[DrSteveBrule]

IRL and on these forums, people seem to apply the label "liberal" to others who disagree. The people in real life that do this tend to be Republicans who think that liberalism relates to a philosophy advocating social justice and equality through wealth redistribution, implying that the person has a socialist leaning. But on these forums, Rei and other authoritarian leaning posters define "liberal" as supporting any form of democracy or personal rights. However, liberalism is supposedly an old term for someone who has libertarian tendencies, as it was first defined as a limited government/pro liberty movement. So what is the official definition of it?

[Pants-of-dog]

All of those definitions are correct, which makes the word almost completely useless in modern debate.

[Lexington]

I usually self-identify as a liberal or moderate.

In the US I think "liberal" can either mean 1) A meaningless slur that somehow can also be Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Nazi - and all at once! or 2) Belief in social liberalism and a more activist government on economic issues - broadly "Democratic Party" platform stuff these days.

Definition 1 is, well, just a slur; definition 2 is..not that useful other than to characterize someone's positions relative to another, but at least it's benign. In European usage it seems to have a more coherent ideological meaning closer to the American idea of "libertarian".

[quetzalcoatl]

Although liberalism may indeed be diffuse, there are certain common ideological building blocks that have remained constant.
1) A belief in property rights as the well-spring of all other rights. Natural rights are simply an extension of self-ownership.
2) An atomistic view of human nature. Individuals reign supreme, and relationships are secondary.
3) A belief in limited government as an end in itself.
4) A belief in an unregulated market as an end in itself.
5) Free international movement of capital, labor, and goods.

[Lexington]

In mainstream US parlance all those things are more associated with conservatives than liberals.

[Soulflytribe]

F. A. Hayek wrote this in 1956:

The fact that this book was originally written with only the British public in mind does not appear to have seriously affected its intelligibility for the American reader. But there is one point of phraseology which I ought to explain here to forestall any misunderstanding. I use throughout the term “liberal” in the original, nineteenth-century sense in which it is still current in Britain. In current American usage it often means nearly the opposite of this. It has been part of the camouflage of leftish movements in this country, helped by the muddleheadedness of many who really believe in liberty, that “liberal” has come to mean the advocacy of almost every kind of government control. I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should even have assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobrium. This seems to be particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to describe themselves as conservatives.

It is true, of course, that in the struggle against the believers in the all-powerful state the true liberal must sometimes make common cause with the conservative, and in some circumstances, as in contemporary Britain, has hardly any other way of actively working for his ideals. But true liberalism is still distinct from conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place. A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege, if privilege is understood in its proper and original meaning of the state granting and protecting rights to some which are not available on equal terms to others.

[quetzalcoatl]

In mainstream US parlance all those things are more associated with conservatives than liberals.

That is of course correct.

However these beliefs are a matter of degree in the US. Conservatives (in the US sense) are perhaps more vigorous in promoting these views, but both liberals and conservatives share the basic ground beliefs.

[Lexington]

So I'll describe what liberalism means to me:

1) A belief in property rights as the well-spring of all other rights. Natural rights are simply an extension of self-ownership.

No. American liberalism means being part of a community and that community is the well-spring of rights as well as responsibilities.

2) An atomistic view of human nature. Individuals reign supreme, and relationships are secondary.

That would be libertarianism. It definitely doesn't agree with my sense of liberalism.

3) A belief in limited government as an end in itself.

Actually on this one, sure: less government is good, if there's no better alternative.

4) A belief in an unregulated market as an end in itself.

No. See above.

5) Free international movement of capital, labor, and goods.

I could have a whole long thread qualifying that one but saying that "MONEY, PEOPLE, AND GOODS SHOULD GO EVERYWHERE" describes neither liberals nor conservatives.

[Godstud]

Rik.

(This is not a one word post)

[Lexington]

Rik.

(This is not a one word post)

It's like a Satanic invocation, really:

Rik.

hums softly, in a mist of incense smoke

Rik.

draws a pentagram on the stone earth

Rik.

the humming continues, the fire rises in the center of the pentagram

OBUMMERCARE.

[Godstud]

Don't say his name 5 times while looking in a mirror, or he'll appear in this thread!!

[SpaciousBox]

Hey DrSteveBrule. This question likes to come up a lot I find and I've had a fair bit of time to give it some thought...

