Educate yourself far and wide, about science, government, politics, history, psychology, sociology, et al. The more you know, the more complex your view will be, and then can defend your views, which can align itself with liberalism, conversativism, middle of the way, or shifting towards one way or another, or being liberal in one issue, conversative in another, quite complex.

Your question is loaded, like the answer I gave you.

My 2 cents

Good and pertinent answer, Sonadora.
We can arrive at different conclusions from the same data. The problem is the ideologue who simplew ignores data that disagrees with the desired outcome.

And they're on both sides.  :-P

-D

Quote from: redhot1 on March 28, 2016, 08:38:59 PM
I embrace the LGBT community progress, but for other issues, I don't "feel" very liberal about politics.

I just want to be a liberal from now on, but I don't feel 100% compatible with it.

First step is forgetting all the lies the right have conjured up. Such as Obama is a foreigner. Obama has ruined the economy. Liberals want everything for free. We want to take away their guns. Liberals are lazy. The ACA will bankrupt us. Hillary committed a crime with her server. Bernie is a gasp, socialist.

Nowadays, they call anyone who supports the existence of basic human rights a liberal.

My parents and early community were relatively parochial and conservative.  I might have developed a more conservative politic if not for many life experiences that helped me to see how other people live and are impacted by global political factions.  Education takes many forms and a liberal perspective includes compassion and empathy based on human need and less on greed.

The great mass of us are quite capable of seizing control yet are seemingly the pawns and minions of power brokers.  What will it take for the real political revolution we need where people form more cooperative systems than those based on domination?  The dominator systems now in vogue are not our total history or our necessary future. 

Like the label "transgender" political labels often lead to more questions than answers.  And then beauty still has something to do with the observer's subjectivity right?

Liberals in the USA have a proud history that includes advances in civil rights, work place and environmental protections, social security and much more.

I used to be an active Republican. I find that I am a strict conservative. I want to conserve things. Like clean water and air. Equal rights. I want my government to spend its money wisely. These days, the GOP conserves nothing. They are not "for" anything and "against" everything except for bumper sticker phrases that are meaningless.

As the party moved away from my conservative ideals, so did I. But I'd still vote a mixed ticket. I believed in voting for the best candidate. In the mid nineties, I noticed that the GOP representatives started voting as a block. Dissenters in the party were chastised and penalized for voting on bills, confirming judges, etc. with the Democrats. In later years, they supported nothing that Democrats put forth. They wouldn't even put up solid legislation for a vote, not even if they themselves supported such legislation just a year before. They have refused to do their most basic job in passing a budget. They refuse to do the very things they were elected to do.

In the past six election cycles, our rights as trans people have come under attack. The GOP is driven by the far right religious constituency to strip us of all rights. Since they vote as a block and refuse to support my very right to exist, I can no longer vote for any of them.

If you want to understand politics, you must read. You must understand some history as well.  Our involvement with the world is necessarily complicated. We can not detangle ourselves from it. It is never as simple as what you hear from the campaign stump. Barring that, you should examine your self interests. You should determine what is most important to your life and vote accordingly.

Cindi's post is my story too.  The Republican Party of today is not the party of the 60s and 70s before I could vote nor is it the party of the 80s when I did begin to vote.  Today it has morphed into a thinly veiled party of religious fundamentalism.  So, if you are a religious fundamentalist then the Republican Party is for you! 

We have spent the past 12 years fighting wars against religious fundamentalists abroad.  I can see where that type of rule leads and I find that to be an extremely ugly place.  Maybe I could again be a Republican, but not until they dump the evangelical platform they currently embrace.


Sapere Aude

Quote from: Tessa James on April 04, 2016, 12:15:47 PM
My parents and early community were relatively parochial and conservative.  I might have developed a more conservative politic if not for many life experiences that helped me to see how other people live and are impacted by global political factions.  Education takes many forms and a liberal perspective includes compassion and empathy based on human need and less on greed.

Before I offered a material argument, but I agree with Tessa that there is an equally strong moral argument.

