What "an ideal society" means to libertarians and liberals

So you realize you were wrong. Good.

 

I think it was rather implicit that I think policy should be geared around progressing toward such a society, as opposed to now where it's mostly geared around rich people.

 

To be honest, it's pretty widely understood that in a more left wing society, people have more individual agency than they would in the hypothetical society libertarians like to dream up. Yeah you have to pay for your neighbours health care, but you aren't a toy of the market. Unless of course, you don't measure freedom by how much individual agency someone has and instead measure it by how much money they're allowed to hoard, which you probably do.

- - - Updated - - -

I can't respond to it intelligently because I'd be bogged down in your script. You were using loaded language.

 

It's imperative you watch the Documentary " Park Avenue " on Netflix

 

The origins of Liberalism was a defensive move by the rich to protect their wealth. They saw the rise of Communism and Socialism around the world. At the turn of the century, they looked at America and saw a country with a high concentration of wealth in the hands of the rich. Thoughtful rich people decided to start a movement called Liberalism. They saw massive growth of Communism in Europe and worried that that philosophy will come to the US. So their thinking was, it is better that we give up some of our wealth and share it with the poor than to loose it all to a Communist revolution. The ultimate goal is the make the government look compassionate in order to make people feel like there is no need to change the government.

Liberalism is a merger between individualism and collectivism. Liberalism believes in equal opportunity. That's the difference Liberals and other Lefties. Liberals give you the seed money to get your life started. They'll give you money to go to college. What you do after you graduate is up to you.

Socialist believe in equal outcome. Their attitude is that the money the rich have was ill gotten cash of the backs of workers and that since they exploited the workers they need to give it back. Socialist believe in taking that money and giving it to the poor.

Notice the influence of the rich on American Liberalism? Basically it says, I'll give you some money but I get to keep my money. The socialist says, no way. We are taking your money. Most of it. All of it if we can.

So what would a good Liberal look like? In foreign policy? They argue for neutrality. In social policy the Liberal is a civil libertarian. They are for tolerance, safe legal abortion, same sex marriage, legal drugs and so on. In the economic sphere they are for mitigating the inequities of the market thru government programs A good Liberal does not go out to punish the rich but help the poor. They will encourage people to be all that they can be and offer them seed money to work themselves out of poverty.

To bad the old time Liberal are gone from the Democratic Party. Today's Democrats are nothing more than sheep in wolves clothing. They are Communist and Socialist who want to punish business, punish success.

 

Um... just answer me this question if you will (I hope I had not quoted you before, I dont bother to check)

Does that entail taking money from others to pay your bill?

Simple yes or no question.

 

Very well then, why don't you point out how the OP had misinterpreted anything that liberals' ideas and ideals would eventually evolve into?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh rank pulling? On the internetz? Really?

C'mon! Address his post! Not himself!

 

I'm indifferent. There are tax free models of socialism but I don't care either way.

 

Only because the term is hijacked by a large subset of the political left to label their own ideology. See "Liberalism" by Ludwig Von Mises for some insight. A few key paragraphs:

 

You're clearly talking about Classical Liberalism. Modern Liberalism is basically another term for "centrist" in the US while it retains its original meaning everywhere else (ie, Liberal Party of Australia).

 

Awww! Don't scream "Yes" out that loud!

 

Maybe someone can tell me when the American conservative movement became populated entirely by anarcho-capitalists? I thought they liked the police and military if noting else.

 

We are not really talking about conservatism, FYI.

 

Social equality is such a dishonest term. Who determines what groups should and should not be equal and in what context they're equal?

 

Is this really an honest attempt to sum up the views or liberals and libertarians, or is it just a poor try at trolling? It fails either way, but maybe I can help.

 

there is a good deal of truth here.

 

Ah, easy, 1, liberals, 2, monetary

(no sarcasm intended)

 

Not sure yet.........

 

I have no problem with yes. Libertarians wouldn't have government funded education leading to dummy's with no technological skills, or big Mexico. Libertarians wouldn't have health care and millions would die out of the workforce, entire state populations would die off from diseases. The Black plague comes to mind.

 

Tomorrow, public education all gone. Are you gonna let your kids go ta work or stay at home? No, you wouldn't, you would find a private one and let them move on. I know what you are gonna say :"But there are people, those rednecks for example, that are gonna do just like that!" Yea, right, why do you have reason to believe others would when you are perfectly sure you wouldn't?

Groundless, brainless gut-superiority is a typical trait of all liberals. The only motto true to any liberal is "I'm holier than thou".

 

Leading to dummies who think that a plural takes an apostrophe for some odd reason.

Why would there not be schools? Industry needs trained people and education for children would be largely subsidised by Industry. Teachers could be hired or fired on how good they were not on their political connections. Kids would learn usefull stuff not black history month and 'aren't white people bad' studies.

People in the workpiece would have healthcare provided by their employers and it would be cheaper because there would be no more health care monopolies as there are now.

 

No. What you are describing are libertarians and authoritarians.

People often conflate liberal with authoritarian, but I know several liberals who are libertarian as well.

 

Indeed there are, but their voices were drowned in the cries of the majority of other non-freedom loving liberals.

The conservatives may no less authoritarian than liberals, but at least they love to talk like a libertarian and some of them even have such delusion of being one. Where as liberals don't even bother.

 

How many conservatives are talking about lgbt and women's rights?

 

Libertarians are a very diverse bunch.

I myself have an absolute restriction on initiating force. I won't do it regardless of the consequences, it's wrong. Retaliatory force on the other hand...

We could never ensure that nobody will be able to coerce anyone else. That's how we got into this mess in the first place - governments use non-retaliatory force to combat coercion. They've become criminals themselves.

[hr][/hr]

We can't rely on large corporations and governments to secure our liberty. We have to do it ourselves.

Unfortunately, effective self defense with firearms or even non-lethal weapons is not legal where I live. If attacked, we're to let the criminal have his way with us, then call the police.