https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Jljb2Conservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-10-09T06:57:04ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Margaret_Thatcher&diff=364378Margaret Thatcher2008-01-04T23:00:44Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Prime Minister<br />
|image=Margaret_Thatcher.jpg<br />
|seq=71<br />
|term_start=May 4 1979<br />
|term_end=November 28 1990<br />
|party=Conservative Party<br />
|previous=James Callaghan<br />
|next=John Major<br />
|birth_date=October 13 1925<br />
|birth_place=Grantham<br />
|spouse=[[Denis Thatcher|Sir Denis Thatcher, Bt]]<br />
|religion=[[Methodist]]<br />
}}<br />
<br />
'''Margaret Hilda Roberts Thatcher''', later Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven (born October 13, 1925), became the leader of the Conservative Party in [[The United Kingdom]] in February 1975. She was opposed to socialism and out-of-control union power which had brought down the previous Conservative government in 1974. She ran on these issues which resulted in her being chosen as Prime Minister in May 1979 with the Conservatives sweeping into power. <br />
<br />
Lady Thatcher sold many of the nationalized industries back to private investors and made tax cuts. Thatcher stood up against the powerful trade unions, introducing legislation to ban secondary picketing; British trade union laws remain some of the most restrictive in the Western world. Due to her aggressive leadership style, she became known as the "Iron Lady," a term originally coined as an insult by the communist [[Soviet Union]], but one she adopted with glee. Another famous statement of hers is that "the lady is not for turning". Thatcher was always a strong supporter of the the United States, and was a good friend of President [[Ronald Reagan]], uniting with him in actions against the Communists. <br />
<br />
She led Britain to victory against [[Argentina]] in a 1982 war over ownership of the [[Falkland Islands]], and though the United States was allied with both countries, and did initially try to broker a negotiated settlement. When that failed, the U.S. supported Britain and not Argentina with vital intelligence information. There is still debate as to the extent to which the war was contrived, as victory in a conflict would have suited both the Argentine [[Junta]] and the then unpopular Thatcher. The conflict led to a strong friendship with the Chilean military dictator [[Pinochet]].<br />
<br />
Thatcher won three elections between 1979 and decision not to stand for a second party vote in 1990, when it became apparent she wouldn't have the necessary votes. Margaret Thatcher was the longest serving Prime Minister in more than 150 years, and alongside Winston Churchill, many consider her to be one of the two most important British political leaders of the twentieth century.<br />
<br />
Her regime was controversial however. Social mobility decreased, whilst education and the [[National Health Service]] suffered a number of cuts. [[Unemployment]] rose to unprecedented levels, exceeding one in ten, and the method of counting was regularly altered to lower the published figures; child poverty tripled, and inequality rapidly increased. Many of her actions in the north of England seemed petulant, infamously the sudden closure of much of the mining industry, whilst refusing to interfere with the consequences. Many argue that actions such as these led to the decline of traditional communities and communitarian values, and consequently a rise in yobbery and anti-social behaviour. <br />
<br />
She fundamentally moved the British economy from an industrialist model, to a financial, speculative economy. This shift also served to undermine trade union power with fewer people in stable long term employment and instead in the service industry.<br />
<br />
[[Time Magazine]] wrote of Lady Thatcher: ''"She was the catalyst who set in motion a series of interconnected events that gave a revolutionary twist to the century's last two decades and helped mankind end the millennium on a note of hope and confidence. The triumph of capitalism, the almost universal acceptance of the market as indispensable to prosperity, the collapse of Soviet imperialism, the downsizing of the state on nearly every continent and in almost every country in the world — Margaret Thatcher played a part in all those transformations, and it is not easy to see how any would have occurred without her. [[Champion]] of free minds and markets, she helped topple the welfare state and make the world safer for capitalism"'' [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]<br />
<br />
==Career prior to 1979==<br />
<br />
The predominant influence in Lady Thatcher's early life was her father, [[Alfred Roberts]]. Roberts was a grocer by occupation who was active in local politics. Years later, Lady Thatcher continued to acknowledge his formative influence on her (for example, in the second volume of her memoirs, ''The Path to Power'').<br />
<br />
Lady Thatcher attended Somerville College, [[Oxford University|Oxford]], where she read chemistry and became chairman of the university Conservative association. After graduating, she worked for a time as a research chemist before qualifying as a barrister and practicing as a [[tax]] lawyer, an indication of her interest in financial matters. In this time period, it was uncommon in Britain for a female from an ordinary middle-class background to go to a top-class university and then to pursue a career in the male-dominated and somewhat elitist world of the Bar.<br />
<br />
Lady Thatcher married [[Denis Thatcher]], a successful businessman whom she met at a Conservative Party meeting. They had 2 children, twins [[Mark Thatcher|Mark]] and [[Carol Thatcher|Carol]].<br />
<br />
Under the troubled Conservative premiership of [[Edward Heath]] (1970-1974), Thatcher served as Secretary of State for Education during which time her most noted achievement was the withdrawal of a daily milk ration to primary age schoolchildren earning her the nickname Milk-Snatcher. After the Conservatives were defeated in the elections of February and October 1974, Thatcher challenged the more liberal Heath for the leadership of the party. When she went into Heath's office to tell him her decision, he did not even bother to look up. "You'll lose," he said. "Good day to you." [http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]<br />
<br />
Though at the time she was a relatively untested figure (and many in the party were wary of choosing a woman leader), she defeated both Heath and other male rivals in the contest in February 1975. Heath subsequently became a prominent personal and political adversary of Thatcher, drawing accusations of bitterness.<br />
<br />
In the 1970s, Lady Thatcher's strongly conservative, pro-capitalist stance resonated with a new mood among the British electorate, many of whom had become dissatisfied with the post-[[World War II]] liberal consensus (the "post-war consensus", sometimes also called "Butskellism"). Thatcher and the Conservatives offered a clear alternative vision for an increasingly aspirational society.{{cn}} The Conservative politician Sir [[Keith Joseph]] was the primary intellectual force behind these theories that later became known as ''Thatcherism''. They were strongly influenced by the pro-market intellectuals [[Friedrich von Hayek]] and [[Milton Friedman]].<br />
[[Image:503px-Thatcher-loc.jpg|right|thumb|Margaret Thatcher as Leader of the Opposition in 1975.]]<br />
==Prime Ministership==<br />
<br />
Lady Thatcher's chief goals in power were to reverse Britain's economic decline and to reduce the range of the state as well as standing taller on the international stage. She found a soul-mate in Ronald Reagan, elected in 1980 but whom she had met in 1975. Thatcher started by increasing interest rates to drive down inflation which hit the manufacturing sector and caused unemployment to rise sharply and there was a deep recession in the early 1980s blamed on her Government's economic policy. This led to her famous quote: 'the lady is not for turning', and she refused a policy u-turn and, despite an open letter from 364 economists, taxes were increased in the middle of a recession. Although unemployment did not reach 3 million till 1982, a year earlier British cities burned as thousands took to the streets to demonstrate their frustration. Inflation was going down though, allowing interest rates to fall, but as the economy started to recover Argentina invaded the Falklands, the first (and unprovoked) invasion of sovereign British territory by a foreign government since the Second World War. This invasion was preceded by her withdrawal of military defense from the islands.<br />
<br />
Thatcher immediately declared her resolve to recapture the islands in line with the wishes of their inhabitants, and dispatched a naval task force to that end. With help from President [[Augusto Pinochet|Pinochet]] of [[Chile]] and, more covertly, [[Ronald Reagan]], the British forces swiftly recaptured the islands. The resulting wave of patriotic enthusiasm as well as her right to buy policy for council homes, and a uselessly divided opposition, meant she got a landslide victory in the June 1983 general election.<br />
<br />
The big theme of Lady Thatcher's second term was reducing the power of the trade unions with a series of measures that a number of unions reacted to with industrial action. In particular the National Union of Mineworkers led by Arthur Scargill. The Tories had prepared for the strike by building up coal reserves and the deploying well paid police units fitted out with new riot gear brought in after the disturbances of 1981 who taunted the strikers by waving fivers at them. The miners responded with bricks and very ugly scenes developed on picket lines that split the country. Scargill's failure to hold a ballot for the strike undermined public support and the striker's chant of 'vote with your feet' calling miners to join the strike was turned on them as more and more returned to work over the year of the strike.<br />
<br />
In the middle of the strike, on October 12 1984, the IRA detonated a bomb during the Conservative Party conference in Brighton. Thatcher escaped injury but five people died in the attack and Margaret Tebbit was left paralyzed, the conference went on as normal. Thatcher's political and economic philosophy emphasized free markets and since gaining power she had experimented in selling off nationalized industries starting with the National Freight company, most of the large utilities followed. Thatcher supported Reagan's policies of deterrence against the Soviets and US forces stationed nuclear cruise missiles at British bases, arousing mass protests by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. She supported the US bombing raid on [[Libya]] from bases in Britain in 1986 and, by refusing to side with a European consortium, in backing a the Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation of the USA over a British company Westland. Michael Heseltine resigned in protest at her style of leadership over this. In 1984 she visited [[China]] and signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration with [[Deng Xiaoping]] that agreed the handover of [[Hong Kong]] in 1997. Also that year at the Fontainebleau summit Thatcher argued that the UK paid far more to the EEC than it received in spending and negotiated a budget rebate using the argument that ‘We want our money back’. In 1985, the University of Oxford voted to refuse her an honorary degree in protest against her cuts in funding for education.<br />
<br />
In 1987, Lady Thatcher became the first Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to win three consecutive general elections since [[Lord Liverpool]] (1812-1827). In the late 1980's Thatcher began to be concerned by environmental policy and in 1988 she made a major speech accepting the problems of global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain. More memorably, at Bruges, she made a speech in which she outlined her opposition to proposals from the European Communities for a federal structure and increasing centralization of decision-making believing that the role of the EC should be limited to ensuring free trade and effective competition. She was specifically against Economic and Monetary Union, through which a single currency would replace national currencies, and for which the EC was making preparations. In 1989 the economy high interest rates were imposed to stop an unsustainable boom. At the Madrid European summit, Nigel Lawson and Geoffrey Howe forced Thatcher to agree the circumstances in which she would join the Exchange Rate Mechanism, a preparation for monetary union. She took revenge on both by demoting Howe and listening more to her adviser Sir Alan Walters on economic matters. Lawson resigned that October and in November, a so-called ‘stalking horse candidate Sir Anthony Meyer challenged Thatcher for the leadership of the Conservative Party. In 1989 a new system of local government finance to replace the rates was introduced for Scotland in 1989 and for England and Wales in 1990. Called the 'Community Charge' but known as the Poll Tax was applied at the same amount to every individual resident with only limited discounts. Widespread opposition culminated in a huge demonstration in London on March 31 that turned into the largest outbreak of public disorder central London had seen in a century which was followed by millions of people refusing to pay the tax. This along with her government's handling of the economy, her perceived arrogance and a general feeling that she would never retire, made her politically vulnerable. Geoffrey Howe resigned on November 1 and condemned Thatcher's policy on the European Communities then openly invited 'others to consider their own response'. Michael Heseltine's response was a leadership challenge which resulted in a narrow failure, by two votes, for Thatcher to win automatic re-election. After consulting with cabinet colleagues she found a vast majority thought that she could not win on the second ballot. On November 22nd Thatcher announced that she would not be a candidate in the second ballot. She supported John Major as her successor, and retired from Parliament at the 1992 election. <br />
<br />
After leaving the House of Commons, Thatcher was created '''Baroness Thatcher of Kesteven''' and entered the House of Lords, an entirely normal and expected honor for a British ex-Prime Minister. More controversially, Denis Thatcher was given a Baronetcy, which ensured that their son, Mark, would inherit the title of "Sir Mark".<br />
<br />
Leaving power reportedly depressed Lady Thatcher, and aside from writing her memoirs, her role as 'backseat driver' in the Major administration was not well received. She publicly endorsed [[William Hague]] against [[Kenneth Clarke]] for the Conservative leadership in 1997. She made many speaking engagements around the world, including very vocal support of former dictator General [[Augusto Pinochet]] that the new Labour administration extradited to Spain on charges of torturing political opponents. In March 2002 she suffered a mild stroke, and she was told by her doctors to make no more public speeches on health grounds, nevertheless she insisted on attending the funeral of her old friend and political soul-mate, Ronald Reagan, in 2004 against her Doctor's orders. Baroness Thatcher is still seen at Tory party gatherings and has endorsed party leaders such as William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith.<br />
<br />
[http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html][http://www.fandmpublications.co.uk/pages/margaretbiography1.htm][http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp]<br />
<br />
==Quick Facts==<br />
Born: 13 October 1925 in Grantham, Lincolnshire<br />
<br />
First entered Parliament: 8 October 1959<br />
<br />
Became leader of the [[Conservative]] Party in February 1975<br />
<br />
Elected as Prime Minister in May 1979 <br />
<br />
Age she became PM: 53 years, 204 days<br />
<br />
Maiden Speech: 5 February 1960 during the second reading of her Private Member's Bill<br />
<br />
Total time as PM: 11 years, 209 days<br />
<br />
Nickname: "The Iron Lady"<br />
<br />
Education: Kesteven and Grantham Girls' School and Somerville College, Oxford<br />
<br />
Before Thatcher became an MP, she worked as a research chemist for British Xylonite and then Lyons & Company, where she helped develop methods for preserving ice cream.<br />
<br />
Family: Margaret Thatcher is the younger of two daughters. She often gave her father as an example of an outstanding citizen. She married [[Sir Denis Thatcher]], and has one son and one daughter.<br />
<br />
Interests: Music, art, opera and reading.<br />
<br />
[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp][http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]<br />
<br />
==Husband==<br />
Denis Thatcher, ''as the first male PM spouse in history'', was always likely to be the center of media attention - and he didn't disappoint. <br />
<br />
When she met him, Baroness Thatcher remarked that "it was clear to me at once that Denis was an exceptional man - he had a certain style and dash." Described as a man of integrity, humor and common sense, he had a strong business background and fought with the Royal Artillery during the war. <br />
<br />
It was said that Denis was in 'the Thatcher party not the Tory party'. He once famously remarked, recalling the words of Mark Twain, that: "it's better to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than open it and remove all doubt." <br />
<br />
When he died in 2003 his wife paid tribute to the man she loved by saying: "Being PM is a lonely job. In a sense, it ought to be - you cannot lead from a crowd. But with Denis there I was never alone. What a man. What a husband. What a friend."<br />
<br />
[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp][http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/thatcher.html]<br />
<br />
== "Thatcherisms" == <br />
<br />
*"I like Mr Gorbachev, we can do business together." <br />
<br />
*"The lady is not for turning"<br />
<br />
*"I have made it quite clear that a unified Ireland was one solution that is out. A second solution was a confederation of two states. That is out. A third solution was joint authority. That is out-that is a derogation of sovereignty." <br />
<br />
*"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left." <br />
<br />
*"If you lead a country like Britain, a strong country, a country which has taken a lead in world affairs in good times and in bad, a country that is always reliable, then you have to have a touch of iron about you." <br />
<br />
*"I do not know anyone who has got to the top without hard work. That is the recipe. It will not always get you to the top, but should get you pretty near." <br />
<br />
*"There is no such thing as society."<br />
<br />
*"What Britain needs is an iron lady." <br />
<br />
*"Unless we change our ways and our direction, our greatness as a nation will soon be a footnote in the history books, a distant memory of an offshore island, lost in the mists of time like Camelot, remembered kindly for its noble past." <br />
<br />
*"I just owe almost everything to my father [and] it's passionately interesting for me that the things that I learned in a small town, in a very modest home, are just the things that I believe have won the election." <br />
<br />
*"Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend." [http://www.quoteworld.org/authors/margaret-thatcher/1/]<br />
<br />
*"It will be years before a woman either leads the Conservative Party or becomes Prime Minister. I don't see it happening in my time" (in 1970)[http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page126.asp]<br />
<br />
<br />
== See also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
* [http://www.margaretthatcher.org/ Margaret Thatcher Foundation]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Thatcher, Margaret}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom Prime Ministers]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=364363Socialism2008-01-04T22:48:29Z<p>Jljb2: /* Key elements */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty, viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfil human potential. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, socialist movements have been built on Christian and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]]. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with [[Progressivism|progressive]] social policy or directly via common ownership of property. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income.{{cn}}<br />
<br />
Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal health care, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years. <br />
<br />
While socialism has often been atheistic in character{{cn}}, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. <br />
<br />
Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the Labour Party borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalisation under 'Clause 4' of their Consitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the Westminster model of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under Clement Atlee implemented the nationalisation of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. The best known example is the nationalisation of health care to create the National Health Service (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care free at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.<br />
<br />
Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many progressive measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of council housing, free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]. In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty; however, many in the Labour Movement are extremely critical of New Labour's tentative approach to reducing inequality, and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
==World socialism==<br />
<br />
US liberal politicians often echo the rhetoric of world socialism: <ref>Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/05/29/unending_war Cal Thomas] Tuesday, May 29, 2007] </ref><br />
<br />
*"Because George W. Bush [is] among the most menacing and belligerent [presidents] in American history. [He has] outlined a program of limitless and perpetual warfare, on every continent, and against any regime that stands in the way of the rapacious American ruling class.... like Hitler and the Nazis, American militarism has embarked on a campaign of world conquest and world domination... [President Bush has issued] a declaration of the unbridled appetites of the military and of the most ruthless, corrupt and criminal sections of the American ruling elite ...Like Hitler, Bush presents an upside-down view of the world in which small and weak states are mortal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed..." (World Socialist Web Site, 31 January 2002)<br />
<br />
==Different strands of socialism==<br />
*[[Communism]]<br />
*[[Social democracy]]<br />
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)<br />
*[[Fascism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small><references/></small><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=364361Liberal2008-01-04T22:44:59Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* denial of inherent [[gender differences]] and wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]]{{cn}}<br />
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]{{cn}}<br />
* taxpayer-funded healthcare{{cn}}<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]{{cn}}<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]{{cn}}<br />
* support of [[political correctness]] <ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref><br />
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms from any religion{{cn}}<br />
* compelled taxpayer funding of government [[school]]s for nearly all ages{{cn}}<br />
* government-controlled medical care{{cn}}<br />
* labor [[union]]s{{cn}}<br />
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* [[income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation{{cn}}<br />
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written{{cn}}<br />
