26 of 26
26
Is Too Much Liberalism a Good Thing?
Posted: 16 July 2017 12:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 376 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2014-06-20
Adamski - 15 July 2017 01:13 AM
LoisL - 14 July 2017 01:29 PM
Adamski - 12 July 2017 03:07 AM
LoisL - 02 July 2017 01:02 PM

Re the title of the thread. How much liberalism is “too much”? Can you give me a ballpark figure?

wrong. Title is

“How much Liberalism is “too much”  (emphasis on the big L).

Educate yourself on the difference.


Right, that makes a big difference. You still haven’t answered the question. Here—How much Liberalism is too much?  Capitalize as you wish. While you’re at it maybe you can explain the difference between liberalism and Liberalism that makes any sense.

Educate yourself on the similarities.

LL

how can you make such a fundamental mistake if as you claim are educated enough on the matter to asks such a question ??

Apparently my fundamental mistake was in asking a rational question of someone who doesn’t understand rational questions.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2017 01:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 377 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  155
Joined  2017-07-06
LoisL - 16 July 2017 12:32 PM
Adamski - 15 July 2017 01:13 AM
LoisL - 14 July 2017 01:29 PM
Adamski - 12 July 2017 03:07 AM
LoisL - 02 July 2017 01:02 PM

Re the title of the thread. How much liberalism is “too much”? Can you give me a ballpark figure?

wrong. Title is

“How much Liberalism is “too much”  (emphasis on the big L).

Educate yourself on the difference.


Right, that makes a big difference. You still haven’t answered the question. Here—How much Liberalism is too much?  Capitalize as you wish. While you’re at it maybe you can explain the difference between liberalism and Liberalism that makes any sense.

Educate yourself on the similarities.

LL


how can you make such a fundamental mistake if as you claim are educated enough on the matter to asks such a question ??

Apparently my fundamental mistake was in asking a rational question of someone who doesn’t understand rational questions.

your fundamental mistake is you don’t know what you are talking about. How you say- out of your depth

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2017 09:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 378 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7664
Joined  2009-02-26

@ Adamski,

If you have to ask; “How you say- out of your depth”, then clearly you are out of your depth here.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 12:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 379 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  155
Joined  2017-07-06
Write4U - 16 July 2017 09:21 PM

@ Adamski,

If you have to ask; “How you say- out of your depth”, then clearly you are out of your depth here.

Why?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 06:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 380 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  922
Joined  2016-12-24

kids, kids, can’t we play nice?  smile

. . .  that makes a big difference. You still haven’t answered the question.

Here—How much Liberalism is too much?

While you’re at it maybe you can explain the difference between liberalism and Liberalism that makes any sense.


Seems like a fair question worth a reasonable attempt to answer.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2017 11:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 381 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7664
Joined  2009-02-26
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 17 July 2017 06:57 AM

kids, kids, can’t we play nice?  smile

. . .  that makes a big difference. You still haven’t answered the question.

Here—How much Liberalism is too much?

While you’re at it maybe you can explain the difference between liberalism and Liberalism that makes any sense.


Seems like a fair question worth a reasonable attempt to answer.

I totally agree, but how can there be a reasonable discussion when there is no agreement on the definition of the word itself and one party refuses to explain his interpretation of the term, but insists every one else is wrong accompanied by numerous ad hominems.  That’s just trolling .

But I’d love to discuss it with you.

IMO, Liberalism is clearly defined in Webster as

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically
such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)

d capitalized
:  the principles and policies of a Liberal

This definition would indicate that liberalism is fundamentally a good thing

So the question becomes if there can be “too” much of a good thing.

As a proponent of “moderation in all things”, I could see that, if these tenets are carried to the extreme, such as too much government interference in all things, this could lead to excessive government regulation along with the need for higher taxation, even if the intention is benign.

OTOH, on fundamental issues, such as the general health and welfare of the citizenry, I believe that a “single payer healthcare system” is a good thing in all respects as it would treat health care as a right and not as a commodity.

What most people do not realize is that the government is a “not for profit” institution, which cannot make a profit on providing public services.

Even as that might lead to higher taxation, it would take out the profit motives of health care insurers. Thus it would be become a case of paying government to deliver free healthcare services and tax the actual costs of those services, or paying a private for-profit insurer to deliver healthcare services, who in addition of charging actual costs, adds a percentage of profit to the bill, which inevitably results in higher payment for those services, as well as an attempt to provide minimal services at maximum cost, in order to increase profits for the stock holders.

A clear example is the fact that one can buy US manufactured medicines at less cost than in Canada than in the US, country which manufactures these medicines.

To me this would represent an example of too much Capitalism

[ Edited: 17 July 2017 12:31 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 01:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 382 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  155
Joined  2017-07-06
Write4U - 17 July 2017 11:24 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 17 July 2017 06:57 AM

kids, kids, can’t we play nice?  smile

. . .  that makes a big difference. You still haven’t answered the question.

