Liberalism vs America

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Constitution liberal document????
then why does it strictly limit the power of govt while liberals want unlimited govt power??

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow?

 

[2aguy]

American conservatives want to conserve the founding principals of the country as preserved in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...modern liberals...think, rightly, that the Constitution constrains their power...to do good of course...up until you get in their way...then they will destroy you...

Liberals in today's America believe that to secure true freedom for people...the government must clear the path...provide free healt care, retirement...the whole works...not caring on the freedom that much government control destroys..

 

[2aguy]

Classical Liberalism believed in limiting the power of the central,government....that government was created by the governed to handle a limited set of things that were best done as a group...but to leave,people to their own devices on everything else...

Classical liberalism is derided by being given the definition as defining "negative" freedoms...things the government can't do to you...you see that in our Constitution and Bill of Rights...

Modern liberals take the idea of "positive" freedoms...like how they do that with the negative freedom for people who believe in individual liberty and positive freedom for those who believe in top down government?...or what the government should be able to do to you....er...for you...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Classical Liberalism believed in limiting the power of the central,government....that government was created by the governed to handle a limited set of things that were best done as a group...but to leave,people to their own devices on everything else...

Classical liberalism is derided by being given the definition as defining "negative" freedoms...things the government can't do to you...you see that in our Constitution and Bill of Rights...

Modern liberals take the idea of "positive" freedoms...like how they do that with the negative freedom for people who believe in individual liberty and positive freedom for those who believe in top down government...or what the government should be able to do to you....er...for you...

in short, our Founders saw govt as the greatest evil in human history while modern liberals, despite the bloodiest century in human history being the most recent , see govt as a source of welfare for all.

 

[Pogo]

sorry, you are speaking to the old definition of liberal...today...a liberal believes that to achieve "freedom" you need the government to make it possible...meaning...a huge,central government making decisions on the freedom of ordinary citizens...

There only is one definition. You're using a revisionist one. It's not selling.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

There only is one definition. You're using a revisionist one. It's not selling.

So if he one and only definition is today's version then why doesn't the Constitution currently restrict gun ownership, mandate healthcare, mandate your retirement, school for your kids, and have taxes in the original document?

So if the original Constitution is so liberal by today's standards why isn't in the original document?

 

[Pogo]

So if he one and only definition is today's version then why doesn't the Constitution currently restrict gun ownership, mandate healthcare, mandate your retirement, school for your kids, and have taxes in the original document?

So if the original Constitution is so liberal by today's standards why isn't in the original document?

You have it turned backwards. The Constitution -- that document we started the country with, the one with the Bill of Rights, the guarantees of free speech, freedom of religion, right to carry firearms, etc -- is the essence of Liberalism, which means power derives from the People and government stays out of the way except where needed for things only a national institution can do. That's the definition, and it's always been the definition. This latter-day revisionism trying to redefine the term in order to score political points in some kind of demagoguery football game is bullshit.

That's what Billc is trying to do above by defining Liberalism as "classic" liberalism, which tries to put a foot in the door to suggest there's some other version. There isn't.

 

[Billy000]

What liberalism has done to America?

1) Ruined the family structure for many.

2) Put the country on the road to bankruptcy

3) Made it acceptable for far to many to waste their lives drunk, drugged and freeloading.

1) how? You cons have a hard time separating weak correlation and causation. You need to provide specifics and rule out other specifics.

2) Bush is responsible for 10 trillion of the national debt. Big spending transcends the democratic and republican dichotomy.

3) You have a very poor understanding of welfare in this country. This mooching epidemic you all like to entertain is not based in reality. For example, the average person on food stamps makes $766 a MONTH. The average recipient receives $133 a month. 76% of recipients have at least one dependent living in the home. Overall those individuals receive 83% of the total food stamps benefits for the nation.

 

[2aguy]

I didn't change the definition...the socialists did...they took that name...liberal...when socialist/communist became known for the failure that they are...now the term liberal has been rightly tagged,with the old socialist policies so now they are moving back to the term progressive instead of liberal...they have to keep changing the term they use because people eventually catch on to the big taxing, big spending, big wasting policies they believe in...

and besides,that...the language changes over time...even political terms...get over yourself...

