What is a Liberal?

[dda]

What is a Liberal?

By this I do not mean what is the Liberal Party all about in any country. In the U. S. we do not have a Liberal Party, yet we are always labeling people as "liberal" or "conservative" or "middle-of-the-road." This would be roughly the same of saying "left-of-center", "right-of-center" and "centerists."

What I am interested in is what qualities or positions are what one could truly describe as liberal or conservative or whatever.

In the U. S. we break it down even further by talking of "social conservatives" or "fiscal liberals" (or vice versa).

People who are against abortion, against gay marriage, etc. are considered "social conservatives." The converse defines "social liberals" though I have never heard that term articulated. I am not sure what a centerist position would be on such issues.

People who believe that the government needs additional funds in order to expand various programs are "fiscal liberals" while those who wish to limit the money given to government are considered "fiscal conservatives."

I personally tend to take a live-and-let-live attitude toward most social issues. If someone feels comfortable having an abortion, that is their business. If two people fall in love and want the sanction of the state to solemnize the union, I don't much care what the sexual composition of those two individuals is.

On fiscal matters, I tend to be more conservative. I think that the more money we give to government, the larger and more intrusive government gets, to me a bad thing.

If I were to run for political office in the U. S. I would be villified by both sides. Does this mean I am center-of-the road?

What do you think are the issues that define whether a person is liberal-conservative?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by dda

What is a Liberal?

By this I do not mean what is the Liberal Party all about in any country. In the U. S. we do not have a Liberal Party, yet we are always labeling people as "liberal" or "conservative" or "middle-of-the-road." This would be roughly the same of saying "left-of-center", "right-of-center" and "centerists."

What I am interested in is what qualities or positions are what one could truly describe as liberal or conservative or whatever.

In the U. S. we break it down even further by talking of "social conservatives" or "fiscal liberals" (or vice versa).

People who are against abortion, against gay marriage, etc. are considered "social conservatives." The converse defines "social liberals" though I have never heard that term articulated. I am not sure what a centerist position would be on such issues.

People who believe that the government needs additional funds in order to expand various programs are "fiscal liberals" while those who wish to limit the money given to government are considered "fiscal conservatives."

I personally tend to take a live-and-let-live attitude toward most social issues. If someone feels comfortable having an abortion, that is their business. If two people fall in love and want the sanction of the state to solemnize the union, I don't much care what the sexual composition of those two individuals is.

On fiscal matters, I tend to be more conservative. I think that the more money we give to government, the larger and more intrusive government gets, to me a bad thing.

If I were to run for political office in the U. S. I would be villified by both sides. Does this mean I am center-of-the road?

What do you think are the issues that define whether a person is liberal-conservative?

you are clearly a liberal.

It's true that the US system makes it hard to see. Yet twas your tom jefferson who pointed out that party politics is bad because it is divisive.

both democrat and republican core values have elements of liberalism (crudely - the dems are liberal on individual rights, the reps are liberal on control of government interference)

What i find more fascinating is why blatently liberal republicans will use the word 'liberal' to insult democratic opponents. With liberalism spread across both parties it seems hidden from view and the word liberal is now a pointless insult or "curse word" in a political system based more on tribalism than ideas

[_Kila_]

Someone who is socially liberal is someone who believes in the preservation of rights and liberties of the individual and believes in restraints on the state in order to prevent it encroaching on the liberties of individuals, surely?

Someone who is economically liberal is basically a filthy capitalist.

Also I find it absurd that your politicians use the term "liberal" as an insult, liberalism is, if anything, good. You silly yanks also seem to be missing half of the political spectrum as Socialism is more "left wing" than liberalism, despite the fact that political views should be on a graph with 2 axes as opposed to a line due to differences in economic and social views etc. and so forth.

[ChubbyChecker]

I used to frequent a forum that was made up mostly of Americans. Whenever a slightly political discussion came up the Americans would start calling people liberals as if it was an insult. I always found that a tad odd.

[Alessio]

Well I know you have patriots on one side and communists on the other..

I dont really see where libidals are supposed to fit in that picture..

I'm pretty sure they symphatise with al qaida tho.. both with the anti-American attitude

When Bush asked: are you with us or against us? the liberals clearly didnt chose our side

How much more obvious can it get?