* support for [[gun control]]{{cn}}<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]{{cn}}<br />
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref><br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]{{cn}}<br />
* [[globalism]]{{cn}}<br />
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref><br />
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* limit [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]<br />
<br />
== Cartoon Depiction of the [[Liberal]] Viewpoints ==<br />
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg]]{{cn}}<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].<br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.<br />
<br />
is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].{{cn}}<br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: 'Classical Liberalism'==<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Rankings of Congress Members==<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of congress. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]<br />
[[Category:Deceit]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Socialism&diff=364282Talk:Socialism2008-01-04T20:47:54Z<p>Jljb2: /* Just Plain Wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?<br />
-Gasmonkey<br />
<br />
"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Laughable bias ==<br />
<br />
"Leading European Socialists are very critical of America."<br />
<br />
Of America? Of the american government? Some of the american governments? Some of the american goverments policies? American corporations? American food? American anti-americans? American republicans, democrats, liberals, jews, muslims, african americans, hispanics? I assume you mean all those things since you just say America? Do you have a valid point somewhere buried under that mountain of prejudice and generalisation? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 15:25, 17 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Also, the source that backs it up mentions America ''once''.<br />
<br />
' One thing is clear: the unilateral military style approach of the Bush-administration has failed'<br />
<br />
I'm removing it with the ridiculous 'vastly superior' remark. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]<br />
<br />
[[User:AmeriCan]] keeps reverting my edits saying that it stresses the rights of the many over the priveliges of the few, as opposed to vice versa. I'm tired of edit warring and don't want to get blocked for something that is not worth it. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 01:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Okay, this article is just [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=135051 ridiculous]. I give up. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:49, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
== Incentives ==<br />
<br />
I couldn't find anywhere in this article where socialism lacks incentives. Should I add it in? The lack of incentives is a crucial reason to why socialism doesn't work in societies. [[User:AdrianP|AdrianP]] 01:40, 29 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This article's lack of knowledge is laughable and as an evil limey toothéd bastard who can spell things right (color=LOL) who is also a European Socilaist who is critical of America (the whole world is socialist by that standard) I must correct this issue.<br />
LOL at the moron who re-edited my work, they do not know history well enough to try and battle me over Atlee.<br />
<br />
== "Socialist" Britain ==<br />
<br />
Rob, re your revision to Socialism. First, you make a large assumption about how socialist New Labour is (they aren't), second, the Conservatives would be far less likely to change the rules than any Socialist party, partly because thirdly, it would require disestablisment of the Church of England, which in any case could almost certainly not be achieved in the ten years New Labour have been in power, even if it was something they intended to do. Based on this I think the phrase "Socialist Britain" is inappropriate and removing it would not be liberal bias. In fact, retaining it is conservative bias. --[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:23, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:So the Socialists do not oppose religious discriminition then? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:30, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Which socialists? New Labour do - they have in fact introduced legislation outlawing discrimination based on religious belief. But as I said - they're not Socialists in the sense that you would use. And as the article says - Catholics are not barred from being Prime Minister. They are barred from holding one of the ceremonial offices associated with the post - an office which could be renounced without having any impact on the powers intrinsic to the post of Prime Minister.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::This article gives a glowing description of what Socialism has done for Britian since 1945; it does not differentiate between Brand X Socialism and Brand Z; together, whatever stripe, along with all those great things they've done, you'd think eliminating bigotry would be high on the list. Must be a case where they are willing to compromise their principles in exchange for real political power. Nonetheless, they never stop talking about things like oppression, etc. Oh, I forgot, people who beleive in God are fair game for discrimination -- that's one of the basic tenets of Socialism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:44, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Socialism in Britain has done more to eliminate bigotry in Britain than any other movement. In fact so much that it is accused of political correctness. That this singular example remains is not an indictment of socialism - in fact that such a small example seems to raise your ire so much shows just how far bigotry has been eliminated.<br />
<br />
::::People who believe in God are not discriminated against in this case. Adherants to '''any faith or denomination''' except Catholic are eligible; and the restriction to Catholics applies only to one essentially irrelevant ceremonial office associated with the post. Can you please address the points I make in the way I have yours?--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 15:53, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::So Britian, under various Socialist governments since 1945, has continued to discriminate against Roman Catholics. Why should this be surprising? It is very much in keeping with Socialist doctrine. And we can certainly conclude, Socialism ''does not'' respect equality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:04, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Everything you say can be repeated for Conservatism in this case, and you continue to ignore all of my points. Forget it.--[[User:Olly|Olly]] 16:08, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::Ignore which points? Are arguing discrimination against Catholics is not discrimination? Why? Because they're Catholic? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::: I have to reiterate Olly's point here. I live in Britain, and I know that the Labour Party, since the [[Third Way]] (the third way, see? Not socialism, not conservatism, but a middle), is not a socialist party. ergo, blaming discrimination on socialists is false. --<font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Wik</font><font color="#444444" face="Times New Roman">i</font><font color="#666666" face="Times New Roman">nterpreter</font>'''<sup>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]</sup><br />
<br />
::::::::: I rarely comment on politics but I have to agree with the British users here (being one myself). The Labour Party ceased to be a socialist party with the move to becoming New Labour (their proper title) and the implementation of the [[Third Way]]. New Labour seem to be in the strange position of trying to appeal to both the left and the right at the same time with neither Conservative nor Liberal values other than those required to win the popular vote. What is more worrying to the British conservative is that the Conservative Tory party seem to be following the same path required to win the mass vote leaving Britain in the strange position that both our main left and right parties have moved to the centre leaving nothing that would reflect either conservative or liberal views other than some rather, errr, I'll be polite here and say odd, fringe political groups such as the detestable BNP (no policies other than those of racism) and the pointless UKIP (too insular by far). Socialism has been dead since Labour morphed into New Labour (best described as a "Labour scented party") and traditional conservatism seems to be following the same path --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 17:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: new labour is certainly not socialist in nature! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I have to confess, I get lost in leftist ideological fever swamps. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have no idea what that means but nothing about modern britain or it's govt fits anything that resembles "socialism" in any significant manner - fees and loans for students, PFI, Invasion of iraq etc etc. The current govt is actually further to the right in many ways that Mrs. T government! was Thatch a socialist! I think not! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Similarly, our Conservative party is no longer traditional conservatism. Think two parties both using the same elastic ideologies to chase the same fickle voters and appeal to conservative and liberal alike and there you have recent British politics. No left or right, just two sets of "middle". --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:05, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Yep. I was just reading how Socialist leaders in Britian send their kids to private schools. Very similiar to American liberals -- who then give us the Cain vs Abel speil about getting even with the rich! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:21, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Which socialist leaders? You mean the leader of the socialist workers party? I doubt it. I'm really struggling to understand what's going on here - Britain does not have a socialist government and if the catholic thing is meant to be an indication of socialist discrimination then Mrs. Thatcher was a socialist because she did nothing about it either! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Here. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970902,00.html] At least now we know why Blair's popularity has shrunk; it's not the War in Iraq, it's all those compassionate liberals and socialists who found out he was thinking of converting to Catholicism. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/15/ncath15.xml] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:35, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
eh? Do you think this is a big issue in the UK? That someone is a catholic? Can I suggest in a friendly manner that maybe your understanding of the UK is slightly lacking and you are looking at it via the lens of the US? I'll leave it at that stage because you want the article to say that Britain is a socialist nation and as a sysop - well you win straight out of the box. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:38, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:It was somebody elses idea to trumpet the glories of British Socialism, whatever for. What is obvious from this is, Socialist do not care at all about equality and human rights. It's simply fraud to pretend that they do. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:46, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thing is, we have no true socialist leaders or true conservatives anymore. Ideology is dead, long live chasing after anyone that will vote for you. And I come from a very long line of Catholics who were also passionate supporters of the NHS, minimum wages and other socialist ideals. I happen to be Christian and Conservative but there are many good Christians who hold to what are considered socialist values. Many many many shades of grey here. Very hard to pin down to a few neat paragraphs. One thing holds true though, New Labour are not and never were Socialist. This is why most of my extended family stopped voting Labour as they felt it was a betrayal of their values. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::The only limitation that Blair would face if he became a Catholic would be that he would be unable to suggest the appointment of Bishops in the Church of England to the Crown. This restriction came about from the Catholic Relief Act of 1829, which repealed earlier laws outlawing Catholic participation in voting and government. There is also a law prohibiting the King or Queen from being a Catholic or married to a Catholic, the Act of Settlement of 1701. British anti-Catholic laws have nothing to do with Socialism or the Labour party, but instead are due to the English Civil War, the Restoration, and resistance by Protestant Britain to Catholic rule. The Act of Settlement and that provision of the Catholic Relief Act aren't still in force due to strong anti-Catholic sentiment in Britain, but just due to inertia and the fact that the law doesn't really come up. I don't think it's true to say that these restrictions have anything at all to do with socialism in Britain, either currently or historically.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 18:50, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::This BBC article quotes Blair, "changing the law would be hugely complicated involving changes to nine different pieces of legislation." [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/529227.stm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:13, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
We still have a great number of old laws that technically still apply (policemen in certain counties are still supposed to walk in the gutter for example) that no one adheres to, very few remember and no one cares to repeal due to the fact that they are archaic and pretty much forgotten. Hardly tantamount to discrimination, more a quirk of history. [[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 18:54, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Right...that's my point. I'm agreeing with you. It's an old law that has never been changed because it's never been an issue.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 19:02, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Would it be more correct to rephrase the final sentence in this article thus. "''In Britain, Catholics are discriminated against by being barred from holding certain offices associated with the post of Prime Minister. These offices can be renounced without any practical inhibition to the powers of the post, but no government, socialist or otherwise has done so since 1829."'' Or better yet, remove it. Or am I just tired from a long day down t'pit? --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:07, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Sounds good, but we should add, "a reform measure was voted down as recently as 1999." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:16, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Well, the 1999 reform measure you're citing doesn't have anything to do with religious restrictions of the Prime Minister...just religious restrictions for the monarch. But, still, I don't really see what this has to do with socialism.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 23:52, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::It evidently isn't that easy. Blair says it affects nine pieces of legislation, some it appears affecting his office. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 3 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If that is the case then please do. No shame in the truth providing all governments since 1829 share the blame equally. --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:20, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Go ahead and do it. That is indeed how a democracy works, even when socialists are dominant. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:47, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My only issue with making these amendments to an article on Socialism is that, as all governments since 1829 are complicit in this lack of reform, it is no longer purely a Socialist issue and, as such, should have no place here. I'd like other people's views on this but, as it is not soley a Socialist failing, I think the entire reference to this Catholic discrimination should be removed. Other people, the floor is yours ; ) --[[User:Trashbat|Trashbat]] 19:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this section illustrates the folly of applying a US conservative-liberal axis to the political culture of other countries. There's an interesting article to be written about socialism in Britain but it doesn't belong in an article that puts anyone who supports universal health care in the same camp as Stalin and Hitler.--[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 01:05, 3 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Yes and no. It all depends on the conduct of the British Socialists. Name calling, and outrageous assertions can be a two way street. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 01:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Hang on a minute. The information about the Act of Settlement is correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. What on earth is it doing here? If nobody else removes it I will.<br />
<br />
how are catholics discriminate against by labour? there are catholic schools funded by the state, the only part of the UK that discriminates against catholics is Northern Ireland and if you called men like paisley a socialist he'd knock your teeth out.[[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 15:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How many decades over the past century has the labour/left coalition dominated British politics? Why haven't they acted on this? Being the self-appointed defenders of the oppressed and against injustice, how come no one speaks up?<br />
<br />
:We don't have to look far to see how deeply rooted and respectable anti-Catholicism is in British culture. Why, one of the ''Beatles'' greatest hits, ''Lady Madonna'' is a celebration of despicable anti-Catholic attitudes & stereotypes. And several Beatles have been, if recollection serves me correct, Knighted for their achievements and service. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:47, 5 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right. Just one Beatle -- Paul -- has been knighted and both he and John Lennon were themselves raised as Catholics. I really don't think Lady Madonna can be seriously regarded as a criticism of ANYTHING.<br />
:Read the lyrics. [http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Lady%20Madonna%20Lyrics.html] George Harrison, too. John Lenin didn't live long enough, and everybody knows Ringo's a bit slow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:48, 5 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Facts are, for all criticism of the US, the treatment of Catholics, by law, in Great Britain, as second class citizens, or the open, naked prejudice and ridicule they suffer, would never ever be tolerated in the United States. And truth be told, there is anti-Catholic prejudice in the US, but nothing like the respectability it has gained over the centuries in Great Britain. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 5 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
What do you mean "George Harrison too"? Are you under some delusion that he, too, was knighted. You are wrong. All of them did, of course, get MBEs, though Lennon -- "Lenin"? Oh, you are SO witty -- returned his in protest at the Vietnam War. As for Lady Madonna, speaking as an Irish Catholic myself, I am flabbergasted that you could regard this as a recognisable criticism of that community.<br />
:Read the lyrics. I was raised Catholic but left the Church many years ago. But I ''still'' get deeply offended by the blatant intent, and ridicule of the message in that song. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:15, 6 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Paul McCartney, a lapsed Catholic, said he wrote ''Lady Madonna'' in response to seeing a photograph of a woman and child entitled ''Mountain Madonna''.[http://www.iamthebeatles.com/article1208.html] It's bizarre to read an anti-Catholic sentiment into that song -- it's an expression of sympathy for a struggling mother. In answer to an earlier question you posed Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years and has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Catholics[http://www.ipsos-mori.com/publications/rmw/the-catholic-vote.shtml]; The greatest opposition to changing the constitution to allow a Catholic monarch comes from traditionalist Conservatives who want to retain the privileges of the Church of England. --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 13:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Sympathy? On what planet? ''Labour has governed the UK for about 30 of the last 100 years'' {{fact}} And we are really discussing Socialists here, and their record of being defenders of the "oppressed", and rectifying injustice. Even if it's only 30 years, what is the record of rectifying this injustice? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 6 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Sigh.[http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/pm.htm] Catholics in Britain have traditionally favoured Labour for a number of reasons, not least of which is that Labour has been more sympathetic towards Nationalism and the Conservatives more sympathetic to Unionism -- it's more to do with green vs. orange than red vs. blue. Perhaps we could have a cite for the "oppression" that has somehow escaped the attention of those living in Britain who have contributed to this thread? --[[User:Jalapeno|Jalapeno]] 15:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Cough. Sneeze. [http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA992.htm][http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] Thank God she's not a Catholic. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 6 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== DAB's version ==<br />
<br />
DAB's version on 'succesful socialism' has already resisted 9 minutes. How long before a SysOp comes? I guess someone will be blocked for a long long time... (and no, I have no affiliation with DAB)[[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 13:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Let's not get carried away here, please ==<br />
The picture at the very top of the page right away makes a direct visual attachment of communism and socialism as if they are one in the same. As the vast majority of editors and sysops here are quite cleary well educated people, I am shocked that the picture in question remains. Communism is not the equal of socialism, nor is the reverse true either. Communism is socialism taken to the far extreme. For example, Finland is socialist, but try labeling them communists and see what happens, lol... I'm all for removing that picture, and perhaps replacing it with something more indicative of socialism in general rather than Marxism/Leninism/Communism in specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:35, 23 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Oh, umhh, I see. Care to explain how [[Hitler]] was misunderstood, too? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:39, 23 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Rob, he never said anything about "misunderstanding" the ideology. He made the valid point that socialism and communism are ''not'' the same thing. Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. They are socialist, but ''not'' communist. Do you wish to dispute that? This conversation had nothing to do with Hitler. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:50, 23 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Pardon me for not wading into a [[leftist]] ideological fever swamp, but I really don't care to decipher the degrees of complicity in [[democide]] based upon an avowed [[atheistic]] philosophy. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 23 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::So then don't contribute to the article. Your responses do not address the complaints, but rather your refusal to accept anything other than what you think you already know. Your defense for completely screwing up the distinction between two ideologies is a refusal to even ''attempt'' to understand the distinction. That makes ''perfect'' sense. I'd be glad to wade into that "leftist ideological fever swamp" for you, Rob, seeing how scared you are of it. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 18:13, 23 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