 

[Pogo]

I didn't change the definition...the socialists did...they took that name...liberal...when socialist/communist became known for the failure that they are...now the term liberal has been rightly tagged,with the old socialist policies so now they are moving back to the term progressive instead of liberal...they have to keep changing the term they use because people eventually catch on to the big taxing, big spending, big wasting policies they believe in...

and besides,that...the language changes over time...even political terms...get over yourself...

You weren't the first to change it no, that goes back to the McCarthy daze. But apparently you are gullible enough to still buy it. Even to the point of pretending a term means the opposite of itself.

It's so cute the way you keep inventing and morphing terms and then go "who, me? They're changing it, not me!"

 

[2aguy]

a little look at the changing use of the word...Liberal...and how it has been distorted by the people who oppose it's philosophy...

Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism".[73]

 

[2aguy]

From the above link...
L. T. Hobhouse, in Liberalism (London: Williams and Norgate, 1911), attributed this purported shift, which included qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy and the collective right to equality in dealings, to an increased desire for what Hobhouse called "just consent".[74] Hayek wrote that Hobhouse's book would have been more accurately titled Socialism, and Hobhouse himself called his beliefs "liberal socialism".[75]

 

[Pogo]

Hayek wrote that Hobhouse's book would have been more accurately titled Socialism

There you go -- answered your own question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have it turned backwards. The Constitution -- that document we started the country with, the one with the Bill of Rights, the guarantees of free speech, freedom of religion, right to carry firearms, etc -- is the essence of Liberalism, which means power derives from the People and government stays out of the way except where needed for things only a national institution can do. That's the definition, and it's always been the definition. This latter-day revisionism trying to redefine the term in order to score political points in some kind of demagoguery football game is bullshit.

That's what Billc is trying to do above by defining Liberalism as "classic" liberalism, which tries to put a foot in the door to suggest there's some other version. There isn't.

True.


Liberalism is the same today as it was during the Foundation Era: where the rule of law is paramount.


Using Constitutional case law to safeguard citizens' civil liberties and restrict government overreach is a fundamental tenet of liberalism, where the burden is placed most heavily on the state to justify enacting laws limiting citizens' civil rights, and failing to met that burden, laws, referenda, and like measures are invalidated by the courts because they exceed government's authority to limit a protected right.


A basic liberal principle is that one's inalienable rights are not subject to 'majority rule,' one does not forfeit his civil liberties solely as a consequence of his state or jurisdiction of residence, and whether or not one has his civil liberties is not subject to popular vote.


Liberalism is now and always has been guided by the doctrine of enhancing citizens' civil liberties at the expense of the authority of the state, where absent a proper legislative end, the state is prohibited from infringing upon the rights of citizens.


The most recent and pronounced example of these liberal principles manifesting today can be found in courts across the country where gay Americans are fighting for their comprehensive civil liberties unjustly denied them by the states.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Constitution liberal document????
then why does it strictly limit the power of govt while liberals want unlimited govt power??

This doesn't make any sense.


The Constitution is a liberal document because it acknowledges the rights of the individual as paramount, where the people's relationship between their National government cannot be interfered with by state or local governments, and their civil liberties are safeguarded by a Federal Constitution whose case law is supreme.


That conservatives perceive liberals as advocating for 'unlimited government power' is truly bizarre and unfounded, as again the notion makes no sense.


And the Constitution both authorizes government to act and protects citizens from government overreach, where government might enact measures in good faith, but later to be perceived by the people as in violation of their civil liberties. The Constitution affords the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts to seek relief from government excess.


There is no evidence that liberals seek 'unlimited government power,' whatever that's supposed to mean. Indeed, quite the opposite is true:


Liberals seek to protect the privacy rights of women by restricting state governments from dictating to women whether they may have a child or not.


Liberals seek to protect the equal protection rights of gay Americans by restricting state governments from deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.


Liberals seek to protect the voting rights of African-Americans by restricting state governments from enacting 'voter ID' laws that are unwarranted and un-Constitutional.


And liberals seek to protect the due process rights of immigrants to claim refugee status by restricting state governments from denying them access to Federal immigration laws.


