Isn't the "liberalism" category too broad? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#1874858
Isn't the category of this sub-forum a little broad? Whereas libertarianism is reduced to mean a laissez-faire night watchman state, the ambigious term liberalism is very broad, and given the description provided by this forum ("Modern liberalism. Civil rights & liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare)."), it includes at least conservative liberalism, social liberalism and social democracy, possibly even more ideologies.

Further, I think it is incorrect to equate classical liberalism with libertarianism the way the libertarianism sub-forum description does.
User avatar
By Prosthetic Conscience
#1875864
Since the traffic in the forum is fairly small, I can't see any point in further sub-dividing it. I think we tend to be less dogmatic about politics, and so we have fewer urges to tell the world about the only way it can be saved.
User avatar
By Okonkwo
#1875877
Prosthetic Conscience wrote:I think we tend to be less dogmatic about politics, and so we have fewer urges to tell the world about the only way it can be saved.

I agree. Many liberals tend to be pragmatic, there is not much to discuss - the general ideas of liberalism are clear to everybody and the rest is up to every individual to decide and to change in certain situations.

Arminius wrote:I think it is incorrect to equate classical liberalism with libertarianism the way the libertarianism sub-forum description does.

Why? They are used almost interchangeably and they share the ideas of laissez-faire and individualism as well as the state existing solely to protect property rights. You could argue that libertarians much go further than classical liberals, but then again at some point it is anarchism. The boundaries of that bunch of ideologies are very blurred.
User avatar
By perpetuum
#1876815
The only thing most liberals agree on is social freedom, meaning non-interference in personal life of citizens or their actions unless they infringe others freedom. Economic and foreign policy issues vary greatly among liberals.
By Order
#1876938
Liberalism won. There is not point in discussing common sense. While this might sounds a bit arrogant, it is quite true. The basic liberal values are shared by conservatives, libertarians, social-democrats etc alike. All states of the western world are organised according to liberal principles. Everything not liberal is a fringe opinion and marginalised. (I am obviously referring to real "liberalism" and not the almost derogatory American use of the word)
User avatar
By perpetuum
#1878071
Order, would you be kind enough to explain to me what is the difference between European liberals and North American. My only source of information comes from Liberal Democrats of UK, and after reading their platform I do not see the difference between your Liberals and ours.
By Order
#1878161
perpetuum wrote:Order, would you be kind enough to explain to me what is the difference between European liberals and North American. My only source of information comes from Liberal Democrats of UK, and after reading their platform I do not see the difference between your Liberals and ours.


I was not referring to actual differences but to different uses of the word in the US and Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_lib ... liberal.22
User avatar
By Karl_Bonner_1982
#1878259
I think most of the people who call themselves liberals agree on basic tenets: a competitive market economy, a commitment to personal freedom and equal rights, and a rejection of arbitrary belligerence in foreign policy.
By Arminius
#1881177
Order, would you be kind enough to explain to me what is the difference between European liberals and North American. My only source of information comes from Liberal Democrats of UK, and after reading their platform I do not see the difference between your Liberals and ours.


Try mainland Europe, like the Dutch VVD. To the right of the Lib Dems, but certainly not as extreme as the US LP.

Why? They are used almost interchangeably and they share the ideas of laissez-faire and individualism as well as the state existing solely to protect property rights. You could argue that libertarians much go further than classical liberals, but then again at some point it is anarchism. The boundaries of that bunch of ideologies are very blurred.


Maybe so. I would say libertarianism may have a certain overlap with classical liberalism, but also a certain overlap with anarchism.

Consider Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill. They were classical liberals, but hardly libertarians.

The only thing most liberals agree on is social freedom, meaning non-interference in personal life of citizens or their actions unless they infringe others freedom. Economic and foreign policy issues vary greatly among liberals.


Oh, so that is the mainstream definition (in the US, that is)? I.e civil libertarianism coupled with various degrees of a free market economy. But then, libertarianism would be a subset of liberalism.

From what I've read by American liberals, they strongly emphasize the public good, and basically have a collectivist worldview. The individual doesn't seem to be of much value to them.

Liberalism won. There is not point in discussing common sense. While this might sounds a bit arrogant, it is quite true. The basic liberal values are shared by conservatives, libertarians, social-democrats etc alike. All states of the western world are organised according to liberal principles. Everything not liberal is a fringe opinion and marginalised. (I am obviously referring to real "liberalism" and not the almost derogatory American use of the word)


In a way, yes. Modern social democrats for instance, have abandoned any idea of a command economy, and hardly call themselves socialists anymore. Likewise, many modern conservatives have accepted to do away with the estate society, and they no longer support an absolutist king.

