[republicuk]

I've picked up on a few common stances against liberals and liberalism that I thought I'd reply to and see what you guys think.

Guilty by Association
This applies to most (if not all) political persuasions, people tend to judge a political persuasion on specific people and parties they are exposed to rather than the general underpinning philosophies. Well I for one can't think of many "liberal" politicians or parties that I have any significant support for and you shouldn't judge us all by them.

Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination
I think this is mainly what gives liberals such a bad name, extreme egalitarianism. eg. Race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, disability etc. should absolutely have no bearing over ones treatment, for a job application or visa etc. This is just an extreme form of equality which defies the truth that these denominations are sometimes valid determining factors.

Out of touch
Another is the idea that liberal views are more biased towards emotion, intellectualism, ideologies and philosophies which conflict with the cold nuts and bolts harsh reality of the world and human nature. It not inherently liberal to put the former before the latter they are all relevant.

Hypocrisy & Self-righteousness
It's not hypocritical to warn your children about the dangers of smoking if you're a smoker as you're making a valid point, the fact you smoke doesn't take anything away from that. The same is true of many liberals, liberal issues tend to involve ethics and morality but just like everyone else we're not perfect and fail to live up to our own standards sometimes, it doesn't make us wrong. There are those who get on their high horse in self righteousness and put themselves and their opinion above others but this is certainly not what liberalism is about.

Just wanted to get that off my chest

[Soixante-Retard]

I would have thought the most common objection to liberalism is that it is individualistic.

[Decky]

Liberalism is an ideology of having minimum state intervention in the economy, what kind of liberal supports this?

Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination

You are thinking of social democracy.

[republicuk]

Liberalism is an ideology of having minimum state intervention in the economy

No thats libertarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Affirmative Action/Positive Discrimination
You are thinking of social democracy.

No I'm not, this isn't exclusive to social democracy.

[Travesty]

- NeoLiberalism (the dominant ideology of the world) is the ideology of favoring the interests of international business over national interests. And delegating political and economic power to supranational institutions and NGO's while gradually eroding state sovereignty for the benefit of an interconnected global economy.

- Republicans are right wing neo-Liberals

- Democrats are centrist Neo-Liberals

- And European Social Democrats are Left Wing Neo- Liberals.

- Ofcourse Liberalism also assumes that people should have a maximum of individual freedom and democratic universal political rights.

- Libertarianism is a branch of Liberal Capitalism and is a generally joke ideology not found much outside of America.

[republicuk]

I would have thought the most common objection to liberalism is that it is individualistic.

What do you mean exactly?

[Pants-of-dog]

- NeoLiberalism (the dominant ideology of the world) is the ideology of favoring the interests of international business over national interests. And delegating political and economic power to supranational institutions and NGO's while gradually eroding state sovereignty for the benefit of an interconnected global economy.

...

- And European Social Democrats are Left Wing Neo- Liberals.

...

Using that definition of neo-liberalism (which I agree with), it seems contradictory to say that there are left wing neo-liberals. The whole point of leftism is to subsume the demands of the economy to the will of the people. In other words, since leftists have set up (or plan to set up) the state in opposition to business, how can they do that and simultaneously favour the interests of international business over national interests?

[Travesty]

Thats what they do POD I don't really care about how they rationalize it. Look at the EU who's interests do you think their governments and collective institutions serve exactly.

[Pants-of-dog]

Thats what they do POD I don't really care about how they rationalize it. Look at the EU who's interests do you think their governments and collective institutions serve exactly.

I'm not so sure about that.

Can you name a left wing European gov't that has openly served the interests of multinational corporations?

[republicuk]

Travesty your clearly the person I'm talking about on the Guilty by Association part of the OP. All your definitions are tainted by this.

[Travesty]

How about I give you a list of European governments that in the last few years have come to blatantly serve the interests of international finance instead? After all the financial sector is becoming the dominant sector of Western Economies. Nobody openly serves multinational corporations. They have have dominant lobbying power and campaign financing power and their interests are represented in the World Economic forum, World Bank, European camber of Commerce and a myriad of other think tanks and interest groups that set the economic agenda.

[Drlee]

A real conservative just dropping by to see this has to forward the notion that there is so much disagreement as to what a liberal is that the term has lost virtually any validity at all.

