What is a liberal?

[Slartibartfast]

Big-L libertarians are members of the Libertarian Party. Just because a small number are members or vote for this party doesn't mean you shouldn't address their arguments in intellectual debate. This is my point, as you explicitly advised someone to 'ignore them' over here.

Lots of people who share libertarian beliefs don't vote for the Libertarian Party as they know it won't win an election; they're stuck in the two-party system. As I said, stating that the dominant parties in the 2-party system are correct simply because they receive the most votes is fallacious.



Are you referring to Locke's three natural rights? I'm sympathetic to those so I would be happy to discuss them further.



True, I don't deny that. I simply used those statistics to show that people "in the real world" do have libertarian tendencies and therefore adherents to said ideology should not "be ignored" which was your original proposition I contested.

Again, if you can show me a poll that has follow up question as to why people vote the way they do and that ~20% uses the same reasoning as the libertarian philosophy, even in their own words or some undeveloped form of the ideology, sure I will go with that. Even a simple statement such as "people should be able to do what makes them happy and that is the most important thing" or something like that would be enough.

Until then, these people can only be claimed, but not in any sort of conclusive way.

 

[Vodon]

Again, if you can show me a poll that has follow up question as to why people vote the way they do

I can answer that question for you. We're locked in a two-party system. People will vote for the lesser of the two evils on offer as they know one of those two candidates will be president come the end of the election.

Until then, these people can only be claimed, but not in any sort of conclusive way.

You have missed the point of my contention. No ideology should simply "be ignored". This is a debate forum that brands itself welcoming to all ideologies. If you're so confident that libertarians are irrelevant then you should be able to tackle their arguments on this forum, not ignore them.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I can answer that question for you. We're locked in a two-party system. People will vote for the lesser of the two evils on offer as they know one of those two candidates will be president come the end of the election.

This is just an assumption. However, I agree, we need a better voting system and more parties.

You have missed the point of my contention. No ideology should simply "be ignored". This is a debate forum that brands itself welcoming to all ideologies. If you're so confident that libertarians are irrelevant then you should be able to tackle their arguments on this forum, not ignore them.

I did not miss the point, I disagreed. But I am looking at this from a strategic perspective and have been all along. There is not enough of a demographic to worry about, I got bigger fish to fry in my daily life.

 

[Leo]

My thanks to everyone who responded for those interesting and helpful posts. What I am trying to resolve is a logical and linguistic problem devolving about the term 'liberal', as it is used on these and other pages.

If the standard English (non-regional, non-political) definition of the term is to be accepted (and there is no cogent reason why it should not be) - is it not a nonsense to use the term in the pejorative sense? Surely a liberal is someone who holds to liberal values, such as the willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own, is open to new ideas, is favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms, and favours individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform? All of which being independent of party political affiliation, and all of which are universally accepted as virtues.

So it could be entirely logical to describe a conservative voter who subscribes to the above values, as a liberal - could it not? Why use the term as a collective pejorative when that is so obviously inaccurate? Why not choose another word?

 

[Vodon]

So it could be entirely logical to describe a conservative voter who subscribes to the above values, as a liberal - could it not? Why use the term as a collective pejorative when that is so obviously inaccurate? Why not choose another word?

I agree entirely. Liberalism actually has a beautiful heritage, embedded in the Age of Enlightenment, the Scientific Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. It was a reaction to absolutism and its foundation is strongly rooted with the thinking of Locke (probably starting with him) and the classical economists. These thinkers have not much in common with "modern" liberals. I think the confusion arises with the classical liberalism vs conservatism dichotomy for a few reasons. Firstly, (classical) liberalism was a response to traditional conservatism. This has not much in common with U.S conservatives today (excluding neocons). It was also a response to state religion, hereditary privilege and absolute monarchy.

Ultimately, liberalism is rooted in the Renaissance: it was a movement that believed in progress and scientific exploration, equality before the law and other such notions. Nowhere, before FDR and the New Deal, was there a connection between liberalism and an equality of outcomes, "social justice", and the redistribution of wealth.

 

[Gardener]

Why use the term as a collective pejorative when that is so obviously inaccurate?

In order to display that one is a mindless hack that is indulging in nothing more than a conditioned response. The right wing American demagogues who dominate the radio sell "conservative" as a brand. It is an identity to be assumed by their loyal followers that forms a tribe. In order to identify the tribe, they need to identify the enemy tribe. The enemy tribe is called "liberals".

 

[scatt]

honestly, i just ignore the libertarians, there are a lot on this forum, but in the real world, they make up maybe 3% of the population (at least the large L types) and aren't really worth worrying about.

I wonder if you say the same about lgbt people?

 

[Gardener]

I wonder if you say the same about lgbt people?

lgbt is a political ideology now, is it?

 

[scatt]

lgbt is a political ideology now, is it?

Apparently 3 percent means not worth worrying about, according to you.

 

[sawdust]

I was speaking to a friend of mine who is very liberal about a topic long forgotten. I'll always remember his response though. He said, "I don't know what I think, but I know how I feel." That typifies liberalism in my opinion.

 

[Gardener]

Apparently 3 percent means not worth worrying about, according to you.

You aren't at all rational, are you?

You draw a stupid parallel between ideology and sexual identity, and then lie about what another poster has said.

 

[scatt]

You aren't at all rational, are you?

You draw a stupid parallel between ideology and sexual identity, and then lie about what another poster has said.

I am not you, no.

I absolutely agree with your new argument that ignoring 3 percent of the population because they are 3 percent of the population is stupid, or are you still claiming it is okay to do that? Or did you simply misspeak when not specifying political ideology?

 

[Gardener]

I am not you, no.

I absolutely agree with your new argument that ignoring 3 percent of the population because they are 3 percent of the population is stupid, or are you still claiming it is okay to do that? Or did you simply misspeak when not specifying political ideology?

I forgot that school is out of session and the children have extra time on their hands.

 

[scatt]

I forgot that school is out of session and the children have extra time on their hands.

Is that why you are here?

 

[Papa bull]

My thanks to everyone who responded for those interesting and helpful posts. What I am trying to resolve is a logical and linguistic problem devolving about the term 'liberal', as it is used on these and other pages.

If the standard English (non-regional, non-political) definition of the term is to be accepted (and there is no cogent reason why it should not be) - is it not a nonsense to use the term in the pejorative sense? Surely a liberal is someone who holds to liberal values, such as the willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own, is open to new ideas, is favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms, and favours individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform? All of which being independent of party political affiliation, and all of which are universally accepted as virtues.

So it could be entirely logical to describe a conservative voter who subscribes to the above values, as a liberal - could it not? Why use the term as a collective pejorative when that is so obviously inaccurate? Why not choose another word?

Liberals are people who mangle words into a meaningless mess and one of the words they have so mangled is the word "liberal". The word liberal is derived from the latin "liber" meaning "free". One might assume that liberals, therefore, champion liberty and freedom but they do not. Instead, they champion big government, onerous regulations, and are repelled by demands for the personal responsibility that is required by freedom. And their control issues stem from a deeply held narcissistic belief that people must be micro-managed by a government run by liberals because only liberals know what's best for everyone.

In the end, the only thing left that's actually liberal about modern liberals is their attitude about spending other peoples' money.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I wonder if you say the same about lgbt people?

The lbgt community is one I already largely ignore as a community. I have several friends within that community though and I am generally supportive of gay rights.

However the fundamental difference is I am for what I am regardless and independent of that community.

 

[Leo]

Liberals are people who mangle words into a meaningless mess and one of the words they have so mangled is the word "liberal". The word liberal is derived from the latin "liber" meaning "free". One might assume that liberals, therefore, champion liberty and freedom but they do not. Instead, they champion big government, onerous regulations, and are repelled by demands for the personal responsibility that is required by freedom. And their control issues stem from a deeply held narcissistic belief that people must be micro-managed by a government run by liberals because only liberals know what's best for everyone.

In the end, the only thing left that's actually liberal about modern liberals is their attitude about spending other peoples' money.

Why is it that so few people seem to understand the point I am trying to make. I totally understand the point you are making about the people to whom you are referring, but why are you referring to them as 'liberals'. If they are doing the sorts of things you claim, they are obviously not liberals.

The characteristics of liberals are clearly defined, and the people you describe, just as clearly do not exhibit those characteristics - so why call them liberals?

That is the equivalent of describing a group of Devil-worshippers, whose beliefs and activities you deplore, as Christians. For a person to be a Christian, he/she is expected to conform to Christian beliefs and values, just as a liberal is expected to conform to those beliefs and values as defined by the dictionary. If either group does not so conform, they are neither Christians nor liberals, and to categorise them as such is both inaccurate and deliberately misrepresentative of the term.

 

[Papa bull]

Why is it that so few people seem to understand the point I am trying to make. I totally understand the point you are making about the people to whom you are referring, but why are you referring to them as 'liberals'. If they are doing the sorts of things you claim, they are obviously not liberals.

The characteristics of liberals are clearly defined, and the people you describe, just as clearly do not exhibit those characteristics - so why call them liberals?

