What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace their ideological principles back to? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers. So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”?

Marxism .

no, liberals lack the IQ to know Marx, they don't have a principle; they have only their beeding hearts which lead them to support more and more welfare entitlements.

 

[logical4u]

Matthew 22:21

That last part is not in there. Yeshua wanted the "individual" to become a better person, to walk closer with the LORD. Yeshua never said that people should support their gov't because their gov't should be treated like G*d.

Matthew 22:21

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" ~ Jesus

"Taxes" are included in "the things which [were] Caeser's."

Caesar's things were different: civil law, roads, military "protection", trade, etc.

 

[Oldguy]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace their ideological principles back to? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers. So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”?

Marxism .

no, liberals lack the IQ to know Marx, they don't have a principle; they have only their beeding hearts which lead them to support more and more welfare entitlements.

And, Nutter's don't know the difference between these two "Marxist's."

 

[logical4u]

A safety net is a requirement in a capitalistic society which is subject to more volatile markets and swings in employment. But I want corporations to pay living wages.

Food stamp receipients receive, on average, $131 a month, but this is an expensive program to administer, through two levels of government, with a qualifying criteria and approval process. Raising the minimum wage $2 and hour would raise wages by $80 per 40 hour week, raising income by $320 a month, and reducing the need for people to receive food stamps.

Administration costs are reduced. Entitlement expenditures are reduced and the working poor get a raise. Republicans oppose the idea, yet they want to end entitlement programs and have people take responsibility for themselves. These are the choices guys - raise wages or keep paying for food. Pick one and quit complaining. People need a living wage.

No, the GOP has a third option: Let 'em starve.

Typically, that is what happens (people starve), after liberalism/communism/socialism fails (after ruining the infrastructure, agriculture, and trade).

 

[Oldguy]

None of those on the right who are posting in this thread are the slightest bit interested in what liberals believe.

I was. Thats why I posted the op. No "liberal" has responded to it.

Oh yes I did in post #131, which you have studiously ignored, even after I called your attention to it.

 

[logical4u]

This "liberal" bases not only his political philosophy, but his entire life on the simplest, yet most profound of the teachings of Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Luke 6:31; Matt 7:12 )

Just as I would not want to be refused help when I needed it, neither will I refuse it to someone else. Just as I would not want to be treated like a second class citizen, neither will I treat anyone else that way or allow anyone else to do it. Just as I would not want my children to starve or their medical problems to go untreated, neither will I require that of others, nor will I allow others to require it.

That's a direct outflow from the Second Greatest Commandment, also a teaching of Jesus: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. The word translated as "neighbor" is a Greek word which literally means every other human being. Interestingly, it also means where two people are concerned, it's the other one, which fits neatly with Paul's teachings to consider ourselves as less than everyone else.

The point is that this kind of uncompromising, unequivocal, undemanding love for our fellow man without thought of recompense or pre-condition, is PRECISELY what I see missing in the ideology of the modern-day right. On that side, all we see is greed, avarice and selfishness. "I've got mine, get your own and don't even THINK of me helping you because you don't deserve it and I don't want to pay for it."

And THAT is why I cannot, and will not, support candidates which preach such an arrogant, prideful message.

For my "Christian" Evangelical friends over there on that side, I would remind them of something John said in I John 4:20----If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

If "liberals" really based their "philosophy" on these teachings, why was G*d booed at the democratic convention?
If "liberals" really believed this, why do they insist on "forcing" others to finance their plans (taxes)? Yeshua was not know for ever "forcing" HIS will onto others. HE led by example (that would be refreshing change from liberals), and encouraged others to do the same.

Sorry, I see this as more manipulative talk, and not the walk. If you are so Biblical, why don't liberals support the moral teachings of the church? Do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will use, and which you declare yourself to be the authoritarian over G*d, by declaring HIS will invalid on abortion, promiscuous or homosexual behavior? Since you are so willing to "share", I hope you don't mind my asking you these questions.

 

[Mustang]

Marxism .

no, liberals lack the IQ to know Marx, they don't have a principle; they have only their beeding hearts which lead them to support more and more welfare entitlements.

And, Nutter's don't know the difference between these two "Marxist's."

What is it that Gandolf and Gene Shalit have in common regarding this thread? (I didn't know that Shalit was a Commie)

 

[boedicca]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

I'm going to go with the post modernist "truth is relative" theory, which has been actualized by the Left into "I can do what I want without being responsible for the consequences".

 

[Oldguy]

no, liberals lack the IQ to know Marx, they don't have a principle; they have only their beeding hearts which lead them to support more and more welfare entitlements.

