[Mordimer]

And not only, as you might have guessed.
I don't get liberals and libertarians.For isn't every man free in every system? Isn't the amount of thing which are punished by law the only difference between the political systems? If so, then it means that liberals are fighting for less repression from the state. Why? Well, I dunno. Maybe because they are not content with the basic law of nature that strong rule over the weak? Maybe because they don't have guts to go for power themselves so they want to take the power from those who have it? Maybe because they don't realize that there are many systems which are far more effective then liberal ones? As I said, I do not know. But I hope that there is some liberal here who would be eager to enlighten me.

[seascorpion]

Im new here, so there will doubtless be better answers. What gives the strong the 'right' to rule? themselves, a system where certain groups of people dominate others is quite simply like that because the top got there first. but moving along, liberal politics is basicly normally aimed at a more equal society, Why? because inequality is not morally acceptable to us i guess. its quite simple.

[Drlee]

I am happy to enlighten you though I am only a liberal republican.

For isn't every man free in every system?

No. Every man is not free in every system. Not even close.

Isn't the amount of thing which are punished by law the only difference between the political systems?

No again. There are far more differences. There are differences in the amount of self-determination for example. In America one might aspire to political power. In Saudi Arabia not in the current system where all power is held by the monarchy. There are differences in what one might expect to receive in personal aid from the state. In Great Britian one can expect health care. In the US not.

If so, then it means that liberals are fighting for less repression from the state.

Well it is not so but I think most liberals fight repression by the state. But then I also think true conservatives (at least in the US) do too.

Why? Well, I dunno. Maybe because they are not content with the basic law of nature that strong rule over the weak?

Perhaps because there is no such law. Piranha school for protection. Alone they are timid fish but in a large school they have formidable defenses. Cattle alone are prey to many animals but in a herd with a few bulls they are very strong indeed. The are weak individually but strong in groups. So if people can learn one thing from nature it is not that lions have big teeth; it is that a few hundred cattle could care less as long as they stick together.

Maybe because they don't have guts to go for power themselves so they want to take the power from those who have it?

Do you think the above makes any sense? It doesn't. Do you consider the ACLU liberal? I do. It takes on the powerful all of the time. It is true that liberals like George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did want to take power away from the powerful. And they did. But not by being weak. These liberals gained power by kicking the ass of the most powerful nation in the world. And at great personal risk I might say.

Maybe because they don't realize that there are many systems which are far more effective then liberal ones?

What is a "liberal system"? More effective at what? Let's see. One of the countries with the most individual rights, freedom speech, freedom of religion, plurality of belief, freedom from official bigotry and freedom to change classes; in other words one of the countries which has more than average liberal ideas, is also the most powerful and wealthy nation in the world. And not just by a little bit. I am speaking of the US. Tell me which system is more effective than that of the US or Great Britian. Both liberal democracies.

I don't know you but I think you should reconsider what liberalism is. Don't rely on Hannity or Limbaugh. Neither would know a liberal if it bit him in the ass. Liberals are some of the most powerful people the world has ever known. I mentioned three already. I could also mention Ghandi or Roosevelt and many many more.

So you see my friend your questions are incorrectly directed. Liberals are not people who are out to get the few who have power. Liberals are people who believe that we all should have equal power. And they understand that by joining a large group of empowered people they can become far more powerful than the isolated despot. And to make their Army of friends more powerful they are smart enough to be very careful about who they exclude. Finally liberals understand the basic truth that just because lots of people get pie doesn't mean that you don't. Liberals believe that the fruits of freedom belong to everyone. Not just the rich or the momentarily powerful.

Liberals are not weak they are smart.

[Bertram]

And not only, as you might have guessed.
I don't get liberals and libertarians.For isn't every man free in every system? Isn't the amount of thing which are punished by law the only difference between the political systems? If so, then it means that liberals are fighting for less repression from the state. Why? Well, I dunno. Maybe because they are not content with the basic law of nature that strong rule over the weak? Maybe because they don't have guts to go for power themselves so they want to take the power from those who have it? Maybe because they don't realize that there are many systems which are far more effective then liberal ones? As I said, I do not know. But I hope that there is some liberal here who would be eager to enlighten me.