If it is any consolation, at least in the US the same is true of the term conservative also.

Perhaps less so in Europe. I am not certain.

[Travesty]

Conservative isn't really an economic stance though. Its more of a social outlook. Reagan and Thatcher where neo-liberal social conservatives for example.

- Classic Russian and Chinese Commies would be Left Wing social conservatives.

[Pants-of-dog]

How about I give you a list of European governments that in the last few years have come to blatantly serve the interests of international finance instead?

If you could limit yourself to the leftist ones, that would be great.

After all the financial sector is becoming the dominant sector of Western Economies. Nobody openly serves multinational corporations. They have have dominant lobbying power and campaign financing power and their interests are represented in the World Economic forum, World Bank, European camber of Commerce and a myriad of other think tanks and interest groups that set the economic agenda.

Well, if you could point to a list of leftist European gov'ts that have supported such think tanks and interests groups, that would also suffice.

[republicuk]

Conservative isn't really an economic stance though. Its more of a social outlook. Reagan and Thatcher where neo-liberal social conservatives for example.

- Classic Russian and Chinese Commies would be Left Wing social conservatives.

Liberalism isn't primarily an economic stance and you're viewing political persuasions based on people you associate with them rather than the underlying philosophies and ideas.

[Travesty]

Well Belgium is ruled by socialists and is the hub center of the European Union and constantly calls for greater political and economic and financial integration within the European Union.

The austerity countries are right now ruled by center right governments that are following orders from a EU bureaucracy and a Euro-Parliament made up of a majority of social democratic and green parties.

I don't see how this system can be considered left wing in the traditional sense but then again modern day republicans wouldn't be considered conservative right wing in the traditional sense.

Republik capitalism is an economic stance and Liberalism can't exist without capitalism. Conservatism can exist in a different economic paradigm because its largely a social outlook.

[republicuk]

Republik capitalism is an economic stance and Liberalism can't exist without capitalism. Conservatism can exist in a different economic paradigm because its largely a social outlook.

Why can't liberalism exist without capitalism!?

[Travesty]

have you met any corporatist, feudal or Marxist liberals lately?

This is a ridiculous question.

Its kinda implied you know private property and free trade being core tenants of Liberalism.

Adam Smith HELLO?! Laissez faire economic Liberalism?! is Capitalism

[Pants-of-dog]

Well Belgium is ruled by socialists and is the hub center of the European Union and constantly calls for greater political and economic and financial integration within the European Union.

Belgium is currently under the gov't of Elio Di Rupo, who has held the position since December of 2011, a little over a year ago. He has nothing to do with the EU. Previously, it was led by someone who is actually tied in with the European Council and therefore the EU as well, Mr Herman Van Rompuy. But Mr. Van Rompuy is not leftist. He was a member of the centrist Belgian party, Christen-Democratisch en Vlaams.

The austerity countries are right now ruled by center right governments that are following orders from a EU bureaucracy and a Euro-Parliament made up of a majority of social democratic and green parties.

The European Parliament has a majority of centrist and right wing parties. It also can't pass laws. Thus, it cannot be telling all these other countries to follow its leftist agenda.

I don't see how this system can be considered left wing in the traditional sense but then again modern day republicans wouldn't be considered conservative right wing in the traditional sense.

Republik capitalism is an economic stance and Liberalism can't exist without capitalism. Conservatism can exist in a different economic paradigm because its largely a social outlook.

You seem to be confusing things here. There are liberal and conservative social outlooks, yes. But there are also differing economic views as well. You seem to think that because neo-liberal economics are what we would call a "conservative economic" outlook, there is no "liberal economic" outlook. There is. Or perhaps I should say there are, as there are many.

[Travesty]

POD in that case there are no Western Leftist governments at all. And the Euro-Parliament is in charge of the budget and elects the European Comission which is accountable to the parliament which is made up of largely left wing parties. Btw a center-right European party is further to the Left than the Democratic party in the United States. Their proposed policy of carbon taxation for example would be considered a left wing policy by any other country.

Here's the issue this idea that neo-Liberalism is conservative doesn't mesh well with conservative ideology that favors state sovereignty and generally opposes globalization and supra national institutions.