Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Liberalism is not socialism

Posted 8 years ago on Nov. 12, 2011, 10:48 p.m. EST by looselyhuman (3117)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Check out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States

...to understand what we liberals are really about, in our own words. You don't let other people define what you believe, do you? Let me tell you what I believe instead of you assuming you know. Hate me, if you must, for what I am, not what I'm not (a socialist). We also go by progressive, which is probably a better term considering the below, but, I still self-identify as "liberal."

Liberalism is also not:

  • Neoliberalism - which is really more like economic libertarianism combined with state power to implement "free markets" a la Milton Friedman. It's governments pushing the corporate agenda while bending over the people. I believe OWS, at its core, is fundamentally a protest against neoliberalism. Protests elsewhere in the world explicitly are against it. We just don't know the term and don't have a good way to reference what we're against. Learn it.

  • "Classical liberalism" - a term adopted by libertarians here at home, and very similiar to neoliberalism. The difference is that "classical liberal" libertarians tend to be more principled. Where neoliberals are all about small government, privatization, and austerity for the working class, but corporate welfare, bailouts, socialized losses and privatized gains for corporations and the wealthy, "classical liberal" libertarians tend to be more consistent about everyone being on their own - austerity/dog-eat-dog/darwinism for all. Principles. Gotta love them.

Learning is good.

For more on neoliberalism, check out "Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein which has been made into a movie and is free online: http://vimeo.com/14847387

Or just check its wiki entry, which is so/so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Cheerio!

241 Comments

241 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Oh come on trolls. Where are you? This has gotta be a juicy target.

[+] -4 points by MIKEYD (2) 8 years ago

Uh.... dangling a "juicy target" in hopes of getting a reaction from people is generally called trolling.

[+] -6 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

You are correct that Liberal does not mean Socialist. Unfortunately for you the people that highjacked the term are Socialists so it does not matter what the definition is. If you identify with them you are a socialist regardless of what the term means.

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I think that's the propagandist's view. Liberals were always about mixed economies. Look at the greatest period of prosperity and relative equality in our history, when the middle class became dominant. It was the 1940s-70s era known as the "liberal consensus." Compared to today's neoliberal climate of privatization, deregulation, free trade, and otherwise unfettered capitalism, spiced up with a healthy dose of propaganda, the liberal worldview has become synonymous with socialism. It was not always so.

Read the wiki piece. Everyone from FDR to Ike to Kennedy to Nixon were part of the liberal consensus, but by today's definition they are all statists/socialists. We haven't changed, the narrative has.

Before you go into debt and all the other indicators of big government, consider that revenue as a percent of GDP is the lowest in 60 years. Also review this cogent anaylsis of tax policy by a fellow OWSer: http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

[-] 3 points by greedisgood (39) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

And after WWII (aka the 40s-70's) the economic growth that occurred had nothing to do with the fact that we were the only developed country left in the world?

When theres only one option...

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

The growth partially did. However we've had comparable periods of growth (the Gilded Age, the Roaring 20s) that did not result in a middle class, relative equality, and long-term stability.

[-] 3 points by greedisgood (39) from Washington, DC 8 years ago
[-] 6 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I see nothing unexpected there.

You should carefully review every chart here:

http://www.brianrogel.com/the-100-percent-solution-for-the-99-percent

[-] 3 points by greedisgood (39) from Washington, DC 8 years ago

ive seen it before.

I think there are a lot of things wrong with wealth re-distribution in the name of "fairness" Back to your OP though, didn't you say we have seen similar periods of growth (roaring 20's) that didnt result in a middle class.

The graph shows the growth in from the 40s-70's was MUCH greater than the growth of the 1900's-1920's....how do you explain your original argument?

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I don't see that at all; with the exception of the stellar performance of the New Deal and Keynesian WWII, it looks like a standard exponential curve. You can't compare segments visually like you seem to want me to do - year over year % growth is what matters.

Further, what I see is strong, consistent, stable growth through the "socialist" (liberal) 40s-70s and a slump (at least per capita, when the lines cross - making my point further) beginning in the neoliberal 80s. Your argument will basically come down to "we had amazing growth despite Keynes and we're experiencing crisis, stagnation, and a declining middle class despite Friedman."

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

Agreed, good analysis.

[-] 3 points by Corium (246) 8 years ago

Perfect :-)

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely, at the core is this insidious narrative.

It permeates all of us really but if use the touchstone of reason and the process of finding the truth whether it's what we are looking for or not, we can somewhat escape it.

It's very psychological and inherent to our humanness. It's a coping mechanism we are using to quickly access our world before it eats us or bangs us in the head. We are survivors first and foremost. Then the reflective ideas can blossom in our leisure time after being well fed and feeling generally secure.

When we get under this narrative we start making progress!

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

It's a downward spiral. How do we escape the basic survival-level thinking when the future seems so bleak, and survival issues dominate? How do we find transcendent truth, or generate a positive view of the future, when we can't get away from small-minded "here and now" thinking? You're right that it's a question of mass psychology, and they seem to have us right where they want us... How do we break the cycle?

[-] 3 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

We broke out of the world illustrated in The Jungle.

I'm hopeful that OWS has launched a break-through by demonstrating commitment to a basic fairness, and by cracking open the discussion of what is happening in this country.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

That's true, we did, but it took a lot of pain and bloodshed, not to mention some inspired leaders. I sure wish we didn't have to repeat the process...

Let's hope you're right my friend.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 8 years ago

I honor the OWS who are on the front lines enduring the pain, and am in awe of the students at U.Cal. for their fortitude and discipline, and hope that as leaders emerge in this movement that their leadership is of that same high caliber.

Meantime, those of us who can only participate by lending our store of facts and perspective can just cheer the on.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

By getting rid of this "isms" thread for starters.

And try forcing yourself to see the truth through the fog of your narrative.

The Truth is real and knowable. Let's stick with that. I am.

Generalizations only walk us back from it.

[-] -2 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

One of the few intelligent responses I've had on here. I think we are saying the same thing but I still want to know who you identify with. BTW thx for the link. I will review it directly.

[-] 9 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Thank you.

Who I identify with... I voted for Obama, because I bought into his rhetoric. His policies have been a bust. The presidents I think most highly of, especially against the current background, are Lincoln, Teddy and FDR, as well as Kennedy. Looking around the world, I find the systems in places like Germany, Sweden and Canada to be closest to my ideal. These parliamentary social democracies more closely reflect the liberal policies of our 40s-70s than we do today.

You might read about the Marshall Plan in Europe, which was really a continuation of the New Deal, and, especially in Germany, shows how succesful these policies can be over the long haul.

In terms of current American politicians/economists/etc, I identify with people like Elizabeth Warren, Robert Reich, Bernie Sanders, Paul Krugman, and others.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

Thx for the civilized response.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Thanks for your complete lack of common decency.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"Thanks for your complete lack of common decency."

ROFL!!

I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant to say.

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Haha. :o) Actually, yeah, it is precisely what I meant to say. Notice the points next to his name? Also review others in this thread (although it has improved). progmarx, for example, is one of many sockpuppets being controlled by the same guy (I assume guy).

Before the mods changed the collapse setting from -4 to -7, this group of sockpuppets voted everything in this thread into oblivion, except for his posts and those he agreed with. He then posted his "summation," here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberalism-is-not-socialism/#comment-370322

I was so mad I started this thread, here: http://occupywallst.org/forum/how-we-are-being-censored-by-sockpuppets/

After which the mods changed the setting...

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Not that voting on the points on this matter much, but their intent to skew every vote for malicious purposes is why I think we need an alternative, private forum where usernames and passwords are premade, changeable, and handed out on cards at the occupations and marches. That way we know that any vote of substance hasn't been hijacked by trolls and people that oppose OWS and are too ashamed to show their faces anywhere near it so they post anonymously.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

My pleasure! I try to do my best.

[-] 7 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Voting around here is still prone to manipulation

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 7 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Hopefully jart et al are working on some tweaks. In this thread, progmarx and notentitled are definitely on the receiving end of some creative voting. Hopefully the right folks take notice (and/or care).

[-] 7 points by negutron (30) from Brighton, CO 8 years ago

A lot of us know this already; the problem is not our lack of a stance or the history of it. The problem is allowing ourselves to be swayed, infuriated, threatened, or talked-down-to by propaganda from the right that questions our patriotism. Do Not Let Them Control Your Mind.

The problem is that while most of the country actually holds 'progressive' values (ie: liberal values) they continually fall into the agenda-backed frames of status quotarianism by the conservatives because they out yell the left on mainstream-conservative-media.

This is a trap set by the right. Using frames like 'liberal media' only confuse things for the average uncritical user of media.

As a result of Fox brainwashing, avid tv consumers are uncritical, they simply accept the spoon-fed, fact-unfriendly reality through amateur editorializing as a valid perception of reality.

These are the people who allowed the right to steal the elections in 2000, 2004 and that is well known. As an IT expert I know first hand by demonstrating to a jury that Diebold voting machine software used in GA was easily compromised.

