Quote:
Originally posted by eple
liberal
adj 1: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad
"tolerant of his opponent's
opinions" [syn: broad, tolerant]
There ya go
|
Sadly the dictionary is woefully lacking
Basically in US political speak a liberal is someone who thinks the government is the solution to societies problems, the rights of the individual are secondary to the rights of the state, and all property is subject to the government need. Then there are also hot button, one issue voter types on subjects like abortion, drug legalization, the environment etc.
Conservatives in US political speak are basically people who think that individual rights are more important then government control. Government functions should be limited to making the country run (defense, infrastructure, and the like). Property and wealth are not communal as making it so will discourage growth. Then there are hot button, one issue voters, on things like school prayer, abortion, gun control, etc.
Its important not to confuse liberal/conservatives with one issue voters. There are people who vote because of an issue like abortion, without regard to the rest of the parties stance. Likewise there are people who would say they are liberal or conservative, but not agree with the 'majority' of liberals/conservatives on some hot button issues.
An ideal liberal world is a society that works together, for the good of all, and takes care of the 'weaker' individuals in the society. Altruism is basically the driving force of the land.
An ideal conservative world, is a society where the individual is rewarded on his own efforts and is rewarded based on his merit. Society is held together by mutual benefits of trade. You need milk and I have a cow, I need lumber and you have an axe.
Both ideals fall apart when human nature takes over.
A liberal society can fail in that most people are naturally lazy. If you are rewarded for not working, more and more people will not work. Those that do work get larger and larger burdens put upon them to support those who don't. This creates resentment, and discourages people from trying. Since rewards are not tied directly to effort, very difficult fields of work suffer as people don't think its worth the effort to excel.
A conservative society can fail in that unscrupulous individuals can exploit others for their own gain. The mutual benefit of working together is replaced by a zero sum game.
This is why I am a conservative, who likes some government controls/programs. Any society that takes greater reward out of risk taking and harder work is doomed to mediocrity, but that doesn’t mean that some things can’t be done well by the government. Grants and loans for education are good, because it encourages a higher level of effort and allows those who do not come from wealth a greater chance to get it and contribute to society. Welfare to non-working individuals is bad because it simply enforces a lack of effort. Government oversight of finances and monopolies is good because it prevents exploitation and ensures competition. Government demanding who businesses can hire and fire is bad because it allows non-productive workers remain and creates resentment.