do democrats and republicans define social freedom differently?

[Grummgug]

I've noticed there is a bit of confusion on what this term means between these two groups.

democrats on social freedom:

1. gay marriage
2. freedom from discrimination
3. freedom FROM guns
4. freedom to have an abortion

republicans on social freedom:

1. gun rights
2. gun rights
3. gun rights (needs to be said three times because that's how important it is to them)
4. freedom to express religion
5. privatize social security
6. freedom to seek cheaper health care abroad (medical tourism) (Obama opposes)
7. free to choose what school your children attend (vs democrats forced busing attempts)
8. freedom to eat whatever we want without government forcing us into healthy options
9. free to let your kids run around and play without helicopter parenting
10. freedom to use imperial measurements (liberals would ban this if they could) (actually a recent issue in the UK)
11. generally the notion that freedom means being free to make bad decisions without government micromanaging your life and saying no at every turn a if you were a child.

[looorg]

You ask a question that you then proceed to answer yourself. What else is there to say? Except to note that your blatant and obvious bias against conservatism (or republicans) is clearly showing. Several of those points you make about the republicans can be summed up as more (personal) freedom, less government -- a freedom in this context means privatization or private solutions to things currently in the hands of the government. You just somehow felt like you had to drag that out in specifics, something you didn't do with the democratic points. Why are government solutions better the private or personal solutions?

[chrisberb]

I'm pretty sure that in your republican list, numbers 4, 9 and 11 would also appear on the democrats list.

[Spectral]

The most concise way to understand the difference is to view liberals as seeing the world through the dynamics of oppressed and oppressor, while conservatives see it through the lens of tradition and people trying to destroy tradition. Almost all of both group's views on social issues are explained by that.

[Grummgug]

You ask a question that you then proceed to answer yourself. What else is there to say?

Well I thought it might be a good topic because I ran into a liberal the other day and he expressed the view that conservatives say they believe in social freedom but vote for candidates that support social controls. So he called conservatives hypocrites. And when I went in depth, his definition of social freedom was a totally different list than what conservatives use.

[Masark]

11. generally the notion that freedom means being free to make bad decisions without government micromanaging your life and saying no at every turn a if you were a child.

Uhuh. Unless that decision involves non-alcohol drugs, or family planning, or anything else they think their old book disapproves of.

[Stormdash]

Conservatives (and libertarians) recognize the "warts and all" reality of individual liberty, that you can't have much in the way of freedom and have it mean anything if you are not also free to completely fuck up and faceplant at life. You can't be "free" if the government is empowered to decide whether your coffee can have sugared flavor, or you soda be 40 oz, or your baked potato have salt on it, no more "free" than a 9 year old truly is while living under their parents' roof.

I find that the more liberal/progressive one gets, the less into the whole notion of individual liberty one gets. In fact, the less likely that the concept even matters to one at all (something to be mocked as "mah freedums", for example) unless talking about sex or (non)reproduction. Hell, even the interest in "reproductive rights" is pretty much a flim flam, because often times even the most devout progressive defender of the right (not to) reproduce, will be perfectly fine suggesting that people need to get state approval to actually reproduce. So reproductive rights, other than a right to reproduce. In that sense, it looks more like fighting to protect license, not liberty. There are a lot of libertines who like to dress themselves up as libertarian or anti-authoritarian, but it's just a facade.

I think the notion of the "social safety net" is one that's also instructive of the difference. The metaphor comes from... well, a safety net, such as a circus performer or stunt performer would use. What is the job of the safety net for a high wire performer? It's the last chance difference between life and death, may even still involve some injury. Since we're on a WoW board, one might compare it to the buff you get in the Death Knight starter area where the Valk just brezzes you once every 10 minutes or whichever, even though you might turn around and blow it again. I think most conservatives and even quite a few nominal libertarians don't object to the idea of that sort of "safety net", your one doover from total collapse in your circumstances. What a safety net isn't, though, is a place to hang out and just do strange performance art. Nobody comes to the circus to watch someone swimming around comfortably in the safety net. The safety net is just there to save their life, they should be kind of ashamed to have fallen into it and just grateful that they live to perform another day. If a social safety net has become a lifestyle choice, of more or less indefinite unemployment and/or food subsidy and/or housing subsidy, etc, etc, it's less a social safety net at that point and more of a social... Snuggie? A warm safe place of comfort and indulgence.