These are people who did get fooled into supporting a war in Iraq under a false pretense, and didn't see the red flags of 'weapons of mass destruction', 'axis of evil' or 'war on terror'.

These are people who did not complain when tort reform allowed corporations to get away with evil.

These are people who allowed habeus corpus to be overturned.

These are people who allowed emails regarding corruption to be destroyed.

These are people who outed a spy of ours, ruining her life, career and put her family in danger and were not reprimanded.

These are people who allowed 911 to happen on their watch, with information warning of the attacks well before they happened.

These are people who are going to sit back and call OWS people hippies who need to get a job. These are people whose pensions are evaporating, and still sympathize with those who are doing the evaporation.

These are people. Ok i'm out of space now. I could continue this litany forever.

So, essentially you are preaching to the choir. We know the problem and have no solution. I have a couple, though, just ask me. But it won't involve ghandi or some other nonsense.

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I tend to agree. I would just point out that I have a lot of respect for paleoconservatives. What Fox and the new propagandists in the media represent, and what is the dominant political ideology at this time, is neoliberalism (and its militaristic subset neoconservatism). Fox mixes it in with a healthy dose of socially "conservative" (reactionary) rhetoric, but overall, free market fundamentalism is at the core of this attack on liberalism, and I don't consider that particularly conservative. One interesting thing to note: I find that neoliberalism and fascism are extremely compatible, which is obvious in the Fox worldview.

I would also point out that Obama and most of the Democratic establishment are also neoliberal, slightly less reactionary and fundamentalist in their views than the Fox News/GOP crowd, but they are scarcely liberal either. Consider that most of the charges you rightfully level against the last administration are just as valid against Obama.

So, talk solutions.

[-] 3 points by negutron (30) from Brighton, CO 8 years ago

You may want to take a look at Adam Curtis' new documentary series "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace", it speaks directly to your apropos concept of free market fundamentalism, how it's a trap that is presented as a misguided cultural trust of machines / systems. It is an interesting, sometimes disjointed, a touch anticlimactic but very worthwhile BBC 'programme'.

About solutions. I think 'they've won', for now, by forcibly removing occupiers. They used the 'oh humans will die in winter without protection from the elements' clause and took away their tents.... invoking the rule of 'basic human health and safety' is not protected in the first amendment. Any case, because of this I think Occupy should consider unifying their causes here on this forum, and from here should organize a business, a corporation- they should INC themselves.

Because if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Then destroy them. I think we should decide on what we want to produce for revenue, something in manufacturing, something we both use and sell and has a high value outside of the US. Something in energy. Solar sounds nice now that our half a billion dollar down the tubes solyndra fiasco has made them cringe at the overwhelming opportunity there.

Any case, first we match them, then we outdo them, then we subdue them, just like they've done us. We have to be responsible for the future we create and it seems the only way to do this is to play their game better than they do. Since a lot of us are young, and internet / tech saavy, this should be farily easy to disintermediate their legacy systems with new internet based ones. When we are financially on their level, we can send in our drones, if we are still mad at them by them (they may be dead from the radionuclides that in their greed they shatted onto our world, then legislated to cover up or allow to happen more). We just have to have a mission that we won't be evil like they are.

Alternative: we hack the financial system by doing really weird things to the unregulated derivatives market; for example, since derivatives could be seen as bundled securities and other assets which at some point cannot be tracked, regulated or accounted for, this presents a backdoor if you will to create a circular loop or recursion that can really mess things up, especially if carefully crafted trade automation software were to be augmented with the specific instructions to do so.

In other words, rethinking the unregulated derivatives market as a software, then it's possible to cause a buffer overflow through specific trades, especially if the intention is not to make money but to lose money and cause ripples!

The caveat is if you intentionaally break it, you may be in trouble unless you stay within the bounds of what is legal, then it's just malfeasance. But the repercussions could be severe. I'm not a quant but I can imagine they'd fix the unregulated market quick if you could send a financial message in this way!

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Thanks, I will check it out.

I don't agree they've won, but we'll see. I'm also not a big fan of stooping to their level on the corporate front, but I like the innovative ideas...

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"Any case, because of this I think Occupy should consider unifying their causes here on this forum, and from here should organize a business, a corporation- they should INC themselves."

I think we may want to start an alternative private forum, also. Perhaps by handing out cards at the occupations and marches with premade, changeable usernames and passwords. Nobody will actually be alienated because everyone had the chance to attend the occupations and marches. There are just too many trolls and people that heard about the movement from Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, that are intent on turning every thread discussion into an unintelligible schoolyard game of name-calling. Also, we'd be able to hold votes on the internet, knowing that the outcome hasn't been skewed by them.

That's my idea

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"What Fox and the new propagandists in the media represent, and what is the dominant political ideology at this time, is neoliberalism (and its militaristic subset neoconservatism)."

Actually, Neoconservatism is not really a subset of neoliberalism. When I first read about its history, I was shocked and fascinated.

Neoconservatism is actually an unusual branch of Trotskyism.

Francis Fukuyama writes somewhat about it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/19/magazine/neo.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Not till the 2nd page, though..

Michael Lind writes about it here:

http://www.salon.com/2003/04/09/neocons_4/

It makes sense, too. Trotskyists are staunchly anti-Stalinist so exploiting America's McCarthyist tendencies is a good idea.

"Global Revolution" was one of Trotsky's main points and their hawkish foreign policy and disregard for International Law and sovereignty of other nations reflect this.

Also, rather than react to an imminent crisis, they use social engineering(Fox News in 2003) in order to create the illusion of an imminent crisis, which is exactly how the Soviet Union managed to expand without internal dissent.

While it takes Glenn Beck hours and hours to link Progressives to Socialism, I can link him and his "Rallies for America" in 2003 to Trotskyism in less than a minute.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Right, I did know this about the neocon gang. I always imagined it as a radical change/evolution in their ideology; but you're saying the ideology hasn't changed, just the vehicle? That's pretty interesting.

Maybe a little of both? Had Cheney and Rumsfeld had their way (more so than they did), would the Bush agenda/fiasco have included privatization (of social security, the military, etc)? Or would they go the other way? Or are they solely focused on the world domination angle as it seems?

Thanks for the links, will do some reading.

And, yeah, Glenn Beck would definitely flip out -- like he wouldn't be flipping out about something anyway.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"Maybe a little of both? Had Cheney and Rumsfeld had their way (more so than they did), would the Bush agenda/fiasco have included privatization (of social security, the military, etc)? Or would they go the other way? Or are they solely focused on the world domination angle as it seems?"

While watching Shock Doctrine(as we're both familiar with), I came up with my own theory about their foreign policy.

I remembered Glenn Beck claiming that, progressivism leads to socialism which leads to communism and I realized that he was not only wrong but that there exists not one example where equality has led to communism.

The big question is.. What has led to Communism in the past??

Every single country that has become Communist, did so after overthrowing an autocrat (usually with a military background) whose policies created vast inequality and completely disenfranchised the poor, working class, and farmers.

So basically, Autocratic Neoliberalism (and nothing else) leads to Communism.

To me, it seems like all they're doing is artificially recreating the circumstances where communist revolutions were successful.

Before the October Revolution, the Tsarist regime of Nicholas II was preoccupied with WWI. The workers had few rights, the economy tanked due to all resources going to war, the debt was skyrocketing and not because of social spending ("starve the beast", "deficits don't matter"~Cheney).

In China, it was the same thing with Chiang Kai-Shek..

Every Communist state was preceded by an autocrat in a military uniform that advocated what we'd call Neoliberal Economic policies, today.

That's my theory on Neoconservatism.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

That's brilliant. Awesome. And quite the inverse homage to our friend Mr. Beck. :) Now if we could only prove it (without living it through to completion).

Ya know, I've been trying to convince conservatives for years that progressivism, and especially FDR, saved capitalism.

So, bringing it back full circle: How was Pinochet not a neoconservative and a neoliberal?

Seems like you said it yourself (not to play gotcha debate tactics):

"an autocrat in a military uniform that advocated what we'd call Neoliberal Economic policies, today.

That's my theory on Neoconservatism."

Militaristic neoliberalism. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. :o)

And, yes, I realize I'm just being clever, and I see the real differences you point out w/regards the specific cabal of trotskyite neocons you're thinking of. I guess I would just charaterize them as a distinct (and really bizarre) group within the larger neoconservative movement...

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"And, yes, I realize I'm just being clever, and I see the real differences you point out w/regards the specific cabal of trotskyite neocons you're thinking of. I guess I would just charaterize them as a distinct (and really bizarre) group within the larger neoconservative movement..."

No..No.. It IS a rather distinct set of individuals that started the entire movement. Irving Kristol, Joshua Muravchik, Norman Podhoretz, Jeane Kirkpatrick and there are a few others.

These were the first generation Neocons that were all members of the "Young People's Socialist League".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_People%27s_Socialist_League

Some of them were also influential writes called The New York Intellectuals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Intellectuals

This first cohort radically shifted their views in the 70s and 80s.

