I know that in one of my earlier posts, I addressed this issue.
It did stir up controversy, as we are living in different places and with different cultures, hence different definitions.
For starters, I would like to define what I constitute as being a "right"-winger and a "left"-winger:
Right-wingers:
* Wants little to no welfare. If there should be welfare, it must only serve the good of the community, ie. people must work for their benefits at best, at worst it should only
be to ensure that people get bread and circus, so to speak, to avoid revolt.
* Wants the taxes to be high for the poor, low for the rich.
* Wants Tax money to be spend primarily on military and police, secondly on giving financial support for corporations (Corporationism).
Police should have all rights to shoot whoever they want, as long as those they shoot at are not CEO's, presidents or other high-profiled members of society.
* Military and police should primarily protect big business, at all costs, even if it involves breaking citizen rights.
* Wants to limit the right to vote for those recieve benefits, some even go further and claim that the right to vote should be restricted to the wealthiest people at best, or at least restricted to those who own their own land property, of a certain size and have their own source of income.
* In monarchies, right wingers want to give more power to the monarch, in republics, the president should have more power.
In monarchies, right wingers want the nobility first, the bourgeoisie second, to hold office in parliament and in ministries.
In republics, right wingers want the CEO's first, the other managers second, to hold office in parliament and in ministries.
In short, right-wing policies is ALL about economics. Every single political decision has its roots founded in economics.
This is why I believe that Left-wingers and religious people should cooporate together against the right-wingers:
Left-wingers:
* Wants a lot of welfare. Welfare should not only be there to protect society, it should be there to protect the individual, for the cause of the individual.
The individual is put first.
* Wants the taxes to be low for the poor, high for the rich.
* Wants tax money to be spend primarily on welfare, only if extremely neccessary, should the tax money be spend on military. Police should ensure public safety
and should not use police brutality.
* Military should be to ensure the national soverignity of the nation and it's people, even if it means poorer diplomatic relationships with dictatorships.
* Wants to give everyone the same right to vote, wether they are male, female, poor or rich. Right to vote should only be limited when it comes to citizenship and your residence.
* In monarchies, left wingers want to limit the power of the monarch as much as possible, while strengthing the power of the People's Parliament.
Left wingers want the the poor, the workers and the disabled first, the bourgeoisie second, to hold office in parliament and in ministries.
As you see, ethics play a much larger role when it comes to left-wing policies.
Right wingers are not supposed to be religious. I am not saying left-wingers are supposed to be religious either, what I am saying is that IF you happen to be religious, you ought to be a leftist!
In the Roman Empire, politics wasn't any different from today's politics:
The Romans, although not atheists but pagans, were much closer to Atheism than the Jews or Christians.
The Jews and Christian ideas about giving benefits to the poor and helping the poor and disabled was much more leftist than any of the Roman policies, which was
only about punishing the weak, to benfit the strong.
The current western policies of cutting welfare and increasing the punishments, has its roots in the ancient Roman Empire.
The welfare state is a Jewish-Christian invention, from which Karl Marx and the hippies later claimed their own.
Errrrr. From "religious people should be leftwingers" (which is true) it does not follow in any way that "atheists should be rightwingers".
Your thread title has no support in your actual post.
I'm in the center, always have been
Just a personal thing, I nitpick ideas from both sides to support
Quote from: "Plu"Errrrr. From "religious people should be leftwingers" (which is true) it does not follow in any way that "atheists should be rightwingers".
Your thread title has no support in your actual post.
I edited my thread title then.
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"I'm in the center, always have been
Just a personal thing, I nitpick ideas from both sides to support
That makes you an agnostic?
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"I'm in the center, always have been
Just a personal thing, I nitpick ideas from both sides to support
That makes you an agnostic?
No, it means he's in the center.
(//http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz/images/quiz_image.jpg)
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "Plu"Errrrr. From "religious people should be leftwingers" (which is true) it does not follow in any way that "atheists should be rightwingers".
Your thread title has no support in your actual post.
I edited my thread title then.
This makes more sense, yes :)
If you follow the tenets of almost if not all religions you would have to say that the OP is correct. However the fact is that religion and the relgious are inherit;y hypocritical and almost always are right-wing to the extreme.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"In short, right-wing policies is ALL about economics.
