Talk:Liberalism

Political Cartoon Image

I don't think that political cartoons really belong in an encyclopedia, so I'm going to take the picture and replace it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:BOlsen (talk)

Do us a favor, stop thinking so hard.--Jpatt 21:20, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

So the picture should stay? I was simply saying that the picture didn't seem appropriate.BOlsen

Political cartoons are appropriate. You can suggest a picture with no guaranty of inclusion.--Jpatt 21:39, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

Now if it were a cartoon of a Bean Burrito, or the like, that would be inappropriate. I suggest you mind your actions, BOlsen....carefully. --₮K_/Admin^/Talk 22:13, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

Good article but...

I was directed here by Addison after a query regarding US liberalism. This cleared up my understanding, thanks, but I fail to see what Hitler has to do with this? Very curious. MaxFletcher 16:38, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

I am hesitant to make a wholesale change to this page but the section in question directs to a page with thew exact same information. Should it be a "See also"? MaxFletcher 16:41, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

Blanking

"Kwe19772002" just blanked the entire page so I reverted it. Nothing but vandalism could have been in mind when it happened. BobSherman 21:26, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Blocked. MaxFletcher 21:30, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks! BobSherman 22:16, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

comparison between naziism and communism.

Point 4 of the comparison looks wrong. The bit from the communist manifesto is about confiscating the property of rebels and emigrants (people who have left the country), the nazi policy talks about expelling people who have moved to Germany, and the analysis talks about the property of Jews (some of whom would have lived in Germany all their lives) being confiscated. Basically they are almost completely unrelated. I'm not really sure what to do about it though, I don't own the communist manifesto or a copy of Nazi policies but perhaps someone who does could find some facts that actually are related. Alternatively I could just delete that bit (not really sure how that works in a list though).Cmurphynz 05:24, 9 July 2012 (EDT)

It still made no sense, so I just deleted that part.Cmurphynz 03:23, 17 July 2012 (EDT)

Article should be serious in its analysis of liberalism and showing criticism by conservatives like Edmund Burke, not using slanderous childish posters of the "brain of a liberal" that is just as childish as a liberal posting a poster of a "brain of a liberal". Why not be more serious?

The schematic of a "brain of a liberal" is plain stupid and childish, just as a "Liberalapedia" would be stupid to have a schematic of a "brain of a conservative" would be. If people here are serious and want to put conservative criticisms of liberalism here, look at Edmund Burke's criticism of the French Revolution that he claimed was dangerously radical because it was completely disassociated with traditionalism unlike the Glorious Revolution and American Revolution that Burke claimed were based on tradition. Why not be more serious to be taken seriously?--TheQuestioner 11:51, 3 August 2012 (EDT)

Inmature images

The images on this article are very immature. Can someone please replace them with something on topic?

Liberalism is immature and worthy of mockery. Thanks to liberals/moderates/neoconservatives, the US deficit is 18 trillion dollars. And secular Europe is in economic/societal decline. Conservative (talk) 08:35, 12 November 2015 (EST)

Liberalism and communism

It might be a good idea to consider adding this to the article: the California State Assembly passed a bill to allow communists to openly work in government positions. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

Re-doing the analysis

The analysis needs to be redone. Eminent domain is a constitutional right of the government set in place by the God-loving, conservative Founding Fathers, which you guys have practically made saints. #2 is a violation of Godwin's law. #4 was a pet project of Alexander Hamilton, who you guys seem to love. #5 is nonsense (and blatantly false, considering Trump has called the 'fake news' the 'enemy of the people', borrowing a phrase from Robespierre), not to mention that we don't try to censor, control, or suppress Fox News. #6? Yeah, I'm with you on that one. Common Core is a disaster in every sense of the word. Vive Liberté! 22:22, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

1: To be clear, here's the "eminent domain clause of the Fifth Amendment: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It appears to be placing a restriction on the government's power on taking private land. It must be justly compensated. However, today the federal government is taking huge swaths of land for itself. That is not good policy (much the opposite).

2: I see no violation. It is a valid similarity. Like the Marx and NSDAP, left-wingers support a graduated income tax, where a higher proportion of the monetary property of the wealthy is taken from them than of poorer people. It's not that the wealthy cannot afford it, but it is not fair or just to take a higher proportion of monetary property away from certain people because they happen to have more of it. It's punishment for earning a higher income. They're all citizens of the U.S., equal under the law, and the purpose of taxation is to fund the government, not create equality.

3: the only point you didn't mention.

4: I'm not the biggest Hamilton fan (but I don't necessarily hate him either), but you're forgetting that the federal reserve system was created in 1913.

5: Liberals supported the Fairness Doctrine. Leftists on college campuses throw their stupid temper tantrums whenever someone who doesn't agree with them is invited to speak at a college campus. Look at Betsy DeVos or Ann Coulter. They legitimately think that offensive speech should be banned (this would effectively repeal the 1st Amendment, as free speech is offensive speech). When have conservatives blocked liberals from speaking at college campuses? At Liberty University, a conservative Christian college that accepts a young earth view of the earth, many leftists have spoken upon invitation, including Bernie Sanders (who laughably tried to defend abortion by citing Amos, even though the Bible clearly says the opposite). It was the Obama Administration that shunned Fox News and conservative networks. It's liberals who falsely accuse conservative news organizations such as Breitbart and others as being "fake news," even though ridiculous sites such as Mother Jones and the NYT (which has made numerous errors like the rest of the MSM) get a pass. Some leftists want to literally impose censorship on conservative sites because they allegedly have "fake news" (whatever that means). This is the Left's method of censorship. Liberals control the editorial boards of all the important U.S. newspapers. They constantly seek to impose their left-wing views and influence the public. They constantly criticize Trump in what is supposed to be fair reporting. Whenever some disaster happens, regardless of what it is, they advocate for a more expansive government (school shootings, for example). If you read them, you'd think liberals were correct/sane of every issue and the opposite is the case for conservatives.... oh wait, that must actually be true, because the reputable mainstream media says so, and I don't want to believe the conservative fake media.