We are not in the position of advocating, defending, or apologizing for [[democidal]] ideologies. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:18, 23 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, we are in the position to write an '''encyclopedia article''' about them. And saying that communism and socialism are identical ideologies is completely false. Once again, you change your reasons for wanting to include the misleading picture. How is being factual "apologetic", "advocating for", or "defending" socialism? Are you suggesting we deliberatly mislead readers? And the ideology is not democidal. Last I heard, Canada, Finland, Sweden, etc. don't commit democide. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 18:27, 23 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Quite so Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ. If I seek to distinguish between a shark and a barracuda I am not taking sides with either. Rob seems pathologically incapable of listening to reason and seems to view any considered response of this subject to be an act of Marxist-Leninist subversion. Ignore him.<br />
<br />
RobS it appears you misunderstood what I was saying and clearly the fault is on me as I should have explained my position better.My apologies on giving the impression that I was apologizing for communism. Was not my intention. I think however you should really think about what Hojimachong is saying though, since he has explained it perfectly =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 23:33, 24 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I went ahead and removed the picture in question. I do apologize to you RobS however, in truth it was misleading and out of place. It would PERFECT for the article on Communism, or articles about the old Soviet Union and presently existing communist regimes. But this is the socialism page. Let me put it this way: Having that picture represent socilism in general is like making an article about the primary colors and only showing blue. It is misleading. But this is in no way a reflection of any supposed sympathy for communism in specific or even socialism in general. And as for democide, well, isn't that getting a bit off track? I know one of the key principles of communism is an athiestic society, but that's all part of the package, I don't see how making your major argument revolve around democide makes sense. Also, again, that's communist specific. There are SOCIALIST countries that are Christian by LAW, as a STATE RELIGION (something that America has avoided as we all know), regardless of the denomination. So applying democide to socialism is another exercise in ignorance. But I digress; I simply removed a misleading graphic. I would like to add something more illustrative of socialism in general, however while I could find such a thing, I sadly am not well versed in editing yet, specificaly when it comes to posting images. Yes, that IS a call for help by the way, =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:06, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::That's odd, I thought the name of the state Stalin & Lenin presided over was, "The Union of Soviet '''Socialist''' Republics, not "the Union of Soviet Communist Republics". I must have been sleeping in class again the day they set that straight, I guess. [[User:RobS|RobS]] <br />
00:23, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::"What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell just as sweet," or in this case "would be just as red." hahaha, sorry, bad joke. But here is my response: That was simply a name. If I call a ka-bar a fluffy teddy bear, does that make it any less lethal a weapon? No. Granted, the USSR itself may not have been total communism, however it was far closer to communism than it was to the "ordinary" socialist idealology that spawned it. As I stated earlier, "socialism" is a generalism, while "communism," "USSR," etc. are specifics. If you're talking about a broad issue like socialism, it's not academically responsible to, whether accidently or otherwise, make the specific general broad issue appear to others as nothing more than one single specific. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:38, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
If you have two children, and the children are quite different from one another in most respcts, but naturally they are both YOUR children, do you take any more pride in the one, than you do the other? Is socialism nothing more than communism that spawns from it? Of your two hypothetical children, does only one of them represent you? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As a side note, I truly do believe in at least replacing that image, and I do notice it is back up, though I'd rather not take it back down again unless some sort of consensus is reached or I get solid support for my argument. I do not wish to be accused of starting an edit war or seem like I have a vendetta against RobS now :) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 00:52, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
Also I am pleased to see the "different strands of socialism" section. I completely support that. The existence of that section lends even more to my argument that that graphic on the socialism article in general ought to be removed. The section listing different strands of socialism clearly indicates the author knows communism is not the entirety of socialism. So why the communist specific graphic? =)<br />
<br />
Just to go back to socialism and atheism for a minute, while it's true that Marxist Communism certainly is atheistic, socialism isn't neccesarily. In fact, there was a strong Christian Socialist movement in Britain in the 19th century that helped lead to the British Labour party, and there was certainly a Jewish Socialist movement that contributed to the Zionist movement.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 01:22, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Very good points Steve! [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 01:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Compromise?==<br />
RobS, I would greatly apreciate it if you would take a look at my most recent edit. I didnot remove the graphic. I did however edit the text in the caption slightly, in that I added a bitmore detail which makes it less misleading, in my opinion, and I would greatly value your thoughts on this =) [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 04:53, 25 June 2007 (EDT) (anyone else reading also lol)<br />
<br />
::Well scratch that. It seems Fox has provided a graphic that suits the article. Cheers to Fox, good find and good edit. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:54, 25 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::RobS if you gave up debating I do not see the virtue in reverting Fox's edit. His picture makes much more sense than the previous. I reverted it back to HIS. You seem to want to cram your opinion down peoples's throats. On the other hand, Fox and I and many others would rather have this be accurate and academic. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I'm no supporter of Socialism by any means, but I genuinely feel this image is more illustrative for the article's subject, particularly as the main body sems to concentrate on British socialism. I know how easy it can be to choose an image to make a general point rather than to illustrate the point of the article - you should see the dozens of pics I'm itching to use to illustrate Israel's fight for survival - but I resist the temptation to use them because: we all accept that articles here are going to be representative of a broadly, if only small "c", conservatism, so using a soviet commie poster to illustrate the article is somewhat like cracking hazelnuts with a sledgehammer. Welded to an anvil. :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 04:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Agreed. That's how I felt on it. I'm not a supporter of socialism either, but I do support sticking to the point, rather than the point of view. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:46, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Inaccurate==<br />
The article currently lists Tony B.liar as the Prime Minister. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 19:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*No points given for something that only happened earlier today, Fox! ROFL! We can change it when you know who the new man is, eh? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 19:10, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
::LoL - I would have changed it, but it was protected. The new <strike>village idiot</strike> PM is [[Gordon Brown]]. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 19:47, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Check your offline Yahoo's. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 20:13, 27 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Poor Move ==<br />
I am saddened to see the page is locked for editing after being reverted back to misleading picture. This is quite unfortunate and I am afraid it will refelect poorly for CP. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 19:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This article lacks a basic understanding of what socialism is ==<br />
<br />
This article begins by stating.<br />
<br />
Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. <br />
<br />
<br />
There are a number of things wrong with this. It seems like the author has failed to actually read socialist tracts. I will try to list most of the fallacies I see offhand.<br />
<br />
1. "are seized and monopolized by the government" this phrase betrays a lack of knowledge about how socialism views the state. For example, "means of production" aren't seized, and cannot be seized. The worker is a human being not a commodity or "capital". As a human being he is a part of the state. Finally, Marxism actually is anti-state and in the culmination of the dialectical processes would lead to its removal. (Also, no mention of Hegelian dialectics are present in the article. This is a key point concerning socialism. To abandon the dialectic is similar to discussing Christianity without the crucifixion.)<br />
:So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
2. The authors seem to fail to realize that there are vast differences within socialism just as there are within Christianity e.g. Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism...etc each differing vastly but similar in appearance to an outsider.<br />
:True; Jesse Jackson for example, may be described as a God-fearing Socialist. Problem is, we need more sources. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In Wikipedia one may find: ''Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state... A diverse array of doctrines and movements have been referred to as "socialist." '' --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:53, 18 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::*Well, Wikipedia is never an acceptable source or citation at CP, so perhaps another definition can be found, Joaquín. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 06:31, 18 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
3. The statement that "religion is the opium of the masses" is taken out of context. It wasn't meant to be a pejorative statement. The common misunderstanding of this quote is that religion is a tool used by the state to force an otherwise unruly population into line through fear, propaganda, religious mysticism, and thus religion is ultimately evil. <br />
:So under this theory, the state gets people hooked on narcotics in order to control them. Thanks for clarifying that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
The actual meaning is that religion is created by the people for the people as an expression of their desire for some form of justice in an evil world. This may be viewed through a Christian perspective of mankind longing for God and thereby creating rituals and religion etc.. to reach Him. <br />
:Ok, so then Marxism or Socialism (or whatever code word you wish to use), Socialists seek to restrict the fundemental, God-given, [[human right]] of [[worship]]. Further, this an excellent example of [[leftist]]s seeking to impose ''their'' [[morality]] on the rest of us, is it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Really, the major lack of information concerning Hegel's influence and the respective influence of the French, Germans, and British on Marx as he lived throughout Europe in his formulation of his ideas (French utopianism etc...) suggest an overly simplified method of viewing socialism.<br />
:Yes, I understand. It truelly is a more intellectual exercise than we give it credit for. [[Charles Manson]] wasn't much of an intellectual, but his recruiting talents and demonstrated abilities to persuade young minds would have made a valuable member of the [[nomenklatura]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
It is a multifaceted philosophy and this article does it great injustice by explaining it in terms you would have expected from a farmboy filled with American propaganda from the 1950s.<br />
:Multifacted. Yes. Some advocate murder and lawlessness, others only certain degrees of it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Socialism does not necessarily attempt to create a manmade utopia atheistically (some forms have however). Instead, the historical process is viewed as evolving. Just as the Roman system of government worked better than the Greeks, and feudalism evolved from that. In turn industrialized capitalistic colonial government worked better than feudalism. None of these forms of government were perfect but in every case they were better (arguably worse depending on whose perspective you take.) Similarly, socialism is ultimately a democratic movement wherein the workers (i.e. the means of production) cease to be exploited by the privelaged classes.<br />
:Marxist mumbo-jumbo. Feudalism was at one time the solution to mankinds problems of homelessness and unemployment, and other social problems. Conservapedia is not interested in spewing more Marxist trash to another generation. We need some straight forward reporting on human history. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Also, one last misconception is that socialism is against private property or the earning of wages. It is quite the opposite small business men were sympathetically viewed by Marx as ultimately destroyed by the industry (Analogy: mom and pop stores being eaten by Walmart). Socialism is often viewed as a welfare state, but Marx's view was contrary to this. He viewed the owners of corporations etc... as those who benefited from the welfare of the production made by those who worked. Thus, the worker (means of production) produced and the owner (businessman) consumed. <br />
:So we are back to the issue of [[Economic planning]]; yes, we are working on that. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
This article expresses a really uneducated opinion. I'm not claiming socialism is the greatest thing ever. I'm not denying communism and thus mass murders and authoritarian government came from it. But its a logical fallacy to claim that socialism is therefore wrong. Take the French Revolution. Maximillian Robespierre was a democrat and the revolution was a democratic one and yet it is known as the Reign of Terror. Is democracy evil? Also, consider Christianity and the crusades, the inquisition, the wars fought between the reformationists and the Catholics. Is Christianity therefore wrong?<br />
:The revolution was democratic? Yes, and as our sources show, violating price controls set by economic planning boards was a capital offense warranting the guillotine. Glad to see democracy works. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
You do yourself and the reader great injustice. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 15:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Good luck, son. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:09, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't understand. Are you saying the French radicals in charge of the Reign of Terror were not liberals (in the international sense) who were in favor of a democracy as opposed to the monarchy? How novel and how very uninformed. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Please don't debate me within my own text it's hard to respond. Concerning the opium statement if you actually read my sentence I said that's the common misconception.<br />
:::There's little evidence the French Revolution was "democratic;" it was a lynch mob that turned on each other. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
"So the human being is an [[untermensch]], state property, and without rights, correct?"<br />
<br />
No that's incorrect Marx actually wrote of the end of the concept of statehood. I get the notion that you believe Communism is socialism and you have a limited understanding of what Marx wrote. Concepts such as government, statehood, etc.. are absent from socialism as a philosophy. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:26, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Bukharin read Marx correct; he saw through the fraud. While I do not advocate or agree with Bukharin's philosophy, as an eyewitness, his historical reporting on Marx is accurate. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
You say I'm using code words. That would be similar to me denying Christianity on the grounds that I find the Pope offensive. When you claim that not all Christians are Catholics I accuse you of using propaganda and code words. <br />
<br />
Please be a bit more rational. I am not a Marxist propagandist. I am a Christian. I feel like this article could use a little more truth in it and little less of the common American anti-communism uninformed dialogue in it. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 16:28, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::What's so uninformed? Americans have stood on the sidelines and watched how Socialism has ravaged other contintents with [[democide]], and have clearly articlated a [[foreign policy]] to oppose it. Yes, Socialism has made vast inroads in the [[public school]]s, [[media]], entertainment, and [[law]]. But American foreign policy for decades has been fairly consistent in opposing it, despite opposition and subversion along the way. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:54, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::What are you talking about? Which continent was ravaged by SOCIALISM? SOCIALISM NOT COMMUNISM. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. READ A BOOK, PLEASE, AND LEARN A LITTLE. Are you talking about Europe and Canada? Two very SOCIALIST places, or are you talking about Russia and China two very COMMUNIST places. <br />
<br />
:::The Reign of Terror was a DEMOCRATIC revolution. Communism came from socialism but it is NOT socialism. The Reign of Terror was founded on liberal ideas like anti-monarchy, freedom of speech, democracy, BUT IT WAS NOT DEMOCRACY. [[User:Jstanierm|Jstanierm]] 17:02, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==British socialism==<br />
The second paragraph of the British socialism section should be removed. It really has nothing to do with socialism (though some of it might be useful in a different article). Additionally the sentence describing how Catholics are barred from certain offices appears to be untrue, or at least misleading. The "offices" in question are the mostly ceremonial positions of Monarch and spouse. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:42, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:oh, so you don't deny the existence of discriminatory laws? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:50, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Other than barring a Catholic from becoming king or queen? I don't know of any. If there are point them out. In any case it has nothing to do with socialism. Put it in the [[United Kingdom]] article; I didn't notice it there. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:55, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Dodi Fayed's kid could become king, but not Tony Blair's. In the US, this is not only unconstitutional, most living American's would be outraged at the even the suggestion of such a law. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Again, WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SOCIALISM? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:25, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::What did the Socialist do to repeal this law when it was last taken up? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:30, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::"The Socialist"? Who might he be? In any case, the law has been on the books for 300 years, and in that time no party has repealed it (it's mostly a non-issue; neither Fayed's nor Blair's kids are going to become king, the Queen's kid will. He's an Anglican), should it be mentioned in the articles on Tories, Whigs, and the Britsh Liberal Party? How about every in the article on every Prime Minister ("Benjamin Disraeli did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Earl Grey did not repeal the Act of Settlement"; "Ramsay MacDonald did not repeal the Act of Settlement"...). According the the cited article "Mr Blair said altering the law would be a hugely complicated process involving changes to nine separate pieces of legislation. The government has already embarked on a heavy legislative programme with 28 bills to see through." If Prince William gets engaged to a Catholic I'll bet we'll see the issue taken up, but in the meantime it's a lot of work for a something that is not going to be an issue. And ''it has nothing to do with socialism''. It might be relevant in another article, but not this one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:43, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::Blair's wife is Roman Catholic, and the kids are too as I understand. Fayed was a Muslim, and the child Princess Di was carrying at the time of her death would have a had a rightful claim to the throne under certain circumstnces.<br />
