Defining Liberal?

[Oddball]

]If 'getting a pass' means living in relative obscurity, then Ayres got a pass. Until the conspiracy driven crazy Conservatives lifted his rock. On the other hand, if 'getting a pass' means celebrity as a Conservative talking head with a nationally syndicated radio show....

He should be living in "reactive obscurity" behind bars for life, and you damned well know it.

 

[del]

git gubmint out of the marriage bidness and all will be well

 

[lovableliberal]

Who is this "we" you speak of and who gets to determine what constitutes "a just outcome" and what is not?

You've both addressed something similar...

A just outcome is one that can be agreed upon in an unbiased position. Without knowing your status, sex, race, etc. Justice is one that can't be calculated within the special interests of a conscious society. We have to step outside and agree without our learned influences.

Wesley Mouch, is that you?...Could you be just a wee bit more vague and throw around a few more meaningless platitudes?

And, your right, altruism DOESN'T MEAN government bureaucracy. Altruism is simply the thought of working for others. Capitalism, and the free market, doesn't directly work to do that. We need an intermediary that combines the interests of the people, the efficiency of the market, and the integrity of our human values. Altruism, as I've said above, is an evolutionary trait seen in MANY social systems, especially the most complex. Going against our nature to acquire the material world is not a just outcome.

Altruism itself goes against human nature, as it is self-immolation.

And who the hell are you to claim that you yourself can determine what is a "just outcome" and what is not?

This is not a new idea of unbiased position -- Look to John Rawls' "original position" and see how it can be efficiently used in a thought experiment....

And I didn't say I am the one who can determine the outcome, it has to be done through a certain process.... return to first line.

And altruism is seen more in the wild as species become more intelligent and have more complex social systems.... You can look up a list of species with altruistic values if you want... dolphins, vampire bats, baboons, wolves, mongoose, etc.

 

[lovableliberal]

Hey Welcome.. I actually made it thru the first 3 minutes of so of your "screed". I applaud you thinking out loud.. Takes guts to put that ordeal on display.. But I'm not really impressed with your attempt to just willynilly REDEFINE terms..

You call yourself a "left-wing liberal" and from what I heard -- you ARE unfortunately stuck with that. And it NEEDS a redefinition because it's a bastard child of an OLD political philosphy that doesn't exist anymore..

I'm a CLASSICAL liberal.. The kind that STARTED this country. So when I say that -- I don't NEED a YouTube video to define my distrust of govt authority and absolute concern for INDIVIDUAL rights and freedom.

Like I said in an earlier post.. Your attempt to ASSURE equal opportunity has almost NOTHING to do with the political process. You can't HELP the kid with the CrackWhore mom with my tax dollars. And your efforts to do so doesn't assure equal opportunities -- it tends to force EQUAL outcomes.. That's why I oppose you politically..

Nice try... Stick around USMB and see if your "definition" can survive some "peer review".

Once again, there I am not for equal outcomes... And yes, there are MANY variables that can be treated to help produce a society that has less "crackwhore" moms and better communities for children to grow up in.

Classical liberals are on the top level, looking at how not to waste their money. Liberals have to work in the foundations - we have to see the kind of system that will better incentivize a more just outcome, rather than forcing one on unjust foundations.

I would look more toward John Rawls then I would John Locke. The classical liberals are based on the "state of nature" which is completely made up in their analysis. And Adam Smith's invisible hand is just an excuse for people to capture all the wealth in society and think its moral.

We have to be more invested in science, finding out WHY we have these cycles of poverty and the reasoning behind our behaviors.. THEN we can provide the solutions rather than covering them with money.

Now before you bastardize another definition like "science" -- which I'm also extremely fond of -- lets' just stipulate that better outcomes ONLY get fixed by extensive One on One human interactions. Can't be fixed by checks written from 2000 miles away, can't be fixed by psychiatric drug adminstration, can't be fixed by propaganda or watching Maury Povitch.

You want better outcomes?? Let's make welfare contigient on keeping your kids IN SCHOOL til they graduate.. Then the CrackWhore mom has to sign up for the program by signing report cards and getting little Jesus a library card...

THAT'S more altruistic than anything we're currently doing...

Yes, that is a possibility... We simply have to look at all the factors that go into these.. What are the capabilities we can expect from the people on welfare, what is their environment doing to influence behavior... what can we feasibly do to facilitate more responsible actions... putting the stress on the parents to keep kids in school may help, but it may not be the full solution.

