What the heck are liberal values?

[whatwhat]

I would put my sheep's skin against your social diploma any day. My degree creates tangible items and does not pat people on the back for being leaches to society.

(p.s. it's "you're") Really??? a typo??? that's all you got?

You do realize that not all left wing people are "pat on the back" educated right?? There are people who are create tangible items who are left wing, just like there are liberal educated who are right wing.

[Ka-El]

I would put my sheep's skin against your social diploma any day.

You have no idea what my educational qualifications are, but in lieu of knowledge guessing works for some. Carry on.

p.s. Sheep skin, eh? Sounds comfy

[fluffy]

Some of the most conservative-minded folk in my family tree are also the ones who put the most effort into helping others, no strings attached. Some of the most liberal-minded folk figured as long as they paid their taxes, it was up to government to provide, and they dedicated their own surplus resources (spare time and disposable income) very differently.

In some ways, conservative values are more restrictive of individuality because they expect adherence to societal codes, more of a "we're all in this together" attitude, while those championing liberal values are just as willing to completely ignore the unintended consequences of various ideals they champion. Freedom of the individual shouldn't come at a cost to others, but it very often does. Moving society forward shouldn't trample the poorest people among us, but it very often does.

But isn't what you're describing more of a mixing of political philosophies? Liberals displaying conservative qualities and vice versa?

I agree my statement above was a over-simplification, but the essence of liberal/conservative thinking, at least in North American cases usually comes down to socialism vs. capitalism and the tenets of those political philosophies are more clearly divided. Granted the government we experience here is usually a mix of the two and differences come election time are all closer to center than either extreme. It usually comes down to arguing about how wide to cast the social safety net.

[rustled]

Some of the most conservative-minded folk in my family tree are also the ones who put the most effort into helping others, no strings attached. Some of the most liberal-minded folk figured as long as they paid their taxes, it was up to government to provide, and they dedicated their own surplus resources (spare time and disposable income) very differently.

In some ways, conservative values are more restrictive of individuality because they expect adherence to societal codes, more of a "we're all in this together" attitude, while those championing liberal values are just as willing to completely ignore the unintended consequences of various ideals they champion. Freedom of the individual shouldn't come at a cost to others, but it very often does. Moving society forward shouldn't trample the poorest people among us, but it very often does.

But isn't what you're describing more of a mixing of political philosophies? Liberals displaying conservative qualities and vice versa?

I agree my statement above was a over-simplification, but the essence of liberal/conservative thinking, at least in North American cases usually comes down to socialism vs. capitalism and the tenets of those political philosophies are more clearly divided. Granted the government we experience here is usually a mix of the two and differences come election time are all closer to center than either extreme. It usually comes down to arguing about how wide to cast the social safety net.

Even in terms of political philosophies (socialism/capitalism) we would have to be blind not to see the philanthropy and genuine effort made by a great many capitalists to improve the lives of others, and likewise blind not to see the wasteful practices and willful blindness of a great many socialists. As I said, IMO neither "side" can claim the moral high ground, but neither "side" should be disparaged as getting it all wrong, or being greedy or selfish.

We very much need a mix of idealism and pragmatism. We very much need to consider both the individual and the greater community.

We very much need a social safety net that relies on the direct action of community members who are focused on the betterment of their fellow man, and not entirely on a numbers-driven system of wealth redistribution run by bureaucrats and politicians. IMO, relying too heavily on either would be a mistake.

[fluffy]

Even in terms of political philosophies (socialism/capitalism) we would have to be blind not to see the philanthropy and genuine effort made by a great many capitalists to improve the lives of others, and likewise blind not to see the wasteful practices and willful blindness of a great many socialists.

True, but neither can we remain blind to the good that arises out of socialist through, in point the gifts we enjoy in education and medical care, and the help that those truly in need receive, or the growing chasm between the haves and have nots and the increasing burden to stay afloat being placed on the middle class , a direct result of capitalist thinking at the top of the income chain.

As I said, IMO neither "side" can claim the moral high ground, but neither "side" should be disparaged as getting it all wrong, or being greedy or selfish.

We very much need a mix of idealism and pragmatism. We very much need to consider both the individual and the greater community.

We very much need a social safety net that relies on the direct action of community members who are focused on the betterment of their fellow man, and not entirely on a numbers-driven system of wealth redistribution run by bureaucrats and politicians. IMO, relying too heavily on either would be a mistake.

I agree, but we have extremes at both ends of the scale, those who abuse the social safety net out laziness and/or greed, and those at the top who have more than they and their families could ever need in a dozen lifetimes. Not to mention that the government machine itself is a lumbering juggernaut of waste and over-consumption as you said, which isn't so much a function of political stripe but more a result of the same vices that drive both ends of the scale I just mentioned running unchecked.

We need the money generated by the private sector to finance the social programs, but increasingly that share is coming at the expense of the working class as livable wages are fast going the way of benefits like company pensions and medical coverage.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but the problems are fast becoming hard to deny.

