What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)

[lookout123]

Liberal and Conservative are just tags people throw on themselves and others so that it is easier to categorize and dismiss the thoughts and ideas of others.

I believe the US government should act with fiscal responsibility. To do that they must not spend more than they take in and they must become debt free.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

I believe the government should operate with the least possible interference with the daily lives of the citizens.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

I believe personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences should be the bedrock for a sound society.

Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?

Each of those statements can and should prompt several different responses. Those responses will be informed by what the individual believes is important and their interpretation of what the gray area in those statements should mean. Tags like liberal and conservative are just convenient ways to divide us so we don't take the time to realize we have more in common with our hardcore opposite than we do with those we've sent to Washington.

Now who has a vested interest in doing that?

[lookout123]

Let me see if I can help you decide whether I'm liberal or conservative by adding a couple thoughts.

I believe the US government should act with fiscal responsibility. To do that they must not spend more than they take in and they must become debt free.

I think this needs to be accomplished by significantly cutting spending through a carefully calculated but painful process of eliminating government fraud, waste, and abuse. That will include elimination in every single government agency including the military. That will cost jobs. That will include elimination of programs that are no longer relevent, redundant, or simply a result of government sprawl.

I think this needs to be accomplished by increasing revenue to the treasury. I do not believe this can be accomplished by raising the marginal tax rate on any particular category because any category that has enough money to target also has enough money to manipulate the design, implementation, and enforcement of the tax system. A simple one page form with an easy to understand calculation should suffice for every individual, business, and church in America.

Now am I liberal or conservative?

I believe the government should operate with the least possible interference with the daily lives of the citizens.

I believe the government should only be involved in areas where they must.

I am free to be a complete moron so long as it does not endanger another. That means I have the freedom to not wear a seat belt because I have no expectation you will pay my medical bills.

I am free to wear a big ass .45 on my hip as I walk down the street (or carry it concealed) because that does not affect you. I am not free to withdraw that firearm from my holster in anything but a clear cut case of self defense without facing severe legal sanction because that does potentially endanger you.

I am free to put my penis in any consenting adult of legal age or any contraption rigged for my enjoyment regardless of what my neighbors might think because it doesn't affect them. I am not free to wave my willy at the neighbors, put it in their cat, or fornicate on a busstop bench because that affects others.

I am free to marry any consenting adult in a church wedding if the church is willing to perform and recognize the marriage. If I want that partnership to be recognized by the state I must fill out appropriate paperwork to complete my civil partnership, no church wedding required. I don't want the church involved in my government or my government involved in my church.

Now am I liberal or conservative?

I believe personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences should be the bedrock for a sound society.

I am free to pursue a life as a rock musician even though I'm really bad at it. I am not free to expect a subsidy because of my stupid decision.

I am free to pop out 0,2, or 22 children. I am not free to expect a subsidy for that.

I am free to be a poor employee, disrespect my boss, and take long lunch breaks. I am not free to expect I'll keep my job or to ask the government to help pay my bills when I lose it.

I am free to live anywhere I want even if I know there is no hope of employment. I am free to complain about my lack of opportunity. I am not free to expect you to do something about it.

Now am I liberal or conservative?

[HungLikeJesus]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I am free to marry any consenting adult in a church wedding if the church is willing to perform and recognize the marriage. If I want that partnership to be recognized by the state I must fill out appropriate paperwork to complete my civil partnership, no church wedding required. I don't want the church involved in my government or my government involved in my church.

Once you have all the other things on your list (which I agree to, to a significant extent), the whole reason for marriage, I think, ceases to exist.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by HungLikeJesus

Once you have all the other things on your list (which I agree to, to a significant extent), the whole reason for marriage, I think, ceases to exist.

Not for everyone. I love my wife and that crazy bible thing I read says I'm supposed to become one with her in marriage. the mormons, muslims, and jews probably have something along those lines too.

However, if you don't want to be married, no problem.

[HungLikeJesus]

Excellent post, LO.

[footfootfoot]

I think we need a new category to describe you Lookout. Something like Commie loving libertarian new new dealer? It's hard to say, not having all the facts, just yet.

As for point one, what is your position of Government subsidies and bailouts to "corporations too big to fail" vs the same for individuals "too small to matter"?

I would like to see the gifts (or lack thereof) applied equally.

And definitely no banging at the bus stop.

[Pico and ME]

Im not sure he's a new dealer though.

[footfootfoot]

but maybe a new new deal?

[richlevy]

I think you are confusing liberal and conservative with libertarian and authoritarian.

In my opinion, both liberals and conservatives have espoused authoritarian ideas. The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.

That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.

Looking at the number of restrictive amendments to the Constitution proposed by 'conservatives', I can only wonder about the cries of 'states rights!' that went up during the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.

My political compass profile lists me as a libertarian leftist. In my opinion that means that as long as my neighbor doesn't engage in behavior that threatens me and adheres to some basic zoning concepts, I'm ok. Gay wedding in his backyard? I'll send a fruit basket. Wild drug fueled screaming orgy in his pool? I'll buy earmuffs.

It's when he or she stockpiles a ton of explosives or wants to open a toxic waste site that I believe that I have the right to point to the zoning laws and/or basic rules on public safety.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by richlevy

The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.

That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.

Actually, it's more like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise baby Jesus would cry.

It's an understandable mistake Rich.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by richlevy

I think you are confusing liberal and conservative with libertarian and authoritarian.

In my opinion, both liberals and conservatives have espoused authoritarian ideas. The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.

That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.

