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.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


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

My point was, that there is enough force used by government, against enough people that should be left alone, to hardly consider government "compassionate". Government resorts to force to often, when people don't act the way that government wants them too. That's hardy compassion.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

My point was, that there is enough force used by government, against enough people that should be left alone, to hardly consider government "compassionate". Government resorts to force to often, when people don't act the way that government wants them too. That's hardy compassion.  

Well again you are not weighing this up are you?

Ask yourself, would you mind being stopped? I would not, its only people at odds with this that generally create situations.

Is that not true?

The point is Maddog, you think at times selfishly and not collectivelly

As you have never stopped and asked yourself how many bad people have been stopped

Its only when its wrong that people take notice, like with Garner.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well again you are not weighing this up are you?

Ask yourself, would you mind being stopped? I would not, its only people at odds with this that generally create situations.

Is that not true?

The point is Maddog, you think at times selfishly and not collectivelly

As you have never stopped and asked yourself how many bad people have been stopped

Its only when its wrong that people take notice, like with Garner.

Yes, I'm weighing this up. Government is force, not compassion. Compassion is me helping you because I want to, not because people with guns will show up if I don't help you.  

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Yes, I'm weighing this up. Government is force, not compassion. Compassion is me helping you because I want to, not because people with guns will show up if I don't help you.  

I know you are compassionate

In the Uk with have compssion, we have the NHS

The point is though, you have not weighed this up

Again I ask, how many bad people have been stopped?

How many people are now alive because of that?

In the UK, the intelligence service and Police have thwarted many threats

How many people would be dead if they had not?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


I know you are compassionate

In the Uk with have compssion, we have the NHS

The point is though, you have not weighed this up

Again I ask, how many bad people have been stopped?

How many people are now alive because of that?

In the UK, the intelligence service and Police have thwarted many threats

How many people would be dead if they had not?

You're points are not what I'm talking about though. I'm not saying we shouldn't have police to stop people from harming others.

What I'm saying is, don't pat yourself on the back and call yourself compassionate because you support high levels of taxation, enforced by people with guns. I think most of those taxes are unnecessary, and therefore the force used to collect them is also unnecessary. I also think a large number of regulations are unnecessary, and enforcing them is not an example of compassion and often leads to harm of some sort of harm against those that run afoul of those regulations.    

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're points are not what I'm talking about though. I'm not saying we shouldn't have police to stop people from harming others.

What I'm saying is, don't pat yourself on the back and call yourself compassionate because you support high levels of taxation, enforced by people with guns. I think most of those taxes are unnecessary, and therefore the force used to collect them is also unnecessary. I also think a large number of regulations are unnecessary, and enforcing them is not an example of compassion and often leads to harm of some sort of harm against those that run afoul of those regulations.    

That is because you are deliberatly ignoring facts mate.

You have now moved the goal posts here and have changed the direction on what was being discussed

I agree in that there is too many regulations, so what on earth possessed you to bring up garner. If you believe the Police should be able to stop people?

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is because you are deliberatly ignoring facts mate.

You have now moved the goal posts here and have changed the direction on what was being discussed

I agree in that there is too many regulations, so what on earth possessed you to bring up garner. If you believe the Police should be able to stop people?

No, I haven't moved anything. The point I was making was that liberals consider themselves more moral and compassionate because they support more government and they equate government with compassion.

Garner was stopped because he was operating outside of the taxing regulations for selling cigarettes. He wasn't harming anyone.

Maddog wrote:

Didge wrote:


I know you are compassionate

In the Uk with have compssion, we have the NHS

The point is though, you have not weighed this up

Again I ask, how many bad people have been stopped?

How many people are now alive because of that?

In the UK, the intelligence service and Police have thwarted many threats

How many people would be dead if they had not?

You're points are not what I'm talking about though. I'm not saying we shouldn't have police to stop people from harming others.

What I'm saying is, don't pat yourself on the back and call yourself compassionate because you support high levels of taxation, enforced by people with guns. I think most of those taxes are unnecessary, and therefore the force used to collect them is also unnecessary. I also think a large number of regulations are unnecessary, and enforcing them is not an example of compassion and often leads to harm of some sort of harm against those that run afoul of those regulations.    

veya_victaous wrote:Maybe its the whole tea tax thing that makes some Americans have this illogical phobia of taxes

it's hard to understand maddog's thinking, I don't think any of us from the UK or Aus would be willing to swap to the Current US system with lower taxes and no services let alone one with even less.

Didge wrote:

Maddog wrote:

No, I haven't moved anything. The point I was making was that liberals consider themselves more moral and compassionate because they support more government and they equate government with compassion.

Garner was stopped because he was operating outside of the taxing regulations for selling cigarettes. He wasn't harming anyone.

You mean some do and that you are also guilty of this yourself.

I just think you are anti rules and like me was rebellious growing up.

Have you weighed up what would happen if these rules were taken away?

You really think selling smokes to people is not harming them?

Seriously?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

You're points are not what I'm talking about though. I'm not saying we shouldn't have police to stop people from harming others.