:::::::The logic of your argument above appears quite anti-progressive, and [[reactionary]], does it not? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:14, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::Hmmm. Perhaps it would help if you actually read what I wrote. But that might be too much to ask. Fayed and his offspring would have zero claim to the throne, nor does Blair's kids. None of that matters, in any case, as we're discussing the article, and the connection between the Act of Settlement and socialism, which is zero. I'm not sure what's "reactionary" about pointing that out. I'm not here to defend the Act of Settlement, or any other remnant of Britian's bygone era. Just explain its significance to this article. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:18, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::We saw the same thing when Chuck remarried; the wedding was delayed because Parker-Bowles had at onetime been married to a Catholic. "Thank God she's not a Catholic" [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article512736.ece] How these Enlightened Socialists can look us straight in the eye, fail to condemn this hypocracy, shrug their shoulders and say there's nothing that can be done about it, I'll never understand. It all proves the point: Socialism stands for nothing but political opportunism. And if it something doesn't serve Socialists immediate politcal opportunism, like standing up for religious freedom and against religious bigotry, they fall back on reactionary arguments. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:23, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::'''Bottom line''': Don't tell me Socialism stands for social progess, change, opposition to the exiting order, levelling the playing field, and against discriminition until British Socialists take on this issue. Absent that, Socialism is just a complete [[fraud]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*See [[deceit]], Rob. You don't really expect to get a straight answer, do you? --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Just Plain Wrong ==<br />
<br />
Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the capital, and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government nomenklatura that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion.<br />
<br />
This is the definition of COMMUNISM, not SOCIALISM. The writer of this article is laughably politicaly incoherent. (and the bias is thick enough to cut with a bundle of sticks tied to an axe)<br />
:If you think you can do better, Silvanus, by all means do so...but don't make it hard on yourself by demeaning others. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:35, 14 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I think we have to distinguish between the various types of socialism, but this is not easy to do. Many partisans write about socialism as if their pet variety is the only (or main) kind.<br />
<br />
::The kind which conservatives oppose is the totalitarian [[Communist]] type. But not every form of socialism is as bad as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:26, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Well, in the European tradition at least, communism has always been extremely distinct from socialism - perhaps this is not clear in the USA. For instance, the Labour Party has always been committed to democratic socialism, and was strongly critical of the USSR. It is self-evident that democratic socialism is hugely more widespread as a faith than communism in the present day, and has never implied totalitarianism - the Labour Party has traditionally been far more committed to freedom than the Conservatives here in the UK.</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democracy&diff=364267Democracy2008-01-04T20:24:37Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Elekcja Wola.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The free election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697, painted by Bernardo Bellotto.]]<br />
'''Democracy''' is a form of government. The origin of the term is [[Greek]], from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (strength). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation indirectly exercise sovereignty.<br />
<br />
The United States of America is guaranteed a [[republican form of government]]. However, their legislatures are an example of a democracy, in which the majority vote of the legislators enact law. The execution of those laws is by a separate branch of government, whose officers are appointed by the chief executive officer (president or governor). In parliamentary democracies, the executive and legislative branches are not separate.<br />
<br />
Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state. But however certain [[tribe]]s and most [[band societies]] such as the [[bushmen]] organised themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy. <ref>http://law.cua.edu/ComparativeLaw/Iroquois/</ref><br />
<br />
== Debate over the merits of democracy ==<br />
<br />
While a [[direct democracy]] in the manner of the Athenians is probably infeasible in a modern [[nation-state]] comprised of millions of [[citizens]], there continues to be debate among conservatives as to whether [[representative democracy]] is a desirable system. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who could be considered the father of both modern democracy and [[totalitarianism]], believed that in a democracy the government should be guided only by what he called the [[General Will]]. Other thinkers of the [[French]] [[Enlightenment]] described a [[republic]] as a system in which the law applies equally to the government and the people, a concept abbreviated in the [[21st century]] by the phrase [[rule of law]]. Most contemporary thinkers would identify [[universal suffrage]] and the right of any citizen to argue for a change in existing law as desirable features of democracy; but there is some question as to whether the rule of law can be indefinitely sustained in a system with these features. [[Thomas Jefferson]] believed that it could so long as the people were educated, and thus devoted his post-presidency to founding the [[University of Virginia]]. Nonetheless, property continued to be a proxy for education throughout the [[antebellum period]] and Jefferson's home state of [[Virginia]] only abolished [[property qualifications for voting]] in 1851, years after any other state. Another famous American said that a republic could last until "the people find out they have the right to vote themselves funds from the public treasury," an explicit criticism of the [[welfare state]], which most conservatives feel is an abuse of the [[U. S. Constitution]]'s [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].<br />
<br />
Democracy may have its problems; an uneducated populace, for example, is the bane of any democracy, since unless people know what they need, they can not properly elect people to serve these needs. Other problems emerge from a capricious electorate, which caused [[Winston Churchill]] to remark that, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the other forms that have been tried," a quote which eloquently notes that, despite its problems, democracy almost universally provides for peace and prosperity. Majoritarian systems are, however, problematic in that, in theory, they permit a majority to debase the welfare of a minority. In addition, inequalities in wealth can distort the principles of political equality, giving considerable power to the wealthy to control economic policy outside of electoral politics. This may curtail the practical power of groups to effect radical change and to enact measures which might threaten the wealth and power of these elites. Socialists argue that a high degree of socio-economic equality is required for real political equality, but also contend that solidarity and fraternity may be sufficient to overcome the distorting effects of unequal wealth and enact pro-labor policies. <br />
<br />
== Evolution of Anglo-American democracy ==<br />
In the [[United States]], the current system of representative democracy evolved as a result of six major reforms:<br />
<br />
# The [[American Revolution]] which severed ties with the King of [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and endowed the people with the sovereign prerogatives that formerly belonged to the monarchy.<br />
# The [[U. S. Constitution]]'s creation of the [[House of Representatives]], a Federal government entity elected directly by the citizens, and retention of [[federalism]], the right of individual [[states]] to govern themselves and make their own laws.<br />
# The abolition of property qualifications for white male voters. This process, which was accomplished at the state level, took between 1820 and 1851 and is also known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]].<br />
# The [[Fifteenth Amendment]], which extended the [[franchise]] to former [[slaves]].<br />
# The [[Seventeenth Amendment]], which caused [[Senator|Senators]] to be elected directly by the citizens (they retained their six-year terms).<br />
# The [[Nineteenth Amendment]], which extended the franchise to [[women]].<br />
<br />
Of the six, the one which inspires the most opposition today is probably the Seventeenth Amendment, as the [[Founders]] explicitly intended [[state]] [[legislatures]] to choose U. S. Senators. Historically, however, the Fifteenth Amendment inspired the most opposition. Indeed, every state of the former [[Confederacy]] circumvented the Fifteenth Amendment between the end of [[Reconstruction]] and the passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], considered the ultimate guarantee of that Amendment. One of the principal means whereby it was circumvented was the creation of [[educational qualifications for voting]], which the 1965 act outlawed, according to interpretations of the [[Supreme Court]]. The other principal means was the [[poll tax]], which was outlawed in 1964 by the [[Twenty-Fourth Amendment]].<br />
<br />
In the [[United Kingdom]] during the same period of time, there were also six major reforms in the direction of democracy:<br />
<br />
# The [[1832 Reform Act]], which gave representation to the new [[industrial]] cities for the first time.<br />
# The [[1867 Reform Act]].<br />
# The [[1884 Reform Act]].<br />
# The [[1911 Parliament Act]], which ended the ability of the [[House of Lords]] to rein in spending by the [[Commons]].<br />
# The [[1918 Reform Act]], which made suffrage universal among males and extended it to women 30 years of age or older.<br />
# The [[1928 Reform Act]], which equalized voting ages for male and female at 21.<br />
<br />
It is noteworthy that it took the British 84 years to complete the process of abolishing property qualifications for voting (the first three Acts lowered the threshold incrementally) and that they only began to do so after Jacksonian Democracy emerged in the United States.<br />
<br />
While none of these Acts has sustained a serious movement for repeal, historically the one which inspired the strongest opposition was the 1911 Parliament Act. Not surprisingly, this opposition came from the House of Lords, the last body of unelected people to retain any legislative power in the British system. Ultimately, the bill passed only after King [[George V]] promised to create an unlimited number of new [[peers]] in order to pass it.<br />
<br />
The United States, United Kingdom, and other [[common law countries]] mostly utilize a [[first past the post system]] for elections. This limits the number of [[political parties]] and helps to stabilize the system, in contrast to democracies which use [[proportional representation]] such as [[Italy]], [[Germany]], [[France]], and [[Israel]], which have at times had over 10 parties represented in their [[legislatures]]. The latter system tends to increase the power of the [[political left]], although the [[Labour Party]] in Britain was able to edge out the [[centrist]] [[Liberal Party]] as the chief opposition to the [[Conservative Party]] as a result of the first five of the reforms listed above, without discarding the traditional system of elections.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
'''DEMOCRACY''' - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and<br />
is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a<br />
system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or<br />
oligarchy."<br />
<Ref> Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432</Ref><br />
<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Forms of Government]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=364260Socialism2008-01-04T20:09:32Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty, viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfil human potential. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, socialist movements have been built on Christian and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" social policy or directly via nationalization and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income.<br />
<br />
Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal health care, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years. <br />
<br />
While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. <br />
<br />
Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the Labour Party borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Consitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the Westminster model of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under Clement Atlee implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the National Health Service (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care free at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.<br />
<br />
Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many progressive measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of council housing, free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]. In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty; however, many in the Labour Movement are extremely critical of New Labour's tentative approach to reducing inequality, and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
==World socialism==<br />
<br />
US liberal politicians often echo the rhetoric of world socialism: <ref>Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/05/29/unending_war Cal Thomas] Tuesday, May 29, 2007] </ref><br />
<br />
*"Because George W. Bush [is] among the most menacing and belligerent [presidents] in American history. [He has] outlined a program of limitless and perpetual warfare, on every continent, and against any regime that stands in the way of the rapacious American ruling class.... like Hitler and the Nazis, American militarism has embarked on a campaign of world conquest and world domination... [President Bush has issued] a declaration of the unbridled appetites of the military and of the most ruthless, corrupt and criminal sections of the American ruling elite ...Like Hitler, Bush presents an upside-down view of the world in which small and weak states are mortal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed..." (World Socialist Web Site, 31 January 2002)<br />
<br />
==Different strands of socialism==<br />
*[[Communism]]<br />
*[[Social democracy]]<br />
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)<br />
*[[Fascism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small><references/></small><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=David_Cameron&diff=364256David Cameron2008-01-04T19:52:47Z<p>Jljb2: /* Policies */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:674uyyhju.jpg|right|thumb]]<br />
'''David Cameron''', born 9 October 1966, is the current leader of the British [[Conservative Party]].<br />
<br />
==Personal==<br />
<br />
Cameron spent his early years near Wantage in [[Oxfordshire]], [[England]], though his family's roots lie in [[Inverness]], [[Scotland]], and "Cameron" is well known in Britain as a Scottish name.<br />
<br />
Cameron was educated at [[Eton College]], which is generally regarded as Britain's most prestigious private school, and at [[Brasenose College]], [[Oxford University|Oxford]].<br />
<br />
Though he has described himself as "upper middle class", Cameron is sometimes perceived as an aristocratic figure (or a "toff", in British English). He has the most upper-class family background of any Conservative leader since [[Alec Douglas-Home]], who retired as leader in 1965. Most intervening leaders have been middle-class ([[Edward Heath]], [[Margaret Thatcher]]) or even working-class ([[John Major]]).<br />
<br />
His refusal to discuss his past, citing the right to a private life before politics<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4340328.stm</ref> has led to criticism from some quarters. This has been especially true for accusations of hard drug use, and agressive, drunken behaviour as a member of the notorious Oxford alchohol drinking society the Bullingdon Club.<br />
<br />
==Political career==<br />
<br />
Cameron's pre-parliamentary career included spells as a staffer for controversial Conservative politician [[Norman Lamont]] and as a PR executive.<br />
<br />
Cameron was elected to Parliament as MP for Witney in Oxfordshire at the 2001 general election.<br />
<br />
Cameron was elected leader of the [[Conservative Party]] in December 2005, succeeding [[Michael Howard]].<br />
<br />
==Policies==<br />
<br />
Cameron has attempted to move the Conservative party towards what is perceived by some to be the centre ground of British politics. While the party under his leadership has expressed support for some traditional elements of Conservative policy, such as the importance of the [[family]], Cameron has also expressed a passionate concern about [[global warming]], given strong support to Britain's socialized healthcare system, the [[National Health Service|NHS]], and spoken sympathetically of the emotional needs of young people who become involved in crime (a stance lampooned with the slogans "hug a hoodie" and "love a lout").<br />
<br />
Some traditional Conservatives, particularly those on the [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] wing of the party, have criticized Cameron for moving the party too far to the left. They point to surveys showing that many voters feel they no longer know what the Conservative Party stands for.<ref>http://www.yougov.com/archives/pdf/TEL060101018_1.pdf</ref> Some have gone so far as to claim that true conservatism is today represented in Britain not by the Conservative Party but by the [[UK Independence Party]]. On the other hand, the approval ratings of Cameron and his party continue to compare favourably with those of the Labour Party and its leadership.<br />
<br />
Cameron has said: "My aim is to promote social justice, making sure that everyone has access to good schools, good healthcare and decent housing, take a lead in ending global poverty and do all we can to meet the great environmental threats of our age."<ref>http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=david.cameron.about.page</ref> However, given the Conservative Party's record of tripling child poverty from 1979-97, this seems unlikely to be anything but political posturing: the Labour Party has historically been the party committed to social justice in the UK, and few British people associate the Conservative Party with these causes.<br />
<br />
He has previously stated his belief that the United Nations should legalise drug taking, and called for the British government to provide heroin to addicts for use in official 'shooting galleries' - public areas specifically designed for taking drugs.<ref>http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article310819.ece</ref><br />
<br />
He was criticised in 2006 for suggesting the Opium crop of Afghanistan, from which the Taliban derive their funds, be legalised for sale<ref>http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1827679,00.html</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
<br />
* [[British politics]]<br />
* [[Conservative Party]]<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT: Cameron, David}}<br />
<br />
[[category:political people]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=364255Socialism2008-01-04T19:40:30Z<p>Jljb2: /* Britain, the Labour Party and socialism */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspetive, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty, viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfil human potential. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, socialist movements have been built on Christian and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" social policy or directly via nationalization and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income.<br />
<br />
Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal health care, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years. <br />
<br />
While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. <br />
<br />
Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the Labour Party borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Consitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the Westminster model of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under Clement Atlee implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the National Health Service (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care free at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.<br />
<br />
Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many progressive measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of council housing, free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]. In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been lifted out of poverty; however, many in the Labour Movement are extremely critical of New Labour's tentative approach to reducing inequality, and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the redistribution of wealth.<br />
<br />
==World socialism==<br />
<br />
US liberal politicians often echo the rhetoric of world socialism: <ref>Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/05/29/unending_war Cal Thomas] Tuesday, May 29, 2007] </ref><br />
<br />
*"Because George W. Bush [is] among the most menacing and belligerent [presidents] in American history. [He has] outlined a program of limitless and perpetual warfare, on every continent, and against any regime that stands in the way of the rapacious American ruling class.... like Hitler and the Nazis, American militarism has embarked on a campaign of world conquest and world domination... [President Bush has issued] a declaration of the unbridled appetites of the military and of the most ruthless, corrupt and criminal sections of the American ruling elite ...Like Hitler, Bush presents an upside-down view of the world in which small and weak states are mortal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed..." (World Socialist Web Site, 31 January 2002)<br />
<br />
==Different strands of socialism==<br />
*[[Communism]]<br />
*[[Social democracy]]<br />
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)<br />
*[[Fascism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small><references/></small><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=364252Socialism2008-01-04T19:29:29Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]<br />
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspetive, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty, viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfil human potential. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, socialist movements have been built on Christian and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" social policy or directly via nationalization and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income.<br />
<br />
Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal health care, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years. <br />
<br />
While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. <br />
<br />
Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the Labour Party borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Consitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the Westminser model of British government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under Clement Atlee implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the National Health Service (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care free at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.<br />
<br />
Today, Tony Blair's New Labour is virtually indistinguishable from the right-of-center Conservative Party, and is committed not to socialist economic planning but to the neo-liberal economics that characterised [[Margaret Thatcher]]'s premiership of the 1980s and [[John Major]]'s of the 1990s. Consequently, inequality overall has continued to increase under 'New' Labour since coming to power in 1997.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4989070.stm<ref><br />
<br />
The 'New' Labour Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], Tony Blair, is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==World socialism==<br />
