Why I'm A Liberal

Larry Allen (On Facebook)
January 14 at 12:19am •
Evidently, several iterations back this was started by a woman named Lori Gallagher Witt, the brilliance is hers:
An open letter to friends and family who are shocked to discover I'm a liberal... I've always been a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does.
Some of you suspected. Some of you were shocked. Many of you have known me for years, even the majority of my life. We either steadfastly avoided political topics, or I carefully steered conversations away from the more incendiary subjects in the name of keeping the peace. "I'm a liberal" isn't really something you broadcast in social circles where "the liberals" can't be said without wrinkling one's nose.
But then the 2016 election happened, and staying quiet wasn't an option anymore. Since then, I've received no shortage of emails and comments from people who were shocked, horrified, disappointed, disgusted, or otherwise displeased to realize I am *wrinkles nose* a liberal. Yep. I'm one of those bleeding heart commies who hates anyone who's white, straight, or conservative, and who wants the government to dictate everything you do while taking your money and giving it to people who don't work.
Or am I?
Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: Not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period.
2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.
3. I believe education should be affordable and accessible to everyone. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.
5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. I'm retired and on a fixed income, but I still pay taxes. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.
6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.
7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.
8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.
9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I'm not opposed to deporting people who are here illegally, but I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).
10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.
11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.
12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.
13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is sensible policies, including background checks, that just MIGHT save one person’s, perhaps a toddler’s, life by the hand of someone who should not have a gun. (Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine).
14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?
15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.
16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?
I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.
So, I'm a liberal.

Original Quill wrote:Most liberals are problem solvers, sometimes wrong, but very often succeeding.  Implicit in this is that they represent the common interest.

Conservatives, by contrast, serve the special, or privileged interests, and their ethic is selfishness.

Maddog wrote:Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Most liberals are problem solvers, sometimes wrong, but very often succeeding.  Implicit in this is that they represent the common interest.

Conservatives, by contrast, serve the special, or privileged interests, and their ethic is selfishness.

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

That sounds like something I might say if I felt guilty about being selfish, actually.

Here's a question for you -- if it's morally defensible to "steal" (tax) people's income/wealth to provide for a common national defense, why isn't it moral to tax the people to provide for a common defense against hunger and disease?

Our homeland has been the site of foreign attacks exactly three times in over two centuries. Seems to me, we need a lot more protection against hunger and disease than we do against foreign invaders.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

So how much approval from my fellow man do you expect I get as a liberal around here?

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

That sounds like something I might say if I felt guilty about being selfish, actually.

Here's a question for you -- if it's morally defensible to "steal" (tax) people's income/wealth to provide for a common national defense, why isn't it moral to tax the people to provide for a common defense against hunger and disease?

Our homeland has been the site of foreign attacks exactly three times in over two centuries. Seems to me, we need a lot more protection against hunger and disease than we do against foreign invaders.

Seems to me we need a lot less spending in both areas.  


At least under the threat of imprisonment.  

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

So how much approval from my fellow man do you expect I get as a liberal around here?

Beats me. How much do you need?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Seems to me we need a lot less spending in both areas.  


At least under the threat of imprisonment.  

Well, if we had universal health care, the average American would spend a lot less on it. So you're on board with that?

And don't think I didn't notice you not answering my question

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Beats me. How much do you need?

Okay, living in conservative Tarrant County, being a liberal is definitely not something you do to be lavished with approval.

As far as how much I need -- well, I started a forum and love to see my name in print, so you can draw your own conclusions

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Seems to me we need a lot less spending in both areas.  


At least under the threat of imprisonment.  

Well, if we had universal health care, the average American would spend a lot less on it. So you're on board with that?

And don't think I didn't notice you not answering my question

I'm all for voluntary universal healthcare.  

And I'm shoving street tacos down my selfish, self absorbed pie hole so I'm being a bit brief.  

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Beats me. How much do you need?

Okay, living in conservative Tarrant County, being a liberal is definitely not something you do to be lavished with approval.

As far as how much I need -- well, I started a forum and love to see my name in print, so you can draw your own conclusions

Are you Bob Ray Sanders?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you Bob Ray Sanders?