//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservative
QuoteThis is why I believe that Left-wingers and religious people should cooperate together against the right-wingers:
That's typically the stance of the Religious Left, which I have mixed feelings about but generally support. These are nominally religious people who fight the good fight for secular government (which incidentally protects religious minorities), social justice (a position more consistent with their holy books than the conservative ill treatment the poor and even rationalization of the situation), and a less warmongering foreign policy stance (again, a position more in line with Christianity, though the Bible has its share of pro-violence passages).
QuoteThe Romans, although not atheists but pagans, were much closer to Atheism than the Jews or Christians.
:-k
Gonna have to disagree with you there. You either believe in one or more gods or you don't. The Romans believed in many gods, while Jews and Christians believed in one (or three). There are no degrees of atheism - there's no gradation between theism and atheism - it's a binary opposition. Your argument is tantamount to saying that fish-eaters are more like vegans than beef-eaters.
QuoteThe Jews and Christian ideas about giving benefits to the poor and helping the poor and disabled was much more leftist than any of the Roman policies, which was
only about punishing the weak, to benfit the strong.
I'm no expert on Roman politics, but I'm pretty sure there was more to it than that.
QuoteThe current western policies of cutting welfare and increasing the punishments, has its roots in the ancient Roman Empire.
The welfare state is a Jewish-Christian invention, from which Karl Marx and the hippies later claimed their own.
Make it stop.
(//https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7022511104/h56F1FD4C/)
Quote from: "Hydra009"//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservative
Social Conservatism isn't real conservatism. What defines conservatism, according to those conservatives that I have talked with,
is mainly extreme right wing economics and, to a degree, penal law and foreign politics.
Social Conservatism, the Conservatism that has only to do with penal code and foreign politics and religion, has as much to do with conservatism as National Socialism has to do with Socialism.
Quote from: "Hydra009"That's typically the stance of the Religious Left, which I have mixed feelings about but generally support. These are nominally religious people who fight the good fight for secular government (which incidentally protects religious minorities), social justice (a position more consistent with their holy books than the conservative ill treatment the poor and even rationalization of the situation), and a less warmongering foreign policy stance (again, a position more in line with Christianity, though the Bible has its share of pro-violence passages).
Again, conservatism, religious conservatism or social conservatism, is not real conservatism.
Conservatism is about being rational-minded, following the code of nature (applying Evolution to politics).
European Conservatives are the only actual conservatives in this world. They want to apply Social Darwinism, which is the cornerstone of Conservatism,
and the reason I so much despise conservatism (because of what it involves when we mix Darwin's ideas with politics. Darwin is fine, to explain nature, but he cannot be used to
define what to do with the poor (exterminating them altogether, through mass murder)).
While I am not saying Conservatives want mass-extermination of the poor, they certainly do have some anti-poor, anti-disability laws making it harder for people to be poor or disabled.
I wouldn't be much surprised if the Conservatives People's Party of Denmark one day would make it a criminal act to be handicapped.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Gonna have to disagree with you there. You either believe in one or more gods or you don't. The Romans believed in many gods, while Jews and Christians believed in one (or three). There are no degrees of atheism - there's no gradation between theism and atheism - it's a binary opposition. Your argument is tantamount to saying that fish-eaters are more like vegans than beef-eaters.
Can we agree that 01 is much closer to 0 than 1010111101?
What I was trying to say is that the Romans had much more emphasis on statemanship, than religion. Religion was only a tool to appease the masses and to keep order, Roman religion served the purposes of the secular issues only. Hence, that is why Christians were persecuted: They did not conform to roman religion, and bring on sacrifices for the pagan gods.
They were not persecuted because the Romans feared the mighty "gods". I am more than 100 % sure when I say that the Roman politicians cared ZERO about religion.
What they cared about was public order, and to keep public order, you needed religion. If they made any sacrifice to any pagan god, it wasn't because they believed in the gods, it was to not stir up revolt.
Quote from: "Hydra009"]I'm no expert on Roman politics, but I'm pretty sure there was more to it than that.
I've read books and watched a lot of high quality documentaries about the roman empire.
It's been one of my special interests.
I can tell you, Roman politics was only about increasing one's own political power.
It isn't any different from today's western politics.
Quote from: "Hydra009"Make it stop.
I am in no way going to support the abolishment of the Welfare state.
Welfare must be protected at any cost.
mediumaevum should try to be intellectually honest for the sake of the debate and state that the reason he does not want Welfare abolished is because he himself receives it. He has posted that himself.