<br />
US liberal politicians often echo the rhetoric of world socialism: <ref>Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/05/29/unending_war Cal Thomas] Tuesday, May 29, 2007] </ref><br />
<br />
*"Because George W. Bush [is] among the most menacing and belligerent [presidents] in American history. [He has] outlined a program of limitless and perpetual warfare, on every continent, and against any regime that stands in the way of the rapacious American ruling class.... like Hitler and the Nazis, American militarism has embarked on a campaign of world conquest and world domination... [President Bush has issued] a declaration of the unbridled appetites of the military and of the most ruthless, corrupt and criminal sections of the American ruling elite ...Like Hitler, Bush presents an upside-down view of the world in which small and weak states are mortal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed..." (World Socialist Web Site, 31 January 2002)<br />
<br />
==Different strands of socialism==<br />
*[[Communism]]<br />
*[[Social democracy]]<br />
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)<br />
*[[Fascism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small><references/></small><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=364251Socialism2008-01-04T19:29:02Z<p>Jljb2: balance restored in opening paragraph</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]<br />
The ideology of'''Socialism'''is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspetive, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty, viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfil human potential. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, socialist movements have been built on Christian and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.<br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" social policy or directly via nationalization and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income.<br />
<br />
Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal health care, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years. <br />
<br />
While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. <br />
<br />
Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the Labour Party borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Consitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the Westminser model of British government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under Clement Atlee implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the National Health Service (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care free at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.<br />
<br />
Today, Tony Blair's New Labour is virtually indistinguishable from the right-of-center Conservative Party, and is committed not to socialist economic planning but to the neo-liberal economics that characterised [[Margaret Thatcher]]'s premiership of the 1980s and [[John Major]]'s of the 1990s. Consequently, inequality overall has continued to increase under 'New' Labour since coming to power in 1997.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4989070.stm<ref><br />
<br />
The 'New' Labour Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], Tony Blair, is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==World socialism==<br />
<br />
US liberal politicians often echo the rhetoric of world socialism: <ref>Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/05/29/unending_war Cal Thomas] Tuesday, May 29, 2007] </ref><br />
<br />
*"Because George W. Bush [is] among the most menacing and belligerent [presidents] in American history. [He has] outlined a program of limitless and perpetual warfare, on every continent, and against any regime that stands in the way of the rapacious American ruling class.... like Hitler and the Nazis, American militarism has embarked on a campaign of world conquest and world domination... [President Bush has issued] a declaration of the unbridled appetites of the military and of the most ruthless, corrupt and criminal sections of the American ruling elite ...Like Hitler, Bush presents an upside-down view of the world in which small and weak states are mortal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed..." (World Socialist Web Site, 31 January 2002)<br />
<br />
==Different strands of socialism==<br />
*[[Communism]]<br />
*[[Social democracy]]<br />
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)<br />
*[[Fascism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small><references/></small><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_Redistribution&diff=364250Income Redistribution2008-01-04T19:18:34Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Income redistribution''' can be either the act of an individual's voluntary [[charitable]] giving or government mandated compulsory transfer of [[asset]]s and [[income]] from one group of citizens to another group. <br />
<br />
Most [[conservative]]s accept and advocate voluntary charitable giving as necessary to alleviate social problems, and believe government should not interfere, but rather should encourage personal involvement and personal giving to the underprivileged, elderly, disabled, and other hardship cases. Also, many conservatives view some forms of government redistribution as an impingement on personal rights, leading to unjust expropriation of property, fostering irresponsible social conduct and acting as a disincentive for personal involvement to alleviate social problems. Also, mandatory giving may create jobs for bureaucrats and dependent constituencies as electoral bases.<br />
<br />
[[Liberal]]s generally support income redistribution based on their belief that individual charitable giving cannot be relied upon and tends to advocate some degree of compulsory redistribution of resources as necessary. <br />
<br />
Examples of government programs performing compulsory income redistribution include [[welfare]] and [[progressive taxation]]. Socialists believe that increased redistribution and consequent reductions in inequality lead to better outcomes for individual welfare and freedom. Likewise, Professor Richard Layard has argued that "in societies where income differences between rich and poor are smaller, the statistics show not only that community life is stronger and people are much more likely to trust each other; but also there is less violence – including substantially lower homicide rates – health is better and life expectancy several years longer, prison populations are smaller; birth rates among teenagers are lower, levels of educational attainment among school children tend to be higher; and there is more social mobility. In all cases, where income differences are narrower, outcomes are better." [5] <br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1155 Nineteen Neglected Consequences of Income Redistribution], Robert Higgs, ''The Independent Institute'', December 5, 1994<br />
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2/cj1n2-2.pdf Taxation and Income Redistribution: An Unsympathetic Critique of Practice and Theory], Richard B. McKenzie, ''The CATO Journal'', Accessed December 24, 2007<br />
<br />
[[Category:Economics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Income_Redistribution&diff=364249Talk:Income Redistribution2008-01-04T19:09:57Z<p>Jljb2: /* put Layard's opinion into the article if you label it as his POV */</p>
<hr />
<div>RobS:<br />
What was wrong with the material you deleted? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two things primarily:<br />
:*''the act or government policy''...takes two forms: ''voluntary redistribution'' (otherwise known as [[charity]])''<br />
::this is just nonsense.<br />
:::Why is it nonsense? If the rich give their money to the poor through charity, isn't that voluntary income redistribution? Doesn't the existence of voluntary income redistrubution make involuntary redistrubution look that much more insidious? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Charity is an act or policy of government? C'mon now. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::What I meant was that individuals can redistribute income without government intervention. "The ACT of redistributing wealth, or the POLICY of redistributing wealth." For instance, the early church as recorded in Acts redistributed wealth voluntarily. Jesus and his early followers were big fans of voluntary income distribution. But if you want to limit the scope of the article to government policy, that's fine. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:*''[[Liberal]]s generally support....an [[egalitarian]] view of [[economic justice]]''<br />
::originally it even flatly stated "marxist or egalitartian." In the revised form here, it ''still'' was just disguised marxist propaganda.<br />
:::My friend, I'm no Marxist, and i'm not in favor of an equal economic outcome for all people, but if we don't accurately portray the bases for belief, how can we debunk them? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::So "marxist" is "egalitarian", right? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::In theory, yes. In practice, no. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:As to the Ayn Rand material, all of it in CP needs to be reviewed. None of it appears accurate. Rand is being presented as saying a person born with a disability can starve to death, or a 75 year old unable to work likewise can perish. Until some balance is at least strived for, I intend to remove it all. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:07, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No. But I've listened to Greenspan speak since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and he was one of her students. And it's precisley because of her athiesm, I suppose, why I have never really read much of Ayn Rand. However, I find it very difficult to believe she was cold-hearted and wanted the elderly and disabbled to starve to death in a pure capitalist system.<br />
::::I have read a great deal of her stuff. It's certainly a distortion to say that she wanted the elderly to starve. She thought they should either a) work hard enough in life to save enough for retirement, or b) find some way to merit the necessities of survival in frailty. She held a very stark outlook -- probably a reaction to the Soviet Communism she grew up in. Here is a quote from Ayn Rand explaining her views on charity, that might serve as a starting point:<br />
:::::"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"], cited at the Ayn Rand institute.[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7][[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I have been around the block dealing with marxist lies for decades. I know how Adam Smith is distorted and lied about by on college campuses. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Here's a typical example I've encountered many times, over many decades, and most recently in Wikipedia (Honestly, before even reading the page, ''I knew this lie & distortion would be there''):<br />
:::'''A quote from Adam Smith'''<br />
<br />
:::In Book 2, Chapter 3 of ''The Wealth of Nations'', [[Adam Smith]] wrote:<br />
<br />
:::"There is one sort of labour which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labour. Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed. But the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. <br />
<br />
:::'''Of course, I (RobS) had to finsh the quote:<br />
<br />
:::'''The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well" (Andrew Skinner edition 1974, p. 429-430). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Productive_and_unproductive_labour&diff=106451910&oldid=101154076]<br />
<br />
:::So no, I wouldn't know where to begin citing Ayn Rand's comments toward the elderly & disabled, however experience teachers me, someone who considers marxism 'egalitarian' is the last source I'd consider as having any credibitly whatsoever as to what Ayn Rand said or thought. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::You'll get no argument from me that most brilliant people are routinely distorted beyond recognition to serve the purposes of lesser minds. I applaud your efforts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::You still cannot define Income Redistribution as being a policy of government and refer to charitable giving as a sub grouping of that policy and call it voluntary. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::I'm not doing that. I'm defining income redistribution is the redistribution of income, and saying that it can be done voluntarily by individuals, or compulsarily by governments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:44, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Again, "property already owned" makes no sense; you are saying here that a worker does not own their income. This is pure Marxist crap and advocacy of legitimizing [[slavery]]. It all will be reverted. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:19, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::There is a clear difference between property you already own and income. Wealth redistribution occurs when the government takes your house and gives it to a bum. Income redistribution occurs when the government taxes your income and subsidizes his. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:44, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Also, you reverted a large number of changes without explaining. I put in a long section giving cogent conservative criticisms of income redistribution, including a quote from Friedman. You deleted it. Why? You also failed to respond to any of my comments above. Why? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:44, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::And again, sir, I'm not a Marxist. There's no Communist conspiracy here: Only an effort to accurately define the issues. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::A person's revenue is thier property, unless a [[lien]] exists against it. To say otherwise, is to deny basic equality and the Rights of Man. I know I know, leftists have had much success peddling [[tripe]] contrary to this basic fact for several decades, that people are too stupid to understand economic processes or even how to exercise thier basic rights, and they need [[gulag]] masters or a [[nomenklatura]] to dole out the leftovers of thier own labor back to them (i.e. "income redistribution"), but stuff like that just won't fly here. <br />
::::::::Of course an individual's income is his property -- but it's not property he already owns -- it is ''new'' property -- an ''increase'' in property. That's why it is called ''"income."'' There is nothing even vaguely Marxist about that distinction. I would be a lot more upset if the government came and took 25% of my property every year than I am that they took 25% of my income, because at least once I earn something and pay taxes on my new wealth, it's finally mine and they have no more claim to it. I see nothing marxist about that distinction. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:32, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::That is a privacy issue; it is none of your business what a persons accumalated wealth is. Are you attempting to sow hate and envy among so called "classes" of citizens? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:42, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::What does the difference between income and accumulated wealth have to do with privacy? How does distinguishing between income and accumulated wealth sow envy? When have I used the word "class?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:59, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::And why do you persist in placing charitable giving as a subset of government policy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'm not saying it is, sir. I'm saying that both charitable giving and compulsary redistribution are types of income redistribution, because both processes redistribute income. And if you would, sir, could you address why you deleted all the material criticizing income redistribution? Thanks! [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:32, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::You have done precisely that, twice now. You define income redistribution as government policy, then you proceed to divide that policy into two types, compulsory, and voluntary. Then you say that this government policy is responsible for voluntary charitable giving. <br />
::::::::::''I have not defined income redistribution as a government policy. I have defined income redistribution as the redistribution of income, and noted that it can be either a government policy or an act by individuals.''<br />
:::::::::::You have done exactly that twice. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_redistribution&diff=next&oldid=211074][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_redistribution&diff=prev&oldid=271794] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::Read those edits carefully, sir. They don't say what you think they do. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Really, a junior high school student can see the ludicriously of this statement, which you have inserted twice now. This is beginning to approach trolling, i.e. wasting a Sysops time. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:42, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::It's easy to label a statement as ludicrous when you fail to read and understand it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:59, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
RobS, please explain why you deleted my criticism of income redistribution. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:59, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== put Layard's opinion into the article if you label it as his POV ==<br />
<br />
Removed:<br />
<br />
:There is strong evidence that increased redistribution of wealth results in better outcomes for health, happiness and crime - as for instance in the Scandinavian countries, which have highly progressive tax regimes. Professor Richard Layard has argued that "in societies where income differences between rich and poor are smaller, the statistics show not only that community life is stronger and people are much more likely to trust each other; but also there is less violence – including substantially lower homicide rates – health is better and life expectancy several years longer, prison populations are smaller; birth rates among teenagers are lower, levels of educational attainment among school children tend to be higher; and there is more social mobility. In all cases, where income differences are narrower, outcomes are better." [http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Clare+Short/d3785575-2c3d-4112-8234-a56172981f30.htm] <br />
<br />
Articles should not, generally, argue for or against something. <br />
<br />
You can put Layard's opinion into the article if you label it as his POV. If you agree to this, I will unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:40, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of course, but how do i do that? - it does say 'has argued that'.<br />
<br />
:Start with "Some people argue" or "Socialists believe that". You also might try omitting "There is strong evidence", since just about everyone here disagrees with that assertion. <br />
<br />
:Leaving it as an argument by Layard makes it okay. We all can agree that Layard '''made that argument''' even if we disagree with the points he made.--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:49, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Ok, grand - but I'm going to remove 'Also, mandatory giving...legitimizes class warfare.', as that's clearly unsubstantiated opinion. Thanks</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Income_Redistribution&diff=364242Talk:Income Redistribution2008-01-04T18:44:49Z<p>Jljb2: /* put Layard's opinion into the article if you label it as his POV */</p>
<hr />
<div>RobS:<br />
What was wrong with the material you deleted? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 14:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Two things primarily:<br />
:*''the act or government policy''...takes two forms: ''voluntary redistribution'' (otherwise known as [[charity]])''<br />
::this is just nonsense.<br />
:::Why is it nonsense? If the rich give their money to the poor through charity, isn't that voluntary income redistribution? Doesn't the existence of voluntary income redistrubution make involuntary redistrubution look that much more insidious? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Charity is an act or policy of government? C'mon now. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::What I meant was that individuals can redistribute income without government intervention. "The ACT of redistributing wealth, or the POLICY of redistributing wealth." For instance, the early church as recorded in Acts redistributed wealth voluntarily. Jesus and his early followers were big fans of voluntary income distribution. But if you want to limit the scope of the article to government policy, that's fine. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:*''[[Liberal]]s generally support....an [[egalitarian]] view of [[economic justice]]''<br />
::originally it even flatly stated "marxist or egalitartian." In the revised form here, it ''still'' was just disguised marxist propaganda.<br />
:::My friend, I'm no Marxist, and i'm not in favor of an equal economic outcome for all people, but if we don't accurately portray the bases for belief, how can we debunk them? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::So "marxist" is "egalitarian", right? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::In theory, yes. In practice, no. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:As to the Ayn Rand material, all of it in CP needs to be reviewed. None of it appears accurate. Rand is being presented as saying a person born with a disability can starve to death, or a 75 year old unable to work likewise can perish. Until some balance is at least strived for, I intend to remove it all. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:07, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Have you read any of Ayn Rand's work? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No. But I've listened to Greenspan speak since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and he was one of her students. And it's precisley because of her athiesm, I suppose, why I have never really read much of Ayn Rand. However, I find it very difficult to believe she was cold-hearted and wanted the elderly and disabbled to starve to death in a pure capitalist system.<br />
::::I have read a great deal of her stuff. It's certainly a distortion to say that she wanted the elderly to starve. She thought they should either a) work hard enough in life to save enough for retirement, or b) find some way to merit the necessities of survival in frailty. She held a very stark outlook -- probably a reaction to the Soviet Communism she grew up in. Here is a quote from Ayn Rand explaining her views on charity, that might serve as a starting point:<br />
:::::"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"], cited at the Ayn Rand institute.[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq_index#obj_q7][[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I have been around the block dealing with marxist lies for decades. I know how Adam Smith is distorted and lied about by on college campuses. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Here's a typical example I've encountered many times, over many decades, and most recently in Wikipedia (Honestly, before even reading the page, ''I knew this lie & distortion would be there''):<br />
:::'''A quote from Adam Smith'''<br />
<br />
:::In Book 2, Chapter 3 of ''The Wealth of Nations'', [[Adam Smith]] wrote:<br />
<br />
