[B]Liberalism is about maximizing personal freedoms. I proposed a scenario where a woman is free to marry down, be it intellectually or financially, or even to not marry at all.
Actually, that's classical liberalism a la JS Mill, which finds its modern iteration in true modern conservatism: libertarianism.
While there are certainly elements of that remaining in modern liberal social policy (e.g. gay marriage and the general opposition to the state imposing religious or moral standards upon a citizenry who does not entirely agree), I would argue that modern liberalism is really about the belief that government can be a better means of distributing funds to those (places) where they are needed than the private sector.
Hmm. Honestly, I think the problem here is that you're not writing anything here directly. You start with a platitude, then write a topic sentence about a possibly different future definition of liberalism, then follow that up with examples of how liberalism might be defined in the future-- but you never directly state what you're getting at. If there's a reason behind those examples, it's lost on me (and evidently unclear to other readers as well). I think you're trying to say that economic self-sufficiency is not a liberal position, or something about how liberals must tolerate some ill-defined behavior, just for the sake of tolerance.
Nope, I'm saying that most people think about maximizing personal freedom, but usually they still think about those freedoms being exercised along traditional lines.
I'll give you a more concrete example since the other was unclear to you.
Homosexual marriage is a great example of this ideal. People claim they support the homosexual lifestyle, but what they really are doing is supporting homosexuals who wish to act very domesticated. They support homosexuals who want the house with the picket fence, two cars and two kids. In otherwords suburban bliss. They could probably even claim to tolerate and accept it for their own children.
However if you asked them if they not just tolerated, but actually endorsed a homosexual lifestyle that involved many nights of frequent clubbing with lots of recreational drinking and drug use. Few monogomous relationships, lot of unprotected sex, no desire for commitment of any sort, etc. I doubt that equally valid lifestyle choice would get much support. But there is nothing wrong with sex, no marriage, recreational drug use or drinking as long as none of them are abused.
That "brand" of homosexuality would not be likely to be endorsed. That is what I am getting at. With the example with Gelding's daughter, it was getting a non-traditional relationship form and would he be accepting of it. In Gelding's day it may have been scandalous to have lived with someone before you married them. But the concept of marriage was still there. Now it isn't. Yet many people still think along those lines.
The point of both is that people often think of expanding freedoms to allow the maximum number of people to pursue traditional forms. (partner, kids, house, job, marriage, etc.) However true personal freedom doesn't have to follow that traditional form at all.
While there are certainly elements of that remaining in modern liberal social policy (e.g. gay marriage and the general opposition to the state imposing religious or moral standards upon a citizenry who does not entirely agree), I would argue that modern liberalism is really about the belief that government can be a better means of distributing funds to those (places) where they are needed than the private sector.
I strongly disagree that that's what modern liberalism is about. That's the conservative caricature of American liberalism.
to trumptman:
Liberalism, IMO, is about increasing personal freedom. But what I think you're missing is that it's about limiting government intervention into private behavior, not individual's intervention into private behavior.
This is an example of what I call the "First Amendment fallacy:" The belief that because the gov't shouldn't interfere in what you say, that therefore private individuals shouldn't either. You hear people on these boards complaining about their threads being locked and how it's against the First Amendment. Because there's a First Amendment, private individuals have even greater responsibility to regulate themselves and each other, because the gov't won't do it for them.
In my view, increased freedom from gov't intervention into personal lives means increased intervention on the part of individuals. If I think the gov't shouldn't prevent my daughter from screwing up her life, that means I'm going to try extra hard to give her the values that prevent her from screwing it up.
So in my view, me or gelding being a hard ass about our families is completely consistent, and even demanded by, a liberal political philosophy.
Liberalism, IMO, is about increasing personal freedom. But what I think you're missing is that it's about limiting government intervention into private behavior, not individual's intervention into private behavior.
This is an example of what I call the "First Amendment fallacy:" The belief that because the gov't shouldn't interfere in what you say, that therefore private individuals shouldn't either. You hear people on these boards complaining about their threads being locked and how it's against the First Amendment. Because there's a First Amendment, private individuals have even greater responsibility to regulate themselves and each other, because the gov't won't do it for them.
In my view, increased freedom from gov't intervention into personal lives means increased intervention on the part of individuals. If I think the gov't shouldn't prevent my daughter from screwing up her life, that means I'm going to try extra hard to give her the values that prevent her from screwing it up.