[Deleted]

Conservatives want everyone to have the freedom to fuck on another over. Liberals actually want people to have the freedom to lead a happy life and choose their own lifestyle without discrimination.

[Masark]

I'm pretty sure that in your republican list, numbers 4, 9 and 11 would also appear on the democrats list.

#4 in republicanese means having government assistance to express your religion. The evil democrats oppress them by not letting them have the ten commandments on what is supposed to be a secular government building or forcing them to allow other religions monuments next to their monuments.

[Drsolders]

You do realize that there is a difference between dems/repubs and liberals/conservatives?

While they may be more abundant on certain sides, it doesn't mean they are unique to that side. There are liberal republicans/conservative democrats and moderates for both.

[Endus]

Well I thought it might be a good topic because I ran into a liberal the other day and he expressed the view that conservatives say they believe in social freedom but vote for candidates that support social controls. So he called conservatives hypocrites. And when I went in depth, his definition of social freedom was a totally different list than what conservatives use.

The issue they're referring to, to pick a microcosm as an example, is the general Republican attitude towards the poor. They generally oppose things (or at least the expansion thereof) like welfare, universal health care, and other social support systems.

Their stance is that this is a loss of freedom, because the middle and upper classes pay the taxes that fund them, and they (erroneously) conflate being taxed with a loss of freedom.

And in doing so, ignore the very clear freedoms and protections those services offer.

A bunch of things on your "Conservative" list are hokum, too, which doesn't help;
4> The "freedom to express religion" is, by Republicans, typically interpreted as "freedom to express Christianity", which is a problem. You can't oppose things like the building of a mosque or pagan celebrations in public spaces or the like, while defending Christian elements, in the name of "freedom of religion".

6> Seems to be completely invented; I can't find a single corroborating source.
7> Is biased; you're always free in the USA to choose a private school. That isn't being restricted. "Forced bussing" is just requiring kids to go to their local public schools, because the city can't afford to bus everyone all over.
8 and 10> are, like #6, totally invented and not true.
And 11> is just you restating bias. There is no "micromanagement", to begin with. And Republican platforms have been just as management-oriented as Democrat platforms; opposing open immigration, stricter sentencing/prison terms, the death penalty, opposing marriage equality, and so forth. The Republicans are not "the freedom party". They have different ideals, but they aren't more freedom-oriented than the Democrats. They just disagree on whose freedoms matter the most.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

The imperial system is pretty silly though and even if they did make it no longer an official standard anymore nobody's stopping you from teaching your child that.

Number six is something you still can do, if you want to go over to buttfuckastan to go find the best doctor for it's craft, that's great, more power to you for having the money to go out abroad - this is for people that can't afford that.

Don't you people realize that it's not just for them but it's also for you should you or your family ever (god forbid) fall from grace for whatever reason?

And you have your freedom to have a religion, but you can't use your religion to oppress other peoples' personal freedoms and likewise with theirs.

9. is actually something I witness with a bunch of parents, especially if some of them have certain convictions of the religion nature to shelter their children from almost all of the ills from the world and pretty much govern every aspect of their life, making them bitter or a spitting copy of the parents themselves.

[GennGreymane]

I've noticed there is a bit of confusion on what this term means between these two groups.

democrats on social freedom:

1. gay marriage
2. freedom from discrimination
3. freedom FROM guns
4. freedom to have an abortion

republicans on social freedom:

1. gun rights
2. gun rights
3. gun rights (needs to be said three times because that's how important it is to them)
4. freedom to express religion *unless your muslim*
5. privatize social security
6. freedom to seek cheaper health care abroad (medical tourism) (Obama opposes)
7. free to choose what school your children attend (vs democrats forced busing attempts)
8. freedom to eat whatever we want without government forcing us into healthy options
9. free to let your kids run around and play without helicopter parenting
10. freedom to use imperial measurements (liberals would ban this if they could) (actually a recent issue in the UK)
11. generally the notion that freedom means being free to make bad decisions without government micromanaging your life and saying no at every turn a if you were a child.