That is the equivalent of describing a group of Devil-worshippers, whose beliefs and activities you deplore, as Christians. For a person to be a Christian, he/she is expected to conform to Christian beliefs and values, just as a liberal is expected to conform to those beliefs and values as defined by the dictionary. If either group does not so conform, they are neither Christians nor liberals, and to categorise them as such is both inaccurate and deliberately misrepresentative of the term.

See, the problem is that they get their panties in a wad if you call them communists or socialists and they're no more "progressive" then they are "liberal". And the other things that would be appropriate to call them are replaced with asterisks by the auto-censor.

 

[Redress]

I would submit that if you do not have tension, then members of your group do not have differing goals. That would make sense with the progressive/liberal//liberal/progressive model I have outlined - that one is (at most) a someone more strident subset of the other; but not with the idea that they are two fundamentally different intellectual traditions, with only superficial commonalities.

Do you have tensions with every one you do not agree with? Since I do not agree 10 % with any one, I would by your reasoning have tensions with every one. I somehow seem absent those tensions.

 

[Leo]

See, the problem is that they get their panties in a wad if you call them communists or socialists and they're no more "progressive" then they are "liberal". And the other things that would be appropriate to call them are replaced with asterisks by the auto-censor.

LOL, I understand that, but if people exhibit the characteristics, or express the views clearly typical of, socialists or communists, that is what they should be called. And remember that not in every society is it an insult to be labelled a socialist. To call people liberals or progressives if their utterances and expressed values are clearly neither liberal nor progressive, is pointless - you might just as well call them grapefruit.

 

[Papa bull]

Do you have tensions with every one you do not agree with? Since I do not agree 10 % with any one, I would by your reasoning have tensions with every one. I somehow seem absent those tensions.

You've seemed very tense, at times, to me.

 

[Papa bull]

LOL, I understand that, but if people exhibit the characteristics, or express the views clearly typical of, socialists or communists, that is what they should be called. And remember that not in every society is it an insult to be labelled a socialist. To call people liberals or progressives if their utterances and expressed values are clearly neither liberal nor progressive, is pointless - you might just as well call them grapefruit.

The problem with the "grapefruits" is that whatever you call them soon ends up being pejorative because a turd by any other name still smells like a turd and then they act out because whatever it was you called them insults them.

 

[Redress]

My thanks to everyone who responded for those interesting and helpful posts. What I am trying to resolve is a logical and linguistic problem devolving about the term 'liberal', as it is used on these and other pages.

If the standard English (non-regional, non-political) definition of the term is to be accepted (and there is no cogent reason why it should not be) - is it not a nonsense to use the term in the pejorative sense?

It is nonsense to use it as a pejorative. That is something done by those who cannot argue ideas and so resort to namecalling based on their own flawed understanding of what liberalism is. You can see some of it in this thread, people imagining positions and beliefs for liberals and then making fun of those positions. It adds nothing to debate and the best thing to do is ignore that crap. It used to piss me off when people did that, but I started realizing that this was all those people had.

Surely a liberal is someone who holds to liberal values, such as the willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one’s own, is open to new ideas, is favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms, and favours individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform? All of which being independent of party political affiliation, and all of which are universally accepted as virtues.

The reason I tried to avoid discussion of goals in my description of liberalism is that it is not something that is easy to pin down. Liberalism represents a range of possible beliefs. It is far from monolithic. To break it down to the wiki definition, which is as good as any, liberalism is about liberty and equality, and those things are probably what ties classical with modern liberalism. But those are pretty broad terms in themselves. Let's look at equality. I would describe as one of the basic goals of liberalism as striving for as much equality in opportunity as possible(which is then misrepresented by some of those posters I mentioned above as "equality of outcome" since that is alot easier to argue against). This leads to the obvious question of "how much is possible?". And of course you can get into some very long arguments over it. I think at least most liberals would like to see every one have the opportunity to succeed, and succeed to the greatest level possible. Of course practicality gets in the way of making that happen absolutely. It is also important to note that conservatives are not against such a thing, they would be opposed to using the government(broadly, there is wiggle room here) to achieve it.

So it could be entirely logical to describe a conservative voter who subscribes to the above values, as a liberal - could it not? Why use the term as a collective pejorative when that is so obviously inaccurate? Why not choose another word?

As the term liberal is used in the US today, I think it is not so much subscribing to those goals that makes one a liberal, but how one thinks we should work for those goals. I do not think you are going to find alot of conservatives actually against those things you listed, but they will say that it is not the government's role to make them happen.

 

[Redress]

I wonder if you say the same about lgbt people?

LGBT is not an ideology. In fact, LGBT people make up part of most every ideology in the US.

 

[scatt]

LGBT is not an ideology. In fact, LGBT people make up part of most every ideology in the US.

It is however around 3 percent which is the important factor in the post I quoted.