No, but I've met him and he's a good dude.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Are you Bob Ray Sanders?

No, but I've met him and he's a good dude.

No doubt.  I know lots of good liberals.  They're just wrong, not bad.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:
No doubt.  I know lots of good liberals.  They're just wrong, not bad.  

Sure, that's why liberal-to-the-core countries in Scandinavia, along with places like Denmark and Switzerland and New Zealand, have the happiest citizens in the world, while lawless places like Somalia are war-torn hellscapes.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

That sounds like something I might say if I felt guilty about being selfish, actually.

Here's a question for you -- if it's morally defensible to "steal" (tax) people's income/wealth to provide for a common national defense, why isn't it moral to tax the people to provide for a common defense against hunger and disease?

Our homeland has been the site of foreign attacks exactly three times in over two centuries. Seems to me, we need a lot more protection against hunger and disease than we do against foreign invaders.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Most liberals are problem solvers, sometimes wrong, but very often succeeding.  Implicit in this is that they represent the common interest.

Conservatives, by contrast, serve the special, or privileged interests, and their ethic is selfishness.

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

It's a free country, Red.  Or would you rather just have censorship rights for yourself.

I remember an old drinking toast by a libertarian:

Here's to you, and here's to me,
Let's hope we never disagree,
But if we do...fuck you,
And here's to me!

Maddog wrote:
Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:
Most liberals are problem solvers, sometimes wrong, but very often succeeding.  Implicit in this is that they represent the common interest.

Conservatives, by contrast, serve the special, or privileged interests, and their ethic is selfishness.

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:
Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

Total bullshit there, Maddog...

Why is it, do you think, that you constantly come across as someone strongly opposed to helping the poor, the unemployed, the sick and disabled ???

You claim to champion the individual, the entrepreneur and the go-getter --  yet you support those small gov't and low tax policies that work against average workers, small businesses, everyday farmers and fishers, local communities, the environment at large, public health  --  while efectively favouring big business, corporate parasites, the warmongers and the environmental vandals.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

Typical Maddog;  not adressing the uncomfotable truths...

The Libertarians had a run at governing the USA back in the 18th and 19th centuries, and look at some of their core policies --  keeping African slaves was encouraged --  indeed, several of them were slave-owners themselves;   institutionalised mass-killings of native Americans while stealing their lands and resources;   natives, slaves and "coloured" people were labelled as sub-human or 'savages', disenfranchised so that "good God-fearing white folks" could settle and prosper..

And the poor, the sick and the disabled were left to starve and die in the streets.

Maddog's noble 'Libertarian' ideals sure had some noble, charitable and honourable foundations there  --  but at least his corporate masters' forebears were able to steal lots of riches at other peoples expense..

All those 'Libertarians' had to do was label their victims as "savages, sub-human, uncivilised, unproductive, worthless"...

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

That sounds like something I might say if I felt guilty about being selfish, actually.

Here's a question for you -- if it's morally defensible to "steal" (tax) people's income/wealth to provide for a common national defense, why isn't it moral to tax the people to provide for a common defense against hunger and disease?

Our homeland has been the site of foreign attacks exactly three times in over two centuries. Seems to me, we need a lot more protection against hunger and disease than we do against foreign invaders.

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:Most liberals are virtue signalers seeking approval from their fellow man while doing nothing for their fellow man except declaring themselves morally superior.

That sounds like something I might say if I felt guilty about being selfish, actually.

Here's a question for you -- if it's morally defensible to "steal" (tax) people's income/wealth to provide for a common national defense, why isn't it moral to tax the people to provide for a common defense against hunger and disease?

Our homeland has been the site of foreign attacks exactly three times in over two centuries. Seems to me, we need a lot more protection against hunger and disease than we do against foreign invaders.

Steal?

Your defense is selfish, as its based on helping a select group of people

Only Americans with health care?

The US has always been strong and had the capabilities to also provide health care to other nations, because of its military strengh.

Do you not see that?

Its not just about the defense of the boundaries you live within

Whilst there is many dictatosr and human right abuser nations in the world. The world more than anything needs a military strong American to keep that threat in check and help protect many other nations.