Though if liberalism has won, why are drugs, prostitution and free speech still illegal to various extents?


Btw am I badly blind, or does this forum lack a direct quote function?
User avatar
By Prosthetic Conscience
#1881746
Arminius wrote:Btw am I badly blind, or does this forum lack a direct quote function?


No, it's there now (there was a time when it had been removed), in the 'Topic Review' box that comes up after you hit 'Post Reply' - top right of each recent post, marked as 'Quote'.

Some time ago, admin removed it altogether, because they got pissed off at people quoting a whole post just to reply to one little bit. So good PoFo etiquette is to edit what you're quoting down to just the relevant stuff. And it doesn't allow quotes inside quotes - they pissed admin off too.
By Order
#1881768
Arminius wrote:In a way, yes. Modern social democrats for instance, have abandoned any idea of a command economy, and hardly call themselves socialists anymore. Likewise, many modern conservatives have accepted to do away with the estate society, and they no longer support an absolutist king.

Though if liberalism has won, why are drugs, prostitution and free speech still illegal to various extents?


Prostitution is increasingly acquiring legal recognition in the western world, so that taboo is slowly fading away in many countries. Beyond that, however, liberalism is a broad church. Being against a legalisation of drugs and some parts of free speech is not inherently illiberal. While the heart of liberalism is the individual and his/her rights to liberty and equality there is wide debate about what those rights should be (beyond a certain core) and how they can be reconciled with the demands of society.
To answer the initial question what liberalism is: I think what unites liberals across the political spectrum is that they see the an individual with rights as the basic unit of society.
By Arminius
#1887096
Prostitution is increasingly acquiring legal recognition in the western world, so that taboo is slowly fading away in many countries. Beyond that, however, liberalism is a broad church. Being against a legalisation of drugs and some parts of free speech is not inherently illiberal. While the heart of liberalism is the individual and his/her rights to liberty and equality there is wide debate about what those rights should be (beyond a certain core) and how they can be reconciled with the demands of society.


Hmm yes, though I'd say freedom of speech is pretty "core".

To answer the initial question what liberalism is: I think what unites liberals across the political spectrum is that they see the an individual with rights as the basic unit of society.


But that can include a very wide range of positions. Maybe liberalism should then be compared to democracy - i.e a certain way of running things - rather than an ideology.


Though I think you still have a point. Yesterday I read an interview done by a Muslim with a neofascist, and how they opposed the "liberal world order".
By Order
#1887170
Arminius wrote:Hmm yes, though I'd say freedom of speech is pretty "core".


It is, but it is quite contested what that entails. Hate speech? Pornography? State secrets? Only an extremely small number of liberals would actually claim that complete freedom of spech is the right thing.

Arminius wrote:But that can include a very wide range of positions. Maybe liberalism should then be compared to democracy - i.e a certain way of running things - rather than an ideology.


Modern democracy is a liberal idea. And yes, on a very basic level, liberalism seems to include a very wide range of ideas. But this range only appears to be broad because many opinions outside the liberal framework are simply not heard anymore. As I said in my first post:
Order wrote:Liberalism won. There is not point in discussing common sense. While this might sounds a bit arrogant, it is quite true. The basic liberal values are shared by conservatives, libertarians, social-democrats etc alike. All states of the western world are organised according to liberal principles. Everything not liberal is a fringe opinion and marginalised. (I am obviously referring to real "liberalism" and not the almost derogatory American use of the word)

In that sense you are right to consider liberalism a certain way of running things instead of an ideology, it has lost its status as political ideology and has become something that we simply accept without questioning it. (In all this, I do not refer to liberalism defined in the American sense as a smear word for left-to-center democrats)
#14735381
@ perpetuum
perpetuum wrote:The only thing most liberals agree on is social freedom, meaning non-interference in personal life of citizens or their actions unless they infringe others freedom. Economic and foreign policy issues vary greatly among liberals.

This is a good starting-point. Liberalism advocates the personal autonomy of the individual. People must be able to take responsibility for their own lives, so that they become unique persons. Obviously, this implies that they possess the required proficiencies, and notably that they behave as rational beings. The vital instrument to reach the liberal goal is the maintainance of the natural human rights.
Karl_Bonner_1982 wrote:I think most of the people who call themselves liberals agree on basic tenets: a competitive market economy, a commitment to personal freedom and equal rights, and a rejection of arbitrary belligerence in foreign policy.

