What Is Your Political Philosophy?

No, one can not. They both come from latin and mean freedom.

 

Root words mean nothing. The important factor is that they don't, or better,
no longer mean the same thing. The liberal left is in favor of restricting Liberty.
Practically every bill they want to pass restricts Liberty. The idea of a 'level
playing field' is a pie in the sky philosophy that gives a foot hold for totalitarian
government.

Libertarians don't want to restrict Liberty except in extenuating circumstances.

 

And neither do liberals - the only difference is that liberals believe that those 'extenuating circumstances' include the ability of one person/organisation to restrict the liberty of another, and that everybody should have a fair opportunity to exercise liberty without having it denied by their pre-existing circumstances (being born into poverty, or being the wrong gender or skin colour, etc.).

Here's a few statements of what 'liberalism' means, from actual liberal organisations - these are the principles for which they stand (my added bold, just to highlight how often the words 'liberty', 'free' and 'freedom' appear):

Any definition of 'Liberalism' that is not based on Liberty and Freedom is an entirely inaccurate and incorrect definition.

 

The right is more prone to restrict liberty than the left. How many purely religious moral laws is the left trying to pass?

 

When are they going to start acting on their beliefs?

 

I am already advocating our liberal and federal doctrine.

 

I am a registered Independent that leans toward Conservative especially in fiscal affairs. I think some parts of Liberal philosophy are good BUT I despise Progressive ideology.

 

What purely religious are trying to be passed? I know of none. However,
when the left make a bill it's going to restrict Liberty in some way. What
Liberty is the right restricting? Can you name one?

Here are some recent attemps Liberals wanting to restrict Liberty.

http://nypost.com/2014/07/18/liberalism-turns-against-liberty/
Political Speech - 1st amendment
A constitutional amendment, sponsored by 43 Democrat senators, which
would cut back on the First Amendment and authorize Congress and state
legislatures to restrict political speech.

More

Restrict freedom of Religion - Hobby Lobby

Restriction of the 2nd amendment - gun owners and what they can own.

 

The marriage controversy is merely the right trying to impose morals without any morals test.

Religious liberty applies to Individuals not made up by Individuals for others who may have less gold.

 

The marriage controversy? Truthfully the majority of the people I've
heard bring up 'morals' is the left. I've know their are a handful of
on the right who believe that to be the case. I believe it's been over
blown.

Thanks for providing another Liberal Liberty restriction. Someone claims
that Liberals believe in freedom of religion. Not so. You just showed that
you want to restrict the freedom of some to make it fair for others. The
same goes for taxes. Liberals don't want fairness. If they did then every
body would pay the same rate.

I seriously don't see any evidence that Liberals are in favor of Liberty.

 

Why even deny and disparage the citizens in the several States, but for alleged morals without even any morals test?

 

You may not understand the concepts. Simply making the most rules due to have the most gold has nothing to do with religious freedom. No one is claiming the owners could not simply abstain from actually using any products in our secular markets. The subjective value of morals is just that, and, Individual in nature.

Group rates prevents the establishment of Individual rights in private property for the owners; in addition, group rates establish group ownership.

 

Denying and disparaging isn't the issue. Who creates the morals test?
Why can't a civil union be acceptable?

 

According to your op (above) it matters very much. What do you believe I don't
understand?

Then the morals test you speak of can't be objectively created.

I assume you're speaking of taxes. Paying the same rate in no way hinders
individual or group rights in property ownership. There's no reason for person
A to pay more or less than person B.

 

No, they wouldn't. That would not be fair to the poorest, because the costs of the basics in life are the same whatever your income. Certainly higher tax rates should never be 'punitive' - nobody should be punished for succeeding in life. At the same time, though, a flat tax rate disadvantages those who would only ever be able to afford the very basics in life, and that isn't 'fair' at all. People who work hard for little pay should still be able to afford to live, bt a slightly higher rate of tax on those who earn significantly more certainly does not prevent them from living a very good life.

In the UK we have a Liberal/Conservative coalition government - the way this has been dealt with (at the instigation of the Liberals) is to significantly raise the threshold at which EVERYONE starts paying the basic rate of tax, taking the very lowest earners out of income tax altogether (although they are still subject to other taxes, of course) - EVERYONE benefits from that (to the tune of about £800 per year, over the years of this current government), but those who earn least benefit proportionately the greatest. That £800 per year obviously means a great deal more to those who have little than it does to those who have a great deal - it allows everyone to keep (and spend) more of their own money, while helping those who earn the least be able to have a decent quality of life, and without removing the incentive for them to do better for themselves if they can. It's also good for the economy, of course, because there are now a large number of people able to spend a bit more on their basic stuff for themselves and their families.

As for believing in Freedom of Religion, Liberals certainly do believe in that - they believe that everyone has the right to choose to worship, and follow their own religious path, in the way that they want, and that inevitably MUST mean that nobody has the right to impose their religious standards on anybody else and rob their freedom from them. Freedom can only exist where it exists for everyone - enforced religious conformation, either by enforced worship or by enforced application of specificly religion-based rules, is not freedom at all. There is no freedom where freedom is only 'freedom to do as I say'.

 

Why should it have to be?

The law should be the same for everyone - in a free society, with freedom of religion and freedom of conscience, nobody has the right to impose their religious code on anybody else or enshrine their religious code into law in a way that discriminates against those who do not share that religion.

 

Yes, denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States is the issue.

The several States ratified that rational choice of law in any conflict of laws.

 

Group rates for insurance purposes precludes purely Individual rights in private property. It is group or community property, especially when it is paid for with earned compensation.

 

As a non-partisan Independent, I used to consider my political philosophy one of "small government, constitutional limits on government's power, and freedom for every American citizen to either succeed or fail on their own merits".

Lately, my political philosophy is more like, "I wish every single politician, old-guard insider, money-man, influence peddler, and lobbyist in Washington DC would DROP DEAD".

I know this sounds like radical thinking, but, at this point in history, it really would improve things for the nation.

 

Yes it would. The poor would pay the least amount and the rich would pay
far more.

I've not seen evidence of that in decades and certainly not now.

 

I agree. But the left want to enshrine their religious code upon those who
see no reason to have same sex marriage.

 

Not true. Please answer the rest of the post. Who creates the morals test?

And some haven't. I see no problem here.

 

Those who do not want to have a same sex marriage do not have to marry someone of the same sex - nobody is making anybody do that.

Those who do want to get married to their partner of the same sex would be able to.

Nothing is being imposed on anyone - what would be enshrined in law is that people are free to marry or not marry whatever other consenting adult they like, and that nobody would have the right to stop them or proclaim that they have the right to decide who is allowed to marry and who isn't.

The alternative situation would be one group dictating to another that they aren't allowed to marry even though they want to, and that does not equal freedom. Freedom is not the right to impose one group's standards onto the lives of other people. Not allowing gay marriage would be doing that, while allowing gay marriage is not - it is quite simple.

Allowing gay marriage does not impose anything on the lives of those who don't want to marry people of the same sex.

 

Dude, it isn't the left that wants to be like the right and merely deny and disparage Individual Liberty without even any morals test.

Here is one reason the left wants to be moral enough and bear true witness to our own laws, unlike the right:

Only the right insists on indulging the moral turpitude of bearing false witness to our own laws. It is anecdotal evidence of the necessity and propriety of morals tests on a for-profit basis and not just drug tests. Some may believe that the abomination of hypocrisy is worse than even a crack addiction.

 

Yes, it is true. There is no legal basis to deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States.

I believe that under our form of Capitalism, morals testing companies should have to compete for business to create "better products at lower prices".