Quote from: "GrinningYMIR"I'm in the center, always have been
Just a personal thing, I nitpick ideas from both sides to support
This. I lean pretty decently left on alot of economic and social issues, but if something further right works there is no point in pretending it doesn't and so I incorporate it as best I can. I prefer left-leaning pragmatist though than centralist.
Quote* Military should be to ensure the national soverignity of the nation and it's people, even if it means poorer diplomatic relationships with dictatorships.
Only thing I'll bother mentioning, but why would our national sovereignty be effect by say Gaddafi, Sadam or al Asad? Now if you mean it effects our relationships in terms of us not providing them chemicals, weapons and money then yeah sure, I can agree with that.
Rightwingerism is closely tied with religious extremism. Look at Christian fundamentalists, Islamic extremists, Orthodox Jews... all on the right. They want theocracy.
However, Christians should be liberals because Jesus taught liberal ideas.
Atheists should be liberals because theocracy is abhorrent to us.
Indeed, everyone should be liberals because peace, freedom and equality are what's best for humanity.
Quote from: "Atheon"Rightwingerism is closely tied with religious extremism. Look at Christian fundamentalists, Islamic extremists, Orthodox Jews... all on the right. They want theocracy.
However, Christians should be liberals because Jesus taught liberal ideas.
Atheists should be liberals because theocracy is abhorrent to us.
Indeed, everyone should be liberals because peace, freedom and equality are what's best for humanity.
The Bible itself is full of very anti-liberal, blood spilling and pillaging verses. That has been discussed ad-nauseam on this board. Christians seem to be torn these days between viewing Jesus as a spiritual figure with superpowers vs an intellectual philosopher that challenged the tyranny that existed in his time. Perhaps the trouble is in the fact that humans always wish to assign spiritual values to whatever they feel like so as to imply that something is there when it really isn't.
And Shiranu, I get your point, but the entire West is basically back to business as usual with Bashar Al-Assad. The chemical weapons deal was a win-win for Assad, he removes dangerous chemicals from his country that armed groups could get a hold of, and he looks like the legitimate government of Syria that the West has to deal with. The international cooperation regarding getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons is truly amazing.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Social Conservatism isn't real conservatism.
(//http://i.imgur.com/ExGXk7G.gif)
Check, please!
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Social Conservatism isn't real conservatism.
[ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/ExGXk7G.gif) ]
Check, please!
Yup. Social conservatism lies at the very heart of conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is more like libertarianism.
Quote from: "Atheon"Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Social Conservatism isn't real conservatism.
[ Image (//http://i.imgur.com/ExGXk7G.gif) ]
Check, please!
Yup. Social conservatism lies at the very heart of conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is more like libertarianism.
It really, REALLY depends on how you define Social Conservatism.
If you by Social Conservatism take the policies of Justice, Foreign and Military alongside religion, yes, that is conservatism (when combined with libertarianist economics).
But if you leave out the fiscal policies, and only have policies of Justice, Foriegn, Military and Religion, you get a Social-Democrat. The worst of its kind.
In short, it isn't religion that defines a Conservative. Conservatives and Classical Liberals (libertarians) are the same, except for their emphasis on Justice, Foriegn and Military policies.
Social conservatives are those who oppose abortion, gay rights, premarital sex, racial equality, marijuana, porn, gambling, prostitution, etc., and get their panties in a bunch when they see other people having a good time.
Quote from: "Atheon"Social conservatives are those who oppose abortion, gay rights, premarital sex, racial equality, marijuana, porn, gambling, prostitution, etc., and get their panties in a bunch when they see other people having a good time.
And that is where I say that Social Conservatism has as much to do with Conservatism as National Socialism has to do with Socialism.
It is NOT conservatism, or the definition of Conservatism. Nor does National Socialism has ANYTHING to do with Socialism.
People are confusing the words. National-Socialism is not two words. It is read and understood as ONE word.
It is the same that goes for Social Conservatism. It should not be understood as two words, but ONE word.
Think in software programming terms:
A variable called "Anything" is treated totally different from the one named "Any_thing".
You are biased towards the Welfare part, so in a debate I don't think your point would be allowed through as a genuine one. Self interest overrides everything though, I guess.
I like how the OP has compressed the entire political gamut into a 2 sided, black and white dichotomy.