 

[Darkwind]

Here is the best one:

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy

LOL, wasn't he a burglar who worked for Nixon during the Watergate scandal???

Has what, exactly, to do with this topic?

 

[MarcATL]

Here is the best one:

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy

put rich before man and that is my definition of conservative.

Yep.

Conservative = Greed.

 

[Oddball]

And I didn't say I am the one who can determine the outcome, it has to be done through a certain process.... return to first line.

I don't give a flying fuck about your platitudinous Utopian crap...Equality of outcomes is the plaything of the kinds of mindset that makes monsters like Stalin and Mao possible.

Though your vague and vapid central planner boilerplate might play well with your professors and get you a good grade, it's not going to fly with people who live out in the real world.

And altruism is seen more in the wild as species become more intelligent and have more complex social systems.... You can look up a list of species with altruistic values if you want... dolphins, vampire bats, baboons, wolves, mongoose, etc.

Humans aren't baboons or wolves, though I have my doubts when I'm dealing with bureaucrats and lolberals.

Much as you may try to deny the fact, humans are oriented toward gain...That which you perceive and try to define as "altruism" is someone expressing their highest personal values...There's nothing less altruistic than that.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, when people here talk about some who take money from 'the public' to pay their debts and lifestyle, we are talking about social security cheats and banks, right?

 

[lovableliberal]

And I didn't say I am the one who can determine the outcome, it has to be done through a certain process.... return to first line.

I don't give a flying fuck about your platitudinous Utopian crap...Equality of outcomes is the plaything of the kinds of mindset that makes monsters like Stalin and Mao possible.

Though your vague and vapid central planner boilerplate might play well with your professors and get you a good grade, it's not going to fly with people who live out in the real world.

And altruism is seen more in the wild as species become more intelligent and have more complex social systems.... You can look up a list of species with altruistic values if you want... dolphins, vampire bats, baboons, wolves, mongoose, etc.

Humans aren't baboons or wolves, though I have my doubts when I'm dealing with bureaucrats and lolberals.

Much as you may try to deny the fact, humans are oriented toward gain...That which you perceive and try to define as "altruism" is someone expressing their highest personal values...There's nothing less altruistic than that.

well since you are going to not be reasonable.. i'm done responding to you haha. never supported equal outcomes, you are missing the thought of evolutionary traits, and mao and stalin were extremely contradictory of any contemporary liberal theory.... you are just allllll mixed up in your own head.

 

[kaz]

Here is the best one:

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy

put rich before man and that is my definition of conservative.

Yep.

Conservative = Greed.

Yes comrade, they want their money, you want their money. They don't want you to take it, they are so greedy...

 

[Oddball]

And I didn't say I am the one who can determine the outcome, it has to be done through a certain process.... return to first line.

I don't give a flying fuck about your platitudinous Utopian crap...Equality of outcomes is the plaything of the kinds of mindset that makes monsters like Stalin and Mao possible.

Though your vague and vapid central planner boilerplate might play well with your professors and get you a good grade, it's not going to fly with people who live out in the real world.

And altruism is seen more in the wild as species become more intelligent and have more complex social systems.... You can look up a list of species with altruistic values if you want... dolphins, vampire bats, baboons, wolves, mongoose, etc.

Humans aren't baboons or wolves, though I have my doubts when I'm dealing with bureaucrats and lolberals.

Much as you may try to deny the fact, humans are oriented toward gain...That which you perceive and try to define as "altruism" is someone expressing their highest personal values...There's nothing less altruistic than that.

well since you are going to not be reasonable.. i'm done responding to you haha. never supported equal outcomes, you are missing the thought of evolutionary traits, and mao and stalin were extremely contradictory of any contemporary liberal theory.... you are just allllll mixed up in your own head.

I'm missing nothing...Your extreme level of naïveté seems to be allowing you to live the lie that you're the first person to come up with such marvelously nebulous, hairy-fairy Utopian drivel....I'm here to smack you upside your gourd with the reality that you aren't....Not by a longshot.


Your notion of "reasonable" is compulsion, at gunpoint if necessary, to impose your puerile notions of what constitutes "fairness" and "equality" upon everyone else...It is the exact antithesis of the mindset that made this nation like no other, and took it from literally nothing to economic superpower in the previously unheard time span of 150 years.

