What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

This is what confuses the right, resulting in conservative disdain for what they perceive as ‘liberal.’

Liberals are for the most part pragmatists, there is thus no single, specific ‘philosophical principle’ to which they blindly adhere.

Their guiding principles, among others, are the desire to predicate policy decisions on fact, not dogma, as conservatives are prone to do, to attempt to be consistent with the application of policy, and to ensure the laws of society benefit all citizens equally.

Indeed, much of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is not a conflict between competing ideologies, but a conflict between conservative dogma and liberals rejecting that dogma because liberals correctly understand its factual errors and failings.

For example, conservatives seek to establish drug testing as a condition of initial eligibility for public assistance applicants predicated on rightist economic dogma and animus towards those requesting assistance, oblivious to the fact that those receiving public assistance are no more likely to use drugs than the general public. Conservatives perceive making it more difficult to apply for government benefits as striking a blow against the ‘welfare state,’ when in reality they’re striking a blow against the Constitution.

That the courts have invalidated such measures is proof of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Communism.

With regard to the above, it’s becoming increasingly difficult to not come to the conclusion that the guiding principles of conservatism are stupidity and ignorance.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

]What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

I'm willing to go "issue to issue' with you to see how my Liberal philosophy compares to what i think that your conservative philosophy is.

That's funny as hell.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

They are naturalists.

Obviously.

 

[Agit8r]

I'm in agreement with John Locke's treatises on civil government:

"[E]quality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another...
Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself... by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another"

"The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

"where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists... for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him?"

 

[BreezeWood]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?


a participatory Democracy in support of popular and necessary causes.

 

[Publius1787]

Oversimplified hogwash.

Please give me a single quote of Jesus from the gospels that support today's conservative principles. On the other hand, you could start with the sermon on the mount, and find it full of today liberal concepts....and that is just a small example of his sayings that liberals embrace.

Jesus wanted us to give to each other via individual choice. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus wants us to use force as a means to help one another.

Nowhere does the bible say that Jesus wanted us to give to each other via individual choice either. Jesus preached that helping the poor, sick and less fortunate was a Christian obligation.

The Democrat platform hangs on the principle of force so that they may steal from one to give to another in only the manner they see fit. This is not the principle of self-ownership and this is not the no harm principle. This is "From each according to this ability to each according to his need" via the dictates of others.

So it is Christian for individuals to help the poor, sick and unfortunate but Marxism when a government comprised of We the People does the exact same thing? As a Judeo-Christian nation isn't one of the guiding principles the welfare of the people themselves? Why does the means to the end transform from a Christian Principle into a Marxism tenet simply because it is being done by the more perfect union of we the people?

Did Jesus steal to help the poor? Did Jesus ask that people steal to help the poor? Did Jesus mandate that a government that steals from one man to give to another is just? No, Jesus never advocated force nor theft. He advocated charity, and charity does not come from a group of people deciding whose property should be sacrificed by force in order to provide for the poor in a manner only they see fit.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

So it is Christian for individuals to help the poor, sick and unfortunate but Marxism when a government comprised of We the People does the exact same thing? As a Judeo-Christian nation isn't one of the guiding principles the welfare of the people themselves? Why does the means to the end transform from a Christian Principle into a Marxism tenet simply because it is being done by the more perfect union of we the people?

Chist doesn't coerce charity. Christ doesn't take money by force from indviduals to give to the needy.

There are no acts by 'we the people." There are only acts by individuals. Any time you hear someone claiming to be "the people" get the hell out of there. It's nothing but trouble.

 

[Publius1787]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?


a participatory Democracy in support of popular and necessary causes.

I see another misunderstood my question? But hey, we can go from here. What do you mean by "participatory democracy" and what do you mean by "popular and necessary?"

 

[Publius1787]

What Philosophical Principle Do Liberals Hang Their Ideology On?

This is what confuses the right, resulting in conservative disdain for what they perceive as ‘liberal.’

Liberals are for the most part pragmatists, there is thus no single, specific ‘philosophical principle’ to which they blindly adhere.

Their guiding principles, among others, are the desire to predicate policy decisions on fact, not dogma, as conservatives are prone to do, to attempt to be consistent with the application of policy, and to ensure the laws of society benefit all citizens equally.