[Alessio]

If you take more then just Republicans and Democrats into account then Liberalism wouldn't be 'left' and Conservativism wouldn't be 'right'. The terms economic liberal and economic conservative are only opposites if you oversimplified the political spectrum into one dimension to fit the American model. Political matrices however tend to be two dimensional.

Liberalism strives to as much personal freedom and economical freedom as possible, while recognizing the need of some sort of goverment. Conservativism aims for a more traditional society, so with less social/personal freedoms, but they also hold economical freedom in (the same) high regard. So liberals and convervatives in the traditional sense both tend to perceive levelling incomes and building a huge social state as counterproductive.

The textbook answer would be that the difference between liberals and conservatives are purely between social/personal freedoms and actually have nothing to do with economic freedoms.

Democrats however, tend lean a bit towards the left on economical issues (towards Progressivism) then Republicans, which moves them a bit away from true Liberalism. I do believe both parties are about equally as far away from true liberalism, as they are both liberal in different aspects.

It's easy to argue that they are both quite liberal, as both parties seem pretty close to eachother compared to mainland European political parties. Both Democrats and Republicans are quite far towards the right. Democrats and Republicans are actually both so far to the right that they have no Dutch equilivant.

Depending on what you use as a reference they could end up like *this* in a political matrix.
I'm not sure if I answered your question with this, as what I said seems a bit basic high school material to me. I almost feel silly for posting it.

[dda]

I will avoid the obvious response of "Don't feel silly for this post, you have so many other posts worthy of that feeling."

I really am interested in what others think about what constitutes a liberal because in my country it seems rather an odd definition.

To me the key to Liberalism was the concept of accellerated change socially. Getting rid of slavery was a liberal concept. Getting rid of segregation was a liberal idea. However, somewhere along the line the concept morphed into one of power and economics. Liberal spending and liberal interpretation of the power of government.

It is at a point where those who wish to controll the size of government are considered conservative because they resist the growth of government. In the U. S. there seems to be a move toward larger government in order to have government address the percieved injustices in society.

However, government creates more injustices than it cures in many respects. American Liberals are usually pushing things like socialized medicine which, in many respects, impinges upon the rights of individuals.

I was just wondering if concepts were as muddled in other places.

[Alessio]

Well, Liberalism isn't really about social change. As the name Liberalism implies (liber means free) it's mainly about freedom, personal and economical. The economic freedom of the Republicans and the personal/social freedom of the Democrats. It tries to create equal chances by making sure everyone carries his own responsibility.

Liberals believe that the goverment, or other people for that matter, shouldn't dictate our lives; everyone knows what best for himself. Free from oppression. This means that everyone should have the liberty to live his life as he wants. Everyone can have abortions, become a Buddist, live like a bum or can try to become the next president if you wish.

High taxes and financial redistribution actually limit a persons (economical) freedom, you cannot take a person's property and you can't have a person carry someone elses burden, thus it's against the liberal principles. True Liberals also often claim, as believers in the free market, that when the goverment takes money it proberbly won't be invested to generate more goods or wealth. Everyone with a govermental job or who lives on social welfare actually just consumes and produces nothing. And in other cases the money will atleast be taken out of circulation for some time, in which it won't be spend or invested. This means it actually destroys the wealth growth, eventually resulting in doing more damage to the people you are trying to help then good.

I really don't think aiming for a large goverment is a very liberal idea dda. According the Liberal ideologie true equality and freedom can only be achieved by a small goverment. A large goverment puts a heavy burden on people's economic freedom and, as you said, a larger goverment also becomes more intrusive, at the cost of personal freedom.

In the U. S. there seems to be a move toward larger government in order to have government address the percieved injustices in society.

European Socialism and Progressivism could have influenced American politics a bit. But no matter what they say or how they call it, it just becomes less Liberal.

[furball]

Originally Posted by dda

American Liberals are usually pushing things like socialized medicine which, in many respects, impinges upon the rights of individuals.

They're possibly not true liberals then. Are you still using the word 'Liberal' with the bogus American definition? Either way I don't think it's ever been well-defined what a Liberal actually is, and because of that we've seen the growth of Libertarians who are probably different in some eccentric way.


My own personal attitude is that where possible, the market should be left to its own accord to fix problems. But it can't always do that - just look at the failures in healthcare and education. This is based on what I believe to be some absolute human rights that you may not agree are such.

