[BlackSabbath]

conservatives don't like entitlements

Ever heard of corporate welfare?

they don't create victims

I'll concede this point.

they don't create dependency

This is simply not true. "Liberals" and "conservatives" both create dependency, albeit of different kinds. "Liberals" cause people to be economically dependent on the government through government handouts. "Conservatives" cause people to be socially subservient (to me, one of the few states of being worse than being dependent) to the government through their attempts to enforce morality, such as the so-called "war" on drugs. I'm sure that, if the people would stand for it, conservatives would pass a law requiring everyone to go to church on Sundays.

Not to mention that conservatives, through their support for interventionist government endeavors (i.e., the War on Terror) have managed to create an even larger, more bureaucratic, more powerful government than Clinton. So much for conservatives supporting small government.

If you truly believe people should not be dependent or subservient to the government, consider Libertarianism. Then, realize that the Libertarian ideal cannot be achieved as long as there is a government, and move on to Anarchism.

[gunsite]

What is your idea of a perfect or good government... please explain.

Seems like you don’t like church, you don’t like morals, you don’t like laws, and you don’t like war… I’ll bite… what is your likes.

[BlackSabbath]

I don't like church (enforced by the government), I don't like morals (enforced by the government), and I don't like war (enforced by the government).

I have no problem with people going to church (if they choose to do so). I have no problem with people following a moral code (if they choose to do so). I have no problem with people fighting to defend their homes from an invader (if they choose to do so). In fact, although I haven't been to church in a long time, I actually follow a very strict moral code, and I would be the first to join a militia to fight someone that invaded my homeland.

What I like is called "liberty;" the freedom to do anything you want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone else's freedom to do anything he wants.

Government, in any form, naturally infringes on liberty. Every government must rely on taxes, a form of mass theft, to sustain themselves. This is the first crime of government; however, it has a tendency to go far beyond this first crime, and move on to mass enslavement (conscription) and mass murder (genocide). The crimes committed by individuals in the 20th century alone pale in comparison to the crimes committed by governments. Civilizations have survived for centuries without government; Celtic Ireland from 600-1500 (in 1500 the English invaded and took over), for one. Therefore, I believe that government in itself is, by nature, evil. Furthermore, I believe it is an unnecessary evil, an evil that is actually holding civilization back.

What kind of government do I prefer? Democracy is certainly preferable to Monarchy and Fascism. But, it is not preferable to anarchy. Not chaos, which is simply mob rule (or government by strength of the majority--sound familiar?) but anarchy; the absence of any form of coercive rule in favor of a rational society driven by a free market (a truly free market, not the kind of market found in modern State "Capitalism").

Anarchy will not happen overnight, of course. But every decrease in government power--every tax cut, every government agency ended, every war ended--is a victory for those who love liberty. Every increase in government power, on the other hand, is one step closer to totalitarianism.

[TaylorS]

To me Liberalism is about faith in what philosopher Karl Popper called the "Open Society" Where elections are free and fair; free speech is protected; individual and human rights are respected; change is done through what Popper calls "piecemeal social engineering" in which society finds solutions to problems instead of the holistic, utopian social engineering based on notions of an ideal society so loved by radicals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_open_society

The open society is a concept originally developed by philosopher Henri Bergson. In open societies, government is responsive and tolerant, and political mechanisms are transparent and flexible. The state keeps no secrets from itself in the public sense; it is a non-authoritarian society in which all are trusted with the knowledge of all. Political freedoms and human rights are the foundation of an open society.

