Poll: Do you like Liberalism? (PUBLIC POLL)

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
... LastLast
  1. #41
    I came expecting a discussion about the classical liberalism as a form of government. Instead it's just about "liberals" and "conservatives" which really aren't what "liberalism" is about. The usage of the terms does matter.

  2. #42
    The Unstoppable Force May90's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere special
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    Not at all. We got out of caves because "this stuff works even better"

    But it's interesting you hint that evolution is in a way conservative in that it motivates us to regularity
    The problem is, we would never have discovered the stuff that works even better, if we kept sticking to the old beliefs and methods. Once we discover something that works better, we switch to it - but we immediately start looking for something that works better still. Same way, as individuals, throughout life we get new knowledge, new experiences, new thoughts and ideas - if we are not willing to challenge our preconceptions, and to consider others' points of view seriously, then we do not grow as individuals, and, in fact, we degrade, because our brain starts rotting.

    There is a reason many people find it very hard to learn new things at 40+ y/o. But some learn very well even at 100. Because they've been learning their entire life and never were satisfied with what they knew and believed in already, and their ability to learn didn't decay with time.
    Quote Originally Posted by King Candy View Post
    I can't explain it because I'm an idiot, and I have to live with that post for the rest of my life. Better to just smile and back away slowly. Ignore it so that it can go away.
    Thanks for the avatar goes to Carbot Animations and Sy.

  3. #43
    The Unstoppable Force PC2's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    21,877
    Quote Originally Posted by Anax View Post
    Because only conservatives get to try and control other's sex lives.
    Depending on where you live, I doubt conservatives are controlling your sex life.

    Both sides have some people who "try" to be authoritarian.
    Last edited by PC2; 2016-07-21 at 10:21 PM.

  4. #44
    Deleted
    As long it follow the basic principle of:

    Everyone is allowed to do anything, as long as it does not pysically harm any other person, even destroying thier own body.
    For not physicall harassment the guideline is, that you can say whatever you want, as long as you are not forcing yourself onto others.
    Everything can be handled with a deal between two idividuals.
    Always ask yourself what can you do to better your position (in life).

    Basically it boils down to: Have respect for each other.

    The sad thing is, noone follows these principles the whole way and they have to be applied to every individual. Everyone has the same freedom, but also the same dutys. A lot of so called "liberals" are ok with this as long as they can push thier agenda, but are the first to exclude thier "opponents" from these priciples.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by May90 View Post
    The problem is, we would never have discovered the stuff that works even better, if we kept sticking to the old beliefs and methods. Once we discover something that works better, we switch to it - but we immediately start looking for something that works better still. Same way, as individuals, throughout life we get new knowledge, new experiences, new thoughts and ideas - if we are not willing to challenge our preconceptions, and to consider others' points of view seriously, then we do not grow as individuals, and, in fact, we degrade, because our brain starts rotting.
    There must've been some reason we left caves. Generally progress is good if it actually does work for the better, and evolution weeds out the fast, reckless change and risks that people can take when they get too liberal.

    Right but this does not preclude we're advancing in a good way, like learning more about the universe. It could simply be the latest in celebrity gossip, and that feels "different" and "new" to the person so their brain isn't degrading.

  6. #46
    I think we all have a different idea of what it is. Probably because it developed differently in each area.
    OP makes the case for "change", which can be attributed to the progressive branch in France, but not really to the moderate one (same for the social/national liberalism in Germany). And then there's the revolutionary ones...
    I feel OP's framing for change is just the American paradigm that puts libs as pro-change because the other party is explicitly conservative (an idea that, when left independent of the American implementation, doesn't necessarily oppose change anyway). Change is always happening anyway; but some revolutions have failed spectacularly.
    Yet we often see American libs argue that their political spectrum is out of whack. I'm not sure taking that -shortsighted, domestic- framing, and bundling ideas around it, could produce much of an insight.
    I do like liberalism. But it doesn't say much about what I think.

  7. #47
    Deleted
    First and foremost, it depends on what school of liberalism you mean. However, almost all of them beat conservatism by far. Liberalism is an excellent ensurance against conservative thoughts such as theocracy and more bibles in school, racial segregation, anti-science, war mongering, drug wars etc. Do note that Republican economic policy isn't really conservative, but neo-liberal. I'm actually puzzled how anyone under the age of 50 possibly could sympathise with the alternative to liberalism.