And he never even mentioned anything about the center parties!
Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.
Quote from: "Special B"Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.
How do you personally define conservatism though? Some people believe conservatism involves being reserved, and not adopting any new idea readily without proof of it's value, and if that means conservatism then I guess I am conservative in
that sense. I am not going to sell myself out and go do whatever just because an accepted social group says it's good or "cool" to do it, sorry, I guess.
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "Special B"Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.
How do you personally define conservatism though? Some people believe conservatism involves being reserved, and not adopting any new idea readily without proof of it's value, and if that means conservatism then I guess I am conservative in that sense. I am not going to sell myself out and go do whatever just because an accepted social group says it's good or "cool" to do it, sorry, I guess.
Well frosty you know, I am sure, that conservatism has a complete and seperate political meaning. It actually means preserving the assets for the wealthy and historically for the families that are either titled or have a legacy of owning power, be that land or what ever the criteria. It actually has nothing to do with conserving anything or the personal convictions of an individual. A social conservative is someone that "conserves" institutional culture that preserves power to the afore mentioned class. Ergo denying voting rights to minorities because it threatens traditional leadership by white power brokers.
The conservatives like to say that they are for traditional values which is to say that they don't want to give equal oppertunity to anyone else because traditionally they have built in intitutionalized prejudices. They like to call it "family falues" or "moral majority", they even call it patriotism. Hijacking terms and purposely misusing the true definition of those terms is a tactic used by conservatives. It's called propaganda.
Liberalism is an ideology that recognizes equal rights and equal oppertunity for all no matter their social class.
Historically there has always been conservatism personifided by the Spartans and Liberalism of which the Atenans were a prime example. Liberalism emerged from the first "Hero" that appeared as "Ode on a Greecian Urn" which elivated common humanity when given free and fair oppertunity to acheive "god" status. Thus rebuking the conservative held ideology of divinity and birthright. Democracy was born out of that poem and Liberalism prevailed as the greatest acheivement of mankind. Defeating even the mighty Spartans.
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "Special B"Religious people are delusional and in denial to begin with. If their politics don't jive with their religion, it doesn't really matter. They can perform any mental gymnastics necessary. Religion and conservatism are both bullshit. Bullshit mixes with other bullshit.
How do you personally define conservatism though? Some people believe conservatism involves being reserved, and not adopting any new idea readily without proof of it's value, and if that means conservatism then I guess I am conservative in that sense. I am not going to sell myself out and go do whatever just because an accepted social group says it's good or "cool" to do it, sorry, I guess.
Well frosty you know, I am sure, that conservatism has a complete and seperate political meaning. It actually means preserving the assets for the wealthy and historically for the families that are either titled or have a legacy of owning power, be that land or what ever the criteria. It actually has nothing to do with conserving anything or the personal convictions of an individual. A social conservative is someone that "conserves" institutional culture that preserves power to the afore mentioned class. Ergo denying voting rights to minorities because it threatens traditional leadership by white power brokers.
The conservatives like to say that they are for traditional values which is to say that they don't want to give equal oppertunity to anyone else because traditionally they have built in intitutionalized prejudices. They like to call it "family falues" or "moral majority", they even call it patriotism. Hijacking terms and purposely misusing the true definition of those terms is a tactic used by conservatives. It's called propaganda.
Liberalism is an ideology that recognizes equal rights and equal oppertunity for all no matter their social class.
Historically there has always been conservatism personifided by the Spartans and Liberalism of which the Atenans were a prime example. Liberalism emerged from the first "Hero" that appeared as "Ode on a Greecian Urn" which elivated common humanity when given free and fair oppertunity to acheive "god" status. Thus rebuking the conservative held ideology of divinity and birthright. Democracy was born out of that poem and Liberalism prevailed as the greatest acheivement of mankind. Defeating even the mighty Spartans.
I like that explanation. I try to avoid partisan discussions, but you have said before you are from a different generation than people my age so maybe it would be easier for someone like you to understand my post. With current events boiling over it seems most people are getting edgy, and not following a set of ethical personal values (their own ones, not religion!) and it makes matters worse. But perhaps that was my mistake, as Liberalism as you explained it is the very embodiment of values and morals. That is a Liberalism I can agree with!
As for the traditional systems, I am in favor of severely reforming or abolishing them. I am a reformist, I believe in change. I like to shake things up. But I do think that people being awful to other people and having no direction in life and then saying they are acting as "Liberals" does give the word negative connotations to observers.