What I'm saying is, don't pat yourself on the back and call yourself compassionate because you support high levels of taxation, enforced by people with guns. I think most of those taxes are unnecessary, and therefore the force used to collect them is also unnecessary. I also think a large number of regulations are unnecessary, and enforcing them is not an example of compassion and often leads to harm of some sort of harm against those that run afoul of those regulations.    

More unsocial and uncaring self-centred Maddog crappola...

Let big business mine where they like, cut down forests willy nilly, dump all their shit in our oceans, kill all the fish and dolphins they like, foul up our air and water..

Steal land and resources off others, turn a blind eye to slavery, broken treaties and fake wars to secure oil, coal and minerals.   Anything to allow business to make more and more profits.

Just as long as it doesn't harm Maddog, his family and friends, and their immediate neighbours..

veya_victaous wrote:Maybe its the whole tea tax thing that makes some Americans have this illogical phobia of taxes

it's hard to understand maddog's thinking, I don't think any of us from the UK or Aus would be willing to swap to the Current US system with lower taxes and no services let alone one with even less.

Maddog wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Maybe its the whole tea tax thing that makes some Americans have this illogical phobia of taxes

it's hard to understand maddog's thinking, I don't think any of us from the UK or Aus would be willing to swap to the Current US system with lower taxes and no services let alone one with even less.

It's very difficult for foreigners to understand my thinking.  You have been conditioned from birth to think government is the solution to all problems.  

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's very difficult for foreigners to understand my thinking.  You have been conditioned from birth to think government is the solution to all problems.  

We have been conditioned from birth to believe many things that are meant to keep us controlled.

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.

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:

veya_victaous wrote:Maybe its the whole tea tax thing that makes some Americans have this illogical phobia of taxes

it's hard to understand maddog's thinking, I don't think any of us from the UK or Aus would be willing to swap to the Current US system with lower taxes and no services let alone one with even less.

It's very difficult for foreigners to understand my thinking.  You have been conditioned from birth to think government is the solution to all problems.  

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Maybe its the whole tea tax thing that makes some Americans have this illogical phobia of taxes

it's hard to understand maddog's thinking, I don't think any of us from the UK or Aus would be willing to swap to the Current US system with lower taxes and no services let alone one with even less.

The problem is that America, historically, missed the whole wave of socialism that passed over Europe.  Lichtheim argues that this was because, while Europe felt the walls closing around them, America had the endless frontier and no pressure was brought on Americans to socialize.  Bad luck?  They just moved on.

Without closed walls, and a socialist wave, Americans don't understand any need for answers to hard questions.  They have no understanding of hardship, like disability, race, age, etc.  They see no need for restraints whatsoever.  That ethos, they call freedom.

Take a look at a typical American's opinion on healthcare:



Notice the emphasis on 'choosing'?  That's America, which hasn't faced hardship.
It's choices, not walls.  The framing is freedom.  Americans have an endless frontier.

Notice also the reliance on 'profit'?  He's arguing life and death, yet profit comes before anything.  Corporate capitalism is the paramount concern; only after that comes life and death.  This is the result of American never having to go through any hardship.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The problem is that America, historically, missed the whole wave of socialism that passed over Europe.  Lichtheim argues that this was because, while Europe felt the walls closing around them, America had the endless frontier and no pressure was brought on Americans to socialize.  Bad luck?  They just moved on.

Without closed walls, and a socialist wave, Americans don't understand any need for answers to hard questions.  They have no understanding of hardship, like disability, race, age, etc.  They see no need for restraints whatsoever.  That ethos, they call freedom.

Take a look at a typical American's opinion on healthcare:



Notice the emphasis on 'choosing'?  That's America, which hasn't faced hardship.
It's choices, not walls.  The framing is freedom.  Americans have an endless frontier.

Notice also the reliance on 'profit'?  He's arguing life and death, yet profit comes before anything.  Corporate capitalism is the paramount concern; only after that comes life and death.  This is the result of American never having to go through any hardship.

that alone doesn't explain it since Australia and New Zealand have the open space too, there is some condition of the American to make them trust Corporations more than their own vote.

look at Maddog's conspiracy nut like aversion to democratically elected gov't, it's more than just physical space that created this peculiar psychology. I think it comes down to Generations of enslavement to the Corporations and the Brainwashing that come with it.

I think the hardship thing might be true and is why African Americans tend to be less Libertarian, Like Aussies, if you have  Ancestors that suffered the Abuse of 'the Wealthy unchecked by Gov't'  it is obvious that a pure market system means the majority live in misery

veya_victaous wrote:how is a war relevant?

how many Native Americans died during the invasion of the Americas?

veya wrote:that alone doesn't explain it since Australia and New Zealand have the open space too, there is some condition of the American to make them trust Corporations more than their own vote.

Turner Thesis Summary wrote:Turner thinks that frontier is the main reason why America is the way it is today. With America expanding to the west and taking over, it was their job to adapt to the new environment. He focuses on the past and how people were fascinated with the frontier and the way the American West made people think about politics, economics, and culture and religion.
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Turner-Thesis-Summary-1395422.html

Original Quill wrote:

veya wrote:that alone doesn't explain it since Australia and New Zealand have the open space too, there is some condition of the American to make them trust Corporations more than their own vote.

