a fast-growing software company needs to quickly import a dozen eager and talented Indian programmers, it can't, thanks to our immigration laws. If a company needs to fire a group of incompetent employees to make its workforce more productive, it risks a million-dollar lawsuit. If a developer seeks to offer low-cost housing in the vast, unused tracts of land in expensive California districts, too bad--that would go against environmentalist "open space" laws.

If a health insurance company tries to win more customers with deductibles, coverage and limits that will make insurance far more affordable, the idea is sunk; states dictate the terms of health insurance contracts. If a group of venture capitalists want to invest in new nuclear power, to supply cheap energy to a new market, it cannot--environmental regulations have prevented any new plants for decades, despite the technology's stellar safety record.

If the board of a struggling public company wants to hire a top-flight CEO to turn its company around, its job is much harder (and more expensive) thanks to the CEO-repelling climate created by Sarbanes-Oxley, whose vague laws and new criminal penalties make managing a firm much riskier. Even the simple project of building a larger facility to house a growing business can easily be held up for six months, while the owner must glad-hand zoning and permit bureaucrats.

And this is just the smallest indication of the regulatory strangulation that American businesses suffer. Imagine the economic stimulus, the explosion of productivity, that would occur if these regulatory nooses were removed.

For that matter, consider how our government wreaks economic destruction by taxing the wealth of the productive and diverting it unproductively. Americans pay trillions of dollars in taxes annually--the vast majority of which is not for the agencies that protect our rights (police, military and courts), but for regulations and for entitlement programs that transfer wealth from productive individuals who have earned it to those who haven't.

Over the years, these programs have prevented individuals from investing trillions of dollars in new ventures. It took a million dollars to start Google (nasdaq: GOOG - news - people ); if the government hadn't drained us of millions of dollars, picture what other amazing technologies, products and services we would be enjoying today.

The economic stimulus that would result from drastically cutting government regulation and spending (and thus taxation) is almost unimaginable.

Faced with recession, therefore, we should be asking not, "What can the government do to stimulate the economy?" but "What can it stop doing?" Washington should be debating which disastrous programs to phase out first: Sarbanes-Oxley, or the constellation of agencies that distort the housing market, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Politicians should be committing to drastically cutting government spending, so that Americans can have real and lasting tax relief.

What our economy needs is not a stimulation package, but a liberation package.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2008, 09:04:

Thanks, sailguy!

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2008, 09:15:

(I can't see YouTube at work but if SlyGuy's post is a clip from "Saturday Night Live" that should explain everything). :-)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

slguy says on Apr 22, 2008, 09:16:

yep

Before you throw me out, make sure I pay my bar tab

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Apr 22, 2008, 09:25:

this issue is very complex (political scientists actively debate it everyday) but a couple of points that makes it easier to get past the wish-wash...

1. It must be understood that liberalism applies as a body in three main areas, as political ideologies, economic theories, or a lifestyle (personal matters). All three are mutually exclusive. Then within these there is variance that may be even have completely opposite connotations like esanch explained above. Thus, any broad generalizing statements about 'liberals' are inherently flawed.

2. it must be understood that while left-right political spectrums are still largely used for the sake of simplicity. They are much too broad and in a deeper discussion useless. For instance where in the spectrum do you put nationalism? it's not possible to find it a single location.

3. socialism can be a political ideology or an economic theory. Again these are mutually exclusive. so someone that believes that everyone should recieve health care through the government doesn't necesarily believe that the government should own for instance the textile industry.

4. the strategies involved in obtaining and enfocing of power hardly have anything to do with socialism. Statements such as "For that I'd have to subscribe to much of the murderous, anti-humanity and anti-cultural mumbo-jumbo of the Jacobin/ Marxist tradition" are baseless. Or in a closer to home example, equating that since the FARC is evil, then socialism is Evil, is also completely flawed.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Apr 22, 2008, 10:48:

My statement is baseless? Then perhaps you could explain socialism's record of slavery and murder in Russia, China, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola et al and its turning a large swathe of Europe into a physical and moral slum.

Seriously, I would be genuinely interested to hear what apologies for Marxism you can come up with. (You're welcome to try your hand at a whitewash of Jacobinism too, if you're not too pushed.)