Originally Posted by furball

I believe that the State exists to do what individuals cannot do themselves. It is not there to run things for the sake of running them, not should it try to. What the State is able to do is to right the wrongs that individuals have created. Where individuals (and their businesses) cannot be trusted to do things properly, the State regulates. Two examples of this - environmental regulation and competition law. Environmental regulation is necessary because otherwise, in an effort to save costs, companies will pollute. Competition law is necessary because otherwise business practices will evolve to restrain newcomers from entering the market - in other words, cartels. Furthermore, predator monopolies will kill off new entrants to the market. This is not acceptable because it results in economic inefficiency. However, when not righting these wrongs, the State should step back and let people get on with it.

Nevertheless the State is also needed to provide a safety net for those that cannot provide for themselves. There are fundamental human needs that the market itself cover completely, because businesses require a profit and those who already cannot provide for themselves cannot supply that profit. For example, I believe that no-one should suffer or die from an illness, disease or condition that is curable. We have seen in America that the market cannot provide a solution; too many people fall through the gaps (16% of Americans do not have health insurance). No-one should be in the situation where they know that a cure exists, but they cannot afford it. If you have a condition that is easily treatable in the present, it should be treated no matter what your means - and certainly shouldn't be allowed to worsen until you qualify for free treatment.

There are similar situations regarding housing, education, policing and the military, among other things.


Critically, the State's safety net is just that - the provision of the most basic needs. If you wish to have superior quality treatment, you should pay for it. Private hospitals, and the use of them through medical insurance, should be encouraged. Private schools are a result of the market, but anyone who attends a state school should still receive a complete academic education. The same can be said for just about every other issue, where the market does not result in an unhappy perversion. For example, net neutrality is vital because otherwise the telecommunications market will close itself off to new entrants.

http://www.plasticbrilliance.com/for...0269#post90269

[Marilyn Manson]

'New' Liberalism/Classical Liberalism.

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by dda

People who are against abortion, against gay marriage, etc. are considered "social conservatives." The converse defines "social liberals" though I have never heard that term articulated. I am not sure what a centerist position would be on such issues.

A centrist, which i think i am probably (reasonably social liberal, quite economically conservative given my field, generally indifferent to the power and scope of government provided it doesnt clash with the above), would approach these issues with some even-handedness. For example, a "social conservative" would never advocate abortion, and critique a social liberal for defying/denying the rights of the unborn child. A centrist would suggest that unnecessary abortion should be (at best*) advocated against or (at worst) forbidden, with a definition of "necessary" including the health of the mother (if it endangers the mother, abortion is an option), whether the child is a spawn of rape (the denial of the female's basic human right to chose with whom to reproduce), and the prohibition on late term abortion (eg, the third trimester, by which point either of the above should have become apparent) or something along those lines. Thus, a centrist would, in most instances, be against abortion - particularly if it will soon be summer and that being pregnant doesnt do well for a figure in a bikini on Bondi or some other "useless" reason - however, is not completely against the notion of killing an unborn child. Similarly, no Centrist would have any objection to the use of any contraceptives.

Centrist views on marriage would probably focus on the legal status that such a union provides to people in today's society, rather than focusing on "morality" with the presumption that marriage exists only to procreate within a stable household with the idea that stability leads to superior results for the child, maximising their success in later life (which it, apparently, does - whether that is due to biological, psychological, social and/or economic issues i dont recall/unsure about). A social conservative would see that children is the ultimate purpose of marriage, and believe that children born of marriage do better, thus see marriage as necessity for having children. A liberal would be more concerned about the state of such a marriage - if it had already "broken down", then its not too hard to imagine that any psychological/social/economic etc benefits that could be expected of marriage may not exist anyway, and indeed provide a negative atmosphere for the child thus being detrimental. A social liberal might see the right of parents to persue what they know best for their children, based on physiological instincts of those children to want the best for their children. As such, parents should have all the power over whom they choose to help raise their child, and see marriage as a pledge of commitment that may not necessarily be beneficial or warranted. A centrist would note that both sides have merit, but irrespective of this, marriage as a legal entity wrt property rights should one or both die, the legal "legitimacy"** of a child is important for the Estate of the parents to go to supporting the child/ren. Further, more mundane things such as access to banking and other financial details, civil documents like birth certificates, drivers licenses, health and other insurance forms/documents, all the way through to registered post - all of these institutions of society and economy are predisposed to assuming either a single adult, or a married couple, with access restricted to those groups. Thus, if you are not married, it is far/more difficult to gain access to "critical" documents that both of you share. Irrespective of whether a couple is gay or straight, that single presumption necessitates that in order to become a legally effective unit within society, marriage should be for all. Besides, why cant two fathers/mothers be any more or less effective, efficient, compassionate or proud of any children that they bring up? There are plenty of failed male/female relationships out there - why not let gays fail too?