I agree with you, but Oz and Kiwi were too weak and in the sphere and influence of Great Britain.  I think what Lichtheim means is not just the physical geography of the US (which, really, wouldn't make much sense), but that the US was smitten by the idea of expansionism.

The concept of the “endless frontier” is more of an attitude, than a physical feature.  The idea of an endless frontier was that of Fredrick Jackson Turner, in his essay "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" (1893) [later shortened to “Frontier Thesis”]:

Turner Thesis Summary wrote:Turner thinks that frontier is the main reason why America is the way it is today. With America expanding to the west and taking over, it was their job to adapt to the new environment. He focuses on the past and how people were fascinated with the frontier and the way the American West made people think about politics, economics, and culture and religion.
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Turner-Thesis-Summary-1395422.html

I think what happened when the US encountered the kind of pressures that, in Europe, led to the walls closing in, the citizen of the US could just leave.  Like the Chicago Cardinals, if the competition is too rough, move to St. Louis...and then to Phoenix.  Each of these communities offered opportunities all over again.

New Zealand, Oz and Canada have never undergone that expansionism.  They rode the coattails and mimicked the UK, until the practical dissolution of the Commonwealth.  The UK was going off of the European experience.

Frankly, today it’s anomalous that Oz, Kiwi and Canada have such sophisticated healthcare systems, having never felt the real need for it.  They were ordered by moma to do that.  You are lucky.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I agree with you, but Oz and Kiwi were too weak and in the sphere and influence of Great Britain.  I think what Lichtheim means is not just the physical geography of the US (which, really, wouldn't make much sense), but that the US was smitten by the idea of expansionism.

The concept of the “endless frontier” is more of an attitude, than a physical feature.  The idea of an endless frontier was that of Fredrick Jackson Turner, in his essay "The Significance of the Frontier in American History" (1893) [later shortened to “Frontier Thesis”]:


I think what happened when the US encountered the kind of pressures that, in Europe, led to the walls closing in, the citizen of the US could just leave.  Like the Chicago Cardinals, if the competition is too rough, move to St. Louis...and then to Phoenix.  Each of these communities offered opportunities all over again.

New Zealand, Oz and Canada have never undergone that expansionism.  They rode the coattails and mimicked the UK, until the practical dissolution of the Commonwealth.  The UK was going off of the European experience.

Frankly, today it’s anomalous that Oz, Kiwi and Canada have such sophisticated healthcare systems, having never felt the real need for it.  They were ordered by moma to do that.  You are lucky.

America was founded by risk takers. If they wanted to play it safe, they would never have left where they were.

veya_victaous wrote:yeah, wasn't America founded by those that were fleeing the religious reformations of Europe so they could be 'puritans' and follow the bible again.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

America was founded by risk takers. If they wanted to play it safe, they would never have left where they were.

Bull shite.  Where did you hear that fairy tale?  There you go with the notion of free choice.  Freedom...  They never had it.

veya_victaous wrote:yeah, wasn't America founded by those that were fleeing the religious reformations of Europe so they could be 'puritans' and follow the bible again.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Bull shite.  Where did you hear that fairy tale?  There you go with the notion of free choice.  Freedom...  They never had it.

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

What the fuck are you babbling about now?

You're like a kid in a calculus class, when you should have signed up for arithmetic.

Maddog wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:


More unsocial and uncaring self-centred Maddog crappola...

Let big business mine where they like, cut down forests willy nilly, dump all their shit in our oceans, kill all the fish and dolphins they like, foul up our air and water..

Steal land and resources off others, turn a blind eye to slavery, broken treaties and fake wars to secure oil, coal and minerals.   Anything to allow business to make more and more profits.

Just as long as it doesn't harm Maddog, his family and friends, and their immediate neighbours..

Oh my you're such a good human.  You seem very impressed with yourself.

Why do you keep bringing up slavery? I want people to be left alone, you don't.  

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Oh my you're such a good human.  You seem very impressed with yourself.

Why do you keep bringing up slavery? I want people to be left alone, you don't.  

You don't half spout a load of pure bullshit every time you have no answers to your opponents, Maddog...

You claim to be opposed to slavery and want to follow a "no harm" policy..

And then you regress into claiming to be a Libertarian --  totally ignoring American history, where your leading Libertarian politicians were some of the biggest slave owners, and were strongly behind the American-Indian wars.

No wonder you consistently whitewash American history and attempt to ignore the "Libertarians" pst history..

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You're like a kid in a calculus class, when you should have signed up for arithmetic.

Still babbling about nothing. You're really starting to bore me.  

Maddog wrote:

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

I'm on the north side of Magnolia so I'm Near Southside trash.  

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I'm on the north side of Magnolia so I'm Near Southside trash.  

Close enough. When the winds blow from the south in the summer, I'm sure you're smelling plenty of quinoa and kombucha along with the usual burning Mexican garbage.