Is it true that most americans are liberals? (different ideas of freedom)

[Lemmingwiser]

Please read this post before responding and don't just knee-jerk react to the title.
I have a number of ideas that I have questions about and I would love to have responses for them. Respond from your gut, your ideas, facts, feelings, I want to get a smorgasbord of responses. What do you think after reading this?

There's different ways to categorize people politically. Right now I'm thinking about three categories. Left wing. Right Wing. Liberal.
I'm also using democrat and republican as synonymous with left wing vs. right wing.

Of course in America liberal is synonymous with left wing and/or democratic party. Forgive me for trying to transpose an idea as it's held in Europe. Sargon tried to do this by calling it liberalist. I know americans don't think about europeans as much as vice versa, but this is the deep thought forum, so give it a try. Try to conceive, for the purpose of this discussion, as liberal as someone that believes in freedom and the political ideas of liberalism.

A dutch artist described his journey through america and finally understanding the conflict between the right and left wing in the US. Namely: they both believe in freedom but in a different way.

A democrat believes in a unlimited freedom, borderlessness, openness. A world where everyone is welcome. The freedom to do whatever.
A republican believes in protecting freedom, guarding a free nation against those that would make it unfree. A world where there is freedom because it's protected.

Question 1: Does this idea have merit? It seems it has it to me, but I don't live in the US so fuck if I know.

Question 2: Do both left wing and right wing US citizens mostly believe in freedom? Basic ideas like "you can what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone" and other pithy phrases that guide people's morality and ethics?

To try and clarify my thinking further, the opposite of a liberal would be those who impose decisions further on people. Either authoritoran and/or collectivist.

 

[Dick Lickieta]

A democrat believes in a unlimited freedom, borderlessness, openness. A world where everyone is welcome. The freedom to do whatever.

Doesn't your average Democrat voter believe hate speech should be outlawed, that doesn't sound like unlimited freedom to me

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Doesn't your average Democrat voter believe hate speech should be outlawed, that doesn't sound like unlimited freedom to me

Putting limits on abortion doesn't sound like freedom to a democrat either. What is the motivation that many democrats believe on more limits on speech? Regardless of how much you agree or how much perspective the opinion is held from or what the result from such laws might be, the motivation is to protect vulnerable people so that these can be free.

All discussions of freedom invariably touch upon how freedom of one might encroach on the freedom of another.

 

[Schwarzwald]

The difference is that one believes morality based on history, nature, and culture to be more objective while the other believes it to be a great deal more subjective. Collectivism versus individualism is another huge difference, as is the role of society versus individual circumstances and choices in personal outcomes.

Saying that one side is "for freedom" while the other side wants to "protect freedom" is extremely simplistic and childish. Depending on the subject, one side or the other might take either role strongly. American libertarianism would be a great deal more influential rather than fringe if people truly viewed 'freedom' as their top priority above all else. Furthermore, depending on who happens to be in power, beliefs happen to conveniently shift in idealism from either side.

Keep in mind political opinions are a spectrum, as well, rather than a binary. You may find yourself sharing your political tent with very odd individuals depending on what you value in particular.

 

[Individualism Incarnate]

Putting limits on abortion doesn't sound like freedom to a democrat either. What is the motivation that many democrats believe on more limits on speech? Regardless of how much you agree or how much perspective the opinion is held from or what the result from such laws might be, the motivation is to protect vulnerable people so that these can be free.

All discussions of freedom invariably touch upon how freedom of one might encroach on the freedom of another.

Democrats believe in freedom from responsibility. The government, according to them, exists to protect the them from the consequences of their choices and the choices of others.
Republicans believe in freedom of opportunity. Their ideal government would only have the barest restrictions on personal choice and provide the least protection from your own decisions.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The notion of freedom is definitely stronger in the USA than the rest of the world, but it was subverted by the political parties and lost a lot of its meaning.

It doesn't help pretty much everything can be argued to be a form of freedom if you phrase it right. "Freedom of opportunity" is the best example of it, enforcing others to behave and spend money for collectivist ideal.

I wouldn't be surprised as people get more political (without falling to the lolbertian rabbithole) the concept of freedom becomes less appealing since they believe enforcing behaviour is more effective. The average person just want grill.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What do you think after reading this?