Whilst I recognize entirely what has been said in this thread regarding the near meaningless nature of the word, I don't think we should so easily abandon it. Politics for the masses may have given words like "liberal" "socialist" and "fascist" almost endless meanings, but that doesn't mean that those of us interested in more academic debate should shy away from definitions. I find definition in liberalism through it's historical changes and consistent values as applied. See below:

Liberalism is the dominant cultural ideology of our age. It is the belief that individualism is a value worth pursing as an end to itself. Although these values have always been around in some shape or form, they arose out of the Enlightenment era into an ideology that we now call "Classical Liberalism". We have this distinction, because Liberalism is an ideology based on value, with a consistently evolving methodology. "Liberals" as they are known today, parted ways with "classical liberals" around the turn of the 20th century when Social Liberalism arose and begun it's slow rise to power within the modernist cultural framework. "Classical Liberals" continued to exist however, but formed their own ideological groupings in the forms of Libertarianism, Minarchism, and others. This distinction was made through changing cultural attitudes and their reflection upon the value. Does individualism mean individualism for some and not others? Or can it only be fulfilled as a value if it is considered a right to all? - it's fairly clear which distinction was chosen. This is based off works like the harm principle (Mill), utilitarianism (Bentham), the rise of social justice as an agenda, and self defined liberal writers such as my very own avatar (L.T. Hobhouse). The notion that individualism could exist outside of the community framework was all but done away with, as my avatar would put it: "The first condition of universal freedom, that is to say, is a measure of universal restraint. Without such restraint some men may be free but others will be unfree."

Come the cold war and we see the rise of "neoliberalism". This was a direct reaction against liberalism and whilst sharing it's name is effectively an unrelated ideology. It is an ideology based entirely on individualism for some and not others. To me (and social liberals at large) this is the exact opposite to valuing the individual in society - it is utterly counter productive to that aim. Unfortunately, the neolibs won and liberalism was pushed away from the political spotlight and into a cultural phenomenon. You may notice I have not fully answered your question, but that's because I think we all know it's fairly semantical to talk about human rights and democracy and animal welfare, etc. Liberalism cannot really be defined in anyway other than the pursuit of individualism, all else that follows is academic. Please don't misunderstand me, I care a great deal about how we reach our aims and will argue forever with my liberal friends about what are the right and wrong ways, but at the same time I recognize there is nothing in our ideology that settles these debates and so I don't include them in my definition. For this reason, I accept libertarians and others on the right as liberals, because even though we disagree on methodology we are all based in the same value. I cannot (and will not) accept neoliberals however, as their ideology is quite clearly based in other areas, (eg: profit motives, selfishness, nationalism, etc).

I'm not going to tackle why some people on this forum chose to define liberal as anything that isn't them. That is between them and their ideological world-view.

[DrSteveBrule]

Liberalism is the dominant cultural ideology of our age. It is the belief that individualism is a value worth pursing as an end to itself. Although these values have always been around in some shape or form, they arose out of the Enlightenment era into an ideology that we now call "Classical Liberalism". We have this distinction, because Liberalism is an ideology based on value, with a consistently evolving methodology. "Liberals" as they are known today, parted ways with "classical liberals" around the turn of the 20th century when Social Liberalism arose and begun it's slow rise to power within the modernist cultural framework. "Classical Liberals" continued to exist however, but formed their own ideological groupings in the forms of Libertarianism, Minarchism, and others. This distinction was made through changing cultural attitudes and their reflection upon the value. Does individualism mean individualism for some and not others? Or can it only be fulfilled as a value if it is considered a right to all? - it's fairly clear which distinction was chosen. This is based off works like the harm principle (Mill), utilitarianism (Bentham), the rise of social justice as an agenda, and self defined liberal writers such as my very own avatar (L.T. Hobhouse). The notion that individualism could exist outside of the community framework was all but done away with, as my avatar would put it: "The first condition of universal freedom, that is to say, is a measure of universal restraint. Without such restraint some men may be free but others will be unfree."

Well put. I don't think that it directly answers what the modern definition of a liberal is, but that's almost impossible due to it's fragmented nature. I guess defining it as a broad individualist based movement would be the best way of describing it. I really don't have any issues with the usage of the term "liberal" as long as it is used to only describe the general ideology. I just simply don't understand why US Democrats are called liberals, instead of Democrats, or leftists.

Rik.

(This is not a one word post)

Its axiomatic that Rik or Rei will use the term "liberal" to label people that disagree with them.

In the US I think "liberal" can either mean 1) A meaningless slur that somehow can also be Marxist/Communist/Fascist/Nazi - and all at once! or 2) Belief in social liberalism and a more activist government on economic issues - broadly "Democratic Party" platform stuff these days.