Podhoretz was a writer for Commentary magazine, which was a rather left-wing magazine that shifted to the right, converting many of its readers.

This magazine and some others spread the movement and all its writers were known to be former Trotskyists.

This led to a second generation of Neocons. Some are former liberals or socialists and are now either in right-wing think tanks, positions of government, or write for Neocon magazines.

William Kristol (Irving Kristol's son) John Podhoretz (Norman Podhoretz's son) Paul Wolfowitz Richard Perle Elliott Abrams Many more...

Not that it's a conspiracy. The original Neocons don't even argue against the fact that they were Trotskyists.

"Ya know, I've been trying to convince conservatives for years that progressivism, and especially FDR, saved capitalism."

What's funny is that most of Neoconservatives shifted to the right during Johnson's "Great Society" reforms. I'm almost tempted to buy old copies of their magazines to see how they converted so many on the Left.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Thanks for reminding us that "isms" matter. This luddite rejection of understanding ideology is foolish. We need to understand what people stand for. Instead of mindlessly using "isms" to attack people, you're educating them about what they really mean, which is so important.

[-] -2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Good Luck! It just another way to generalize. They are clearly generalizations. This is a fact. Otherwise their not "isms". This is what "isms" are used for, their sole purpose. Your not going to escape this duality. These "isms" heavily feed very needy narratives. This whole thread is spawning off of it. Like a narrative refueling station.

Why is it so important that we should generalize?

Personally I think your misguided!

[-] 3 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Don't be such a partisan hack.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

No they are not. This is not apples to apples. You have apples mixing with worms here.

Bush sent over four thousand American patriots to their deaths for a lie that some of us screamed from the moment of it's conception was an outright lie. They were sent to a hell hole called Iraq for nothing. Nothing!

Where were you loosely when the crud was being forced down our throats from Bush about WMD?

Did you protest that War?

Obama did.

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I was there, and I did. I subscribe to just war theory, and am a staunch critic of macchiavelian neoconservatism.

I don't, however, support the "legal framework" for prolonged detention.

Obama does.

I don't support drone warfare.

Obama does.

I don't support neoliberal free trade.

Obama does.

I don't support oil-centric energy policy.

Obama does.

I don't support the financial takeover of government.

Obama does.

I don't support a market-based solution to healthcare.

Obama does.

I don't support a revolving door between industry lobbyists and government.

Candidate Obama didn't, president Obama does.

I could go on.

I also don't support tax cuts for the rich in the midst of a financial crisis, but he signed a continuation of Bush's policy. Further, his stimulus was more tax cuts than it was bottom-up stimulus. Finally he's been no better on the environment than Bush.

I will never vote Republican (unless they miraculously become the party of Lincoln or Eisenhower again). I doubt I will be voting for Obama again, either.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Very clever. I knew this thread would end with this Obama bashing party. I'm sure your other friends will also enjoy it as well. That's what they were here for too.

Fade to black. Wow, where the thread go, buh bye!!!

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Objectivity sucks huh?

I'm defending my worldiew from all comers; from the right, and from defenders of my own sellout president. It's called principle.

[-] 2 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

Interesting threat.


How are you going to pull that off?

[-] 3 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

I have a few solutions myself.

You can find a list of posts on my profile. [click ZenDog]

http://occupywallst.org/users/ZenDog/

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Agreed and agreed. Thank you for getting these truths in this thread. Anyone who is skeptical of your claims can just fact check them for themselves.

The truth will always triumph. Good JOB!

[-] 6 points by journey4word (214) 8 years ago

I have read the origins of liberalism and what it used to be.

Today Liberals are commonly associated with persons such as, forgive me for sounding biased, Barack Obama who "Liberally" throw away more money than we have to spend on a day to day basis. Who "Liberally" impose more laws and regulations on the people and their companys in this country because they THINK the government knows better than its people.

Check if I am wrong, and not by a 40 year old textbook. times change, people change, partys change. it is what it is.

[-] 8 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Duh.

Obama is not a liberal. He's a neoliberal, like every president since Reagan and most politicians in both parties. This is not a discussion of the Democratic party (note, Ike, Nixon, others mentioned in the article) but of liberalism, which has been pushed aside in favor of the dominant neoliberalism of both parties. That's the problem. That's what OWS is about.

[-] 5 points by journey4word (214) 8 years ago

ok, fair enough.

[-] 4 points by armando87 (5) from Weehawken, NJ 8 years ago

There is nothing wrong with being labeled socialist. I consider myself a democratic socialist. I am for a transition to a new economic system, capitalism and communism both don't work one is excessive/dehumanizing and the other is totally inefficient/unfair. What we need is a new economic system, my vote goes to 'Economic Democracy' mainly because its a mean between the two extremes. Google it or check out my site for a few articles on it: www.demoskratia.org

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You have to forgive them, for they have been so steeped , in some cases willingly, in anti communist propaganda, that they think commons means communism and social means socialism.

It's just not so.

Providing for the commons, is in constitution. I believe they left it purposely vague, because they knew that those needs would change over time.

"Conservatives" prefer a much narrower view.

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Yep, you're right on all counts. Thanks shooz.

And I mostly do forgive them. It's a bleeding heart liberal thing.. :o)

[-] -2 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

I think thier definition of "the common good" and your definition are two different things. They never intended the common good to mean providing for everyone.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, following your logic, notent, our government should discriminate.

Well, jeez, seems like they have favored the 1% pretty well. Apparently that is making you happy and pleased.

Are you uncommonly good No-Tent?

[-] 0 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

I love it when people decide for me what I mean. Sit down before you hurt yourself please.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Yes, they are very narrow minded. Tunnel vision even.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So Shooz, are you narrow minded?

What's your interest in narrow minds?


What's that?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

That was a trick of HTML. So?

[-] -3 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

I think you missed what I meant.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Guess so NoTent... I can tell your confused. : (

Cheer Up!

[-] -2 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

I am not confused. I was referring to shoo comment about "commons" in the constitution. Let me be more specific since you also missed what I meant. The framers of the Constitution had a different meaning for the term "Common good" than you and your socialist pals do. Is that more clear?

[-] 1 points by liberybell (49) 8 years ago

On my humble opinion brothers, Common good has been twisted into this believe that we must have this 'federal engine' that provides the way of life for all citizens without the need of the participation of the citizens on that system. WRONG! That is not what it means. To provide for the common good means to ensure that the essential elements of society (justice, stability and security) are preserved so our people can at freewill be active participants on the sustenance and prosperity of the nation.

[-] 1 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

Very nicely said.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

For you No-Tent it would be.

Your narrative leaks out between your words just like liberty over there.

Both of you are very clever. But I know how it goes down. Nice try.

[-] 0 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

Really? What is my narrative exactly?

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Agreed, but the list is not complete, you seem to missing some very important attributes for our common good.

Care to name them?

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 8 years ago

Interesting little thread.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

:o)

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

Thanks for that (apparently) much needed explanation.

[-] 5 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Thanks for doing what you do to promote awareness of the real enemy.

[+] -4 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

The real enemy is not Conservatives or Liberals or any other political group. The enemy is ignorance. Something that is not in short supply within your movement.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

"The enemy is ignorance"

I agree, highlighted in your reply. Obviously they were talking about neoliberalism, which is neither liberal nor conservative.

[-] -1 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

True.

[-] 0 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SO then, No Tent, where is the source of your own ignorance?

Is it because you have NO tent?

LoL

[-] 1 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

BTW it is Not Entitled not no tent. That is what you and your movement have. The answer to your question is simple. Your are ignorant about what or who is causing all you problems.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And, for your case, ignorance is bliss!

LoL

[-] 1 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

Go crawl back to your mothers basement before your curfew expires.

[+] -4 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

It was a useless description since it does not describe anyone in your movement.

[-] 2 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

What is a liberal anyway? I mean, does anybody even know? JFK's definition looks rather "conservative" to me.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

Conservatism used to be moderate liberalism. It is however more past-facing than future facing. JFK's definition on that page is definitely the definition of liberal/progressive.

"...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'

Similarly when he said "Our problems are man-made, and they can be solved by man." Conservatives tend to think trying to solve societal problems is a futile endeavor.

People like to think of him as illiberal because he wasn't a dove. Being a liberal has little to do with being rigidly anti-war. Anti-unjust war? Yeah. Anti-macchiavelian? Yeah. But anti-war and liberal are not synonyms.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

I think there should be a fair system for people to obtain healthcare and housing but I'm not interested in anything more than that because then you get into communism. I can gaurantee rights and equality i.e. I can provide that to everyone and if you have your freedom and an even playing field most of us can provide the rest for ourselves. This isn't completely black/white however and i see the benefit of some very limited social programs for quadripalegics (sic) and other specific cases.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 8 years ago

That's exactly what I I meant; I now have no more idea than I did before. I mean, I've seen plenty of looking backward here in search of causality. And I've seen plenty of looking forward with an eye to fiscal responsibility (frugality traditionally being a "conservative" trait?). I don't know what a liberal is; I know there are sensible people who would prefer real and active solutions and I know that there are less sensible people who would prefer more fanciful solutions, but I don't know what a "liberal" is, any more than I am able to recognize the "conservative" you describe.

