Debate Now Is Liberalism Exhausted?

[Derideo_Te]

No more so than your farcical assumption that states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution. You made an unsubstantiated statement, and I returned the favor.

Your failure to comprehend what I actually posted does not equate to my making an "unsubstantiated statement".

I am challenging you to post the actual statement where I am alleged to have said "states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution".

Since I never did anything of the sort I will await your apology for your errors.

463

467

etc.

etc.

etc.

Thank you for tacitly admitting that you are wrong and cannot provide a single quotation of mine that contains your falsehood about what I actually posted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

No more so than your farcical assumption that states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution. You made an unsubstantiated statement, and I returned the favor.

Your failure to comprehend what I actually posted does not equate to my making an "unsubstantiated statement".

I am challenging you to post the actual statement where I am alleged to have said "states have somehow subverted the federal Constitution".

Since I never did anything of the sort I will await your apology for your errors.

Actually states have, and do subvert the constitution.

These days, states practice protectionism against one another, which was one of the two main reasons that a constitution was called for.

The most egregious though, was the number of states which ignored the Fourteenth Amendment for a century. And of course now they are trying to dismantle "appropriate legislation" called for in it.

Agreed, but the 10th does not give state the right to subvert the constitution as SP so fallaciously claimed they do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Merriam Webster:
Liberalism: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


Encyclopedia Britannica:
Liberalism: In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).

Oxford Dictionary:
Statism: A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:

Free Dictionary:
Statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

In the context of this thread, liberalism and statism are used synonymously. Those who object to that will have to provide some evidence that the terms cannot be used synonymously and so far have not made their case other than they just won't admit that they can.

This relates to the thread topic only to the extent that Goldberg maintains that more people are rejecting the statism aka liberalism that passes for leftist politics in America at this time.

 

[Agit8r]

Merriam Webster:

Liberalism: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


Encyclopedia Britannica:

Liberalism: In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).


Oxford Dictionary:

Statism: A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:


Free Dictionary:

Statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Present day liberals believe in a limited government. We believe it should be limited to functions which benefit society. And we believe it should be limited by the privileges and immunities guaranteed in the Bill of Right.

In contrast, conservatives do not do so. Some illiberal progressives are also guilty in this regard. It is a real shame that so many so-called Americans, and their servants are so un-American in this regard

 

[Foxfyre]

Merriam Webster:

Liberalism: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


Encyclopedia Britannica:

Liberalism: In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).


Oxford Dictionary:

Statism: A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:


Free Dictionary:

Statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Present day liberals believe in a limited government. We believe it should be limited to functions which benefit society. And we believe it should be limited by the privileges and immunities guaranteed in the Bill of Right.

In contrast, conservatives do not do so. Some illiberal progressives are also guilty in this regard. It is a real shame that so many so-called Americans, and their servants are so un-American in this regard

Dictionary liberals indeed believe in limited government. But Americans these days who identify themselves as liberals for the most part do not as almost all promote the statist view that the central government should be able to promote the society and economy that the liberals think is the good and righteous one.

Old European style conservatives did have an iron hold on government, but the common usage of conservatism is also now the polar opposite of that in America and much more coincides with the libertarianism/classical liberalism of the Founders.

And again to tie that to the thread topic, Goldberg believes this faith in government is falling apart and most people no longer look to government to solve problems or give them what they want.

 

[candycorn]

She brings up the New Deal policies....
She brings up modern day politics...

Put the two together and you get Social Security and the FDIC. When I state that the nation is more liberal now than it has been in the past, I'm hanging my hat on the fact than no one in modern day politics who wouldn't be shouted down by her/his own supporters would ever suggest we get rid of either of these programs. Ask GWB about it.

You can add the FDIC, Social Security to things such as the clean water act, OSHA, NLRB, the minimum wage, NASA, etc.... as things that are and were extra-constitutional that we couldn't fathom doing without today and imagine life being much better.

So again, I reject the premise that people are embracing conservatism. And for the record, the OP will not state what objective criteria was used to level such an allegation in the first place. Nor,by the way, will she state what the difference is in Washington making a law--by legislators and a President we elect--and our State Capitol making a law--by legislators and a Governor we elect.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Merriam Webster:
Liberalism: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


Encyclopedia Britannica:
Liberalism: In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).