So in my view, me or gelding being a hard ass about our families is completely consistent, and even demanded by, a liberal political philosophy.
Hey, more power to ya. As I said, the definition is really about what is "screwing up" your life. I suspect that there will be a large generational difference between what is "screwing up" their life in your eyes, and in theirs. That is why I said you would end up sounding like you want to limit their choices.
One, it really is an accomplishment because for years everyone has said that liberal radio has no chance. If it is an accomplishment then kudos.
or
Two, it was an inevitability but conservative radio owners have been ignoring this profitable market for political reasons. Perhaps the 'firing' of Howard Stern is a good example of this.
Either way I think it's worth discussing.
1. But you're ignoring the larger picture. Air America cannot succeed because it's using a flawed business model. If it isn't making money...it won't stay on the air. What good are ratings if its not on the air?
2. "Conservative radio owners"? Now hold on. One, what do you mean by conservative? As compared to what or whom? Two, are you saying that the reason we don't have liberal radio is that "conservative" station owners are essentially banning it? If so, that's ridiculous. They'll go where the money is. Right now that's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity...among others.
Bunge, you don't get it. There might be an "anti-Bush" audience out there...but there isn't a "liberal" one...at least nationally. Liberalism has become a political curse word. Democrats now run as moderates for the most part. As evidence, look at John Kerry. Look at Al Gore. Look at Bill Clinton. Look at Governor Ed Rendell of my home state. Avowed liberals don't get elected....and there's a good reason: The population at large just doesn't buy the message. Furthermore, even if said audience existed (nationally), Air America would not succeed because it's a poorly designed business as I said.
Profit motive, not ideology, is the number one determinant of success for business in this country. "Conservative radio" knows that....those who are associated with Air America don't.
1. But you're ignoring the larger picture. Air America cannot succeed because it's using a flawed business model. If it isn't making money...it won't stay on the air. What good are ratings if its not on the air?
No, in all actuallity you have no understanding of how buisinesses work. Few, if any, businesses make a profit initially. Most businesses raise enough capital to survive a stint with no profit margin in order to build a base of customers. OMG I must be a liar!!! Well no, Venture Capitalists are the people who supply upstarts with the $$$ they need to survive the customer building stage. Amazon.com is a great example because it took years to become profitable (is it truely there yet???).
Quote:
2. "Conservative radio owners"? Now hold on. One, what do you mean by conservative? As compared to what or whom? Two, are you saying that the reason we don't have liberal radio is that "conservative" station owners are essentially banning it? If so, that's ridiculous. They'll go where the money is. Right now that's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity...among others.
How many times did Hersey try and fail in life prior to his success? Same thing here. There ARE liberal talkshow host out there (that hag Randi Rhodes for example) but many have failed because they were not suited for the job (personality and delivery are important on radio). Here is another attempt at liberal radio but this time they are using established performers to build a base. You don't want to see this though because it seems clash with your world view or something.
Quote:
Profit motive, not ideology, is the number one determinant of success for business in this country. "Conservative radio" knows that....those who are associated with Air America don't.
Your first correct statement. Now, since you've failed to disprove the ratings SNAFU between Rush and Franken--and when I say disprove I mean use sources not larger fonts--one should believe the stats are true (as they were reported in other publications as well). Since Franken "beat" Rush in a sizeable market over two important demographics, advertisers will take notice and pay to associate their names with Franken. This will generate a source of positive revenue--not enough to offset operating cost--which will sustain the little upstart.
It's odd that a Neo-Con such as yourself is unable to see and understand how a business is started or run for that matter. Businesses do not generate profits throughout their life spans. There are periods of funancial ups and downs. Companies do not generate profits on day one (generally). They start from less than zero and work their way up. Simple economics.
The thread title is a premise. The premise is untrue. End of story.
Straw man.
We've moved well beyond that. You quoted me, not the thread title, and you were wrong. You can't go back to a point I wasn't arguing and pretend that I was defending it. That's why your argument is false.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
[B]Liberalism is about maximizing personal freedoms. I proposed a scenario where a woman is free to marry down, be it intellectually or financially, or even to not marry at all.
Actually, that's classical liberalism a la JS Mill, which finds its modern iteration in true modern conservatism: libertarianism.