But hell, if it gets you an A on your term paper, I'm sure there are hundreds of ivory tower dwelling poli-sci profs who are perfectly ready and willing to indulge you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A liberal borrows money to patch the roof; a conservative denies the roof is in need of repair, sells his house after employing an underemployed contractor to 'fix' the roof with bubble gum, and passes the house onto an unsuspecting buyer.

 

[Wry Catcher]

BTW, Odd-dude no doubt has lots of double-bubble in his apron.

 

[lovableliberal]

I don't give a flying fuck about your platitudinous Utopian crap...Equality of outcomes is the plaything of the kinds of mindset that makes monsters like Stalin and Mao possible.

Though your vague and vapid central planner boilerplate might play well with your professors and get you a good grade, it's not going to fly with people who live out in the real world.


Humans aren't baboons or wolves, though I have my doubts when I'm dealing with bureaucrats and lolberals.

Much as you may try to deny the fact, humans are oriented toward gain...That which you perceive and try to define as "altruism" is someone expressing their highest personal values...There's nothing less altruistic than that.

well since you are going to not be reasonable.. i'm done responding to you haha. never supported equal outcomes, you are missing the thought of evolutionary traits, and mao and stalin were extremely contradictory of any contemporary liberal theory.... you are just allllll mixed up in your own head.

I'm missing nothing...Your extreme level of naïveté seems to be allowing you to live the lie that you're the first person to come up with such marvelously nebulous, hairy-fairy Utopian drivel....I'm here to smack you upside your gourd with the reality that you aren't....Not by a longshot.


Your notion of "reasonable" is compulsion, at gunpoint if necessary, to impose your puerile notions of what constitutes "fairness" and "equality" upon everyone else...It is the exact antithesis of the mindset that made this nation like no other, and took it from literally nothing to economic superpower in the previously unheard time span of 150 years.

But hell, if it gets you an A on your term paper, I'm sure there are hundreds of ivory tower dwelling poli-sci profs who are perfectly ready and willing to indulge you.

no i've already said that this has been adopted mostly from the most influential political scientist of the last 100 years - John Rawls. You are stuck inside your head, once again, and you are grasping on to economic power as your only point. America made it big by exploiting Native Americans, then African Americans, and then more recently, its car industry only got big because Germany's and Japan's were leveled to the ground when we brought our economy back on government spending (the military, WWII).... so you can stay in your fairy tale.

 

[there4eyeM]

Banks and other investment houses used our money liberally, so they are liberals too, right?

 

[lovableliberal]

put rich before man and that is my definition of conservative.

Yep.

Conservative = Greed.

Yes comrade, they want their money, you want their money. They don't want you to take it, they are so greedy...

first year of the recovery: 93% of income went to the top 1%.... they find ways to take it from the rest of us, but we have no voice to get it back.

 

[Oddball]

no i've already said that this has been adopted mostly from the most influential political scientist of the last 100 years - John Rawls. You are stuck inside your head, once again, and you are grasping on to economic power as your only point. America made it big by exploiting Native Americans, then African Americans, and then more recently, its car industry only got big because Germany's and Japan's were leveled to the ground when we brought our economy back on government spending (the military, WWII).... so you can stay in your fairy tale.

Couldn't care less whose ideas you're claiming to rip off.

Your purposefully vague semantic constructs -you're not very good at it BTW- and quaint notions of what constitutes "fairness" have given you away as the Utopian central planner that you are.

The only person living the fairy tale is you.

 

[Missourian]

A liberal is a person who knows far better than you exactly how your money should be spent.

 

[Pheonixops]

Here is the best one:

"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money."

-- G. Gordon Liddy

LOL, wasn't he a burglar who worked for Nixon during the Watergate scandal???

Has what, exactly, to do with this topic?

Just setting the record straight so people can see the character of the person who made that quote.

 

[lovableliberal]

no i've already said that this has been adopted mostly from the most influential political scientist of the last 100 years - John Rawls. You are stuck inside your head, once again, and you are grasping on to economic power as your only point. America made it big by exploiting Native Americans, then African Americans, and then more recently, its car industry only got big because Germany's and Japan's were leveled to the ground when we brought our economy back on government spending (the military, WWII).... so you can stay in your fairy tale.

Couldn't care less whose ideas you're claiming to rip off.

Your purposefully vague semantic constructs -you're not very good at it BTW- and quaint notions of what constitutes "fairness" have given you away as the Utopian central planner that you are.

The only person living the fairy tale is you.

... alright think you are being smarter because you have no academic backing for your thoughts, and keep complaining to me because I'm trying to go about things in an unbiased way. You win haha