Quote from: "frosty"You are biased towards the Welfare part, so in a debate I don't think your point would be allowed through as a genuine one. Self interest overrides everything though, I guess.
All arguments are equally valid in terms of biased/unbiased opinions. Only the strenght of the argument (which is NOT subject to wether or not it is biased) makes a better argument than the other.
I also fail to see how women can be in favor of men's conscription if people on Welfare cannot participate equally in the discussion of welfare.
Again, it is the strength of the argument that counts. Not wether or not one is in self-interest.
Also you have to remember that YOU are also acting in self-interest.
If you want lower Income Tax, for example, of keep it where it is, or if you fear high unemployment and vote for parties that would like to lower the unemployment,
you are acting in self-interest too.
Nobody are unbiased.
The only difference between me and you is that I am honest about my self-interest. We have yet to hear from you where you are coming from.
Most people either are dishonest or refuse to tell people about their self-interests. That, so far, includes YOU, Frosty!
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "frosty"You are biased towards the Welfare part, so in a debate I don't think your point would be allowed through as a genuine one. Self interest overrides everything though, I guess.
All arguments are equally valid in terms of biased/unbiased opinions. Only the strenght of the argument (which is NOT subject to wether or not it is biased) makes a better argument than the other.
I also fail to see how women can be in favor of men's conscription if people on Welfare cannot participate equally in the discussion of welfare.
Again, it is the strength of the argument that counts. Not wether or not one is in self-interest.
Also you have to remember that YOU are also acting in self-interest.
If you want lower Income Tax, for example, of keep it where it is, or if you fear high unemployment and vote for parties that would like to lower the unemployment,
you are acting in self-interest too.
Nobody are unbiased.
The only difference between me and you is that I am honest about my self-interest. We have yet to hear from you where you are coming from.
Most people either are dishonest or refuse to tell people about their self-interests. That, so far, includes YOU, Frosty!
Lol. Well, mediumaevum, it may indeed be true that I have not divulged my full life story on these forums, but that is for two reasons.
1) I don't want to.
2) I don't need to.
You are correct in stating that I have not told people my self interests. But you have, and I have a right as a rule following forum user to challenge what you post, just like you can do the same with me. Considering how I have done my best to see things from as many different perspectives as I can in life, I have developed a neutrality that stays with me to this day. I try not to take sides in anything, but your violent posts when you don't get your way is not good.
Quote from: "frosty"You are correct in stating that I have not told people my self interests.
Then you cannot say you are not acting in self-interest.
I could accuse you of acting in self-interest too if I knew them, then your arguments will, according to your "reasoning" become as little valid as mine.
I don't understand why my honesty should get me punished in terms of making my arguments less valid, simply because people KNOW I act in self-interest, as
compared to those we can only guess about their self-interest. At least I am the honest one.
But I don't claim my honesty should make my arguments better than those who are or seem to be neutral, wheras you tell me that my arguments are less valid,
with the one and simple reason that I have been honest.
I fail to see the logical reasoning behind that, let alone the ethical one.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "frosty"You are correct in stating that I have not told people my self interests.
Then you cannot say you are not acting in self-interest.
I can accuse you of acting in self-interest too, then your arguments will, according to your "reasoning" become as little valid as mine.
I don't understand why my honesty should get me punished in terms of making my arguments less valid, simply because people KNOW I act in self-interest, as
compared to those we can only guess about their self-interest. At least I am the honest one.
But I don't claim my honesty should make my arguments better than those who are or seem to be neutral, wheras you tell me that my arguments are less valid,
with the one and simple reason that I have been honest.
I fail to see the logical reasoning behind that, let alone the ethical one.
mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.
I also appreciate you only quoting a certain part of my post, and saying that my reasoning is "reasoning", like that, implying it is something else.
I can't help but have this feeling come over me that all this talk about honesty, arguments, blah blah blah will turn into a circular waste of time if we don't just relax. You have to just calm down.
Quote from: "frosty"mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.
I don't think so. But if it really happens, there certainly is something flawed in the society.
The reason is that big corporations are having talks in public TV debates against politicians. Why are the big corporation CEO's allowed to have a say if people on welfare are not allowed to
have a say in the debate?
Now, luckily, in my country the two largest TV stations are actually allowing both parties (people on welfare and CEOs) to have a say.