:::"There is one sort of labour which adds to the value of the subject upon which it is bestowed; there is another which has no such effect. The former, as it produces a value, may be called productive; the latter, unproductive labour. Thus the labour of a manufacturer adds, generally, to the value of the materials which he works upon, that of his own maintenance, and of his master's profit. The labour of a menial servant, on the contrary, adds to the value of nothing. Though the manufacturer has his wages advanced to him by his master, he, in reality, costs him no expense, the value of those wages being generally restored, together with a profit, in the improved value of the subject upon which his labour is bestowed. But the maintenance of a menial servant never is restored. A man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants. <br />
<br />
:::'''Of course, I (RobS) had to finsh the quote:<br />
<br />
:::'''The labour of the latter, however, has its value, and deserves its reward as well" (Andrew Skinner edition 1974, p. 429-430). [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Productive_and_unproductive_labour&diff=106451910&oldid=101154076]<br />
<br />
:::So no, I wouldn't know where to begin citing Ayn Rand's comments toward the elderly & disabled, however experience teachers me, someone who considers marxism 'egalitarian' is the last source I'd consider as having any credibitly whatsoever as to what Ayn Rand said or thought. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::You'll get no argument from me that most brilliant people are routinely distorted beyond recognition to serve the purposes of lesser minds. I applaud your efforts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::You still cannot define Income Redistribution as being a policy of government and refer to charitable giving as a sub grouping of that policy and call it voluntary. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::I'm not doing that. I'm defining income redistribution is the redistribution of income, and saying that it can be done voluntarily by individuals, or compulsarily by governments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:44, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Again, "property already owned" makes no sense; you are saying here that a worker does not own their income. This is pure Marxist crap and advocacy of legitimizing [[slavery]]. It all will be reverted. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:19, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::There is a clear difference between property you already own and income. Wealth redistribution occurs when the government takes your house and gives it to a bum. Income redistribution occurs when the government taxes your income and subsidizes his. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:44, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Also, you reverted a large number of changes without explaining. I put in a long section giving cogent conservative criticisms of income redistribution, including a quote from Friedman. You deleted it. Why? You also failed to respond to any of my comments above. Why? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:44, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::And again, sir, I'm not a Marxist. There's no Communist conspiracy here: Only an effort to accurately define the issues. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::A person's revenue is thier property, unless a [[lien]] exists against it. To say otherwise, is to deny basic equality and the Rights of Man. I know I know, leftists have had much success peddling [[tripe]] contrary to this basic fact for several decades, that people are too stupid to understand economic processes or even how to exercise thier basic rights, and they need [[gulag]] masters or a [[nomenklatura]] to dole out the leftovers of thier own labor back to them (i.e. "income redistribution"), but stuff like that just won't fly here. <br />
::::::::Of course an individual's income is his property -- but it's not property he already owns -- it is ''new'' property -- an ''increase'' in property. That's why it is called ''"income."'' There is nothing even vaguely Marxist about that distinction. I would be a lot more upset if the government came and took 25% of my property every year than I am that they took 25% of my income, because at least once I earn something and pay taxes on my new wealth, it's finally mine and they have no more claim to it. I see nothing marxist about that distinction. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:32, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::That is a privacy issue; it is none of your business what a persons accumalated wealth is. Are you attempting to sow hate and envy among so called "classes" of citizens? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:42, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::What does the difference between income and accumulated wealth have to do with privacy? How does distinguishing between income and accumulated wealth sow envy? When have I used the word "class?" [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:59, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::And why do you persist in placing charitable giving as a subset of government policy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:16, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'm not saying it is, sir. I'm saying that both charitable giving and compulsary redistribution are types of income redistribution, because both processes redistribute income. And if you would, sir, could you address why you deleted all the material criticizing income redistribution? Thanks! [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:32, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::You have done precisely that, twice now. You define income redistribution as government policy, then you proceed to divide that policy into two types, compulsory, and voluntary. Then you say that this government policy is responsible for voluntary charitable giving. <br />
::::::::::''I have not defined income redistribution as a government policy. I have defined income redistribution as the redistribution of income, and noted that it can be either a government policy or an act by individuals.''<br />
:::::::::::You have done exactly that twice. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_redistribution&diff=next&oldid=211074][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_redistribution&diff=prev&oldid=271794] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::::Read those edits carefully, sir. They don't say what you think they do. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 23:14, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::::Really, a junior high school student can see the ludicriously of this statement, which you have inserted twice now. This is beginning to approach trolling, i.e. wasting a Sysops time. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:42, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::::It's easy to label a statement as ludicrous when you fail to read and understand it. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:59, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Criticism ==<br />
RobS, please explain why you deleted my criticism of income redistribution. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 22:59, 19 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== put Layard's opinion into the article if you label it as his POV ==<br />
<br />
Removed:<br />
<br />
:There is strong evidence that increased redistribution of wealth results in better outcomes for health, happiness and crime - as for instance in the Scandinavian countries, which have highly progressive tax regimes. Professor Richard Layard has argued that "in societies where income differences between rich and poor are smaller, the statistics show not only that community life is stronger and people are much more likely to trust each other; but also there is less violence – including substantially lower homicide rates – health is better and life expectancy several years longer, prison populations are smaller; birth rates among teenagers are lower, levels of educational attainment among school children tend to be higher; and there is more social mobility. In all cases, where income differences are narrower, outcomes are better." [http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Clare+Short/d3785575-2c3d-4112-8234-a56172981f30.htm] <br />
<br />
Articles should not, generally, argue for or against something. <br />
<br />
You can put Layard's opinion into the article if you label it as his POV. If you agree to this, I will unprotect the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:40, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Of course, but how do i do that? - it does say 'has argued that'.</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_Redistribution&diff=364235Income Redistribution2008-01-04T18:36:48Z<p>Jljb2: Revert to changes by jljb2 - no reason given for removal, sources were given</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Income redistribution''' can be either the act of an individual's voluntary [[charitable]] giving or government mandated compulsory transfer of [[asset]]s and [[income]] from one group of citizens to another group. <br />
<br />
Most [[conservative]]s accept and advocate voluntary charitable giving as necessary to alleviate social problems, and believe government should not interfere, but rather should encourage personal involvement and personal giving to the underprivileged, elderly, disabled, and other hardship cases. Also, many conservatives view some forms of government mandatory compulsory giving as an impingement on personal rights, unjust expropriation of property, fosters irresponsible social conduct and a disincentive for personal involvement to alleviate social problems.<br />
<br />
[[Liberal]]s generally support income redistribution based on their belief that individual charitable giving cannot be relied upon and tends to advocate some degree of compulsory redistribution of resources as necessary. <br />
<br />
Examples of government programs performing compulsory income redistribution include [[welfare]] and [[progressive taxation]]. There is strong evidence that increased redistribution of wealth results in better outcomes for health, happiness and crime - as for instance in the Scandinavian countries, which have highly progressive tax regimes. Professor Richard Layard has argued that "in societies where income differences between rich and poor are smaller, the statistics show not only that community life is stronger and people are much more likely to trust each other; but also there is less violence – including substantially lower homicide rates – health is better and life expectancy several years longer, prison populations are smaller; birth rates among teenagers are lower, levels of educational attainment among school children tend to be higher; and there is more social mobility. In all cases, where income differences are narrower, outcomes are better."[http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Clare+Short/d3785575-2c3d-4112-8234-a56172981f30.htm] <br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1155 Nineteen Neglected Consequences of Income Redistribution], Robert Higgs, ''The Independent Institute'', December 5, 1994<br />
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2/cj1n2-2.pdf Taxation and Income Redistribution: An Unsympathetic Critique of Practice and Theory], Richard B. McKenzie, ''The CATO Journal'', Accessed December 24, 2007<br />
<br />
[[Category:Economics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_Redistribution&diff=364211Income Redistribution2008-01-04T18:08:22Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Income redistribution''' can be either the act of an individual's voluntary [[charitable]] giving or government mandated compulsory transfer of [[asset]]s and [[income]] from one group of citizens to another group. <br />
<br />
Most [[conservative]]s accept and advocate voluntary charitable giving as necessary to alleviate social problems, and believe government should not interfere, but rather should encourage personal involvement and personal giving to the underprivileged, elderly, disabled, and other hardship cases. Also, many conservatives view some forms of government mandatory compulsory giving as an impingement on personal rights, unjust expropriation of property, fosters irresponsible social conduct and a disincentive for personal involvement to alleviate social problems.<br />
<br />
[[Liberal]]s generally support income redistribution based on their belief that individual charitable giving cannot be relied upon and tends to advocate some degree of compulsory redistribution of resources as necessary. <br />
<br />
Examples of government programs performing compulsory income redistribution include [[welfare]] and [[progressive taxation]]. There is strong evidence that increased redistribution of wealth results in better outcomes for health, happiness and crime - as for instance in the Scandinavian countries, which have highly progressive tax regimes. Professor Richard Layard has argued that "in societies where income differences between rich and poor are smaller, the statistics show not only that community life is stronger and people are much more likely to trust each other; but also there is less violence – including substantially lower homicide rates – health is better and life expectancy several years longer, prison populations are smaller; birth rates among teenagers are lower, levels of educational attainment among school children tend to be higher; and there is more social mobility. In all cases, where income differences are narrower, outcomes are better."[http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Clare+Short/d3785575-2c3d-4112-8234-a56172981f30.htm] <br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1155 Nineteen Neglected Consequences of Income Redistribution], Robert Higgs, ''The Independent Institute'', December 5, 1994<br />
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2/cj1n2-2.pdf Taxation and Income Redistribution: An Unsympathetic Critique of Practice and Theory], Richard B. McKenzie, ''The CATO Journal'', Accessed December 24, 2007<br />
<br />
[[Category:Economics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mike_Huckabee&diff=364210Mike Huckabee2008-01-04T18:06:03Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hdyute7.jpg|right|thumb|'''Mike Huckabee''']]<br />
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is a [[Baptist]] minister and is a [[conservative]] candidate for the 2008 [[Republican]] presidential nomination. He is known to be [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]], but less [[conservative]] on [[economic]] issues like funding [[public schools]]. He was the governor of [[Arkansas]] from 1996 to 2007. <br />
<br />
Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee has been viewed favorably by conservatives and [[Christian]] organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee will catch on with [[Republican]] primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse". <ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref><br />
<br />
[[Poll]] numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability have him steadily moving up in key primary states of [[New Hampshire]], and [[South Carolina]] and contributed to his win in the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. <br />
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref> He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "values debate."<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> With far less money than his competitors, Huckabee finished second in the high-profile [[Iowa Straw Poll]] with 18% of the vote, in front of [[Sam Brownback]] (15%) and in back of [[Mitt Romney]] (32%). His victory has placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref> <br />
<ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref>.<br />
<br />
In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined. <ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref> <br />
== Record as Governor ==<br />
<br />
As [[Governor]] of [[Arkansas]], Mike Huckabee cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas [[legislature]] enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and [[fuel]]s taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref><br />
<br />
In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref> <br />
<br />
Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature. <br />
<br />
In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors". <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref><br />
<br />
== Political Beliefs ==<br />
<br />
'''Taxes''': <br />
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[Fair Tax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Such a system would inevitably increase the already extreme levels of economic inequality in the USA; it is noteworthy that reduced inequality is associated with better outcomes in terms of crime, health and happiness[http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Clare+Short/d3785575-2c3d-4112-8234-a56172981f30.htm]. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref> <br />
<br />
'''Spending''':<br />
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million. <ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref>. Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref> <br />
<br />
'''[[Abortion]]''':<br />
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life. <br />
<br />
'''Marriage''':<br />
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref> He would favor a nation-wide [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception. <br />
<br />
'''Second Amendment Rights''':<br />
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref><br />
<br />
'''[[Immigration]]''':<br />
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deportation of illegal immigrates that have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref><br />
<br />
==Vertical Politics==<br />
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering partisanship. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don’t care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It’s what I call ‘Vertical Politics." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref><br />
<br />
== Personal ==<br />
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]<br />
Huckabee was born in Hope, [[Arkansas]], the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give [Hope] one more chance." <br />
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.'' <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, [[Texas]], before becoming a [[Baptist]] pastor for twelve years in [[Arkansas]]. Because of his income situation, Huckabee graduated in only two and a half years.<br />
<br />
The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in [[New Orleans]], the Red Rocks Amphitheater in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]] and for two presidential inauguration balls.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Campaign==<br />
Governor Huckabee's campaign took off after the Ames Straw Poll, where he came in 2nd place (with 18% of the vote) to Mitt Romney, despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote.<br />
<br />
His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.<br />
<br />
He has also gained a lot of press for his humorous ad featuring Chuck Norris.<br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref> <br />
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref> <br />
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Endorsements==<br />
====Organizations====<br />
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref><br />
<br />
===South Carolina===<br />
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref> <br />
<br />
Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]]<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref>. During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.<br />
<br />
===Virginia===<br />
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>. <br />
<br />
===New Hampshire===<br />
<br />
Huckabee has picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>. Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small>{{reflist|2}}</small><br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}<br />
[[Category:Political people]]<br />
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]<br />
[[Category:Republican Party]]<br />
[[Category:United States Governors]]<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]<br />
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog] <br />
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]<br />
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007<br />
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007<br />
<br />
==External Videos==<br />
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection] <br />
===Supporter Videos===<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]<br />
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]<br />
===Personal Story=== <br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]<br />
===Ads===<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]<br />
<br />
===Speeches===<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1] <br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]<br />
<br />
{{2008_presidential_candidates}}</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Income_Redistribution&diff=364206Income Redistribution2008-01-04T18:03:01Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Income redistribution''' can be either the act of an individual's voluntary [[charitable]] giving or government mandated compulsory transfer of [[asset]]s and [[income]] from one group of citizens to another group. <br />
<br />
Most [[conservative]]s accept and advocate voluntary charitable giving as necessary to alleviate social problems, and believe government should not interfere, but rather should encourage personal involvement and personal giving to the underprivileged, elderly, disabled, and other hardship cases. Also, many conservatives view some forms of government mandatory compulsory giving as an impingement on personal rights, unjust expropriation of property, fosters irresponsible social conduct and a disincentive for personal involvement to alleviate social problems.<br />
<br />
[[Liberal]]s generally support income redistribution based on their belief that individual charitable giving cannot be relied upon and tends to advocate some degree of compulsory redistribution of resources as necessary. <br />
<br />
Examples of government programs performing compulsory income redistribution include [[welfare]] and [[progressive taxation]]. There is strong evidence that increased redistribution of wealth results in better outcomes for health, happiness and crime - as for instance in the Scandinavian countries, which have highly progressive tax regimes.[http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Clare+Short/d3785575-2c3d-4112-8234-a56172981f30.htm] <br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1155 Nineteen Neglected Consequences of Income Redistribution], Robert Higgs, ''The Independent Institute'', December 5, 1994<br />
*[http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2/cj1n2-2.pdf Taxation and Income Redistribution: An Unsympathetic Critique of Practice and Theory], Richard B. McKenzie, ''The CATO Journal'', Accessed December 24, 2007<br />
<br />
[[Category:Economics]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=364195Liberal2008-01-04T17:51:59Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* belief in an inherent link between increased socio-economic equality and practical freedom<br />
* the equal value of all human beings<br />
* that individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of all members of their society<br />
* belief that a 'small state' results in impoverishment and increased inequality, reducing freedom and preventing social mobility<br />
* universal, free provision of healthcare and education for all, regardless of ability to pay<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* support for labour unions, aiming to redress the imbalance in power between workers and employers<br />
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, with the aim of increased freedom<br />
