Which is more "liberal"?

[Synthaholic]

definitions aren't discretionary. words have meaning.

Indeed. The reason I said that is because "liberal" used to mean liberty and less government intervention. Today, a typical liberal is a statist.

If words have meaning... Then... No... A liberal is absolutely not a statist. I don't care if "democrats" consider themselves liberal or not. I don't care if "republicans" consider "democrats" liberals or not. They are NOT liberals. There is nothing wrong with liberals. There is something wrong with "democrats & republicans"

So, I left it open to be decided based upon how you define the word.

I don't think people should make up their own definitions for words. Society will naturally evolve a language and things might take a different meaning through time... That's alright. But find me a dictionary where liberal = statist.

Right Wing World is actually doing just that. They are creating revisionist histories and getting them planted into textbooks across the southern U.S. They are changing definitions.

 

[Synthaholic]

The Libertarian Party is both more socially liberal than the Democrats, and more fiscally conservative than the Republicans, and both sides hate them for it.

roflmao

The phrase socialy liberal but conservatively conservative is an oxymoronn. Ir defines a person who loves social programs but will be damned if they will pay for them.

No, that's not what it means at all.

 

[amrchaos]

liberals--as I have come to understand from its use in Amercian parlance--is usually a leftist.

There is nothing "leftist" about libertarians. Yes, there is some agreement in the concept of freedom and civil liberties, the difference is that Libertarians seek less government intervention, liberals seek more.

Libertarians (as in the party) want less government? You're f-ing retarded!

The priority of the Libertarian party is to promote everything that leads to bigger government.

Like what? Can you give an example?

 

[California Girl]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

Today's 'Liberals' are not 'liberals', they are progressives. They're scared of saying that - with good reason.

Libertarians are classical liberals... only with a dangerous naivety on some serious issues, such as foreign policy. Conservatives are classical liberals - with an intelligent view on foreign policy.

 

[Synthaholic]

liberals--as I have come to understand from its use in Amercian parlance--is usually a leftist.

There is nothing "leftist" about libertarians. Yes, there is some agreement in the concept of freedom and civil liberties, the difference is that Libertarians seek less government intervention, liberals seek more.

The bolded word makes your statement incorrect when it comes to Liberals.

Yes, Libertarians want less intervention, but Liberals want more beneficial interaction with government. It is the people's tool - we just don't demand that it be used correctly. It is not, and need not be, inherently evil.

I always have to laugh when Republicans brag about how good they are in business. Then they get into office. Now, where the hell are all these great managers, transforming their agencies and showing off their brilliant business acumen? No, instead we get a horse show judge running FEMA.

 

[Synthaholic]

liberals--as I have come to understand from its use in Amercian parlance--is usually a leftist.

There is nothing "leftist" about libertarians. Yes, there is some agreement in the concept of freedom and civil liberties, the difference is that Libertarians seek less government intervention, liberals seek more.

Libertarians (as in the party) want less government? You're f-ing retarded!

The priority of the Libertarian party is to promote everything that leads to bigger government.

Like what? Can you give an example?

No, he can't. He is an idiot. Ignore him.

 

[GuyPinestra]

The Libertarian Party is both more socially liberal than the Democrats, and more fiscally conservative than the Republicans, and both sides hate them for it.

roflmao

The phrase socialy liberal but conservatively conservative is an oxymoronn. Ir defines a person who loves social programs but will be damned if they will pay for them.

Social liberalism has NOTHING to do with 'programs', it is simply a 'Live and let live' philosophy that has been abandoned by Dems and Reps alike.

Fiscal conservatism also has nothing to do with Dems or Reps as BOTH of those parties are for expanded spending, albeit on their own pet projects.

 

[Synthaholic]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

Today's 'Liberals' are not 'liberals', they are progressives. They're scared of saying that - with good reason.

Libertarians are classical liberals... only with a dangerous naivety on some serious issues, such as foreign policy. Conservatives are classical liberals - with an intelligent view on foreign policy.

I proudly call myself a Liberal. Wingnuts don't define anything for me.

 

[peach174]

Socialists in both parties stole the word liberal.
They could not have gotten the votes if they called themselves socialists.

 

[amrchaos]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

Today's 'Liberals' are not 'liberals', they are progressives. They're scared of saying that - with good reason.

Libertarians are classical liberals... only with a dangerous naivety on some serious issues, such as foreign policy. Conservatives are classical liberals - with an intelligent view on foreign policy.

But who goes around saying "Classic liberals"

In fact, if we use start using the term "Classic liberal" then are we not forced into using the term "Classic Neo-liberalism"??

If so, the Libertarians are closer to being classic Neo-liberals. Progressives are still "classic liberals".

Why? Neo-liberalism is against government regulations of market--their ideal economic system is Laisses Faire capitalism. Liberals are for regulated markets and espouses central planning. That if we go back to using the "classic" notions of terms.

 

[G.T.]

Who is more liberal with the salt....a french fry, or a potato chip?

 

[Shelzin]

The hardcore Libertarians are much more liberal than an 'average' Democrat.