People are tired of this nonsensical rant - it's the conservative's fault. Oh really? Look around.

What I am observing is a radical paradigm shift - the new liberalism is decidedly more conservative, and if it does not continue on this path, there will be nothing left for "us."

One other comment: this is not a social movement any more than it is an economic movement - it's a socioeconomic movement.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

Well, I admit things are muddied at this point in time. I partly attribute that to there being less realistic hope for the future than any time in our history. There are no frontiers, and the trajectory of life on earth has been fairly regressive over the past 3-4 decades, a trend which seems to be escalating (this at the core of OWS). In that sense, I think it reasonable to be liberal whilst looking back for guidance to a more progressive (meaning just, prosperous, equal) time than the present or near future.

W/regards to causality/frugality, I think that misses the mark. Liberalism is about envisioning a future that is better than the present, or the past. Conservatism tends to think that the solutions of the past and the status quo of the present are preferable. But, again, it is muddied right now.

So, the fact that the trajectory of the moment is regressive, and accordingly liberals also are behaving conservatively, in looking back to the 40s-70s as a golden age, is a fair point. There is a rational basis for it however. Again, the trajectory of our society being regressive. So, we're all looking backwards now, because the future looks bleak. Difference is liberals are looking back a few decades, conservatives to the 18th and 19th centuries.

I don't want to get into the blame game.

I slightly disagree about the socioeconomic character of OWS, only in that culture war issues are not as important for progressives as they used to be. I think they are more important from a reactionary standpoint.

[-] 2 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

I think a big part of the problem is that the word "liberal" is automatically associated with Democrat just as "conservative" is associated with Republican. Many Democratic politicians lean socialist while others lean liberal, but people tend to latch on the most extreme as an example of the whole. The same can be said for the Republicans and their evangelical wing. Not all Republicans are looking for religiously themed nation, but the perception taints the whole. The polarization in the US today has created a mindset that you are either or, but never a combination thereof. This deliberate divide, fostered by the two parties, ensures that we have little choice when it comes to our true representation.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Thanks. We agree in spirit. I have a couple minor points though:

1.) Probably much like on the Republican side (with real conservatives), there are very few actual liberals (much less socialists) in the Democratic party (not talking about the base, but the pols). Most are neoliberals - actually in both parties - neoconservatives are neoliberals by another name.

2.) The differences between the parties have been exaggerated by the media just as they've been shrinking in reality. There really is a neoliberal consensus in government right now, which is the problem. How many non-corporate, non-corrupt, pro-people choices do either of our groups (I think you're a conservative?) have in terms of politicians to vote for? They are all neoliberal sellouts.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

And there you go perpetuating the problem by making the assumption that I am a conservative. I do not fit into either of the boxes that the two parties want us all to fit in.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Haha fair enough. Your comment on democracy as mob rule is pretty traditional "conservative" territory, is all.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

exaclty. I have seen this twice now where the basic concept of the tea party and OWS are hard to disagree with unless you're in a fraction of 1% and the establishment has smeared both movements anyway they could.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Can we all get out of this narrative. It does not justify itself!!!

End the crazzzzzy narratives NOW!

[-] 1 points by Seer (10) 8 years ago

I agree, Liberals are not Socialists...

Unfortunately I see very few liberals in politics today... I see very few conservatives either...

I do see a lot of republicans and democrats who would be hard to distinguish without that little D or R next to their name...

Neither seems to concerned with individual freedoms, and economically, both sides seem to be competing with who can spend more of my money without my consent.

We need more parties, or none, It's too easy to shame, hide, accuse, and demonize behind labels, which are misleading at best...

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Which is why we need less 'neo-liberalism' and more socialism!

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

There is nothing wrong with being a socialist. It is the idea that we should get something back out of our taxes other than a police force programmed to beat us up. In a family you get punished if you do wrong but you also get cared for. If the government wants our money they should take care of us.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I don't disagree, but tell that to the people for whom it's the ultimate evil, synonymous with both marxist communism and liberalism. I'm simply pointing out to them that there is a difference w/regards liberalism, my particular ideology. As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, perhaps a post detailing the differences between socilism and communism would also be worthwhile.

"If the government wants our money they should take care of us."

Agreed, despite the "nanny state" haters.

[-] 1 points by mrjim1 (21) 8 years ago

I went to see this movie. I'm in Shock now. Thanks for the heads up.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Glad to share the knowledge. It's important.

[-] 1 points by gjyagy (1) 8 years ago

Liberalism is not Socialism, that much is true. There has been quite a bit of use of the word Socialism in these threads, but does any one really know what the term means??? If you do, please use it appropriately and maybe there can be some intelligent conversation here

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Seems like maybe a good follow-up thread would be "Socialism is not Communism." But this thread is a defense of liberalism from those who hate socialism and paint both with the same brush.

[-] 1 points by Corium (246) 8 years ago

Left (Liberal) Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Libertarian Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Centrist Centrist prefer a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Right (Conservative) Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement.

Statists (Big Government) Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

How about the constitution then? The reason it doesn't produce a democracy is to protect minorities and the government was intended to be strictly limited by the constitution but it did have its role in regulating interstate commerce.

It doesn't matter if the power is in the hands of the government or corporations or both. The country and it's people will be exploited either way. Power corrupts people and the founders studied that extensively and designed the constitution as best they could to curb power. I don't think we would need these classifications of left, more left, right and more right if we just followed the constitution.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

First, I don't worship paper.

Second, we have elections to fully staff two of the three branches of government. Those representatives are tasked with writing all laws and enforcing them. They do so at our behest. We have a representative republic with universal suffrage. That is a form of democracy.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It is what it is.

Power corrupts, absolute liberty for wealth and corporations and a climate of deregulation and casino capitalism corrupts even more.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

someone else here pointed out that we have the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism going in this country and that is pretty accurate I think.

It is a form of democracy but that form gives gays half of a chance of having equal rights. If this were a straight democracy the religious people would never give them those rights.

I hope you can see the socialist side of the corruption too.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"I hope you can see the socialist side of the corruption too."

Kind of. I just don't consider corporate welfare and socialized losses to be socialist. I do agree that neoliberalism is a terrible combination of free-market ideology and statism. The worst of both worlds. It focuses on free markets where it hurts the little guy (free trade, deregulation, privatization) and state intervention where it benefits the big guy (subsidy, tax loopholes, bailouts, military policy). In other words, austerity for the many and largess for the few.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

I totally agree with you on all of that. But what about public sector unions strong-arming their representatives and bankrupting their states? I'm a supporter of private sector unions as long as they are not the equivalent of goldman sacchs in campaign contributions. I know they are nothing compared to the fascists but I think public sector unions are a great example of the worst of socialism. Oh and the universities, Fannie,Freddie. There I listed four what can you add?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

You know I disagree on universities. We should have national higher education. Free or almost free. Like the UC schools used to be in California...

Fannie/Freddie - again, them operating as private, for-profit institutions is the trouble in my mind. Either your solution or mine would be preferable in this case though.

Public sector unions. Let's agree to disagree. I think all people have the right to collective bargaining, no matter their employer. I'm a moderate on this and agree with FDR that they shouldn't be able to strike and other limitations. Voters, as employers, have a say though...

..but maybe it should be more direct? Perhaps referenda on public employee contracts would offer a solution. Let the unions make their case as a collective, then allow the voters to decide. Have public union contracts come up for renewal every 4 years and put the options on the ballot. Something like that...

But neither unions nor corporations should be able to contribute, directly or indirectly, to political candidates. 100% public campaign financing and lobbying reform are the answer... Not busting unions.

Idk why we keep doing this. I'm a moderate progressive, you're a moderate libertarian, and I think we've already established we could work together.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

yep. you know I haven't changed my mind about my philosophy but after several conversations here, I find that liberalism has it's flaws but is pretty respectable if not taken to extremes. Same thing with libertarianism; anarcho-capitalism is no good because the poor will never be defended in court and their rights will consistently be trampled upon.

Moderates are reasonable and can work it out so that there is peace and harmony in the society, I think. Extremists, the people who think they are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guys, can't co-exist anywhere. Not on this earth or in the heavens without some sort of lobotomy or fundamental transformation. That's why the 2 parties don't work: they're extremists.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Agreed on all counts.

I would only say, regarding the 2-party system, that I do think we're seeing its weakness; in that, in times like these, the parties can be taken over by extremists, leaving us no viable non-extreme choices.

But the two-party system has worked at times in the past. The present is different, somehow, and a lot of the scary shit that happened in 20s-30s Germany seems to be at play. I don't know that a multi-party system would fiix it honestly, but it probably couldn't hurt, or maybe it could? Idk, but see below.