I think it helps to first ask what freedom actually is.
Most people use it in a vague moral-emotional sense, but on a societal level, freedom is only meaningful if it refers to a condition where no one initiates force against others. In practical terms, that means respecting property rights, i.e. your body as your property (self-ownership) and external things you've acquired without aggression.

Question 1: Does this idea [of Democrats wanting "unlimited freedom" and Republicans wanting "protected freedom"] have merit? It seems it has it to me, but I don't live in the US so fuck if I know.

Not really, no.
It assumes both parties value freedom, but differ on strategy.
In reality, both parties value controlling people in different areas. Democrats generally want social permissiveness (as long as it's not heckin dangerous speech), but strict economic controls. Republicans at least pretend to want economic permissiveness (taxes, business), but strict social and border controls. Neither side wants actual freedom, i.e. a system where no one can impose state-backed aggression.

Question 2: Do both left wing and right wing US citizens mostly believe in freedom?

If you ask them, yes, almost everyone in the US will say they do. But in practice, people redefine freedom to suit their desired controls.
For instance, Democrats say "freedom from poverty" to justify welfare funded by taxation (coercion). Republicans say "freedom from threats" to justify militarism and immigration controls (coercion). The underlying premise is that some people must be coerced for others to be "free". That is not freedom, that is redistribution of control.

The deeper problem is that both sides believe in the state as an institution that can legitimately violate property rights for "the greater good". They only disagree on who gets coerced and for what purpose. Neither side asks whether anyone has the right to initiate force at all.

So when you say

the opposite of a liberal would be those who impose decisions further on people.

the truth is that both left and right are wings of the bird that imposes decisions further on people, just in different spheres. The real opposite of liberty-mindedness is authoritarianism, and both parties are merely competing forms of that.

If freedom is the standard, then neither party is classically liberal. They are both rival factions within the same coercive system, each expanding state aggression in their preferred domains while calling it "freedom"

 

[merpalerpaherp]

I think it helps to first ask what freedom actually is.
Most people use it in a vague moral-emotional sense, but on a societal level, freedom is only meaningful if it refers to a condition where no one initiates force against others. In practical terms, that means respecting property rights, i.e. your body as your property (self-ownership) and external things you've acquired without aggression.

What kind of retarded statement is this and why do you keep using trigger words like "initiates force" and "without aggression". Literally contradicting every definition of the word freedom to sound like a vagina.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What kind of retarded statement is this and why do you keep using trigger words like "initiates force" and "without aggression". Literally contradicting every definition of the word freedom to sound like a vagina.

If "freedom" has no referent, then "freedom" is meaningless. People throw the word around to mean whatever feels good to them, like "freedom from want", "freedom from fear", "freedom from consequences"
But in a societal context, freedom only exists where your peaceful actions are not stopped by someone else's force, regardless if that force is a mugger, a nigger, or a glownigger
And I use terms like "initiating force" or "aggression" because that is precisely what distinguishes voluntary action from coercion. If someone punches you in the face or takes your stuff, then you are not "free" in any meaningful sense. Even if a government does it. You can't call a cage "freedom".

If you have an alternative definition of freedom that doesn't boil down to "doing what you want without being physically stopped", feel free to share it

 

[The Last Stand]

Question 2: Do both left wing and right wing US citizens mostly believe in freedom? Basic ideas like "you can what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone" and other pithy phrases that guide people's morality and ethics?

I would say "no." If something goes against their beliefs or party line, they would want to have it outlawed or condemned, so to speak.

To try and clarify my thinking further, the opposite of a liberal would be those who impose decisions further on people. Either authoritoran and/or collectivist.

The literal term "liberal" and the political label "liberal" are two different things in context.

 

[not william stenchever]

The literal term "liberal" and the political label "liberal" are two different things in context.

The void between my politics being liberal (in the way that the founding fathers were generally liberal) and the things that come to mind when you think of the political term liberal could not be more vast.

Incidentally the US under FDR (fuck that guy with a rake) was the only national socialist regime to come out ahead at the end of WWII.

 

[Lemmingwiser]

Saying that one side is "for freedom" while the other side wants to "protect freedom" is extremely simplistic and childish.

I'm trying to replace some of my childish ideas with more mature ones, which is why I'm asking the question. So I agree in general terms that it is.