*depending on scope of centralism, i suppose.
**when the hell is a child who is born not legitimate, insofar as they are a living breathing individual with dreams, aspirations and ability? This social construct i rail against, as it seems to serve no beneficial purpose - merely used as a tool to stigmatise the unfortunate (who, after all, had no say in the matter originally).

Originally Posted by dda

People who believe that the government needs additional funds in order to expand various programs are "fiscal liberals" while those who wish to limit the money given to government are considered "fiscal conservatives."

I'm not quite sure about that. I think liberalism in the terms of government power and influence is more about the limitiation of government control on the individual so that they are free to persue their own desires (ie, liberalism). Whilst its true, leftist tendencies support big government, that is a different thing to liberalism. I think the Whig party in Britain before the American Revolution espoused the principles of liberalism wrt government, ideas which i think Furball expressed above.

Originally Posted by dda

On fiscal matters, I tend to be more conservative. I think that the more money we give to government, the larger and more intrusive government gets, to me a bad thing.

I personally dont have much concern about the government having my personal information or other forms of privacy. I still believe that compared to banks and/or insurance companies, the government are still amateurs. Nevertheless, due to my strong economic conservatism, i still see that the role of governments to be simplified to correcting market failures (including provisions for public goods like defence), as well as providing basic services for a fee. The fee doesnt have to be large, but it is necessary to prevent complete free riding. Overarching all government activities, however, should be the concept of "common sense" - if it makes sense for a government agency to do xyz rather than privately, then do so; to avoid unnecessarily sticking to some ideological dogma (of small government), governments should not be afraid to act to a perceived injustice or inequity that is not reflective of the society that makes it up. If children are dying, then act.

I think i differ to most americans (and europeans) insofar as dont have any problem at all with government compulsion - insofar as i think its fine and a good thing for compulsory voting, compulsory (basic, ie up to Senior school) education, emergency health care, compulsory inoculation of common communicable diseases, and similar things. I dont care whether some government pe0n is searching through my emails, looking at my forum posts and so on - mainly because i know they'd be bored absolutely stiff from the shit that drivels out of my mouth. And on that note, i'll finish.

[furball]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

A centrist, which i think i am probably (reasonably social liberal, quite economically conservative given my field, generally indifferent to the power and scope of government provided it doesnt clash with the above), would approach these issues with some even-handedness. For example, a "social conservative" would never advocate abortion, and critique a social liberal for defying/denying the rights of the unborn child. A centrist would suggest that unnecessary abortion should be (at best*) advocated against or (at worst) forbidden, with a definition of "necessary" including the health of the mother (if it endangers the mother, abortion is an option), whether the child is a spawn of rape (the denial of the female's basic human right to chose with whom to reproduce), and the prohibition on late term abortion (eg, the third trimester, by which point either of the above should have become apparent) or something along those lines. Thus, a centrist would, in most instances, be against abortion - particularly if it will soon be summer and that being pregnant doesnt do well for a figure in a bikini on Bondi or some other "useless" reason - however, is not completely against the notion of killing an unborn child. Similarly, no Centrist would have any objection to the use of any contraceptives.

You seem to be labouring under the belief that there are only three types of people (liberals, conservatives and centrists) and that they all believe the same things.

Some liberals are against abortion.
Some centrists are completely for or completely against abortion.
Some conservatives are in favour of abortion.


Also, PARAGRAPHS. Personally I hate seeing more than 200 words in a single block of text

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

I'm not quite sure about that. I think liberalism in the terms of government power and influence is more about the limitiation of government control on the individual so that they are free to persue their own desires (ie, liberalism). Whilst its true, leftist tendencies support big government, that is a different thing to liberalism. I think the Whig party in Britain before the American Revolution espoused the principles of liberalism wrt government, ideas which i think Furball expressed above.