Interesting analysis from arch-conservative Hoover institute at Stanford on this subject, featuring my favorite president. You might be surprised. I don't love everything in here obviously, but it might speak to you, especially on this subject:

http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7076

Excerpt (introduction):

"With the coming of the Great Depression in the 1930s, a sharp increase in protest and anticapitalist sentiment threatened to undermine the existing political system and create new political parties. The findings of diverse opinion polls, as well as the electoral support given to local radical, progressive, and prolabor candidates, indicate that a large minority of Americans were ready to back social democratic proposals. It is significant, then, that even with the growth of class consciousness in America, no national third party was able to break the duopoly of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Radicals who operated within the two-party system were often able to achieve local victories, but these accomplishments never culminated in the creation of a sustainable third party or left-wing ideological movement. The thirties dramatically demonstrated not only the power of America’s coalitional two-party system to dissuade a national third party but also the deeply antistatist, individualistic character of its electorate."

This article, while again strongly biased, kind of speaks to my ideal scenario for the OWS movement - that it pressures the establishment to radically reform itself.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

i'll get back to you when i can read it

I'm not a fan of FDR tho

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"Well convert me then."

I made most of the arguments I care to make (follow the threads down a bit) here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-those-capitalists/#comment-261697

And here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-those-capitalists/#comment-287011

And here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-those-capitalists/#comment-266406

And here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-those-capitalists/#comment-269002

And TLYdon007 is good here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-those-capitalists/#comment-269838

And Lockean here:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/damn-those-capitalists/#comment-269219

There are other threads too, but...

Gold. Hoarding was a major problem. The necessary and the good...

I would just add further that people who think he extended it maybe don't understand the scale of the collapse, worldwide. Like now, there was a demand-side problem, but it was worse; trade was at a near standstill, production was shut down, and people were living in hoovervilles and depending on breadlines. I don't think you understand how bad it was. FDR definitely turned it around, and the people who lived through it know better than this ideological garbage that must prove that the market can do no ill if left on its own, and the state can do no good when it interferes. And Hoover was a tool, again only the ideological like to make FDR's policies somehow a continuation of Hoover's hapless dithering.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

thanks for that. I think that we have to question the legitimacy of the sources. The legitimacy of the revisionists has been questioned; what about the other side? I question the public school system and academia because they have ulterior motives that are not so ulterior if your eyes are open. They are trying to keep their jobs and their socialist community going so they tell the story in their own way, too.

Why has Obama's $trillion stimulus not worked then? Unemployment has increased since then. And we've had a substantial amount of inflation due to thr printing of all this money while our debt increases. Are today's democrats less benevolent? Did that money just go to crony-capitalist deals?

Where did FDR get the money for those projects?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I realize that, and it wasn't lost on me when I recommended the piece. Did you get a chance to read it? I found it interesting, if nothing else...

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

Ya that was interesting. I find that historical information depends a great deal on the source. I do not know all the details of FDR's presidency but what I do know sure puts him in the dictator category and I believe that the new deal policies of Hoover and FDR extended the depression. I point to price fixing as my evidence. Because of human nature people won't pay the government price if it's too unreasonable.

I don't want to reform the establishment. I want it to go away. They will be up to no good once again if they're not canned.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I don't want to have the FDR debate again, but I think all the FDR "extended the depression" nonsense is revisionist history that can be traced to just a few heterodox economists and historians over the past few years, all of them ideologically driven. It is no accident that FDR is the 2nd most highly-ranked (by historians) president of all time, the 1st in the 20th century, and that his policies were lauded for the 40 subsequent years (the golden age of the 40s-70s I've talked about were made in his image), when clear memories prevailed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#Scholar_survey_results

Sort by aggregate ranking.

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

did we have that debate? I remember having it with a larouchey maybe you were there too.

I have had people tell me what sort of people back up my argument and discredit the argument based on those "bad" people, but no one will argue what price controls issued by the government does to the economy. I'm no economist but I can tell you about human psychology and we don't buy over-priced goods and services very often. Those of us who do, we call the "suckers" in the world. I guess if 1 is born every minute then that might be a good counter-argument.

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I've had it several times.

The NRA and price controls were such a minor part of FDR's policies that I don't find them worth defending. Most New Dealers rejected the NRA as fascist-inspired (Mussolini), and were glad to see it go, anyway. It wasn't a significant part of his legacy and stands apart as a clear mistake along with internment and not bombing the railroad tracks. Nobody claims he was perfect, just pretty damned great.

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

Well convert me then. Tell me why the great depression lasted until WW2. I've read about some of Hoover's and Roosevelt's policies and together I guess they composed the new deal. And from what I know, I think it is no wonder why the depression lasted so long and we are doing the same things today.

Government jacked up the price of homes and created a bubble and now that no one can afford a home, they won't let the price come down to affordable again.

I don't have the answer to slave labor yet. But I can see that people don't hire unskilled teenagers anymore because of minimum wages. Hence, illegals get all those jobs, which are driven under the table. Please convert me to FDR though I am reasonable and do listen.

Explain the confiscation of gold and how that is not tyranny, too.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

And you're never gonna see the U.S. government represent the people because at the size that they are, it's going to draw the CEO's corporations and the top investment bankers to make sure they have their representatives in Washington.... (just look at who's on Obama's inner team... the same guys that caused the financial mess).

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

It represented the people very nicely in Teddy's time, in FDR's time, during the liberal consensus of the 40s-70s.... We were convinced by the likes of Reagan that government is the problem, so we stopped having any expectations of it, abdicated, and now have the government we deserve - for being so apathetic, self-centered, and gullible. Time to take it back.

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

really? The 40's - 70's huh. Anyway, I agree with your last statement. It's only when we take it back that we can then have a fair debate on other things. Right now though, the politicians get paid by the richest 1% especially Obama.. They're not going to listen to us unless we say enough is enough.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by Corium (246) 8 years ago

www.lp.org

Take the wolrd smallest political quiz and see where you end up. The results can be surprizing.

[-] 4 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Not thrilled about the site, but my Nolan score is 70/10 hardcore liberal:

"Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters, but tend to support significant government control of the economy. They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business. Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties and free expression, support government action to promote equality, and tolerate diverse lifestyles."

[-] 2 points by Corium (246) 8 years ago

And what's wrong with that result? Nothing... if that is what you believe it should be respected.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Thanks. :o) I should strive to be as magnanimous.

[-] 1 points by PartyX (202) 8 years ago

the better question is what is yours, what is mine, and what should we do for those who can not take care of themselves. FDR, thought the right thing to do was honor the service of the vets and elderly who could not take care of themselves and today some feel as those who have always felt no sense of honoring vets as well taking care of the elderly. However, when they passed SS not to many lived past the age of 65; so if they did receive it they did not have to pay out so much to the masses as they do today. Who is looking out for the little guy?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Generally, it's the democrats.

[-] -1 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

I think what you really mean is who should have to pay for it. I think Robin Hood would be able to give you the answer your looking for.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Oh really, so we're not entitled to SS No Tent?

After paying all our lives into that system, whose paying for it, we all are.

Where have you been?

DO you ever look at your check stub?


The rich aren't paying for my SS No Tent!!!

[-] 1 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

Not what I'm saying at all. The previous poster implied that the rich should pay. All I am saying is if this stuff is that important to you, you should be willing to pay an equal share to get it.

[-] 1 points by PartyX (202) 8 years ago

Shooz I have to agree with your comments but it has to be spelled out, rather than a shout out to the masses

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

You should reply to shooz if you want a response from him/her, IMO.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I think Liberals like to latch on to anything that appears "Good", rather than actually being "Good"; a kind of ethical elitist mentality that is perpetuated through the media.

Example: "Nancy is such a Liberal, she went from vegetarian to vegan once we started having vegetarian Tuesdays in the cafeteria."

"I know, now she's telling me how wrong it is to have dairy in my diet and just last week she was bringing milk to lunch!"

"Did you hear that she was also caught sleeping during our last meeting?"

"Yeah, her excuse was that her vegan diet has been cutting into her energy level."

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

What kind of gobbledegook is that supposed to be?

As a progressive, I notice an awful lot of needless hell, being visited upon the innocent,. yet I eat meat.

What are you really trying to say?

[-] -1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

It's a mentality that I am trying to illustrate with the example.

Most Liberals I meet still support Obama! That's what I would call supporting the appearance of "Good" over the reality.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Who would you expect them to support? There isn't a lot of choice, you know.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I think I'm trying to point out the mental illness to the mentally ill. I better just stop.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You're looking in a mirror? Yes, you should stop now. You can't answer questions. You must be tired, get some rest and try again tomorrow.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

lol Pathetic

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Your argument certainly is.

Lame attempts at insult, coupled with an inability to answer a simple question?

Now that's pathetic.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

"Who would you expect them to support? There isn't a lot of choice, you know."

The second sentence negates the ability for me to answer your question. You think there is no choice except to support Obama.

That's what's pathetic.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You still didn't answer the question. Who would you have them support?

