Liberals, Modern Liberals and Socialism.

The main stream American liberal movement seems to be firmly tied to socialism, at least that's what we hear from anti-liberal pundits. The positions espoused by liberals seems to be socialist - greater control/regulation by the government in all things whether it's business or social issues.

So, what is socialism?

According to Dictionary.com:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Other sources:

In Marxist theory a stage of historical development transitional between capitalism and communism. Romania claimed to have attained socialism by 1965.

A social system which favors collective ownership of the means of economic production and distribution.

An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion."

A theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of land, capital, industry, etc. by the community as a whole. In Marxist theory it represents the stage following capitalism in a state transforming to communism.

I think at it's core, socialism is about centralized control, not only of economic issues, but others as well.

Well, given the preceeding, it seems pretty clear that modern liberals are for socialism. They indeed use the government, via control of legislatures and the courts, to regulate pretty much everything - business, social issues, medical care. I'd certainly like to hear of an issue where this isn't true - where the liberals didn't use the government to control an issue that affects us all.

All that being said, convservatives are hardly pure as the driven snow. Conservatives are typically not in power in the major states, so for much of the population, their effect isn't noticed. Recently, the Republican Party is in control of the federal government, and all of a sudden, broadening of federal control is part of the Republican agenda. In the past, their agenda was to hold the federal government in check while expanding the power of the states. Of course, in the past, the Democrats controlled the federal government, and the Republicans only had any real clout in the states.

It's sad how things reverse. Once the Republ0icans get booted out of the federal government, positions will change again - Reps for limiting fed power in favor of state power, Dems broadening fed power.

Anywho. I digress.

I'm under the impression that American liberals weren't always about advancing government control.

Here are some definitions I found for liberalism. Wow. I never looked into that! Very interesting.

Two definitions that really struck me:

A political philosophy of limited government and protection of individual rights and freedoms.

A school of economics that relies primarily on a free market with the minimum of barriers to the flow of private trade and capital.

WOW WOW WOW. Given that, I'm a Liberal. Huh...imagine that.

Most definitions for Conservative have to do with opposing change, so it's not like Liberalism and Conservativism are diametrically opposed, at least not defnitionally.

You know, the modern American liberal movement isn't Liberal.

Under Liberalism, individual rights are upheld, as opposed to government sponsored entitlements. But...I guess that really hinges upon what is a right.

It's hard to find the definition of a "right" in terms of "the right" to liberty..."the right" to free speech, or the like.

Dictionary.com has lots of definitions for "right" but you have to scroll down a ways to ffind their main entry:

something to which one has a just claim: asa power, privilege, or condition of existence to which one has a natural claim of enjoyment or possession right of liberty> rights —Declaration of Independence —see also NATURAL RIGHT :a power, privilege, immunity, or capacity the enjoyment of which is secured to a person by law one's rights

Based upon this, I would contend that a right is a power an individual posses, to which the only duty held by the rest of society to that indivdual relative to that right is non-interference. Society does not have a duty to effectuate the right of the individual...it only has a duty to stay out of the individual's way.

I have the right to freedom of speech, but I can't demand that I be provided with a forum. I have a right to bear arms, but I can't demand that I be provided with a rifle. I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but I can't demand that I be given that which would make me happy or make my life better.

This is where the modern liberal movement has gone astray. To them, a right is an entitlement. Not only do you have the right to do this or that, but it's up to Society (more correctly, the State) to be sure you have that right fulfilled.

An individual has a right to be free from discrimination, a good thing. Modern liberals, however, don't stop there. They want anyone whom they perceive as a discriminated class to not only be free from discrimination (as is their right), but the government should step in and give those classes an advantage (an entitlement) not enjoyed by perceived non-discriminated classes. This, I would contend, is socialism.

[Author's aside: I think modern liberals engage in this sort of behavior because of their morality, which is firmly rooted in social relativism, but that's a discussion for another day. This moral code is shared by modern conservatives as well. Neither is right, as they veer away from the individual and focus upon the collective...which is probably easier for the State to handle...bake the morality of social relativism into the populace and get them away from that pesky individualism, which causes people to think.]

Being for individual rights is a great cause...I'm all for that myself. Require a level playing field. However, once the field is level, how an individual does in the game is entirely up to them and their abilities. Getting the government to give an entitlement now gives an advantage that un-levels the playing field.

Modern liberals use the government to effectuate advantages for those they see as discriminated classes, socializing their morals and centralizing moral enforcement in the government. I'm of the opinion that traditional liberals cringe at such things, as the advantage provided is inherently discriminatory - it's only gained at the expnse of others.