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written<br />
* support for [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref><br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* opposition to an aggressive American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* firm belief in a strong public morality of deceny, fraternity and concern for others' wellbeing, preferring co-operation over competition<br />
<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].<br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as self-interest and rejection of moral responsibility for society's problems. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: 'Classical Liberalism'==<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Rankings of Congress Members==<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of congress. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]<br />
[[Category:Deceit]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=364194Liberal2008-01-04T17:51:38Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* belief in an inherent link between increased socio-economic equality and practical freedom<br />
* the equal value of all human beings<br />
* that individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of all members of their society<br />
* belief that a 'small state' results in impoverishment and increased inequality, reducing freedom and preventing social mobility<br />
* universal, free provision of healthcare and education for all, regardless of ability to pay<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* support for labour unions, aiming to redress the imbalance in power between workers and employers<br />
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, with the aim of increased freedom<br />
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written<br />
* support for [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref><br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* opposition to an aggressive American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* firm belief in a strong public morality of deceny, fraternity and concern for others' wellbeing, preferring co-operation over competition<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].<br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as self-interest and rejection of moral responsibility for society's problems. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: 'Classical Liberalism'==<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Rankings of Congress Members==<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of congress. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]<br />
[[Category:Deceit]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=364193Liberal2008-01-04T17:51:24Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* belief in an inherent link between increased socio-economic equality and practical freedom<br />
* the equal value of all human beings<br />
* that individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of all members of their society<br />
* belief that a 'small state' results in impoverishment and increased inequality, reducing freedom and preventing social mobility<br />
* universal, free provision of healthcare and education for all, regardless of ability to pay<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* support for labour unions, aiming to redress the imbalance in power between workers and emplyers<br />
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* redistribution of income from the rich to the poor, with the aim of increased freedom<br />
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written<br />
* support for [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref><br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* opposition to an aggressive American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* firm belief in a strong public morality of deceny, fraternity and concern for others' wellbeing, preferring co-operation over competition<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].<br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.<br />
<br />
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as self-interest and rejection of moral responsibility for society's problems. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: 'Classical Liberalism'==<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Rankings of Congress Members==<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of congress. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]<br />
[[Category:Deceit]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=364192Liberal2008-01-04T17:43:17Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''Liberal''' is a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* belief in an inherent link between increased socio-economic equality and practical freedom<br />
* belief in the equal value of all human beings<br />
* belief that individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of all members of their society<br />
* belief that a 'small state' results in impoverishment and increased inequality, reducing freedom and preventing social mobility.<br />
* denial of inherent [[gender differences]] and wanting men and women to have the same jobs in the [[military]]<br />
* taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]<br />
* universal, free provision of healthcare and education for all, regardless of ability to pay<br />
* [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* support of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* support of [[political correctness]] <ref>[http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/27429.html Politically Correct Terrorism] ''The Conservative Voice'', August 21, 2007</ref><br />
* [[censorship]] of [[prayer]] in classrooms from any religion<br />
* labor [[union]]s<br />
* elimination of [[abstinence]]-only program funding <ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* redistribution of income from the super-rich to the poor, with the aim of increased freedom<br />
* a "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written<br />
* support for [[gun control]]<br />
* government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
*[[environmentalism]] <ref> [[Greenpeace]] engages in environmentalism.</ref><br />
* [[disarmament treaties]]<br />
* [[globalism]]<br />
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref><br />
* opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* limit [[conservative]] talk radio by reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]<br />
<br />
== Cartoon Depiction of the [[Liberal]] Viewpoints ==<br />
[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg]]<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an organization that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world.<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref>, such as the Liberal Party of Australia[http://www.liberal.org.au/].<br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them 'liberals' or [[neoliberal | neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, 'liberal' is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called 'liberal' in Europe, this is usually a way of calling them [[rightist | right-wing]], exactly the opposite of the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy | social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref>.<br />
<br />
is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition. [[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] often have [[liberal bias]].<br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals still support socially liberal positions when it comes to affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: 'Classical Liberalism'==<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Rankings of Congress Members==<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of congress. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness]]<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]<br />
[[Category:Deceit]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mike_Huckabee&diff=364190Mike Huckabee2008-01-04T17:35:31Z<p>Jljb2: /* Political Beliefs */</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Hdyute7.jpg|right|thumb|'''Mike Huckabee''']]<br />
'''Mike Huckabee''' (born August 24, 1955) is a [[Baptist]] minister and is a [[conservative]] candidate for the 2008 [[Republican]] presidential nomination. He is known to be [[conservative]] on the issues of [[abortion]], [[gun control]], [[homosexuality]] and [[evolution]], but less [[conservative]] on [[economic]] issues like funding [[public schools]]. He was the governor of [[Arkansas]] from 1996 to 2007. <br />
<br />
Throughout the presidential primary, Huckabee has been viewed favorably by conservatives and [[Christian]] organizations such as the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]]. Former Speaker of the House [[Newt Gingrich]] predicted that Huckabee will catch on with [[Republican]] primary voters, calling him "the most interesting dark horse". <ref>http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=6899608</ref><br />
<br />
[[Poll]] numbers show that Huckabee's strong debate performances, communication skills and likability have him steadily moving up in key primary states of [[New Hampshire]], and [[South Carolina]] and contributed to his win in the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. <br />
<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/21/s.c.straw.poll/index.html</ref> He was the winner of the straw poll after the Sept. 17th "values debate."<ref>http://www.earnedmedia.org/kg0918.htm</ref> With far less money than his competitors, Huckabee finished second in the high-profile [[Iowa Straw Poll]] with 18% of the vote, in front of [[Sam Brownback]] (15%) and in back of [[Mitt Romney]] (32%). His victory has placed him in the top tier of Republican primary candidates<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/12/ftn/main3159786.shtml</ref><ref>http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22081</ref> <br />
<ref>http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/</ref>.<br />
<br />
In October 2007, Huckabee overwhelmingly won the high-profile Family Research Counsel's Value Voter Summit straw poll. Out of those attending, Huckabee received more votes then all other candidates combined. <ref>http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/romney_camp_stacking_the_value.html</ref> <br />
== Record as Governor ==<br />
<br />
As [[Governor]] of [[Arkansas]], Mike Huckabee cut and raised taxes. For example, during his ten years in office, the Arkansas [[legislature]] enacted increases in tobacco, sales, and [[fuel]]s taxes; however he also signed into legislation tax cuts over 90 times during that period. During his tenure as Governor welfare rolls declined by nearly half, and last year the state's economy grew 4.4%, beating the national average of 4.2%.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref><br />
<br />
In 1997 he introduced ARKids First, a health care plan which cut the number of Arkansas uninsured children in half.<ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref> <br />
<br />
Throughout his tenure he also supported and helped pass pro-life bills through the Democrat controlled legislature. <br />
<br />
In 2005 [[Time Magazine]] declared him one of "America's 5 Best Governors". <ref>http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1129494,00.html</ref><br />
<br />
== Political Beliefs ==<br />
<br />
'''Taxes''': <br />
As governor, he signed the first broad-based tax-cut in state history and cut taxes over ninety times. Huckabee believes that the United States should enact a tax system known as the [[Fair Tax]], this system replaces the income tax with a voluntary consumption tax. Such a system would inevitably increase the already extreme levels of economic inequality in the USA; it is noteworthy that reduced inequality is associated with better outcomes in terms of crime, health and happiness. Recently he signed the Presidential Taxpayer Protection Pledge to Americans for Tax Reform which promises to not raise taxes if elected president.<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref> <br />
<br />
'''Spending''':<br />
During his tenure, state spending rose 65.3% between 1996 and 2004, which was 3 times the rate of inflation. This has led to strong criticism from conservative groups like the [[Club for Growth]]. However, when he left office there was a surplus of over $800 million. <ref>http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/01/a_report_on_mike_huckabees_fis.php</ref>. Huckabee has called on Bush to veto more spending bills by the democrat controlled congress.<ref>http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/cobb/stories/2007/09/08/huckabee_0909.html</ref> In August 2007, Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, stated "Gov. Huckabee recognizes that the challenge is to rein in spending and reduce taxes."<ref>http://www.atr.org/content/html/2007/march/030207pr-huckabeesignspledge.html</ref> <br />
<br />
'''[[Abortion]]''':<br />
According to ''[[National Review]]'', as Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee signed a bill requiring parental consent for [[abortion]], and mandating notification by abortion providers to prospective parents that the unborn baby may feel pain, he also helped pass a bill through the Democratic-controlled legislature which stated that life began at conception.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_ID=11</ref><ref>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNjMmI1ODhjNGVlZWFmNTlmMGNiZTVjYTg1NTUzMTk=</ref> He also signed the Fetal Protection Act. He is known to be strongly pro-life. <br />
<br />
'''Marriage''':<br />
Huckabee is opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions. He also is a strong advocate for fathers' participation in child-raising.<ref>http://www.ontheissues.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm</ref> He would favor a nation-wide [[Roe v. Wade]] being overturned and the federal governments recognition that life begins at conception. <br />
<br />
'''Second Amendment Rights''':<br />
As governor, he signed bills blocking frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and removing restrictions on concealed handgun permit holders. He became the first governor in the nation to have a concealed handgun license.<ref>http://www.explorehuckabee.com</ref><br />
<br />
'''[[Immigration]]''':<br />
Huckabee opposed the McCain-Kennedy bill because he stated it had problems with "credibility; secrecy; and spending".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee</ref> He believes the United States should seal the border first and deportation of illegal immigrates that have committed crimes.<ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=4</ref><br />
<br />
==Vertical Politics==<br />
While campaigning, Huckabee has referred to what he calls Vertical Politics - politics aimed at making America stronger rather than festering partisanship. Huckabee said, "Everywhere I go on the campaign trail, I meet voters with a real thirst for a healthy discussion of the issues. Ultimately, people don’t care whether an issue comes from the left or the right. What they want to talk about are ideas that lift America up and make us better. It’s what I call ‘Vertical Politics." <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=verticalday.home</ref><br />
<br />
== Personal ==<br />
[[Image:HuckabeeBand.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Huckabee playing with his band, ''Capital Offense'', during the 2007 [[Iowa Straw Poll]]]]<br />
Huckabee was born in Hope, [[Arkansas]], the same town where former president [[Bill Clinton]] was born. This coincidence led to one of Huckabee's campaign slogans, "give [Hope] one more chance." <br />
Huckabee lost 110 pounds while governor of Arkansas and documented his weight loss and set out a 12-step plan for weight loss in his book ''Quit Digging Your Grave With a Knife and Fork.'' <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7752179/site/newsweek/</ref> He has also made childhood obesity a major platform issue. He became the first person in his family to attend college when he attended Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Fort Worth, [[Texas]], before becoming a [[Baptist]] pastor for twelve years in [[Arkansas]]. Because of his income situation, Huckabee graduated in only two and a half years.<br />
<br />
The 52-year-old former governor and his wife live in [[Little Rock]] and have three grown children. Huckabee enjoys playing in his rock-n-roll band, Capitol Offense, which has played at the House of Blues in [[New Orleans]], the Red Rocks Amphitheater in [[Denver]], [[Colorado]] and for two presidential inauguration balls.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Campaign==<br />
Governor Huckabee's campaign took off after the Ames Straw Poll, where he came in 2nd place (with 18% of the vote) to Mitt Romney, despite far less name recognition and far less spending - he spent about $35 per vote, whereas Romney spent more than $500 per vote.<br />
<br />
His second surge began after the Republican [[YouTube]] debate, where he was seen as calm and positive next to the other candidates, many of whom attacked each other.<br />
<br />
He has also gained a lot of press for his humorous ad featuring Chuck Norris.<br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
* "We've had a [[congress]] that's spent money like [[John Edwards]] at a beauty shop."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' May 2006 [http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=456 The Loft] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref> <br />
* "…my [[faith]] is my life. It defines me. I see no separation between my faith from my personal and professional lives."<ref>''Faith and Politics'' [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=9 mikehuckabee.com] Accessed 3 January 2008.</ref> <br />
* "When it comes to the red tape in government, I don't think I can part the Red Sea but I believe I can part the red tape."<ref>''GOP presidential debate'' Iowa, 12 December 2007.</ref> <br />
<br />
==Endorsements==<br />
====Organizations====<br />
For the first time in the organizations history, the [[Homeschool Legal Defense Association]] Political Action Committee endorsed a political candidate. The organization, which consists of 90,000 members, stated that they decided to endorse Huckabee because of he was, "[[conservative]], a friend of [[homeschooling]], a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in [[Jesus Christ]]".<ref>http://huckabee08.blogspot.com/2007/06/huckabee-on-roll-endorsements-and-polls.html</ref><br />
<br />
===South Carolina===<br />
Huckabee has received some key endorsement during the course of his primary race. One such endorsement came from former [[South Carolina]] Governor, [[David Beasley]], who had before planned on staying on the sidelines throughout the [[Republican]] primary<ref>http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/27/news_pf/Opinion/Huckabee_s__a_maratho.shtml</ref> <br />
<br />
Huckabee received another South Carolina endorsement from Iris Campbell, the former South Carolina First Lady and wife of former governor, the late [[Mike Campbell]]<ref>http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/02/endorsement_wat.html</ref>. During Mike Campbell's time in office, from 1987 to 1994, his endorsement of [[Ronald Reagan]] boosted the underdog's presidential primary race.<br />
<br />
===Virginia===<br />
In August 2007, Huckabee received a key endorsement from [[Virginia]]'s House of Delegates Speaker [[William J. Howell]]. Howell has been a member of the Board of Directors of the [[American Legislative Exchange Council ]](ALEC), the nation’s largest bipartisan, individual membership association of state legislators <ref>http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.PressRelease&ID=216</ref>. <br />
<br />
===New Hampshire===<br />
<br />
Huckabee has picked up some key endorsements in the very significant primary in [[New Hampshire]]. In August 2007, New Hampshire's former Senator, Russell Prescott, and former Executive Councilor David Wheeler endorsed Huckabee<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>. Both figures remain very popular with social conservatives in the state<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/primarysource/2007/08/huckabee_endors.html</ref>. <br />
<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small>{{reflist|2}}</small><br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Huckabee, Mike}}<br />
[[Category:Political people]]<br />
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]<br />
[[Category:Republican Party]]<br />
[[Category:United States Governors]]<br />
<br />
== External Links ==<br />
* [http://www.mikehuckabee.com/ Mike Huckabee (official)]<br />
*[http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee Campaign Blog] <br />
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/ Grassroots Website]<br />
*[http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDA2NzhkZGI2ZjA4NWI2NmMyYzNkNjY1Y2QzMzlmYzA=Governors Win, The case for Mike Huckabee.], [[National Review]], S. T. Karnick, August 2007<br />
*[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24068 There’s a Huckabee Born Every Minute], [[Ann Coulter]], [[Human Events]], 12/19/2007<br />
<br />
==External Videos==<br />
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php Huckabee online video collection] <br />
===Supporter Videos===<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILPcnn9Sf94&eurl=http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.Home Huckabee - Cinderella Man]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwfzk5RSQy4&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=we_like_mike_huckabee We Like Mike - Huckabee]<br />
*[http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=i_heart_huckabee_colbert_stewart I heart Huckabee]<br />
===Personal Story=== <br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3YR3grKJ3Q&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=story_of_mike_huckabee Part 1]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8aBVYKpZNQ&feature=related Part 2]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VZufUe0HGs&feature=related Part 3]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tXZKfUg97o&feature=related Part 4]<br />
===Ads===<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjYv2YW6azE&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=chuck_norris_huckabee_facts "HuckChuckFacts"]<br />
<br />
===Speeches===<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysdguwpgNZ0&eurl=http://www.hucksarmy.com/video.php?video=huckabee_family_research-01 FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 1] <br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af5qyUzRT68&feature=related Value Voter Summit Speech Part 2]<br />
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5v_qB0VDNI&feature=related FRC's Value Voter Summit Speech Part 3]<br />
<br />
{{2008_presidential_candidates}}</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Health_Service&diff=364188National Health Service2008-01-04T17:33:42Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''National Health Service (NHS)''' is the [[United Kingdom]]'s socialized health care system. It was established in 1948 as part of [[Clement Attlee]]'s post-[[World War II]] [[Labour Party|Labour]] government's socialist program, and has been supported by politicians of every party since then.<br />
<br />
The NHS is nominally funded out of "National Insurance contributions", a form of personal taxation comparable to the US [[Social Security]] system. The NHS revenue stream is, in theory, entirely separate in operation from income tax.<ref>http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1394285&</ref> In practice, the NHS is funded from general taxation, and is accepted by the British electorate as being funded in this way. NHS treatment is available to all residents of the UK. Most services, including complex and expensive surgical procedures and drugs, are free at the point of use, and those that are not (such as the provision of glasses and dental care) are free to people on low incomes. This ensures that everyone is able to be treated, no matter what their individual wealth or means may be.<ref>http://www.nhs.uk/England/AboutTheNhs/Default.cmsx</ref> "Private" (i.e. non-NHS) doctors and hospitals do exist in Britain, but fewer than 10% of Britons choose to buy private health insurance in preference to using the NHS. (The big exception to this is in the area of dental care: NHS dentists are relatively difficult to find in many areas, and many people are forced to "go private", even if uninsured.)<br />