And, Nutter's don't know the difference between these two "Marxist's."

What is it that Gandolf and Gene Shalit have in common regarding this thread? (I didn't know that Shalit was a Commie)

LOL I never noticed the similarities!

 

[Redfish]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

For conservatives, it’s easy. They either place their ideology on the principle of self-ownership as written by John Locke or the no harm principle as advocated by J.S. Mill. But what does the modern day liberal trace his/her ideological principles back to? What is the foundation of their thought? It can’t be the classical liberalism of the above stated philosophers (Which calles into qustion the reason they identify as "liberals"). So who/what? Is it “From each according to his ability to each according to his need”? Certainly a modern day liberal/progressive/democrat should be able to shine some light on this question.

that success and wealth are evil and must be punished for the "common good". said another way----marxism.

 

[Oldguy]

This "liberal" bases not only his political philosophy, but his entire life on the simplest, yet most profound of the teachings of Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Luke 6:31; Matt 7:12 )

Just as I would not want to be refused help when I needed it, neither will I refuse it to someone else. Just as I would not want to be treated like a second class citizen, neither will I treat anyone else that way or allow anyone else to do it. Just as I would not want my children to starve or their medical problems to go untreated, neither will I require that of others, nor will I allow others to require it.

That's a direct outflow from the Second Greatest Commandment, also a teaching of Jesus: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. The word translated as "neighbor" is a Greek word which literally means every other human being. Interestingly, it also means where two people are concerned, it's the other one, which fits neatly with Paul's teachings to consider ourselves as less than everyone else.

The point is that this kind of uncompromising, unequivocal, undemanding love for our fellow man without thought of recompense or pre-condition, is PRECISELY what I see missing in the ideology of the modern-day right. On that side, all we see is greed, avarice and selfishness. "I've got mine, get your own and don't even THINK of me helping you because you don't deserve it and I don't want to pay for it."

And THAT is why I cannot, and will not, support candidates which preach such an arrogant, prideful message.

For my "Christian" Evangelical friends over there on that side, I would remind them of something John said in I John 4:20----If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

If "liberals" really based their "philosophy" on these teachings, why was G*d booed at the democratic convention?
If "liberals" really believed this, why do they insist on "forcing" others to finance their plans (taxes)? Yeshua was not know for ever "forcing" HIS will onto others. HE led by example (that would be refreshing change from liberals), and encouraged others to do the same.

Sorry, I see this as more manipulative talk, and not the walk. If you are so Biblical, why don't liberals support the moral teachings of the church? Do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will use, and which you declare yourself to be the authoritarian over G*d, by declaring HIS will invalid on abortion, promiscuous or homosexual behavior? Since you are so willing to "share", I hope you don't mind my asking you these questions.

I was speaking of me and me only. Perhaps YOU cannot separate an individual from a group, but that's your problem. Of course, thinking in groups makes prejudice and bigotry much easier, doesn't it?

 

[Derideo_Te]

This "liberal" bases not only his political philosophy, but his entire life on the simplest, yet most profound of the teachings of Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. (Luke 6:31; Matt 7:12 )

Just as I would not want to be refused help when I needed it, neither will I refuse it to someone else. Just as I would not want to be treated like a second class citizen, neither will I treat anyone else that way or allow anyone else to do it. Just as I would not want my children to starve or their medical problems to go untreated, neither will I require that of others, nor will I allow others to require it.

That's a direct outflow from the Second Greatest Commandment, also a teaching of Jesus: Love your neighbor as you love yourself. The word translated as "neighbor" is a Greek word which literally means every other human being. Interestingly, it also means where two people are concerned, it's the other one, which fits neatly with Paul's teachings to consider ourselves as less than everyone else.

The point is that this kind of uncompromising, unequivocal, undemanding love for our fellow man without thought of recompense or pre-condition, is PRECISELY what I see missing in the ideology of the modern-day right. On that side, all we see is greed, avarice and selfishness. "I've got mine, get your own and don't even THINK of me helping you because you don't deserve it and I don't want to pay for it."

And THAT is why I cannot, and will not, support candidates which preach such an arrogant, prideful message.

For my "Christian" Evangelical friends over there on that side, I would remind them of something John said in I John 4:20----If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

If "liberals" really based their "philosophy" on these teachings, why was G*d booed at the democratic convention?
If "liberals" really believed this, why do they insist on "forcing" others to finance their plans (taxes)? Yeshua was not know for ever "forcing" HIS will onto others. HE led by example (that would be refreshing change from liberals), and encouraged others to do the same.

