Redefining "Liberal"

[TheSerf]

I am currently reading a facinating book called The Road to Serfdom (thus my name) by Friedrick Hayek.  One of the fascinating minor points made was the redefining of the term "liberal", especially in the U.S.  Liberal used to mean a disciple of Adam Smith, Hume, Ricardo, and all the great classical free-market economic thinkers.  I am a liberal in this classical sense.  Now, it means someone who thinks the free market is unfair and will use the government to "level the playing field."  This is exactly the opposite of what it used to mean.  I am pissed at all the modern "liberals" who hijacked a wonderful term, one best applied today because all the original ideas on government and the economy are comming from our side.  We are the "progressives".  We are the true liberals.  So, my first rant is to all the socialists hiding in "liberals" clothing who hijacked a wonderful term and turned it into rubbish.  This forum should have never been called "liberal B.S."  It should have been called "socialist B.S."

[Foamy Dog]

A good point and a point well taken.

Unfortunatly, the word liberal has taken on an entierly new meaning from what it was supposed to be so, I concede and go on record as saying that the topic Liberal B.S. referes to the "the modern 'liberals' who hijacked a wonderful term" and not to the original term.  

[TheSerf]

I know what you mean, and I know why you labeled the board the way you did.  The rant was directed at all the people who changed the meaning of the word liberal, and not at you Foamy Dog.  Conservatism used to have a whole different meaning as well.  Now, the liberals are conservatives, the socialists are liberals, and the conservatives are now monarchists.  And, then, we wonder why people are so confused?

[[e-mail]]

The tag is not imortant the Bs is coming from those who: are pro-abortion ; pro affirmative action ; pro political correctiveness  ; pro gays and lesbians.  For the latter I mean their agenda to have everyone accept theit lifestyle as just another of alternative lifestyle.

[Bored]

Now I wonder about the US education system that is purported to be "supreme" on this planet.

Some seriously need a basic education and the ability to remove that blindfold (the instructions are included in the packet - so don't get into a war frenzy) and all the convenient labels of "liberal", "evil" (as in Axis) and all the traditional "communist" expressions...

Once again, there is nothing new in US words.. just a recyling of stolen material from the past...

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

[Bored]

In total agreement with you Serf...

[Desdemona]

...agree w/ you, Serf.....

I graduated from Hillsdale College, where Hayek was properly esteemed.

[barral69]

After reading Chaytoyant's mesg, I had to stop right there and reply.

You said Alternitive Lifestyle. (may have spelled it wrong, but you get the point,)
There shouldn't be an alternitive lifestyle. We have an AMERICAN lifestyle. And I don't think the founding fathers had gays and freaks in mind when the wrote the bill of rights. And when it comes to Affirmitive action, There are most likely alot of great *enter race here* people looking for employment. They cannot get jobs because the company has to hire the *enter race here* guy/gal to fill GOVERMENT requirements for a diverse work enviroment.
Who cares if a company has hired 100 only whites or blacks, yellows, greens, pinks or oranges. As long as the company HIRED THE BEST QUALIFIED FOR THAT JOB!

[barral69]

Just thought about this and I want to clarify, I am NOT racist. I grew out of intolerence when I left High School. But I can't stand being bombarded with all this propaganda telling me I can't find work because I'm not black, or hispanic or a forienger. What happened to the American Job Market? Why does 3m Columbia employ more Non citizen Cambodians and keep them as temps for years and turn away decent working AMERICANS everyday. It's cheaper to have them work. It's easyer to get them to work overtime and they surley won't complain about the work enviroment. And what really PISSES ME OFF about them is that they can come to MY country, take MY job and live TAX FREE for the first 7 years they are here. THAT IS NOT RIGHT! Why don't we charge them taxes and let the American People go tax free for 7 years? Mabey then after working only a month I can afford to buy a brand new car. Or a brand new house? Nope. I'm stuck looking for employment, counting pennies for gas, driving a beat up station wagon and STILL living with my parents. Not because I don't want to work, there are no jobs for me to work at! I feel as though Americans are becoming the new minority. Because apearently, our needs are minor compared to the foriegners comming here for work. USA.....STOP THAT! Give your own people a chance before you give those opertunities to someone from another country!

[Away]

I am very sad to read these messages with so many spelling errors. I am a conservative and agree with many of you, but you cannot be credible if you don't know how to use the King's english.

Of course you can't be credible either if it is obvious you haven't read the rules; one of which is that it is forbidden to mention spelling errors on the board!!

--FD

[Mo]

I understand your point, but if people take the time to polish their rants, then they are not really rants! Besides, one of the myths we should be trying to overcome is the notion that all conservatives have had the benefit of economic privilege and educational opportunities! Mercy!

[roil]

I don't think modern conservatives are looking for a liberal style of economic involvement. Lesse Faire economics became popular before WW1 when large industries wanted no governement intervention because a complete lack of regulation (safety, health, pay, or otherwise) was better for profits. With the release of such published works as Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," the public demanded that the governement get involved for their health and workers were looking for regulation to better ensure their safety in the workplace. Though pay was "lower" in the early 1900s, it was higher in relation to the cost of living than minimum wage is today. An increase in minimum wage will not devistate todays economy, nor is it an unfair effort to "level the playing field" or cheat industry owners out of money. In fact, if workers had more money in their pockets when they go home, they would have the capital to purchase the very goods they create and sell.

Today it seems that liberals are going overboard with regulation. Forcing equal hiring standards and extreme sexual harrasment standards are a joke today. Discriminating against one group of people in order to not discriminate others is a rediculous idea. However, while liberals are attempting to level the playing field, conservatives are trying to tip it over. Anything and everything that can be done so that they can make an extra buck is being tried. Huge billion dollar bail out packages for airlines that are losing buisness doesn't seem like a liberal (economically, historicaly) thing to do. The connection between elected officials (specifically conservatives who were buisnessmen; and Joe Lieberman, but he's a chameleon if i've ever seen one) and the companies that recieve money is uncanny. Ayn Rand, the champion of free economics and democracy (who epitomizes the crux of today's conservative economic thinking), would be turning in her grave if she knew the extect to which governement has become involved with our "free market."

Politicians recieve huge sums of money from huge corporations who expect to get favors if their candidate wins. Most times they do. Do you think american airlines would still be around if they weren't a big campaign contributer? Why should my tax dollars go to bail them out so that their CEO doesn't have to take a pay-cut? If Bush really wants to keep money in my pocket, why is he giving it to big buisnesses and the the top 10% of the economic class?

It is because buisnesses were not regulated closely enough that our current economic situation exists. What has been played off as a child of sept 11 is more the product of the lies of numerous CEOs. Enron, Worldcom and dozens others lied about millions of dollars to escape taxes and hide debt to boost their stock. The new Bush tax plan allows for the removal of the double tax on dividens, but that only becomes a factor if you have millions of dollars sunk into stocks like CEOs and huge company shareholders (like our pres., vp, atty gen, etc..) I will get 0 savings from this. In fact, the New York Times reported that Bushes plan will cost more than it saves. In other words, he'll be charging us (those who will not be recieving tax benefits from divedends) so they can make money.

The democrats are not much better. They hide their economic schemes behind what is good for the american people too. They just don't mess up the economy as much. *cough* Reagan *cough*

[Mo]

I don't have time to deal with all your flawed arguments, so I'll just go with one of them.

The min. wage is an arbitrary price control set by govt. If you think govt. price controls on labor is a good thing, why not put them on everything? Not only is it a communist concept, but raising it dosen't help the working poor in the long run. Many of the labor unions have in their contract that the lowest paid worker must make 2 or 3 times the current min. wage. Workers who are not directly affected will get a raise in a year or two with the rise in inflation that it has caused. The people who hire at min. wage hire less people and expect more work. Meanwhile, the person who has so little skill that they are not worth min. wage is priced out of the market, even if they would love to work for a 1$ less.

It has no place in free market society.

[roil]

1) it is not arbitrary, it is an amount based on the cost of living in order that people who work don't get screwed because they live in a right to work state (like TX, where i live). It is a company's job to raise profits by cutting costs. Those costs include worker's salaries. A communist concept would be to tell all buisnesses that they must pay a certain rate for a certain job. All the minimum wage says is that workers must be paid an amount thatguarantees their survival.

2) the reason labor unions ask for 2-3 times the minimum wage is because the current minimum wage is so low that 2-3 times the amount is the only way to support a family. If Bush is so concerned with family values it seems that a living wage should be at the top of his priority. As soon as poor and lower class workers are no longer forced to work multiple jobs they can concentrate on preventing their teens from getting pregnant and using drugs.

3) in right to work states labor unions do not exist. In addition many corporations work hard to disscourage labor unions. McDonalds is one of the largest employers of minimum wage workers. They do all they can to prevent workers from organsing. They over-hire in order to promote heavy turnover and prevent workers from working more than 30hrs/week in order that they do not have to pay benefits. The one McDonalds that got authorization to unionize was shut down 2 weeks later by McDonalds corporate and a new one was built a block away (source: Fast Food Nation).

In closing, when the interest of workers is not at the forefront of a company's concern someone else must be there to look after them. The american federal governement is the most egalitarian and sweeping way this can be done. I am not saying that living wage (ie. minimum wage) must be the same everywhere, but it should be scaled to local economy and labor laws. The point is not to take power from the states, but give power and opportunity to the workers.



which other arguements are flawed?

[Mo]

You have been fooled by the "us" and "them" of the left and their class warfare game.
Most people in the middle class and even in the top 10% of wage earners worked for min. wage, or close to it, at one point in their lives. The difference between the working poor and the middle class is five to ten years. Many a "rich" person has fond memories of horrid roomates, crappy cars, and small apatments.

Even the local McDonalds pays more then min. wage. This is a good example of how the market can decide on it's own what a job is worth, without govt. And most of the workers are students who will not be on the job for long. And if one wants to stay there, he/she can make sure she smilles, and makes a damn good french fry and move up to manager- district mgr-etc. I don't know anyone who has been working at McDonalds for 10 years making min. wage, do you?

But I do know someone who started working at a retail clothing store as a sales clerk for min. wage, worked hard, and was moved up to a buyer in 10 years! Now she is more then three times the min wage. She didn't beat out people with equal time in the company! They had all left!

What *is* the top 10%? If the incomes of all the people in your house adds up to $72,000, that puts them in the top 10%. Top 5% is anything at or above $127,000 a year. That means if a man and his wife each earn $36,000 apiece, they are rich according to the liberals, and not worthy of a tax cut.

"When the interest of workers is not at the forefront of a company's concerns" the workers will seek jobs elsewhere. It's in the companies best interest to keep them happy, or the company will fail.