<br />
As a result of its comprehensive coverage, the resources of the NHS have been consistently tightly stretched for many years, leading to consequences such as lengthy waiting lists for surgery. This was the case in the 1980s and 1990s in particular. Since 1997, the NHS has benefited from substantially increased spending under the Labour Party, but there is a perception among many in Britain that the extra money has not been well spent or delivered appropriate improvements. However, it is noteworthy that when individuals are surveyed regarding their own experience of the NHS, the vast majority report positive experiences. <br />
<br />
The NHS is supported by politicians of all parties in the UK, but is widely regarded as the child of the Labour Party, and inspires particular affection in the supporters of this party.<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
::[http://www.nhs.uk/ NHS Official Homepage]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Health]]<br />
[[Category:United Kingdom]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democracy&diff=363599Democracy2008-01-03T22:32:19Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Elekcja Wola.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The free election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697, painted by Bernardo Bellotto.]]<br />
'''Democracy''' is a form of government. The origin of the term is [[Greek]], from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (strength). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation indirectly exercise sovereignty.<br />
<br />
The United States of America is guaranteed a [[republican form of government]]. However, their legislatures are an example of a democracy, in which the majority vote of the legislators enact law. The execution of those laws is by a separate branch of government, whose officers are appointed by the chief executive officer (president or governor). In parliamentary democracies, the executive and legislative branches are not separate.<br />
<br />
Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state. But however certain [[tribe]]s and most [[band societies]] such as the [[bushmen]] organised themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy. <ref>http://law.cua.edu/ComparativeLaw/Iroquois/</ref><br />
<br />
== Debate over the merits of democracy ==<br />
<br />
While a [[direct democracy]] in the manner of the Athenians is probably infeasible in a modern [[nation-state]] comprised of millions of [[citizens]], there continues to be debate among conservatives as to whether [[representative democracy]] is a desirable system. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who could be considered the father of both modern democracy and [[totalitarianism]], believed that in a democracy the government should be guided only by what he called the [[General Will]]. Other thinkers of the [[French]] [[Enlightenment]] described a [[republic]] as a system in which the law applies equally to the government and the people, a concept abbreviated in the [[21st century]] by the phrase [[rule of law]]. Most contemporary thinkers would identify [[universal suffrage]] and the right of any citizen to argue for a change in existing law as desirable features of democracy; but there is some question as to whether the rule of law can be indefinitely sustained in a system with these features. [[Thomas Jefferson]] believed that it could so long as the people were educated, and thus devoted his post-presidency to founding the [[University of Virginia]]. Nonetheless, property continued to be a proxy for education throughout the [[antebellum period]] and Jefferson's home state of [[Virginia]] only abolished [[property qualifications for voting]] in 1851, years after any other state. Another famous American said that a republic could last until "the people find out they have the right to vote themselves funds from the public treasury," an explicit criticism of the [[welfare state]], which most conservatives feel is an abuse of the [[U. S. Constitution]]'s [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].<br />
<br />
Democracy may have its problems; an uneducated populace, for example, is the bane of any democracy, since unless people know what they need, they can not properly elect people to serve these needs. Other problems emerge from a capricious electorate, which caused [[Winston Churchill]] to remark that, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the other forms that have been tried," a quote which eloquently notes that, despite its problems, democracy almost universally provides for peace and prosperity. Majoritarian systems are, however, problematic in that, in theory, they permit a majority to debase the welfare of a minority. In addition, inequalities in wealth can distort the principles of political equality, giving considerable power to the wealthy to control economic policy outside of electoral politics. This may curtail the practical power of groups to effect radical change and to enact measures which might threaten the wealth and power of these elites. For instance, no law has been passed in the USA in over 30 years that has been opposed by business leaders; this is not the case in the UK, where Labour policies such as the Minimum Wage have passed despite business opposition. Support for 'democracy' as a concept has proved problematic internationally for the USA; for instance, the Bush regime has opposed the Hamas and Chavez governments despite their democratic mandates: this aptly demonstrates Schumpeter's suggestion that all political groups will support democracy only as far as it serves other goals in which they are interested. <br />
<br />
== Evolution of Anglo-American democracy ==<br />
In the [[United States]], the current system of representative democracy evolved as a result of six major reforms:<br />
<br />
# The [[American Revolution]] which severed ties with the King of [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and endowed the people with the sovereign prerogatives that formerly belonged to the monarchy.<br />
# The [[U. S. Constitution]]'s creation of the [[House of Representatives]], a Federal government entity elected directly by the citizens, and retention of [[federalism]], the right of individual [[states]] to govern themselves and make their own laws.<br />
# The abolition of property qualifications for white male voters. This process, which was accomplished at the state level, took between 1820 and 1851 and is also known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]].<br />
# The [[Fifteenth Amendment]], which extended the [[franchise]] to former [[slaves]].<br />
# The [[Seventeenth Amendment]], which caused [[Senator|Senators]] to be elected directly by the citizens (they retained their six-year terms).<br />
# The [[Nineteenth Amendment]], which extended the franchise to [[women]].<br />
<br />
Of the six, the one which inspires the most opposition today is probably the Seventeenth Amendment, as the [[Founders]] explicitly intended [[state]] [[legislatures]] to choose U. S. Senators. Historically, however, the Fifteenth Amendment inspired the most opposition. Indeed, every state of the former [[Confederacy]] circumvented the Fifteenth Amendment between the end of [[Reconstruction]] and the passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], considered the ultimate guarantee of that Amendment. One of the principal means whereby it was circumvented was the creation of [[educational qualifications for voting]], which the 1965 act outlawed, according to interpretations of the [[Supreme Court]]. The other principal means was the [[poll tax]], which was outlawed in 1964 by the [[Twenty-Fourth Amendment]].<br />
<br />
In the [[United Kingdom]] during the same period of time, there were also six major reforms in the direction of democracy:<br />
<br />
# The [[1832 Reform Act]], which gave representation to the new [[industrial]] cities for the first time.<br />
# The [[1867 Reform Act]].<br />
# The [[1884 Reform Act]].<br />
# The [[1911 Parliament Act]], which ended the ability of the [[House of Lords]] to rein in spending by the [[Commons]].<br />
# The [[1918 Reform Act]], which made suffrage universal among males and extended it to women 30 years of age or older.<br />
# The [[1928 Reform Act]], which equalized voting ages for male and female at 21.<br />
<br />
It is noteworthy that it took the British 84 years to complete the process of abolishing property qualifications for voting (the first three Acts lowered the threshold incrementally) and that they only began to do so after Jacksonian Democracy emerged in the United States.<br />
<br />
While none of these Acts has sustained a serious movement for repeal, historically the one which inspired the strongest opposition was the 1911 Parliament Act. Not surprisingly, this opposition came from the House of Lords, the last body of unelected people to retain any legislative power in the British system. Ultimately, the bill passed only after King [[George V]] promised to create an unlimited number of new [[peers]] in order to pass it.<br />
<br />
The United States, United Kingdom, and other [[common law countries]] mostly utilize a [[first past the post system]] for elections. This limits the number of [[political parties]] and helps to stabilize the system, in contrast to democracies which use [[proportional representation]] such as [[Italy]], [[Germany]], [[France]], and [[Israel]], which have at times had over 10 parties represented in their [[legislatures]]. The latter system tends to increase the power of the [[political left]], although the [[Labour Party]] in Britain was able to edge out the [[centrist]] [[Liberal Party]] as the chief opposition to the [[Conservative Party]] as a result of the first five of the reforms listed above, without discarding the traditional system of elections.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
'''DEMOCRACY''' - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and<br />
is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a<br />
system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or<br />
oligarchy."<br />
<Ref> Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432</Ref><br />
<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Forms of Government]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Democracy&diff=363582Democracy2008-01-03T22:13:57Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Elekcja Wola.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The free election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697, painted by Bernardo Bellotto.]]<br />
'''Democracy''' is a form of government. The origin of the term is [[Greek]], from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (strength). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation indirectly exercise sovereignty.<br />
<br />
The United States of America is guaranteed a [[republican form of government]]. However, their legislatures are an example of a democracy, in which the majority vote of the legislators enact law. The execution of those laws is by a separate branch of government, whose officers are appointed by the chief executive officer (president or governor). In parliamentary democracies, the executive and legislative branches are not separate.<br />
<br />
Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state. But however certain [[tribe]]s and most [[band societies]] such as the [[bushmen]] organised themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy. <ref>http://law.cua.edu/ComparativeLaw/Iroquois/</ref><br />
<br />
== Debate over the merits of democracy ==<br />
<br />
While a [[direct democracy]] in the manner of the Athenians is probably infeasible in a modern [[nation-state]] comprised of millions of [[citizens]], there continues to be debate among conservatives as to whether [[representative democracy]] is a desirable system. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who could be considered the father of both modern democracy and [[totalitarianism]], believed that in a democracy the government should be guided only by what he called the [[General Will]]. Other thinkers of the [[French]] [[Enlightenment]] described a [[republic]] as a system in which the law applies equally to the government and the people, a concept abbreviated in the [[21st century]] by the phrase [[rule of law]]. Most contemporary thinkers would identify [[universal suffrage]] and the right of any citizen to argue for a change in existing law as desirable features of democracy; but there is some question as to whether the rule of law can be indefinitely sustained in a system with these features. [[Thomas Jefferson]] believed that it could so long as the people were educated, and thus devoted his post-presidency to founding the [[University of Virginia]]. Nonetheless, property continued to be a proxy for education throughout the [[antebellum period]] and Jefferson's home state of [[Virginia]] only abolished [[property qualifications for voting]] in 1851, years after any other state. Another famous American said that a republic could last until "the people find out they have the right to vote themselves funds from the public treasury," an explicit criticism of the [[welfare state]], which most conservatives feel is an abuse of the [[U. S. Constitution]]'s [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].<br />
<br />
Democracy may have its problems; an uneducated populace, for example, is the bane of any democracy, since unless people know what they need, they can not properly elect people to serve these needs. Other problems emerge from a capricious electorate, which caused [[Winston Churchill]] to remark that, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the other forms that have been tried." Majoritarian systems are, however, problematic in that, in theory, they permit a majority to debase the welfare of a minority. In addition, inequalities in wealth can distort the principles of political equality, giving considerable power to the wealthy to control economic policy outside of electoral politics. This may curtail the practical power of groups to effect radical change and to enact measures which might threaten the wealth and power of these elites. Socialists argue that a high degree of socio-economic equality is required for real political equality, but also contend that solidarity and fraternity may be sufficient to overcome the distorting effects of unequal wealth and enact pro-labor policies. <br />
<br />
== Evolution of Anglo-American democracy ==<br />
In the [[United States]], the current system of representative democracy evolved as a result of six major reforms:<br />
<br />
# The [[American Revolution]] which severed ties with the King of [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and endowed the people with the sovereign prerogatives that formerly belonged to the monarchy.<br />
# The [[U. S. Constitution]]'s creation of the [[House of Representatives]], a Federal government entity elected directly by the citizens, and retention of [[federalism]], the right of individual [[states]] to govern themselves and make their own laws.<br />
# The abolition of property qualifications for white male voters. This process, which was accomplished at the state level, took between 1820 and 1851 and is also known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]].<br />
# The [[Fifteenth Amendment]], which extended the [[franchise]] to former [[slaves]].<br />
# The [[Seventeenth Amendment]], which caused [[Senator|Senators]] to be elected directly by the citizens (they retained their six-year terms).<br />
# The [[Nineteenth Amendment]], which extended the franchise to [[women]].<br />
<br />
Of the six, the one which inspires the most opposition today is probably the Seventeenth Amendment, as the [[Founders]] explicitly intended [[state]] [[legislatures]] to choose U. S. Senators. Historically, however, the Fifteenth Amendment inspired the most opposition. Indeed, every state of the former [[Confederacy]] circumvented the Fifteenth Amendment between the end of [[Reconstruction]] and the passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], considered the ultimate guarantee of that Amendment. One of the principal means whereby it was circumvented was the creation of [[educational qualifications for voting]], which the 1965 act outlawed, according to interpretations of the [[Supreme Court]]. The other principal means was the [[poll tax]], which was outlawed in 1964 by the [[Twenty-Fourth Amendment]].<br />
<br />
In the [[United Kingdom]] during the same period of time, there were also six major reforms in the direction of democracy:<br />
<br />
# The [[1832 Reform Act]], which gave representation to the new [[industrial]] cities for the first time.<br />
# The [[1867 Reform Act]].<br />
# The [[1884 Reform Act]].<br />
# The [[1911 Parliament Act]], which ended the ability of the [[House of Lords]] to rein in spending by the [[Commons]].<br />
# The [[1918 Reform Act]], which made suffrage universal among males and extended it to women 30 years of age or older.<br />
# The [[1928 Reform Act]], which equalized voting ages for male and female at 21.<br />
<br />
It is noteworthy that it took the British 84 years to complete the process of abolishing property qualifications for voting (the first three Acts lowered the threshold incrementally) and that they only began to do so after Jacksonian Democracy emerged in the United States.<br />
<br />
While none of these Acts has sustained a serious movement for repeal, historically the one which inspired the strongest opposition was the 1911 Parliament Act. Not surprisingly, this opposition came from the House of Lords, the last body of unelected people to retain any legislative power in the British system. Ultimately, the bill passed only after King [[George V]] promised to create an unlimited number of new [[peers]] in order to pass it.<br />
<br />
The United States, United Kingdom, and other [[common law countries]] mostly utilize a [[first past the post system]] for elections. This limits the number of [[political parties]] and helps to stabilize the system, in contrast to democracies which use [[proportional representation]] such as [[Italy]], [[Germany]], [[France]], and [[Israel]], which have at times had over 10 parties represented in their [[legislatures]]. The latter system tends to increase the power of the [[political left]], although the [[Labour Party]] in Britain was able to edge out the [[centrist]] [[Liberal Party]] as the chief opposition to the [[Conservative Party]] as a result of the first five of the reforms listed above, without discarding the traditional system of elections.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
'''DEMOCRACY''' - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and<br />
is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a<br />
system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or<br />
oligarchy."<br />
<Ref> Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432</Ref><br />
<br />
<References/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Forms of Government]]</div>Jljb2https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=363573Socialism2008-01-03T21:53:36Z<p>Jljb2: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]<br />
'''Socialism''' is a system of governance based on the principles of solidarity, equality and liberty. It sees these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfil human potential. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, socialist movements have grown from Christian and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism emphasizes the prioritization of human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and notes the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances. <br />
<br />
==Key elements==<br />
<br />
As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" social policy or directly via nationalization and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income.<br />
<br />
Although socialist ideas such as the provision of unemployment benefit, state pensions, universal health care, and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years. <br />
<br />
While socialism has often been atheistic in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. Christian socialists have noted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common, the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles, the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need." Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,<br />
<br />
:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian. <br />
<br />
Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of Marxian Socialism is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref><br />
<br />
[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.<br />
<br />
Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].<br />
<br />
== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==<br />
<br />
At its inception, the Labour Party borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Consitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the Westminser model of British government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under Clement Atlee implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities. The best known example is the nationalization of health care to create the National Health Service (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care free at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.<br />
<br />
Today, Tony Blair's New Labour is virtually indistinguishable from the right-of-center Conservative Party, and is committed not to socialist economic planning but to the neo-liberal economics that characterised [[Margaret Thatcher]]'s premiership of the 1980s and [[John Major]]'s of the 1990s. Consequently, inequality overall has continued to increase under 'New' Labour since coming to power in 1997.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4989070.stm<ref><br />
<br />
The 'New' Labour Prime Minister of the [[United Kingdom]], Tony Blair, is an avowed Christian, who has responded to criticism of the UK's involvement in the [[Iraq war]] by claiming that only [[God]] could judge him for his actions. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4772142.stm</ref>.<br />
<br />
==World socialism==<br />
<br />
US liberal politicians often echo the rhetoric of world socialism: <ref>Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker Nancy Pelosi repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/05/29/unending_war Cal Thomas] Tuesday, May 29, 2007] </ref><br />
<br />
*"Because George W. Bush [is] among the most menacing and belligerent [presidents] in American history. [He has] outlined a program of limitless and perpetual warfare, on every continent, and against any regime that stands in the way of the rapacious American ruling class.... like Hitler and the Nazis, American militarism has embarked on a campaign of world conquest and world domination... [President Bush has issued] a declaration of the unbridled appetites of the military and of the most ruthless, corrupt and criminal sections of the American ruling elite ...Like Hitler, Bush presents an upside-down view of the world in which small and weak states are mortal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed..." (World Socialist Web Site, 31 January 2002)<br />
<br />
==Different strands of socialism==<br />
*[[Communism]]<br />
*[[Social democracy]]<br />
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)<br />
*[[Fascism]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<small><references/></small><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433. <br />
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>Jljb2