Liberal vs Progressive

[Rick Rowlands]

"8. Human rights are not granted by government.  They are inherent and automatic.  We are 'endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'  Government can only choose to recognize and protect those inherent rights."

Please tell me that you do not believe that human rights are granted by government.  Surely you don't believe that!  If you find fault with this principle, then what happened at Tienanmen Square in China is perfectly legit because if government grants human rights then they can take them away, and that is what the Chinese did. 

[Rick Rowlands]

"1. 'Government money' does not belong to government.  It belongs to the taxpayers who worked hard for it, and who had funds deleted from their paychecks even before they got to see them."

How can a principle such as this be so wrong to some people?  Do liberals feel that they are slaves of the government, or are they "free" people?  You can't have it both ways.

Liberals are so contradictory in their beliefs.  For example the labor movement wants to secure more pay and benefits for their labor, or basically to make more profit from their work.  Yet if a corporation wants to do the same they are considered evil.  So to avoid this blatant double standard one must be wrong.  Either corporations are not evil or those in the labor movement are.  More profits for those who work blue collar jobs is good, but at some point as you go up the ladder profit becomes bad, so they say.  Where is that point?  Self employed?  SMall employer with less than 5 employees?  Less than 50? Less than 100? 1000?  At what point does "good" profit become "bad" profit? 

There are so many questions that I want to ask liberals about their beliefs, bit I cannot get any intelligent responses.  I get called names, degraded, have snide remarks thrown at me, but rarely do I get a rational thought out answer. 

[irishbobcat]

They define your CORPORATE AMERICA, RICKY!

[Rick Rowlands]

Nine out of the ten principles DEFINE America!

[irishbobcat]

Dan, how you react to me says a lot about you.

[Dan Moadus]

It does appear that Dennis is utterly incapable of putting his thoughts into his own words. It's almost as if he is one of the "artificial intelligence" programs from the eighties that mimicked human intelligence by selecting from "canned" responses based on certain questions given to it.

[Towntalk]

It's a shame that you wouldn't respond with your own thoughts Dennis because I'm sure that if you did we would all better understand where you're coming from.

For example, how could you object to points 7 and 8 in Sarge's post, and what's your objection to point 10?

[irishbobcat]

Since Sarge cut and pasted his 10 reasons from a Reagan foot soldier named
Anthony Martin,

I'll post my responses  regarding a liberal democracy, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Political stability
One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

Some[who?] think that political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. On the other hand, this is more common in nondemocracies.

One notable feature of liberal democracies is that their opponents (those groups who wish to abolish liberal democracy) rarely win elections. Advocates use this as an argument to support their view that liberal democracy is inherently stable and can usually only be overthrown by external force, while opponents argue that the system is inherently stacked against them despite its claims to impartiality. In the past, it was feared that democracy could be easily exploited by leaders with dictatorial aspirations, who could get themselves elected into power. However, the actual number of liberal democracies that have elected dictators into power is low. When it has occurred, it is usually after a major crisis have caused many people to doubt the system or in young/poorly functioning democracies. Some possible examples include Adolf Hitler during the Great Depression and Napoleon III who become first President of the young Second French Republic and later Emperor.

[edit] Effective response in wartime
A liberal democracy, by definition, implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must give consent before the start of an offensive military operation, although sometimes the executive can do this on its own while keeping the legislature informed. If the democracy is attacked, then no consent is usually required for defensive operations. The people may vote against a conscription army.

However, actual research shows that democracies are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. One explanation attributes this primarily to "the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined, democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars". Other research attributes this to superior mobilization of resources or selection of wars that the democratic states have a high chance of winning.[30]

Stam and Reiter also note that the emphasis on individuality within democratic societies means that their soldiers fight with greater initiative and superior leadership.[31] Officers in dictatorships are often selected for political loyalty rather than military ability. They may be exclusively selected from a small class or religious/ethnic group that support the regime. The leaders in nondemocracies may respond violently to any perceived criticisms or disobedience. This may make the soldiers and officers afraid to raise any objections or do anything without explicit authorisation. The lack of initiative may be particularly detrimental in modern warfare. Enemy soldiers may more easily surrender to democracies since they can expect comparatively good treatment. Nazi Germany killed almost 2/3 of the captured Soviet soldiers. 38% of the American soldiers captured by North Korea in the Korean War were killed.

[edit] Better information on and corrections of problems
A democratic system may provide better information for policy decisions. Undesirable information may more easily be ignored in dictatorships, even if this undesirable or contrarian information provides early warning of problems. The democratic system also provides a way to replace inefficient leaders and policies. Thus, problems may continue longer and crises of all kinds may be more common in autocracies.[32]

[edit] Corruption
Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption.[33] Freedom of information legislation is important for accountability and transparency. The Indian Right to Information Act "has already engendered mass movements in the country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its knees and changing power equations completely."[34]

[edit] Terrorism
Several studies have concluded that terrorism is most common in nations with intermediate political freedom. The nations with the least terrorism are the most democratic nations.[35]

[edit] Economic growth and financial crises
Statistically, more democracy correlates with a higher gross domestic product (GDP) per capita.

However, there is disagreement regarding how much credit the democratic system can take for this. One observation is that democracy became widespread only after the industrial revolution and the introduction of capitalism. On the other hand, the industrial revolution started in England which was one of the most democratic nations for its time within its own borders. (But this democracy was very limited and did not apply to the colonies which contributed significantly to the wealth.)

Several statistical studies support the theory that more capitalism, measured for example with one the several Indices of Economic Freedom which has been used in hundreds of studies by independent researchers,[36] increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratization. This is a statistical tendency, and there are individual exceptions like India, which is democratic but arguably not prosperous, or Brunei, which has a high GDP but has never been democratic. There are also other studies suggesting that more democracy increases economic freedom although a few find no or even a small negative effect.[37][38][39][40][41][42] One objection might be that nations like Sweden and Canada today score just below nations like Chile and Estonia on economic freedom but that Sweden and Canada today have a higher GDP per capita. However, this is a misunderstanding, the studies indicate effect on economic growth and thus that future GDP per capita will be higher with higher economic freedom. It should also be noted that according to the index Sweden and Canada are among the world's most capitalist nations, due to factors such as strong rule of law, strong property rights, and few restrictions against free trade. Critics might argue that the Index of Economic Freedom and other methods used does not measure the degree of capitalism, preferring some other definition.

Some argue that economic growth due to its empowerment of citizens, will ensure a transition to democracy in countries such as Cuba. However, other dispute this. Even if economic growth has caused democratization in the past, it may not do so in the future. Dictators may now have learned how to have economic growth without this causing more political freedom.[43]

A high degree of oil or mineral exports is strongly associated with nondemocratic rule. This effect applies worldwide and not only to the Middle East. Dictators who have this form of wealth can spend more on their security apparatus and provide benefits which lessen public unrest. Also, such wealth is not followed by the social and cultural changes that may transform societies with ordinary economic growth.[44]

A recent meta-analysis finds that democracy has no direct effect on economic growth. However, it has a strong and significant indirect effects which contribute to growth. Democracy is associated with higher human capital accumulation, lower inflation, lower political instability, and higher economic freedom. There is also some evidence that it is associated with larger governments and more restrictions on international trade.[45]

If leaving out East Asia, then during the last forty-five years poor democracies have grown their economies 50% more rapidly than nondemocracies. Poor democracies such as the Baltic countries, Botswana, Costa Rica, Ghana, and Senegal have grown more rapidly than nondemocracies such as Angola, Syria, Uzbekistan, and Zimbabwe.[32]

Of the eighty worst financial catastrophes during the last four decades, only five were in democracies. Similarly, poor democracies are half likely as nondemocracies to experience a 10 percent decline in GDP per capita over the course of a single year.[32]

[edit] Famines and refugees
A prominent economist, Amartya Sen, has noted that no functioning democracy has ever suffered a large scale famine.[46] Refugee crises almost always occur in nondemocracies. Looking at the volume of refugee flows for the last twenty years, the first eighty-seven cases occurred in autocracies.[32]

[edit] Human development
Democracy correlates with a higher score on the human development index and a lower score on the human poverty index.

Democracies have the potential to put in place better education, longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, access to drinking water, and better health care than dictatorships. This is not due to higher levels of foreign assistance or spending a larger percentage of GDP on health and education. Instead, the available resources are managed better.[32]

Several health indicators (life expectancy and infant and maternal mortality) have a stronger and more significant association with democracy than they have with GDP per capita, size of the public sector, or income inequality.[47]

In the post-Communist nations, after an initial decline, those that are the most democratic have achieved the greatest gains in life expectancy.[48]

[edit] Democratic peace theory
Main article: Democratic peace theory
Numerous studies using many different kinds of data, definitions, and statistical analyzes have found support for the democratic peace theory. The original finding was that liberal democracies have never made war with one another. More recent research has extended the theory and finds that democracies have few Militarized Interstate Disputes causing less than 1000 battle deaths with one another, that those MIDs that have occurred between democracies have caused few deaths, and that democracies have few civil wars.[49] There are various criticisms of the theory, including specific historic wars and that correlation is not causation.

[edit] Mass murder by government
Research shows that the more democratic nations have much less democide or murder by government.[50] Similarly, they have less genocide and politicide.[51]

[edit] Freedoms and rights
The freedoms and rights of the citizens in liberal democracies are usually seen as beneficial.

[edit] Happiness
Democracies are more often associated with a higher average self-reported happiness in a nation.[52]

[Towntalk]

Dennis:

Without cut and pasting, and in your own words, which of the 9 points that Sarge enumerated are bad for America, and why?

[irishbobcat]

9 out of the 10 are bad for America....

[sfc_oliver]

In order to help clear up the confusion, I offer 10 basic conservative principles.

1. 'Government money' does not belong to government.  It belongs to the taxpayers who worked hard for it, and who had funds deleted from their paychecks even before they got to see them.
2. The government that governs best governs LEAST.

3. Government normally does not solve problems.  People do.  Big government usually IS the problem.

4. Oppressive large governments are responsible for more murders of citizens than all of the wars in history.

5. The private sector is where the juice of society lies.  There you will find ingenuity, creativity, and the creation of wealth--provided government gets out of the way.

6. Government social programs reward pathological dependency.  True adults, unless hindered by debilitating physical impairment, seek independent living as free persons who are not stuck in an infantile dependency on the government nanny.

7. The one role of government mandated by the U.S. Constitution is to provide for the national defense.

8. Human rights are not granted by government.  They are inherent and automatic.  We are 'endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.'  Government can only choose to recognize and protect those inherent rights.

9. The right to self-defense, as encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment, is the key to all of the other rights described in the Bill of Rights.  Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and a free press are secured and kept secure by an armed citizenry.

10. Our form of government is NOT a 'pure democracy' or 'majority rule.'  In a Constitutional Republic such as ours, the will of the majority is tempered and limited by the rights of the minority, which are always intact and unalienable regardless of the 'will of the majority.'

(Anthony G. Martin)

I don't see where Big business is the answer to everything, But I know for a fact that Big Government isn't either.

[irishbobcat]

well said, elecpencil!

[elecpencil]

I said that because conservatives believe the answer to everything is big business. They tend to ignore the Firestone Tires that blew up and the Pintos that exploded. Not to mention bad meat recalls, and animals being posioned by bad pet food. The conservatives answer to those problems is: LESS REGULATIONS on business. Scary.

[iwasthere]

now now rr, elecpencil was making an observation about conservative people. no need to become offended take a few breathers and come up for air.

[Rick Rowlands]

Now how am I supposed to take you seriously and consider you intelligent after making a remark like that?  That flushing sound I just heard was your credibility going down the toilet.