Here—How much Liberalism is too much?

While you’re at it maybe you can explain the difference between liberalism and Liberalism that makes any sense.


Seems like a fair question worth a reasonable attempt to answer.

I totally agree, but how can there be a reasonable discussion when there is no agreement on the definition of the word itself and one party refuses to explain his interpretation of the term, but insists every one else is wrong accompanied by numerous ad hominems.  That’s just trolling .

But I’d love to discuss it with you.

IMO, Liberalism is clearly defined in Webster as

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically
such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)

d capitalized
:  the principles and policies of a Liberal

This definition would indicate that liberalism is fundamentally a good thing

So the question becomes if there can be “too” much of a good thing.

As a proponent of “moderation in all things”, I could see that, if these tenets are carried to the extreme, such as too much government interference in all things, this could lead to excessive government regulation along with the need for higher taxation, even if the intention is benign.

OTOH, on fundamental issues, such as the general health and welfare of the citizenry, I believe that a “single payer healthcare system” is a good thing in all respects as it would treat health care as a right and not as a commodity.

What most people do not realize is that the government is a “not for profit” institution, which cannot make a profit on providing public services.

Even as that might lead to higher taxation, it would take out the profit motives of health care insurers. Thus it would be become a case of paying government to deliver free healthcare services and tax the actual costs of those services, or paying a private for-profit insurer to deliver healthcare services, who in addition of charging actual costs, adds a percentage of profit to the bill, which inevitably results in higher payment for those services, as well as an attempt to provide minimal services at maximum cost, in order to increase profits for the stock holders.

A clear example is the fact that one can buy US manufactured medicines at less cost than in Canada than in the US, country which manufactures these medicines.

To me this would represent an example of too much Capitalism

So is socialism the answer?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 06:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 383 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  922
Joined  2016-12-24
Adamski - 18 July 2017 01:36 AM

So is socialism the answer?

Please do define “socialism” before you play that red herring.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 05:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 384 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2014-06-20
Write4U - 17 July 2017 11:24 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 17 July 2017 06:57 AM

kids, kids, can’t we play nice?  smile

. . .  that makes a big difference. You still haven’t answered the question.

Here—How much Liberalism is too much?

While you’re at it maybe you can explain the difference between liberalism and Liberalism that makes any sense.


Seems like a fair question worth a reasonable attempt to answer.

I totally agree, but how can there be a reasonable discussion when there is no agreement on the definition of the word itself and one party refuses to explain his interpretation of the term, but insists every one else is wrong accompanied by numerous ad hominems.  That’s just trolling .

But I’d love to discuss it with you.

IMO, Liberalism is clearly defined in Webster as

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically
such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (such as those involving race, gender, or class)

d capitalized
:  the principles and policies of a Liberal

This definition would indicate that liberalism is fundamentally a good thing

So the question becomes if there can be “too” much of a good thing.

As a proponent of “moderation in all things”, I could see that, if these tenets are carried to the extreme, such as too much government interference in all things, this could lead to excessive government regulation along with the need for higher taxation, even if the intention is benign.

OTOH, on fundamental issues, such as the general health and welfare of the citizenry, I believe that a “single payer healthcare system” is a good thing in all respects as it would treat health care as a right and not as a commodity.

What most people do not realize is that the government is a “not for profit” institution, which cannot make a profit on providing public services.

Even as that might lead to higher taxation, it would take out the profit motives of health care insurers. Thus it would be become a case of paying government to deliver free healthcare services and tax the actual costs of those services, or paying a private for-profit insurer to deliver healthcare services, who in addition of charging actual costs, adds a percentage of profit to the bill, which inevitably results in higher payment for those services, as well as an attempt to provide minimal services at maximum cost, in order to increase profits for the stock holders.

A clear example is the fact that one can buy US manufactured medicines at less cost than in Canada than in the US, country which manufactures these medicines.

To me this would represent an example of too much Capitalism

Good answer.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 385 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2014-06-20
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 18 July 2017 06:17 AM
Adamski - 18 July 2017 01:36 AM

So is socialism the answer?

Please do define “socialism” before you play that red herring.

Most people have no idea what socialism is. It’s usually used as an epithet when anyone suggests that the givernment should help people who have been hurt by untrammeled capitalism.

There is something between socialism and pure capitalism that Capitalists can’t see. It’s a capitalist system that supports social programs (not socialism) to help those hurt by capitalism. It’s what we have to a certain point in the US, but which the right wing wants to destroy and has succeeded in destroying in many areas, shifting the balance that could have resulted in a decent society.

[ Edited: 18 July 2017 10:51 PM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 06:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 386 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  781
Joined  2016-01-24

Real socialism has rarely been practiced, how can anybody claim that it doesn’t work. The Soviet Union wasn’t socialist, in some ways it was far more conservative than even the US with Stalin patterning his brutal rule after Ivan the Terrible and Genghis Khan.

