modern liberalism

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by GabrielConroy, Aug 19, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GabrielConroy

    GabrielConroy Well-Known Member

    Let me start out by saying that I do not consider myself conservative in any matter of speaking and probably have even more issues with them than those who label themselves "liberal" but this has been bouncing around in my head at this moment so this is what ill focus on. bah

    The modern liberal philosophy moves in the direction of subjecting people to the state. By relegating many of the most important aspects of life to the state people become wards of the state more than human beings. The state is in effect turning into a caretaker instead of an entity there to protect your rights.

    For example the liberal positions on health care and gun control. Starting with gun control the main issue i see in the debate is not whether you can own these guns for fun or sporting or whatever. Gun rights are more than anything else an extension of the right of self defense and everything else from them is secondary. Am i advocating no regulation at all? Of course not my point is not about gun control im trying to get at the general philosophy not the specific point.

    Limiting the right more and more the liberal philosophy discourages individual self defense and and encourages citizens to essentially just hand issues over to the police strengthening further the states monopoly on force. The citizen is treated like a helpless child who must be constantly watched over by the state because they cannot be trusted with the power to watch over themselves. Of course no one should own RPG's but owning a weapon is not something only the police and military should be able to do.

    By hurting means of self defense the state takes away some of the ability of a citizen to defend themselves and forces them into a position where they rely on the police more. Making citizens more helpless only encourages a culture of passivity and increases the "caretaker" attitude of the state (as well as leading to over-bureaucratization but thats an argument for another day).

    The liberal conception of healthcare functions as another example of the point above. The modern liberal conception of health care also lends itself towards this idea of the parent-child relationship between state and citizen. By relegating the duties of health care more to the state citizens become more dependent on the government than ever.

    Again im not talking about any paticular plan that allows citizen choice or whatever im talking about the general direction of the idea behind the policies. This isnt an argument about the practicalities of liberal policy A vs conservative policy B. It has yet to reach a point of absurdity but thats the direction the ideology is moving.

    Ironically enough some liberals i know tend towards elitism and in this light it makes sense. The citizens cannot be trusted to take care of themselves because they are irresponsible and the people in power are much more capable of handling their lives. A disturbing notion to say the least.

    Im too tired to look it over and correct mistakes organize it better etc etc so all apologies if it feels like a rough draft (cuz it iz!!@!)
     
  2. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    I am currently preparing for a total rejection of state, removing my birth certificate, NHS privelages, state protection etc to get rid of the system i know to be corrupt. It is going to be hard in doing it but i believe we deserve freedom,. For the most advanced species our freedoms are (relative of course) the least of all life.

    I will finally be free of the system, i wont need a license to drive, or to obtain a gun, i will be allowed to fish every waterway which the tide touches, the only thing that will apply to me will be common law, to simplify it "cause no harm, cause no loss" pretty much covers it all. I look forward to travel the country, smoking werever i want, bartering my labor for goods, hunting will supply a lot (which i already do...i am realistic) and also no longer having to worry about the "state" trying to fine me for everything in life!
    Its going to be hard but worth it.....

    To quote odgers Common Law book
    'Neither God nor the State will punish a man who disregards them!'
     
  3. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    First off, thanks for sharing your insightful opinion on this matter, because you raise a lot of good points.

    Secondly, I find your view of Liberalism to be a bit too narrow. Liberalism, and it's numerous political derivatives, is fundamentally defined as favoring individual liberty and freedom over anything else. The form of government it encourages is liberal democracy, by which the government is beholden to the people through transparency, elections, and a system of checks and balances. It believes in an egalitarian society by which all people are equal under the law and are allowed equal opportunities and access to freedom and individual pursuits (faith, occupation, etc).

    The relationship between government and people is one not between 'parent and child' but between civil servants and their constituents, the public. Obliviously the real-world doesn't always fulfill the ideal but that is hardly a result of an entire political ideology gone wrong.

