Explanation of liberal philosophy

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,664
Location
The Golden State
I read this on another forum, one frequented by more "liberal" (self described) posters than this one. I thought it was interesting, and paints liberal as more libertarian than the way many people view the term.

What do you think?

The textbook definition is that a liberal is someone who prioritizes personal freedom more highly than economic freedom.

That plays out very accurately if you look at the areas where liberals and conservatives in the American spectrum tend to differ. Most times (not always though) the liberal will be focused more on how a particular policy will effect personal freedoms, whereas a conservative will tend to focus on how a particular policy will effect economic freedoms.

At least in the US spectrum there also is a tendency that liberals tend to be more morally relativstic whereas conservatives tend towards moral absolutism. For example, if you look at the abortion issue, conservatives typically take their own moral system, reach the conclusion that they do not find abortion to be right, and they seek to apply their values across the board. A liberal will tend to take the stance that there are many different moral frameworks, that many of them are equally valid, and that in some circumstances some frameworks will say abortion is the wrong choice and in other frameworks and circumstances they will say it is the right choice. So, liberals do not believe that it is right to impose the moral framework of one group on others. Most social issues where liberals and conservatives disagree tend to fall along those lines. That is consistent with the definition of liberals above because respecting personal freedom is largely a process of accepting that different moral frameworks can be equally valid.

Another tendency is that conservatives typically believe that economic outcomes are purely the result of one's own contributions to the economic system. They tend to believe that there is a level playing field and that therefore the poor are poor because of things they did and the rich are rich because of things they did. Liberals tend to believe that there are many circumstances that effect economic outcomes, but which are out of the control of the individual. So, a liberal will seek to soften the blow of negative economic outcomes by harvesting some of the positive economic outcomes because they feel that those outcomes are, to some degree, arbitrary. This fits the defintion above as well because a strong defense of economic freedom means relying on the belief that the economic system is 'fair' and therefore should not be messed with.
 
Werbung:
Seems to be generally true.

To me economic freedom is a personal freedom. In fact property rights are right up there with the other civil rights. In fact, property rights are a more foundational right than most other civil rights. Without a respect of property rights civilization as we know it falls apart.
 
Our founding fathers knew this which is why they wrote life liberty and happiness (which was originally property) into the constitution but not many other so called personal rights. the liberal may value personal rights more but the founders of this country did not and they did not design it with liberal values.

"As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions."
-- James Madison

Regarding the liberal devaluation of economic rights:

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
-- French economist, statesman and author Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850)
 
Seems to be generally true.

To me economic freedom is a personal freedom. In fact property rights are right up there with the other civil rights. In fact, property rights are a more foundational right than most other civil rights. Without a respect of property rights civilization as we know it falls apart.

Property rights are an important freedom, no question. Taking away property without due process is prohibited by the Constitution, but it happens due to the unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws we allow to stay on the books. Taking property via taxation without representation is prohibited also.

There are other important freedoms as well.
 
I dont necessarily disagree with his sentiments. I am one where these issues blur the lines for me. On some issues I lean one way, on a different issue I lean the other way.
I lean more to individual rights, but do so consistently. Such as with gun control.
 
So, liberals do not believe that it is right to impose the moral framework of one group on others.

This is not one of those lines that I think is correct. I think that everyone who wants to influence any law in any way is imposing some moral framework on others whether they think they want to or not.
 
Werbung:
If one is talking about textbook liberals then I think it is generally correct.

Progressives, in practice are different in deed.

Textbook descriptions of dinosaurs are usually correct, too. But they don't exist, and haven't for a long time.

It's always a hoot when modern leftists bring up those ancient textbook definitions of "liberals" and try to pretend by association that they are it.
 
Back
Top