NRA Article

[Jamie6.5]

Gee vico, maybe that's why they call themselves progressives now.
They haven't met the definition of "liberal" for quite a while!

 

[DMax]

From Expedia....

Liberal --
–adjective
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8.
open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9.
characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10.
given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11.
not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12.
of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13.
of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.

Somebody better update the definition as their words are not congruent with their actions. I know libs like to move the line in the sand but this is not even close.

 

[vico512]

That's the problem with all the labeling and insults -- you don't know what's in my mind, or anyone else's, for that matter. My definition of "liberalism" is all about freedom, and I think the majority share that philosophy, whether liberal or conservative.

Throwing out labels just polarizes folks, and accomplishes nothing useful.

 

[Stomper]

You can label a jar of dill pickles as "peaches" all you want, but you'll still make a lousy pie if you choose to ignore what comes out and use it.

 

[8ball]

vico512 is right in that he is taking about 'classical liberalism'. That's different from what Americans typically use the short-hand 'liberal' to describe, which is more like liberal socialism ideals.

Outside the US the term still has an accurate meaning. In Australia, the conservative party is called the Liberal Party and they are closer to the Republicans than the Democrats (minus the religious right piece).

A 'classical liberal' in the US would be considered a conservative i.e. committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

from Classical liberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many modern scholars of liberalism argue that no particularly meaningful distinction between classical and modern liberalism exists. Alan Wolfe summarizes this viewpoint, which

reject(s) any such distinction and argue(s) instead for the existence of a continuous liberal understanding that includes both Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes... The idea that liberalism comes in two forms assumes that the most fundamental question facing mankind is how much government intervenes into the economy... When instead we discuss human purpose and the meaning of life, Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes are on the same side. Both of them possessed an expansive sense of what we are put on this earth to accomplish. Both were on the side of enlightenment. Both were optimists who believed in progress but were dubious about grand schemes that claimed to know all the answers. For Smith, mercantilism was the enemy of human liberty. For Keynes, monopolies were. It makes perfect sense for an eighteenth century thinker to conclude that humanity would flourish under the market. For a twentieth century thinker committed to the same ideal, government was an essential tool to the same end.

[60]

According to William J. Novak, however, liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism".[61]

Hobhouse, in Liberalism (1911), attributed this purported shift, which included qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy and the collective right to equality in dealings, to an increased desire for what Hobhouse called "just consent".[62] F. A. Hayek wrote that Hobhouse's book would have been more accurately titled Socialism, and Hobhouse himself called his beliefs "liberal socialism".[63]

Joseph A. Schumpeter attributes this supposed shift in liberal philosophy to the nineteenth century expansion of the franchise to include the working class. Rising literacy rates and the spread of knowledge led to social activism in a variety of forms. Social liberals called for laws against child labor, laws requiring minimum standards of worker safety, laws establishing a minimum wage and old age pensions, and laws regulating banking with the goal of ending cyclic depressions, monopolies, and cartels. Laissez faire economic liberals considered such measures to be an unjust imposition upon liberty, as well as a hindrance to economic development, and, as the working class in the West became increasingly prosperous, they also became more conservative.[64]

Another regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power.