spartan231490 said:
AvroLancaster said:
I think that the word liberal is misused criminally in the United States. Meanwhile in the commonwealth it is usually only used as an alternative to "Social Democrat" and "Conservative."
This bothers me because I am a liberal, I believe that the only guiding principle behind any law is to increase the freedom of a citizen.
Classical Liberalism is a right wing philosophy that gets a hard on for the free market. Most American "conservatives" are either lunatics who believe that the "In God We Trust" on their money means that their country was actually secretly intended to be a theocracy, or are in fact classical liberals. Ronald Reagan was not a conservative, he was a classical liberal.
Reform Liberalism is an umbrella term for not the above. This is where I and most modern liberals (who are not mislabeled social democrats) fall in. We believe, like a classical liberal, that your freedom ends only where my freedom begins and that my freedom ends where your freedom begins. We also believe that if you are wage slaving at McDonald's and living in a cardboard box with no prospects that doesn't qualify as free. The goals of private enterprise are often counter to the well being (again, in a freedom-centric sense) of the population. The government needs to serve as a sentinel, a watchdog that with perfect vigilance and the tenacity of a hawk must guard the freedoms of its people from external threats as well as from both itself and from those that would erode the freedoms of its people from within.
Liberalism is the philosophy that protects the liberty of its people, reform liberalism is the philosophy that adds compassion into the equation and, in my belief, is the most rational choice for any society.
This is my original post, an appeal to Americans and commonwealthers alike, please do not misuse this word, because you are probably a liberal of some sorts deep down and you should look into Liberal parties as viable logical options that wish to see democracy function as it was meant to since its inception.
But who watches the watchers? I agree with your philosophy for the most part, but I think if you work in McDonalds and live in a cardboard box because of decisions you willingly made(no matter how stupid or uninformed you were) is freedom. Freedom cannot exist without the responsibility to accept the consequences of your actions. If you don't have to accept that responsibility because the gov't saves you whenever something goes wrong, then you aren't free. Especially considering that means they have the power to interfere in your life at their discretion, which leads back to who watches the watchers.
TheLoneBeet said:
There's no such thing as Road Rage. Everybody just has varying degrees of Road Intolerance for Stupidity. Those who don't; are the stupid ones. (Yes I did come up with that while driving)
This is an amazing thought, I love it.
Who will watch the watchers?
I think that this statement in this context implies a certain amount of fear or resentment towards the government. I don't mean to leave the impression that I think governments are to be trusted because they are governments, but at the same time, realistically speaking, Spartan, most western governments aren't the boogyman, they aren't out to get you and they certainly aren't tyrannical. Sometimes they might be ineffective or corrupt, but for the most part Canada, USA, UK, Australia, NZ, etc. have governments that are pretty far from the rhetoric that statement implies.
Anyway, with no disrespect intended, I think that your worldview is a little skewed with the McDonald/Box scenario. There is no such thing as equal opportunity, forgetting things like bigotry and prejudice, there are still those who have talent and those who have none, there are still those who have connections and those who have none, there are still those who have inheritance and those who have none, and there are still those who have disability and those who have none.
With the McDonald/Box example the intervention I was proposing wasn't that of government as a saviour coming in to save those who are hard on their luck. I was supporting a philosophy that preserves and protects their freedom. Minimum wage means that a person trapped in a situation where their best job prospect is Mcdonald's (whether you feel they deserve this situation or not) is still somewhat free. They don't need to work 80hours a week to stay alive if their government protects them from their employer's interests by declaring a minimum wage that ensures they can afford life and leisure (at least to some degree). Universal Health Care ensures that an individual who has had the misfortune of disease doesn't have to bankrupt themselves and end up in an 80hour a week scenario down the road (if they live) in order to live.
Reform Liberalism (or any Liberalism) does not afford the government the ability to "interfere in your life at their discretion." It simply posits that your freedom ends where mine begins. Mine ends where yours begins.
In the specific context of Reform Liberalism this is interpreted to mean more than a strict formal legal equality. It means that the person who screwed up their life and can work only at McDonald's (or the person who through circumstances beyond their control must do the same, really, it's unfair to judge) can still be free.
I really hope this doesn't come off as confrontational - it isn't, it's more of a clarification. I think that if the philosophy of a government, of a constitution, is that the freedom of an individual is the most important thing, more important than their very life, then I would assume they have already worked out who will watch the watchers - and it's probably a pretty damn good compromise.
)
