Which is proper: "Classical liberalism thought on.." or "Classical liberal thought on..."?
956633
Classical liberal thought
549197
Neither really.  It all depends on your point of view. \n\nInfact, I think it's personally detrimental to label yourself as either.  Because once you do that, you ascribe to yourself a set of beliefs that fall within either the left or right of the political spectrum.  If people are so shallow and weak minded that they need a one word answer to fully describe their political ideas, good on them.\n\nI myself refuse to say either, since I have some ideas that are obviously liberal, and some that are obviously conservative.
977665
Big Brother,\n\nYou ask a question that is both important and provocative (as all truly great questions are). And unfortunately, the answers you've received thus far are not very well thought out. They're just so much "Yahoo Vapor" being released into cyberspace. Please, let me attempt a full, measured response to your excellent question.\n\nBefore answering, I checked out your answers page, and from the "About Me" section I gleaned that your political leanings run to the "Libertarian" side of the spectrum. From that point of view, the idea of conscription represents the worst sort of abuse. With great respect to the sincerity of your position, I disagree.\n\nLibertarianism is a philosophical offshoot of Classical Liberalism, which itself is based on a "Contract Theory" notion of the origins of societies. Nations are formed by the consent of the governed; and this agreement is formalized in a Constitution. Well and good.\n\nThe problem with Libertariansim (in my opinion) is that it begins and ends with the "contract," while for Classical Liberalism, this is merely the starting point. The heart of this difference is revealed in the answer to a single important question: "What is the ultimate nature of society?"\n\nClassical Liberals will answer that society is organic, while Libertarians argue that it is mechanistic (i.e. the "machine" of the contract). For Libertarians, the only thing that is non-negotiably real is the inherent, intrinsic, everlasting value of individual liberty. If you like, the "Summum Bonum" and "Totum Bonum" are one -- the individual.\n\nI reject this notion on both philosophical and practical grounds. Philosophically, the ideals of Libertarianism are unbalanced -- disproportionately skewed on the side of the individual. Because my view of society is organic, I must regard society in the same way I view a living organism -- as a synergism -- the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.\n\nWhen the body is threatened, it sends out anti-bodies to destroy the invading organisms. Imagine if the anti-bodies said, "No. I have other plans, and this gets in the way of my inalienable right to pursue them." The body dies, and with the death of the body comes the death of the anti-bodies as well. Why, because each and every one of us in bound-up together. It's unrealistic to view society as a series of individually negotiated contractual obligations. No, the poet John Donne was far more accurate...\n\nNo man is an island, entire of itself.\nEvery man is piece of the continent,\na part of the main...\n\nAn organic understanding of society requires us to acknowledge that we aren't a series of free floating atoms. We are all interconnected, just as the cells of the body are interconnected.\nAn enlightened approach to society requires us to understand that we owe each other a positive response (which is far superior to the response of the Libertarian whose basic response is merely neutral -- "Stay out of my way, and I'll stay out of yours"). I maintain that an organic view of mutual interconnectedness is morally superior.\n\nOn a practical, empirical level, the triumph of this interconnected view has led to the growth of the West, and the betterment of each and all in society. Consider the impact of free education. The beneficiaries of that are children who themselves cannot pay. Libertarians (particularly those without children) often lament about the unfairness of being forcibly taxed to maintain institutions they don't use. But that's a narrow and short-sighted view of things. \n\nThe child who is being educated in that school may one day find the cure to a disease that is killing you, or someone you love. Moreover, the failure of that system may ultimately lead to a youngster who loses hope, take to crime, and kills you on the street for your wallet. Empirically, you cannot esca
977040
Both refer to philosophical positions, but are usually applied to political movements that embody those philosophies.\n\nLiberals favor growth, change, flexibility. They tend to be more dynamic and driven, but often less organized. In the political arena, liberals favor progressive reform and the protection of civil liberties.\n\nConservatives favor tradition, conformity, and slow (if any) change. They tend to be more organized, but occasionally stagnant. In politics, this can be split between those who seek minimal government interference with minimal government social programs, and those who want heavy government regulation to ensure national conformity.
754242
After thinking many years about my ideas about liberal and conservative politics. I have come to define liberal politics as those that liberate the many from a power structure that concentrates the wealth of the global culture into the hands of a mercenary, plutocratic, predatory few. I have come to define conservative politics as those that conserve a power structure that concentrates the wealth of the many of our global culture into the hands of a mercenary, plutocratic, predatory few.\n\nWhy should I expect to win a "war on terror" by creating terror in war? Why should I expect to win a war on terror by giving all my gold to a mercenary plutocratic predatory few when it is a mercenary plutocratic predatory few that profit from the demand for protection created by terrorist activity? Terrorist activity creates demand in the market place for the protection services offered by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few. I think, believe and expect a more rational approach to winning the war on terror would be to redistribute of the wealth of the global culture by taking wealth from a mercenary plutocratic predatory few and giving wealth to the many. This would have the dual effect of diminishing the profits derived by a mercenary plutocratic predatory few from operating a global shakedown of epic proportions that some call a war on terror; and enabling the many to protect themselves from terrorist attack as individuals by using wealth acquired through redistribution .
151942
I really don't understand the point of this question. Are you objecting to the abbreviation of neoconservative to neocon, or what? In my dictionary neocon is the shortened term for neoconservative. Period.\nNeoconservative is a political ideology represented strongly in the current administration, and contrasted with traditional conservatism. Particularly prominent is there greater advocacy of the use of force to intervene abroad, as opposed to the traditional conservative's isolationist view. \nAnyway, it is a term as planksheer suggests, to describe a political position that is different from liberalism or traditional conservatism. \nCheck the source below and you'll see an extensive discussion of the term.
740050
Ask France.  Assuming you and they still speak French.\n\nRoch cop:  Liberals have trouble with what the definitions of is is, and apparently also was was.
443230
Liberal = change\nConservative = keeping things as they have always been\nModerate = will swing back and forth between the two depending on the issue at hand
342798
Modern liberal theory can be best understood by reading Elizabeth Anderson's posts referred to below.  It is solidly grounded in capitalism, it is highly critical of central planning of every aspect of economic life, but it is far more intellectually sound than modern libertarian and conservative economic theory, which has an almost fundamentalist mindset when it comes to free-markets and taxation.  One may be right in accusing the extreme left-wing in American politics of flirting with profoundly anti-capitalistic sentiments, but one would be a fool to pretend that modern liberal theory is anti-capitalist.  If you wish to attack modern liberal theory, start by reading up on it.  There is a reason why the academic world is not dominated by libertarians and conservatives, and it has to do more with the relative value of their ideas--which have not done quite so well in the free marketplace of intellectual inquiry--and less to do with inherent bias in the academic system.  One way to learn about both liberalism and conservatism is to read Rawls, Nozick, Hayek (whom I actually admire quite a bit), Sen, Dworkin, etc.  And once you have read the careful and intellectually stimulating discussions between these people, it becomes incredibly silly to suggest that modern liberal theory believes in socialism.
384
Sorry, here in Europe, liberal is not conservative...Is not left (actually, is center-right), but here in Europe, in the Center right has three families: Conservatives, Christian-Democrats and Liberals; and they are pretty differents.
540420
Since when have we had a standard, not to mention two??\n\nI thought the idea of Liberalism was "anything goes - as long as the gov-ment pays".\n\nGee - I've got to re-think this politics stuff!
1151131
Liberals and thinking is an oxymoron
206588
While there are many critics to choose from, my two choices are Lionel Charles Knight and George Wilson Knight because, although they criticized the same play and theme, they have different points of view.\n\nOr you could break it into two sentences:\n\nThere are many critics to choose from and my two choices are Lionel Charles Knight and George Wilson Knight.  These two men criticized the same play and theme and had different points of view that are worthy of discussion.\n\nUse your commas and re-phrase just a little but I think the sentence still works for you.  The rest of your paragraph will decide on the "flow" of your sentence(s).\n\nGood luck!
176393
I would say that linear thinking is like black and white.\nThere is "If_________ Then________ thinking.  Basically thinking 'within the box'.
713607
I'm conservative.  I had an ecclectic educational mix of private and public schooling, followed by private and State college.  \n\nI observed that liberalism wasn't economically feasible, and didn't factor in human nature.  I studied world history and thought our form of government was the best.\n\nSomething made us different from every other nation, and I thought it was worth trying to preserve.
268710
liberal conservative?
1176272
"Love for liberals" seems like a phrase that WOULD be a definition of something - it's fairly well-defined, in and of itself.\n\nI don't think that there is an actual word which means "love for liberals", but you could always get creative with suffixes and refer to yourself as a liberalophile (although that sounds somewhat awkward and also carries a sexual connotation)\n\nHope this helps!\nsophic "loves liberals + etymology" muse\n\nEDIT: I realized that your question is ambiguous, and that you may actually have meant to ask how a liberal defines "love".  In that case, here's a simple exercise: go get your favorite dictionary, flip to the "L" section, and look it up.  There you go.  We do, ah, think pretty much the same as everyone else.