You seem to have the misconception that Conservatism can only be authoritarian, which isn't true. A democracy can be a conservative libertarian democracy. The United States for example.

As for Human nature, you can't just blindly follow the direction of Hobbes one must at least consider Locke.
And just because human nature is as such, it doesn't mean we don't have the ability to to live in a free society.
I am liberal and I think Social Contract theory is great, that doesn't mean we can't have a liberal democratic mindset ingrained in social contract.

Your asking a few too many things. I'm a little lost in your questions. They're almost too vague. They'd require an essay each to explain it properly.

[CounterChaos]

Maybe because they are not content with the basic law of nature that strong rule over the weak?

Modern industrial society allows for the weakest of our species to flourish, by virtue of wealth, status and birthright not the strongest. The weak will never willingly empower the strong, for that would compromise their position.

[Genghis Khan]

If so, then it means that liberals are fighting for less repression from the state.

Modern American liberalism rejects the view that the government are the oppressors and that the people are those being oppressed.

They also believe that social matters should not be dictated, but on matters of collective fiscal relevance, where the corporate "predation" of the strong over the weak is abundant, the people's government is the only safeguard left. That's why they want the government involved more in fiscal matters and a lot less in social ones.

Liberals are supporters of capitalism, in the sense that they believe that without basic public safeguards, capitalism mutates into corporate oligarchy.

[CounterChaos]

I'm a Jeffersonian Liberal, in the "true" sense. Many people misunderstand what liberalism really is. Jefferson was no fan of capitalism at all and would roll over in his grave if he saw what bankers and oligarchs and corporations had done today.

"Capitalists have managed to echo through history his mistrust for the federal government as a case to support free enterprise. It is often omitted that Jefferson spoke of financial and industrial entrepreneurs with mistrust, and in fact would prefer to use the federal government to limit their power, rather than give them free reign."

http://www.corporatewelfare.org/article ... ferson.htm

The only big government he was for - was to keep oligarchs under control......

[cofcmike1]

Liberals hide behind government because they represent the weak minded who have to protest, join unions, and eat up popular media opinion to feel secure. It must be a scary thing to not have enough self confidence to trust true capitalism that rewards people who are smart and work hard. Liberals use the word "equality" to justify redistributing the wealth of the successful to help the people who are too scared to try to succeed. Capitalism is structure that gives anyone a chance to succeed given they work hard and stop being a victim of circumstance.

[Bubba]

Maybe because they don't realize that there are many systems which are far more effective then liberal ones?

More effective at what? Industrial output? Military expansion? Maybe, but why should people care about those things if they don't benefit from them vs. a liberal system? Do you think only people from countries with industrial output and military expansion above a certain treshold go to heaven or that an alien fleet stands ready to annihilate, through orbital bombardment, any country that doesn't meet certain quota of industrial output and military expansion?

[Nets]

Dr. Lee you are not a Republican.

[Drlee]

Are you trolling me?

Actually I am a republican. I have been a registered republican since 1971. I voted for Nixon in 1972. When I was a young teen I handed out literature for Barry Goldwater. I have participated in Republican politics, I would guess, since before you were born. I would also guess that you are not old enough to remember when the Republican party was far further left than it is now. I think you may have forgotten that Nixon proposed universal health care. My guess would be that you find it uncomfortable that the republican party contains many people like myself. That is conservatives who were conservatives before the movement was hijacked by Evangelical and Fundimentalist Christians. Conservatives who are not shallow randoids, sold out to the highest corporate bidder.

You know the ones. People like me who believe like 27% of staunch conservatives and 36% of mainstreet conservatives that abortion should be always legal. (Pew Poll)

Or the 35% of republicans who believe the government should play a larger roll in regulating the economy. (Pew Poll)

Or the one in 10 staunch conservatives and 27% of mainstreet conservatives who believe gay marriage should be legal.

Or maybe it is because I am one of the 20% of republicans who oppose the death penalty. (Gallup)

Or maybe it is because, as a professional in the field, I favor universal health care as did Nixon and Ford.