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I would have them get Hillary to run against Obama, and this time give her the delegates she earns during the nomination process.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

You can contact her on her web site. See, now? Wasn't that easy? I would listen to what she had to say. It would have to be better than the republican field.

No need for insults.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I did not mean to make an insult with the mental illness analogy, but truly, I believe that it is a psychological condition, if not an illness.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

That's just what Ann Coulter says, and she's a goon.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

In the liberal/conservative paradigm, critics on both sides often times point out true aspects of those on the "other side".

Ann Coulter may be a horrible human being, but it doesn't mean she is always wrong.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

None of that has anything to do with liberalism, obviously.

Read the wiki entry, huh?

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

It's a mentality that I am trying to illustrate with the example.

Most Liberals I met still support Obama! That's what I would call supporting the appearance of "Good" over the reality.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Ok. Read the article.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I read the article.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

You were the one trying to claim FDR wasn't a liberal right? You sure you read it?

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I doubt FDR would agree with the modern Liberal stance. He detained Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor. Not the best decision, but not very liberal either.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Clueless. You don't know liberalism. You know the caricature of liberalism painted by reactionaries. You're attributing to it every dovish, weak, pathetic stereotype you can think up. Those attributes are not liberal. They may seem to be correlated to you, but that's just a lack of vision on your part, and education.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

No, what I am just talking about the ethical-elitist stance that liberals always take on issues. I'm not a conservative, if that helps my argument in any way. I would identify as a progressive but it seems that liberals have hijacked the term.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

You're thinking of something other than liberal. Liberals began to refer to themselves as "progressives" (a throwback to the predecessors of liberalism, like Lincoln, Teddy, Wilson), after Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan and Bush (during campaigns) made the word "liberal" a pejorative. You have NOT read the article nor my descriptions above. You're thinking of something else. Maybe "classical liberals" have gotten to you, or just you've been exposed to some pretentious schmucks that called themselves liberals. But terms have actual meaning, and you're missing the correct meaning altogether.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Don't lump Wilson and Teddy with Lincoln, please. If you got the three of them in a room, there would be a brawl.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

The are all part of the movement called progressivism. Again, words have meanings. Sorry.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I think you read the wrong history books.

Lincoln was for developing the West, ie. the intercontinental railroad. Teddy turned half the country into a nature preserve.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

No, neoliberals are the entirety of globalism. You really should read her. You have a half-formed picture of the world.

Oversimplifications. You can't get through to a mind like this.

Neoconservatism fits within the neoliberal umbrella. Just like true conservatism fits within the liberal umbrella.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

You should also try looking up neo-conservatism. That's the right wing cover for globalism.

[-] 1 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

"You have a half-formed picture of the world."

lol You're behaving exactly like how I said a liberal behaves. lol

The whole "Neo-" phenomenon is just a cover for globalism. I'm sure if Ron-Paul became president, and he continued the policies of globalism, he would be labeled a "Neo-Libertarian".

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

You don't know the modern liberal program, because there isn't one. Liberals haven't been in power for 40 years. Neoliberals, some slightly less anti-government than others, but both sides equally corporate and steeped in market-based solutions that enrich the few, while pushing austerity on the many, dominate both parties. None of them have the common good at heart, and that makes them distinctly illiberal. You need to read up on neoliberalism. Please, go pick up a copy of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

Neo-liberals are the left wing of globalism. I don't need to read Naomi Klein to know this.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"of the people, by the people, for the people"

That is progressivism. It sounds like mob rule to conservatives.

What do you think states' rights conservatives have to say about Lincoln and his storng central government? They call him a progressive tyrant.

Yep, big government progressivism, of which railroads are a part (big infrastructure projects, continued by people like Teddy and especially FDR). Environmentalism is only one aspect of progressivism you know, right?

In Teddy's own words: "The Heirs of Abraham Lincoln" http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1140

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

THAT is progressive.

[-] 0 points by riethc (1149) 8 years ago

I agree that FDR and Lincoln were about progress. What I am saying is that they wouldn't agree with the modern liberal platform.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I think we were moving towards it, before those against it, bought out all the press.

That's still getting worse.

[-] 0 points by jay1975 (428) 8 years ago

Real democracy is mob rule and you can end up with the majority oppressing the minority. See California's Prop 8 debacle for an example.

[-] -2 points by LiberalsAreExHighSchoolGeeks (-5) 8 years ago

liberals have allowed socialism to take root in the US. 2 & 1/2 years ago the average American wasn't even talking about socialism.

liberals are part of the Leftist Machine: liberals, Democrats, RINOs, progressives, and socialists.

The Leftist Machine has controlled CBS/NBC/ABC, Hollywood, and politics for decades.

Please do some substantial research before you form opinions or vote! Ads, speeches, and biased news are not fact and not research.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

"2 & 1/2 years ago the average American wasn't even talking about socialism."

And they are now because they've all been propagandized by a McCarthyist, reactionary right, including freaks like Glenn Beck. Liberals are not socialists, and we haven't changed since the liberal consensus years.

The right has become extreme and now everything to the left of Reagan (and in a lot of ways the Gipper himself) are "socialist."

Ike was more of a socialist than Obama: http://www.blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

The "leftist machine" controls nothing. Corporations control it all. Are corporations leftist? You know, those big things that control government against which we're protesting?

Substantial research, on Fox? Back at ya.

[-] -2 points by darrenlobo (204) 8 years ago

"libertarians tend to be more consistent about everyone being on their own - austerity/dog-eat-dog/darwinism for all. Principles. Gotta love them."

No, we believe in voluntary association, I have no idea where this "own their own" stuff comes from. We cite the friendly societies & lodges as historical examples of our ideas working. We want the economy "regulated" by organizations such as Underwriters Labs, Consumer Reports, Angie's List, & the many other places people can go for evaluations.

I would suggest that the present govt regulated & licensed system (no, it's not even close to being a free market) is an example of dog eat dog. Or maybe it's the 1% eating the 99% using the system of govt control the liberals defend. Now there's a thought.

[-] -3 points by RexDiamond (585) from Idabel, OK 8 years ago

And the road to hell is paved with both.

[-] 3 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

That road to hell that led through the most prosperous and relatively equal time in our history, bookended by Hoover on one end and Reagan on the other? That's the one? So hell is now, right?

Ok, I agree.

[-] 1 points by thrasymachus (20) 8 years ago

Perfect.

[+] -4 points by whisper (212) 8 years ago

Government is, by definition, the organized use of force and/or coercion. The Declaration of Independence recognized the philosophical principle that the source of human rights is human existence. That among human rights were the right to life, (and because of the natural requirements of human life) liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence recognized that the only legitimate purpose of government (force and coercion) was the protection of these rights. In other words, the principle that the only legitimate use of force and coercion is the response to the violation of individual rights (which can only be violated by the initiation of force and/or coercion). Thus, a constitution which followed the principles of the Declaration of Independence would have explicitly limited government power to this purpose. Ours does not. The single largest contradiction in our constitution is the idea that individual rights can exist while the government can have absolute control over commerce.

Modern liberalism, conservatism, and every other 'ism' that I can think of find nothing wrong with the idea that government (force and coercion) should play a role in our economy. But it is precisely this ability which has led to the situation that OWS is rallying against. It is precisely this power which provides the incentive to purchase legislators, judges, congressmen and women, presidents, etc.

The idea that government, as such, can 'manage' an economy has been disproved time and time again. Force and coercion can, in no way, benefit the lives of men who wish to trade with those who's products they value and NOT to trade with those who's products they don't. For instance, state funded (which means taxpayer funded) education forces those who disagree with the practices of the state-run schools and those who have no children to support ideas and methods they disagree with (which is a violation of their rights) and to support other people's children. The same argument goes for any other taxpayer-funded institution.

[+] -4 points by DudleyE (94) 8 years ago

That may have been true 50 years ago, but not anymore. I'm a liberal if you use classic definition of liberal, but I have trouble supporting any of these modern liberals. Classic liberalism is modern libertarianism, modern liberals are yesterdays socialists. The Democrats have moved drastically left since the 60's, todays Democrat Party is not the party of my grandparents!

[-] 7 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

The Democrats have moved right. The Republicans have moved farther right.

Eisenhower. He was to the left of Obama. Check this out: http://www.blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal

Classical liberalism is a farse. Libertarianism is extremism. You can't consider enlightenment-era liberalism without including Rousseau along with Locke. Also consider that Adam Smith favored progressive taxation.

[-] -2 points by DudleyE (94) 8 years ago

Again, if you say so! Maybe I had a different history book in school? However, I had read and re-read Wealth of Nations and the Two Treatise on Government. Neither author was in support of the types of policies that this movement is advocating. That would be Rouseau and Marx, they were on board with this type of democratic totalitarianism.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

" However, I had read and re-read Wealth of Nations and the Two Treatise on Government. Neither author was in support of the types of policies that this movement is advocating. "

~This is you making the false claim that you "read" Adam Smith and didn't just read some summary from a Libertarian Blog.