    As to my first point, there are several versions of liberalism. Some of them better than other. What devides them is mainly positive and negative rights. Positive rights are things such as right to health care and education, while negative rights are things such as property rights and freedom of speech.

    The European "Classical Liberalism": Sometimes a bit corporatist and give businesses more power. This isn't a bad thing if you're a communist country and need more free market, but there is scenarios where corporation have too much influence and power (see USA). Sometimes it's good too enhance the business climate, but sometimes it might have negative consequences on other goals (income equality and climate change). Also in favor of trade and more international cooperation (sometimes to a fault, like TPP). However, they're also keen to give the ordinary citizens more choices over their lives, in areas such as education and health care. This can be good, but sometimes choice is just an illusion. Besides, some areas of the public sector shouldn't be treated as a free market. They're quite progressive socially, but more open to freedom of speech, which is terrific! This is a decent but not optimal form of liberalism, in my opinion

    The American "Classical Liberalism/neo liberalism": Very much the same as above. Although Americans take it even further. This is the school favored by figures such as Paul Ryan, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. This form of liberalism has created a casino-economy with financial instability and too much corporate power and large income inequality. Not very good at all.

    Libertarianism: What you get when you take liberalism to the extreme. Raises good point on personal freedoms and freedom of speech, being miles ahead of the establishment. The same thing is true regarding foreing policy. However, they're totally backward regarding economic policies. By ultimately dismantling the state, the income inequality will soar and we'll get an even worse casino-economy. This economy will cause a lot of inefficiency as not every market is fit to be a free market. In summary, a somewhat decent form of liberalism, but unpractical. It's what communism is to socialism. Sounds good in theory but horrible in practise.

    American Liberalism/European Social Liberalism: Not to be confused with social democracy or democratic socialism. Social liberalism are proponents of free markets, as it's the most effecient way to allocate resources in their view. HOWEVER, they're prepared to undertake social economic reforms to increase efficiency, get rid of market failures and decrease income inequality.. They're very progressive in social issues as well, especially concerning the rights of minorities such as blacks and LGBTQ. This is perhaps the best form of liberalism, as it's pragmatic and attempts to give both positive and negative rights to it citizens. It's not enough to be allowed to owe property to get equal chances in life, sometimes the society must provide where your parents have failed (such as education and health care). You did not choose your parents!

    All in all, Liberalism is the one clear choice out there. Then it's up for debate which kind of it we should practise.
    Last edited by mmoc0840a05313; 2016-07-21 at 10:31 PM.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    If we define our terms, how are we supposed to get into arguments over whose definition is the definitioniest and call everyone who disagrees with us stupid?
    I suggest leaving it to chance and have each thread secretly generate a random set of definitions, only to be disclosed if we trigger a semantic dispute.
    It's probably pointless, but I can see it keeping us entertained in our anxious hopes for bread and circuses.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Bollocks View Post
    I'm all for liberally fiscal policies, but I am socially conservative.
    So you're all for bigger government and higher taxes, but not for using said money and government to help the people.

    That doesn't even make sense, did you just say it because it sounded edgy in your head?
    i7-4770k - GTX 780 Ti - 16GB DDR3 Ripjaws - (2) HyperX 120s / Vertex 3 120
    ASRock Extreme3 - Sennheiser Momentums - Xonar DG - EVGA Supernova 650G - Corsair H80i

    build pics

  10. #50
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by glo View Post
    So you're all for bigger government and higher taxes, but not for using said money and government to help the people.

    That doesn't even make sense, did you just say it because it sounded edgy in your head?
    You simply missunderstood.

    When he says "fiscally liberal" he probably mean Keynsian (see economists such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz). In essence, it's about the state intervening in the economy to make it more efficient.

    Socially conservative is just another word for bible, anti-abortion and anti-science.

  11. #51
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    In case no-one has pointed it out, "Liberalism" and "Liberal" means pretty different things in the US and...well. Large parts of the rest of the world. No poll like this will work so long as what kind you're talking about isn't laid out clearly.

  12. #52
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    In case no-one has pointed it out, "Liberalism" and "Liberal" means pretty different things in the US and...well. Large parts of the rest of the world. No poll like this will work so long as what kind you're talking about isn't laid out clearly.
    Actually, that is not true. Liberal is an "umbrella term", so to speak. Social Liberalism and Libertarianism exists in both Europe and USA.

    Generally, Liberalism is an individualistic point of view, versus collectivistic point of views (conservatism and socialism).

