Both terms mean "The GOOD Guys" to people who strongly identify with the term used. Neither Liberals nor Conservatives believe their world view is harmful. If you completely agree with them, you must be a good guy, too.

Each term means "The BAD Guys" to people who strongly identify with the "opposite" term. If you are a Conservative, Liberals stand for everything you are against. If you are a liberal, it's the Conservatives who want to subjugate mankind according to their warped, twisted views.

There are some ideas that are common to one view or the other, but I think they boil down to the following:

• Liberal: No-one is truly responsible for the things they do. Everyone shares responsibility anything that happens. We are all responsible for the (hypothetical) axe murderer who killed seven people and we can't sentence him to death because really, it's our fault just as much it is his. Besides, whio can say he's really guilty? After all, jurys are composed of fallible human beings, and might have made a mistake. Besides, who are we to judge? By extension, no-one can be trusted to do the right thing on their own. It just won't happen on a big enough scale to matter unless it is imposed upon them by an outside force.

• Conservative: Everyone is responsible for his own actions only. That axe-murderer in the previous example chose to do the deeds he did and deserves to die, die, die! While the jury is composed of fallible people, there are 12 of them, so the odds favor they have weighed the evidence correctly despite the possibility that a few of them are dim. No-one but the axe-murderer is responsible for his actions because he chose his actions by himself. Since no-one is responsible for any actions or decisions but his or her own, no-one should be forced to do anything unless there is a direct threat to all if it is not done. If you're in bad shape it must be your fault.

Although I have identified myself as a conservative, I must realistically recognize there are people who use that same label to fool others into believing they are one of the "good guys". Likewise, there are some who use the liberal flag so others will think they are one of the "good guys".

I don't think I can use the label of conservative to describe what my ideals are when talking to self-described liberals. When I use that term it means, to them, that I approve of everything they do not, that I support some sort of movement to suppress their ideals. Likewise, a liberal who describes himself as such immediately identifies himself to the strong conservative as a person who wants to promote every civil liberty except the ones the conservative holds dear. The conservative fears the same sort of dictatorship the liberal does, but identifies the threat as coming from the liberal camp.

What does this mean? I support the right to bear arms. I must be a conservative, since every liberal knows that no-one can be trusted with the power of deadly force. After all, power corrupts, doesn't it? And guns are power. Ban guns.

On the other hand, I support freedom of speech. The movement to add an amendment to our Constitution banning flag-burning alarms me, as it threatens to set a precedent I do not like at all. It would mean that if anyone didn't like something you said, if they had enough support, they could make what you said illegal. You could not express it.

I have a lot of views. Mainly, I believe we are each fully in control of only our actions and must be held responsible for what we do. We are, however, responsible to others. We can do what we can to convince or persuade others to believe as we do, but they are, in the end, responsible for their own actions. Part of being responsible to one another is serving one another. I donate to charity, but don't expect others to. I contribute to the welfare of the community in ways that suit me. Others may contribute in ways that suit them. Or not. It's their choice.

After all, community service of any sort isn't really "giving back", it's giving to the community. It isn't owed, but it makes the world a better place, not just for yourself but also for others. If it were compulsory, who would choose what needs to be done? Possibly someone who doesn't care about what you do.

So am I a liberal or am I something else? How about you?

</soapbox>

------------------
If this is the future, then where are all the flying cars?
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

I think it behooves elected officials to remember that the electorate are not idiots. I think it also behooves the electorate not to act like idiots. I'd rather vote for an honest person who opposed my views than a scoundrel who embraces them. At least I know what the honest man has in mind and can brace myself for the results.

--Baloo

------------------
If this is the future, then where are all the flying cars?
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

I still think an election here would be fun. I know some couldn't care less about US politics (like a certain fox I could name), but it could still work. How about it, Charles? Wanna run the show if 1 o' 2 (or anyone else) will running against me?

Ah, and thanks for the spelling correction, Baloo.

------------------
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons; for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.

Besides, I wouldn't vote for either of ya!

Anarchy Rules!

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Okay, what's an MSD?" - Rick Sternbach

Regarding labels. We need a label if only so Liberals and Conservatives know we neither identify ourselves with them, nor their opposition. Moderate is useless, since each camp uses it to describe people who (in their opinion) have sold out their ideals. Moderates are neither fish nor fowl. I think we need to define ourselves well enough so that while we are neither fish nor fowl, we definitely are something, and not just viewed as a bunch of people who lack conviction.

Mainstream has been co-opted by both Liberals and Conservatives to mean what they are, without regard to whether this is really true. Shoot! I think Mainstream would have worked, if they already hadn't soiled it.

How about some suggestions (and more position statements)? I'd make some suggestions for terminology but I think I'd like to give everyone else a chance first (translation: "I can't think of a damn thing right now!").

--Baloo

------------------
If you believe in love at first sight, you need glasses.
If you already have glasses, get a guide dog.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

I think most of the people here are mature enough to vote on what the cantidates stand for and not the cantidates themselves.

Sol:

It's not so much labeling yourself. If I were in politics, I'd just do what I thought was right, and let others label me if and how they chose. It's more a choice between the two philosophies, with labels being assigned effectively by default.

Sol:

You can have a spectrum of beliefs, but when it comes to basic philosophy, you only have a certain number of choices. People either should or should not have control over their own lives. Everything logical can be reduced to a series of binary choices. God either does or does not exist, I either do or do not believe in him, I am either wearing or not wearing a digital watch, etc. The reason I seem so dualistic at times isn't really because I don't see that there are other choices. I just don't like indecisiveness or middle ground. Look up Revelation 3:15-16.

Rather, liberalism throughout history has always sought to embrace and nurture the progression of humanity and believes that society and education plays a role in such progression. Today's liberalism is no different.

Further it recognizes that there are mitigating factors in the actions of people and groups of people. Just as a botanist understands that an ecosystem is formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their physical environment and that each member of the ecosystem is reliant on the other members of the community for it's continued growth, so too is a human society.

Moreover as an ecosystem can take years to recover after a major conflagration, a society does as well. No person is wholly dependant upon himself or herself.

I think conservatism is all too ready to bury it's collective head in the sand and say it's not my problem; whereas liberalism understands that cultural ills are created by the group as a whole and is therefore all of our problems.

I mean, this whole "if you're not one of us you're one of them" attitude isn't healthy. It gave you McCarthyism, and I'd like to see anyone defend that psycho's actions.

But can people really always vote along those lines? Conservative Republicans vs. Liberal Democrats? Aren't there any Liberal Republicans or Conservative Democrats? Doesn't it totally preclude people changing their minds? What happens when there's an election? Each Party goes in and out of power?

I mean, what? Conservatives were pissed off with Bush, so didn't vote at all, so a Liberal President got elected? And then a couple years later, Conservatives were pissed off a liberal got elected, and Liberals were pissed off because he wasn't really that liberal once the realities of the job settled in, so the former voted and the latter didn't?