Repost:

[weswilson]

I posted this as a reply in another forum after I had been called a liberal. I'd like some opinions, here.

---

I'm a die-hard center-of-the-road moderate.

I believe in the right to bear arms, but I also believe in that "well-regulated" part. I believe that weapons of indescriminate destruction are not covered in that right. A barrel of toxic sludge could be considered "arms" in the right hands, but that does not give you the right to store it in your basement next door.

I believe in capitalism and free enterprise. But I also believe that the keystone to capitalism is competition. Competition is what makes capitalism into the ideal tool to distribute limited resources to the public. The removal of competition is not capitalism... it is (edited:) a form of command economy. I believe the military budget is a command economy. I believe it is communist.

I believe that humanity should have a safety net for its citizens. We produce enough in this country to provide for those who fall between the cracks. The Phillips Curve insists that some people MUST fall through the cracks for our dollar to keep its value. If we had 100% employment, our dollar would inflate infinitely and lose its value. It is a moral and just thing to take care of those who help the economy by staying poor. Period.

I believe that it is in corporations best interest to remove competition. Thus, corporate self-interest is not inherantly tied to a good capitalistic economy. The obvious tool to turn loose on these enemies of free trade is the goverment. With the might of the masses at the throats of the oligarchical economists, we have natural preditors feeding on one another... and the public is served. Remember, no matter what Mises tells you, competition = capitalism.

I believe that certain things are the inevitable job of the goverment. I propose reducing government if all possible, but the moment that the potency of the "will of the people" is reduced, we have one ravenous predator who is unchecked by the other. It is always in our best interest to have an organized force of unionized americans, but we should never get them wet and we should never feed them after midnight.

Do I sound like a liberal to you?

Comments

[rubberella.livejournal.com]

as with any opinion and/or thought, the impression one leaves is only within the eye of the beholder and/or the audience. how they interpet what is being would be based on their belief system and what they have learned throughout life not on what one person says or tells them. What may seem liberal to me, may not seem liberal to someone else.

As I'm reading through your points, there are some points that i myself would consider a bit more liberal than I believe, but does that mean you're a liberal? yes and no. Your points can give one the impression of having a liberal opinion, but to someone else it could be considered moderate, and even right winged...so it's really the perception people have of you and your beliefs than actually being part of one broad group.

*hope this makes some sort of sense*

[weswilson]

That makes absolute sense. I will append your comment with one caveat, however.

Lately, the term liberal has been placed on the precipice of a very slippery slope. One push into liberal, and you are considered to be in a deep, dark hole of america-hating venom. Traditionally, the opinions I've listed here are considered very moderate and often border on conservative, and yet I find myself unfairly catagorized based on a small portion of my beliefs. For instance, I would not consider someone who was pro-iraq war to be a right-wing, bible-wielding, gay-bashing, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty idealogue with a deep desire to turn the Middle East into a solid sheet of glass. And yet, you bring up one issue about habeus corpus... you bring up one claim that the public was mislead about the ties between 9/11 and Iraq, and suddenly you're one foot out of a Greenpeace ship. The modern political stereotypes are hurting debate... they are hurting our nation.

You know why I think so many conservatives are willing to vote for Barak Obama? Because he's the first semi-conservative in a long time who hasn't tried to demonize half of america as the enemy.

[9jack9.livejournal.com]

The poisoning of the well as far as debate goes began when the FCC under Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine which required equal time for political opinions. Congress tried to re-instate in 1987, but Reagan vetoed it. Once that was gone the tidal wave of far-right radio began, leading to the state we are in now, where opinion is presented as fact on all mainstream media outlets.

[9jack9.livejournal.com]

from the Fairness Doctrine wiki "As of early 2007, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), along with Representatives Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Louise Slaughter (D-NY) have announced their support of legislation which would reverse the 1987 FCC decision and restore the Fairness Doctrine."