Thread: Political Graphing: Place Yourself and Others!

Yea we do, and if you look back through history, you will see that private funded charities have worked and there been a great many of them. There is nothing that shows public ran services are better than than charities. In fact, government ran programs tend to waste far more money and are often very inefficient.

Originally Posted by Alric

There is nothing that shows public ran services are better than than charities.

Two words: Great Depression.

Originally Posted by Alric

Yea we do, and if you look back through history, you will see that private funded charities have worked and there been a great many of them. There is nothing that shows public ran services are better than than charities. In fact, government ran programs tend to waste far more money and are often very inefficient.

I replied to you at the end of page 1.

Am guessing this thread isnt going as you would have liked. Eh Spock?

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Am guessing this thread isnt going as you would have liked. Eh Spock?

Not exactly. Although I would prefer to see more light hearted discussion, I like seeing people have discussions in my threads. So however it continues I will just be happy if it does.

Originally Posted by Alric

Economic liberalism should be on the right side of the graph, since it believes in individual right to property, and a hands off approach to economics. It favors individuals and not groups. And corporatism should be on the left side of the graphic, since it believes in markets regulated by companies, and is a branch of socialism. It favors groups over individuals.

I completely disagree with that. Support of state economic control is left wing and liberal. Do you consider Barack Obama right wing and conservative in terms of economic philosophy?

I am I am +,-.

You're just equivocating economic and social liberalism.

Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production."

It's pretty unequivocal really.

Originally Posted by Xei

No health care for a homeless man who gets run over by a drunk driver? No food or shelter for an orphaned child? No education if you have no money?

Sorry but I think the best thing that could be said about your views is that they're really naive and stupid... and at worst they're abhorrent.

I believe that all of that should be privatized. I'm not saying don't give health care for the homeless man. I'm not saying don't give food and shelter to an orphaned child. I'm not saying don't give out scholarships.

I'm just saying don't FORCE people to give their money to do these things if they don't want to. And yes, there are people who actually donate to and support private charities, much to many socialist's surprise.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

You mean back when people didn't live past 50, were lucky to finish high school and lived 6 families to an apartment? Ahh those were the days...

You seem to forget there were other factors involved back then besides non-government intervention. Attempting to claim whether or not government intervenes in the economy is the sole factor in a given time and society's life quality is horribly false.

But how do you know it's sufficient?

Like I said; quantitative evidence please, not qualitative statements.

Originally Posted by JackALope2323

I believe that all of that should be privatized. I'm not saying don't give health care for the homeless man. I'm not saying don't give food and shelter to an orphaned child. I'm not saying don't give out scholarships.

So a homeless man should pay for his health care? An orphaned child should pay for food and shelter? How do you expect them to do that? Private organizations aren't in the business of handing freebies.

You seem to forget there were other factors involved back then besides non-government intervention. Attempting to claim whether or not government intervenes in the economy is the sole factor in a given time and society's life quality is horribly false.

Of course it's not the sole factor, but who can deny that things like minimum wage, gender/race equality and free compulsory education did their part to reduce wealth disparity and better society...

Originally Posted by Xei

You're just equivocating economic and social liberalism.

Economic liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Economic liberalism is the economic component of classical liberalism.[1] It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production."

It's pretty unequivocal really.

Social liberalism is completely separate, and I was not referring to it at all. The literal meaning of "liberal" is "for major change". How it applies to the political landscape changes with time. The common terminology is pretty stagnant, but it too changes over time. Notice that the link you posted refers to the economic aspect of classical liberalism. In modern times, an economic liberal is a person who supports dramatic increases in government control of the economy. Barack Obama is an economic/fiscal liberal, for example. (He is pretty conservative socially.) Would you say that Barack Obama is an economic conservative and Rush Limbaugh is an economic liberal? Please tell me. Do you consider Barack Obama a conservative in general?

Economic/fiscal conservatives are usually either Republicans or Libertarians. Economic liberals are usually Democrats or members of much smaller parties such as the Green Party or Socialist Party. Note that I am referring to the modern meaning, not the classical meaning.

economic conservative - Google Search=

fiscal conservative - Google Search=

barack obama fiscal liberal - Google Search=

Originally Posted by Spartiate

So a homeless man should pay for his health care? An orphaned child should pay for food and shelter? How do you expect them to do that? Private organizations aren't in the business of handing freebies.

Private organizations have done a great deal in those areas, and much lower taxes would result in much more charity. On average, capitalists donate a whole lot more to charity than socialists donate, by the way. I think that is one of the most hilarious statistics of all time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Social liberalism is completely separate, and I was not referring to it at all. The literal meaning of "liberal" is "for major change". How it applies to the political landscape changes with time. The common terminology is pretty stagnant, but it too changes over time. Notice that the link you posted refers to the economic aspect of classical liberalism. In modern times, an economic liberal is a person who supports dramatic increases in government control of the economy. Barack Obama is an economic/fiscal liberal, for example. (He is pretty conservative socially.) Would you say that Barack Obama is an economic conservative and Rush Limbaugh is an economic liberal? Please tell me. Do you consider Barack Obama a conservative in general?