Oxford Dictionary:
Statism: A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:

Free Dictionary:
Statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

In the context of this thread, liberalism and statism are used synonymously. Those who object to that will have to provide some evidence that the terms cannot be used synonymously and so far have not made their case other than they just won't admit that they can.

This relates to the thread topic only to the extent that Goldberg maintains that more people are rejecting the statism aka liberalism that passes for leftist politics in America at this time.

The definitions provided above PROVE that liberalism is NOT statism.

It doesn't matter how many times a fallacy is repeated that does not make it true.

However it does confirm the truism that if a lie is repeated often enough the gullible will believe it irrespective of it being factually wrong.

 

[oldernwiser]

Well, thank you for providing the limits. In light of those particular definitions, I don't see how anyone could ever make a simple choice of one over another. There are things an individual can do more efficiently and there are things that a government can do much better than an individual or when more than 1 individual needs to be involved. And, paradoxically, there are places where both need to overlap. In light of the article listed in the OP, I can't think of how liberalism could ever "run it's course" or probably more to the point how we could ever truly be free of the yoke of government. Things that you might feel free to do may impact or impinge MY freedoms, without a governmental umbrella I would either be forced into accepting my new limitations, finding a new place to be where I was less impacted, or to enter into direct conflict with you (remember our right to bear arms here).

This brings up an interesting point, because government itself plays many different roles as well. It has the role of controller, initiator, and arbiter. And of course, these also need to overlap in function.

And what ties this altogether is that we collectively create the functions of our government based on collective needs (which really is the root of Socialism, isn't it?). This means that individuals may or may not be properly served, and that's the drawback of any form of government aside from anarchy. However, this is mitigated by allowing localities to set most of their own rules - another overlap in function. This allows for us to move from the individual to the local collective level for dealing with the federal government and other collectives as an individual voice.

Here's where I have a problem with the definition set. If conservatives want to limit the scope of government, aren't they in fact attempting to circumvent democratic process? Example: The people in South Dakota want to build a pipeline that connects to a station in Illinois which must span the state of Iowa. The people in Iowa don't want this pipeline, but both SD and IL would benefit. Couldn't SD and IL override the wishes of the people in IA with limitations on the scope of the federal government? Now consider, once the pipeline is built it breaks in IA. Again, government's scope is limited, who pays for the massive clean up? Who makes the landowners whole after a major accident? And, what happens if the company that built the pipeline dissolved right after completion (which many companies do), are the people of IA SOL? And maybe more importantly, do we think it would be fair to leave them to their own devices? Tough luck? That's not a society at that point, it's simply groups of people and the law of the jungle. Is that the America that Conservatives foresee and would bring upon the rest of us?

There MUST be balance between both ideals. There are times when it makes sense to take risks and times when it's better to take a safer path. I believe that collectively, when presented with the proper data and stripped of social labels (liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc) we can make the decisions that make the most sense to the most people. And that was the founding principle for our country.

 

[candycorn]

Well, thank you for providing the limits. In light of those particular definitions, I don't see how anyone could ever make a simple choice of one over another. There are things an individual can do more efficiently and there are things that a government can do much better than an individual or when more than 1 individual needs to be involved. And, paradoxically, there are places where both need to overlap. In light of the article listed in the OP, I can't think of how liberalism could ever "run it's course" or probably more to the point how we could ever truly be free of the yoke of government. Things that you might feel free to do may impact or impinge MY freedoms, without a governmental umbrella I would either be forced into accepting my new limitations, finding a new place to be where I was less impacted, or to enter into direct conflict with you (remember our right to bear arms here).

This brings up an interesting point, because government itself plays many different roles as well. It has the role of controller, initiator, and arbiter. And of course, these also need to overlap in function.

And what ties this altogether is that we collectively create the functions of our government based on collective needs (which really is the root of Socialism, isn't it?). This means that individuals may or may not be properly served, and that's the drawback of any form of government aside from anarchy. However, this is mitigated by allowing localities to set most of their own rules - another overlap in function. This allows for us to move from the individual to the local collective level for dealing with the federal government and other collectives as an individual voice.