While there are certainly elements of that remaining in modern liberal social policy (e.g. gay marriage and the general opposition to the state imposing religious or moral standards upon a citizenry who does not entirely agree), I would argue that modern liberalism is really about the belief that government can be a better means of distributing funds to those (places) where they are needed than the private sector.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Hmm. Honestly, I think the problem here is that you're not writing anything here directly. You start with a platitude, then write a topic sentence about a possibly different future definition of liberalism, then follow that up with examples of how liberalism might be defined in the future-- but you never directly state what you're getting at. If there's a reason behind those examples, it's lost on me (and evidently unclear to other readers as well). I think you're trying to say that economic self-sufficiency is not a liberal position, or something about how liberals must tolerate some ill-defined behavior, just for the sake of tolerance.
Nope, I'm saying that most people think about maximizing personal freedom, but usually they still think about those freedoms being exercised along traditional lines.
I'll give you a more concrete example since the other was unclear to you.
Homosexual marriage is a great example of this ideal. People claim they support the homosexual lifestyle, but what they really are doing is supporting homosexuals who wish to act very domesticated. They support homosexuals who want the house with the picket fence, two cars and two kids. In otherwords suburban bliss. They could probably even claim to tolerate and accept it for their own children.
However if you asked them if they not just tolerated, but actually endorsed a homosexual lifestyle that involved many nights of frequent clubbing with lots of recreational drinking and drug use. Few monogomous relationships, lot of unprotected sex, no desire for commitment of any sort, etc. I doubt that equally valid lifestyle choice would get much support. But there is nothing wrong with sex, no marriage, recreational drug use or drinking as long as none of them are abused.
That "brand" of homosexuality would not be likely to be endorsed. That is what I am getting at. With the example with Gelding's daughter, it was getting a non-traditional relationship form and would he be accepting of it. In Gelding's day it may have been scandalous to have lived with someone before you married them. But the concept of marriage was still there. Now it isn't. Yet many people still think along those lines.
The point of both is that people often think of expanding freedoms to allow the maximum number of people to pursue traditional forms. (partner, kids, house, job, marriage, etc.) However true personal freedom doesn't have to follow that traditional form at all.
Nick
Originally posted by midwinter
While there are certainly elements of that remaining in modern liberal social policy (e.g. gay marriage and the general opposition to the state imposing religious or moral standards upon a citizenry who does not entirely agree), I would argue that modern liberalism is really about the belief that government can be a better means of distributing funds to those (places) where they are needed than the private sector.
I strongly disagree that that's what modern liberalism is about. That's the conservative caricature of American liberalism.
to trumptman:
Liberalism, IMO, is about increasing personal freedom. But what I think you're missing is that it's about limiting government intervention into private behavior, not individual's intervention into private behavior.
This is an example of what I call the "First Amendment fallacy:" The belief that because the gov't shouldn't interfere in what you say, that therefore private individuals shouldn't either. You hear people on these boards complaining about their threads being locked and how it's against the First Amendment. Because there's a First Amendment, private individuals have even greater responsibility to regulate themselves and each other, because the gov't won't do it for them.
In my view, increased freedom from gov't intervention into personal lives means increased intervention on the part of individuals. If I think the gov't shouldn't prevent my daughter from screwing up her life, that means I'm going to try extra hard to give her the values that prevent her from screwing it up.
So in my view, me or gelding being a hard ass about our families is completely consistent, and even demanded by, a liberal political philosophy.
Originally posted by BRussell
to trumptman:
Liberalism, IMO, is about increasing personal freedom. But what I think you're missing is that it's about limiting government intervention into private behavior, not individual's intervention into private behavior.
This is an example of what I call the "First Amendment fallacy:" The belief that because the gov't shouldn't interfere in what you say, that therefore private individuals shouldn't either. You hear people on these boards complaining about their threads being locked and how it's against the First Amendment. Because there's a First Amendment, private individuals have even greater responsibility to regulate themselves and each other, because the gov't won't do it for them.
In my view, increased freedom from gov't intervention into personal lives means increased intervention on the part of individuals. If I think the gov't shouldn't prevent my daughter from screwing up her life, that means I'm going to try extra hard to give her the values that prevent her from screwing it up.
So in my view, me or gelding being a hard ass about our families is completely consistent, and even demanded by, a liberal political philosophy.