"Though the principles of the banking trade may appear somewhat abstruse, the practice is capable of being reduced to strict rules. To depart upon any occasion from these rules, in consequence of some flattering speculation of extraordinary gain, is almost always extremely dangerous, and frequently fatal to the banking company which attempts it."

~This is Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations

"For a very small expence the public can facilitate, can encourage, and can even impose upon almost the whole body of the people, the necessity of acquiring those most essential parts of education."

~This is Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

~This is Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

~This is Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations

"We rarely hear, it has been said, of the combinations of masters, though frequently of those of workmen. But whoever imagines, upon this account, that masters rarely combine, is as ignorant of the world as of the subject. Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labor above their actual rate"

~This is Adam Smith from The Wealth of Nations

I'm sorry, but I don't want to hog the entire forum. There is much more though that he said that relates to the goals of this movement.

Why don't you ACTUALLY read the book instead of just claiming to??

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

No need to apologize. Thanks for this.

[-] 4 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It's my belief that the libertarians have infected both parties, It's worse in the republicans, but the democrats are not immune. It's why they both seem the same these days. It really does blur the lines between, and in both parties.

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"Classic liberalism is modern libertarianism, modern liberals are yesterdays socialists."

What you're describing is just false.

Classical (not classic) Liberalism is not Libertarianism..

Neoclassical Liberalism (or just Neoliberalism) is what you're thinking of, but it is a misguided comparison..

There are strong distinctions.

Classical Liberalism, while it advocates free trade, is not under the delusion that all trade should go completely unregulated.. Most of their views came out of the 19th century and are based on slightly earlier writings from Ricardo, Malthus, and the most famous being Adam Smith (father of economics and the inventor of the progressive tax system).

Neoclassical Liberalism is a revisionist version that came out in 1970s. Based mostly on the writings of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman advocated free market policies by encouraging Ronald Reagan to support dictators in Latin America (Pinochet in Chile, Vidal in Argentina, etc.) and advising them to suspend all economic assistance to the poor, suspending individual rights, and brutally cracking down on people that protest these measures.

I find it odd that so many alleged "Libertarians" are not only unfamiliar with this shameful history of Neoliberalism and its advocacy of suppressing free speech and human rights, but that they keep going on self-identifying with it as if it's normal.

[+] -4 points by figero (661) 8 years ago

Socialists high-jacked the word Liberal in the early 20th century. There is nothing liberal about Liberalism in today's use of the word. Libertarianism is more accurate. Just like the left high jacks all the good words like democrat hahaha! There is nothing democratic about the way the left uses force. Public education = force, Social Security = Force, on & on

[-] 7 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

Socialists like Eisenhower, right? Because most liberals are about aligned with his policies...

Libertarians are the ones trying to hijack it.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

It does not matter which party they are attached to. And most modern liberals are socialists in disguise.

[+] -7 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

In spite of all the smug, self congratulatory liberals here your so called "progressive" label is in effect socialism. It all aims to bigger government, strangling small business with regulations, ever higher taxes and less and less personal freedom. Talk is all you people have. And it's all shit. Your actions and your support of monsterous government is all the proof needed.

[-] 5 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Strangely, I didn't strangle anybody. It's often the large corporations who accept that regulation and then force it on the little guy. With a kind of MOM if I gotta do it, so does he.

Your blame is misplaced. Do you frequent Heritage?

Places like Walmart put so much more pressure on the small business, than government ever could. Yet you don't even mention that.

Too much time at CATO?

Credit cards strangle the little guys, with charges, yet you don't complain?

To me it's the fact the the so called "opposition", often parrot the same things that were said at the turn of the 20th century. Teddy was a progressive Republican. Image that, and he pulled the US out of a depression, with those progressive policies . Look them up if like, he corralled the rail barons of the gilded age.

What you refer to as "shit", was mostly caused by 20 out of the last 30 years under neoliberal republican policies. Clinton wasn't much help there either, as he instituted neoliberal trade policies too.

The " monstrous government" you refer to is really a result of ignoring Eisenhower's warning. in his original draft of that speech, he included Congress, in the military industrial complex. Most folks don't know that.

In truth, it is the neoliberal republican that is still doing all the damage. Maybe you should finally give Liberalism a chance.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

It's amazing you people put words in others mouths You understand nothing of oppressive government. But you'll soon see when the government collapses under the weight of the debt. I'm sure you'll still worship Obama and work for more and more power centralized in D.C.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Actually I took them from your post. I know of both oppressive government and oppressive corporations. You guys always miss that corporation part. You just pretend it's not there.

Why is that?

It's you who put words in my mouth. to wit: "worship Obama". Never did that, never said it.

Think about this for a minute. If you really wanted smaller government, it would behoove you to think about doing away with all State governments. They are redundant and cost billions upon billions in that redundancy. Not to mention all the costs to businesses, that have to cope with 50 different sets of State laws.

The federal government has to deal with all that too. It's a serious waste of tax dollars. Just think, no more State led pork barreling. A streamlining of all laws.

It's money........................:)

Dissolve State government, for the good of industry!!!! Dissolve State government, for the good of the Nation!!!!! Dissolve State government for the lowest taxes possible!!!!!!!!!

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Actually, I would say massively shrink Federal government. Local government knows the problems and needs of local areas. And corporations? Of course they are part of the problem. But the problem is all you useful idiots don't see that one is in the pocket of the other. They are one and the same. And just out of curiosity are you part os the 47% that pay no federal taxes?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Local governments don't know shit. They never did. Biggest waste of money in the country.

It's just easier for the corporations to talk them into stuff. Those same corporations are telling you, what you just parroted to me. I've seen their web sites, you can't lie to me about that one.

Not that it's any of your business, but I've been paying taxes since I was 17, and that was a long time ago.

Also, there is no such thing as a 47% that pays no taxes. It's just not true. Another lie I've heard the likes of Limbaugh try and pass off to ditto heads.

I'm not one of those. Are you?

If you only want smaller federal government, then perhaps we should consolidate the 50 States into 13.

That would still save quite a bit.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

No such thing as 47% that don't pay federal tax? Then why would your god/federal government say it? And the Feds Never fall under the sway of corporations? General Electric? No taxes paid. Or is that a lie on a website too? The Oil industry getting government subsidies in years of record profits? Is that a lie? So according to you if we centralize more power in Washington DC and just do away with every other type of local government we will have what? Economic justice (whatever that is)? Utopia? What?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

I didn't say any of that. You did. You seem to assume quite a bit.

I suggested we save money by reducing the exorbitant cost of 50 state governments, and by doing so, we could also save on federal costs.

Where do you come up with the stuff you said?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Obviously you have no concept of the dangers of centralized government. Read some history.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Yeah, with out it, there's civil war. I read that part.

I'm trying to point out the costly lunacy of 50 sets of competing State laws. We are one country you know.

Cut out the unneeded overhead. Save money. It's simple, really. Corporations do it every day. Wallstreet often insists on it. Why don't you?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

You understand nothing. Your screaming for one all powerful government centralized in DC proves you understand nothing. After all they are doing such a wonderful job with only part of the power you want them to have.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

It's you who doesn't understand. You who won't think outside the box.

Refuse to admit there was a civil war.

Refuse to admit the incredible costs of 50 state governments.

Refuse to even admit that corporations practice consolidations every day and that that's good for the bottom line.

Refuse to admit that the POS republicans have been stonwalling for 3 years now, even after their policies crashed the economy and won't accept anything but more of the same.

Or are you like Limbaugh and try to blame it on Carter?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

So the democrats will fix everything if given the chance? You are not addressing the centralized government. Civil way has nothing to do with anything. God you are stupid! Go away stupid!

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Ouch.....insults.

Little real response to anything I said. It takes a centralized government to deal with 50 sets of state laws and a republican crashed world economy. Cut costs by cutting that overhead.

It was an asinine belief in states rights that cause the civil war. Guess what? They lost. Get over it.

Don't call me stupid when you cant think.

Where are you getting this stuff?

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"It all aims to bigger government, strangling small business with regulations, ever higher taxes and less and less personal freedom. "

What personal freedoms are you referring to??

The freedom to pollute without facing consequences??

The freedom to steal from consumers by creating hidden fees??

The freedom for employers to profit from exposing you to unsafe conditions that may lead to your death and spare them from having to pay you any severance or pension??

The freedom for children to starve through no fault of their own because their parents' employer is under no obligation to pay them on any given week??

The freedom for the blind, elderly, and disabled to have no option but to die because no employer will hire them??

If you want those freedoms, there's a place not far from your idea of paradise.

It's called Somalia.

The rest of us can stay here and enjoy real freedom that people like you despise.

I'm sorry but your idea of freedom just sounds like a nightmare that not even you would want to live in else you would be in Somalia.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Freedom does not come from government. Go ahead and worship government. Strangling freedom? Ruby Ridge. Waco. Beating down so called protesters. Confiscatory taxes on small business( yes you Marxist pustules most business is small business). Government programs that discriminate based on race. And I didn't give you my idea of freedom you freak. You decided what words to put in my mouth. I have to admit you have your propaganda talking points down pat. Good gods you anal fistula's make me want to vomit. You are the enemy of every freedom-loving American. You are the enemy.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"You are the enemy of every freedom-loving American. You are the enemy."