Perhaps this is also true, but here the liberal principle is already translated into policy recommendations. Whereas principles are fixed, policies are debatable. For instance, liberalism does stimulate the competition among different cultures. Thus it is reconcilable with the expansion of convictions across national borders.

Imho the real challenge of liberalism is the definition of personal autonomy. For human beings do not behave in a rational manner. Their mental capacity is limited, and instinctive urges may even lead to self-destruction. So a friendly and liberal paternalism actually helps the individuals to prosper.
Arminius wrote:Though if liberalism has won, why are drugs, prostitution and free speech still illegal to various extents?

Liberalism has not won. Leninist dictatures, feudal agriculture, religious fundamentalism and downright anarchy still reign the world.

Drugs, prostitution and deceit are prohibited in liberalism, because unfortunately individuals are equiped poorly for accepting responsibility. Liberalism must take into account the human nature, if it wants to be more than merely an academic exercise.

The good news is, that in many cases the individuals are sufficiently rational to favour self-imposed restrictions. Thus the people may lay down laws in a democratic way, for instance with regard to drug abuse. Indeed it is true that such laws harm those individuals, who enjoy drugs and can control their own consumption. No system is perfect.
#14735395
@ Prostetic Conscience
Prostetic Conscience wrote:@Stegerwald You're posting in a 7 year old thread, quoting two members who last posted in 2009, and one who last posted in 2013.

Good luck.

This is off-topic, but nonetheless, thank you. Perhaps the best is yet to come! ;)
#14735893
@ Arminius
Arminius wrote:it includes at least conservative liberalism, social liberalism and social democracy, possibly even more ideologies. ... Modern social democrats for instance, have abandoned any idea of a command economy, and hardly call themselves socialists anymore.

The traditional ideology of the social-democracy requires the socialization of the economy. Socialization is not reconcilable with liberalism, since the rule of the community will stifle the activities of enterprising individuals. However, during the interbellum the social-democracy has already abandoned the idea of a complete socialization. Still, it remains debatable whether the subsequent social-democrat ideas (central planning in an economy based on private property, rigorous Keynesian policies) can be realized within a liberal system.

However, the social-democrat movement of the new radical centre is definitely a form of liberalism. For instance, Anthony Giddens, one of the ideologists of the Third Way, states that socialism is inadequate, because it fails to grasp the importance of markets. The Third Way advocates equality, protection of the vulnerable, freedom as autonomy, no rights without responsibilities, no authority without democracy, cosmopolitan pluralism, and philosophic conservatism. Here conservatism refers to continuity in for instance family life and the environment. None of this contradicts liberalism.
#14736362
@ TheRedBaron
TheRedBaron wrote:However, the social-democrat movement of the new radical centre is definitely a form of liberalism.

This is not evident. In fact, it is a risky statement, and probably a lot of people will disagree with you. So the burden of proof rests on you, and you must substantiate this claim.
#14737033
@ Stegerwald
Stegerwald wrote:So the burden of proof rests on you, and you must substantiate this claim.

Let me make a shot at it. Although the ideology of the new radical centre is global, her most prominent leaders are Clinton, Blair and Schröder. They advocate the equality of chances, not of results. Everybody must get the opportunity to develop his talents. Besides, the radical centre guarantees a humane existence for all. However, this personal right is based on reciprocity, and therefore it is conditional. The positive rights contain a clause. Everybody has the obligation to maximize his productivity.

Consequentially the radical centre aims to activate people, who lay claim to social security. Any productive activity is better than passive consumption, both for society and the individual himself. There is a merit in earning ones own living. This is sometimes called workfare. The economic policy as a whole can be labeled flexicurity. The emphasis on productivity also means that demand side policies are rejected, and replaced by supply side policies. The state is restrained with respect to economic interventions. In particular he does not create jobs by himself.

Still the state maintains a fairly large budget, but this is spent on empowering facilities such as child care, parent leave, and adult education. These are investments in human and social capital.

Thus the radical centre propagates a conditional personal autonomy, and is compatible with liberalism. In fact some believe that it is the most authentic variety of liberalism. However, there is a caveat. It is still unclear if workfare and state-provided activation do yield satisfactory results. They will definitely change the targeted people, but the efficiency of this change remains yet to be seen. To be honest, I can not answer this vital question.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]