    Of course I must consent that Liberalism is extremely broad and complex (like any other political ideology), so there are varying interpretations and the like. I just don't think modern liberalism is as corrupted and elitist as you may believe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2009
  4. JohnADreams

    JohnADreams Well-Known Member

    I think that the flaw in the American idea of Conservative Vs. Liberal, is that the Conservatives have permanently framed the argument as individualism Vs. state control. Any political debate that allows one side to frame the argument will generally offer that side an unfair advantage.

    Imagine that one side of the abortion debate framed the argument solely in favor of their own viewpoint. It would be difficult for anyone to justify a stance of either anti-choice or anti-life.

    When it comes to things like health care, Liberalism isn't pro state control, it's anti capitalist exploitation. If private health care covered every citizen, if it was affordable, if there were no denials of coverage based on tiny loopholes and if no one ever became bankrupt due to their medical bills, Liberals wouldn't consider state supported health care as a worthwhile cause.
     
  5. Menchi

    Menchi Well-Known Member

    This is coming from a UK perspective, rather than an American perspective, so i think that there are plenty of cultural differences here, so can only talk from my own perception and experience, but i don't see Liberalism as any of those things. I would say most modern liberals value freedom highly, but freedom is a balance between different peoples freedoms.

    For gun control (which is a non issue in the UK, i don't know anyone, even on the right, who advocates the right for everyone to own guns), if you have the freedom for everyone to own a gun, how does that balance with the freedom not to be shot? 65% of all homocides in the US involve guns, compared to 8% in the UK. While there are 3 times as many homocides in the US than the UK (in relation to the relative population sizes), there are 25 times more homocides involving guns... There are cultural differences certainly, and that accounts for a proportion of that difference, but the single decisive factor is the prevalence of guns in the US. The Liberal perspective would say that these people have the freedom not to be murdered, as well as placing a much higher inherent value on human life, which would mean that gun controls, although not in themselves a desire for a Liberal, are neccessary because gun controls would mean less murders, as well as less injuries (which i don't have figures to hand for).


    Liberal healthcare is the same, because the Liberal perspective values life highly, the freedom for someone to be free from illness and injury is of much greater importance, than the freedom from taxation. Those with power almost always look to exploit it, particularly in business, and while for most businesses, which deal in regular products and services, the Liberal would not get involved in (except where it is needed to prevent exploitation and ensure safety), for something as important as Healthcare, the private sector is simply not best able to fulfill that need, as it will always value its own profit over the rights of its patients to live. If someone can't afford healthcare, does that mean that they don't have that same freedom from illness or injury that someone who can has? The conservative perspective would say yes, simply because it puts more utility on the removal of regulation and taxation, than on human lives, while the liberal perspective would say no, because it puts more utility on human lives, and sees regulation and taxation as neccessary (not desirable), to ensure this.

    Sometimes liberalism is done wrong, and its powers exploited, the same way that occurs with conservatism. It is nothing wrong in the ideologies as such, it is just down to interpretation, and due to the fact that those in power usually exploit that power to some degree. But i am happy to call myself Liberal, and am sure in my beliefs, because i have seen far more abuse by those in the right wing, of their power, than those in the left wing, and believe that life, in the end, is the most valuable thing, and that government should be there to use its powers for good, to protect life.
     
  6. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    These are the standard talking points. And as a Liberal I have to disagree.

    As a Liberal, and speaking for most Liberals I have ever talked to, we are pro second amendment. However, we do want to keep guns out of the hands of kids etc............ But more importantly, we wonder why the US has such a high murder rate, even when compared to Canada which actually has more guns per capita I believe.

    So its not just guns. As a Liberal, I am willing to admit, that poverty and lack of opportunity, both of which have been growing in this Nation especially since reaganomics trickle down bullshit, are more the causes. Poverty and hopelessness and lack of access to things like education and healthcare are recipes for crime and social strife.