That seems to be an American phenomenon. In other parts of the world, the term liberal has no association to leftism or socialism.

[Dagoth Ur]

Its axiomatic that Rik or Rei will use the term "liberal" to label people that disagree with them.

Which is hilarious since they're both hardcore liberals.

[SpaciousBox]

Well put. I don't think that it directly answers what the modern definition of a liberal is, but that's almost impossible due to it's fragmented nature. I guess defining it as a broad individualist based movement would be the best way of describing it. I really don't have any issues with the usage of the term "liberal" as long as it is used to only describe the general ideology. I just simply don't understand why US Democrats are called liberals, instead of Democrats, or leftists.

I guess I wouldn't really call it a broad Church myself (at least no more broad than any other ideology). If we accept that a liberal is anyone who's end goal and starting value is the promotion of individualist thought, and that this is only possible if you apply it consistently and universally, then we actually get a far closer definition of what a liberal is, and can quickly see how very few of our politicians are actually liberal in nature. As for the Democrats, I'd probably say some are and some are not. The Democrat party is most certainly not a liberal party at it's head, because it's focus will always be on ensuring a strong economic platform (they are clear neolibs, in policy). That doesn't mean however that it's supporters and politicians will all have that as their ideology, just that they are working within the framework they have been left with.

[OllytheBrit]

I think a synonym for 'liberalism' could be 'otherworldly'.

[Old_Hat]

A liberal is someone who knows a lot about that which isn't so.

[Soulflytribe]

That seems to be an American phenomenon. In other parts of the world, the term liberal has no association to leftism or socialism.

It's an American phenomenon indeed. I mean, the "Liberal Institute" of my country has got this banner in their site, for example:



Translation:

You are the most important part of society
Liberty
Private property
Responsability
Free Market
Isonomy

[Rei Murasame]

Which is hilarious since they're both hardcore liberals.

This keeps coming up as an accusation because you guys don't get that at this stage, smashing the old calcified semi-feudalist arrangements and preventing reactionary Islamic terrorists from carrying out attacks against utility companies, energy companies, and logistics companies, is all part of the necessary groundwork for the construction of the new world that is coming.

This Third Position/Right-Socialist advisory is still in effect:

[...] I realised during the time when I kept trying to explain why the socialist revolution in Nepal was a good thing for the Nepalese people, and 100% of white people on PoFo were bored by it, that there is no point to me constantly trying to put that side of my viewpoint out there when no one wants to hear it. So instead I [now] give you the other side, which is how can you help Asian states to lay down the groundwork for development while [you are] making money.

I don't have to be constantly harping that "this is about ethnicity and about socialism and you should care about these". In this environment (PoFo), the number of posters who absolutely need to be notified of the fact that everything I say is about the development of productive forces so that socialism can emerge in Asia in the long term, is one person --- I am the only poster who needs to be notified of that, and I have notified myself of it.

European liberals can help Asia by [1]ploughing massive amounts of foreign direct investment into projects which develop areas of Asia which previously have been in disuse, while also [2]supporting certain regional security arrangements which are in the interest of various Asian states.

It's a mutually beneficial development in foreign affairs, and I get a better response when I frame things that way, than when I try to get people to identify with me outright. No deceit is occurring, I simply choose to emphasise the things that are shared in common, rather than the things that I disagree with right-liberals on.

Right now, right-liberals think that destroying ISIL is a good idea, and that the War on Terror is a good idea. That is fortunate, because that is also exactly what I believe too. So on that issue, I am in happy synchronisation with right-liberals (which you call 'conservatives'). It's pretty good.

Left-liberals (which you call 'liberals') on the other hand seem to be incoherent on pretty much every issue, so I don't get along well with them at all.

NB: It also helps with career satisfaction.

[LehmanB]

I think that liberals believe that humans stands by their own. Meaning they shouldn't be planned, organized, been helped and educated. Individuals and societies can reach harmony and reach their ideal prosperity if left alone.

I don't think that not using force is the core of it, although respected other's freedom is eeseitial. I will explain: I certainly can hurt others by opening a better business, or taking over vast resources. But what makes me liberal is that I do not control the others which became poor because of me. Meaning they can develop too if they wish to. But I don't feel responssible for them even though I've indirectly taken their prosperity. So I do use some force for my independency, yet I do not control them. And I don't feel threatened if they develop, the oposite.

That means liberalism- belief in god, instead of belief in the human-planner.