Hey, more power to ya. As I said, the definition is really about what is "screwing up" your life. I suspect that there will be a large generational difference between what is "screwing up" their life in your eyes, and in theirs. That is why I said you would end up sounding like you want to limit their choices.
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
Reread my post, and the posts I quoted including your own.
Straw man.
The title of this thread is:
"O'Franken getting higher ratings than the big fat idiot in NYC"
The thread title is a premise. The premise is untrue. End of story.
Originally posted by bunge
Well this leaves two possibilities.
One, it really is an accomplishment because for years everyone has said that liberal radio has no chance. If it is an accomplishment then kudos.
or
Two, it was an inevitability but conservative radio owners have been ignoring this profitable market for political reasons. Perhaps the 'firing' of Howard Stern is a good example of this.
Either way I think it's worth discussing.
1. But you're ignoring the larger picture. Air America cannot succeed because it's using a flawed business model. If it isn't making money...it won't stay on the air. What good are ratings if its not on the air?
2. "Conservative radio owners"? Now hold on. One, what do you mean by conservative? As compared to what or whom? Two, are you saying that the reason we don't have liberal radio is that "conservative" station owners are essentially banning it? If so, that's ridiculous. They'll go where the money is. Right now that's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity...among others.
Bunge, you don't get it. There might be an "anti-Bush" audience out there...but there isn't a "liberal" one...at least nationally. Liberalism has become a political curse word. Democrats now run as moderates for the most part. As evidence, look at John Kerry. Look at Al Gore. Look at Bill Clinton. Look at Governor Ed Rendell of my home state. Avowed liberals don't get elected....and there's a good reason: The population at large just doesn't buy the message. Furthermore, even if said audience existed (nationally), Air America would not succeed because it's a poorly designed business as I said.
Profit motive, not ideology, is the number one determinant of success for business in this country. "Conservative radio" knows that....those who are associated with Air America don't.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. But you're ignoring the larger picture. Air America cannot succeed because it's using a flawed business model. If it isn't making money...it won't stay on the air. What good are ratings if its not on the air?
No, in all actuallity you have no understanding of how buisinesses work. Few, if any, businesses make a profit initially. Most businesses raise enough capital to survive a stint with no profit margin in order to build a base of customers. OMG I must be a liar!!! Well no, Venture Capitalists are the people who supply upstarts with the $$$ they need to survive the customer building stage. Amazon.com is a great example because it took years to become profitable (is it truely there yet???).
2. "Conservative radio owners"? Now hold on. One, what do you mean by conservative? As compared to what or whom? Two, are you saying that the reason we don't have liberal radio is that "conservative" station owners are essentially banning it? If so, that's ridiculous. They'll go where the money is. Right now that's Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity...among others.
How many times did Hersey try and fail in life prior to his success? Same thing here. There ARE liberal talkshow host out there (that hag Randi Rhodes for example) but many have failed because they were not suited for the job (personality and delivery are important on radio). Here is another attempt at liberal radio but this time they are using established performers to build a base. You don't want to see this though because it seems clash with your world view or something.
Profit motive, not ideology, is the number one determinant of success for business in this country. "Conservative radio" knows that....those who are associated with Air America don't.
Your first correct statement. Now, since you've failed to disprove the ratings SNAFU between Rush and Franken--and when I say disprove I mean use sources not larger fonts--one should believe the stats are true (as they were reported in other publications as well). Since Franken "beat" Rush in a sizeable market over two important demographics, advertisers will take notice and pay to associate their names with Franken. This will generate a source of positive revenue--not enough to offset operating cost--which will sustain the little upstart.
It's odd that a Neo-Con such as yourself is unable to see and understand how a business is started or run for that matter. Businesses do not generate profits throughout their life spans. There are periods of funancial ups and downs. Companies do not generate profits on day one (generally). They start from less than zero and work their way up. Simple economics.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The title of this thread is:
The thread title is a premise. The premise is untrue. End of story.
Say it load and proud there brother, but until you provide proof backing your assertions its all just hot air.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The thread title is a premise. The premise is untrue. End of story.
Straw man.
We've moved well beyond that. You quoted me, not the thread title, and you were wrong. You can't go back to a point I wasn't arguing and pretend that I was defending it. That's why your argument is false.
You're simply being dishonest.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...0&pagenumber=5