    And as far as Gov. playing. Well, I firmly believe there are things that should be Gov. run. Our Gov is "by the people , for the People"....... So the question becomes, do we want things that are of national importance to be run by unaccountable corporations and greedy stockholders and wall street crooks?

    The conservatives sure do. Enron is the perfect example. This was a result of deregulating californias electric.

    Blackwater is another example. Iraq was the most privatized war in us history.
    Think about it. A private corporate army. Now that is scary!!!
    They even sent them to patrol New Orleans after katrina!
    Imagine getting arrested by a cop who does not even work for the Gov!

    Do I need to even mention halliburton?

    As a liberal, I firmly believe that healthcare, in an advanced civilized society, should be a right not a priveledge.

    And the idea of ppl extracting profit, (by excluding ppl and denying care) from human suffering sickens me. Also, the system obviously does not work. Look at the WHO stats.

    See, the right wing only cares about the rich. If you cant afford healthcare, well then die!!!!

    If you cant afford private school, then be uneducated!!!!

    If you are old and need your social security, then go without food and medicine!!!!!

    If you are a child born to a single mother who needs food stamps and benefits to feed you. Then go hungry!!!!!!



    I don't know about you, but I would rather have a Government that looks out for the Public good.

    :smile::smile:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2009
  7. Zurkhardo

    Zurkhardo Well-Known Member

    Thank you Bob, well put.
     
  8. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    Have any of you noticed that the UK is a corporation, registered at companies house, as is all the government departments, the police are privately owned already, (south devon and cornwall police are owned by IBM) EVERY court in this land is a corporation, so i decided to try reclaim my share in the UK corporation as i am one of the shareholders (as are all members of the UK) yet they wont let me have it, my share is worth the price of the UK in total divided by the number of shares (people) and that would leave me a millionare!
    The police are privately owned, enforce laws contradicting our inalienable human rights, have admitted poisoning thousands of public throughout the years in secret trials in which no subject gave consent too, we were the first to propose sterilisation of the working class, Laws and legislation are no more based on common sense and scientific basis (i.e a person who illegally takes a bird from the wild has less rights than a paedophile....seriously. also Peregrine populations which are 200% higher than ever before are still protected strictly and anyone who even accidentally approaches a nest is arrested, and is then made to prove THEIR innocence, not for the police to prove their guilt.)
    This state is seriously fucked up, since when did a government secretly poisoning its people be classed as "in the publics interest" and why do they have so many secrets, i asked the police for the pricing for a raid they did on false evidence, i got told they wouldnt answer my questions because they were unreasonable...they forget they are meant to be civil servants!
    All that matters is profit.
     
  9. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    I really do not understand this idea that all rich people are "evil" and must "pay" because they are rich and obviously immoral... The fact of the matter is the top 1% of earners in the US pay 95% of the taxes... Yet all the "lower and middle class" people call for them to pay more taxes...

    As of right now if you have an emergency situation you will get treated at a hospital regardless of if you have insurance, my mother is alive today because of this. I do not agree the top earners in this country should now pay for everyone elses health insurance because it is the "right" of these less well off(read lazy) people to have it and feed off other people's success.
     
  10. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    The Wealth Distribution

    In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2004, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.3% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.3%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.2%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2007).

    http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

    ++++++++++++++

    something about this picture is wrong. Seriously. What are we, a friggin banana republic?

    ********

    my Brother, who goes to college full time and works full time, broke his finger right, had to get a pin in it....

    He couldnt pay, no insurance.

    So they trashed his credit, and it really fucked up his life.

    Are you telling me that someone who is going to college and working full time does not deserve health coverage?

    What about a child whose parents are poor?

    What about the disabled?

    What about old folks?

    You know, you right wingers used the same tactics with medicare. You said medicare would lead to communism etc etc....... You said the same about social security.

    Nevermind the 40 million seniors who were uninsured before it right?

    I guess its wrong to make it illegal for 13 yr olds to be sent into the mines right?

    After all, those freeloaders dont deserve any healthcare right? No handouts right?

