[foilist13]

Simple question. Do most Liberals associate themselves with Democrats, and vice versa? (I believe this only applies to the US, but i would not be surprised if i were wrong.

[AmarArora]

Most yes. but not all.
I consider my self a Democrat, but a semi-liberal.
but i would say that in the USA, a Democrat and Republican are maybe Centre Left and Centre Right repectivly. In other parts of the world where u would describe a "Democrat and Republican" you would get the impression of Total Left Wing or Total Right wing.

[foilist13]

Hmm, do any democrats consider themselves right wingers, or would they be contradicting themselves?

[Metal Gear]

All democratic capitalists are liberals. The internal debate in American politics is a misleading and false one. Both parties are basically the same.

[foilist13]

And you came to that conclusion how?

[AmarArora]

All democratic capitalists are liberals. The internal debate in American politics is a misleading and false one. Both parties are basically the same.

heh yea, cause we all want a change

And you came to that conclusion how?

dont both parties want "Change" in the United states? Conservative and Liberal ideas in the USA, are differnt from Conservative and Liberal Ideas from other parts of the world.
i see Conservatism and Liberalism in USA and Canada too much the same, with a few minor differences and even less major differences.

[foilist13]

Thats because politicians use the ideologies as a means to office rather than an end to be achieved in office. They tell people what they want to hear, not what they believe.

[Cartertonian]

Here in the UK, the third largest party is indeed called the Liberal Democrats, having been called rather clumsily (when I first got involved with them) the SDP/Liberal Alliance. SDP was the Social Democratic Party, BTW.

Back then, they occupied the centre ground of politics between Margaret Thatcher's rabid Right-wing Tory administration and Neil Kinnock's ineffectual and plaintively socialist Labour party.

However, by 1997 the Tories had come left, while 'New' Labour had come right, and the Lib Dems were squeezed out of the centre ground. As a result they reacted by lurching further left even than the old die-hards of the Labour party, at which point my support for them ceased.

[humanrights]

The Democratic Party isn't defined by liberalism because liberalism is best, and perhaps only, defined by the Libertarian party platform. Liberalism is the ideology that government exists ONLY to protect the rights of individuals.

Democratic ideology, in my opinion, stands for supporting government efforts to police, educate, litigate and redistribute wealth for the poor and minorities. In other words, Democratic ideology seems to stand for a police state administered socialistic government. Taxes on the middle class, high arrest rates, bussing, affirmative action and many other programs support my view that the Democratic ideology is neither liberal nor user friendly for the middle class.

In that wealth pools in the hands of the very wealthy, our government seems to have Czar-like wealth and power. A nation caught between Democratic ideologies and Republican ideologies seems to have moved a tad towards Czarist, pre communistic Russia.

[Dr House]

Liberalism is the ideology that government exists ONLY to protect the rights of individuals.

Yeah, as outlined by the Human Rights charter. Not Lockean natural rights.

Libertarianism and modern liberalism are the same thing.

[humanrights]

The following rights are among the rights that a libertarian government should protect. We have the right to eat, breath, have sex, have food, clothing, health care and all the other necessities for life. A libertarian government should also protect the rights to liberty and the right to pursue happiness.

I. BASICS
The fundamental Lockean libertarian view comprises four claims:
1. Each person has a moral right to do whatever she chooses with whatever she legitimately owns unless her actions would harm nonconsenting other people in certain ways that violate their rights.
2. Each person has the right not to be harmed by others by physical assault, interference with liberty by coercion or force, physically causing damage to person or property, extortion, theft or fraud, breach of contract, libel, or threat of any of the preceding.
3. Each adult person legitimately owns herself.
4. All of these moral rights are forfeitable by misconduct, transferable from their holder to another by mutual consent, and waivable by voluntary consent of their holder.3
An important derivative element in Lockean theory is that from the premises above, given a world in which material resources are initially unowned, it follows that individuals can acquire extensive private ownership rights over material resources.4

[Dr House]

We have the right to eat, breath, have sex, have food, clothing, health care and all the other necessities for life.

God I wish

None of those rights were outlined in your quote, and none were espoused by Locke or are embraced by his libertarian following.

Myself, I don't believe in rights, which are a fungible man-made concept anyway. I am a strict utilitarian.

[humanrights]

Utilitarinaism:

1: a doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences ; specifically : a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number
2: utilitarian character, spirit, or quality

I'm still not clear what that means.

As for rights, I believe that once you decide that the only right of government is to protect human rights, then all you have to do is define those rights and presto, you have defined a functional government. If the rights are well defined and the manner in which government protects those rights is engineered properly, then good government will emerge.

It is my theory, that to define a good constitution all you need is a good declaration of human rights, like the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights plus the concept that the only right of government is to defend those rights and presto, you have a valid constitution.

[Kasu]

Liberalism is the ideology that government exists ONLY to protect the rights of individuals.

Don't you mean neo-liberalism?

[humanrights]

Don't you mean neo-liberalism?

Enlighten me. Everybody seems to have their own idea what a liberal is. Most of the definitions of liberal seem incorrect.

I am just trying to differentiate between the policies of the Democratic party and true liberalism. Any help is appreciated.

I believe that the platform of the Libertarian party pretty well encapsulates the liberal concept.

I believe the policies of the Democratic party are designed to protect their constituency: Government workers, the poor, blacks, minorities, socialists, the police, lawyers, judges, educators, and the mono sexual.

I believe the policies of liberals are to protect the rights for all.

I believe the policies of the Republican party are designed to protect their own constituency.

[Kasu]

Well as far as I know, Neo-liberalism is the process of de-regulating the market, letting the free-market run wild, limiting government to protect the basic rights..

While liberalism, is what the democratic party (to some extent), and other social democratic parties try to promote. Government regulation in the market, minimum wage laws and other labor laws, welfare, and etc to prolong the life of capitalism by making it "user-friendly".

I think neo-liberalism, at least in today's society, would only hasten capitalism's decay and destruction.

[humanrights]

The macro marketplace between nations largely establishes which products a nation will buy and sell. The prices are essentially established NOT by a FREE MARKET, but by trade agreements. Not directly you understand but indirectly. The mini marketplace of the stores has a minor effect on prices.

America better manage the macro marketplace better, or America will cease to exist.