It doesn't help pretty much everything can be argued to be a form of freedom if you phrase it right. "Freedom of opportunity" is the best example of it, enforcing others to behave and spend money for collectivist ideal.

Fuck you solved something that I wasn't able to put into words for quite some time now. You're so right.

 

[merpalerpaherp]

If "freedom" has no referent, then "freedom" is meaningless. People throw the word around to mean whatever feels good to them, like "freedom from want", "freedom from fear", "freedom from consequences"
But in a societal context, freedom only exists where your peaceful actions are not stopped by someone else's force, regardless if that force is a mugger, a nigger, or a glownigger
And I use terms like "initiating force" or "aggression" because that is precisely what distinguishes voluntary action from coercion. If someone punches you in the face or takes your stuff, then you are not "free" in any meaningful sense. Even if a government does it. You can't call a cage "freedom".

If you have an alternative definition of freedom that doesn't boil down to "doing what you want without being physically stopped", feel free to share it

It's believe what you're referring to is freedom of action. I am free to act in any manner I wish while being aware of consequence. Societal consequences are an excuse for retards, if I want to punch you in the face and steal your stuff I am free to do so and you are free to stop me. The consequence of "prison" does not take away from inherent action previously taken in which I was free.

Stop acting like a vagina and thinking everything is sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya because that's unrealistic nonsense and so is basing the definition of freedom on it. We are animals, the strong will always prey on the weak whether that is violently, intelligently, or monetarily.

 

[not william stenchever]

It's believe what you're referring to is freedom of action. I am free to act in any manner I wish while being aware of consequence. Societal consequences are an excuse for retards, if I want to punch you in the face and steal your stuff I am free to do so and you are free to stop me. The consequence of "prison" does not take away from inherent action previously taken in which I was free.

Stop acting like a vagina and thinking everything is sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya because that's unrealistic nonsense and so is basing the definition of freedom on it. We are animals, the strong will always prey on the weak whether that is violently, intelligently, or monetarily.

In America people used to be free to form up a posse and go get the guy who punched an old lady in the face and stole her shit but in the present anarcho-tyranny will punish those who sought justice harder than the asshole who beat up an old lady and stole her shit.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

It's believe what you're referring to is freedom of action. I am free to act in any manner I wish while being aware of consequence. Societal consequences are an excuse for retards, if I want to punch you in the face and steal your stuff I am free to do so and you are free to stop me. The consequence of "prison" does not take away from inherent action previously taken in which I was free.

Stop acting like a vagina and thinking everything is sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya because that's unrealistic nonsense and so is basing the definition of freedom on it. We are animals, the strong will always prey on the weak whether that is violently, intelligently, or monetarily.

Merely conflating "having the physical capability to act" with being free
Sure, you can physically move your fist into someone else's face, just like you can go and drink bleach
That does not mean that you're free in the social or political sense, it just means your body isn't immobilized

Freedom isn't about whether you can do something physically
By that logic, a prisoner who is chained in a cell is "free" if he can wiggle his fingers
Freedom refers to the absence of external coercion preventing rightful action
If your idea of freedom is just "I can do whatever I can physically get away with", you're not describing freedom, you're describing raw power. Animals have that. That's not a social concept, that's the """law""" of the jungle

And, ironically, if you actually believed in what you're saying, then you would have no grounds to complain when someone stronger puts you in a cage or kills you
After all, under your definition, they're just exercising their "freedom"

Humans are animals, except they're animals with the conceptual faculty to identify and define principles that let us live in peace without constantly beating each other up like retarded cavemen
That is the whole point of things like rights and ethics. Replacing brute force with mutually beneficial coexistence
If you think that's "singing kumbaya", then I suppose feel free to go ahead and do your war coping while the rest of us keep pursuing actual civilization

 

[Ibanez RG 350EX]

Republicans say "freedom from threats" to justify militarism and immigration controls (coercion). The underlying premise is that some people must be coerced for others to be "free".

Advocating for having no military or law enforcement is textbook anarchy, not liberalism. This is very silly.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Advocating for having no military or law enforcement is textbook anarchy, not liberalism. This is very silly.

Liberalism in its original sense was radical anarchy. No rulers, just voluntary interactions and self-defense. What you are calling "silly" is the consistent application of freedom. Having a military or law enforcement that initiates force is not liberalism, it's statism. Protecting property and life does not require a coercive monopolist. All you need is respecting rights and defending them when they're violated.

 

[merpalerpaherp]

Freedom isn't about whether you can do something physically
By that logic, a prisoner who is chained in a cell is "free" if he can wiggle his fingers
Freedom refers to the absence of external coercion preventing rightful action
If your idea of freedom is just "I can do whatever I can physically get away with", you're not describing freedom, you're describing raw power. Animals have that. That's not a social concept, that's the """law""" of the jungle

Is your entire argument that physicality isn't subject to the freedom of choice? If I act upon something physically in sound mind it's because I could do it and wasn't free to make the choice to do it? You're just making shit up to justify removing a part humanity you don't like.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Is your entire argument that physicality isn't subject to the freedom of choice? If I act upon something physically in sound mind it's because I could do it and wasn't free to make the choice to do it? You're just making shit up to justify removing a part humanity you don't like.

You are missing the distinction completely
No one denies that you can choose to act
The point is that calling brute physical capacity "freedom" strips the word of any meaning in the areas of social life and politics
It becomes nothing but mere animal power

That's fine if you want to grunt in a cave, but if we're talking about a concept of freedom that makes sense for a human society, it has to be defined in terms of rights and absence of coercion, not just what your muscles can do in any given moment

 

[Luke Heaven 13!]

A democrat believes in a unlimited freedom, borderlessness, openness. A world where everyone is welcome. The freedom to do whatever.
A republican believes in protecting freedom, guarding a free nation against those that would make it unfree. A world where there is freedom because it's protected.

Question 1: Does this idea have merit? It seems it has it to me, but I don't live in the US so fuck if I know.

If you ask both left and right wing people on the street they would probably say yes, your description of them is apt. If you ask left and right wing people on X, they would both say they are protecting freedom from the other group taking over (the Star Wars Resistance nonsense). If you ask the troons on Reddit, they would ban you.

Point being, the freedom question you bring up is not about what they actually believe or ascribe to, but what is the actual world itself. People are left wing, or liberal, until their order (or beliefs) is destabilized by the very policies they voted for. Think of this as the Ana Kasparian Right Wing Arc.

Ana Kasparian was ultra left wing until homeless people in LA attempted to rape her, and when she told her experience on social media, the left shouted her down for denigrating the homeless. Her order was destabilized and the core beliefs which was a mile wide but an inch deep were broken to the point where she voted Trump.

It’s easy to be left wing in America with a core belief structure being “Obama was the best” and “We need to do more to help the homeless.” It’s when a homeless man, which your city let take over downtown, tries to rape you. It’s when an illegal immigrant gets drunk and drives a jet ski killing your family member. It’s when you support a left wing cause protest but it doesn’t matter as they loot your business and burn it to the ground to which Democrat politicians and their retard followers say “don’t you have insurance?!”

Only then, you will realize liberal or Democrat viewpoints are entirely designed for you to be as selfish as possible while also willing to sell out the nation.

Question 2: Do both left wing and right wing US citizens mostly believe in freedom? Basic ideas like "you can what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone" and other pithy phrases that guide people's morality and ethics?

Libtards and shitlibs don’t believe in any freedom outside of the next cause. The trans movement has died so they are now back to illegal immigrants cause Hamas is too controversial. Right wing retards are too busy fighting over the dumbest shit whether Churchill was a villain and the far right are still trying to prop up gay Nick Fuentes.

They call this freedom, but neither want the responsibility. Yes, freedom for gay men to marry each other until it becomes very common that gay men start raping their adopted children. Yes, freedom for economic freedoms in the market until the company offshores your job to Deepak. Yes, freedom to be annoying auditor in a post office filming a poor lady who just wants to clock out for the day, just so you can get the police called and go viral for being an asshole.

So yes, most Americans have different ideas of freedom. They are all a mile wide and an inch deep. Yes, most Americans all start liberal until their order is disrupted and they become right wing. The Ana Kasparian Right Wing Arc will hit you at some point. Hopefully, it’s not when some homeless illegal is trying to rape you at the Chick Fil A drive thru as everyone films the incident instead of trying to help.