Why are people Liberals?

Watch
similarBlank
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
Hello,

I'm curious,

Why do people identify as Liberals and why do they think this is the best ideology?
0
reply
justacollegekid
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
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.
1
reply
balanced
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I identify as a liberal because I think that the market should be free.(I'm not a new liberal just a liberal)
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
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.
0
reply
PM199861
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
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
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(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.
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(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.
0
reply
justacollegekid
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by similarBlank)
I take it you, like me, identify as a Libertarian?
no I'm republican
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
(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.
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(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.
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
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.
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(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.
1
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(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?
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
(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.
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(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.
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(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.
0
reply
whorace
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
(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.
0
reply
Eunomia
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
Because I believe that what people do with their lived should be their choice, as long as they are not harming others.
0
reply
TheDefiniteArticle
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(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)
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (560)
34.06%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (677)
41.18%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (332)
20.19%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (75)
4.56%

Watched Threads

View All