Real socialism is highly democratic, but Stalin wiped out most of the moderates even in his own party after the Congress of Heroes(or victors depending who you talk to) in 1933. It was the challenge to Stalin’s absolute rule at this Bolshevik congress that kicked off the great purges of the 1930s. Stalin would stay up most of the night signing thousands of death warrants for his own party members then complain it wasn’t enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Congress_of_the_All-Union_Communist_Party_(Bolsheviks)

During the elections to the 17th Central Committee Stalin received a significant number (over a hundred, although the precise number is unknown) of negative votes, whereas only three delegates crossed out the name of the popular Leningrad party boss, Sergei Kirov. The results were subsequently covered up on Stalin’s orders and it was officially reported that Stalin also received only three negative votes.

Real socialism doesn’t slaughter people to place one person in uncontested rule, it provides adequate health care, housing, food and more to the general population. The US itself was created under socialist ideals, it’s what “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge

It has been estimated at 600,000 people died at the hands of the Soviet government during the Purge.

Under capitalism the US is approaching totalitarian rule under the wealthy who because of things like Citizens United can now buy government outright.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness become very difficult if you’re chronically ill because you can’t afford health care, you live from pay check to pay check so homelessness is just one small disaster away and the food that you can afford will eventually make you critically ill. Many Americans are treated as little more than slaves under the current status quo whatever they tell themselves and the psychopath now in the Oval Office is making this worse not better. Trying to rob 22 million more Americans of affordable health care just adds to the burden that millions of Americans are being forced to carry by the “elite” who are in complete violation of the spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Sentencing many people to life in prison for petty theft so they can be put to work at slave wages is cruel and unusual punishment.

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the problems in the US now. The US could use some real socialism and a lot of it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 387 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  922
Joined  2016-12-24
Write4U - 17 July 2017 11:24 AM
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 17 July 2017 06:57 AM

kids, kids, can’t we play nice?  smile

. . .  that makes a big difference. You still haven’t answered the question.

Here—How much Liberalism is too much?

While you’re at it maybe you can explain the difference between liberalism and Liberalism that makes any sense.


Seems like a fair question worth a reasonable attempt to answer.

I totally agree, but how can there be a reasonable discussion when there is no agreement on the definition of the word itself and one party refuses to explain his interpretation of the term, but insists every one else is wrong accompanied by numerous ad hominems. 
That’s just trolling .

Actual that’s the Alt-Right and Tea-party strategy.  It’s been amazingly effect too.  downer

Why?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 07:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 388 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  922
Joined  2016-12-24
LoisL - 18 July 2017 05:12 PM

Most people have no idea what socialism is. It’s usually used as an epithet when anyone suggests that the givernment should help people who have been hurt by untrammeled capitalism.

There is something between socialism and pure capitalism that Capitalists can’t see. It’s a capitalist system that supports social prograns (not socialism) to help those hurt by capitalism. It’s what we have to a certain point in the US, but which the right wing wants to destroy and has succeeded in destroying in many areas, shifting the balance that could have resulted in a decent society.

Hmmm, so are we talking about basic human tendencies?

One group possesses empathy and the other, shall we say, has remained more true to their reptilian origins and are incapable of empathy,
or of conceiving anything outside of their own direct and short term self-interest?

Seems to me that brings us back to that fundamental difference between

Enlighten Self Interest
and
Me First Foremost and Always Self Interest

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 July 2017 11:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 389 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4052
Joined  2014-06-20

socialismplay
noun so·cial·ism \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Examples: socialism in a Sentence
Editor’s Note: communism, socialism, capitalism, and democracy
Usage guide: socialism vs. social democracy


Definition of socialism
1 :  any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a :  a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b :  a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 :  a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

——-

I have never heard of anynliberal, in the US suggest that the government own and adminisster the means of production and that there is no private property.


Yet this is what the right wing suggests every time anyone says the government should help people damaged by untrammelled capitalism. Back a system of government run health care, for example, and the right shouts SOCIALISM! without the slightest idea what it is.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 July 2017 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 390 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  781
Joined  2016-01-24

Also keep in mind that the two wealthy pricks who are helping rob most Americans of their country by backing things Citizens United and the Tea Party, the Koch brothers who are trying to turn the US into their personal empire, are only in that position because their dad Fred got rich building oil refineries for that other tyrant Joseph Stalin.

That’s your “free” market future if assholes like the Kochs get their way. You don’t get much more un-American that what is trying to take over the US right now, that includes the Putin controlled psychopath in the White House and the republican party as a whole which has been turned into little more than astroturf for the super-rich. Who don’t give a flying f… about life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness for anybody but themselves.

[ Edited: 19 July 2017 01:54 PM by DougC ]
Profile
 
 
   
26 of 26
26