Indeed, much of the conflict between liberals and conservatives is not a conflict between competing ideologies, but a conflict between conservative dogma and liberals rejecting that dogma because liberals correctly understand its factual errors and failings.

For example, conservatives seek to establish drug testing as a condition of initial eligibility for public assistance applicants predicated on rightist economic dogma and animus towards those requesting assistance, oblivious to the fact that those receiving public assistance are no more likely to use drugs than the general public. Conservatives perceive making it more difficult to apply for government benefits as striking a blow against the ‘welfare state,’ when in reality they’re striking a blow against the Constitution.

That the courts have invalidated such measures is proof of that.

I see. You contest that liberal ideology = anything goes. In short, it means no rule of law. Is there no option that is off of the table? Slavery? Is that practicable if liberals deem it to be? Theft? Murder? To what limits does this anything goes philosophy end? Is it up to the whims of popular opinion as to define what is practicable? Certainly there must be a recognized principle.

 

[Agit8r]

I'm also quite fond of the thinking of James Madison:

"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."

-- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)

 

[Publius1787]

I'm in agreement with John Locke's treatises on civil government:

"The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

That’s the Lockean Proviso, but I see you failed to read further. Do you really need me to explain this or are you going to apologize for taking it out of context?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Jesus wanted us to give to each other via individual choice. Nowhere does the Bible say that Jesus wants us to use force as a means to help one another.

Nowhere does the bible say that Jesus wanted us to give to each other via individual choice either. Jesus preached that helping the poor, sick and less fortunate was a Christian obligation.

The Democrat platform hangs on the principle of force so that they may steal from one to give to another in only the manner they see fit. This is not the principle of self-ownership and this is not the no harm principle. This is "From each according to this ability to each according to his need" via the dictates of others.

So it is Christian for individuals to help the poor, sick and unfortunate but Marxism when a government comprised of We the People does the exact same thing? As a Judeo-Christian nation isn't one of the guiding principles the welfare of the people themselves? Why does the means to the end transform from a Christian Principle into a Marxism tenet simply because it is being done by the more perfect union of we the people?

Did Jesus steal to help the poor? Did Jesus ask that people steal to help the poor? Did Jesus mandate that a government that steals from one man to give to another is just? No, Jesus never advocated force nor theft. He advocated charity, and charity does not come from a group of people deciding whose property should be sacrificed by force in order to provide for the poor in a manner only they see fit.

So your position is that a government of We the People are stealing?

 

[Borillar]

I would say that the teachings of liberalism can be traced to the words and teachings of Jesus.

Yeah, this conversation is beyond you.

Jesus healed the sick. Conservatives say "Let him die."

Jesus chased the money lenders from the Temple. Conservatives have turned religion into big business.

The early Christian church lived as a collective where each believer shared all things in common. Conservatives are materialistic and of the "I, me, mine" mindset.

Jesus fed the multitudes. Conservatives begrudge the needy from receiving food stamps or school meals.

Jesus said "Blessed are the Peacemakers". Conservatives named a nuclear missile which can kill millions of people the "Peacemaker".

Jesus was tortured and executed. Conservatives are for torture, which they euphemistically call "enhanced interrogation". Most of them also support the death penalty. It probably upsets them that executions are carried out by painless means such as lethal injection though.

All in all, I would say that Liberals are much closer to the teachings of Christ than Conservatives. Conservatives seem diametrically opposed to most of Christ's teachings. They do seem to like Biblical law, when it suits their purposes - like justifying slavery and persecuting homosexuals.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So it is Christian for individuals to help the poor, sick and unfortunate but Marxism when a government comprised of We the People does the exact same thing? As a Judeo-Christian nation isn't one of the guiding principles the welfare of the people themselves? Why does the means to the end transform from a Christian Principle into a Marxism tenet simply because it is being done by the more perfect union of we the people?

Chist doesn't coerce charity. Christ doesn't take money by force from indviduals to give to the needy.

There are no acts by 'we the people." There are only acts by individuals. Any time you hear someone claiming to be "the people" get the hell out of there. It's nothing but trouble.

Your position is that the government of We the People are using force and coercion in order to help the poor, sick and unfortunate?

