Are we all liberals?

[Gustaf]

The more classic definition of liberalism can be defined from a few pivotal issues that divide the major idelogies (conservatism, liberalism and socialism). They are, as far as I can think right now:

1) Form of government.

Liberals: Representative democracy
Conservatives: Various forms of elite rule, usually involving monarchs and often strong churches with much of the power resting with the wealthy.
Socialists: Working-class dictature.

2) Primary entity

Liberals: The individuals as the bearers of rights, responsibilities and so on.
Conseratives: Family, nation, religion, tribe, etc in varying orders and frequency
Socialists: Class

3) Prioritized goal

Liberals: freedom for the indivdual
Conservatives: Stability and property rights
Socialists: Equality between classes

-------------------------------------------------------

From these criteria it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of the inhabitants of modern democracies are all liberals. Some are right-leaning liberals, which basically makes them libertarians (they focus on the freedom of the indivudal from state oppression), some are left-leaning liberals who focus on the oppression of the individual from natural inequalities such as not having money for education, etc. Some of us are in-between.

(Note: there are actual old-style conservatives - Philip is one for instance. But I'm talking about the majority here. It would be interesting to hear people's views on these criteria and where you stand.)

[John Dibble]

If we are using old school definitions of liberal and conservative, then yeah I guess most of us are to a degree.

[A18]

I consider myself a classical liberal. My version of 'elite rule' is really just checks and balances to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority.

There's no freedom for the individual without property rights.

[dazzleman]

We're all liberals according to the classic definition.

On a global scale, almost everybody in the western world is a liberal.

That's why it makes no sense to me that many on the left in the west focus so much hatred on those who are a little more conservative than they are, and are willing to apologize for today's version of monstrous fascism.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The more classic definition of liberalism can be defined from a few pivotal issues that divide the major idelogies (conservatism, liberalism and socialism). They are, as far as I can think right now:

1) Form of government.

Liberals: Representative democracy
Conservatives: Various forms of elite rule, usually involving monarchs and often strong churches with much of the power resting with the wealthy.
Socialists: Working-class dictature.

2) Primary entity

Liberals: The individuals as the bearers of rights, responsibilities and so on.
Conseratives: Family, nation, religion, tribe, etc in varying orders and frequency
Socialists: Class

3) Prioritized goal

Liberals: freedom for the indivdual
Conservatives: Stability and property rights
Socialists: Equality between classes

-------------------------------------------------------

From these criteria it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of the inhabitants of modern democracies are all liberals. Some are right-leaning liberals, which basically makes them libertarians (they focus on the freedom of the indivudal from state oppression), some are left-leaning liberals who focus on the oppression of the individual from natural inequalities such as not having money for education, etc. Some of us are in-between.

(Note: there are actual old-style conservatives - Philip is one for instance. But I'm talking about the majority here. It would be interesting to hear people's views on these criteria and where you stand.)

The political tradition of the United States is one rooted in in what is classical (to distinguish it from contemporaty) liberalism.  Hence, real American conservatives are, in that sense, classical liberals.

Many contemporary liberals reject many of the basic tenents of classical liberalism.

[opebo]

I consider myself a classical liberal. My version of 'elite rule' is really just checks and balances to prevent the majority from oppressing the minority.

And guaranteeing the oppression of the majority.

[A18]

Being unable to oppress someone does not make you oppressed.

[Max Power]

opebo, are you that ignorant? If you are in the majority, you are generally not oppressed, with the exceptions of Apartheid, Communism, and Socialism.

[Alcon]

opebo, are you that ignorant? If you are in the majority, you are generally not oppressed, with the exceptions of Apartheid, Communism, and Socialism.

He means opression by the majority, as in the majority's opression/opressiveness, not the opression subjected to the majority.

In Opebo's book, it's always the fault of the majority.

[Jake]

No, I am not an American hating, abortion loving, gay, god hating, envirofascist, left wing stooge

I agree with the use of the traditional sense of the word liberal. Most in the west are supporters of a free market, capitalist ideology and compared to some places, we have a remarkably high level of civil rights.

[Gabu]

opebo, are you that ignorant? If you are in the majority, you are generally not oppressed, with the exceptions of Apartheid, Communism, and Socialism.

He means opression by the majority, as in the majority's opression/opressiveness, not the opression subjected to the majority.

In Opebo's book, it's always the fault of the majority.

No, I believe that he does actually mean oppression of the majority - as in, the elite 2% who supposedly screw over the other 98% (or is it 1% screwing over the other 99% now?).

[A18]

Two days ago it was the top 20% screwing over the bottom 80%. Apparently the top 1% is always screwing people over, whereas it's more of a part time hobby for the rest of the top 2, 10, 20%.