Here's where I have a problem with the definition set. If conservatives want to limit the scope of government, aren't they in fact attempting to circumvent democratic process? Example: The people in South Dakota want to build a pipeline that connects to a station in Illinois which must span the state of Iowa. The people in Iowa don't want this pipeline, but both SD and IL would benefit. Couldn't SD and IL override the wishes of the people in IA with limitations on the scope of the federal government? Now consider, once the pipeline is built it breaks in IA. Again, government's scope is limited, who pays for the massive clean up? Who makes the landowners whole after a major accident? And, what happens if the company that built the pipeline dissolved right after completion (which many companies do), are the people of IA SOL? And maybe more importantly, do we think it would be fair to leave them to their own devices? Tough luck? That's not a society at that point, it's simply groups of people and the law of the jungle. Is that the America that Conservatives foresee and would bring upon the rest of us?

There MUST be balance between both ideals. There are times when it makes sense to take risks and times when it's better to take a safer path. I believe that collectively, when presented with the proper data and stripped of social labels (liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc) we can make the decisions that make the most sense to the most people. And that was the founding principle for our country.

I'll add to your learned words above. As humans we also can benefit from learning from the mistakes of the past. In Texas, there is this company called Blue Bell ice cream. Recently they produced some tainted goods that killed three people via listeria poisoning.. To their credit they shut down (after a few weeks of still having their product on the market) to fix the problem. To nobody's surprise, their plant in Oklahoma found listeria in it....in 2013. State health inspectors found crickets in one of their warehouses. No fines were levied; no reprimands issued.

This isn't a thread about crickets or listeria or any of that. What is being alleged is an embracement of conservative values which favor the same types of hands off approach of government to serial violators and bad corporate citizens like Blue Bell. If government isn't going to be the watchdog that makes sure our food is safe; who is? Wall Street?

As we have yet to be furnished any objective data showing this embracement, I reject the premise of the argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, thank you for providing the limits. In light of those particular definitions, I don't see how anyone could ever make a simple choice of one over another. There are things an individual can do more efficiently and there are things that a government can do much better than an individual or when more than 1 individual needs to be involved. And, paradoxically, there are places where both need to overlap. In light of the article listed in the OP, I can't think of how liberalism could ever "run it's course" or probably more to the point how we could ever truly be free of the yoke of government. Things that you might feel free to do may impact or impinge MY freedoms, without a governmental umbrella I would either be forced into accepting my new limitations, finding a new place to be where I was less impacted, or to enter into direct conflict with you (remember our right to bear arms here).

This brings up an interesting point, because government itself plays many different roles as well. It has the role of controller, initiator, and arbiter. And of course, these also need to overlap in function.

And what ties this altogether is that we collectively create the functions of our government based on collective needs (which really is the root of Socialism, isn't it?). This means that individuals may or may not be properly served, and that's the drawback of any form of government aside from anarchy. However, this is mitigated by allowing localities to set most of their own rules - another overlap in function. This allows for us to move from the individual to the local collective level for dealing with the federal government and other collectives as an individual voice.

Here's where I have a problem with the definition set. If conservatives want to limit the scope of government, aren't they in fact attempting to circumvent democratic process? Example: The people in South Dakota want to build a pipeline that connects to a station in Illinois which must span the state of Iowa. The people in Iowa don't want this pipeline, but both SD and IL would benefit. Couldn't SD and IL override the wishes of the people in IA with limitations on the scope of the federal government? Now consider, once the pipeline is built it breaks in IA. Again, government's scope is limited, who pays for the massive clean up? Who makes the landowners whole after a major accident? And, what happens if the company that built the pipeline dissolved right after completion (which many companies do), are the people of IA SOL? And maybe more importantly, do we think it would be fair to leave them to their own devices? Tough luck? That's not a society at that point, it's simply groups of people and the law of the jungle. Is that the America that Conservatives foresee and would bring upon the rest of us?

There MUST be balance between both ideals. There are times when it makes sense to take risks and times when it's better to take a safer path. I believe that collectively, when presented with the proper data and stripped of social labels (liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc) we can make the decisions that make the most sense to the most people. And that was the founding principle for our country.

The political parties were taken out of the equation via thread rules. I intended this thread to be focused on liberalism, as it is most commonly understood and used in America, and whether people are okay with it or are rejecting it. I don't care how people define themselves or what political party they affiliate with.

Basically, if it is something not specifically authorized by the Constitution and the federal government is doing it, it is a liberal concept. The function itself is not what makes it liberal or conservative, but who is in control of it and how it is administered.

It is the difference between authority from a central government that dictates how the people will be governed versus self-governance in which the people decide that for themselves.

I believe Goldberg was of the opinion that most of the people are beginning to see the benefits of the ability to govern themselves and are rejecting a central government who presumes to know what is best for everybody in one-size-fits-all mandates.

 

[Derideo_Te]

As we have yet to be furnished any objective data showing this embracement, I reject the premise of the argument.

The only objective data provided to date shows the exact opposite of the OP's failed premise.

 

[Spare_change]

Merriam Webster:

Liberalism: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism


Encyclopedia Britannica:

Liberalism: In the United States liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies (see below Contemporary liberalism).


Oxford Dictionary:

Statism: A political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs:


Free Dictionary:

Statism: The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Present day liberals believe in a limited government. We believe it should be limited to functions which benefit society. And we believe it should be limited by the privileges and immunities guaranteed in the Bill of Right.

In contrast, conservatives do not do so. Some illiberal progressives are also guilty in this regard. It is a real shame that so many so-called Americans, and their servants are so un-American in this regard

"Present day liberals believe in a limited government. "

Boy, that shot your credibility all to hell ....

 

[Agit8r]

the common usage of conservatism is also now the polar opposite of that in America and much more coincides with the libertarianism/classical liberalism of the Founders.

Then how come so many "conservatives" are against public education?

How come few favor the separation of church and state?

How come most are for a vast military?

How come many are against the 4th, 5th and 7th Amendments?

 

[Foxfyre]

the common usage of conservatism is also now the polar opposite of that in America and much more coincides with the libertarianism/classical liberalism of the Founders.

Then how come so many "conservatives" are against public education?

How come few favor the separation of church and state?

How come most are for a vast military?

How come many are against the 4th, 5th and 7th Amendments?

Conservatives are not at all against public education. Conservatives invented public education. Conservatives just don't want federal control of education.

Most conservatives are for a defense strong enough to deter all enemies because preventing hostilities from starting is far preferable to war. But conservatives want fiscal accountability and prevention of a lot of unnecessary programs and expense rolled into and hidden in the defense budget.

Conservatives are all over the block on the separation of church and state issue, but most want the federal government to follow the letter and intent of the first amendment meaning they do not presume to have any jurisdiction over where or how people acknowledge or practice their faith.

I am not at all aware of any conservative objection any amendments to the Bill of Rights. Conservatives definitely object when the federal government oversteps its authority/limitations re those rights.

It is the conservative attitudes re the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I believe is beginning to catch on with more people who have shaken off the blurred interpretations of liberalism and are beginning to embrace the Constitution as it was originally intended.

 

[Agit8r]

Conservatives are not at all against public education. Conservatives invented public education. Conservatives just don't want federal control of education.

Well, they want the government to pay for their private education, but that was never the founder's intent.

Most conservatives are for a defense strong enough to deter all enemies because preventing hostilities from starting is far preferable to war. But conservatives want fiscal accountability and prevention of a lot of unnecessary programs and expense rolled into and hidden in the defense budget.

No country with nuclear missiles has been invaded.

Conservatives are all over the block on the separation of church and state issue, but most want the federal government to follow the letter and intent of the first amendment meaning they do not presume to have any jurisdiction over where or how people acknowledge or practice their faith.

Not really though. I've never met one who was for the separation of church and state. Even such libertarians are few and far between.

I am not at all aware of any conservative objection any amendments to the Bill of Rights. Conservatives definitely object when the federal government oversteps its authority/limitations re those rights.

They don't say that they are. They use code words like "tort reform" or "homeland security" or "building a pipeline for energy independence"

It is the conservative attitudes re the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I believe is beginning to catch on with more people who have shaken off the blurred interpretations of liberalism and are beginning to embrace the Constitution as it was originally intended.

The constitution has been amended from it's original text. And the ability to do so was indeed among their intentions.