I'll emphasise again for dda's benefit:

I think liberalism in the terms of government power and influence is more about the limitiation of government control on the individual so that they are free to persue their own desires (ie, liberalism). Whilst its true, leftist tendencies support big government, that is a different thing to liberalism.

This is the crux of the American 'liberal' issue.

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

I think i differ to most americans (and europeans) insofar as dont have any problem at all with government compulsion

Oh no. Both countries have plenty of people who believe wholeheartedly in the principle that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Of course, this is total bullshit.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by furball

Also, PARAGRAPHS. Personally I hate seeing more than 200 words in a single block of text

he can't use commas either but he's still coming across as brighter than you

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by furball

You seem to be labouring under the belief that there are only three types of people (liberals, conservatives and centrists) and that they all believe the same things.

Well, no. I know that people dont always fit into these stereotypes, and that stereotypes fit some people better than others. However, i figured that at least for the purposes of this discussion, there was the assumption/presumption that at there were at least three broad definitions of people given a set of beliefs, and that most within that group would hold to be that group's main tenants to be true, else they wouldnt be part of that group. Of course they'll be outliers, of course there will be dissent. I was being more general in my descriptions. I was alluding to this with my first "*" comment.

Originally Posted by furball

Also, PARAGRAPHS. Personally I hate seeing more than 200 words in a single block of text

What is this?!?! has GD suddenly become Grammatical Discussions?!

Oh no. Both countries have plenty of people who believe wholeheartedly in the principle that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear". Of course, this is total bullshit.

Bullshit why? Also, given the framework that i believed governments should have as their foundation (primarily economic, tempered with common sense), they essentially shouldnt care what's going on. Even if they did, why is it "total bullshit"? I can make guesses, but why not elaborate to move this discussion on?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Bullshit why?

Because it is? Even on a purely pragmatic level, governments have been abusing their powers throughout history and increasing them (ala The Patriot Act) won't make things better.

Need I remind you that torture is very commonly used nowadays, is generally psychological (waterboarding) rather than physical so you can just do it endlessly and, after all, doesn't work. It's not if you have anything to hide that matters, it's whether the person who's torturing you thinks you have anything to hide. And if you're being tortured, you must do.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

governments have been abusing their powers throughout history and increasing them

Need I remind you that torture is very commonly used nowadays

2 points i single out.

please gods mark feel some shame

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

2 points i single out.

please gods mark feel some shame

The best systems are those that resist abuse. It doesn't have to be cameras in everyones bedrooms to be an abuse, it could be (say) not allowing an open tendering process for a public contract, or undeclared conflicts of interests or other such forms of corruption that occur in our current government from the local councillor right to the Cash for Honours scandal and the PM. I'm sorry if you feel these things are acceptable.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Well, no. I know that people dont always fit into these stereotypes, and that stereotypes fit some people better than others. However, i figured that at least for the purposes of this discussion, there was the assumption/presumption that at there were at least three broad definitions

no. definition is a rhetorical tool. a trick to win debates.

I think it is grossly unfair, not to mention silly, to presume that dda meant to create such an environment.

to put it bluntly, and this applies more to furball than to you, if you want to take part in a pissing contest then go piss

Sometimes people like to explore ideas outside of a debate.

I took the thread starting post as genuine in its curiosity

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no. definition is a rhetorical tool. a trick to win debates.

I think it is grossly unfair, not to mention silly, to presume that dda meant to create such an environment.

Well, i dont know exactly what you mean by definitions. Perhaps that is one of your hate words, just as i dont like the word "youse" when refering to others. Nevertheless, it suficies insofar as i meant it .

This "environment" was originated by dda, i thought, as he raised the issue of liberal, conservative and centrist. I was merely exploring what a centrist may view as their opinion on the issues that dda raised, given that he was unsure about what a centrist position (something that i think i hold) would be in those areas.

Sometimes people like to explore ideas outside of a debate.

Go for it - nothing i said prevents you from going there. Indeed, i gave it a go myself.

I took the thread starting post as genuine in its curiosity

Who didnt?

[All Systems Go]

I wouldn't worry about it, personally. You'll never have to vote for one.*


*not quite so extreme right wing doesn't count!