Sorry, I see this as more manipulative talk, and not the walk. If you are so Biblical, why don't liberals support the moral teachings of the church? Do you pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will use, and which you declare yourself to be the authoritarian over G*d, by declaring HIS will invalid on abortion, promiscuous or homosexual behavior? Since you are so willing to "share", I hope you don't mind my asking you these questions.

Not in the slightest. Your God openly advocated abortions. There is even a religious ceremony for performing abortions in the bible. The greatest love story in the bible is between David and Johnathon. The old testament is rife with promiscuous polygamy. Do you pick and choose to ignore those parts of the bible?

 

[Oldguy]

Not in the slightest. Your God openly advocated abortions.

He did? Where?

There is even a religious ceremony for performing abortions in the bible.

There is? Where?

The greatest love story in the bible is between David and Johnathon.

Sorry, but that's not a homosexual tale, no matter how much you might like to make it so.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not in the slightest. Your God openly advocated abortions.

He did? Where?

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

There is even a religious ceremony for performing abortions in the bible.

There is? Where?

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

The greatest love story in the bible is between David and Johnathon.

Sorry, but that's not a homosexual tale, no matter how much you might like to make it so.

“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

 

[Oldguy]

Not in the slightest. Your God openly advocated abortions.

He did? Where?

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16



The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

The greatest love story in the bible is between David and Johnathon.

Sorry, but that's not a homosexual tale, no matter how much you might like to make it so.

“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

That's about what I figured you'd come up with. However, I won't debate it here because that would be hijacking the thread. If you'd like to go further, start a thread over on the religion boards.

 

[Derideo_Te]

He did? Where?

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16



The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

Sorry, but that's not a homosexual tale, no matter how much you might like to make it so.

“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

That's about what I figured you'd come up with. However, I won't debate it here because that would be hijacking the thread. If you'd like to go further, start a thread over on the religion boards.

The thread was hijacked by logical4u when he attempted to use the bible to defame liberals. It wasn't until you asked for substantiation that it was necessary to use actual quotes. As long as we can both agree that the bible has no place in political discussions I am willing to drop it here.

 

[Oldguy]

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14
Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16



The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28




“David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times and they kissed each other and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, ‘Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of the Lord, saying, “The Lord shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.” ’ He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.” (1 Samuel 20:41-42)

“Saul and Jonathan, beloved and lovely!
In life and in death they were not divided;
they were swifter than eagles,
they were stronger than lions.
How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!
Jonathan lies slain upon your high places.
I am distressed for you my brother Jonathan;
Greatly beloved were you to me;
your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.”
(2 Samuel 1:23, 26-27, emphasis added)

That's about what I figured you'd come up with. However, I won't debate it here because that would be hijacking the thread. If you'd like to go further, start a thread over on the religion boards.

The thread was hijacked by logical4u when he attempted to use the bible to defame liberals. It wasn't until you asked for substantiation that it was necessary to use actual quotes. As long as we can both agree that the bible has no place in political discussions I am willing to drop it here.

While I normally agree that religion and politics should not mix, I can't agree with you in this thread because my answer to the OP would be meaningless. And, I REALLY would like to hear his response.

It doesn't look like I'm likely to get one though, does it?

 

[Faun]

You obviously have never heard of J.S. Mill's "harm principle." Am I talking to a brick wall? Listen, you cannot hang in this conversation. You lack the intellectual capacity. Everything you’re asking about can be assessed in the op where I have told you where I stand. The problem is that you lack the education to understand that. Please don’t make me step down any further into the land of teaching the ignorant. Go study Mill and Locke before you continue this conversation. You have no clue how lost you are and it is a joke to everyone here who understands what I am talking about. Or perhaps look up Thomas Hobbes who no doubt you agree with assessing the above response.

Perhaps you would be better served by studying Cicero. In essence there is no difference between you and Karl Marx except for the positions you are postulating. Both of you argue for extremism over pragmatism. Both of you ardently believe that only your particular answer is the solution to every problem. Both of you are equally wrong. Just as communism has been proven to be an abject failure so has your unfettered capitalist dogma. The economic crises of 1929 and 2008 are both the result of fundamentalist capitalism being allowed to run rampant. Unregulated capitalism always fails because there are no limits on greed and avarice. Your utopian capitalist ideal is an unrealistic delusional fantasy. Reality requires that capitalism be as equally constrained as socialism. Neither can exist without the other. Only fools believe that one is superior to the other. Only idiots advocate for a purist solution. Realists understand that compromise is the only way that both can coexist.

here we are. Book Discussion on [Bad History, Worse Policy] - C-SPAN Video Library
Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative about the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act - Economics - AEI

