[perpetuum]

It is thread for North Americans.

Term Liberal was molested so freaking much over the last decades that right now it is being associated with hippies, socialists and greens.

One key point of modern liberalism is social justice, however it doesn't mean you get equal pay, standard of living, housing, meals as anyone else. What social justice means is you get equal opportunity to get to your desired standard of living through equal opportunity in getting education and healthcare first of all.

It doesn't mean that it is granted, you still have to bust your ass for it, and if you're hardworking, public will assist you, but you don't get anything for sitting on your ass.

Liberalism isn't anti-capitalist and social justice =! socialism.

Just wanted to get it off my chest. Thoughts?

[John08]

I think Socialism is associated with Liberalism because our "Liberal" Party has a very Keynesian Economic Policy, which is very interventionalist. Many Libertarians (which is a ideology of the Repulican Party) seem to think that there are Libertarians, and Socialist. Those ones (not all Libertarians, just the ones who don't realise the possible ideas within economic policy) will accusse any advocation of a non-Libertarian Policy as Socialism. Truth is irrelevent.

Edit: Post fixed

[perpetuum]

Ugh, it is not. Keynesian economics do not advocate government driven economy. Keynes advocated governmental intervention into the economy, nothing more. Oh, and whether you like it or not even 'conservatives' operate under Keynesian system.

[John08]

Edit: explanation of a concept which was very very far off. This post is no longer needed.

[Paradigm]

Marxian (from my understanding) is something that realises that a completly unregulated economic system is predatory/not very good.

This has nothing to do with what is Marxian. "Marxian" means making a Marxist analysis of something(conflict theory, dialectical materialism, etc.).

[perpetuum]

I do not care about libertarians, they reject the idea of government in economic issues completely. Mainstream ideologies of our time do not neglect it whatsoever whether it is liberalism or conservatism.

Tax cuts are seen as giving more freedom to businesses, while to some degree it is true, to the other degree it is intervention into what % of the capital business can plan to operate with. Whether you like it or not, decrease or increase in taxation is an intervention into the economy.

[Dr House]

I do not care about libertarians, they reject the idea of government in economic issues completely.

As well as government in social issues.

To be fair, though, classical liberalism, which is mainstream liberal on social issues and mainstream conservative on economic ones, falls under the heading of "libertarianism".

[John08]

So, in a Libertarian State, the government can do what? Nothing? Interfernce in economics includes taxes, which allows the government to do what ever else it needs. So, would a Libertarian State be like Anarchy?

[Paradigm]

To be fair, though, classical liberalism, which is mainstream liberal on social issues and mainstream conservative on economic ones, falls under the heading of "libertarianism".

Classical liberalism encompassed a variety of different views ranging from what would today be called libertarianism to something very much like modern liberalism to even quasi-socialist ideas. John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill were all classic liberals with very divergent views. Though they all agreed on personal liberty, they had different ideas about economics(Thomas Paine was an early advocate of social security), none of which fully fits with modern libertarianism, which is much more influenced by Austrian economics.

[Dr House]

So then what would you call a person with mainstream liberal beliefs on social and civil issues, and mainstream conservative beliefs on economic issues?

[Paradigm]

So then what would you call a person with mainstream liberal beliefs on social and civil issues, and mainstream conservative beliefs on economic issues?

A classic liberal. Or in today's terms, a centrist. I once saw an interview with Milton Friedman in which he said that the best word to describe him would be "liberal," but he avoided the term due to modern connotations.

[Dr House]

Yeah I think I saw that interview too.

[Paradigm]

Now that I think of it, the modern term for what you describe would be "neoliberal."

[Potemkin]

A classic liberal. Or in today's terms, a centrist. I once saw an interview with Milton Friedman in which he said that the best word to describe him would be "liberal," but he avoided the term due to modern connotations.

Hayek said basically the same thing about himself, in 'The Road to Serfdom' I believe.

[Octane]

What I think happened is much the same as what happened with the Federalists in post-Revolution America; i.e. a certain group appropriated the name of their opponents to make them look good.

[tornadouk]

I think its ironic that you are complaining that the word liberal is being hijacked by socialists.

What social justice means is you get equal opportunity to get to your desired standard of living through equal opportunity in getting education and healthcare first of all.

If you believe in complete equality of opportunity why don't you advocate that the state should confiscate children from their parents at birth and then raise them. Also shouldn't you penalise those born with the greatest natural abilities?

[perpetuum]

I think its ironic that you are complaining that the word liberal is being hijacked by socialists.

Quote:
What social justice means is you get equal opportunity to get to your desired standard of living through equal opportunity in getting education and healthcare first of all.


If you believe in complete equality of opportunity why don't you advocate that the state should confiscate children from their parents at birth and then raise them. Also shouldn't you penalise those born with the greatest natural abilities?

Because modern day liberalism IS for strong family, family is very important for conservatives, liberals, socialists even commies I think. Family was born right after the man was, so it is our duty to secure it. It doesn't matter what genders are involved though.

[Vera Politica]

Because modern day liberalism IS for strong family, family is very important for conservatives, liberals, socialists even commies I think. Family was born right after the man was, so it is our duty to secure it. It doesn't matter what genders are involved though.

Family is not something which has been consistent throughout history. The family relationship is one that exists in a specific historical econonomic condition. So while communists are for the family, and a strong sense of family they are against the bourgeois family: the economic contract (so to speak).

The family was the first form of exploitative private property relationship (not modern in any sense however)- but you are right, communists (like myself) are not for the abolition of family...far from it.

To the OP: You hit on a really good point, but you seem whiney so perhaps conservatives won't take you seriously. Conservatives are liberals, so in order to avoid confusion i will simply label what the OP is referring to as SOCIAL LIBERALISM. Which is by definition capitalist (as you claimed) and in no way related to socialism or communism.

However, what you got wrong is your idea that welfarism is a socialist/communist phenomena. In fact QUITE THE OPPOSITE. Welfarism, equalism of pay etc is a a phenomena of social liberalism

[Karl_Bonner_1982]

Ugh, it is not. Keynesian economics do not advocate government driven economy. Keynes advocated governmental intervention into the economy, nothing more. Oh, and whether you like it or not even 'conservatives' operate under Keynesian system.

Every time you hear of the need for an economic "stimulus" you are experiencing Keynesian economics in action.

One thing about Keynesian intervention is that it only seeks to tweak the "big picture" (GDP, consumer spending, unemployment, deficits) and not the individual components. My theory of good intervention includes a series of government-induced incentives designed to tweak the microeconomic forces toward a better social and environmental outcome. This involves things like a carbon tax, renewable energy tax credits, smart-growth tax credits, healthy food subsidies or vouchers, fuel inefficiency taxes, and the like.

[Dr House]

Keynesian economics are fail.