[dda]

I can see that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are rather on end compared to the way some look at them.

In America "liberal" seems to be a liberal use of government power. One of the interesting things is that "liberals" in America tend to espouse freedom of speech as an ideal. However, they then do everything they can to shout down or intimidate any who use that freedom to disagree with them.

In America, "Liberal" does not seem to have much to do with liberty.

"Libertarian" is a new term. It seems to, in many ways, have supplanted the term "Libertine."

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by dda

I can see that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are rather on end compared to the way some look at them.

In America "liberal" seems to be a liberal use of government power. One of the interesting things is that "liberals" in America tend to espouse freedom of speech as an ideal. However, they then do everything they can to shout down or intimidate any who use that freedom to disagree with them.

In America, "Liberal" does not seem to have much to do with liberty.

I think its a mistake to look for ideological coherence when it comes to mainstream politics, or to try and investigate the essence of liberalism or conservatism in the context of major political parties (whether in the UK or the USA). Modern political parties are based on pragmatism rather than principles; the ultimate aim of most parties and politicians is to get elected, with the question of what they will do when they get there relegated to secondary status. Because there are generally two parties competiting for power at any given time, the standard result is that political positions get distilled into two extremely simplistic binary alternatives, with each of the major parties eventually being associated with one 'side' of the issue.

The question of which team ends up on which side of the debate is often arbitrary; theres no logical reason why people who (eg) support abortion rights should also support gun control and increased taxes on the wealthy, and the fact that these positions now go together under the banner of 'liberalism'/'progressivism' is a result of historical contingency rather than because theres any unifying principle linking them (gun control is an especially interesting case; during the early 20th century, it was the 'right' who supported gun control in the UK while the 'left' opposed it, since they believed that the government was using gun control to decrease the problems caused by militant trade unionists. Nowadays, this same argument that guns provide a line of defence against oppressive government is used by those on the 'right', and mocked by those on the 'left'). Mainstream political positions are generally an assortment of barely related single-issues, bundled into un-unified wholes and consumed as ready-maked packages. The only place youre likely to find attempts at ideological coherence are on the 'fringes' of politics, where there is less focus on pragmatism since getting elected isnt such a primary concern (normally because it isnt likely to happen).


This unrelenting pragmatism is reflected in the electorate, with most people choosing their issue-positions based either on party lines (the Democrats oppose gun control, I am a Democrat, ergo I should oppose gun control), or based on the unprincipled short-term pragmatism which is pretty much the defining aspect of modern middle-class 'liberalism', which centres around the belief that "as long as something doesnt adversely affect me in the short-term, who cares?". The short-sightedness of the middle classes towards anything which doesnt directly impinge on their day-to-day lives, and the associated refusal to think in principles or consider bigger pictures, is imo responsible for a huge amount of shitty political practices over the last 100 years and was nicely summed up by Ultimate Newbie earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

I personally dont have much concern about the government having my personal information or other forms of privacy. I still believe that compared to banks and/or insurance companies, the government are still amateurs. Nevertheless, due to my strong economic conservatism, i still see that the role of governments to be simplified to correcting market failures (including provisions for public goods like defence), as well as providing basic services for a fee. The fee doesnt have to be large, but it is necessary to prevent complete free riding. Overarching all government activities, however, should be the concept of "common sense" - if it makes sense for a government agency to do xyz rather than privately, then do so; to avoid unnecessarily sticking to some ideological dogma (of small government), governments should not be afraid to act to a perceived injustice or inequity that is not reflective of the society that makes it up. If children are dying, then act.

The debates over the recent smoking bans are also a really great example of this kind of short-sighted pragmatism too, since pretty much every discussion about it eventually ended up as "I want to be able to smoke in pubs" vs "I would enjoy my nights out more if people didnt smoke".

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This unrelenting pragmatism is reflected in the electorate ... based on the unprincipled short-term pragmatism which is pretty much the defining aspect of modern middle-class 'liberalism', which centres around the belief that "as long as something doesnt adversely affect me in the short-term, who cares?". The short-sightedness of the middle classes towards anything which doesnt directly impinge on their day-to-day lives, and the associated refusal to think in principles or consider bigger pictures, is imo responsible for a huge amount of shitty political practices over the last 100 years and was nicely summed up by Ultimate Newbie earlier in the thread:

Its true, i pretty dont much care about what counts as "political news" for virtually all of the media cycle these days. So much is made of absolutely nothing at all, that its not unreasonable to be apathetic towards most of the comments that politicians make or do virtually all the time. However, having re-read that part of my post, i think i might have come across as too disinterested. Personally, i dont have much interest in most things, particularly social programmes that arent really or wont be felt by widespread areas of the communities (and thus, is easy for me to dismiss as irrelevent or unimportant to me and what i perceive to be the direction of Australia). Things like saying "Sorry" to the stolen generation, Aboriginal Land Rights issues, and so on, i dont think are overly important - though i recognise that many others think they might be. What i do really care about is the economy, and government programmes and etc that impact on the economy, including things such as health, education, IP and industrial relations law, macroecomic mangement, microeconomic reform and telecommunications. These issues are extremely important for a modern mixed economy like australia, and where mindless stupidity and political meddling to get elected really concern me. So its not that i dont care, its that i'm more selective to what I care about, and even then most of those issues arent (directly) selfish.

I took your post to be critical of what i said earlier.

I agreed with much/most of what you said prior though.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

even then most of those issues arent (directly) selfish.

How does this do anything but fully support the post you are quoting?

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by All Systems Go

How does this do anything but fully support the post you are quoting?

Well, i understood that the post i was quoting was effectively saying that people only care about things that directly impact upon them in the short term. I said that i cared about things that actually mattered for the greater whole, of which i was an insignificant part and thus only indirectly benefited from my own concen.

Thus, essentially what i said was more or less the direct opposite to what nodrog said, and as such it wouldnt actually "fully support" his post at all?

Did i misunderestimate something around here??

[pyirt]

I`ve rather enjoyed reading this thread :-)

[dda]

People are always talking about tax cuts for the rich. However, in the United States, during the Bush administration and under the "tax breaks for the rich" the percentage of the overall taxes being paid by the wealthiest has risen, not dropped.

In tax year 2001, the top 1% of American tax payers paid 33.89% of all taxes while the poorest 50% of tax payers paid 3.97% of the taxes.

In tax year 2005. tje top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.38% of all taxes and the poorest paid 3.07% of tj\he taxes.

[furball]

You realise that statistics can be used to prove anything, right?


I'd far rather see you produce the relevant statistic for tax as a proportion of income - and we'll see how that bears up.

[dda]

The point is that if reducing taxes for a particular group results in that group actually paying more taxes, then what's the bitch?

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by dda

The point is that if reducing taxes for a particular group results in that group actually paying more taxes, then what's the bitch?

Because if they had payed even more under the old scheme, then they're gaining?

ie,

Originally Posted by dda

In tax year 2001, the top 1% of American tax payers paid 33.89% of all taxes while the poorest 50% of tax payers paid 3.97% of the taxes.

In tax year 2005. tje top 1% of taxpayers paid 39.38% of all taxes and the poorest paid 3.07% of tj\he taxes.

In 2005, rather than 39.38% they were to have paid 42.13% - they gain from the tax cut as its increasing at a decreased rate.

[dda]

Originally Posted by Ultimate Newbie

Because if they had payed even more under the old scheme, then they're gaining?

ie,



In 2005, rather than 39.38% they were to have paid 42.13% - they gain from the tax cut as its increasing at a decreased rate.

And what would have been the result of them paying more taxes? More revenue? That is not what history suggests. If not more revenue for the government then what. Punishing accomplishment? Taxes are a very complicated thing and raising taxes often results in less investment, less profits, less jobs and greater distress at the bottom end of the scale. One cannot have a zero tax rate and one cannot have a 100% tax rate. A tax rate has to be set in a fashion which encourages growth and pays the necessary bills.

The real question, for me, is are the bottom 50% better or worse off than they were before. On the whole, since there were more jobs and their portion of the overall tax burden was smaller, they benefited from the tax cuts. The problem can be that when you raise the portion of taxes paid by the wealthiest, you become ever more dependent upon their income to support all of the sevices which society deems important. When an economic downturn occurs the rich have less income which results in a very large short fall in revenues. This causes a lot of problems and guess who usually gets screwed first when services are cut? You guessed it! The people utilizing the services. So, the bottom half, using most of the social service budget come out on the short end of the stick.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by dda

And what would have been the result of them paying more taxes? More revenue? That is not what history suggests. If not more revenue for the government then what. Punishing accomplishment? Taxes are a very complicated thing and raising taxes often results in less investment, less profits, less jobs and greater distress at the bottom end of the scale. One cannot have a zero tax rate and one cannot have a 100% tax rate. A tax rate has to be set in a fashion which encourages growth and pays the necessary bills.

