If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Liberalism?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
What does it mean to be a liberal?
The meaning seems confused, people that might be described as left-wing seem to be lumped in with liberals. I believe this has something to do with a differing US meaning.
We have mentioned the three dimensionality of ideology i.e. a liberal may be someone who believes cannabis should be decriminalised in the social sphere or someone who believes in the free-market in the economics sphere but not necessarily both.
What do you think a liberal is?
Do you consider yourself to be one, who else do you see as a 'liberal'?
Most importantly what is wrong with liberal thinking?
The meaning seems confused, people that might be described as left-wing seem to be lumped in with liberals. I believe this has something to do with a differing US meaning.
We have mentioned the three dimensionality of ideology i.e. a liberal may be someone who believes cannabis should be decriminalised in the social sphere or someone who believes in the free-market in the economics sphere but not necessarily both.
What do you think a liberal is?
Do you consider yourself to be one, who else do you see as a 'liberal'?
Most importantly what is wrong with liberal thinking?
0
Comments
They are often categorised under the right wing, so I guess that in Denmark you're not necessarily on the left side of the scale, even if you hold financial liberal views.
To be honest I don't care what people do, as long as they don't hurt others.
Though I do have my views on how things shouldbe done, what is proper and what I regard as morally correct.
But the lines are so blurred is their any point in making such distinctions?
or
Modern Liberal Democrats
or
Modern Liberal views
or
economic liberalism...
which one?
(Read The strange Death of Liberal England by something dangerfield...)
Do you agree with that view of liberalism, i don't. I think some may just mistake a 'liberal' approach to such issues as terrorism as weakness when they are simply different, this seems to be a stupid view of what liberalism means.
Sim: What would you say is the difference between whig liberalism and modern liberalism?
Whig liberals were much more elitist - they were essentially aristocrats who thought that the poor should be given some kind of help...
Modern Liberal Democratism (i.e Lib Dems) is much more egalitarian.
They are both at heart individualist.
Do people agree with the general sentiment?
That said, I believe it is imperitive for a public to assume their civic duty to scrutinise the policies of those they elect to represent them and to denounce those leaders when they attempt to use their positions and the authority that come with them merely for self or selective elite group interest over that of the welfare of the nation at large.
At the international level liberalism lies at the heart of the multilateral frameworks established by the mutual consent of the international community to safeguard the planet from unrestrained unilateral militarism. To trash these frameworks is to undermine a principal means of maintaining checks and balances between the stronger and weaker nations.
I'm generally against liberalism as I percieve it to be a very selfish ideology, there's no sense of community in liberalism or that we should all pull together to make Britain a better place.
I think overall that I am a Democratic Socialist I believe the government should intervene in the market to make it give better results for all of us and I would say I'm moderate in the realms of social liberalism, I accept there must be some state involvement in what people can and cannot do but perhaps some restrictions could be eased and others tightened.
It has it's roots in the Enlightment of the 17th century (John Locke was amongst the earliest of the liberal political philsophers). The classical liberals of the 18th/19th century believed in social and economic freedom for all, provided they respected the freedoms of others.
At the start of the 20th century, liberalism was altered (this new trend known as 'New Liberalism') to include social democratic values of limiting capitalism's inequalities and aiding the poor, vulnerable, etc. In the UK, many of the advocates of a welfare state were liberals. Most contemporary liberal parties in Europe possess this social democratic trend (which was not evident in classical liberalism).
And this may offend, but US 'liberals' are not liberal at all. They place FAR more emphasis on social democracy than on genuinely seeking to enhance and increase freedom.
Yes. Liberalism was an ideology centred around freedom.
Some Conservatives in the UK are socially liberal.
The placement of social liberalism/conservatism on the left-right spectrum simply denotes how outdated it is.
Americans have distorted the meaning of liberalism.
I never claimed it was a text book definition. Also note that I was not speaking of any manifestation of it in concrete party political terms as seceral have done by linking it to a given party model. I was merely voicing my perspective of one principal distincition of liberalism (small l) versus conservatism.
One might also go to the root implications beneath both ends of the divide by simplifying it down to the openness for change and adaption of ideas versus the maintenance of status quo thinking.
We view it within the context of today...not from some book or memory of a different era. They intercepted chatter telling Muslims to leave New York, Boston and other areas because of some planned attack within 48 hours. Now, conseravatives within the government didn't view the intercepted message as credible, but are taking some extra precautions. A true liberal would get distracted with theories. Theories of equality, an adversion to racial profiling...etc. all of which does nothing to keep people safe.
And the 'context of today' has been altered.
Liberalism is about freedom; US liberals care more for aiding the poor and welfare than liberty.
I agree with Pj, Mono, in fatc I was going to put down something almost identical, social welfare can increase peoples freedom by bringing them out of poverty, by educating them and letting them be healthy.
Alloweing people to live inpoverty is a very strtange way to think of these people being free, a very negative and wrong way in my view.
I disagree, considering peoples rights does increase your safety, it increases your safety from the authorities who are best placed to harm you, not the terrorists.