I don't know about the culture in your country, but it seems to be discriminating people. At least what you have been saying is discrimination.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "frosty"mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.
I don't think so. But if it really happens, there certainly is something flawed in the society.
The reason is that big corporations are having talks in public TV debates against politicians. Why are the big corporation CEO's allowed to have a say if people on welfare are not allowed to
have a say in the debate?
Wow can you just calm down? Self interest, mediumaevum. Self interest!!! Both ends of the issue are self serving, and if it was up to me both would have to be disqualified for their self interests in the topic. Anyways, I've been a keyboard warrior long enough tonight, and it's time for me to go to bed now. May Zeus bless you mediumaevum!!
Quote from: "frosty"Quote from: "mediumaevum"Quote from: "frosty"mediumaevum, I'm just saying, in an actual official debate I'm sure that point alone would get you disqualified. Either that, or they would purposely choose another topic because you would be biased towards that point.
I don't think so. But if it really happens, there certainly is something flawed in the society.
The reason is that big corporations are having talks in public TV debates against politicians. Why are the big corporation CEO's allowed to have a say if people on welfare are not allowed to
have a say in the debate?
Wow can you just calm down? Self interest, mediumaevum. Self interest!!! Both ends of the issue are self serving, and if it was up to me both would have to be disqualified for their self interests in the topic. Anyways, I've been a keyboard warrior long enough tonight, and it's time for me to go to bed now. May Zeus bless you mediumaevum!!
You can't really find anyone who you could not say is self-serving.
Everyone are biased. It's just a matter of honesty.
I believe it is better for society that people are honest about their self-interests than to hide their self-interests from the public, in a public debate.
If you were the one to pick and choose, you would immediatly disqualify the one who was honest about his self-interest, and allow the one who wasn't honest or didn't tell about his self-interest. That's not better AT ALL! That makes it even worse!
I believe in the private life. But I also believe that when people are discussing a topic, all interests/self-interests that has relevance for that particular discussion, should be public, or at least those watching or listening to the discussion, should know all about the relevant stuff about the members participating in the discussion.
That's way better than hiding the self-interests.
Quote from: "mediumaevum"You can't really find anyone who you could not say is self-serving.
All people are self-serving, but some people apply that self-interest more altruistically than others.
Quote from: "frosty"I like that explanation. I try to avoid partisan discussions, but you have said before you are from a different generation than people my age so maybe it would be easier for someone like you to understand my post. With current events boiling over it seems most people are getting edgy, and not following a set of ethical personal values (their own ones, not religion!) and it makes matters worse. But perhaps that was my mistake, as Liberalism as you explained it is the very embodiment of values and morals. That is a Liberalism I can agree with!
As for the traditional systems, I am in favor of severely reforming or abolishing them. I am a reformist, I believe in change. I like to shake things up. But I do think that people being awful to other people and having no direction in life and then saying they are acting as "Liberals" does give the word negative connotations to observers.
That is where the term "progressive" comes in. Liberalism is an ideal and sometimes enacting it makes no sense unless you follow a basic humanity tenet of freedom and fairness. Institutions by their very definition are their to maintain a status quo. Slavery was and is an instituion. Progressive Liberalism is a tool for reform. To take on and modify every institution, tradition, legacy. The idea is to create a fair anf free system where by everyone has the same oppertunity to be successful, AND if and when they fail, provide a safety net so they can get back up and try again and again and again. It isn't a redistribution of wealth like the conservative propagandist would have you to believe. It's fair and free oppertunity. The reason "Liberal" has a negative conotation is because of a few bad actors, but mainly the onslaught of relentless false information/misinformation and propaganda produced and distributed by conservatives.
Economics. It's a fact that the economy does the best and EVERYONE makes money when the "middle class' is large and in charge. When all the wealth is funnelled to the top 1% the world economy goes into a tailspin and the vast majority of people suffer emensely! It is the conservative idea to keep most of the wealth in the hands of the top 1%. They call it the trickle down theory. Well it is a disaster and has failed every single time it has been tried.
Take a look at history. Every time the top 1% exceed wealth assets above the 50% level the world goes into an economic meltdown. Everytime. It happened in Rome, in ancient Greece, In England, and in the US atleast 3 times! And everytime either to society completely failed or a Liberal Progressive leader to the world out of the abyss.