Quill speaks about how Liberals are compassionate, but they are also blind to issues and allow human rights abuses to continue unabated around the world

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Steal?

Your defense is selfish, as its based on helping a select group of people

Only Americans with health care?

The US has always been strong and had the capabilities to also provide health care to other nations, because of its military strengh.

Do you not see that?

Its not just about the defense of the boundaries you live within

Whilst there is many dictatosr and human right abuser nations in the world. The world more than anything needs a military strong American to keep that threat in check and help protect many other nations.

Quill speaks about how Liberals are compassionate, but they are also blind to issues and allow human rights abuses to continue unabated around the world

Dude, my post was targeted to this Fairmount trash. I was trying to prompt something from him, not that he'll listen with his beardedness and his bike-riding

Wolf wrote:Typical Maddog; not adressing the uncomfotable truths...

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I mention virtue signalling and look who shows up.  Almost like one of Pavlovs dogs.  .  

It's a free country, Red.  Or would you rather just have censorship rights for yourself.

I remember an old drinking toast by a libertarian:

Here's to you, and here's to me,
Let's hope we never disagree,
But if we do...fuck you,
And here's to me!

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Steal?

Your defense is selfish, as its based on helping a select group of people

Only Americans with health care?

The US has always been strong and had the capabilities to also provide health care to other nations, because of its military strengh.

Do you not see that?

Its not just about the defense of the boundaries you live within

Whilst there is many dictatosr and human right abuser nations in the world. The world more than anything needs a military strong American to keep that threat in check and help protect many other nations.

Quill speaks about how Liberals are compassionate, but they are also blind to issues and allow human rights abuses to continue unabated around the world

Dude, my post was targeted to this Fairmount trash. I was trying to prompt something from him, not that he'll listen with his beardedness and his bike-riding

Original Quill wrote:

Wolf wrote:Typical Maddog;  not adressing the uncomfotable truths...

Maddog is an avoider.  Notice he doesn't follow the topic very well.

That is because he backs an unpopular political theory, favors an unpopular racism, and incurs the wrath of most everyone.

So he avoids most serious subjects, and limits himself to worthless personal snipes.  

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog is an avoider.  Notice he doesn't follow the topic very well.

That is because he backs an unpopular political theory, favors an unpopular racism, and incurs the wrath of most everyone.

So he avoids most serious subjects, and limits himself to worthless personal snipes.  

I agree my political  views are not popular.  

Doesn't bother me in the least.  

Original Quill wrote:

Wolf wrote:Typical Maddog;  not adressing the uncomfotable truths...

Maddog is an avoider.  Notice he doesn't follow the topic very well.

That is because he backs an unpopular political theory, favors an unpopular racism, and incurs the wrath of most everyone.

So he avoids most serious subjects, and limits himself to worthless personal snipes.  

Jules wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog is an avoider.  Notice he doesn't follow the topic very well.

That is because he backs an unpopular political theory, favors an unpopular racism, and incurs the wrath of most everyone.

So he avoids most serious subjects, and limits himself to worthless personal snipes.  

He's entitled to his views and I can understand his annoyance at the govt trying to control people's lives and demanding too much tax etc.


But concern for the less fortunate is the glue that has kept our species alive  - and currently keeps communities together, and functional.

A libertarian should remember that some of his ancestors may have been born 'on the wrong side of the tracks' and if so, ... without society's care and compassion he would not exist today.

Maddog wrote:

Jules wrote:

He's entitled to his views and I can understand his annoyance at the govt trying to control people's lives and demanding too much tax etc.


But concern for the less fortunate is the glue that has kept our species alive  - and currently keeps communities together, and functional.

A libertarian should remember that some of his ancestors may have been born 'on the wrong side of the tracks' and if so, ... without society's care and compassion he would not exist today.

Government is force, not compassion.  
Society voluntarily helping others is compassion.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Government is force, not compassion.  
Society voluntarily helping others is compassion.  

Government helping with the compassion, is a moral force.  Charity is just a steam valve for the selfish.  Government should be responsible for external protection, and internally, for healthcare, public protections and essential services.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Government helping with the compassion, is a moral force.  Charity is just a steam valve for the selfish.  Government should be responsible for external protection, and internally, for healthcare, public protections and essential services.

