Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

JDnCoke wrote: Reason wrote: The EU is NOT a liberal institution. It is the reason why we are getting ID cards for example. The Conservatives are the best current protection of our civil liberties.

Eh, I'll think you'll find that the EU is one of the few things preventing us from getting ID Cards, since citizens can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if such measure were imposed.

The EU is a liberal institution, but not a Liberal one, which I think you meant.

I doubt it, considering other EU nations such as Italy already have ID cards.....

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Eh, I'll think you'll find that the EU is one of the few things preventing us from getting ID Cards, since citizens can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights if such measure were imposed.

That's a strange statement, as Thundertkaer pointed out: I doubt it, considering other EU nations such as Italy already have ID cards.....


What's more is that the EU has supposedly asked for all EU countries to have them....
Quote: The EU is a liberal institution, but not a Liberal one, which I think you meant.

The distinction you are making is wrong, I should have pointed that out to you in a pm a while ago. A Liberal is onyl different in that it's a proper noun and the name of a party that deviates (in England) a long way from liberalism.

[Snow Patrol]

Reason wrote: A Liberal is onyl different in that it's a proper noun and the name of a party that deviates (in England) a long way from liberalism.
It is not a "liberal" party per se anyway, it's a merger of liberals and social democrats. Anyway, as i'm sure your aware there are different schools of liberal thought (utilitarianism was originally a liberal idea for example, horrible though it is) and such things as the welfare state and universal health coverage are all perfectly justifiable under liberalism, just because they they are similar in certain aspects with socialist thought does not make it socialist. Just as you believe in the free market, it does not necesarily make you conservative though they also adopt a pro-market position.

Just to explain, i'm tired of having libertarians say they're liberals and people should stop labeling them socialists, then turning around and labeling almost everything else socialist.

[Robin Hood]

Quote: Just to explain, i'm tired of having libertarians say they're liberals and people should stop labeling them socialists, then turning around and labeling almost everything else socialist.

I understand fully the difference of opinion within liberaslism. I just don't feel that social liberals and the like can really be called liberal. I've been through the reasoning, but it seems very socialist.

A liberal must prioritise individual freedom. Social liberals prioritise opportunity (though I have problems with this too).
Quote:
uch things as the welfare state and universal health coverage are all perfectly justifiable under liberalism

Where's the individual freedom in those?

[JDnCoke]

thundertaker wrote: I doubt it, considering other EU nations such as Italy already have ID cards.....

I didn't say the EU had the right to take existing systems down... Just that is a supranational body that people can go to if their freedoms are threatened by their government. In this case, Blair and his £120 ID cards.

Reason wrote: The distinction you are making is wrong, I should have pointed that out to you in a pm a while ago. A Liberal is onyl different in that it's a proper noun and the name of a party that deviates (in England) a long way from liberalism.

*tut* Unfortunately wrong their my friend, as I pointed out to you via PM previously a "liberal" (small l) is akin to Social Democrats or Modern Liberals, where as the word "Liberal" (capital L) means an original, Classical Liberal. The US makes the hand distinction of having the new word Libertarian, though I think that implies over more American things (idolising the Constitution etc).

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
*tut* Unfortunately wrong their my friend, as I pointed out to you via PM previously a "liberal" (small l) is akin to Social Democrats or Modern Liberals, where as the word "Liberal" (capital L) means an original, Classical Liberal. The US makes the hand distinction of having the new word Libertarian, though I think that implies over more American things (idolising the Constitution etc).

I disagree with your pm, and so too does the entire subject of pol sci. and anyone else, but I will try and remember your distinction when talking privately with only you, but for everyone else this isn't the case.

Quote: I didn't say the EU had the right to take existing systems down... Just that is a supranational body that people can go to if their freedoms are threatened by their government. In this case, Blair and his £120 ID cards.

You said that the EU would block them, but the EU encourages them, after all only the UK and Eire don't have some sort of ID card scheme (of the old members, I doubt know about the new ones)....

[Snow Patrol]

Reason wrote: Quote: Just to explain, i'm tired of having libertarians say they're liberals and people should stop labeling them socialists, then turning around and labeling almost everything else socialist.
I understand fully the difference of opinion within liberaslism. I just don't feel that social liberals and the like can really be called liberal. I've been through the reasoning, but it seems very socialist.

A liberal must prioritise individual freedom. Social liberals prioritise opportunity (though I have problems with this too).

Quote: Such things as the welfare state and universal health coverage are all perfectly justifiable under liberalism
Where's the individual freedom in those?
The concepts of positive and negative liberty. Their both strains of liberal thought and no matter how much you try to distance yourself from the idea of positive liberty and label it as socialist, the fact remains it is scion of liberal ideology.

Though it is understandable why both strains of liberals try to distance themselves from each other, i don't like carrot cake either.

My link wrote: As Berlin showed, negative and positive liberty are not merely two distinct kinds of liberty; they can be seen as rival, incompatible interpretations of a single political ideal

[Robin Hood]

Quote:
The concepts of positive and negative liberty. Their both strains of liberal thought and no matter how much you try to distance yourself from the idea of positive liberty and label it as socialist, the fact remains it is scion of liberal ideology.


Positive liberty is not a concept that stands up to scrutiny. The liberties that go with it are best justified by some idea of collective liberty, it is thus not liberalism as there's no focus on the individual.

Which is why they are called social liberals, they believe in the freedom of groups, or collectives.

[Snow Patrol]

JDnCoke wrote: *tut* Unfortunately wrong their my friend, as I pointed out to you via PM previously a "liberal" (small l) is akin to Social Democrats or Modern Liberals, where as the word "Liberal" (capital L) means an original, Classical Liberal. The US makes the hand distinction of having the new word Libertarian, though I think that implies over more American things (idolising the Constitution etc).
I've never heard of anything like this either, could you please enlighten me?