In Karl Popper's definition, found in his two-volume book The Open Society and Its Enemies, he defines an "open society" as one which ensures that political leaders can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed, as opposed to a "closed society", in which a bloody revolution or coup d'état is needed to change the leaders. He further describes an open society as one "in which individuals are confronted with personal decisions" as opposed to a "magical or tribal or collectivist society".[1] In this context, tribalistic and collectivist societies do not distinguish between natural laws and social customs. Individuals are unlikely to challenge traditions they believe to have a sacred or magical basis. The beginnings of an open society are thus marked by a distinction between natural and man-made law, and an increase in personal responsibility and accountability for moral choices. (Note that Popper did not see this as incompatible with religious belief.[2]) Popper argues that the ideas of individuality, criticism, and humanitarianism cannot be suppressed once people become aware of them, and therefore that it is impossible to return to the closed society. Attempts to do so would necessarily involve brutal and anti-humanitarian measures.[3]

Popper's concept of the open society is epistemological rather than political.[4] Based on his theory that knowledge is provisional and fallible, it implies that society must be open to alternative points of view. Claims to certain knowledge and ultimate truth lead to the imposition of one version of reality. Such a society is closed to freedom of thought. In contrast, in an open society every citizen needs to form his or her own view of reality and that requires freedom of thought and expression and the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this.[5] An open society also has to be pluralistic and multicultural, in order to benefit from the maximum number of viewpoints possible to the given problems.

Humanitarianism, equality and political freedom are fundamental characteristics of an open society. Another important characteristic of an open society is competition for social status.[6] Indeed, social mobility is sometimes used as a measure of the 'openness' of society.[7] The importance of social mobility for an open society was recognised by Pericles, a statesman of the Athenian democracy, in his funeral oration: "... advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life."[8]

Democracies are examples of the "open society", whereas totalitarian dictatorships and autocratic monarchies are examples of the "closed society".

[I]

change is done through what Popper calls "piecemeal social engineering" in which society finds solutions to problems instead of the holistic, utopian social engineering based on notions of an ideal society so loved by radicals

Society finds solutions? That sounds spiffing. Is it like a "penny on income tax and we're there" type of thing?

[gunsite]

The United States of America is the greatest country in the world, this is the country people come to in order to pursue wealth and happiness, the U.S. is the wealthiest, strongest, biggest, and most sought out country in the world when disaster strikes.

We have the best doctors, best athletes, best industry, best military, and best technology in the world. The reason why the United States is loved is the same reason why were hated... because were the best… we the U.S. saved the world (all countries) if you don’t believe me…LOOK IT UP... and what that said, there is no better government in the world, capitalism doesn't need defending in debate... it works all the time.


Loved or not the U.S. is where people did…are, and still flocking to, if there’s any place to raise a family it’s the U.S… we have the best medical doctors, the best schools, the best jobs, if there one place a person had a choice to be raise or live, it’s the U.S.

No one is flock to Soviet Union, no one is flocking to Germany, no one is flocking to England, no one is flocking to China, no one is flocking to Venezuela, and no one is flocking to Cuba, by those statistics alone the United States is the place people want to live and raise a family. So how can the U.S. be so bad, and if it was bad… people would be leaving by gross numbers, but there not. As individuals we can say we don’t like this and we hate that, or were not happy with something… but we would not want to live anywhere else.

You can point out errors and faults with the U.S. government… but you still have no argument, because in the end... nothing else matters except results = United States of America

[Ombrageux]

Of all the things you list, they do indeed make the US the best place to live, if you have money. And, incidentally, the US economy is geared towards giving a lot of money to relatively few people. If you are poor, most other developed countries will offer you a healthier, more secure existence.

(And, also, there's plenty of places rich people might want to live apart from the US anyway. London is the place to be as far as high finance is concerned, Luxembourg is a nice haven for the uber-wealthy for retirement there's the Cote d'Azure of southern France, while the number of Asian metropolises is rapidly booming from Dubai to Shanghai.)

[QatzelOk]

The fact that many people are moving to the US means that these people are socially mobile. They are able to change countries.

That so few Americans move to other countries may say more about their inability to live elsewhere, than it does about what a paradise America is.

Also, when Michael Jackson moved to the emirates, I don't recall any media saying that this was because America was a shit hole. It was because his reputation was ruined in the USA. Likewise, the reasons someone moves from another rich country to the US is more complicated than "we are number one."