Maybe it is because, as a conservative, I feel that equal protection under the law is the fundimental tenent of our democracy.

Maybe it is because I think corporations should be prohibited from spending money on any form of political infleunce as did Hamilton, Jefferson and Adams.

Maybe it is because I agree with Republican Roosevelt that we should protect the ecology.

Maybe it is because I agree with Republican Roosevelt that we should "speak softly and carry a big stick" when it comes to international affairs.

Maybe it is because I agree with Republicans Roosevelt, and Nixon that corportations should not be allowed to be so large that they become governements of themselves.

Maybe it is because I agree with the founders that, when all is said and done, all political power lies with the people.

It is too bad these days that eveyone wants everyone else put into a nice, neat little ideological box. I think this is due, in part, to a lack of political education in most Americans and particularly young ones. There is an entire generation who does not remember when both parties believed in compromise and the country was better for it.

I am probably more of a republican in every sense of the word than are any of those running for president.

[Nets]

The fact that you have to go back 40 years (or more) to cite Republican policies that you favor should tell you something. I don't doubt that you are a registered Republican, or that the Republican party forty years ago would be a comfortable fit for you. But you have to acknowledge that times have changed. Can you name significant issues that you are closer to the GOP than DNC line on, today? Why not just stop the charade and become a Democrat, it is a more natural fit for your politics. As far as I can tell you are a RINO, and I do not mean that in a derogatory fashion.

Note: the whole "shut up whippersnapper I have been around the block and am therefore wise" shtick is pretty condescending.

[Drlee]

^^

Certainly times have changed but look. I could join the democratic party and preach to the converted. What good is that? If I want to change things I need to change the new republicans who are frankly deluded. In the republican party I have standing. People have to listen to me though they do not have to agree. I have been involved in local party politics for long enough that I can not be easily dismissed. They are certainly not going to listen to a democrat. So that is how you affect political change. It does no good for me to join the democratic party and tell them how smart they are. It does a great deal of good when I can formulate change in my own party. We are having considerable success convincing thinking republicans to drop the bullshit tea party nonsense. We are getting people to look at real issues like raising taxes on the wealthy. You can see the changes in Washington. The pendulum is swinging back toward the center. The Christian fundimentalists are loosing their grip too. Ginrich is kicking the butts of the morons like Cain and Perry. So I am right where I want to be and need to be and I can assure you I am not alone. Read the polls I posted and think about them.

Note: the whole "shut up whippersnapper I have been around the block and am therefore wise" shtick is pretty condescending.

Don't hand me that shit. That is not what I said. You should know that very few younger people these days have a clue as to what 20th century politics looked like. Most on this forum buy the garbage that "all republicans are.....".

So how about this NETS. Drop the attempt to put everyone in a box. That is what is wrong with American politics these days. Too many people want it to be black and white. It isn't. There are all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs. Perhaps you should stop trying to get everyone to wear a political button and start listening for a change.

[Kman]

And not only, as you might have guessed.
I don't get liberals and libertarians.For isn't every man free in every system? Isn't the amount of thing which are punished by law the only difference between the political systems? If so, then it means that liberals are fighting for less repression from the state. Why? Well, I dunno. Maybe because they are not content with the basic law of nature that strong rule over the weak? Maybe because they don't have guts to go for power themselves so they want to take the power from those who have it? Maybe because they don't realize that there are many systems which are far more effective then liberal ones? As I said, I do not know. But I hope that there is some liberal here who would be eager to enlighten me.

Or maybe we just dont like following orders? Not everyone is comfortable grovelling to authority.

And no people are not equally free in all systems, people in Soviet Russia were not free to leave that place and they were not free to change occupations, people can do that in the western world.

[Social_Critic]

After gathering wisdom for many years, I conclude liberal and libertarian aren't the same thing. Liberals can be quite restrictive when it comes to individual freedom. They like individual freedom when it is used to support or live the way the mainstream liberals like to live. Thus they frown upon and pass laws to stop what they call "hate crime", and even go as far as forbidding parties and people who advocate things they don't like. Liberals also tend to like a strong role for the state, which in turn is used to control the life of individuals.

