"By contrast, liberalism says clearly that individuals should be free to run their own lives—religiously, artistically, sexually, intellectually, economically, and so on—and that government power is limited to objective threats to or violations of individuals’ liberty. "
The only senator or congressperson who remotely aligns with this description I can think of is Rand Paul. The current enthusiasm for censorship by both conservatives and liberals elminates many. It begs the question, if no one in the Democratic party aligns with this description of a liberal, then what are they?
Does Liberalism really hold that 'governments exist only to support individual freedoms;? What is that if not just anarchy if you discard all community objectives and benefits. This is 90% criticism and 10% theory. Not really a good description. Also, all the religions of the word that hold certainties as tenets are not the 'enemies' of conservatism', as Orr says, Conservatism seeks to trod the path between the individual and the collective, and is open-minded to both past and present. Liberalism here has no use for history... kinda like communism. Is that the same? ...conservatism charts the middle course between ideologies that elevate the self over the collective and ones that swallow up the self in the collective... it's the ying-yangness of this approach ( and avoiding a major discussion of religion here...conservatives from the UK that settled the US were also freedom seeking; yet allowing for an individual approach to god and worship) that makes liberalism what is described here; reactionary and not grounded; albeit with objectives one cannot object to.
"By contrast, liberalism says clearly that individuals should be free to run their own lives—religiously, artistically, sexually, intellectually, economically, and so on—and that government power is limited to objective threats to or violations of individuals’ liberty. "
The only senator or congressperson who remotely aligns with this description I can think of is Rand Paul. The current enthusiasm for censorship by both conservatives and liberals elminates many. It begs the question, if no one in the Democratic party aligns with this description of a liberal, then what are they?
Does Liberalism really hold that 'governments exist only to support individual freedoms;? What is that if not just anarchy if you discard all community objectives and benefits. This is 90% criticism and 10% theory. Not really a good description. Also, all the religions of the word that hold certainties as tenets are not the 'enemies' of conservatism', as Orr says, Conservatism seeks to trod the path between the individual and the collective, and is open-minded to both past and present. Liberalism here has no use for history... kinda like communism. Is that the same? ...conservatism charts the middle course between ideologies that elevate the self over the collective and ones that swallow up the self in the collective... it's the ying-yangness of this approach ( and avoiding a major discussion of religion here...conservatives from the UK that settled the US were also freedom seeking; yet allowing for an individual approach to god and worship) that makes liberalism what is described here; reactionary and not grounded; albeit with objectives one cannot object to.
Really enjoying this discussion, thank you.