 

[Publius1787]

Nowhere does the bible say that Jesus wanted us to give to each other via individual choice either. Jesus preached that helping the poor, sick and less fortunate was a Christian obligation.



So it is Christian for individuals to help the poor, sick and unfortunate but Marxism when a government comprised of We the People does the exact same thing? As a Judeo-Christian nation isn't one of the guiding principles the welfare of the people themselves? Why does the means to the end transform from a Christian Principle into a Marxism tenet simply because it is being done by the more perfect union of we the people?

Did Jesus steal to help the poor? Did Jesus ask that people steal to help the poor? Did Jesus mandate that a government that steals from one man to give to another is just? No, Jesus never advocated force nor theft. He advocated charity, and charity does not come from a group of people deciding whose property should be sacrificed by force in order to provide for the poor in a manner only they see fit.

So your position is that a government of We the People are stealing?

My position is that for someone who believes in the principle of self-ownership, or the no harm principle, it is an ideological contradiction to say at one end that I am the owner of myself, and at the other, a mob has the right to determine where the fruits of myself ownership goes. Indeed, if a mob can take away your property for anything other than to maintain the right of self-ownership, then slavery becomes a viable option. The only question then becomes to what extent is slavery implemented?

Do you follow or is this over your head?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Did Jesus steal to help the poor? Did Jesus ask that people steal to help the poor? Did Jesus mandate that a government that steals from one man to give to another is just? No, Jesus never advocated force nor theft. He advocated charity, and charity does not come from a group of people deciding whose property should be sacrificed by force in order to provide for the poor in a manner only they see fit.

So your position is that a government of We the People are stealing?

My position is that for someone who believes in the principle of self-ownership, or the no harm principle, it is an ideological contradiction to say at one end that I am the owner of myself, and at the other, a mob has the right to determine where the fruits of myself ownership goes. Indeed, if a mob can take away your property for anything other than to maintain the right of self-ownership, then slavery becomes a viable option. The only question then becomes to what extent is slavery implemented?

Do you follow or is this over your head?

So your clarification is that the government formed by a more perfect union of We the People is a mob? Does this mean that Constitution does not give We the People the right to impose taxes and tariffs? How about the right to regulating commerce, enacting laws and defending the nation? Are those also nothing more than mob rule too?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I've been wondering the same thing myself:

Let me quote what REAL LIBERALS thought at the Founding of our Nation (Thomas Paine, Common Sense):

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

The underlined quote refers to the story of Adam and Eve, not that I care personally, but I thought I'd make it clear for non religious readers.

 

[Publius1787]

So your position is that a government of We the People are stealing?

My position is that for someone who believes in the principle of self-ownership, or the no harm principle, it is an ideological contradiction to say at one end that I am the owner of myself, and at the other, a mob has the right to determine where the fruits of myself ownership goes. Indeed, if a mob can take away your property for anything other than to maintain the right of self-ownership, then slavery becomes a viable option. The only question then becomes to what extent is slavery implemented?

Do you follow or is this over your head?

So your clarification is that the government formed by a more perfect union of We the People is a mob? Does this mean that Constitution does not give We the People the right to impose taxes and tariffs? How about the right to regulating commerce, enacting laws and defending the nation? Are those also nothing more than mob rule too?

No one said anything about the Constitution. That is a separate argument that I would be happy to address in another thread, particularly James Madison’s federalist no. 41 (Last 4 paragraphs). Yet even the founding fathers recognized that there are some things that shall not be legislated on. My point is simple. No one has the right to impede the right of self-ownership for anything other than the right of self-ownership. You disagree? Good, you just made slavery a viable option. The idea that a group of people has the right to legislate one class of citizens into any service other than to the preservation of self-ownership is indeed, a very “modern liberal” stance. In many cases, a conservative one as well, but not to such an extent. In any case, your assertion that the mob is right in anything they wish to do because of a preamble of which grants no power to any branch of government as noted by the Supreme Court only shows that this subject is beyond your comprehension. The government has the right to tax but for what purpose? "The General Welfare." Not "Specific Welfare." This utilitarian phrase couldn't be clearer. But nonetheless, you have in no way shape or form addressed the question posed in the op.

 

[007]

I would say that the teachings of liberalism can be traced to the words and teachings of Jesus.

Is that why so many liberals hate Christianity, and proclaim to be atheists?