US: What is liberalism

[Arrian]

Yeah, actually, the Post Office is the one part of the government I think actually works. Of course, you will have to ignore the occasional worker "going Postal."

-Arrian

[Stefu]

The word 'neo-liberalism' is kind of a fnord to me, considering that it's only used by a certain kind of a leftie certain that any attempt to lessen the power of government equals corporate whoremongering and free-trade-for-me-not-for-thee that's in vogue in certain circles.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Japher
Liberalism = Sava

Oerdin has is it the way I see it

Same to Spiffor

I believe government to be a problem. Hence, I'd be right-wing by your guys' definition. You guys need to stop trying to stereotype everybody.

[Japher]

Sorry Sava

Not trying to stereotype anyone, just label...

[Odin]

Liberal in the US means Social Democrat, we took up that name to escape being harrassed the anti-communist fervor by conservatives since 1917.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Stefu
The word 'neo-liberalism' is kind of a fnord to me, considering that it's only used by a certain kind of a leftie certain that any attempt to lessen the power of government equals corporate whoremongering and free-trade-for-me-not-for-thee that's in vogue in certain circles.

No it isn't. At least not in sweden, where it's adopted by the right with relish. Mostly to set themselves apart from the liberals, who are a different but adjacent part of the political scale and who are more socially and less economically oriented.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Liberals in America ussually think of the governemnt as the solution to problems while conservatives often think of government as the problem. For instance if both a conservative and a liberal are trying to think of ways to redevelop an inner city slum the liberal will call on the government to spend large amounts of money to improve the neighborhood while the conservative will demand tax cuts to encourage privite investors to put their money into making the neighborhood better.

The truth is you need a little of both approaches but I'd have to agree that it is ussually better to convince someone else to spend their money then to spend vast amounts of scarious public money fixing every problem.

What political philosophy says to just demolish the whole place?

[Stefu]

Hm. In Finland 'neo-liberal' ('uusliberaali') has stayed the choice insult of the anti-globalization crowd. Perhaps it's the continual lack of a serious liberal party (Young Finns were a fizzle, and what's left of the Liberal party received 0.2% of the vote and one of their candidates supported ending all taxes and legalizing adult-child sex - thankfully the guy was pretty much ostracized from the party when his views became widely known.)

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


What political philosophy says to just demolish the whole place?

Stalinism. Next question.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
To the Yanks, "liberal" somehow means "left-wing", and conservative means "right-wing". Liberals in US definition are first defenders of freedom in the moralistic / religious domain. But the meaning has evolved to include mild social-democrats and pacifists too.

When someone is too social-democrat in the US, he becomes immediately dubbed a "socialist" or a "communist". When someone is against capitalism, he is dubbed "un-American"

Well, Spiffor, if I were to accept your definition, I would be a liberal except for the pacifism bit.

Liberals today are indeed "socialists" because they view society in terms of class warfare and see their mission as bringing equality as opposed to equal opportunity. They are in favor of high, progressive taxation, regulation of if not ownership of big business and health, and welfare programs for their constituencies.

When they speak of taxing the rich, most of us are shocked to find that the rich are actually the middle class. The middle class bears the burden of the welfare state and receives very few of its benefits.

Liberals are against school vouchers because they are against giving up government control of the public school's curriculum which is designed to raise good little PC democrats. They are further against it because they support the teacher's unions whose wages and privileges would potentially suffer if there was competition.

Liberals are in favor of free speech until a conservative wants to speak.

Liberals are in favor of freedom from religion. They will fire any teacher caught wearing a crusifix.

Liberals are in favor advancing democracy in foreign policy until we want to remove a socialist dictator from power.

Liberals are pro-environment. Thery are against free trade agreements because business simply move their polluting factories to a free trade zone outside the United States.

And finally, let me add, that a liberal never saw a business man they liked or a union member they did not like.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hmmm, there aren't to many right wing pacifists. The Pacifists tend to bunch up in the Democratic (left of center) party.

Indeed. I'm one of the few right-wing pacifists. My religious practices place me on the conservative side.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ned
Liberals are against school vouchers because they are against giving up government control of the public school's curriculum which is designed to raise good little PC democrats. They are further against it because they support the teacher's unions whose wages and privileges would potentially suffer if there was competition.

I was under the impression the liberal opposition to vouchers was based on the fact that most people either can't use them or don't need them, so mostly the effect is just a money drain on the public schools.

Liberals are in favor advancing democracy in foreign policy until we want to remove a socialist dictator from power.

I would point out that, using history as a guide, you will find that supporting dictators runs across party lines. It's an american pastime, like baseball.

[Odin]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I was under the impression the liberal opposition to vouchers was based on the fact that most people either can't use them or don't need them, so mostly the effect is just a money drain on the public schools.

No, it is because NOBODY is going to give MY tax money to send some wacko fundamentalist family's kids to a RELIGIOUS private school, it is unconstutional (seperation of church and state) and I am an athiest.

NO VOUCHERS TO RELIGIOUS WACKOS!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Odin


No, it is because NOBODY is going to give MY tax money to send some wacko fundamentalist family's kids to a RELIGIOUS private school, it is unconstutional (seperation of church and state) and I am an athiest.

NO VOUCHERS TO RELIGIOUS WACKOS!!!

Oh yes. Did I mention that liberalism means freedom from religion?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned
Oh yes. Did I mention that liberalism means freedom from religion?

Key phrase is I AM AN ATHIEST!!!