Not only does the right view redistribution as economically pernicious, but they also equate it to theft. The problem with this argument is that while we have free will, we are all doing our best and it is material circumstances that dictate the trajectory of our lives. Therefore, those with propitious circumstances are lucky and have a duty to help the unfortunate.

If you still don't believe the fortunate should help the unfortunate, then put yourself behind John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance." Wouldn't you want a government to temper the results?

I wonder how many here actually know the difference between a democracy and a republic...I could never be a liberal for I don't believe in taking someone's hard warned money and give it to someone who is lazy and don't work. I have a iq above mensa level and knew more about our govt and history by the time I was 9 , this was one part of why it was hard to make friends for I was a know it all for I'm always studying something on my own. I never went to college for school bored the hell out of me and the teachers found it was hard to teach me so they left me to my own studies which made the smart kids upset. I know all about liberalism,go to n.korea,china,iran,or Cuba how that worked out..In venezuela they are revolting against liberalism,for liberalism is a fancy word for socialist...

Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 11:32:27 AM
I wonder how many here actually know the difference between a democracy and a republic...I could never be a liberal for I don't believe in taking someone's hard warned money and give it to someone who is lazy and don't work. I have a iq above mensa level and knew more about our govt and history by the time I was 9 , this was one part of why it was hard to make friends for I was a know it all for I'm always studying something on my own. I never went to college for school bored the hell out of me and the teachers found it was hard to teach me so they left me to my own studies which made the smart kids upset. I know all about liberalism,go to n.korea,china,iran,or Cuba how that worked out..In venezuela they are revolting against liberalism,for liberalism is a fancy word for socialist...

I concede that empowering the government can be dangerous, but no one advocates that the U.S. should become like the countries you listed.

On the issue of redistributing wealth, everyone agrees this must occur in some capacity, but you believe it should occur in a lesser capacity, while I believe it should occur in a greater capacity. The reason for my conclusion is that all the data I've read dictates that greater redistribution would increase utility.

Before I explain my position, could you explain why you believe it would be more beneficial to decrease redistribution?

Liberalism (Does Not Equal) Communism

Liberalism (Does Not Equal) Islamic Theocracy

Both of those often used comparisons are Red Herrings.


Sapere Aude

So you believe in taking someone's wealth from them that they worked hard for and give it too someone who doesn't have wealth because they squandered the opportunity and didn't become wealthy? It would be like me taking your car because I can't afford one but you can,wouldn't I be stealing? Same way with redistribution of wealth,your stealing from those who have and giving it too someone else after you take your cut. I know how this plays out and no one wins. Liberalism is socialism both have the same agenda and no one wins but the pigs..whoops almost quotes animal farm which I wish more would read.

  This thread has been drifting off topic and isn't answering the  OP's question. Bring it back on topic or this will be split off to a separate topic 10 post back 

To answer the question truthfully,if you want to be a liberal take your neighbor's lawnmower and give it too someone who needs a lawnmower and charge a handling fee for your trouble. You do this your a liberal.

Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 06:07:24 PM
So you believe in taking someone's wealth from them that they worked hard for and give it too someone who doesn't have wealth because they squandered the opportunity and didn't become wealthy? It would be like me taking your car because I can't afford one but you can,wouldn't I be stealing? Same way with redistribution of wealth,your stealing from those who have and giving it too someone else after you take your cut. I know how this plays out and no one wins. Liberalism is socialism both have the same agenda and no one wins but the pigs..whoops almost quotes animal farm which I wish more would read.

To speak directly to the original post, if you accept materialism and compatibilism, then you appreciate the products of our exertions, but you view our good and bad fortune as products of luck. Therefore, when someone asks for help, you understand that their situation is caused by material circumstances (both internal and external), and they are doing their best. As a result of this empathy, you believe the fortunate have a moral imperative to help the unfortunate, and you believe the world is a better place when we guarantee each other a decent minimum standard of life and a decent chance of upward mobility.

