There are 3 commonly used definition of “liberal” in the political sphere.
Classical Liberal:
Many of the Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals. Classical Liberals prioritize individual rights and freedoms. Classical Liberalism is not inherently opposed to government intervention.
Social Liberal:
This is the definition that is general used in american politics. Social Liberalism is built on the same foundation as Classical Liberalism however it views the individual as inherently part of society and culture. Thus policies that prioritize social goods over individual rights and freedoms can be supported. This position is best described by John Rawls.
Laissez-faire Liberal:
This view of liberalism is often referred to Libertarian. Laissez-faire Liberalism prioritizes individual rights and freedoms at the cost of social rights and freedoms. Laissez-faire Liberalism sees government involvement as inherently bad.
Thanks for your definition, unfortunately it isn’t apt in this discussion as I’m asking for @abitamimbharmal’s definition when proposing his stat further up in the thread.
His stat seemed made up and untrustworthy. I was hoping his definition of liberal would be something so broad that even if his stat was maid up you could at least find an understanding behind his stating of it.
Given his response it seems this was just made up and not based on information. It should be ignored in the discussion.
You asked me for my definition as well. Maybe you were confused as to which party you were replying to. Talk can be tricky, I know.
I doubt very seriously you really wanted a definition, but were just looking to argue.
You asked for a definition, and were given one. Since my answer wasn’t sufficient, I think it’s time for you to define what you believe Liberal means, since you don’t appear accepting of anyone else’s definition.
I’m completely guessing at what Nick is discussing, but I think it has to do with the nature of the statement itself and how it comes down to personal opinion in any event.
If I said “(by area) the country is mostly hot”, you might ask what I mean. You might say the average temperature is 78.7 degrees and half of the area is hotter and half is colder. The argument could be made that what is considered liberal vs conservative is a moving definition like that as well.
It seems we are stuck in misinterpretation. Like you said TALK can be tricky. In my response to you, I wasn’t asking you for a definition, instead I was restating my point that to @abitamimbharmal it was meant to explain that he had not shared his definition and that is what I was asking for rather than another person talking this further off topic.
@Kentamanos also does a great job of explaining my question of the definition of Liberal. It is a term used in so many different manner that it requires further explanation. @frank_lima shared some of the most common definitions of three different groups that all call themselves liberal, yet hold very different opinion on what that means.
Thanks,
But no apologies needed. I very much appreciate your statement here.
Just admitting the humanity of us all and the confusing nature by which we communicate was a great method of defusing the misunderstanding. Thank you for that.
This really gets to the heart of one of the most difficult, fraught question in a constitutional democracy/republic.
The flip-side would be: if law was duly passed/promulgated, then wouldn’t best option be to advocate against it, get legislators to repeal it, and/or push it up through courts to overturn it.
Honestly, the best way to get a bad law changed (or ruled unconstitutional) is to enforce it to its fullest extent. The masses won’t credit you for it, but it will change.
I’m saying that we are already in that situation. Do they teach the laws at police academy’s or do they teach Department policy? Does the average LEO know the laws better than you do?
Well…probably. But not always, of course…Barney Fifes abound! But you are suggesting that any given LEO can decide, for themselves, to not enforce a law they think is unconstitutional at the same time you are implying the average LEO doesn’t necessarily know the law that well, so I am confused and trying to clear it up.
I’m not talking Barney Fifes, I don’t consider them average. I’m not trying to belittle LEOs, some of my best friends… The point I’m trying to make is that our system of laws is seriously broken. Murder, stealing and driving faster than the posted speed limit is illegal. Well maybe that driving thing isn’t a good example of obvious illegalities.
The laws used to be obvious to an average person how they should be interpreted. Now they have gotten so complicated that you need to hire a lawyer to know if what you want to do is legal. And most of the time the lawyer will tell you that the only way you can know for sure is if you go to trial.
A policeman is in the same position that you are as far as knowing if an action is illegal. I think you will find that LOEs get very little training in actual meaning of laws. What they have is access to lawyers, prosecutors, that can check what they did after the fact. That and “Department Procedures” which if they follow “procedures” they will be forgiven for any legal mistakes they make.
It is an ugly, broken system but it is the best one that I know of. I suggest that you live your life in a manner that you don’t attract a LEO’s official attention.
I’m not suggesting, I’m coming out and saying it. I go to lunch almost every Friday with a police detective and we walk together across a 5 lane highway in the middle of a block and he has never said a disparaging word about my criminal j-walking. I’m not trying to say that they can ignore any criminal act that they see but… have you ever gotten a warning ticket instead of a moving violation?
I’m not saying that it is always wrong for a policeman to not enforce the law. We have to reach a balance between justice and mercy. We all need all of the mercy we can get.
You don’t hire a lawyer to determine legality - you hire a lawyer to guide you through the legal system to a best outcome… legal or justice rarely actually enter into it beyond beng a guideline for legal arguments… Next The VAST majority of lawyers work at all costs to avoid trial as a jury outcome is never certain… Also legality and enforcability are two different topics… Then there is what the local jurisdictions know their AG’s will enforce - i.e. how much did the kid shoplift and which side of the cash register was he caught? Your loss, while actionable, was under $1000 so we’re not going to enforce it or even set a date to go to any judge with it… Contract enforcement is even more nebulous… As I like to say - we have a legal system - not to be confused with a justice system… and legal or illegal doesn’t = enforcement - To say enforcement is spotty is a gross understatement…
As to the topic of the Missouri state action… depends on the lawyers thinking they can win the case - whatever the trigger case ends up being - and the funds stacked behind them to do it…
You are so right Axel. I actually went to law school for one semester. I was the president and CEO of my engineering/software development/consulting firm at the time, a new father and a recently promoted commander in the Air National Guard so I ended up dropping out of law school, because something had to give, but I did learn a thing or two.
The very first thing they tell you in law school is that there is NO WRONG or RIGHT only your client’s point of view. As an attorney your job is not to enforce justice or even the law, but to represent your client – period. You must substantiate and justify their point of view even if they are guilty of a serious crime. It is up to the judge and/or jury to dispense justice or at least to enforce the law. Of course that assumes, at least in a criminal trial, that the prosecutors have decided to prosecute at all.
And as you say, everyone wants to avoid the costly process of a jury trial and the unpredictable outcomes so they plea bargain. How many of you have been selected as a juror only to have the case settled on the day of the trial?
In any case, I really didn’t want to be an attorney, I only wanted not to be bamboozled by my attorney when I wanted some intellectual property contracts drafted.
I thought this was a do-ocracy.