    (unless its to war profiteers and corporate welfare and stock market crooks right?)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 23, 2009
  11. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    The biographies of Jesus depict him repeatedly reaching out to those at the bottom of the social pyramid--poor people, women, Samaritans, lepers, children, prostitutes and tax collectors. Jesus was also eager to accept people who were well-placed, but he made clear that all, regardless of social position, needed to repent. For this reason, he invited the rich young man to sell all of his possessions and give the proceeds to the poor. (Matthew 19:16-30, Luke 18:18-30, Mark 10:17-31)

    Jesus commanded, "Love your neighbor." When asked to define "neighbor," Jesus expanded the traditional meaning of the word--defining our neighbor as anyone who is in need, including social outcasts: "But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed." (Luke 14:13)

    In his portrayal of the day of judgment, Jesus pictured people from all nations gathered before him, separated into "sheep" and "goats." (Matthew 25:31-46) To the "sheep" he says, "Come you blessed of my Father, for I was hungry and you fed me..." In their astonishment they ask, "When did we do that?" And he answers, "When you did it to the lowliest of my brothers (and sisters)." Conversely, to the "goats" he says, "Out of my sight, you who are condemned, for I was hungry and you did not feed me..."
     
  12. bhawk

    bhawk Well-Known Member

    Jesus (actually named yeshua ben yusef) only ever healed jews, except one time when a woman who wanted her child healing snapped at him cos he refused.........
    Hmmmmm segregation by the most mighty of all con men:poo:
     
  13. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    "my Brother, who goes to college full time and works full time, broke his finger right, had to get a pin in it....

    He couldnt pay, no insurance.

    So they trashed his credit, and it really fucked up his life.

    Are you telling me that someone who is going to college and working full time does not deserve health coverage?"


    No, I am not saying he does not deserve health coverage, im just saying I do not think other people should have to pay for it.


    "What about a child whose parents are poor?"


    What? Why would they be poor? Did they go to school? Do they live in the ghetto? Just about every major corporation offers some type of health coverage, are both parents out of work?


    "What about the disabled?"

    What constitutes disabled? Because I am pretty my mom is worse off then 99% of the people that claim they are "disabled" and she works 50 hours a week AND guess what, she has awesome health coverage under her employer.


    "What about old folks?"

    What about them? A lot of older people have either private insurance, or supplemental insurance to go with their medicare. It is everyones personal responsibility to plan for their own retirement.


    "You know, you right wingers used the same tactics with medicare. You said medicare would lead to communism etc etc....... You said the same about social security."


    Its funny you say this Bob, as up until a few months ago I would called myself a liberal and agreed with every point you made in your first post... when you get past the finger pointing, and emotion and look at the facts things start to become clearer.

    I am not against everyone having health insurance, I just do not believe our government, the same goverment that has royally screwed up medicare, social security, the usps, the tax system, the public education system, etc and so forth is NOT the ones that should do it for us. I believe WE THE PEOPLE have it in our selves to solve our own problems without creating an even more massive government to do it for us.



    "Nevermind the 40 million seniors who were uninsured before it right?

    I guess its wrong to make it illegal for 13 yr olds to be sent into the mines right?

    After all, those freeloaders dont deserve any healthcare right? No handouts right?

    (unless its to war profiteers and corporate welfare and stock market crooks right?)"


    Wait, what? Because I do not believe in a public option I automatically believe that Bush and Cheney were right in what they did? I personally believe, like the majority of people, that bush and his administration were idiots.

    Also I keep wondering why people aren't outraged over obama strengthening the patriot act instead of getting rid of it like he should have? And stock market crooks? How about we look at the Fed for creating the enviroment for this to happen as anyone could have plainly seen it would have? Or how about how Obama accepted a million dollars in campaign money from Goldman sachs, the company that clearly has profited the most off of the economy tanking?