If the data showed excess spending (high interest rates and high inflation), then I might agree with you that we would be better off with less spending, but the opposite is true. While conservative economics is based on some economic theory, because of the fear of becoming an autocracy, conservatives are afraid to take nuanced approach to improving the aggregate human condition. It is precisely because of our nuanced approach though, that we aren't an autocracy. 

Become a judge.

That is not a snide remark. Statistics have shown that over the length of their careers, judges tend to move their entire ideology to the left. In particular supreme court judges. Obviously, there are exceptions to every generalized study or truth. It is speculated that if they allow themselves to see from multiple perspectives, an empathy is established.

With regards to your parents or anyone putting one news media outlet on a pedestal and all others in the trash, it is unreasonable. Lumping groups together and saying they are all bad  is a simplified way to proceed through life.

Very little is black and white. The variations of grey are what make things kind of cool and realistic. I would encourage you to  read or watch two or three news outlets with differing places on the political spectrum. It is very eyeopening to see two reports of the same incident. You don't have to become a liberal.  Take a look at which view from the outlets makes the most sense to you and be what they represent.

Do not close yourself off to possibilities. It is hard in a dark very politically polarized world to be objective and find truths in more than one way. However, I would suggest that is what the original deep thinkers would have encouraged us to do.

However, these are purely my truths. They may not be yours or anyone elses.

With warmth,

Joanna

in America i am so far left i might as well be in space aka democratic socialist on the world scale and yes there a difference I'm consider a moderate. Really being liberal is all apart of how you are raise how likely you are to fall away from main stream media. How you see other people if you can have sympathy for them. If you believe people are inherently evil or good. Not to mention how you set your own morals or if you let others set them for you through religion, family values and political to.

Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 10:33:32 PM
To answer the question truthfully,if you want to be a liberal take your neighbor's lawnmower and give it too someone who needs a lawnmower and charge a handling fee for your trouble. You do this your a liberal.

I appreciate that you've listened to/watched conservative propaganda. Unfortunately, that doesn't explain your so-called "redistribution" theory.

The purpose of a system of progressive taxation, i.e., those with higher incomes pay a higher tax rate, is that the revenue is utilized for the public good. So what constitutes the "public good?" Let's start with infrastructure projects. Those earning the highest incomes are likely owners (at least through stock purchases) of entities that use publicly owned roads, bridges, and public transportation systems to move goods and people who provide services. When governments, local, state, or federal, use tax-generated revenue to fund maintenance and improvements to roads, bridges, and public transportation systems, additional high-paying construction jobs are created.

The people who are newly employed as a result of the new projects will use their wages to purchase goods and services from companies that will need to hire additional workers to meet demand. Those workers will purchase additional goods and services which will result in even more workers to meet demand. That's a lot of economic growth for the price of repaving roads and structurally improving bridges.

Cheryl, you've been sold a bill of goods about "communist" governments confiscating wealth and giving it to those who refuse to work. In the American democratic republic, that's not how it works. Gainful employment provided by those who value legitimate work promotes human dignity. Claiming that legitimate taxation represents government confiscating wealth fails to recognize the benefit to society as a whole, including your plutocrats, who will still be able to afford all the houses, yachts, and private jet airplanes their precious little hearts desire.

Quote from: cheryl reeves on April 12, 2016, 11:32:27 AM
I wonder how many here actually know the difference between a democracy and a republic...I could never be a liberal for I don't believe in taking someone's hard warned money and give it to someone who is lazy and don't work. I have a iq above mensa level and knew more about our govt and history by the time I was 9 , this was one part of why it was hard to make friends for I was a know it all for I'm always studying something on my own. I never went to college for school bored the hell out of me and the teachers found it was hard to teach me so they left me to my own studies which made the smart kids upset. I know all about liberalism,go to n.korea,china,iran,or Cuba how that worked out..In venezuela they are revolting against liberalism,for liberalism is a fancy word for socialist...

