- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Yes, but it originally wasn't.
I don't know about you, but I'm definitely writing this in 2016. Its good to know your history, but have to realize that things can change a lot in a few hundred years, especially in politics. In modern America, Liberalism is left-wing. Has been for a while now. If we had a debate about modern communications, would you refer only to rotary phones and ignore the existence of cell phones and the internet?
Classical Liberalism is what liberalism originally was, that is why it is called "classical liberalism".
Liberalism first appeared as modern political philosophy around 1649 with the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth of England. The very first Liberals were the Levelers, who supported some form of democratic rule, suffrage, religious tolerance and equality.
In 1690, John Locke formalized Liberal theory with "Two Treatises". At this point Liberalism stood in stark contrast to Monarchism. If you wanted Democracy and equal rights for all, you were a Liberal. But beyond this there was a lot of wiggle room. A bunch of varieties of Liberalism popped up over the years.
Classical Liberalism began emerging about a century later, but really kicked in during the 1800s. At the time, it was simply one of many subsets of Liberalism, and wasn't known by any special name, but by the writings of Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, David Ricardo and Adam Smith. During the 19th century, this variant of Liberalism grew farther and farther from mainstream Liberalism. Eventually, the two were so far apart that mainstream Liberalism came to be known as Social Liberalism, while the other variant was refereed to a Classical Liberalism, since social Liberalism was considered new, even though it was just an evolution of the mainstream Liberalism.
Before the split, Liberalism was always about Liberty and equality. Now Classical Liberalism focused primarily on Liberty and Social Liberalism focused on economy. Classical Liberalism formed the basis for Libertarianism, which has had an increasing influence on Republican economic policy, aligning it mostly with Conservatism, but not quite.
It indeed is fully liberal, the same as classical liberalism. Some may be conservative, which would be liberal conservatism.
Again, this is 2016. Modern Liberalism trend towards social permissiveness, some form of government influence on the economy and a focus on society as opposed to the individual. The only one of those that Libertarians are focused on is social permissiveness and are strongly in opposition to the Liberal economics and clearly focus on the individuals. So no, 33% is not fully Liberal.
Since they are capitalist(which is a part of classical liberalism), they would be on the right.
Most Liberals are capitalist too. They are definitely not right wing.
That is where you are wrong, nobody "needs" state support.
To have equal access to education, health care and opportunity, a huge segment of our population needs some government assistance at some point in their lives. Later, we'll go into what happens when they don't get it.
That is how it always is. Society is not infinite, there is always a structure, and you are a de facto part of it based on where and when you are born.
In the modern world, we have the tools to mitigate this. And if we use those tools, we can expand our economy.
If you don't like liberty, then enjoy living in a police state(which are unfortunately everywhere).
First off, I said "freedom is great", so I clearly like liberty, I just do not believe it should be fully uninfringed. If you like unhindered Liberty, there are regions of Somalia and Afghanistan you can go to.
Also, police states are not "everywhere". There are a few, but they are very much in the minority.
You clearly lack understanding of this.
Just because you don't agree with me does not mean that I'm the ignorant one.
A true free market means maximizing economic efficiency, ie: no government intervention. Once the market takes control, the winners win more and the losers rarely do. Inevitably, this means all of the wealth accumulates towards the top, the poverty class grows, and the middle class shrinks. Now, what happens when a very tiny minority has most of the wealth and nobody else can buy what the suppliers are supplying? Economic collapse.
That depends on how you view "best".
I view "best" by numeric verification.
You are showing lack of understanding again. First off, the nordic model, canada, and the other European nations are not "democratic socialist", they are based on forms of "social democracy"(there is a difference).
You are correct, but I am using current political parlance in America as identified by the rise of Bernie Sanders. In this sense, "Democratic socialism" is used to differentiate modern brand of "socialism" from "Communist" socialism.
In fact, the success of Scandinavia came before the welfare state, not afterwards. In reality, the welfare state hindered economic growth.
"Success" in terms of a nation is not limited to growth of wealth. Taking such a simplified view of an aggregate of complex topics is extremely myopic.
Do you know why?
Of course. This is what supply-side, limited intervention markets do by nature. Look, we've got the three classes: Upper-class- Generally saves more than they spend. Middle glass- Generally save and spend at more or less the same rate. Lower class- Spends almost everything. Saving is not really a good thing in the economy. It basically suspends money from the economy until it is finally spent. So the upper class doesn't actually put anywhere nears as much money into the economy as they could. The lower class, being by far the biggest and spending the largest percentage of their checks, should be able to float the economy on their shoulders, but they just don't have enough to spend to make a big improvement of the economy.
This is why the middle class is the most important. They spend more of their salaries than the rich and have more to spend than the poor. They do still tend to save a lot, but it usually goes back into the economy more quickly than the saved wealth of the rich.
However, our middle class is shrinking more and more as many of them drop down into poverty. These days, it is easier to fall into poverty, than to rise from poverty into the middle class. So, we have a pyramid. The optimal arrangement in a diamond: small upper and lower classes and a huge middle class. We've been using supply side and trickle down economics for over three decade, and the situation just keeps getting worse.
In many ways, yes. However, we don't know everything.
That is true, but what is your point?
The point is, saying that a certain ideology is towards reality and the others aren't is plain nonsense.
Reality has nothing to do with philosophy. It is facts. Measurements. Historical precedents. If one philosophy happens to line up with the facts, then of course conflicting philosophies won't. Basic logic.
Liberalism isn't left-wing.
In America it definitely is.
You heard of classical liberalism, right?
Despite its name, "Classical Liberalism" grew out of Liberalism, not the other way around. Liberalism is the basis of the Democratic Party and Classical Liberalism is the basis for Libertarians, which aren't really fully liberal or conservative, but have generally been assimilated into right wing movements due to their economic positions.
The idea of limited government
Neither side is supportive of establishing a monarchy or dictatorship, so both sides believe in limited government, its just a matter of how limited. The less government you have, the less it is able to help its citizens. A rich white man may not need this help, but poor people, women and minorities often do. If this is truly the greatest country on Earth, the majority of our citizens should not be hampered by the circumstances of their birth.
Freedom is wonderful, but without responsibility, it can and often will infringe on the freedom of others.
free market free of massive state intervention.
A true free market is not sustainable in the long run.
That of course is much in line with reality, but it is right-wing.
Here's what reality shows. America is wealthy and powerful, but its not really "best in the world" on almost any other indicator. The countries who usually beat us, the Nordic Countries, various other European nations, and Canada, use some form of Democratic Socialism (which is not the same as Marxism or "Communism"). These countries fair better because everyone has equal opportunity to success and personal advancement is not limited. With the US though, the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, the middle class diminishes and the economy is very likely to permanently shrink unless we do something about it.
Also, education need not be towards reality
If it is good education, it damn well will be.
they have taught plenty of false things.
a) when politics get involved. In the current political landscape, this has happened primarily in school in Texas and the deep south, Republican controlled states.
b) New discoveries and insights have been made. If this happens, you admit you were wrong before and move on with teaching the new understandings. This is how society progresses.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!