On being a liberal (Page 2): I luv the wisdom of Milton Friedman!!! Always spot on!!

waltmoreno

Fodaoson wrote:

Liberalism Old Style Milton Friedman
Liberalism, as it developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and flowered in the nineteenth, puts major emphasis on the freedom of individuals to control their own destinies. Individualism is its creed; collectivism and tyranny its enemy. The state exists to protect individuals from coercion by other individuals or groups and to widen the range within which individuals can exercise their freedom; it is purely instrumental and has no significance in and of itself. Society is a collection of individuals, and the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate values are the values of the individuals who form the society; there are no super-individual values or ends. Nations may be convenient administrative units; nationalism is an alien creed.

In politics, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against authoritarian regimes. Liberals favored limiting the rights of hereditary rulers, establishing democratic parliamentary institutions, extending the franchise, and guaranteeing civil rights. They favored such measures both for their own sake, as a direct expression of essential political freedoms, and as a means of facilitating the adoption of liberal economic measures.
In economic policy, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against government intervention in economic affairs. Liberals favored free competition at home and free trade among nations. They regarded the organization of economic activity through free private enterprise operating in a competitive market as a direct expression of essential economic freedoms and as important also in facilitating the preservation of political liberty. They regarded free trade among nations as a means of eliminating conflicts that might otherwise produce war. Just as within a country, individuals following their own interests under the pressures of competition indirectly promote the interests of the whole; so, between countries, individuals following their own interests under conditions of free trade indirectly promote the interests of the world as a whole. By providing free access to goods, services, and resources on the same terms to all, free trade would knit the world into a single economic community.

“Liberalism” has taken on a very different meaning in the twentieth century and particularly in the United States. This difference is least in the concrete political forms favored: both the nineteenth-century liberal and the twentieth-century liberal favor or profess to favor parliamentary forms, nearly universal adult franchise, and the protection of civil rights. But even in politics there are some not unimportant differences: in any issue involving a choice between centralization or decentralization of political responsibility, the nineteenth-century liberal will resolve any doubt in favor of strengthening the importance of local governments at the expense of the central government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the defenses against arbitrary government and to protect individual freedom as much as possible; the twentieth-century liberal will resolve the same doubt in favor of increasing the power of the central government at the expense of local government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the power of the government to do “good for” the people...

I am an old style Liberal

Liberalism Old Style Milton Friedman br Liberalis... (show quote)

I luv the wisdom of Milton Friedman!!! Always spot on!!

American Vet

Fodaoson wrote:

Liberalism Old Style Milton Friedman
Liberalism, as it developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and flowered in the nineteenth, puts major emphasis on the freedom of individuals to control their own destinies. Individualism is its creed; collectivism and tyranny its enemy. The state exists to protect individuals from coercion by other individuals or groups and to widen the range within which individuals can exercise their freedom; it is purely instrumental and has no significance in and of itself. Society is a collection of individuals, and the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate values are the values of the individuals who form the society; there are no super-individual values or ends. Nations may be convenient administrative units; nationalism is an alien creed.

In politics, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against authoritarian regimes. Liberals favored limiting the rights of hereditary rulers, establishing democratic parliamentary institutions, extending the franchise, and guaranteeing civil rights. They favored such measures both for their own sake, as a direct expression of essential political freedoms, and as a means of facilitating the adoption of liberal economic measures.
In economic policy, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against government intervention in economic affairs. Liberals favored free competition at home and free trade among nations. They regarded the organization of economic activity through free private enterprise operating in a competitive market as a direct expression of essential economic freedoms and as important also in facilitating the preservation of political liberty. They regarded free trade among nations as a means of eliminating conflicts that might otherwise produce war. Just as within a country, individuals following their own interests under the pressures of competition indirectly promote the interests of the whole; so, between countries, individuals following their own interests under conditions of free trade indirectly promote the interests of the world as a whole. By providing free access to goods, services, and resources on the same terms to all, free trade would knit the world into a single economic community.

“Liberalism” has taken on a very different meaning in the twentieth century and particularly in the United States. This difference is least in the concrete political forms favored: both the nineteenth-century liberal and the twentieth-century liberal favor or profess to favor parliamentary forms, nearly universal adult franchise, and the protection of civil rights. But even in politics there are some not unimportant differences: in any issue involving a choice between centralization or decentralization of political responsibility, the nineteenth-century liberal will resolve any doubt in favor of strengthening the importance of local governments at the expense of the central government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the defenses against arbitrary government and to protect individual freedom as much as possible; the twentieth-century liberal will resolve the same doubt in favor of increasing the power of the central government at the expense of local government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the power of the government to do “good for” the people...

I am an old style Liberal

Liberalism Old Style Milton Friedman br Liberalis... (show quote)

rjoeholl

Smedley_buzk**l wrote:

If Kennedy was alive today he'd be a Republican getting impeached by Democrap "progressives."

Hell, they're the ones who k**led him.

F.D.R.

Fodaoson wrote:

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who... (show quote)

Today's 'Liberal' is non of what Kennedy professed UNLESS you add the preamble 'Controlling every aspect of the people's'.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

working class stiff wrote:

BS...Kennedy as a member of the party of Trump is wishful thinking.

Not JFK, but the rest of the Kennedy family were way worse crooks and murderers.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Oldsailor65 wrote:

Absolutely, JFK would not be a Democrat today and ... (show quote)

Yep, Truman was one President I don't think will be duplicated.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

bylm1-Bernie wrote:

Quite right, Stiff, but persons with average or be... (show quote)

Something you overlook. Kennedy-John was hardly squeaky clean. His affair with Marilyn, terrifying at least 2 women who live in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I agree, I don't think JFK would 'fit' in Trump's cabinet he was more a useful tool. He did some good work, but was also being used.

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Fodaoson wrote:

Liberalism Old Style Milton Friedman
Liberalism, as it developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and flowered in the nineteenth, puts major emphasis on the freedom of individuals to control their own destinies. Individualism is its creed; collectivism and tyranny its enemy. The state exists to protect individuals from coercion by other individuals or groups and to widen the range within which individuals can exercise their freedom; it is purely instrumental and has no significance in and of itself. Society is a collection of individuals, and the whole is no greater than the sum of its parts. The ultimate values are the values of the individuals who form the society; there are no super-individual values or ends. Nations may be convenient administrative units; nationalism is an alien creed.

In politics, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against authoritarian regimes. Liberals favored limiting the rights of hereditary rulers, establishing democratic parliamentary institutions, extending the franchise, and guaranteeing civil rights. They favored such measures both for their own sake, as a direct expression of essential political freedoms, and as a means of facilitating the adoption of liberal economic measures.
In economic policy, liberalism expressed itself as a reaction against government intervention in economic affairs. Liberals favored free competition at home and free trade among nations. They regarded the organization of economic activity through free private enterprise operating in a competitive market as a direct expression of essential economic freedoms and as important also in facilitating the preservation of political liberty. They regarded free trade among nations as a means of eliminating conflicts that might otherwise produce war. Just as within a country, individuals following their own interests under the pressures of competition indirectly promote the interests of the whole; so, between countries, individuals following their own interests under conditions of free trade indirectly promote the interests of the world as a whole. By providing free access to goods, services, and resources on the same terms to all, free trade would knit the world into a single economic community.

“Liberalism” has taken on a very different meaning in the twentieth century and particularly in the United States. This difference is least in the concrete political forms favored: both the nineteenth-century liberal and the twentieth-century liberal favor or profess to favor parliamentary forms, nearly universal adult franchise, and the protection of civil rights. But even in politics there are some not unimportant differences: in any issue involving a choice between centralization or decentralization of political responsibility, the nineteenth-century liberal will resolve any doubt in favor of strengthening the importance of local governments at the expense of the central government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the defenses against arbitrary government and to protect individual freedom as much as possible; the twentieth-century liberal will resolve the same doubt in favor of increasing the power of the central government at the expense of local government; for, to him, the main desideratum is to strengthen the power of the government to do “good for” the people...

I am an old style Liberal

Liberalism Old Style Milton Friedman br Liberalis... (show quote)

That liberalism is fine, maybe a little pie in the sky, but I have no problems with it.

Tug484

Noraa wrote:

My Father was a die hard Democrat. He would be feeling out in the cold now also.

Mine too.

bylm1-Bernie

Lt. Rob Polans ret. wrote:

Something you overlook. Kennedy-John was hardly squeaky clean. His affair with Marilyn, terrifying at least 2 women who live in Florida during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I agree, I don't think JFK would 'fit' in Trump's cabinet he was more a useful tool. He did some good work, but was also being used.

I didn't say he was squeaky clean, just that he was, by definition, nowhere near as far left as any of the current Dem hopefuls. I v**ed for Nixon in 60. At the time I thought JFK was too far to the left. Things do change and not always for the better.

Mikeyavelli

Fodaoson wrote:

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who... (show quote)

Where's the free stuff, Kennedy?

Hug

Oldsailor65 wrote:

Absolutely, JFK would not be a Democrat today and ... (show quote)

I briefly met Truman one time and I worked with several of his close friends. From the stories I have heard about Truman, I think Truman would support President Trump all the way.

Oldsailor65 Loc: Iowa

Fodaoson wrote:

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who... (show quote)

Sounds like yer describing Donald Trump

rafterman Loc: South Florida

Fodaoson wrote:

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who... (show quote)

The inference by the person who posted this (Fodaoson) and the only reason this is here is meant to be backhanded slam at Conservatives. It’s the way of the liberals. Since they don’t have any original ideas, they insult and attempt to intimidate. Man – That won’t/don’t fly with me – you infantile little boy.
To infer that Conservatives DO NOT care about those things is not true nor based on any factual evidence. All citizens of the United States care about "the welfare of the people". Need proof? Our armed forces included both Conservatives and liberals (Republicans and Democrats) serving side-by-side in WWI and WWII; don't forget they did the same thing in Korea, Vietnam and now against our eternal enemy - terrorism, mainly Islamic terrorist, but also d******c t*******t. So, to infer that a Conservative does not care about the people of this country is contemptible and loathsome.
Now this is factual – NONE, I repeat, NONE of the laws passed for civil rights and civil liberties going back to the Thirteenth Amendment (abolishment of s***ery, https://tinyurl.com/u36o627), the Fourteenth Amendment (granted citizenship to everyone, https://tinyurl.com/sywl2vr) and Fifteenth Amendment (banning race-based v****g qualifications) passed during Lincoln’s Presidency would have passed in the House of Representatives or the Senate without support from Conservative Republicans. By the way, all 86 Republicans v**ed for the 13th Amendment while 56 of the 72 Democrats v**ed AGAINST IT. OOPS! You can look up the v****g by political party for the other two yourself if you’re interested (although I doubt it as when faced with facts, liberals run for the cover their usual MO of insult and intimidation instead). And since JFK days, in 1965, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the V****g Rights Act, guaranteeing African Americans the right to v**e. The bill made it illegal to impose restrictions on federal, state and local e******ns that were designed to deny the v**e to b****s. 112 of 138 Conservative Republicans v**ed in favor of LBJ’s (a liberals) signature legislation.
I am tired of hearing that we Conservatives do not care about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties. And, to say or infer that only Liberals look ahead and not behind welcoming new ideas and that Conservatives do not is absurd, it is d******e and unproductive.
Do you think we Conservatives do not read and understand U.S. history and learn from the mistakes of the past (like s***ery) and understand that new ideas and changes must be made in order to always care about the welfare of the people? Only a liberal would conceive of that idea and that they – and only they - have the lock on and progressive and productive ideas.
Now to address rigid reactions, which you again infer without saying it (you coward) that Conservatives are too rigid which causes stalemates and suspicions – thank you for pointing out to all of us our ability to think about and place limits on policies both at home and abroad. Thinking outside the box is an ability we Conservatives welcome because without it, some of the programs and policies implemented for civil rights and civil liberties would go out of control and lose their effectiveness for everyone that needs them not just those abusing them.
Now, be a good little liberal and try to think of something insulting that is original.

Mikeyavelli

Hug wrote:

I briefly met Truman one time and I worked with several of his close friends. From the stories I have heard about Truman, I think Truman would support President Trump all the way.

Yep, givem hell Harry. Another no bulls**t president.
He is the president who got The Buck Stops Here sign for the president's desk. Still there, or did Obama remove it?