I do know that a republic is a representative democracy. I also know that dictatorships are neither far left nor far right. They are dictatorships. Communism (a democratically elected government) has never survived the revolution. Those countries who have tried have ended up with dictatorships.

Socialism necessarily exists throughout our self government AND capitalistic economy. We all help pay for the roads, schools, libraries, medical care (yes ALL of us help with medical care even before the ACA came around), military, law enforcement... on and on. Socialism is another form of the word society. The fact is, even in a dictatorship, everyone gets to help pay for socialistic infrastructure. If you don't want to grow and make everything you need in your life, then by definition, you will require some form of socialism... you know like money. Yes, even currency is a form of socialism. Indeed, people frequently and incorrectly make a false equivalence between Communism, Socialism and sometimes even National Socialism (Nazis who were far right). Go figure.

The question is not whether we have socialism in our government, but how much of it should we allow? Unfortunately, we can't seem to get to that debate. Classically, the conservative (right) side attempts to spend less and the left wants to spend more. But we don't discuss this. Rather, we fight over basic human rights. Those shouldn't ever be considered for debate. But that is where we are. Until we get these "social issues" resolved and get religious dogma out of politics, we won't have that discussion.

Cindi

Quote from: Cindi Jones on April 19, 2016, 12:26:41 AM
I do know that a republic is a representative democracy. I also know that dictatorships are neither far left nor far right. They are dictatorships. Communism (a democratically elected government) has never survived the revolution. Those countries who have tried have ended up with dictatorships.

Socialism necessarily exists throughout our self government AND capitalistic economy. We all help pay for the roads, schools, libraries, medical care (yes ALL of us help with medical care even before the ACA came around), military, law enforcement... on and on. Socialism is another form of the word society. The fact is, even in a dictatorship, everyone gets to help pay for socialistic infrastructure. If you don't want to grow and make everything you need in your life, then by definition, you will require some form of socialism... you know like money. Yes, even currency is a form of socialism. Indeed, people frequently and incorrectly make a false equivalence between Communism, Socialism and sometimes even National Socialism (Nazis who were far right). Go figure.

The question is not whether we have socialism in our government, but how much of it should we allow? Unfortunately, we can't seem to get to that debate. Classically, the conservative (right) side attempts to spend less and the left wants to spend more. But we don't discuss this. Rather, we fight over basic human rights. Those shouldn't ever be considered for debate. But that is where we are. Until we get these "social issues" resolved and get religious dogma out of politics, we won't have that discussion.

Cindi

But even today it seems that the republican party still believes in social Darwinism and racial hierarchy as they try to gerrymander minority out of vote and passing religious liberty bill to limit other rights. But in any case the republican/democratic party is link to the insanity of are military industrial complex. Were we spends billions on war with money which we do not have, in country we should not be in. Trying to press American imperialism on the whole world.
  For republicans to say we need to pull money out of schools and the va and cut social programs like social security. how come we never focus on military spending or audit them to check the spending. Why can we create more wars and more cost but not be able to create more social programs to help the nation disadvantage. Why can we not invest in our infrastructure to fix are crumbling sewer system and outdated electrical grid. Are poor and under performing transportation system.
  Now there are many democrats that fall in line with republican and many moderates as well. thus the ideal we need to cut social programs and pull funding from those who most need it. When all we really need to do is pull the military out of there occupation of other nations, were there mostly there to protect u.s. interest in oil. Or to force are unwanted culture upon them.
  But i am democratic socialist and don't believe in ether of the party's. I value economic stability with same respect to social equality. Nether party achieves this and are not worth the effort. you can be liberal on social issues or economic issues or environmental issues. There are so many little things that you can be moderate, liberal, conservative on that if you think freely you will never be a true liberal or conservative.
   Party's of political alliance are worthless especially considering that the rich owns them and don't care about the people they just want there tax breaks and there financial interest. Which includes war which brings them financial success in selling oil and guns, Not to mention it helps them keep there grip on foreign profits by controlling oil in other parts pf the world.