Liberalism Defined.

Liberalism is a political ideology that has been prominent in modern times. The foundation of which are the concepts of liberty and equality. The meaning and application of these words in society are heavily debated. A broad view of these terms and a look at the people who have defined Liberalism will provide a depth of understanding into modern societies.

Many essays and books have been written by ideologues about the meanings of these two words. This has caused a division within this political theory. The three main groups of "liberals" are Classical Liberals (aka republicans) Social Liberals (aka Democrats), and Libertarians.

1: Liberty

Liberty, simply put, is the freedom to choose and act. It is also the freedom from oppression. In Liberal ideology, this word is heavily debated, For example, it is argued whether personal liberty or collective liberty is the goal. Personal liberty and collective liberty work much like a weighted scale. If collective liberty is taken to the extreme personal liberty is lost. If personal liberty is taken to the extreme, collective liberty is severely limited. The debate is where the balance between the two exists.

Which do you value more, personal or collective liberty?

Is Liberty a value that society should be based on?

Why?

2: Equality,

Equality is defined as "the state or quality of being equal; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability." With equality the argument lies in which way should people be equal. Equal according to the law? Equal according to freedoms? Equal according to financial prosperity?

What do you think? Is Equality an important value? If so, in what way?

Kasmic: As a (semi-social) liberal myself, I'm so glad to see liberalism clearly defined by another member. It gets misrepresented so often by certain other members who don't know what they're on about (*cough* @Stag *cough*).

I don't accept personal liberties need diminish collective liberties. The personal freedom of speech, for instance. The main point where it usually comes to a boil is free choice, and in such cases the needs of the many tend to outweigh the needs of the few.

I interpret equality to mean substantively equal opportunity. It's just a goal and can play out in a lot of different ways.

As to why I'm a liberal, and why all this is important? Because a free and equal society sounds exactly like the kind of world I'd like to live in.

admin: Yeah, I find it amusing and ironic when republicans(classical liberals) use "liberal" as an insult.

Here is a hypothetical of what I mean by personal liberty can diminish collective liberty. Say I have the personal liberty to smoke, but my smoking affects those around me making them sick... did me exercising my personal liberty affect their liberty. On a grand scale pollution shows the same thing. Does corporate freedom from environmental regulation (making them more free from the government) allow pollution that could potentially affect and bring harm on society at large infringe on collective liberty?

I appreciate your reasoning for why these concepts are important. A free and equal society does sound exactly like a world I would like to live in.

It gets misrepresented so often by certain other members who don't know what they're on about (*cough* @Stag *cough*).
No misrepresentation. Your form of liberalism is just authoritarianism implemented through democracy. My form of liberalism is telling you to screw off and mind your own business through constitutional protections. Which you should screw off. No one cares for the sad elitists of society and their communistic views that people need to be controlled for their own good.

Just because people vote in favor of a bad idea doesn't make that bad idea a good one.

I agree that certain liberties are more valuable than others. For example, the right to be safe is a better than the right to delete yourself from Google searches.

Collective liberty is a myth though. Liberty can not exist for a whole group of people, but a whole group of people can individually have liberty. Collective liberty sounds like some lame justification that post-modern liberals are making to shift more towards communism and authoritarianism.

Demanding unwillful actions from other citizens because it benefits you personally (or your made up collective) is not a universal liberty. It is elitism and domination.

Blackflag: So are you not more free with your time not having to worry about security as much because of police. Are you not more free with your time being that you can buy your food instead of having to grow it?

Economic interests are different though. I never considered myself an economic liberal, because an economic liberal believes in high corporate freedoms and a laizze fairre economy. I am definitely a democratic socialist in this regard. A planned economy ran by the people is good, but the planned economy needs to be based around certain capitalist principles such as independent ownership and other policies which promote ingenuity and initiative from all classes of society. The state capitalism of Putin's Russia is a prime example of a planned economy gone wrong.

Blackflag: I actually think the opposite of controlling people. The problem is that you want to allow other PEOPLE to control EACH OTHER, and I think a government is necessary to PREVENT that. This creates conditions for equality. Telling people to screw off can be a form of control and coercion in certain circumstances.

Kasmic: Maybe we need to relook at the definition of liberty. Liberty is typically defined as freedoms granted or allowed to happen by the government. Having police are securing me the personal liberty to be safe. It wouldn't be considered a collective liberty though, because collective liberties imply that societies as a whole are individuals.

Having the ability to do something shouldn't be confused with having the liberty to do something as well. I have the freedom to attempt to buy food, the freedom to attempt to be safe, and the freedom to attempt to be secure, but I might not always have the ability to succeed in these attempts.

Blackflag: Can you stop using the phrase "post-modern" wrong? You mean modern, trust me.

Blackflag: I wrote a piece on Liberty about a year ago. http://www.infobarrel.com/The_basics_of_Liberty

Blackflag: Demanding unwillful actions from other citizens because it benefits you personally (or your made up collective) is not a universal liberty. It is elitism and domination.
I have to disagree with this. Preventing murder benefits me personally, but it is far from "elitism and domination". It's just another example of the social contract in action.

admin: : I actually think the opposite of controlling people. The problem is that you want to allow other PEOPLE to control EACH OTHER, and I think a government is necessary to PREVENT that.
Lol, I do not care if somebody is being controlled as long as that control isn't sanctioned and enforced through law.
Draw a line between personal problems and societal problems. The government should exist to prevent infringements to our liberty, not to create more infringements to our liberty even if these infringements happen to be popular.

Telling people to screw off can be a form of control and coercion in certain circumstances.
Do these circumstances involve weak people not capable of independent thought and action. If you allow yourself to be controlled and coerced than you're personally a weak individual. Independent and care-free people should not be subjected to adversity and a loss of liberty to protect those to meagre to defend themselves from making poor choices.

Can you stop using the phrase "post-modern" wrong? You mean modern, trust me.
Nope. Post Modern means that these liberals are fighting for the causes of tommorow and not of today. I tend to call liberals post modern when they start to advocate for things like social authoritarianism and economic communism.

I have to disagree with this. Preventing murder benefits me personally, but it is far from "elitism and domination". It's just another example of the social contract in action.
Try to understand what you are reading before you respond. This is exactly what I am saying. I benefit personally, as an individual, from having murder prevented. Society is not an individual and does not have liberties, which is why the whole premise of collective liberties is idiotic. P

When someone tries to make excuses that personal drug use affects their "collective" liberty, I laugh and mock them for their stubbornness.

Blackflag: And how exactly are those not causes to be fought for right now?

Blackflag: Demanding unwillful actions from other citizens because it benefits you personally (or your made up collective) is not a universal liberty. It is elitism and domination.
Demanding others do not murder me is elitism and domination. This is what I was responding to. Try to understand what you are reading before you respond.

Blackflag: Lol, I do not care if somebody is being controlled as long as that control isn't sanctioned and enforced through law.
Why?

If you allow yourself to be controlled and coerced than you're personally a weak individual.
Everyone does, from the moment they're born. Our environment controls us.

admin: Demanding others do not murder me is elitism and domination. This is what I was responding to. Try to understand what you are reading before you respond.
I can make exceptions for things like murder. I am not sure how many other things I can make exceptions for. Often when we have these debates on liberty you resort to extremes such as murder, and I usually just concede that murder is the exception.

Everyone does, from the moment they're born. Our environment controls us.
Perhaps, but such a factor cannot be controlled whereas the dominion and authority of others can be controlled. Liberty is inherent in every individual. Removing liberty is therefore an artificial construct invented by elitists and authoritarians.