You don't care if there is a heroin carryout and a gay whorehouse setting up shop on either side of the local middle school.

As an actual complete package, pure Libertarianism as a way to govern has the same shortcoming as Communism in that it fails to account for the vagrancies of human nature.

*ponders*

What would those shortcomings be?

Morality, for one.

How so?

 

[LibertyForAll]

The hardcore Libertarians are much more liberal than an 'average' Democrat.

You don't care if there is a heroin carryout and a gay whorehouse setting up shop on either side of the local middle school.

As an actual complete package, pure Libertarianism as a way to govern has the same shortcoming as Communism in that it fails to account for the vagrancies of human nature.


It is a complete joke in that regard. We tried libertarianism in the wild wild west. Didn't work.

That said, most people find things they like about libertarian philosophy they like a great deal, including myself.

I hate to always be the guy in here to bear the bad news for you guys, but oh, well.

Nailed it.

.

Actually he didn't. We have been round and round on this and I don't think most libertarians want whore houses next to schools anymore than anyone else would. At this point I have to consider sniperfire a troll.

 

[LibertyForAll]

I voted that democrats were more liberal but only because the term liberal was left undefined. In my opinion you cannot get an effective answer if the terms are left undefined.

 

[Shelzin]

The hardcore Libertarians are much more liberal than an 'average' Democrat.

You don't care if there is a heroin carryout and a gay whorehouse setting up shop on either side of the local middle school.

As an actual complete package, pure Libertarianism as a way to govern has the same shortcoming as Communism in that it fails to account for the vagrancies of human nature.


It is a complete joke in that regard. We tried libertarianism in the wild wild west. Didn't work.

That said, most people find things they like about libertarian philosophy they like a great deal, including myself.

I hate to always be the guy in here to bear the bad news for you guys, but oh, well.

Nailed it.

.

Actually he didn't. We have been round and round on this and I don't think most libertarians want whore houses next to schools anymore than anyone else would. At this point I have to consider sniperfire a troll.

Rep +

 

[francoHFW]

Libertarians are deluded GOP just like the Tea Party. NUTS. and DUPES.

Dems would legalize pot if they could , but are trying to get ELECTED.

 

[Pheonixops]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

definitions aren't discretionary. words have meaning.

Indeed. The reason I said that is because "liberal" used to mean liberty and less government intervention. Today, a typical liberal is a statist.

So, I left it open to be decided based upon how you define the word.

The word Liberal still has the same definition, the problem occurs when many neocons and their ilk ignorantly use the word to insult a group of people who they don't agree with. Who is the last democrat or most recent democrat to call themselves a Liberal, I can possibly think of one.

 

[Ariux]

The hardcore Libertarians are much more liberal than an 'average' Democrat.

You don't care if there is a heroin carryout and a gay whorehouse setting up shop on either side of the local middle school.

As an actual complete package, pure Libertarianism as a way to govern has the same shortcoming as Communism in that it fails to account for the vagrancies of human nature.

Apparently by "hardcore Libertarians" you don't mean libertarian, but reprobate anarchists (which are represented in the Libertarian party). Sorry, did I say anarchists? I meant just "reprobates." Those same "hardcore Libertarians" insist on big government to trample on our freedom of association, speech, and religion (anti-discrimination laws) to facilitate the fag-whore-heroin culture.

You're wrong, ignoranus, in true libertarianism, market and social pressure is allowed to keep reprobates in check. And, in true libertarianism, those reprobates have no right to impose themselves on others.

In a libertarian society, your fag whores would be unable to find jobs, landlords would refuse to rent to them, and businesses would refuse to sell to them. So, they'd find another lifestyle, leaving the elementary school children unmolested.

It is a complete joke in that regard. We tried libertarianism in the wild wild west. Didn't work.

Yes, and we created the greatest country on Earth.

 

[LibertyForAll]

liberals--as I have come to understand from its use in Amercian parlance--is usually a leftist.

There is nothing "leftist" about libertarians. Yes, there is some agreement in the concept of freedom and civil liberties, the difference is that Libertarians seek less government intervention, liberals seek more.

Libertarians (as in the party) want less government? You're f-ing retarded!

The priority of the Libertarian party is to promote everything that leads to bigger government.

Is it the party platform that you take issue with because in your other posts you sound libertarian. This post just didn't seem to fit.

 

[Pheonixops]

The definition of "liberal" is at your discretion.

Both parties' platforms are available online.

Today's 'Liberals' are not 'liberals', they are progressives. They're scared of saying that - with good reason.

Libertarians are classical liberals... only with a dangerous naivety on some serious issues, such as foreign policy. Conservatives are classical liberals - with an intelligent view on foreign policy.

That's totally incorrect! What modern day conservatives are you referring to? The Hannity/Limbaugh chicken-hawk types? Was George Washington "naive" regarding his views on foreign policy in his Farewell Address?
"While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other. "

"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. Religion and morality enjoin this conduct; and can it be, that good policy does not equally enjoin it - It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that, in the course of time and things, the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it ? Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue ? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?

In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim. "