"...obtaining and enforcing of power have hardly anything to do with socialism."? My hole. That's what it's all about comrade.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Apr 22, 2008, 11:02:

kalder- you are mixing concepts. In Sweden today is there slavery? are they socialist?
Or there's been slavery and murder in Colombia, that doesn't mean it's ever been a socialist state (arguably it's long been a capitalist state).
You'll have to provide a quote from Marx's text to prove your point, if that interests you.

if you want to have a serious discussion on this topic, you need to look at the concepts as they were written, not how they have been practiced because nobody has followed what was written word for word.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 11:11:

romy...your missing the point.....I think kalder was using slavery metophoricly.....saying that people are forced into a social system were they are working for the betterment of the group instead of themselves...example the welfare system.......but then again he is talking about Russia and they did have the Siberian work camps, were if you did agree with the system you were sent to what was basically like slavery

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 11:11:

sd

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Apr 22, 2008, 11:12:

If my mugging up on Das Kapital is the requirement to have a 'serious' discussion on a bloody internet forum...I would say you're joking. But my experience of earnest socialists means that, sadly, I know better :(

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:14:

For some strange reason, I don't think Swedes wake up in the morning feeling oppressed and desperately wishing if only they could be more like the Americans, lol!

And last couple of times I've been to Europe I didn't see much of a "physical and moral slum."

"working for the betterment of the group instead of themselves"

Exactly. It's a value. I think it comes from the New Testament. ;) And I think it's admirable of them. And if Swedes or Europeans don't like the system they can VOTE to change it. Different strokes for different folks. . .

I don't see anyone being "forced into a social system" in those countries, the system simply reflects the cultural values of the mainstream. As the cultural values change, the system changes, just like it has in the states (like the Civil Rights movement in the 60s).

Now you can argue about which values are superior but when it comes down to it, most people will prefer their values even if you could absolutely prove 110% your way is superior.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:20:

Yeah but what happens to the people that dont want the government to steal their money to give to the poor and other social systems. When you have a governments that put the betterment of the group over the individual and forces them to give over there livelhood to support someone elses, thats a form of oppressions.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Desideria (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:26:

If we thought that government was stealing our money and giving it away to people who don't need or deserve it we would VOTE TO CHANGE the government. Where's the oppression?

"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."-President George W. Bush

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:27:

Oppression? For who? A democracy is what the majority wants. Who exactly is oppressing who in Europe? The voters???

If you really are that worried about the govt. "stealing" your money, you can try working off the books, or find work in another country. There's plenty of movement around in the EU. Heck, maybe you can even work in the states, although I think most of these people would MUCH rather be paid in EUROS nowadays, lol! :0))

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cerealkiller says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:31:

esanch, steal? Im sorry, but it seems to me you're assuming that as an individual you get nothing out of taxes. Governments need to pay for roads and security so that you can go and make money. Yes, government spending varies from country to country and I personally would rather have them taking my money to support the poor than for me to spend it on candies, but that is just me. In addition, the money the government 'steals' from you can be given to someone else, but in the long run it will benefit you. The consequences of poverty often result in higher crime, more violence, an atomized society...Just look at Britain under Thatcher, she decided to privatize everything and decrease social investment in the name of individual liberties. Guess what happened? Government spending soared because the money they did not spend in benefits and education had to be spent on police force. Britain is still paying for that brilliant idea.
In regard to your question "what happens to the people that don't want their govt to steal their money?" nothing, they are free to leave the country at any moment and find one where the level of taxation suits their needs, how's that for opression?

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:37:

Sooooo if the majority is always right??? Some of the greatest horrors that have been commited was because the majority thought it was right...World war II??mmmm.....Its hard concept for you to understand but im mainly talking about opression of the Individual and allowing him to live his life without taxing him to death.......But Droble im an honest citizen and let the government steal my money because the majority says so.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:37:

yeah, I had a problem with that term "steal" too

And esanch, be careful what you ask for, if the govt. isn't "stealing" it from you, believe me, someone else nearly as powerful will, like your employer or "corporate america" or some other party.

The govt. provides a framework so that every aspect of our lives doesn't become a constant struggle for "palanca" as the Colombians would put it. Yeah, the bureaucracy and the inefficiencies suck but I don't think modern technological societies can even function without large governments. . .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cerealkiller says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:45:

Well Esanch those are the perks of democracy. If you have a better alternative then fire away.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:47:

esanch, if 50.1% of the voters of an EU country believed they were being taxed to death, believe me, I'm sure they would eventually do something about it.

Last time I went to Spain, I didn't see a lot of grumpy oppressed people. I DID see a lot of people staying up all hours of the night having a good time. :0) I'll be there this Friday for my cousin's wedding, I'll let you know what the mood over there is like. . . ;)

And I didn't say the majority is "always right." I said they do have a habit of getting their way whether you and I like it or not.

How do you propose fixing that? Being ruled by a self-selected elite?

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:50:

Yes droble!!!!!! BOoohhh corparte america is out to get you be careful.....Fuck it....i give up.....tax me to death.......Im moving to colombia to be with droble and we can start a socialist revolution there.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:51:

Self-selected elite???such as yourself???

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 12:54:

yesss and then in colombia we can be the Self selected elite with a socialist platform.....I like your thinking doble. VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cerealkiller says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:01:

Haha esanch, how very JS Mill of you. I am often not very PC, but in this case I will be, its been a couple of decades since that thought has been categorized as "unacceptable". That said, the thought of uninformed citizens' votes (to avoid the term unfit to vote) being counted on the same basis of those whose votes were well thought out (regardless of the candidate) gives me the creeps. But as lovely Maggie Thatcher said 'there is no alternative'.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:10:

Guys......say no more i believe you....as we speak im in the process of buying a Che t-shirt. Buggy i only ride my bike on the grass....i never use the pavement;

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:13:

esanch why do you cheapen your argument? I was enjoying reading your point of view until your 'surrender'.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:14:

CerealKiller - It's hard to say Britain's privatization program and reduction in social spending led to more social ills and more money spent on police. That's correlation, as you must know. Lots of additional variables were at play then, and now.

If money were the easy answer, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs (a big expansion of the welfare state) and the massive amounts we pay for education should have led to smarter kids, healthier kids, stronger families, fewer people in prison, etc, etc. It didn't (and doesn't) work that way.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:15:

Dont get even get me started on the corruption and horrible management of the roads we have here in michigan....ohhhh aaaaaaahhhhhhh sorry sorry.......that was old me speaking.....the government does the best it can here, and its the fualt of global warming that caused this cold ass winter here in michigan and caused all the ice to crack the pavement and make potholes.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:19:

dude, what the hell are you talking about? LOL, I don't live in Colombia and the last thing I want is a revolution. I just describe things as I see them and adapt to the situation at hand, that's all I can do, nothing more!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:24:

What romy???? I agree with them......Im in the process of writing my senator about why the hell our government is running a huge deficit....Im pleading with him to raise my taxes so i can help out...sheeshhh......Tinto come on man get with the program!!!! We never threw enough money at those Programs, dont worry though Obama is going to improve upon those Programs

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:32:

Alright guys...thanks for setting me straight.....Im going to Wal-mart now to pick up my Che guevara shirt and maybe a cap with a red star on it. Tomorrow i plan on moving into the woods with my other like minded friends with the plan for revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! I hope to be in texas by december with the plans to liberate central america by next Feb.. and hopefully ill be able to save you PBH memebers from Uribe sometime next April. Meanwhile i need you guys in colombia to start a gringo Battalion with the farc and start the good fight....look to my coming on the 10th day of April....Ill have of those Che t-shirts for you too...

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:33:

oh grow up

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 22, 2008, 13:39:

jajajajajja

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 22, 2008, 17:35:

Romy Quote Thus, any broad generalizing statements about 'liberals' are inherently flawed.

Damn,, those slippery liberals,, just like a bags of ketchup,, squeeze them and who knows which direction they will squirt.
===
Quote: For instance where in the spectrum do you put nationalism? it's not possible to find it a single location.

This is like saying it’s impossible to determine where to put your ketchup, on the bun or fries.

Yep,, looks like a squirting problem.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Cerealkiller says on Apr 22, 2008, 17:50:

Poco but Romy is right, Nationalism can only be put under Big government but you can technically have both on either side of the spectrum. An example, China and Nazi Germany... both nationalist, but surely you cannot say the same about ideologies.

Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives -John Stuart Mill

0 funny, 0 helpful.

aztec says on Apr 22, 2008, 18:22:

esanch36, I spent almost 40 years in a major university. The liberal mantra is genetic there. Believe me when I tell you that you are not going to change their minds.

Remember " The liberal mania insists that what they know is equivalent to a revealed truth." It is as if they are in communication with God Who has delivered to them the Truth in the Ark!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

poco says on Apr 22, 2008, 18:39:

Quote: Poco but Romy is right, Nationalism can only be put under Big government but you can technically have both on either side of the spectrum. An example, China and Nazi Germany... both nationalist, but surely you cannot say the same about ideologies.
========
Nationalism is a doctrine and can be a part of a left-right spectrum. Any form of government can be nationalistic. Placement or assignment is very straight forward. The statement: it’s not possible to find it a single location is false as copied below.

2. it must be understood that while left-right political spectrums are still largely used for the sake of simplicity. They are much too broad and in a deeper discussion useless. For instance where in the spectrum do you put nationalism? (answer, wherever applicable) it's not possible to find it a single location.

"Violence is the first refuge of the incompetent" - Isaac Asimov

0 funny, 0 helpful.

romy says on Apr 22, 2008, 19:00:

aztec- ideologically what do you have against liberals? freedom, individual rights, individualism, laissez-faire, liberal democracy,...?

poco- that's old school political science see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Apr 23, 2008, 00:00:

And last couple of times I've been to Europe I didn't see much of a "physical and moral slum." droble

Obviously you weren't there when Eastern Europe was part of the 'Workers' Paradise'.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

travelingirl says on Apr 23, 2008, 00:11:

Makes me think of a quote from the movie, "Euro Trip"... "Enjoy Bratislava! It's good you came in summer. In winter it can get very depressing."