Economic/fiscal conservatives are usually either Republicans or Libertarians. Economic liberals are usually Democrats or members of much smaller parties such as the Green Party or Socialist Party. Note that I am referring to the modern meaning, not the classical meaning.

economic conservative - Google Search=

fiscal conservative - Google Search=

barack obama fiscal liberal - Google Search=

The most literal meaning of liberal is actually 'free'. With respect to social aspects this refers to a free mind (so freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom to change) and freedom of individuals (to take drugs for example). However with respect to economics it refers to freedom from state control, in other words, laissez faire capitalism. This is still the meaning; it hasn't changed. Not sure what the whole Google thing is about.

You say you're not referring to social liberalism but in effect you are, as you are using a dichotomised, linear view of the political spectrum, rather than the compass in the original post. You are just confusing the left of economics with the left of society because in American politics people with economic views on the left will tend to have social views on the left and those with economic views on the right will tend to have social views on the right, and the media tends to clump them both together and then uses the social term when referring to the democrats (especially at the moment as Obama has some policies most Americans would consider particularly liberal such as health care).

Like Alric said; it's an oversimplification and it causes a lot of misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Xei

Not sure what the whole Google thing is about.

They are links for you to look into. They contain lots of relevant information that goes counter to what you are saying.

You are confusing social terminology with the social aspect of political philosophy. I was explaining society's current usages of words, not social liberalism or social conservatism.

Now please answer my questions. Would you say that Barack Obama is an economic conservative and Rush Limbaugh is an economic liberal? Do you consider Barack Obama a conservative overall?

I don't know or really care who Limbaugh is. I've heard his name and from what you're saying I guess he's a Republican. Barack Obama is I presume on the left economically and hence less economically liberal than the Republicans. How is this relevant to anything?

I'm guessing you gave links to Google searches because you couldn't find any actual sources for what you're saying. I know how to use Google UM. However I'm not sure how Googling economic conservatism is supposed to be relevant in the first place... only because you are still dichotomising conservatism and liberalism would you think this information would 'counter' anything. Conservatism refers to a resistance to change. As historically the world has used capitalism, economic conservatism actually means roughly the same thing as economic liberalism. The first hit for the thing about Obama being a fiscal liberal is some kind of paranoid rant rather than a scholarly website, which pretty much fits in with what I told you about people confusing terminology.

Here's the first two sentences of this article:

Liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis, "of freedom"[1]) is the belief in the importance of individual liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but most liberals support such fundamental ideas as constitutions, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state.

The next result I get for economic liberalism:

ECONOMY PROFESSOR | Economic Liberalism

Economic liberalism refers to the maximum role of markets and competitive forces in an economy.

The state's role is limited to the establishment of the necessary framework in which markets can operate and to the provision of services which private enterprise cannot provide.

I'm really not going to have an argument about this. Economic liberalism is a ubiquitous and well-understood term which definitely does not refer to state control or left wing economics.

Xei, look into the links I posted. Read through some of the web pages. The modern meanings of the terms are different, and my links show that. Look into it. Congratulations on finding two links that express disagreement. Here, I'll spoon feed you...

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/...FiscalCons.htm

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/201...hampshire.html

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detai...hidecomments=1

http://www.nfc-pac.com/

http://blog.buzzflash.com/honors/288

http://www.dontvoteobama.net/barack%...l%20agenda.htm

http://www.libertycentral.org/libera...overty-2010-09

http://theliberalslies.blogspot.com/...-is-bushs.html


It looks like your beloved Wikipedia is a little confused...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&d...w&ved=0CBIQkAE

Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending. Fiscal conservatives often consider reduction of overall government spending and national debt as well as ensuring balanced budget of paramount importance. ...

They can't get their Wiktionary right either, eh? (same link)

Fiscal Conservative: One who favors a balanced budget, prefering spending cuts or tax increases to borrowing, and wants to decrease government size, and promote a free market

Are you getting my argument yet?

Guys, semantics...

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Xei, look into the links I posted. Read through some of the web pages. The modern meanings of the terms are different, and my links show that. Look into it. Congratulations on finding two links that express disagreement. Here, I'll spoon feed you...

Fiscal Conservatism -- Fiscal Conservatives

Top Line: Can a Socially Moderate, Fiscal Conservative Prevail in New Hampshire? - The Note

Paul LePage: A fiscal conservative and 'not ashamed of it' - Bangor Daily News

National Fiscal Conservative P.A.C. | Home

I'm rapidly losing my respect for you. Your inability to accept a mistake and to learn from somebody is in my opinion your greatest flaw, and now are using the methods of obfuscation you're so quick to point out when other members use them.

As I'm sure you know, not a single one of those links talked about the meaning of liberalism (half the time the word 'liberal' didn't even appear anywhere on the page).

Xei, I just added five links to my previous post, two of which define economic liberalism and one of which gives the definition of economic conservatism according to WIKIPEDIA and its WIKTIONARY. You like it when your own source contradicts itself? I know what usually happens to your personality when you are proven wrong, but I challenge you to control yourself this time. Do you think you can do it?

Seriously UM wtf are you even doing.

