Would you call this a "Liberal"?

[Revoltingest]

Aside from that, wouldn't you agree that social liberals (i.e. Many Democrats) and libertarians essentially have the same intellectual roots in classical liberalism of the late18th and early 19th century?

Yes.....although I think "many" wouldn't apply to Democrats.
It seems to be only a minority of them are really socially liberal in this sense.

 

[Revoltingest]

Example, please?

"Liberals" (the modern kind) were behind affirmative action.
Back in the day, it was legal to overtly deny someone a job because they were white or male.
At Ford, my father practiced this (under orders from management...under government pressure).
And I was turned down for this expressed reason at the University of Michigan by Gary Koch
at the Phoenix Memorial Reactor. These examples were the tip of the iceberg.
Nowadays, they do the same thing more covertly, eg, "race norming" of test scores.

 

[Kirran]

Liberalism is rather more about economic ideas and broader stances on the preferable means of organising a society than about specific social stances within that context, as it's often assumed to mean in the American context. Although I suppose words mean what people use them to mean.

 

[Laika]

RF definitions are indeed screwy....
The Capitalist Only Forum allows socialists under the specific guise of "state capitalism", eg, the old Soviet system.

Prepare to be liberated comrade.

 

[Revoltingest]

Prepare to be liberated comrade.

Resistance is not futile!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hey everyone,

I wanted to get your opinion on the way I use the term "Liberal". The reason I ask is because the way I use the term is quite "old-fashioned" based on the relationship with enlightenment ideas and refers to a broad consensus of ideas that cover both right and leftwing positions and includes alot of conservatives. This is speaking as someone "outside" of liberalism looking in so its pretty broad.

• A Liberal supports the rule of law. Liberals commonly support systems of government that can range from a constitutional monarchy (such as the UK) or a constitutional Republic (such as the USA) because the common denominator is that the rule of law takes precedence over the arbitary "rule of men" such as by personal dictatorship.
• Liberals are sceptical of direct democracy as a source of tryanny by majority in which majority rule is considered a threat to individual rights. This can often be related to the fear of the poor acting as a majority to attack the right of private property through wealth redistribution and "socialism". When liberals use the term "democracy" they refer to representative systems based on elections (ussually multi-party) based on universal suffrage.
• Liberals can support free markets and mixed economic systems with some public ownership. Private Ownership predominates however because Liberals believe there is a close relationship between economic (as in free trade and private property) and political liberty. More left wing Liberals can support economic and social rights provided for by social security and progressive taxation such as FDRs New Deal. Liberals can support fiscal conservativism as a means to limit the size of government and support keynsian economics of "tax and spend" to expand the role of government.
• Liberals support individual liberty based on a theory of natural rights such as freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial by ones peers, etc.
• Liberals generally support legal the separation of church and state (although some may argue the need for religion in public life to enforce certian moral standards of conduct).
• Liberals support free thought, reason and science as a source of objective knowledge- and can come from both religious and non-religious backgrounds. They can support and oppose civil rights in areas based on gender, race and sexual orientation.(e.g. A liberal can support racial segregation or oppose gay marriage).

Do you think this is generally accurate to describe liberals? If not, what term would you use? would you use several terms?

Most of that seems to be trying to paint liberalism as conservatively as possible, but this is the key fundamental I'd agree with:

Liberals are sceptical of direct democracy.

No kidding! In fact the 'direct' is probably redundant in many cases.

In other words - at heart liberalism is elitism, the belief (and many liberals openly admit to this) that their beliefs are so inherently superior, they should be enforced on the majority regardless of their 'inferior' will.
Hence the inevitable, incessant push for ever bigger government to realize this 'noble goal'

And so liberalism promotes any issue that can be used to further this transfer of power and wealth from the private sector masses to the public sector / political elite. e.g. global warming.

And it's all perfectly well intended, they truly believe the end justifies the means

 

[metis]

Most of that seems to be trying to paint liberalism as conservatively as possible, but this is the key fundamental I'd agree with:

Liberals are sceptical of direct democracy.

No kidding! In fact the 'direct' is probably redundant in many cases.

In other words - at heart liberalism is elitism, the belief (and many liberals openly admit to this) that their beliefs are so inherently superior, they should be enforced on the majority regardless of their 'inferior' will.
Hence the inevitable, incessant push for ever bigger government to realize this 'noble goal'

And so liberalism promotes any issue that can be used to further this transfer of power and wealth from the private sector masses to the public sector / political elite. e.g. global warming.

And it's all perfectly well intended, they truly believe the end justifies the means

If I didn't know what you were referring to, about the last group on the planet I would have linked the above to would be "liberals".

If thinking that one might be correct is "elitism", then I would suggest that liberals by no means have a monopoly on that.

"Bigger government" is not intrinsic to liberalism any more than it is to conservatism. Having the size necessary to get the job done correctly is.

"Global warming" is not just a liberal issue-- it's an intelligence issue.

"The ends justifies the means" is the antithesis to any truly liberal mind as liberals put people first, not "the cause".

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Aside from that, wouldn't you agree that social liberals (i.e. Many Democrats) and libertarians essentially have the same intellectual roots in classical liberalism of the late18th and early 19th century?

True, but many liberals today also hold the inalienable rights of all humans as a premise. Social and economic sciences, along with technological advancement, has demonstrated the ease in which the worker can be exploited globally, and how the psychology of mass media can both make us aware of such exploitation, and numb us to it at the same time.

Liberalism, for me, is about using science as a tool to learns about, and solve, the factors of dehumanisation and extreme poverty locally and around the globe.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

As I've said before, all these terms are pretty meaningless because they are culturally determined: liberal means different things in British and American English.

I'll sign up to the rule of law, distrust of direct democracy, a mixed economy, and separation of religion and politics, but in Britain I'm a conservative (and a Conservative, too). In fact, most people in England would accept that package, regardless of which party they vote for.

 

[metis]

As I've said before, all these terms are pretty meaningless because they are culturally determined: liberal means different things in British and American English.

I'll sign up to the rule of law, distrust of direct democracy, a mixed economy, and separation of religion and politics, but in Britain I'm a conservative (and a Conservative, too). In fact, most people in England would accept that package, regardless of which party they vote for.

Plus times change things as well. For example, the Republicans often call themselves "the Party of Lincoln", and yet during the mid-1800's it was that party that was the most liberal. Same with Teddy Roosevelt's time period. The switch was made gradually in the late 1920's/early 1930's and then accelerating under FDR.