6: good that we agree. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:08, 14 May 2017 (EDT)

Did I skip over #3? My bad. On #3, I haven't really any idea what you're talking about, so I'll have to do some research before forming an opinion. I'll need sources for #1. #2 is a violation because there are plenty of other comparision states that also have graduated income tax. You (not you in particular) just happened to choose Nazi Germany as the state to compare to. #4 I was really thinking of Hamilton's national bank, but the FRS was from 1913, yeah. #5 Look, I understand that our special little snowflakes on colleges need their safe spaces just in case someone with - God forbid - an opposing viewpoint comes on campus <./sarcasm>. But here's the thing: is it worth inviting a speaker like Milo on to a campus when we know he's going to call people out and promote hate and cause trouble? No. He's free to do whatever he likes, and we're not going to censor him, but we don't want him to come to our college and call out a transgender student and make her life a living hell. Does that make sense? And I understand that Milo is an extreme example, but sometimes hyperbole is good for making a point.

Common core math is literally the hardest thing to do in the world. It's impossible to understand. Vive Liberté! 08:46, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Liberals don't attempt to censor Fox News? Despite failed organized harassment and boycotts of advertisers for two decades, they've now resorted to the tried and true Clintonian tactics reminiscent of Larry Flynt: bribing people to come forward with lucid allegations to either expose and embarass on-air personalities or blackmail. RobS^{Trump now is fighting back against the coup plotters} 10:02, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Well, to be fair, I can pull lots of links too, but that doesn't mean that they're reputable sources. Vive Liberté! 13:45, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Regarding #2, it is not a violation. The article examines the similarities between the ideologies of communism, nazism, and liberalism/socialism. It is not examining just the nation-states of the USSR, the Third Reich, and the U.S. Many western countries have graduated income taxes, and the forces of liberalism/socialism are much stronger in those countries than here. They are included in discussions of liberalism/socialism. It's not just about the U.S. Tell me another ideology that supports a graduated income tax? Conservatism? Libertarianism? I don't think so.

Regarding censorship, at least some liberals do want blatant censorship of conservative media outlets. Read the "Attempts at censorship" section of Fake news. It might be worth taking a look at this. For more general censorship by liberals, see Liberal censorship.

Now, regarding college speakers, Milo was invited to speak, but he couldn't because leftists were offended that someone would burst their ideological bubbles. The university was forced to cancel the event. If you think what he says it "hateful," just don't attend an event he was invited to speak at. Let him speak at the event he was invited to and don't shut it down.

So, colleges can't invite conservative speakers, even "mainstream" conservatives such as Ann Coulter or Betsy DeVos? Isn't it sad (from a leftist perspective, I must clarify) that a conservative Christian university that accepts YEC and whose president was a strong supporter of Trump is able to invite numerous left-wing speakers every year, including Bernie Sanders, and not have to shut down the events or cancel the speakers because of riots; but at the same time, supposedly "open-minded" and "tolerant" liberal universities (public universities, I should add) can't tolerate non-leftist speakers? It's the Left that's doing this. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

I think you forget that Milo was invited and did speak at the college. And DeVos literally just gave a speech at BCU. Now, after you come back with the 'But the students booed her! Look! Censorship!' let me respond: DeVos equivocated herself with BCU's founder, something very offensive to the students and those familiar with Mrs Bethune's legacy. In addition, DeVos called Bethune a 'pioneer in school choice'. Think about that. A pioneer in school choice, though the university was founded as a necessity to the fact that segregation kept black students out of white colleges. Such choice they had, being blocked out of choice because of the colour of thier skin. Vive Liberté! 22:25, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

Berkley disinvited Milo after the students there threw their temper tantrum. This was in January of this year. It also disinvited Coulter. It's true that black people did not have much of a choice back in the 19th century, but they created an alternative form of education, one that exists to this day, after segregation has ended on college campuses (even though it might come back). There is some truth in DeVos's comments: the system does not work for you, so put matters into your own hands. Offensive comments like that do not warrant immature behavior on the part of the students. She says something they don't like, OK, but don't shut down the speaker because of it. I think there was more to their opposition than any alleged respect for the historical accuracy of their school's founder. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2017 (EDT)

More censorship: Northwestern University cancelled a planned speaker of ICE after leftists threw another temper tantrum.[1] Also, Wikipedia bans the use of conservative sites such as Breitbart or the Daily Mail as references, and I've personally seen bias against using sites such as Fox News/Business and the Washington Times as sources. It's censorship resulting in left-leaning sources being the only ones that are "reliable," making it easier to defend leftist POV and "disprove" views that contradict it. Additionally, regarding creation science, although a relatively large number of creation scientists exist and publish in journals,[2][3] most secular journals discriminate against those who hold creationist views or come to conclusions that go against naturalistic evolution.[4][5][6][7] --1990'sguy (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2017 (EDT)