Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Rush Limbaugh's Ears
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay: [QB] [QUOTE]but he's certainly a liberal by the definitions of 2001 America.[/QUOTE] By [i]your[/i] definition. :) [QUOTE]the Democrats are liberal. You don't disagree with that, I presume.[/QUOTE] For the most part, they're more-so then Republicans, but less so then the Green Party. [QUOTE]Notice how nothing major happened during the Clinton administration without GOP support?[/QUOTE] Gee, you don't think it had anything to do with the GOP majority shooting down any and all bills they didn't like, do you? GASP! [QUOTE]Yes, he was, because he believed in a large government. When you're discussing politics within the US, you need to use terms that apply here to avoid confusion.[/QUOTE] *GASP!* Somebody better tell George W. Bush. You may not be aware of this, but he's taken the very [i]liberal[/i] (by your definition) step of Federalizing airport/plane security. Or did you miss that? [QUOTE]The definition is contradictory. They want to increase personal freedom, but they also want to increase the power of the government over people.[/QUOTE] Then I guess George W. Bush is a liberal ... or have you failed to notice the power the government has recently gained? Oh, of course, as you already said, you don't care if it doesn't effect you. But, because you're in desperate need of a real education ... [QUOTE]Once upon a time (in the 1800s), "liberal" and "libertarian" meant the same thing; both were individualist, distrustful of state power, pro-free-market, and opposed to the entrenched privilege of the feudal and mercantilist system. After 1870, models of of society were being refined in terms of the structural effects of group interaction; the social environment came to be seen as a significant factor in determining the ability of large numbers of people to succeed in attaining their goals (and indeed in determining what those goals were). Libertarians felt that any attempt to solve social problems had to depend on private, voluntary effort, and that modifying social factors would inevitably lead to worse problems. Liberals felt that the problems were too serious to be passively left to chance in this way, and that government should have a role in influencing the social framework within which people act. Economically, liberals came to believe that pure free markets led to systematic abuse, so that a limited amount of regulation was needed; libertarians continued to favour the caveat emptor approach. By this time, conservatives had become comfortable with the free-market, capitalist system, so they joined forces with the libertarians on the economic (though not the social) front. Liberals see the role of government as providing a framework within which individuals can develop their lives and contribute to society. Regulation of private industry is needed to ensure integrity and safety, with respect to customers and workers. Equal opportunity should be a goal, which entails a level of provision to ameliorate the effects of poverty and discrimination. Health care and education should be universally available, since without either, individual choice is severely limited. Liberals do *not* want the government to protect people from themselves, or to interfere in individual interaction, except insofar as to prevent systematic actions that cause harm. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]We would also have missed out on the Holocaust and the Soviet and Chinese attrocities.[/QUOTE] ::sigh:: Read: [QUOTE]Communists understand society as interactions of groups, to the extent that they largely ignore the value and effect of individual action. Socialists, while advocating individual rights, see property-owning structures in society as inevitably leading to corruption and the ill-treatment of the poor by the rich. Both groups arose as a reaction to the abuses of capitalists, and so feel that individual acquisitiveness is the primary cause of social injustice and poverty. [This is over-simplified.] Liberals feel that when properly regulated, self-interest is a powerful and useful motivation; it should be harnessed, rather than erased.[/QUOTE] All quoted sections referenced from [URL=http://www.cs.ncl.ac.uk/people/chris.holt/home.informal/lounge/politics/liberalism.html#2]Chris Holt's[/URL] webpage. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3