 

[jasonnfree]

Well, thank you for providing the limits. In light of those particular definitions, I don't see how anyone could ever make a simple choice of one over another. There are things an individual can do more efficiently and there are things that a government can do much better than an individual or when more than 1 individual needs to be involved. And, paradoxically, there are places where both need to overlap. In light of the article listed in the OP, I can't think of how liberalism could ever "run it's course" or probably more to the point how we could ever truly be free of the yoke of government. Things that you might feel free to do may impact or impinge MY freedoms, without a governmental umbrella I would either be forced into accepting my new limitations, finding a new place to be where I was less impacted, or to enter into direct conflict with you (remember our right to bear arms here).

This brings up an interesting point, because government itself plays many different roles as well. It has the role of controller, initiator, and arbiter. And of course, these also need to overlap in function.

And what ties this altogether is that we collectively create the functions of our government based on collective needs (which really is the root of Socialism, isn't it?). This means that individuals may or may not be properly served, and that's the drawback of any form of government aside from anarchy. However, this is mitigated by allowing localities to set most of their own rules - another overlap in function. This allows for us to move from the individual to the local collective level for dealing with the federal government and other collectives as an individual voice.

Here's where I have a problem with the definition set. If conservatives want to limit the scope of government, aren't they in fact attempting to circumvent democratic process? Example: The people in South Dakota want to build a pipeline that connects to a station in Illinois which must span the state of Iowa. The people in Iowa don't want this pipeline, but both SD and IL would benefit. Couldn't SD and IL override the wishes of the people in IA with limitations on the scope of the federal government? Now consider, once the pipeline is built it breaks in IA. Again, government's scope is limited, who pays for the massive clean up? Who makes the landowners whole after a major accident? And, what happens if the company that built the pipeline dissolved right after completion (which many companies do), are the people of IA SOL? And maybe more importantly, do we think it would be fair to leave them to their own devices? Tough luck? That's not a society at that point, it's simply groups of people and the law of the jungle. Is that the America that Conservatives foresee and would bring upon the rest of us?

There MUST be balance between both ideals. There are times when it makes sense to take risks and times when it's better to take a safer path. I believe that collectively, when presented with the proper data and stripped of social labels (liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc) we can make the decisions that make the most sense to the most people. And that was the founding principle for our country.

The political parties were taken out of the equation via thread rules. I intended this thread to be focused on liberalism, as it is most commonly understood and used in America, and whether people are okay with it or are rejecting it. I don't care how people define themselves or what political party they affiliate with.

Basically, if it is something not specifically authorized by the Constitution and the federal government is doing it, it is a liberal concept. The function itself is not what makes it liberal or conservative, but who is in control of it and how it is administered.

It is the difference between authority from a central government that dictates how the people will be governed versus self-governance in which the people decide that for themselves.

I believe Goldberg was of the opinion that most of the people are beginning to see the benefits of the ability to govern themselves and are rejecting a central government who presumes to know what is best for everybody in one-size-fits-all mandates.

What kind of debate where the political parties that define liberalism and conservatism in today's real world, can't be mentioned?

 

[Spare_change]

the common usage of conservatism is also now the polar opposite of that in America and much more coincides with the libertarianism/classical liberalism of the Founders.

Then how come so many "conservatives" are against public education?

How come few favor the separation of church and state?

How come most are for a vast military?

How come many are against the 4th, 5th and 7th Amendments?

Let us be clear ---

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

2. We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

3. We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Conservatives are not at all against public education. Conservatives invented public education. Conservatives just don't want federal control of education.

Well, they want the government to pay for their private education, but that was never the founder's intent.

Most conservatives are for a defense strong enough to deter all enemies because preventing hostilities from starting is far preferable to war. But conservatives want fiscal accountability and prevention of a lot of unnecessary programs and expense rolled into and hidden in the defense budget.

No country with nuclear missiles has been invaded.

Conservatives are all over the block on the separation of church and state issue, but most want the federal government to follow the letter and intent of the first amendment meaning they do not presume to have any jurisdiction over where or how people acknowledge or practice their faith.

Not really though. I've never met one who was for the separation of church and state. Even such libertarians are few and far between.

I am not at all aware of any conservative objection any amendments to the Bill of Rights. Conservatives definitely object when the federal government oversteps its authority/limitations re those rights.

They don't say that they are. They use code words like "tort reform" or "homeland security" or "building a pipeline for energy independence"

It is the conservative attitudes re the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that I believe is beginning to catch on with more people who have shaken off the blurred interpretations of liberalism and are beginning to embrace the Constitution as it was originally intended.

