The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why are people Liberals?

Hello,

I'm curious,

Why do people identify as Liberals and why do they think this is the best ideology?
because it's good ideology that's a disguise for those who are racist and a bit of a bigot. themselves. If you say you're liberal the less perceptive types will think you're quite the opposite.
I identify as a liberal because I think that the market should be free.(I'm not a new liberal just a liberal)
Reply 3
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
I identify as a Whig, I believe in constitutional government, scientific progress and personal liberties. Tradition and revolution are equally as bad, tradition is bad because you should not preserve something that does not work, and revolution is bad because you should follow the law, because otherwise we have anarchy and violence. The market should be free because that is a part of what personal liberty is.
Because it concerns itself with the safeguarding of individual liberty, self-ownership, freedom of speech and expression, and limits on authoritarian governments.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by whorace
I identify as a Whig, I believe in constitutional government, scientific progress and personal liberties. Tradition and revolution are equally as bad, tradition is bad because you should not preserve something that does not work, and revolution is bad because you should follow the law, because otherwise we have anarchy and violence. The market should be free because that is a part of what personal liberty is.


But what if "the market" doesn't work? We should not preserve something that does not work after all.
Reply 6
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
But what if "the market" doesn't work?


Very much depends on what you mean by not working, in extreme cases market regulation is necessary, and there are lots of arguments in favour of state regulation i'm not completely dogmatic, but I know of no argument against abolishing the market economy which is not also linked to a quasi-revolutionary ideology which is far more dangerous.
Original post by similarBlank
I take it you, like me, identify as a Libertarian?


no I'm republican
Original post by whorace
Very much depends on what you mean by not working,


In the sense that a blind adherence to "markets" (it isn't even that sure footed what that actually means) is anti science and not rational, rationalism and general enlightenment are supposed to be cornerstones of liberalism. You have to apply that to economics.

An example is the blind worship of the invisible hand of the market in neoliberalism. In the run up to 2008 financial crisis lots of warning signs were ignored because the "market knows best" and would rectify itself.
Reply 9
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
In the sense that a blind adherence to "markets" (it isn't even that sure footed what that actually means) is anti science and not rational, rationalism and general enlightenment are supposed to be cornerstones of liberalism. You have to apply that to economics.

An example is the blind worship of the invisible hand of the market in neoliberalism. In the run up to 2008 financial crisis lots of warning signs were ignored because the "market knows best" and would rectify itself.


Market economics was also the product of the enlightenment and its greatest thinkers, I am not saying we do not use modern science to address a very serious issue, what I am saying is that we do not seek simply replace it because it doesn't work as well as we want it to without any serious alternative. I consider a communist economy danger since it would be contrary to law and involve widespread removal of property, which is a basic right. Other forms of socialism are more interesting but do explain how you will convince the population to give these up without forcing them to give property.
Depends what you mean by 'liberal'. The American understanding of 'liberal' (read: anything but far-right gun-toting lunatic) is actually quite far from liberal. If you mean libertarian, because they read about supply and demand on the back of a cereal packet, learned who von Mises was and now think they're intellectually superior without acknowledging the myriad moral and economic holes in the philosophy.
Original post by whorace
Market economics was also the product of the enlightenment and its greatest thinkers, I am not saying we do not use modern science to address a very serious issue, what I am saying is that we do not seek simply replace it because it doesn't work as well as we want it to without any serious alternative. I consider a communist economy danger since it would be contrary to law and involve widespread removal of property, which is a basic right. Other forms of socialism are more interesting but do explain how you will convince the population to give these up without forcing them to give property.


the bolded is essentially lunacy. Natural rights to property are probably the single most ridiculous argument made in politics in the modern era.
Reply 12
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
the bolded is essentially lunacy. Natural rights to property are probably the single most ridiculous argument made in politics in the modern era.


Yes, I think the abundance of constitutions and the UN charter agrees with you on that one. Oh? You mean to say they are taken quite seriously by all sane countries?
Original post by whorace
Yes, I think the abundance of constitutions and the UN charter agrees with you on that one. Oh? You mean to say they are taken quite seriously by all sane countries?


I don't deny legal rights to property happen to exist. They exist to facilitate social development, not because of some ludicrous natural rights argument.
Reply 14
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
I don't deny legal rights to property happen to exist. They exist to facilitate social development, not because of some ludicrous natural rights argument.


I don't remember saying it was a natural right, I said earlier I think things should be done in accordance wth law.
Original post by whorace
I don't remember saying it was a natural right, I said earlier I think things should be done in accordance wth law.


Oh, that's fine then. Still a terrible argument, since the law can be changed, and thus any removal of property rights can be legitimately done by the state in accordance with law.
Reply 16
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
Oh, that's fine then. Still a terrible argument, since the law can be changed, and thus any removal of property rights can be legitimately done by the state in accordance with law.


To clarify, I simply mean that I consider property to be necessary to any functioning society, and that it is imperative that law protects it. In that sense I consider it a 'basic right' because without it society can't function.
Because I believe that what people do with their lived should be their choice, as long as they are not harming others.
Original post by whorace
To clarify, I simply mean that I consider property to be necessary to any functioning society, and that it is imperative that law protects it. In that sense I consider it a 'basic right' because without it society can't function.


Okay, but there is no reason that right should be effective as against the state, or why that right should, for instance, include the right to dispose of property.

(basically I disagree that property, as currently considered, comes close to approaching being necessary to functioning society - I do support property as an exclusive right to an extent however)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you