[Alcon]

opebo, are you that ignorant? If you are in the majority, you are generally not oppressed, with the exceptions of Apartheid, Communism, and Socialism.

He means opression by the majority, as in the majority's opression/opressiveness, not the opression subjected to the majority.

In Opebo's book, it's always the fault of the majority.

No, I believe that he does actually mean oppression of the majority - as in, the elite 2% who supposedly screw over the other 98% (or is it 1% screwing over the other 99% now?).

So, basically this is all about his parents.

[opebo]

Two days ago it was the top 20% screwing over the bottom 80%. Apparently the top 1% is always screwing people over, whereas it's more of a part time hobby for the rest of the top 2, 10, 20%.

My posts that mentioned the common quintile system used by the census bureau had more to do with quality of life measures than analysis of power.  The top percent or two are the people that matter, obviously, and the rest of the top 20% live reasonably well but have no real power (this group includes most on the forum).

[Gabu]

Two days ago it was the top 20% screwing over the bottom 80%. Apparently the top 1% is always screwing people over, whereas it's more of a part time hobby for the rest of the top 2, 10, 20%.

My posts that mentioned the common quintile system used by the census bureau had more to do with quality of life measures than analysis of power.  The top percent or two are the people that matter, obviously, and the rest of the top 20% live reasonably well but have no real power (this group includes most on the forum).

Uh, most of this forum is in the top 20% in society?

[John Dibble]

Two days ago it was the top 20% screwing over the bottom 80%. Apparently the top 1% is always screwing people over, whereas it's more of a part time hobby for the rest of the top 2, 10, 20%.

My posts that mentioned the common quintile system used by the census bureau had more to do with quality of life measures than analysis of power.  The top percent or two are the people that matter, obviously, and the rest of the top 20% live reasonably well but have no real power (this group includes most on the forum).

Uh, most of this forum is in the top 20% in society?

Opebo's just basing his opinions on made up crap again - he has little indication of our incomes.

[Nym90]

1) Form of government.

Liberals: Representative democracy
Conservatives: Various forms of elite rule, usually involving monarchs and often strong churches with much of the power resting with the wealthy.
Socialists: Working-class dictature.

I agree with the liberal position here; representative democracy.

2) Primary entity

Liberals: The individuals as the bearers of rights, responsibilities and so on.
Conseratives: Family, nation, religion, tribe, etc in varying orders and frequency
Socialists: Class

I'm in between the liberal and socialist position here, I guess...I believe that individuals hold rights and responsibilities, but they must be aware of the fact that they derived these mainly through the community. Who you are was influenced very heavily by the community (family, city, town, etc.) in which you were raised, and much of this is largely beyond individual's ability to change much on their own. So there needs to be a balance. Individuals create a community, but a community creates individuals, as well.

3) Prioritized goal

Liberals: freedom for the indivdual
Conservatives: Stability and property rights
Socialists: Equality between classes

Again, I'm a balance between liberal and socialist here. I believe that greater equality between classes than what we currently have in the United States would result in more freedom for the individual, as true individual freedom results only when we have achieved equality of opportunity for all to succeed, which laissez-faire capitalism does not provide (neither do extreme socialism or communism either, of course; when I talk about laissez-faire capitalism, I'm referring to an extreme form of capitalism in which government has little or no role whatsoever in the economy.)

I would argue that the United States is more conservative than almost any other democracy in the world, and thus the fact that I'm more liberal than the average American isn't a bad thing, as I'm probably roughly in the middle overall worldwide among democratic nations. So I think I'm achieving a good overall balance.

But yes, I can see some merit in the view that the world as a whole has become more liberal throughout the centuries, and thus being more conservative than average today still puts you in the middle or left end of the spectrum historically, and thus is achieving somewhat of a balance.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

By "socialist" you mean Marxist, right? Because "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a Marxist idea and not one found in early socialist traditions; the Levellers and the Chartists were in favour of greater democracy after all.

[Bono]

By "socialist" you mean Marxist, right? Because "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a Marxist idea and not one found in early socialist traditions; the Levellers and the Chartists were in favour of greater democracy after all.

And Proudhon was in favor of no government at all.
Though he is not exactly a socialist. After all, he believed in "possession", and said property was freedom when aplied to farmers who lived in their own lang and worked it.

[Gustaf]

Al, I'm using the definition of classic socialism. I view the embrace of democracy as an adaptation to liberalism. I'm aware that people like Lasalle were democrats (my dad likes to mention him...), but I think most historians agree that democracy was primarily an idea championed by liberals.

[TeePee4Prez]

The more classic definition of liberalism can be defined from a few pivotal issues that divide the major idelogies (conservatism, liberalism and socialism). They are, as far as I can think right now:

1) Form of government.