Around her hair she wore a yellow ribbon...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

travelingirl says on Apr 23, 2008, 00:13:

Around her hair she wore a yellow ribbon...

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 23, 2008, 00:22:

Dude, I'm not talking about soviet-style Communism; that was my whole point. The european marxist left and modern american-style liberalism are two different creatures with not all that much in common. Some of those satellite states are now pretty dynamic, vibrant countries thanks to the EU system that's lifting them up.

But yeah, I'll grant it's a different way of looking at the world than the states where we have this romanticizing of "rugged individualism" and "going it alone." I'm not quite sure if those cultural traits are going to help us all that much with the biggest problems of the 21st century. . .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 23, 2008, 05:34:

modern american liberalism has alot to do with the european marxist left....have you beeeennn paying attention to what Billary and Obama have been saying???? They just present it in a nicer looking package.....Damn Wal-mart ran out of those Che shirts.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Apr 23, 2008, 05:48:

Both Soviet Communism and many of today's liberal-left polities draw much of their ideology from shared Marxist and Jacobin wellsprings.

Dude.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Apr 23, 2008, 05:48:

Both Soviet Communism and many of today's liberal-left polities draw much of their ideology from shared Marxist and Jacobin wellsprings.

Dude.

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

droble77 says on Apr 23, 2008, 06:12:

You mean all the working class people who voted for Hillary last night are just a bunch of proto-commies? LOL, come on. . .

0 funny, 0 helpful.

kalder says on Apr 23, 2008, 06:31:

Eh? Is that addressed to me old chap?

"kalder- have you ever had a woman?"--Sam Salmon

0 funny, 0 helpful.

esanch36 says on Apr 23, 2008, 06:59:

1) Both communism and socialism have an end utopian goal of complete equality in their ideal state.

(2) Both communism and socialism employ the practice of centralized economic managing and income redistribution as their primary means of working toward this so called "equality."

(3) Both communism and socialism experience the same types of problems in accomplishing this economic managing - the unintended side effect.

(4) Both socialism and communism are structured in such a way that an inherent inequality develops from the administrative top of the power structure for such is necessary to enforce compliance. Such compliance must be mandated in a socialist system due to the fact that human nature creates skepticism, opposition to the control of others, and a desire for free will.

(5) In both systems when this unequal elite inevitably emerges, the concentration of widespread power in a single space must intensify. This naturally attracts individuals seeking widespread power, or it corrupts individuals already in power with the lure of the same widespread power.

(6) As a result of the government structures found in both systems, the intensification of power and control on the upper level necessarily translates into the usurpation of remaining personal freedoms during its expansion.

All right, I'll ask: How come it took three seconds to euthanize Eight Belles, but the Womens NBA is starting Year 12???

0 funny, 0 helpful.

hongo_joe says on Apr 23, 2008, 07:49:

"Remember " The liberal mania insists that what they know is equivalent to a revealed truth." It is as if they are in communication with God Who has delivered to them the Truth in the Ark!"

The people I hear who are claiming to be in communication with God would not want to be called liberals.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

cali373 says on Apr 23, 2008, 08:51:

I have to commend cerialkiller in proving a definitions of the difference between economic liberalism and political liberalism. however as I can see some of us cannot understand the difference here. As far as economic liberalism, in the past their has been dire consequences where free markets have failed and state intervention was needed to fix the markets which were supposed to fix themselves.

Something happening on a small scale recently in the U.S.

Smile if you are a thinker!

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Man Tequila says on Apr 23, 2008, 15:18:

I have to congratulate Cerealkiller on her optimism and tenacity in starting this thread at all. It took a lot longer to go south than I would have guessed.

I'm certainly a social liberal here in Canada, but the word has been so devalued in the US that no one is sure what it means. Americans who define themselves as liberal, including the university elites, have beliefs which sometimes scare me.

I'm also economically conservative, which today shares much with classical liberalism. I don't like spendthrift governments that can't justify what they spend or and don't try to measure or prove it has made a difference. I'm strongly for a free market and largely against corporate handouts as well as government intervention not based on health, pollution, fairness or reasonable laws.

Aunque no me creas/ si me lo propongo/ lograre olvidarte/ porque a fin de cuentas/ no soy tan cobarde./ Y termino todo una de estas tardes/ no sera dificil buscar algún sitio donde refugiarme/ donde nunca mas vuelvas a encontrarme. (Polo Montañez)

0 funny, 0 helpful.