I think calling yourself an American is a stretch.. True, you may have citizenship here but all you've done so far is bitch about having to give something back. You obviously don't believe America has a future worth investing in and you also hate the troops. There's nothing pro-America about you. You're just a sponge that wants others to carry the burden of keeping America alive. Nice try though, with all the ambiguous freedom nonsense.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Hate the troops? I'm a former Marine. Hate the troops? You left wing filth like the troops? Gods what a lie. And please tell me where I bitch about giving something back? What the he'll are you talking about?

[-] 1 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

Well, if you were a Marine, you'd probably learn to appreciate those of us that don't complain about paying HIGHER TAXES to pay for our veterans' benefits and don't want to slash them.

But no.. You go on worshiping the same people that would love to see disabled veterans thrown out into the streets after fighting wars they voted for in the name of fighting "big government".

http://www.disabledveterans.org/2011/04/16/republicans-seek-to-cut-1-3-million-veterans/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/12/28/gop-looks-at-cutting-veterans-health-benefits-for-2011-session-to-fulfill-pledge/

I find it odd, disgraceful in fact, that a former Marine doesn't give a damn about disabled veterans.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Disabled veterans have nothing to do with this . Goddamn are you 14? are you kidding me with this stupid shit? And if you want to pay higher taxes by all means do so. There are provisions in the Tax Code for you to give as much as you want to your god/government. Go to sleep kid and let the adults talk.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"Disabled veterans have nothing to do with this ."

Disabled veterans are frequently at OWS. I've met several. Thank god these real heroes didn't have to fight next to weekend warriors like yourself.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Ah. I see what you are. And I'm not the only one. Yes. Those you've supposedly met speak for all.

Time to start sone new talking points commie boy.

[-] 2 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

They don't speak for all.

How could heroes like them speak for whiny, self-righteous cowards like yourself??

You know while you were a marine, my hard-earned taxes paid your salary?? The only thing that bothers me about that is that my money could have been much better spent on someone that actually cares about America and was trying to give something back, instead of you. Perhaps it could have gone to the disabled veterans that you hate so much? It's sad.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

And it's amazing how NONE of you EVER actually address anything I say. You all need to talk to your government masters to come up with some answers.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Oh, and your wonderful government selling guns to drug cartels that have slaughtered innocent people, including children. But I'm sure fox news just made that whole thing up. And you god called government bombing women and children around the world. But that's okay. More power to the freedom loving government! They will save the day. God you sub humans are so stupid...

[-] 2 points by bcon (9) 8 years ago

The government doesn't strangle small businesses, Wal-mart does.

[-] -1 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

And as a small business owner I can tell you you are wrong. Out here in Californiathe government you assholes worship strangles us with high taxes and over wrought regulations. None of you marxists have a goddamn clue.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Not another anal fixation.

What's wrong with you guys?

You live in a desert, of course you're taxes are high.

Move to Michigan. We got cheap water, cheaper utilities and lower taxes.

And what is this with seeing marxists everywhere?

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

If you don't see it you never will. Go back to the ACP. And Michigan? You mean that utopian city Detroit?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Then enjoy your high tax desert, and stop complaining. It was your "choice", after all.

Michigan is actually a pretty good sized State. It's a shame all you can see is Detroit. Did I mention, we got water? Cheap farmland? Cheap utilities?

There's even folks like you, with an anal fixation around.

[-] 0 points by MVSN (768) from Stockton, CA 8 years ago

Sigh..

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 8 years ago

Want to buy a 3br full basement ranch in Warren?

[-] 1 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

We have plenty more than talk. We have the golden age of the 40s-70s which your peops have all but destroyed. The American Dream is toast, and you blame us? It's ridiculous. You need to step outside of your Fox News shell and let go of some of your anger for whatever culture war issue turned you into a reactionary hater.

[+] -8 points by progmarx (66) 8 years ago

Well after reviewing your statements and info. I'm still of the same opinion,Liberalism is just another form of Socialism/Communism. I don't see any evidence to support the notion that Liberals care for the rule of law. OWS breaks the law all the time,Liberals support and fight for the rights of people who come in to the country illegally. I believe Liberals only obey laws that coincide with their ideology at the moment. I just see so very much hypocrisy in what the Left does and what the Left says.

I see Liberals as not rooted in the reality of economics but in the changing of policy and law to fit their ideology without the concern of the unintended consequences of that policy or law. After topping $15 trillion today of which Obama (whom you like to call a "neoliberal" but I believe IS a Liberal) is directly responsible for at least $4 trillion,and an unemployment rate consistently above 9%,along with all the new Green-gate loan debacles,Fast and Furious, I'm convinced this ideology of Liberalism is a train wreck in the process of happening.

[-] 7 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

And so take it on yourself to decide what is seen here. Like you respect law, or anything. Just another dick manipulating the system

Glad you're convinced. That means something. Not.

[-] 4 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

The fraud here: Fascism all the way.

[-] 2 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

Thanks.

[+] -4 points by progmarx (66) 8 years ago

Way to refute my points and post. You sure proved me wrong.

[-] 2 points by Lockean (671) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Playing dirty and manipulating the system would be the exact opposite of a system where arguments are considered on their merits. There's nothing honorable about you, and you're not worth debating.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by TLydon007 (1278) 8 years ago

"I see Liberals as not rooted in the reality of economics but in the changing of policy and law to fit their ideology without the concern of the unintended consequences of that policy or law. "

That's funny. Obviously you don't remember the financial crisis that occurred after about 30 years of practicing the same economic policies that we're trying to correct and that you advocate like a naive cheerleader.. Maybe you lived in a cave?? Maybe you're just ignorant?? Perhaps stupid??

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 8 years ago

the reality of economics is that you can't spend other people's money increasingly and indefinitely. When ever you get more spenders than earners then game over.

[-] 0 points by magus022 (0) from Phoenix, AZ 8 years ago

" I believe Liberals only obey laws that coincide with their ideology at the moment." I have to point out than any one following their ideology would behave this way. Take an example of gun control. If for some reason the government was able to pass a law to ban the possession of certain types of guns. Would there not be a large number of conservatives that would continue to own/purchase such guns because they don't agree with the law? They would also be pushing to change the law, but they wouldn't just give up their weapons because it was illegal for them to own them. Hence, your argument is without merit, as you are arguing against human behavior, not a particular ideology.

And what, pray tell, is the 'Reality of Economics'? I'd love to see a paper on the reality of economics, proving that it isn't an ever changing beast that has been developing over the many years of civilization on this earth and typically directed by government involvement/controls.

[Removed]

[+] -8 points by progmarx (66) 8 years ago

Actually your definitions come up short. You didn't tell us specifically what you as "Liberal/Progressivel" stand for.

[-] 9 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I stand for the moral mandate of government to the welfare of the people, which includes addressing the issues of crushing inequality, and the regulation of the market in a manner that benefits the common good, not just enriches the few.

[+] -7 points by progmarx (66) 8 years ago

Thank you for your reply. Where in the Constitution is this "moral mandate"? Where does the Constitution mention Govt. must address social and economic "inequality? Also where do you find the part that states the Govt. must regulate the market? Do you believe in "social justice"?

Thanks,I'd be interested in your answers.

[-] 10 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

I consider the constitution a framework that offers for a system of self-governance. Government is authorized to promote the general welfare and the nature of that activity is left to the voters. I am sure we disagree that our republic is a form of democracy, and that the constitution is a living document, so there's not much else to say.

I can only point out that during the era when the policies I support were dominant, the people were free, prosperous, and relatively equal. We had a stable and just society. Things have changed, and I see little do do with the constitution in what has happened since Reagan's neoliberal policies put us on the path to decline.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 8 years ago

people were never equal. before crony capitalism we did have more equal growth in all economic quintiles though.

in addressing the welfare of the people we should also do it via things like food stamps - money directly targeted for a certain thing and given to the poor. it shouldn't be something like universal health care that initially treats everyone as poor and operate as a 'food stamps for all' kind of thing.

[+] -5 points by progmarx (66) 8 years ago

What "era" are you talking about? Please,in years.

[-] 9 points by looselyhuman (3117) 8 years ago

The 40s-late 60s (I see the 70s as a transitional period). The "liberal consensus" years. Recommend the wiki article. Also this is repetitive so maybe review: http://occupywallst.org/forum/liberalism-is-not-socialism/#comment-368382

[-] 6 points by an0n (764) 8 years ago

I think the wiki article was meant to fulfill that...

[+] -4 points by progmarx (66) 8 years ago

Did you write the wiki article? If not that doesn't cut it.

[+] -7 points by notentitled (125) 8 years ago

Thank you. I was wondering when someone would get to that.