Liberals: Representative democracy
Conservatives: Various forms of elite rule, usually involving monarchs and often strong churches with much of the power resting with the wealthy.
Socialists: Working-class dictature.

2) Primary entity

Liberals: The individuals as the bearers of rights, responsibilities and so on.
Conseratives: Family, nation, religion, tribe, etc in varying orders and frequency
Socialists: Class

3) Prioritized goal

Liberals: freedom for the indivdual
Conservatives: Stability and property rights
Socialists: Equality between classes

-------------------------------------------------------

From these criteria it seems pretty clear that the vast majority of the inhabitants of modern democracies are all liberals. Some are right-leaning liberals, which basically makes them libertarians (they focus on the freedom of the indivudal from state oppression), some are left-leaning liberals who focus on the oppression of the individual from natural inequalities such as not having money for education, etc. Some of us are in-between.

(Note: there are actual old-style conservatives - Philip is one for instance. But I'm talking about the majority here. It would be interesting to hear people's views on these criteria and where you stand.)

1-3.  Liberal, with some socialist leanings.

[minionofmidas]

1) Form of government.

Liberals: Representative democracy
Conservatives: Various forms of elite rule, usually involving monarchs and often strong churches with much of the power resting with the wealthy.
Socialists: Working-class dictature.

That is a grotesque misrepresentation, as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" a) was only ever supposed to be a short stage on the road to a classless society, after the workers had seized power but while the old elites were still fighting back b) was never a generally accepted part of the socialist ideology, but always a minority position and c) never in practice existed, even where holders of this fringe position got into power (ie, Russia in 1918.) Instead, of course, they erected a dictatorship of themselves. On the final vision, on what the dictatorship of the proletariat should lead to, marxists don't differ all that much from anarchists.
And the "liberal" one is also a misrepresentation actually. The liberal vision is representative democracy within strict bounds of unchangeable laws of property. Full democracy was only ever advocated by socialists, though not by all socialists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and villages, trades, individuals etc in varying orders and frequency

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, abolution of classes. It was a chimaeric goal, but then so are all these.

But yeah, if your phrasings were at all correct, then we'd all be liberals, and I certainly would be one.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, I'm using the definition of classic socialism.

What exactly *is* classic socialism? All the anti-democratic stuff and "dictatorship of the proletariat" wasn't an early development and didn't find much support with socialists (even if they didn't use the word) from older traditions.
I suppose it might be worth pointing out the large difference in the views of a lot of intellectual socialists and trade union socialists...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A certain form of democracy (ie; one restricted to property owning men) yes... but not really democracy in the sense it's *usually* understood now.

[minionofmidas]

Al, I'm using the definition of classic socialism.

What exactly *is* classic socialism? All the anti-democratic stuff and "dictatorship of the proletariat" wasn't an early development and didn't find much support with socialists (even if they didn't use the word) from older traditions.
I suppose it might be worth pointing out the large difference in the views of a lot of intellectual socialists and trade union socialists...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A certain form of democracy (ie; one restricted to property owning men) yes... but not really democracy in the sense it's *usually* understood now.

Democracy.
Demos - people
Kratia - rule.
Rule of one people over another, ie rule of the Athenian Democrats over their slaves.

[Gustaf]

Lewis, now I understand why you attacked me like that in the Sweden thread...

When I learned about Classic socialism (as opposed to reformed socialism) in Social Science class it was defined as believing in a form of dictature. Lewis, it seems like you're trying to make me look hypocritical by giving conservatives several entities and socialists only one. Conservative positions are largely dependent on the historical situation and therefore adaptable. That was my point there.

Al, I should emphasize that I'm not talking about policies advocated by mainstream parties of the respective idelogies. We both know that most, if not all, large socialist movements have been pro-democracy since at least the 1890s. I'm focusing more on philosophical roots. I view social democracy as a mixture of liberal and socialist positions, the way most centre-left parties appear today. In Sweden this is referred to as socioliberalism (not to be mixed up with social liberalism!) and is an idelogy with philosophical roots in both liberalism and socialism.

Now, on the testy subject of democracy, I'm not disputing that social democratic movements greatly contributed to introducing voting rights for the poor and not just the middle class. Again, I'm merely stating that the IDEA of representative democracy as having paramount importance i fundamentally liberal. I would say that this still holds true, in that radical socialist parties often seem to view election wins for conservative parties as illegitimate, because many socialists still prioritize their ideal society over democracy.

Finally, I'm not trying to portray democratic socialist as bad socialists. I think social democracy is a perfectly legitimate and respectable idelogy. But I don't consider it to be exclusively socialist as far as philosophical and idelogical heritage is concerned.

Oh, and thanks for the feed-back. Keep flaming me. (it's funny, I thought I would have the conservative Republicans coming after me, not the European socialists. Oh well.)