Originally Posted by Me!

economic conservatism actually means roughly the same thing as economic liberalism

Stop defining conservatism, I know what it means.

Do those sources say 'and liberalism means the opposite of this!'? No. So do they contradict themselves? No. Only in your mind because you're STILL dichotomising liberalism and conservatism despite having your hand held through why this is wrong.

The best you've got is a website from a ranting fascist and a post on a blog... which incidentally is discussing the fiscal policies of the liberals... i.e. the Democrats? Not liberal economic policies? Because they're totally opposite things? As you've had explained to you about three damn times now?

Wow, your intellectual dishonesty is quite amusing. Or, are you just being lazy and leaping to conclusions about my links? What did two of those links say about Barack Obama's economic liberalism? They called him an economic liberal because he is a spendaholic! Here's another article for you.

Economic Principles - Fiscal Conservatism and Fiscal Liberalism

In America, economic ideologies take place along a conservative/liberal continuum. The fiscally liberal side generally believes that economic decisions should be centrally controlled by the government. Without national control of most financial issues, people will not behave wisely enough to keep the economy strong. In times of national economic crisis, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s or the recession of the late 2000s, government intervention in the form of stimulus packages is needed to keep the economy alive.

The fiscally conservatism side generally believes that economic decisions should be made by individual people and unregulated by government as much as possible. If economic decisions are left to the people, the economy will be stable because the people have more of a vested interest in their economic security than the government does. Fiscal conservatives generally view government intervention in times of economic crisis as part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The dichotomy does exist. Fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism are opposites.

Now have another temper tantrum with hope that the truth will just go away.

But first, here's another bit to chew on...

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/wallib.html



Waligorski argues that, despite individual differences, these economists are bound together by a common vision of the public good. Collectively, these thinkers represent a strong counter tradition to the laissez-faire, free-market philosophy of James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Newt Gingrich, and other proponents of minimalist government and "trickle-down economics."

Contrary to such critics, liberal economists advocate government regulation as a guard against the power of the marketplace to erode our most cherished political values and social institutions. For these economists, a completely free market is definitely not the best market for democracy; an unrestrained market guarantees neither fairness nor prosperity and in Keynes' time nearly destroyed our nation.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Wow, your intellectual dishonesty is quite amusing. Or, are you just being lazy and leaping to conclusions about my links? What did two of those links say about Barack Obama's economic liberalism? They called him an economic liberal because he is a spendaholic! Here's another article for you.

Economic Principles - Fiscal Conservatism and Fiscal Liberalism

In America, economic ideologies take place along a conservative/liberal continuum. The fiscally liberal side generally believes that economic decisions should be centrally controlled by the government. Without national control of most financial issues, people will not behave wisely enough to keep the economy strong. In times of national economic crisis, such as the Great Depression of the 1930s or the recession of the late 2000s, government intervention in the form of stimulus packages is needed to keep the economy alive.

The fiscally conservatism side generally believes that economic decisions should be made by individual people and unregulated by government as much as possible. If economic decisions are left to the people, the economy will be stable because the people have more of a vested interest in their economic security than the government does. Fiscal conservatives generally view government intervention in times of economic crisis as part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The dichotomy does exist. Fiscal conservatism and fiscal liberalism are opposites.

Now have another temper tantrum with hope that the truth will just go away.

But first, here's another bit to chew on...

Liberal Economics and Democracy



Waligorski argues that, despite individual differences, these economists are bound together by a common vision of the public good. Collectively, these thinkers represent a strong counter tradition to the laissez-faire, free-market philosophy of James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, Newt Gingrich, and other proponents of minimalist government and "trickle-down economics."

Contrary to such critics, liberal economists advocate government regulation as a guard against the power of the marketplace to erode our most cherished political values and social institutions. For these economists, a completely free market is definitely not the best market for democracy; an unrestrained market guarantees neither fairness nor prosperity and in Keynes' time nearly destroyed our nation.

Your links aren't helping you much in these discussions. Its quite funny how you think right seeing this has given me quite a chuckle actually. Please continue.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Your links aren't helping you much in these discussions. Its quite funny how you think right seeing this has given me quite a chuckle actually. Please continue.

Does that second sentence even make sense? Any way, you made a very solid and detailed argument and backed it up with really good evidence. You really picked apart my arguments and my links with hard hitting details. Where did you learn to be such a powerhouse debater? Golly, I stand so corrected. Thanks for clearing up the issue so effectively.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Does that second sentence even make sense? Any way, you made a very solid and detailed argument and backed it up with really good evidence. You really picked apart my arguments and my links with hard hitting details. Where did you learn to be such a powerhouse debater? Golly, I stand so corrected. Thanks for clearing up the issue so effectively.

Oh please allow me to correct myself. Its quite funny how you think your right, seeing this has given me quite a chuckle actually. I mean surely even you have made a mistake before. I could go in dept into this discussion but I rather not seeing as your making a fool of yourself. Besides "Xei" doing a good job of destroying you.

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Oh please allow me to correct myself. Its quite funny how you think your right

Lol, almost.

you are -> you're


If you're going to flat out attack somebody, at least try not to embarrass yourself in the process.

Credibility level = 0