The real question, for me, is are the bottom 50% better or worse off than they were before. On the whole, since there were more jobs and their portion of the overall tax burden was smaller, they benefited from the tax cuts. The problem can be that when you raise the portion of taxes paid by the wealthiest, you become ever more dependent upon their income to support all of the sevices which society deems important. When an economic downturn occurs the rich have less income which results in a very large short fall in revenues. This causes a lot of problems and guess who usually gets screwed first when services are cut? You guessed it! The people utilizing the services. So, the bottom half, using most of the social service budget come out on the short end of the stick.

I've said it beofre and I'll say it again. Trickle down economics does not work.

Also, there's a lot of people contained in that 50% and what is good for one is not necessarily good for the other.

So to reduce the rick of poor people suffering from welfare cuts we should not give them a better system at all? Genius!

If I recall correctly, the USA doesn't have too much taxation, relative to other countries.

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by dda

One cannot have a zero tax rate and one cannot have a 100% tax rate.

For the very, very rich it's always possible to have a zero (or close to zero) tax rate. Funny thing, eh.

(the rest of what you wrote was so poor I felt embarrased on your behalf, old man)

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

For the very, very rich it's always possible to have a zero (or close to zero) tax rate. Funny thing, eh.

why bother with learning tax law when you can believe something stupid instead ...

[Mzyxptlk]

tl;dr (though I got about halfway)

[Ultimate Newbie]

Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk

tl;dr (though I got about halfway)

What??
I dont understand ... is my post broken?

[G.K Zhukov]

One of Norways richest persons, Stein Erik Hagen: http://skatt.api.no/www.ba.no/person.html?id=781512

His real fortune isnt 1307 million NOK as stated. This is mainly due to the valuation of shares and so on. His real fortune is much higher, estimated at 13000 million NOK (slightly more than 1 billion pound sterling). However, his tax at 7mill NOK is less than what should have been the ordinary fortune tax on his "official" 1307mill NOK fortune....

Another example, Jens Ulltveit Moe:
http://skatt.api.no/www.ba.no/person.html?id=1077288

His real fortune is estimated to be around 8000 NOK, so he pays 0,15% in tax.. (http://e24.no/naeringsliv/article2226364.ece)

Im going to get taxed 14% for the 75.000 NOK (that's about 7000 quid) Im going to earn this year.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Im going to get taxed 14% for the 75.000 NOK (that's about 7000 quid) Im going to earn this year.

Given it is you i think that we should use the word earn in the loosest sense ...

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

However, his tax at 7mill (...)

Im going to get taxed 14% for the 75.000 NOK (that's about 7000 quid) Im going to earn this year.

So hes contributing roughly 1000 times more than you to your precious social programs then?

[G.K Zhukov]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

So hes contributing roughly 1000 times more than you to your precious social programs then?

Sitting on your fat arse, living off other peoples work and having to pay a snip of your huge fortune in tax is a violation of his human rights, clearly!

I shall send him flowers at once!

At least the poor bugger have complained about having to pay fortune tax (the only tax he probably pays, since he does tax planning) in the norwegian media. Good bless him.

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

So hes contributing roughly 1000 times more than you to your precious social programs then?

by social programs i assume you include the state apparatus which protects the wealth of the rich?

[G.K Zhukov]

Can somebody translate yahwe's "english" for me?

[Mzyxptlk]

He's calling you a tramp. Are you going to let him do this!

[Nodrog]

Yeah thats cool and all but you still havent explained how a guy contributing several times more in a year to social programs than youre likely to contribute in your life is paying 'close to zero'.

[G.K Zhukov]

There is a difference between relative and absolute.

Im starting to understand why you failed with the Tarantula...

[Yahwe]

Well at least we've learned that whatever a liberal is Zhukov certainly isn't one

[Phang]

It's been years since I really paid significant attention to a GD politics debate so im probably wrong but nod i never realised you supported regressive taxation?