'Liberal' is used like 'Communist' was used in the 50's - what exactly defines a 'Liberal' in terms of SPECIFIC issues?

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by KRAMERCAT

'Liberal' is used like 'Communist' was used in the 50's - what exactly defines a 'Liberal' in terms of SPECIFIC issues?

I would say in terms of taxes, social programs, UHC, regulation, etc... a liberal agrees to relinquish individual rights and responsibilities to that of a central power in order to achieve a goal of balance among its people.

[ergohead]

'Liberal' is used like 'Communist' was used in the 30's - what exactly defines a 'Liberal' in terms of SPECIFIC issues?

All issues that Hitler abhorred in the 30's are part of the liberal issues of today.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

I feel the same way and I do support the ACLU, but when they defend and support NAMBLA, that's a little too far for me, personally. I'm all for gay rights, and I've been an athiest for as long as I can remember so I'm all for equality. I'm just saying as a comparison, the ACLU is far left, whereas fundie religions are far right.

The ACLU doesn't support NAMBLA. What it supports is free speech.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by monkeywrenching

conservatives believe that goverment is the problem and liberals believe that goverment is the solution.

Oh bull.

Conservatives have no issue with government as long as they control it.

[gf1025]

Originally Posted by mcmastersteve

In order to answer your question without going over a thousand words I won't go into specifics but the origins of liberal thought were found in the writings of Locke, Hume, Smith, and Voltaire.
The term liberal is found in its Latin root 'Libre' which means 'free,not slaves'.
During the age of enlightenment liberalism rejected the divine right of kings, hereditary status, and established religion.
Classic liberal supporters believed in individual liberty and human rationality should be the purpose of government.
At the core of government should freedom of thought and speech, limitations on government, free markets, private property, and rule of law.
The American constitution was based on these aforementioned principles and that government rules by consent of the governed.
Fast forward 200 years and what we have is a schism, between classic liberals and social liberals. Whereas classic liberals such as Ludwig von mises and Ron Paul support minimist and libertarian concepts such as spontaneous order, free trade, freedom from coersion; social liberals believe that the government need to play a more hands on role to promote the freedom of citizens through programs such as welfare, health care, minimum wage, and housing for the homeless.
Social liberals look at these programs as infrastructure for improving commerce.
Liberalism must also be dissected into two catagories political and cultural.
Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to improve the individual.
Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle. The classic liberal believes the government has no intrusive role in sexual freedom, cognitive freedom, religious freedom. The social liberal believes the government plays an interactive role in supporting these freedoms.
Cultural liberalism opposes government regulation of literature, art, academics, gambling, sex, prostitution, abortion, birth control, guns, terminal illness, alcohol, drugs and other controlled activities.

Thanks, great post/explanation.

[bigskydude]

Originally Posted by JetJockey

Liberal has been tossed around as a 'bad word' lately, especially in light of the election. I think it's WONDERFUL that people are liberals, but as with conservatives, people can take it too far. To be too far left (ACLU is a bit too liberal for me) to being too far right (Fundamentalist religion anyone?) is not good, but to be in the middle (like I am) and be able to sway towards the right AND left on issues based on facts and logic is where we need to be.

I think that there might be a pretty large percentage of this country that is middle ground on the issues. Let's say, probably 80%.

What screws this country up the most is the other extreme 20%, (left and right) that think they hold all of the cards.

These would be the powerful elite in Washington ... you know .... the ones that keep all of us in line by having us fight over issues that really don't matter to them.

[nvxplorer]

Originally Posted by Nomander

I would say in terms of taxes, social programs, UHC, regulation, etc... a liberal agrees to relinquish individual rights and responsibilities to that of a central power in order to achieve a goal of balance among its people.

I've read the Bill of Rights forward and backward, and I don't see any that have been relinquished, especially due to taxation, social programs, UHC, regulation, etc.

What rights have been relinquished?

Speech?
Assembly?
Religion?
Gun ownership?
Due process?

[KRAMERCAT]

Originally Posted by Nomander

I would say in terms of taxes, social programs, UHC, regulation, etc... a liberal agrees to relinquish individual rights and responsibilities to that of a central power in order to achieve a goal of balance among its people.

So you consider using tax dollars to fund social programs such as social security, welfare or healthcare to be synonomous with 'relinquishing individual rights and responsibilities to a central power'?

[KRAMERCAT]

Originally Posted by ergohead

'Liberal' is used like 'Communist' was used in the 30's - what exactly defines a 'Liberal' in terms of SPECIFIC issues?

All issues that Hitler abhorred in the 30's are part of the liberal issues of today.

Well, if liberals 'embrace' what Hitler 'abhorred', then I guess they are right on.