The constitution has been amended from it's original text. And the ability to do so was indeed among their intentions.

I generally won't respond to chopped up posts. Sorry. Just a personal preference. But I will agree to disagree with all your points.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, thank you for providing the limits. In light of those particular definitions, I don't see how anyone could ever make a simple choice of one over another. There are things an individual can do more efficiently and there are things that a government can do much better than an individual or when more than 1 individual needs to be involved. And, paradoxically, there are places where both need to overlap. In light of the article listed in the OP, I can't think of how liberalism could ever "run it's course" or probably more to the point how we could ever truly be free of the yoke of government. Things that you might feel free to do may impact or impinge MY freedoms, without a governmental umbrella I would either be forced into accepting my new limitations, finding a new place to be where I was less impacted, or to enter into direct conflict with you (remember our right to bear arms here).

This brings up an interesting point, because government itself plays many different roles as well. It has the role of controller, initiator, and arbiter. And of course, these also need to overlap in function.

And what ties this altogether is that we collectively create the functions of our government based on collective needs (which really is the root of Socialism, isn't it?). This means that individuals may or may not be properly served, and that's the drawback of any form of government aside from anarchy. However, this is mitigated by allowing localities to set most of their own rules - another overlap in function. This allows for us to move from the individual to the local collective level for dealing with the federal government and other collectives as an individual voice.

Here's where I have a problem with the definition set. If conservatives want to limit the scope of government, aren't they in fact attempting to circumvent democratic process? Example: The people in South Dakota want to build a pipeline that connects to a station in Illinois which must span the state of Iowa. The people in Iowa don't want this pipeline, but both SD and IL would benefit. Couldn't SD and IL override the wishes of the people in IA with limitations on the scope of the federal government? Now consider, once the pipeline is built it breaks in IA. Again, government's scope is limited, who pays for the massive clean up? Who makes the landowners whole after a major accident? And, what happens if the company that built the pipeline dissolved right after completion (which many companies do), are the people of IA SOL? And maybe more importantly, do we think it would be fair to leave them to their own devices? Tough luck? That's not a society at that point, it's simply groups of people and the law of the jungle. Is that the America that Conservatives foresee and would bring upon the rest of us?

There MUST be balance between both ideals. There are times when it makes sense to take risks and times when it's better to take a safer path. I believe that collectively, when presented with the proper data and stripped of social labels (liberal, conservative, Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Communist, etc) we can make the decisions that make the most sense to the most people. And that was the founding principle for our country.

The political parties were taken out of the equation via thread rules. I intended this thread to be focused on liberalism, as it is most commonly understood and used in America, and whether people are okay with it or are rejecting it. I don't care how people define themselves or what political party they affiliate with.

Basically, if it is something not specifically authorized by the Constitution and the federal government is doing it, it is a liberal concept. The function itself is not what makes it liberal or conservative, but who is in control of it and how it is administered.

It is the difference between authority from a central government that dictates how the people will be governed versus self-governance in which the people decide that for themselves.

I believe Goldberg was of the opinion that most of the people are beginning to see the benefits of the ability to govern themselves and are rejecting a central government who presumes to know what is best for everybody in one-size-fits-all mandates.

What kind of debate where the political parties that define liberalism and conservatism in today's real world, can't be mentioned?

They can't be mentioned because it would immediately derail the thread into a partisan food fight over the sins of this party or that party. The concept of conservative and liberal thought can be discussed quite easily without using any ad hominem whatsoever toward individuals, groups, or political parties.

 

[Agit8r]

1. Conservatives are not "against public education' - they are against FAILED public education, and federal policies which directly contribute to that failure.

Examples?

We are not opposed to separation of church and state - we are opposed to those leftist fanatics who have so perverted the definition of separation as to directly threaten our religion.

Examples?

We believe in a 'vast' military, because we believe that the US has an inherent responsibility to try to lift up those who suffer the vile actions of dictators and tyrants, regardless of country borders.

That may be a defensible belief, but it is more Wilsonian than conservative. None of our founders held that view.

4. I assume this is some kind of tortured and convoluted reference to the Patriot Act and how conservatives believe terrorists should not be afforded the legal rights of citizens .... yep. If you don't contribute, you shouldn't get to partake. If you didn't earn it, you don't get it.

It's about Big Brother watching you.