Government requires force.  

You keep ignoring that gigantic elephant in the room.  

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Government requires force.  

You keep ignoring that gigantic elephant in the room.  

All collective action requires ultimate authority, just as all cartels require strict obedience.  Otherwise, 'free riders' will take benefits, yet not return what the group needs, causing the group to fall apart.  Mancur Olsen, The Logic of Collective Action.  So government has to become forceful.  You don't have that choice.

But, if there's no government, a collective will occur naturally and become the government.  That's because two are stronger than one; and three, all the more so; and so on.  The only question is, do you want to help craft and shape the collective?  In a democracy you have that choice.  So, if you pitch in and bend the effort toward compassion, you will have a benevolent government, dedicated to whatever you want.

Your problem is that you have a negative impression of any government.  You equate any authority with evil.  You are suspicious of any collective action.  But, without collective action, you cannot achieve the higher pursuits of mankind.  And once again, you don't have a choice.  It's either your government, or someone else's government will rule over you.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

All collective action requires ultimate authority, just as all cartels require strict obedience.  Otherwise, 'free riders' will take benefits, yet not return what the group needs, causing the group to fall apart.  Mancur Olsen, The Logic of Collective Action.  So government has to become forceful.  You don't have that choice.

But, if there's no government, a collective will occur naturally and become the government.  That's because two are stronger than one; and three, all the more so; and so on.  The only question is, do you want to help craft and shape the collective?  In a democracy you have that choice.  So, if you pitch in and bend the effort toward compassion, you will have a benevolent government, dedicated to whatever you want.

Your problem is that you have a negative impression of any government.  You equate any authority with evil.  You are suspicious of any collective action.  But, without collective action, you cannot achieve the higher pursuits of mankind.  And once again, you don't have a choice.  It's either your government, or someone else's government will rule over you.

I don't like force.  

Who killed Eric Garner and why is he dead?  What was the great injustice he perpetrated against society?  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:


I don't like force.  

Who killed Eric Garner and why is he dead?  What was the great injustice he perpetrated against society?  

Not a Jedi fan then?

Poor argument though mate,

How and why can you linger on wrongs done, as if this then dispels the need to do what is right to protect people?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not a Jedi fan then?

Poor argument though mate,

How and why can you linger on wrongs done, as if this then dispels the need to do what is right to protect people?

What Was Eric Garner doing that was a threat to people?

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What Was Eric Garner doing that was a threat to people?

I have no idea

Is that your only defense?

How many times have people who are a threat been stopped?

Have you weighed this up?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


I have no idea

Is that your only defense?

How many times have people who are a threat been stopped?

Have you weighed this up?

My point is, that government is force, and it will use that force against people that it doesn't need to, under the guise of doing the collective good. I think being somewhat of a skeptic in terms of government is probably a good idea. It's a very dangerous and powerful entity.  

I brought up Garner for a reason. If you don't know what he was doing when he got killed, then you won't know how his death relates to the topic.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My point is, that government is force, and it will use that force against people that it doesn't need to, under the guise of doing the collective good. I think being somewhat of a skeptic in terms of government is probably a good idea. It's a very dangerous and powerful entity.  

I brought up Garner for a reason. If you don't know what he was doing when he got killed, then you won't know how his death relates to the topic.  

So let me ask you one simple question

Did you respect your parents or rebel against them?

It does not matter if you are a skeptive, have you weighed up how many bad people have been stopped, based againstg Garner?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


So let me ask you one simple question

Did you respect your parents or rebel against them?

It does not matter if you are a skeptive, have you weighed up how many bad people have been stopped, based againstg Garner?

Both

I know a great deal of bad people have been stopped. This isn't about stopping bad people though.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Both

I know a great deal of bad people have been stopped. This isn't about stopping bad people though.  

Actually it is mate

You are basing your defense off this one case are you not?

You sound like me growing up, but the point is here, is that you are not weighing this up.

You will look at things wrong and try to use this to denounce something, never looking at the massive amount of times that it has worked