Liberarians, on the other hand, don't like to see a strong state. A true libertarian would also be for liberalizing social conduct laws - I would dare say they support legalizing dope and prostitution, for example.

There are, of course, shades of all political flavors. One can be a libertarian with a liberal streak, or whatever. For example, Ron Paul is an American libertarian who goes pretty far out but at the same time seems to do whatever needs to be done to be supported by a very conservative Texas constituency.

I have come to the conclusion that everybody is wrong, and I have built a special radio transmitter which transmits a message in the hydrogen absorption frequency, asking the Intergalactic Federation of Planets to colonize us until we are capable of self rule. Meanwhile we are to remain in our "wild" state with simple interventions by the Colonial Service to make sure we don't become extinct.

[USB]

That was freakin neat, Social Critic. If USA did not colonize us we would have ended up colonized by the Soviet imperialist. There would have been no freedom of the press and no democracy where rulers are elected by majority of the people. There would have been no peace and order. No decencies. Every Filipino should have been a Philistine. I love what America did for us. Today, Philippines is a sovereign nation. If America were an imperialist country, she should not have granted us independence. We should not have abrogated the law dealing with their military bases. We should have gotten rid of Marcos through a CIA coup d'eta if Philippines were not sovereign. Marcos is not CIA while Ninoy Aquino admitted he "worked with the CIA" and "not for the CIA". And there were several attempts by the CIA to oust Marcos from power. The last one was a success. But he was dying. So it was programmed neatly. Well anyway, I support Ninoy Aquino's son's incumbent presidency. MMay he have more years in power. Actually, I want to amend the constitution and put him in power for the rest of his life. Noynoy Aquino for Prime Minister for life.

[Social_Critic]

USB, you are falling into a trap. We should never allow the relatives of any politician who has reached a high position to hold office. This applies to Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, the Bush gang, Rahul Ghandi, and the other bums who use their family connections to run for office.

Dinastic democracy is an oxymoron, as far as i'm concerned. A better solution would be to have me elected. I'm not related to anybody who amounts to much in the political world, and I'm not going to steal much because I already got money and besides I am past my materialist phase. As your elected leader I would promess anything you want, and I would make sure you are told things are going well as I toil to help the people overcome poverty and the lack of quality footwear. But I have to warn you, the first thing I'll do is nationalize the bus service. I am sick and tired of all those garish buses, I want them painted a nice yellow colour, and I want their tires to have threads, and the brakes to actually stop the bus when a cow gets in front of it.

[USB]

That is the problem with jumping on the bandwagon. These myths are the ones propagated by the commie terrorists. What if they are qualified? So who now appears to be the dictator? The one who ran who was qualified and won or the ones without qualifications who invoked their candidacies but lost? JUMPING ON THE BANDWAGON IS THE WORK OF A TERRORIST MORON LIKE JOMA SISON!

Noynoy Aquino is an Honours Graduate in Economics and studied in a prestigious university, Ateneo de Manila. Bongbong Marcos graduated with Honours in Wharton School of Economics, USA..Compare them with others. And they won their elective seats!! Sison who is an English major ignorant of the valid laws of economics was rejected by 99.9999% of the people. Nobody except his wife voted for him..

Justice was not served Bongbong Marcos when he was sent out from his room or banished out of his law class on the basis of his blood relation to the President, expelled like me for having been a threat to aspiring candidates for presidencies, by those secretly professing communism or by those related to Joma Sison like one of my professors.

[Social_Critic]

I really don't care if Nonoy Aquino is a clone of Mahatma Ghandi and Jesus of Nazareth rolled into one. I don't support having the relatives of important politicians in office, period. It's too dangerous. Look at Bush Jr, just one of them relative dudes managed to get in, and it destroyed the US economy plus got thousands of US soldiers killed, and tens of thousands wounded. It's just something we can't afford.

[USB]

Now your true color has shown. An anti-Fidel critic endangering US national security by invalidating the majority decision of the Coalition of the Willing. I, a Canadian spy, was not wrong in my assessment of you, a non-conformist whose rants are similar to those made by communists and terrorists..