    You know I keep watching the news media slam these protesters at town hall meetings and call them everything from heartless people to nazis, but I think they are missing the point that this is not just about healthcare anymore, its about the huge corrupt behemoth that has become out government.























    Oh, and, Ron Paul 2012 :D
     
  14. GabrielConroy

    GabrielConroy Well-Known Member

    Think i ended up emphasizing the specifics too much in my original post so here's the general point that i am trying to make (refute this one)

    A caretaker/dependent relationship between state and citizen opens to door to abuse of power and an unhealthy amount of control over the average citizens life.

    The citizen should be treated as the highest entity in the hierarchy of power within the context of private life.

    Everything i said before was an explanation of why i think this is true using specifics. I am trying to argue the philisophical ideas behind the issues not the issues themselves. My bad for not being clear.
     
  15. ashes_away

    ashes_away Well-Known Member

    thank you for this response to gabriel's original post.It said what I wanted to say.Only I was going add how humorous the right is when they begin an argument with..I am no conservative BUT..I can sense a but a mile away ,lol.Kudos to gabriel for a thoughtful and civil debate though.
     
  16. ashes_away

    ashes_away Well-Known Member

    "What about the disabled?"

    What constitutes disabled? Because I am pretty my mom is worse off then 99% of the people that claim they are "disabled" and she works 50 hours a week AND guess what, she has awesome health coverage under her employer.

    your mom is not disabled,she works 50 hours a week as you said so she does not fit the definition used by a state to determine eligibility for health care while unable to work


    What about old folks?"

    What about them? A lot of older people have either private insurance, or supplemental insurance to go with their medicare. It is everyones personal responsibility to plan for their own retirement.

    alot can not afford to supplement with private plans that are astronomically expensive




    I am not against everyone having health insurance, I just do not believe our government, the same goverment that has royally screwed up medicare, social security, the usps, the tax system, the public education system, etc and so forth is NOT the ones that should do it for us. I believe WE THE PEOPLE have it in our selves to solve our own problems without creating an even more massive government to do it for us.


    private insurance companies make the government look like Mother Theresa



    Wait, what? Because I do not believe in a public option I automatically believe that Bush and Cheney were right in what they did? I personally believe, like the majority of people, that bush and his administration were idiots.


    there is absolutely NO reason you should care if there is a public option available to those who cannot afford private plan..you still have the right to keep your private plan.and the competition would lower your own premiums but be our guest and complain.




    You know I keep watching the news media slam these protesters at town hall meetings and call them everything from heartless people to nazis, but I think they are missing the point that this is not just about healthcare anymore, its about the huge corrupt behemoth that has become out government.


    like I said,Private health insurance companies make the government look like Mother Theresa STILL and FYI it was the townhall protesters calling anyone who supports a public option "nazis" ...another words..affordable health care for poor people or anyone who wants the choice is somehow evil..

    your other comments about Obama are not relevant to this debate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2009
  17. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member



    My mother is disabled, she has a broken spine, fractured skull, fibromyalgia, degenerative disk disease, small vessel disease, arthritis throughout her body and a number of other ailments. But you are right, she is perfectly fine. Out of respect for the op I will end the discussion here, but I will gladly debate these other points if you would like to create another thread for them.
     
  18. Bob26003

    Bob26003 Well-Known Member

    Well mike, you said your Mom got care from a hospital for free right? that saved her life right?

    Well who do you think payed for that?

    Should she have been turned away?

    **************

    IMO we need redistribution of wealth, otherwise it becomes a pyramid scheme........

    ppl seem to forget that the shrinking middle class was not handed to the American ppl. It was fought for. by Unions etc... also the new deal.

    nothing was handed to American ppl. Our Grandparents fought to get a decent wage, social security, labor laws, min. wage etc etc.......

    **********************
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 24, 2009
  19. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

     
  20. Mikeintx

    Mikeintx Well-Known Member

    Once again I apologize to the OP as I realize I once again started debating over a specific issue that does not have much of a bearing to the thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.