And the poor who come to America are also trying to get into England, Germany, France, Australia, Singapore, or any other wealthy place that will take them. This is perfectly normal, but America is far from being the only Shangrila of piles of gold.

[NYYS]

That so few Americans move to other countries may say more about their inability to live elsewhere, than it does about what a paradise America is.

Uh... no. It says that they don't want to live elsewhere. The average person in the US is extremely wealthy by international standards, a great deal of Americans could very easily move to any of the world's "paradises," like Iran! Or Saudi Arabia! Or Sweden! Or France! They choose not to, because their quality of life would diminish.

[Vera Politica]

modern liberalism is the poison of social progress.
it is the apathy of today's culture
it is the dellusional suburban mess
it is the capitalist yoke masquerading as a che guevera t-shirt

[W01f]

Uh... no. It says that they don't want to live elsewhere. The average person in the US is extremely wealthy by international standards, a great deal of Americans could very easily move to any of the world's "paradises," like Iran! Or Saudi Arabia! Or Sweden! Or France! They choose not to, because their quality of life would diminish.

How can you group Sweden and France in with any third world middle-eastern country? That only gives me reason to believe that you've never actually been to Europe, and don't actually know anything about living conditions in other parts of the world.

America is indeed the best country in the world to live if you can afford all of the luxuries of living there. However, for the average low/middle-class worker, you would live a much more peaceful, happy, safe and healthy existence somewhere else like Sweden, Canada, France, Norway, or Australia to name a few. The low and middle-class American is far worse off than their counterparts in many other developed countries.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/12/16/news/ec ... /index.htm

[VilleS]

Liberalism for me is freedom from the power of government. It means that government should not be involved in the personal life of an individual. However, social security should not be privatized in my opinion.

I see liberalism as an ideology where individuals have their own right to make their choices, as long as it is legal and morally acceptable.

Finally, liberalism is an ideology which strongly supports individualism.

Just my two cents.

[Dr House]

Liberalism is the love of liberty. The term has been butchered in America by "positive liberalists" who think that individual liberty should be surrendered for equality for all. They're not liberalist. They are progressive and secularist, but not liberal. Real liberals (classical liberals) like me know that individual liberty should have priority in policy decisions. We do not see government action as inherently evil, but we still think it should be strictly limited to providing security and public goods.

[Dr House]

They merely adapted the analysis to appreciate the instabilities of capitalism. Those abusing the "classical liberal" term (and it is abuse as they're fed low brow libertarian tosh) are just suffering from economic knowledge deficiencies

No, we're not. I am an economist, thank you very much. And I've studied all theories of how the economy works (yes, including Marx's theory). Libertarians are extremist anarchist wackos, I do not count myself as one of them.

[Dr House]

How can you group Sweden and France in with any third world middle-eastern country? That only gives me reason to believe that you've never actually been to Europe, and don't actually know anything about living conditions in other parts of the world.

America is indeed the best country in the world to live if you can afford all of the luxuries of living there. However, for the average low/middle-class worker, you would live a much more peaceful, happy, safe and healthy existence somewhere else like Sweden, Canada, France, Norway, or Australia to name a few. The low and middle-class American is far worse off than their counterparts in many other developed countries

I have never argued the quality of life in European social democracies is any worse than it is over here. It's just unsustainable. Those countries are drowning in debt, even as they drown their people in taxes. The sovereign debt in France is 250% of GDP, even though they tax an average of 35% of people's incomes (even more, considering the embedded costs of Value Added and corporate taxes). Similarly, Italy's debt is 105% of GDP. The US, on the other hand, has a debt of about 75% of GDP, and that's because tax rates, at about 25% of income on average, are not enough to cover government expenses. Also, their economy is growing at a VERY sluggish rate, and has failed to create net gains in jobs, so the growing labour force has been crowded out. The result is the government will have to borrow and tax more to sustain the increasingly inert populace, until they will not be able to afford anything other than paying interest on that debt. America is on the same path, but not through a slowdown in economic activity, but a refusal to tax it.