In 1999, Peter Wallison was quoted in The New York Times to the effect that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to put American taxpayers at risk. “This is another thrift industry growing up around us,” he said. “If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Now, in his new book, “Bad History, Worse Policy: How a False Narrative about the Financial Crisis Led to the Dodd-Frank Act,” (AEI Press) Wallison argues that the Dodd-Frank Act — the Obama administration’s sweeping financial regulation law — will suppress economic growth for years to come. Based on his essays on financial services issues published between 2004 and 2012, Wallison shows that the act was based on a false and ideologically motivated narrative about the financial crisis. Some prominent conclusions from the book:
•As the economy began to recover from the recession, it was growing at 2.5 percent annually, but since the enactment of Dodd-Frank in July 2010, the average growth rate has been 2 percent, and each year has been slower than the last.
•Large financial institutions — designated under the Dodd-Frank Act as threats to the stability of US financial markets — will be seen as “too big to fail,” receiving lower cost funds from creditors and investors who believe they are less risky than their smaller rivals.
•Because of these benefits, large firms will come to dominate the financial markets, stifling competition and providing a basis for new forms of crony-capitalist cooperation between government big finance.
•The Volcker Rule, when finalized, will reduce liquidity in the financial markets and raise the costs of borrowing for state and local governments as well as every US company that finances itself through the issuance of bonds.
•New requirements for mortgage lending, such as the Qualified Residential Mortgage and the Qualified Mortgage, will make it difficult and substantially more expensive even for people with good credit to obtain mortgage financing.
•The new regulatory scheme for derivatives will add enormous new costs to hedging and risk-management transactions for all financial and non-financial firms.
•The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will impose substantial new costs on all small businesses, forcing many small companies out of business or into mergers with larger firms, and will reduce innovation in consumer products.



These myriad consequences flow directly from a narrative that blames the financial crisis on deregulation and private-sector risk-taking. In reality, the government itself has escaped blame for housing policies that deliberately degraded mortgage-underwriting standards and built a housing bubble in which half the mortgages were subprime or otherwise low quality.

“I don’t remember any period in modern history when the analysis of historic economic events has been more dominated by the clear thinking of one person. That person’s name is Peter Wallison. He has dispelled more myths and provided more insights than all other scholars and commentators combined. If you want to know what triggered the financial crisis and why Federal policy misdiagnosed both the illness and the appropriate treatment, all you have to do is read this book.”

—Phil Gramm, Former Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and Senior Partner of US Policy Metrics

“This book is indispensable reading for anyone seeking to understand the actual causes of the financial crisis and why the Dodd-Frank Act should be reconsidered. Peter Wallison reveals how government failures, not market failures, produced the financial crisis. With sound logic and solid evidence, he explains how the Left’s blind faith in unaccountable regulators and its institutionalization of government bailouts have made our financial system less safe. Peter Wallison was right on the dangers posed by the GSEs; in time he will also be proven right on the origins of the
financial crisis and the flaws of the Dodd-Frank Act.”

—Senator Richard C. Shelby (R-AL), Ranking Member of the US Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

“The Dodd-Frank Act is a mind-numbing combination of costly, destructive, and ineffective measures, executed quickly to make maximum use of the political momentum that followed the U.S. subprime crisis. As its practical failures are revealed, the act will have to be reformed. Although future reformers may not agree with everything in Peter Wallison’s Bad History, Worse Policy, they will find the evidence and logic he brings to bear impossible to ignore.”

—Charles Calomiris, Professor, Columbia University

How ironic that Phil Gramm praises Wallison, who according to what you posted, foresaw the risk in 1999 that was orchestrated by ... (you guessed it) ... Phil Gramm.

 

[Agit8r]

The no harm principle is great, though notably his 'Principles of Political Economy' he does not draw his line where some here do

Mill, Principles of Political Economy, Book II, Chapter I | Library of Economics and Liberty

Also worth noting that the earlier example did not draw a hard and fast line where some here do either.

"Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law."
-- from 1789 'Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen'

 

[NoNukes]

So, when people bad mouth liberals, they are not talking about Democrats, but Libertarians and some Republicans. Thank you for straightening that out for us.

The term has been bastardized, perverted.

democrats once were the liberal party. But starting with Wilson, began to move to a leftist, rather than liberal, position. Obviously FDR was a Fabian, and had little in common with the concepts of "liberal." But the name stuck and continued to be used, inappropriately.

When people speak honestly of democrats (bad mouth,) they refer to leftists. Those who seek a collectivist, authoritarian system - not those who seek liberty and free markets.

Then why do they say liberals instead of Democrats? How many of the Republicans who call themselves conservatives are truly conservatives?