English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

else\\?

2007-11-29 01:27:05 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science Economics

i read it somewhere. this is a question. thanks for showing interest.

2007-11-29 01:34:45 · update #1

5 answers

Over time the meaning of Liberal has changed. The definition you have is for classic liberals which is close to what we call Libertarianism today. People who now call themselves Liberal are on the left on economic issues and strong supporters of civil liberties. The media often uses cultural issues to define liberal.

2007-11-29 02:40:35 · answer #1 · answered by meg 7 · 0 0

Most of your statement sounds more like a conservative viewpoint than a liberal stand. However, I think almost every American, regardless of ideology, would support a limited government for protecting the freedom of life, liberty and property. Once you get into the "nothing else" part of your statement, I think you divide and subdivide the interests of liberals, conservatives, capitalists, socialists, communists, Christians, Hebrews, etc. etc. etc..into the divided house that is America today. Our leaders do a great job in confusing the masses right into a perpetual state of apathy!

2007-11-29 02:37:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Liberalism grew out of efforts in Britain to limit the influence of the monarchy. They succeeded, a long time ago.

Today, "liberal" has become a catch word for proponents of reactionary government for everything they regard as wrong in society. This is tired, old and boring - reflecting a lack of critical thinking skills and intellectual maturity. Perhaps that's why they let the talk show wankers do their thinking for them.

I am not a fan of large bureaucracy, but consider this: we may have a new recessions because, in part, a lot of mortgages were given to people who could not pay them back. That costs people jobs and lowers the value of retirement investments. It illustrates the main reason why regulation is needed: too many people with money can't regulate themselves - short term windfall is put ahead of long term steady growth.

2007-11-29 01:43:03 · answer #3 · answered by mr_fartson 7 · 1 0

Is that a question?
If it is a statement, it is almost entirely false in practice. While that might be someone's dictionary definition of liberal, liberals now are all about paternalism. Liberals are taking us down the fast track to a welfare state.
Look at the leading liberals right now, Hillary and Obama. They are constantly saying that we need to take money from rich people and large companies and distribute it to the poor, and use tax money to pay for health care. That's depriving individuals of their property.

2007-11-29 01:31:20 · answer #4 · answered by slinkywizzard 4 · 3 1

I agree with slinkywizzard ...

They are kinda leaning towards an orwellian Nanny-State ...

and you know what they call taking from the "haves" and distributing it to the "have-nots" so that everyone has the same advantages, right? socialism

2007-11-29 01:37:59 · answer #5 · answered by slinkies 6 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers