dems4guns wrote:1) Mr Gunderwood, and others like him, expect to be respected. (Maybe they don't care if they are respected...that is always possible...although crazy.) All I expect is that it work both ways. So far, that respect is not extended.
Respect is one facet of another's opinion of you; you don't and can't own it, but rather it is the person whom is offering that does. A basic level of respect to all humans is all that is due, the rest is earned by words and deeds.
dems4guns wrote:Words do matter....we all know what to say when our wife/girlfriend asks "How does my hair look?", Or, "Do I look fat in this?"
Of course they do...that's why its important that we stick to reasonable and accepted definitions of them. Otherwise, communication becomes difficult or impossible.
More on this later...
dems4guns wrote:2) If Mr. Gunderwood wishes to debate, I am game, but he thinks he can define the rules and the word definitions, and the logic and be the judge. That is not a fair debate and certainly not an enjoyable discussion, much less an enjoyable debate.
Again, no, it's not my definitions. I'm using the generally accepted definitions of those terms and classifications. Also, formal logic and informal logical fallacies are not up for grabs either. They are what they are and it's irrational to ignore them.
dems4guns wrote:3) Mr. Gunderwood is stuck in what I call "belief syndrome" where he believes what he wants to believe and no fact, rationale, debate or discussion will ever be allowed to change his belief. His belief is as fundamentalist as it comes. Once you have decided to twist any fact or rationale or reason to fit your own belief structure, then nothing can be learned.
So much for respect, eh? I'm not twisting anything...and I'm going to prove it.
So, let's get to the bottom of this...your original post (without my correction, which is what you took offense too when I classified modern liberalism as a wing of socialism) was:
dems4guns wrote:Trade Unionists and Socialists were the ones who wanted to restrict competition and control labor markets and control means of production. Liberals are not socialists.
You took offense because I made a correction which changed it to state that liberals are socialists.
Now for an outside source. Sure, Wikipedia is not the best source, but it's something we both have access too. I can, if you like, break out the books and give you quotes from real academic sources. Particularly those of classical liberals. Let's start at the beginning. I've underlined key phrases for comparison with the ideas of classical liberalism. I've also bolded key terms we will need to explore.
First, what is the generally accepted term for liberal in the United States today?
Like I said in my first post, not all, but most...that's very much in line with "almost exclusively."
How about some more background:
Modern American Liberalism is a form of
Social Liberalism developed from Progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines
Social Liberalism and
Social Progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American Liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1]
Keynesian economic theory has played a central role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.[2]
The argument has been that national prosperity requires government management of the macroeconomy, to keep unemployment low, inflation in check, and growth high.[2] John F. Kennedy defined a liberal as follows:“ ...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,
someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'.[3] ”
Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; they point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.[4][5] They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment.[6][7]
Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_lib ... ted_States
So what is "Social Liberalism?" Let's find out.
Note: we can ignore "Social Progressivism" as that's about morality and for at least now let's ignore the moral aspects of socialism and focus on it's economic and political use. Also, a comparative historical analysis of the various economic schools of thought is outside the scope as well. However, Keynesian economic policies generally lend themselves to the modern socialist.
Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include
social justice.
It differs from classical liberalism in that it believes it to be a legitimate role of the state to address economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights. Under social liberalism, the good of the community is viewed as harmonious with the freedom of the individual.[1] Social liberal policies have been widely adopted in much of the capitalist world, particularly following World War II.[2] Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.[3][4][5][6][7]
A reaction against social liberalism in the late twentieth century, often called neoliberalism, led to monetarist economic policies and a reduction in government provision of services.
However, this reaction did not result in a return to classical liberalism, as governments continued to provide social services and retained control over economic policy.[8]
The term "social liberalism" is often used interchangeably with "modern liberalism".[9] The Liberal International is the main international organisation of liberal parties, which include, among other liberal variants, social liberal parties. It affirms the following principles: human rights, free and fair elections and multiparty democracy, social justice, tolerance, social market economy, free trade, environmental sustainability and a strong sense of international solidarity.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism
So we add "Social Justice" to our list of things to research, but we get a nice consistent definition which correctly notes that social liberalism differs from classical liberalism. Also, it's useful to note that social liberalism and modern liberalism are practically interchangeable...as I asserted when I corrected your post.
Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution. These policies aim to achieve what developmental economists refer to as more
equality of opportunity than may currently exist in some societies, and to manufacture equality of outcome in cases where incidental inequalities appear in a procedurally just system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice
Progressive taxation and income redistribution are central tenants of the modern Democrat. I've noted this several times before, but egalitarianism is a also a central tenant of the modern Democrat...i.e. it's the philosophical foundation upon which policies like progressive taxation are based upon. To avoid continuing down the rabbit hole, economic egalitarianism is the equalization of economic outcomes rather than opportunities.
So, to summarize we have:
Modern American Liberalism, which is comprised mostly of the Democrat party, is "almost exclusively" associated and practically interchangeable with Social Liberalism. Social Liberalism is a belief that the state should muck around with education, health care, unemployment, etc. It also liens heavy on or encompasses Social Justice, which is a belief that the state should work towards economic egalitarianism (equalization of economic outcome). Particularly with such social polices as progressive taxation and income redistribution (e.g. the welfare state).
How does this compare with Socialism? Well, to be fair, Socialism covers a huge spectrum of thought, but there are some central ideas. The first and foremost is state control of the economy in some form or fashion. That control can be direct control of production (e.g Soviet Union) to Market Socialism where the output of the market (aka "profits") are used for social purposes (e.g. China) to a "mixed economy" where mostly indirect control is leverage to influence or punish those not working towards the social desires of the government (e.g. United States).
As a political movement, socialism includes a diverse array of political philosophies, ranging from reformism to revolutionary socialism. State socialist currents of socialism advocate for the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange as a strategy for implementing socialism;
while social democrats advocate public control of capital within the framework of a market economy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism# ... of_outcome
The underlined portion described the "mixed economy" of the United States rather well and it jives with the "social liberal/democrat" discourse above. I.e. indirect control of production through the control of capital (e.g. bailouts, progressive taxation, welfare/income redistribution, subsidies for "socially desirable" jobs and activities (e.g. green jobs/tech), etc.). The goal is indirect state control of the market to promote a social agenda. It's also very heavily based in "class warfare" (aka Marxism), but that's another discussion. Just so you can't claim I'm making up a definition, which you are so apt at doing, here it is:
A mixed economy is an economy that includes a variety of private and public control, reflecting characteristics of both capitalism and socialism.[1] Most mixed economies can be described as market economies with strong regulatory oversight, in addition to having a variety of government sponsored aspects. See elements of a mixed economy.
There is not one single definition for a mixed economy,[2] but the definitions always involve a degree of private economic freedom mixed with a degree of government regulation of markets. The relative strength or weakness of each component in the national economy can vary greatly between countries.
Economies ranging from the United States[3] to Cuba[4] have been termed mixed economies.
The economic freedom side includes privately owned industry for reasons including individual freedom, economic efficiency (most especially the allocative efficiency provided by the invisible hand of markets), and the incentive to innovate provided by competition. The government regulation side addresses concerns that the private sector cannot be (or at least has never yet been) well equipped to address, such as environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, and maintenance of competition.
In some mixed economies, it even includes various degrees of centralized economic planning, that is, state ownership of some of the means of production for national or social objectives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
I should note that the previous quote noted that US Liberals/Democrats promote this sort of "mixed economy." The last underlined section is important as it's the bailout, "green tech," "nationalization" of health care (aka single payer), etc. Pick a Democrat economic and/or social policy and they all are socialistic; they all desire state control, directly or indirectly. They compromise and only implement baby steps, but that's only because they have too. E.g. we'd have single payer health care if they thought they could get it passed. In nearly every way, Democratic economic policy would implement a full blown Market Socialism. The only reason it's "mixed" is because the other half of the country doesn't want Socialism in any form. However, each compromise brings us closer to it.
Thus, excluding "all" (which I noted in the first reply to you), it is proper to say that most Liberals/Democrats in the United States are Socialists. Not all in the same way mind you, but they generally all advocate increased state control (directly or indirectly) for social policy reasons. Thus, my correction of your statement was valid.
It's also fair to say that Republicans sometimes implement socialistic policies too...but it's usually because their too ignorant about economics to distinguish between the two and get duped by politicians. Than again, the same thing could be said about Democrats who think these "new" politics are not the same old thing that the evolutionary socialists (those who prefer gradual change rather than revolutionary change...e.g. pre 1859 Marx IIRC) have been pushing for over a century.
Edit: Newsweek seems to agree with me too.
touché!