Looking at the number of restrictive amendments to the Constitution proposed by 'conservatives', I can only wonder about the cries of 'states rights!' that went up during the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.

My political compass profile lists me as a libertarian leftist. In my opinion that means that as long as my neighbor doesn't engage in behavior that threatens me and adheres to some basic zoning concepts, I'm ok. Gay wedding in his backyard? I'll send a fruit basket. Wild drug fueled screaming orgy in his pool? I'll buy earmuffs.

It's when he or she stockpiles a ton of explosives or wants to open a toxic waste site that I believe that I have the right to point to the zoning laws and/or basic rules on public safety.

so much this.

its too late (well, early, at this point) for me to formulate a full response. but, this is a broad-strokes explanation of my own vision of libertarian liberalism/ libertarian-socialism. I believe that the role of government in telling people what they CAN'T do should be limited, but the role of government in telling people what economic/potentially-harmful-to-others rules they can enforce, especially when it comes to helping the poor and the sick and the otherwise needful, should be strong and positive.

[Uday]

Liberal means something different here than it does in my country, I think.

In my country, it means one who encourages more individual liberty, more education, and the idea that economy is best served by encouraging growth from the bottom up, not the top down, by which I mean free enterprise at the individual level, rather than that of huge corporations that do not need any help.

In this, I am definitely a liberal.

[Pico and ME]

...oh. You mean the new-fangled now newish type of new.

[lookout123]

I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.

GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.

As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.

I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.

Agreed. It is 1984 newspeak and it is doubleplusgood. I see that as being a trademark of the republican party. The obvious examples are things with catchy names that misdirect, e.g. Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, to name two. While the Dems are no better, this isn't one of their tactics, I fault the dems for being too "Marquis of Queensbury" in a street fight. The Republicans I admire for their guerrilla tactics, the ends justify the means so they don't feel the need to fight honorably, since the outcome is believed to be in the best interest of the country, even those to whom the best trickles down. The Dems would rather lose everything than their sense of playing by the rules. (not saying they actually always do play by the rules, but for the most part, they seem wedded to the rule book and calling FOUL every chance they get.)

Originally Posted by lookout123

GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.

True, all businesses and entrepeneurs should be accountable for their business decisions and while the personal protection afforded by a corporation has its foundation in a good place that has been abused too often (e.g. Enron) In addition to the market being reset, most importantly what would be taught to the entire nation and world at large would be accountability and moral and ethical values, answering to a higher calling than one's financial self interest. Just as crummy parents will model crummy parenting skills to their kids, our countries leaders (as in LEADERS) are whooly responsible for setting the tone of moral and ethical behavior. Just as lack of fear of loss no longer being in the equation is bad for the economy, so is a lack of personal integrity. If the wealth is going to trickle down, I'm sure the moral bankruptcy will follow along.

Originally Posted by lookout123

As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.

This somewhat follows with the previous point, re: people who feel they live in a world of integrity are more likely to behave as their role models do and will not likely run to the ER for the sniffles. There is another component to this aspect which involves improving primary care and follow up care. My BIL was working on a study that showed dramatic cost savings and reduction in unnecessary hospital visits resulting from minor improvements to primary care. (I posted a link to the video last year)

Another aspect of this relates to what Andrew Carnegie believed about the greater value to all of society by building schools, hospitals, and museums. His feeling was that if you paid a man a few dollars more he would just spend it on meat and beer, but if you withheld those dollars from everyone and used the accumulated money to build a school or museum, the entire community would be uplifted rather than each bloke having a bit more meat that week. Sadly, it seems that someone along the line decided, "Fuck the schools and museums, I can get even richer if I just pocket the money." Sure, you can do that, but at what greater long term cost? Not intangible costs, but indirect costs. I feel that the erosion of integrity by the LEADERS BY EXAMPLE may serve that one person but at a greater cost to society.

Originally Posted by lookout123

I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.

Well, I think the right system will develop organically as people change themselves inside. All of the rules and government are creaeted one step at a time. At a certain point someone decided it was OK to lie, then from that decision new options are available that weren't before. Choices are made and still more options are opened. What it will take is people adopting a code of ethics and conduct. For example, To me it is obvious that allowing lobbying is very dangerous to integrity and the first politician who allowed it to be sugar coated was the pioneer blazing the trail of what is now a six lane highway.

When I lived at the monastery, the roshi was fond of saying that one of the things that set Buddhism apart from other religions was that it wasn't Atheistic, it wasn't Agnostic, it was Non-theistic. It does not see the existence of God as relevant to living a moral and ethical life. 2500 years ago Buddha put forth the following:

In the Kutadanta Sutta, the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity.

In the Jataka, the Buddha had given to rules for Good Government, known as 'Dasa Raja Dharma'. These ten rules can be applied even today by any government which wishes to rule the country peacefully. The rules are as follows:

1) be liberal and avoid selfishness,
2) maintain a high moral character,
3) be prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the subjects,
4) be honest and maintain absolute integrity,
5) be kind and gentle,
6) lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate,
7) be free from hatred of any kind,
8) exercise non-violence,
9) practise patience, and
10) respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony.

Regarding the behavior of rulers, He further advised:

- A good ruler should act impartially and should not be biased and discriminate between one particular group of subjects against another.
- A good ruler should not harbor any form of hatred against any of his subjects.
- A good ruler should show no fear whatsoever in the enforcement of the law, if it is justifiable.
- A good ruler must possess a clear understanding of the law to be enforced. It should not be enforced just because the ruler has the authority to enforce the law. It must be done in a reasonable manner and with common sense. -- (Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta)