What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[Agit8r]

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.

Factually incorrect:

We oppose sumptuary laws which vex the citizen and interfere with individual liberty; we favor honest Civil Service Reform, and the compensation of all United States officers by fixed salaries; the separation of Church and State; and the diffusion of free education by common schools, so that every child in the land may be taught the rights and duties of citizenship.

While we favor all legislation which will tend to the equitable distribution of property, to the prevention of monopoly, and to the strict enforcement of individual rights against corporate abuses, we hold that the welfare of society depends upon a scrupulous regard for the rights of property as defined by law.

We believe that labor is best rewarded where it is freest and most enlightened. It should therefore be fostered and cherished. We favor the repeal of all laws restricting the free action of labor, and the enactment of laws by which labor organizations may be incorporated, and of all such legislation as will tend to enlighten the people as to the true relations of capital and labor.

We believe that the public lands ought, as far as possible, to be kept as homesteads for actual settlers; that all unearned lands heretofore improvidently granted to railroad corporations by the action of the Republican party should be restored to the public domain; and that no more grants of land shall be made to corporations, or be allowed to fall into the ownership of alien absentees.

-- from 1884 Democratic Platform

We favor an income tax as part of our revenue system, and we urge the submission of a constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Congress to levy and collect a tax upon individual and corporate incomes, to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government.
...
The expanding organization of industry makes it essential that there should be no abridgement of the right of wage earners and producers to organize for the protection of wages and the improvement of labor conditions, to the end that such labor organizations and their members should not be regarded as illegal combinations in restraint of trade.

We favor the eight hour day on all Government work.

We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law by Congress, as far as the Federal jurisdiction extends, for a general employer's liability act covering injury to body or loss of life of employes.

We pledge the Democratic party to the enactment of a law creating a Department of Labor, represented separately in the President's Cabinet, in which Department shall be included the subject of mines and mining.

-- from 1908 Democratic Platform

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

Groucho was a Republican, worked on Ike's campaign.

Looks like it's you that doesn't know the difference between the Marx's.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Then why do they say liberals instead of Democrats?

Common parlance has misappropriated the word.

How many of the Republicans who call themselves conservatives are truly conservatives?

Conservative in the Whig meaning? Very few.

But conservative in traditional values / religious meaning, a great many. I will agree that "conservative" as applied to economics in meaningless. The free market that is advocated by the right is the domain of traditional or classical liberals. But then, the libertarian faction of the right ARE the classical liberals.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How many of the Republicans who call themselves conservatives are truly conservatives?

all of them I'd say. If they were not conservative they'd be Democrats.

Many many people like you get confused because a Republican politician must compromise with independents and Democrats to get elected and reelected. This is democracy after all.

Newt tried to be a pure conservative and it didn't work. Libertarians tried for decades and it just took them right out of contention. Making sense now??

Americans are independent flip floppers and so then are our politicians.

Why do you think Clinton said "the idea of big government is over"??

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

It would be a pointless exercise to hold your breath waiting.

Both sides of the political spectrum engage in promiscuity, have abortions and are either gay or have gay relatives. Attempting to claim that it is purely one sided shows a lack of depth. The odds are good that whatever answer you might eventually get would be equally shallow.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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

Rather than address the fundamental problem of unregulated capitalism that you blindly embrace you deflect with an attempt to assign partisan blame instead. Since you are obviously unwilling to defend your position that means that you are conceding that extreme capitalism is as much of a failure as communism. Have a nice day.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

As long as we can both agree that the bible has no place in political discussions I am willing to drop it here.

Actually the concept of God is the first conservative concept. It taught us that God is in heaven, not on earth in the liberal form of Hitler Stalin and Mao. Do you know why our liberals spied for Stalin?

 

[uscitizen]

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.

to the Jews it meant being ruled/opressed by the Romans.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

to the Jews it meant being ruled/opressed by the Romans.

it meant to be oppressed by an false earthly liberal Roman God.

 

[Mac1958]

How many of the Republicans who call themselves conservatives are truly conservatives?

all of them I'd say. If they were not conservative they'd be Democrats.

So you think everyone has to be one or the other?

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

How many of the Republicans who call themselves conservatives are truly conservatives?

all of them I'd say. If they were not conservative they'd be Democrats.

So you think everyone has to be one or the other?

.

if they are at all intelligent. Those are the only 2 choices in the voting booth and oddly the only 2 choices in human history.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand

 

[Mac1958]

all of them I'd say. If they were not conservative they'd be Democrats.

So you think everyone has to be one or the other?

.

if they are at all intelligent. Those are the only 2 choices in the voting booth and oddly the only 2 choices in human history.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand

"Anyone who disagrees with me is dumb".

Okay, check, got it.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So you think everyone has to be one or the other?

.

if they are at all intelligent. Those are the only 2 choices in the voting booth and oddly the only 2 choices in human history.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand

"Anyone who disagrees with me is dumb".

Okay, check, got it.

.

a typical liberal changing the subject when he finds he lacks the IQ for the subject

 

[Faun]

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

Groucho was a Republican, worked on Ike's campaign.

Looks like it's you that doesn't know the difference between the Marx's.

And for his trouble, Ike taxed his income at 91%. He would have been thrilled to pay the 39.5% Obama's charging.

 

[Mac1958]

if they are at all intelligent. Those are the only 2 choices in the voting booth and oddly the only 2 choices in human history.

A liberal will lack the IQ to understand

"Anyone who disagrees with me is dumb".

Okay, check, got it.

.

a typical liberal changing the subject when he finds he lacks the IQ for the subject

Just curious: When someone says, "you don't agree with me, so you're dumb", you don't think that's a little simplistic, a little immature?

Wouldn't that be something a seven-year old would say?

No?

And by the way, YOU were the one who changed the subject with a personal insult.

Maybe you need to grow up a little.

.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Anyone who disagrees with me is dumb".

Okay, check, got it.

.

a typical liberal changing the subject when he finds he lacks the IQ for the subject

Just curious: When someone says, "you don't agree with me, so you're dumb", you don't think that's a little simplistic, a little immature?

Wouldn't that be something a seven-year old would say?

No?

.

if they are at all intelligent. Those are the only 2 choices in the voting booth and oddly the only 2 choices in human history.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And for his trouble, Ike taxed his income at 91%. He would have been thrilled to pay the 39.5% Obama's charging.

You can show where Ike raised taxes?

Didn't think so...

To err is human, to lie through your fucking teeth is democrat....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Groucho was a Republican, worked on Ike's campaign.

Looks like it's you that doesn't know the difference between the Marx's.

And for his trouble, Ike taxed his income at 91%. He would have been thrilled to pay the 39.5% Obama's charging.

except under Ike what the government took in was far less as a % of GDP than today because no one actually paid those rates. Sorry

 

[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.

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?

Then, maybe for "you", you could answer the questions.....

 

[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.

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?

Please, by all means use the "LORD'S" words where HE advocated abortions.
If you are saying that Johnathon served David over his Father, and the LORD, I would agree that it is a tragic, interesting story. If you are implying that more happened, you have not comprehended the story. If most of the stories about polygamy end in loss and sorrow, how is that "advocating" promiscuity?