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Templar 331 View Post
    Change for the sake of change is hardly ever a good thing. If there's a problem then sure, but if it's only a perceived problem and there's really nothing wrong then change can/will be damaging.
    Pretty much this. Any ideology or belief, if taken too far, can be dangerous or pointless.
    Wanting to change old systems because they don't address today's circumstance is fine.
    Wanting to change old systems because "they are old," may not be fine.
    Wanting to change old systems because they haven't been changed in the past few years, is not fine.

  14. #54
    The Unstoppable Force May90's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere special
    Posts
    21,699
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    There must've been some reason we left caves. Generally progress is good if it actually does work for the better, and evolution weeds out the fast, reckless change and risks that people can take when they get too liberal.

    Right but this does not preclude we're advancing in a good way, like learning more about the universe. It could simply be the latest in celebrity gossip, and that feels "different" and "new" to the person so their brain isn't degrading.
    Progress always works for the better long term: some mistakes may be made, but ultimately more effective models win over less effective models. Much like natural selection: some animal strains might evolve to be less effective, and they might even survive for a while - but ultimately they will be gone, their place taken by a more effective strain.

    In any way, my point is not that changing your ideas and beliefs is necessary, it is that being willing to change them is necessary. Being stuck with an idea not because you have tested this idea against others and found it better, but because you do not want to even consider alternative ideas - is wrong on many levels.
    Quote Originally Posted by King Candy View Post
    I can't explain it because I'm an idiot, and I have to live with that post for the rest of my life. Better to just smile and back away slowly. Ignore it so that it can go away.
    Thanks for the avatar goes to Carbot Animations and Sy.

  15. #55
    Legendary! Zecora's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    6,057
    Quote Originally Posted by Cronoos View Post
    Actually, that is not true. Liberal is an "umbrella term", so to speak. Social Liberalism and Libertarianism exists in both Europe and USA.

    Generally, Liberalism is an individualistic point of view, versus collectivistic point of views (conservatism and socialism).
    In the same way as both Stalinism and Democratic Socialism is Socialism, yes. But Neo-Liberalism and the US concept of Liberalism has so little in common that in order to answer a question of the kind "do you like Liberalism", you need to know what form of it the one asking the question is refering to.

  16. #56
    No surprise here. Liberalism =/= Modern Liberal Ideology. I find it hard to support a movement that both tells me to respect and love gay people, and to also respect and love Islam... Those two things contradict each other, and have no sign of changing. Basically I don't support people who use the Black, LGBT, Latino, and other minorities as a crutch vote every 4 years...

  17. #57
    Too many crazy liberals for me to be liberal; too many crazy conservatives for me to be conservative.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cronoos View Post
    Liberalism is an excellent ensurance against conservative thoughts such as theocracy and more bibles in school, racial segregation, anti-science, war mongering, drug wars etc.
    Like I'm against all of that mess. (Though the racial segregation is news to me) Does that just make me liberal? I wouldn't think so, as I'm sure we could come up with a list of equally absurd things from them.
    Last edited by Powerogue; 2016-07-22 at 02:23 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Aucald View Post
    Having the authority to do a thing doesn't make it just, moral, or even correct.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    I like liberalism when it is mixed in with logic/rationality. The "think of the children" "liberals" that want to ban anything unhealthy, etc, not so much.

    Liberalism is supposed to mix personal responsibility with personal freedom. Banning stuff takes away both.
    The "think of the children" types tend to be more conservative.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Connal View Post
    They both do it, just on different issues.

    How many democrats championed banning computer games? How many republicans championship banning music, movies, books, etc?
    Well you're going into the past now, liek 10-15+ years ago Republicans weren't nearly as conservative as they are now, and democrats were a tiny bit more right than they are now.

    Back in the 90s you could be a conservative dem or a liberal republican and not get UTTERLY shit on by your party. Today the republicans are like extreme right, while the dems are like left of center.

  20. #60
    Being open to change is easy when you are young, just starting out, and have nothing but hopes and dreams. When you get older and actually INVEST your future in the current system, get married, have kids, and are more concerned with your kids safety, change is naturally less appealing.

    How about we just wipe the WoW playerbase and have everyone start over at level 1 with a bunch of new systems? That's change. If you are level 20, you might be pretty open to that. If you are max level in an end-game raiding guild, with a bunch of mounts, transmogs, titles, achievements, gold, etc. it sounds less appealing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •