Block, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta
289
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 365:
Line 365: + + + +
→First few sentences
Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.
Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.
The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (which has a globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....
It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)
==Reversion==
==Reversion==