Does Liberal Mean "free"?

[kujo]

Dairy, I am in favor of women and minority rights; however, I am [b]not[/b] in favor of affirmative action or other programs that penalize me because I am a white male.

I am in favor of environmentally-friendly behavior; however, I am [b]not[/b] in favor of taxing corporations into the ground because relying on the free market is much more responsible and would easily address this problem. Incentives always provoke change quicker and more effectively than economic coercision.

I am in favor of capitalism; however, I am [b]not[/b] in favor of allowing businesses and corporations stomp on the human rights of workers.

Modern liberalism does [b]not[/b] resemble the liberalism of the early 1900s, so I think it's unfair to lump FDR in with Obama simply because they wear the same color shirt; rather, understand that liberalism in America has become about promoting [i]license[/i] not [i]liberty.[/i]

Edited June 12, 2008 by kujo

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes, much of liberalism has become that. but it's still unfair to lump them all together. that'd be the same as people saying conservatives all believe in anything goes torture and don't care about rights etc etc. just because some conservatives believe it, it's not fair to characterize the whole group like that.

this i still insist is a game of semantics and stereotypes. you can have reasonable conservatives... but just acknowledge there can be reasonable liberals. it's only fair.
so.... since it's a game of stereotypes, the only fair thing to do is give each side what it'd steretotypically deserve... liberals are for the environment etc etc.
otherwise, i still insist you're just paying the name and cookie cutter game.

really, giving what they stereotyipcally deserve is just meaningless generality mostly. that's why this whole thread, which is my true position, is sort of pointless and semantical.

most people that get caught up in it, are just blinded by politics.

Edited June 12, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatherineM]

I hat.e the idea of labeling anyone. In politics, that might keep people from becoming educated and changing their minds because they get lost in the party line. Maybe we should disband political parties, and have everyone run independent. Think of the chaos.

[jeffpugh]

Ha!

"Reasonable" liberals and Conservatives are neither left nor right... but centre... arent' they?
I dunno.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1570143' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:44 PM']Ha!

"Reasonable" liberals and Conservatives are neither left nor right... but centre... arent' they?
I dunno.[/quote]
Right reason invariably leads one down the Right path.

[BG45]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1570164' date='Jun 12 2008, 11:54 PM']Right reason invariably leads one down the Right path. [/quote]

However the "Right" is not always "Right". Case in point Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun (to poke fun at another thread), various dictators who believed in Right Wing ideals installed by the CIA in the 1960s and 1950s, and any number of ultra-nationalist groups worldwide.

The same goes for the Left, either side can play dictator. The struggle between Fascism (a far Right ideology) and Communism (a far left ideology) are a good, if extreme, dichotomy of this.

In short, I'm playing semantics. A person can be "Right" and go down the "Right" path, while still being a centrist comparatively.

Edited June 13, 2008 by BG45

[Socrates]

[quote name='BG45' post='1570235' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:42 PM']However the "Right" is not always "Right". Case in point Adolf Hitler, Attila the Hun (to poke fun at another thread), various dictators who believed in Right Wing ideals installed by the CIA in the 1960s and 1950s, and any number of ultra-nationalist groups worldwide.

The same goes for the Left, either side can play dictator. The struggle between Fascism (a far Right ideology) and Communism (a far left ideology) are a good, if extreme, dichotomy of this.

In short, I'm playing semantics. A person can be "Right" and go down the "Right" path, while still being a centrist comparatively.[/quote]
I think the idea that Nazis were conservative (and conversely, that conservatives are Nazis, or Nazi-like) is one of the biggest lies of the Left.

The Nazis were only considered "Right" because they were fighting the Communists for power. They were not conservatives (German conservatives at the time were the monarchists, whom Hitler once said he considered a greater enemy than Communism). The most conservative parts of Germany (such as Bavaria) were the least supportive of Nazism.

While the Nazis (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the Communists were at war with each other, they were hardly opposite ideologies, but were far more similar than different. In fact, Hitler studied Lenin's Communist revolution to get ideas on how to organize his own Nazi revolution.
Both Communism and Nazism are godless, revolutionary, statist, totalitarian regimes.
Any serious student of history can see that they resembled each other far more than they were different.
Tweedledee battling Tweedledum.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1569577' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:54 AM']understand that liberalism in America has become about promoting [i]license[/i] not [i]liberty.[/i][/quote]

Well stated my good man.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1570143' date='Jun 12 2008, 09:44 PM']Ha!

"Reasonable" liberals and Conservatives are neither left nor right... but centre... arent' they?
I dunno.[/quote]

probably. most things in life are not so clear cut. the center of what people claim is usually true.
what a reasonable liberal slash conservative is though... is someone who is not a cookie cutter caraciture of the right or left. both sides are social conventions only, products of a random snapshot in time of human thought represented by political parties... just as there was different types of repub and dem back in the day and varying other parties, to marrow will change too.
so the parties of today are surely not indicative of anything objective. to be one side or te other.... is probably only reflective of one's need to conform than anything objective. some might legit belief one side or the other in its totality without being brain dead about it.... but statistically speaking, it's not at all likely as those extremes are just snap shots of a spectrum of possible beliefs, and to have coagulation towards the extremes indicates most of them are just ocnforming.

Edited June 13, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Veridicus]

Only a fool conforms himself to false dichotomies.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's tough to swallow the idea that modern day conservative or liberal (minus what's required to be a catholic, for the purposes of this forum) encapsulates the truth as best possible.
people strive to objectivity. someone who is the cookie cutter... must consider their party to be the best objectivity they know of. yet, most political parties in time could not be the optimal objectivity, as there's only one truth and today's allegedly is optimal. to say... to claim... that today's party encapsulate that optimal objective pursuit, is a hard pill to swallow historically and statistically speaking, not to mention for all the substnative arguments that could be made against the polar ends.
those who reside towards the end... whether genuinely or as a matter of sheepishness... must live in a happy world though, where their beliefs in what's most objectively true is embodied in a modern day political party, of all the odds.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1570358' date='Jun 13 2008, 12:16 AM']those who reside towards the end... whether genuinely or as a matter of sheepishness... must live in a happy world though, where their beliefs in what's most objectively true is embodied in a modern day political party, of all the odds.[/quote]

Those are the kind of people who end up blowing up buildings or committing atrocities like genocide IMO. If you agree with everything a politician says...you've seriously got some soul-searching to do...

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1570292' date='Jun 13 2008, 12:00 AM']In fact, Hitler studied Lenin's Communist revolution to get ideas on how to organize his own Nazi revolution.[/quote]

source?

[KnightofChrist]

They both studied Karl Marx, and while I recall Hitler's quotes praising Lenin, I can not find them.

[geauxsaints26]

I've heard Hitler praised and quoted Martin Luther quite often

[Alycin]

The word liberal has a lot of different meanings depending on it's contents.

IMO the only true freedom is freedom in Christ. Aside from that, it's all drivel.

If you give someone a liberal helping of pie, you are giving them a lot. A liberal helping of pie is like saying a generous helping of pie.

The liberal party (the majority anyway) often thinks that freedom is found in everyone being able to do what they want without boundaries... not murder or anything but things like marriage, jobs, sexual relationships, abortions, etc. They are for less restrictions... but they don't realize that that isn't actually "freeing" in the sense that it is good for the soul. God's laws are good for the soul, but to someone who doesn't understand it they would see it as being restricting... when really, it isn't.

(I re-read that and it didn't come out exactly how I wanted but that's as good as I can get.)

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1570680' date='Jun 13 2008, 01:58 PM']source?[/quote]
Richard Pipes, [i]Russia under the Bolshevik Regime[/i] (New York, 1993) p. 259, as cited by Warren Carroll in [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i] (Front Royal, VA, 1995) p. 120-121.

Adolf Hitler wrote in a letter to Hermann Rauschning:[quote]I have learned a great deal from Marxism, as I do not hesitate to admit. . . . I have learned from their methods. . . . The whole of National Socialism is based on it. Look at the workers' sports clubs, the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda leaflets written specifically for the comprehension of the masses; all of these methods of political struggle are essentially Marxist in origin. All I had to do is take over these methods and adapt them to our purpose.[/quote]

In a 1941 speech, Hitler declared, "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."

[CatherineM]

Marxism has lasted longer. I'm not sure how.

[Didymus]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1572367' date='Jun 15 2008, 11:04 PM']Richard Pipes, [i]Russia under the Bolshevik Regime[/i] (New York, 1993) p. 259, as cited by Warren Carroll in [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i] (Front Royal, VA, 1995) p. 120-121.

Adolf Hitler wrote in a letter to Hermann Rauschning:

In a 1941 speech, Hitler declared, "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."[/quote]

thanks

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1570164' date='Jun 12 2008, 10:54 PM']Right reason invariably leads one down the Right path. [/quote]

Because soc is always right.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1570292' date='Jun 13 2008, 12:00 AM']I think the idea that Nazis were conservative (and conversely, that conservatives are Nazis, or Nazi-like) is one of the biggest lies of the Left.

The Nazis were only considered "Right" because they were fighting the Communists for power. They were not conservatives (German conservatives at the time were the monarchists, whom Hitler once said he considered a greater enemy than Communism). The most conservative parts of Germany (such as Bavaria) were the least supportive of Nazism.

While the Nazis (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the Communists were at war with each other, they were hardly opposite ideologies, but were far more similar than different. In fact, Hitler studied Lenin's Communist revolution to get ideas on how to organize his own Nazi revolution.
Both Communism and Nazism are godless, revolutionary, statist, totalitarian regimes.
Any serious student of history can see that they resembled each other far more than they were different.
Tweedledee battling Tweedledum.[/quote]

They only resembled each other so much because they were such polar opposites. Hitler actually DID help German buisnessmen (non Jewish, Aryan buisnessmen, but buisnessmen nonetheless) and improved the German economy greatly. Soviet communism did not. They resembled each other in how they treated their citizens, but not in other buisness related policies. The only way they were similar is that they were tyrannically paranoid dictatorships.

[quote name='geauxsaints26' post='1572260' date='Jun 15 2008, 08:31 PM']I've heard Hitler praised and quoted Martin Luther quite often [/quote]

Martin Luther was antisemitic, which made it very easy for the Nazis to say "look, the founder of Lutheranism knew how filthy the Jews were, we are just doing the work of God!"

[quote name='Socrates' post='1572367' date='Jun 15 2008, 11:04 PM']Richard Pipes, [i]Russia under the Bolshevik Regime[/i] (New York, 1993) p. 259, as cited by Warren Carroll in [i]The Rise and Fall of the Communist Revolution[/i] (Front Royal, VA, 1995) p. 120-121.

Adolf Hitler wrote in a letter to Hermann Rauschning:

In a 1941 speech, Hitler declared, "Basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same."[/quote]

blah blah blah. That quote from his letter is discussing only brainwashing techniques, nothing to do with the real policies of the government. You sound like you are trying to make it seem that Hitler meant that all of his government's actions were based on Marxism. No.

Anyway if you want to get into what was truly "conservative" in Germany at the time (Bavaria is where Hitler first started gaining support, by the way... that is where his first rallies were, Munich was where the NAZI national headquarters were located, the Munich compact was signed in Munich (duh), and the eagle's nest was in the bavarian alps), then there was nothing more conservative than antisemitism. It has a long history in Germany, and the terms "liberal" and conservative" are relative to their times (as you so cleverly pointed out by mentioning the monarchists).

Soc, I have never once seen you call out anyone who was seen as right wing. Maybe you just need to accept that the "right" can be wrong sometimes, and that conservatives have the potential to be just as evil as liberals. Louis XIV of France wasn't exactly an angel, and what about Rasputin in Russia? As long as the monarchy was in power he thought he'd be home free. Probably the most conservative Russian man of the 20th century outside of the royal family itself. oh, but then you would call him liberal because he was "liberal" with his bedmates.

Liberal does not equal evil. Conservative does not equal good. It depends on what you are talking about specifically. In the US (and europe) today, conservatism is usually the more moral choice. Look at the middle east, however. RELATIVELY speaking, don't you think that some countries should be a little more liberal in their policies? It is certainly not liberal to force women to wear burkhas in public.