[JollyGreenBully]

I guess your leftist proff didn't make that distinction, eh?

I'll never understand what people truly mean when they rage about leftist profs and leftist brain-washing at universities. Most profs never even bothered to answer questions and e-mails outside of class time. I feel left out that none of them took the time to brain-wash me.

[Ka-El]

I'll never understand what people truly mean when they rage about leftist profs and leftist brain-washing at universities.

It means that after they failed their first mid-term or term paper and dropped out they had to have somebody to blame. God forbid anyone take any responsibility for themselves when they can blame the woes of the world on leftists and unions, et al.

[rustled]

...
True, but neither can we remain blind to the good that arises out of socialist through, in point the gifts we enjoy in education and medical care, and the help that those truly in need receive, or the growing chasm between the haves and have nots and the increasing burden to stay afloat being placed on the middle class , a direct result of capitalist thinking at the top of the income chain.
...
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but the problems are fast becoming hard to deny.

I've experienced genuine poverty (by Canadian standards, as I still had something to eat and something to wear and something to keep out the weather), and have spent most of my life in what would probably rate as lower middle class. I've always been acutely aware of my good fortune, but I've never been able to ignore how socialism digs ever deeper into my pocket to "give me" more and more of what they decided I need, and to give more and more of what I have earned to others. (There are other threads where we've discussed whether the upper middle class and the upper class is or is not paying their fair share. IMO consumption taxes like the HST would have helped solve this problem more efficiently than the hidden taxes which drive up the cost of everyone's heat, shelter and groceries. Regardless, each year I pay a higher percentage of my income regardless of my earnings, and each year they seem to waste more and more of what I entrust to them.)

I suppose I find the capitalists more honest, in that they do not generally pretend to have my best interests at heart while digging into my pockets. Sure, they suggest I "need" plenty things I don't need, but it's up to me to be sensible in my spending habits.

Meanwhile, it seems to me it is those who claim to hold liberal values who convince the general public to buy into green energy schemes like those in Ontario, driving up the cost of an actual necessity for everyone. Capitalists profit directly from these schemes, which exist primarily because of those who proudly champion liberal values, and the lower middle class pays more.

There are similar drivers at play in everything from health care and education, with profiteers who benefit because those with liberal values are more emotional than pragmatic, and because we have so little say in how our taxes are used and so little control when "they" say they want more for another worthy cause.

It's much easier to spot a capitalist huckster selling snake oil and say "no" than it is to deal with the capitalists who profit through the well-intentioned but often too naive proponents of a more liberal value system.

I don't have all the answers either, but I think it's important not to pretend the capitalists are operating alone, or that full-on socialism would serve us any better than full-on capitalism.

[hobbyguy]

I think what gets muddled up is that in terms of capitalism and socialism too much of a good thing is a serious negative. (Kinda like salt - no salt - you die, too much salt - you die.)

Then on top of that, political parties very much want you to be on their team, "to belong". We generally get defensive of, and root for, our "team".

Every political party says that they are going to do what is right for "the middle class" and/or "those aspiring to become middle class". But do they once elected?

Democracy, and our standing in a "liberal" democracy really does depend on us. We need to get past the labels and catcalling "leftie" or "rightie" and start thinking about what is best for all of us. (And just go along with what the political class/business class tries to feed us.).

That means weeding through the rubbish and sorting out basic facts, and being real independents.

[fluffy]

A couple of rambling notes:

Ontario: I've been reading a bit about what is happening there but I admit I have no idea what has brought them to the point of having household electrical utility bills skyrocket into four digit territory. Government mismanagement? Corporate profiteering? Whatever the cause the fact that rank & file Ontarians are taking the brunt doesn't seem right. Has the actual cost of producing the energy gone up that much?

Political labeling (left/right/lib/con/socialist/capitalist): A source of a lot of unneeded divisiveness. I agree with hobbyguy in that we need more attention on "what is" and less on "what should be".

The expense of social programs: What should/could be cut? In the federal budget the largest single expenditure is care for the elderly, in the provincial end, healthcare and education. There are plenty of smaller programs but I'm at a loss at what could be considered expendable.

Corporate Taxes: In both federal and provincial realms, corporate taxes are dwarfed by personal income taxes. Make of that what you will. Where do you draw the line between a healthy corporate sector and corporate greed?

[rustled]

A couple of rambling notes:

Ontario: I've been reading a bit about what is happening there but I admit I have no idea what has brought them to the point of having household electrical utility bills skyrocket into four digit territory. Government mismanagement? Corporate profiteering? Whatever the cause the fact that rank & file Ontarians are taking the brunt doesn't seem right. Has the actual cost of producing the energy gone up that much?

Political labeling (left/right/lib/con/socialist/capitalist): A source of a lot of unneeded divisiveness. I agree with hobbyguy in that we need more attention on "what is" and less on "what should be".

The expense of social programs: What should/could be cut? In the federal budget the largest single expenditure is care for the elderly, in the provincial end, healthcare and education. There are plenty of smaller programs but I'm at a loss at what could be considered expendable.

Corporate Taxes: In both federal and provincial realms, corporate taxes are dwarfed by personal income taxes. Make of that what you will. Where do you draw the line between a healthy corporate sector and corporate greed?

I understand why many people will favour social programs over direct action. It's easier for them, and they don't have to think about how best to contribute. That, to me, is part of the problem.

You ask what should be cut? The bureaucracy. There's plenty of needless, heedless waste associated with running public schools, public care facilities, etc. For some reason, no one in a position to do something about it is ever able to properly address this. They end up in protracted legal battles, cut the wrong people and make matters worse, etc.

This has gone on so long the people who fund these programs, the taxpayers, have given up expecting streamlined government. Instead of expecting efficiency, they do what you did here: they talk instead about cutting the program, as though that's the only option.

To me, this gives the government clear licence to continue bloating. There's no competition to force them to streamline, no political will to make it happen, and no insistence from us that they streamline.

None of us would look at our household budget and say "we have to cut out groceries" or "we have to cut out electricity". We would look at how to better manage those expenditures. But for some reason, when we're talking about expenditures supported through taxation and managed by the government, we the people immediately go to "oh, well, you can't cut that expensive program".

Meanwhile, knowing full well the government bloats costs, we the people continue to insist they manage more and more programs on our behalf. Daycare now. Sigh.

As to corporate taxes: It doesn't surprise me that personal income tax is the lions' share. As I understand it, corporations' profits become shareholder income. Shareholder income is taxed through personal income tax, unless it's sheltered within an RRSP or similar. Why does this bother people so much? I want the few investments I have within my RRSP to be profitable investments for those of us holding those shares, not cash cows servicing government bloat. (Perhaps one of the folk here with expertise in economics will set me straight if I'm wrong in my understanding.)

[hobbyguy]

There are many that attack public institutions, and despite the fact that there is inefficiency (as there is within all institutions both public and private), constantly try to create the meme that public institutions are less efficient than private ones. Often those arguments, if you trace them back, emanate from profiteers who see the public domain as an opportunity for themselves to pick the pockets of the average citizen.

Perhaps the most widely controversial area is health care. Here we have a very clear set of data.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/in-the-literature/2014/sep/hospital-administrative-costs

"Administrative costs account for 25 percent of total U.S. hospital spending, according to a new study that compares these costs across eight nations. The United States had the highest administrative costs; Scotland and Canada had the lowest. Reducing U.S. per capita spending for hospital administration to Scottish or Canadian levels would have saved more than $150 billion in 2011."

"In the U.S., the share of costs devoted to administration were higher in for-profit hospitals (27%) than in nonprofit (25%) or public (23%) hospitals. Teaching hospitals had lower-than-average administrative costs (24%), as did rural facilities"

If you look at healthcare costs per capita: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.PCAP

Canada: 5292
Germany: 5411
Sweden: 6808
USA: 9403

Above are 2014 numbers.

Then if you look at life expectancy you see:

Canada: 82.2
Germany: 81.0
Sweden: 82.4
USA: 79.3

So the USA, which is the source of most of the attack arguments against public institutions, has the highest administrative inefficiency, the highest costs, and the weakest outcome - from a largely private and "for profit" system. The other 3 countries have public systems that are less inefficient in terms of administrative costs, less costly, more universal, and critically - have a better outcome.

There are areas where public institutions are indeed the most cost effective and produce better outcomes. There are other areas, as clearly demonstrated by the communist experiments of the Soviet Union and China, where public institutions are less cost effective and have poor outcomes.

This is where a small L "liberal" looks at the facts and figures and decides based on those, chooses a course of action that will produce the best overall outcome for the society.

In some areas, there is a middle ground between public and private institutions that can produce equivalent costs and outcomes. Small L "liberals" would be open to that as well.

Either way, for liberal democracy to work, the voter needs to cast aside partisanship and look at the facts.

[averagejoe]

Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.


Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

[jimmy4321]

Liberals believe in government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. It is the duty of the government to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.


Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

I think many NDP or leftist would fit under that definition of Liberal certainly more than any Liberal party until now, and limited government or even strong defense has never been the actions of actual conservative governments as long as i remember.

[hobbyguy]

Wrong.

Your bumper sticker partisan politics are just not germain to the discussion. We are not discussing political parties. You need to look past that, and apply some critical thinking.

Just take the example of public versus private healthcare I noted above. Would you rather pay $9,403 for an inferior product, or $5,292 for the better one?? If you look past the propaganda, it is in your personal interest to go with the public system, it will cost you less, and you will live longer. Better too, you can take the $4,000 per year saved and have a nice vacation every year.