Fixed for yeah, the only thing I really dont like about that whole they want to express their religion thing is that they want to use public funds to do so.

I dont see how 9 fits into being either party, both parties can have some insane parents. And 10 looks like its both parties too

[s_bushido]

11. generally the notion that freedom means being free to make bad decisions without government micromanaging your life and saying no at every turn a if you were a child.

By this logic, the arguments over gay marriage and abortion should have ended long ago...considering the religious right seems to think they're the worst possible decisions anyone could make.

[Garnier Fructis]

7. free to choose what school your children attend (vs democrats forced busing attempts)

I already had this freedom when I went through the school system. As long as you have your own transportation, you don't have to go to the nearest school.

9. free to let your kids run around and play without helicopter parenting

This is an issue with parents in general, this isn't even a left right issue.

10. freedom to use imperial measurements (liberals would ban this if they could) (actually a recent issue in the UK)

Imperial measurements are useful for a few construction and engineering purposes, but otherwise they're just plain shitty. I feel we should get on the same standard as most everyone else for business and official purposes; you can measure in whatever you like for your own purposes. It's like language: lots of businessman and professionals learn to speak English because it's much easier to communicate when you're on the same page.

[MerinPally]

10. freedom to use imperial measurements (liberals would ban this if they could) (actually a recent issue in the UK)

No it isn't an issue in the UK. At all. We're educated enough to use both. And good on them for trying to make people use the metric measurements, because whenever you need to measure something with someone that isn't a true murican, you use metric. It's literally for your own benefit to learn the metric system, and the smarter few of you might even be able to use both *gasp*

Noone is going to stop you using imperial units for certain things but in the workplace, you need metric. If you want to go to the pub and get a pint, you get a pint, you don't get 568ml. It is totally possible to use both you know. They each have their own place.

[Deleted]

6> Seems to be completely invented; I can't find a single corroborating source.

I found something about this here.

Some US employers have begun exploring medical travel programs as a way to cut employee health care costs. Such proposals have raised stormy debates between employers and trade unions representing workers, with one union stating that it deplored the "shocking new approach" of offering employees overseas treatment in return for a share of the company's savings. The unions also raise the issues of legal liability should something go wrong, and potential job losses in the US health care industry if treatment is outsourced.[41]

Employers may offer incentives such as paying for air travel and waiving out-of-pocket expenses for care outside of the US. For example, in January 2008, Hannaford Bros., a supermarket chain based in Maine, began paying the entire medical bill for employees to travel to Singapore for hip and knee replacements, including travel for the patient and companion.[42] Medical travel packages can integrate with all types of health insurance, including limited benefit plans,[43] preferred provider organizations and high deductible health plans.

In 2000, Blue Shield of California began the United States' first cross border health plan. Patients in California could travel to one of the three certified hospitals in Mexico for treatment under California Blue Shield.[44] In 2007, a subsidiary of BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina, Companion Global Healthcare, teamed up with hospitals in Thailand, Singapore, Turkey, Ireland, Costa Rica and India.[45] A 2008 article in Fast Company discusses the globalization of healthcare and describes how various players in the US healthcare market have begun to explore it.[46]

Not sure how this had anything to do with political direction tho

[Endus]

I found something about this here.

Not sure how this had anything to do with political direction tho

Right. And most of the sources I could find regarding the ACA and medical tourism argued that the ACA would boost medical tourism, not restrict it.

[Conspicuous Cultist]

Right. And most of the sources I could find regarding the ACA and medical tourism argued that the ACA would boost medical tourism, not restrict it.

Which makes sense because there's no way I'm even going to a doctor in the first place if it's 200$ out of my pocket for a check up and more if they draw blood.

[Masark]

"Forced bussing" is just requiring kids to go to their local public schools, because the city can't afford to bus everyone all over.

Actually, that's incorrect. "Forced bussing" was a policy attempted in the USA of assigning students to non-local schools (hence the bussing) to reverse de facto segregation, basically by shuffling white students to what were predominately (or exclusively, pre-Brown) black schools and vice versa.