In these and other examples we see liberals defending the rights of individuals and compelling restrictions on government.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You have it turned backwards. The Constitution -- that document we started the country with, the one with the Bill of Rights, the guarantees of free speech, freedom of religion, right to carry firearms, etc -- is the essence of Liberalism, which means power derives from the People and government stays out of the way except where needed for things only a national institution can do. That's the definition, and it's always been the definition. This latter-day revisionism trying to redefine the term in order to score political points in some kind of demagoguery football game is bullshit.

That's what Billc is trying to do above by defining Liberalism as "classic" liberalism, which tries to put a foot in the door to suggest there's some other version. There isn't.

Well if that were true we wouldn't be having to fight all of your new laws now would we? Free speech to you means making other people shut up. Religion means denouncing God at your convention and removing all references to him in any situation, Firearms are only protected as long as you the individual aren't allow to have one. Everything you listed the left is against, and you're for the Constitution how exactly?

 

[Pogo]

Well if that were true we wouldn't be having to fight all of your new laws now would we? Free speech to you means making other people shut up. Religion means denouncing God at your convention and removing all references to him in any situation, Firearms are only protected as long as you the individual aren't allow to have one. Everything you listed the left is against, and you're for the Constitution how exactly?

Uh ---- "my" new laws? What the fuck are you talking about?

Once again, you seem to be conflating "left" and "Liberal". They are not the same thing. You know that, right?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

This doesn't make any sense.


The Constitution is a liberal document because it acknowledges the rights of the individual as paramount, where the people's relationship between their National government cannot be interfered with by state or local governments, and their civil liberties are safeguarded by a Federal Constitution whose case law is supreme.


That conservatives perceive liberals as advocating for 'unlimited government power' is truly bizarre and unfounded, as again the notion makes no sense.


And the Constitution both authorizes government to act and protects citizens from government overreach, where government might enact measures in good faith, but later to be perceived by the people as in violation of their civil liberties. The Constitution affords the people the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in the Federal courts to seek relief from government excess.


There is no evidence that liberals seek 'unlimited government power,' whatever that's supposed to mean. Indeed, quite the opposite is true:


Liberals seek to protect the privacy rights of women by restricting state governments from dictating to women whether they may have a child or not.


Liberals seek to protect the equal protection rights of gay Americans by restricting state governments from deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.


Liberals seek to protect the voting rights of African-Americans by restricting state governments from enacting 'voter ID' laws that are unwarranted and un-Constitutional.


And liberals seek to protect the due process rights of immigrants to claim refugee status by restricting state governments from denying them access to Federal immigration laws.


In these and other examples we see liberals defending the rights of individuals and compelling restrictions on government.

How can you be for individual freedom when you want a law demanding you purchase a product the government deems necessary and sets the rules for what you will or will not be allowed to have?

Liberals only seek more government power. I'm yet to see a liberal come up with any solution other than that.

Yes, you always want to restrict the state's rights as well as the individual's. Gay or any other cause you champion is always attached to government force. Yet you thin you are for the individual?

Nobody ever said we could dictate a woman's ability to have a child. We just want some rules on when a woman can decide to commit murder, Seems reasonable.

ID to vote? Kind of like the same one required by law to buy beer or cigs? Or drive a car, open a bank account or even get a job. Crazy demand uh?

Nothing you are for is for less government, absolutely nothing.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Uh ---- "my" new laws? What the fuck are you talking about?

Once again, you seem to be conflating "left" and "Liberal". They are not the same thing. You know that, right?

Is there a difference? I don't see it.

 

[Pogo]

How can you be for individual freedom when you want a law demanding you purchase a product the government deems necessary and sets the rules for what you will or will not be allowed to have?

Liberals only seek more government power. I'm yet to see a liberal come up with any solution other than that.

Yes, you always want to restrict the state's rights as well as the individual's. Gay or any other cause you champion is always attached to government force. Yet you thin you are for the individual?

Nobody ever said we could dictate a woman's ability to have a child. We just want some rules on when a woman can decide to commit murder, Seems reasonable.

ID to vote? Kind of like the same one required by law to buy beer or cigs? Or drive a car, open a bank account or even get a job. Crazy demand uh?

Nothing you are for is for less government, absolutely nothing.

Where or when have I ever advocated any of the above? Quote me.

Can't do it. Because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Go ahead -- find one.