While we clearly don't agree on this, I'm glad we're keeping it civil
Charles, I live five minutes from some of richest people in the world on Palm Beach Island and I can assure you there are no crowds of dope smoking anti-globalization college kids holding signs reading "give it back" waiting at the end of the bridges...
That doesn't really surprise me. Personally I think it's the media which exaggerates their existence (helps to sell airtime and adspace). However here in Europe, the populations are a little more left-leaning. Hell, we still have Communist parties in nearly every country, and they get some 5% or so every time. Not huge, but still significant, especially in coalitions. And the "give-it-backers" are more significant here. I was once held hostage by a bunch of WTO protesters, who upon seeing my suit and decent car (I had the ill fortune to be driving by) decided that it might be a good idea to burn my car (and me in it) for the people. Luckily the police finally moved in and saved my skin - another person in Geneva the day before was not so lucky.
Is 'communism' liberal in your theology, Charles?
As we said before, the term "Liberal" has warped in recent decades.Economically speaking, in English-speaking countries, liberal has come to mean left-leaning policy compared to "conservative", right-leaning policy.
So, yes, under this definition, Communism is as liberal as you can get.
Funny because such modern 'liberal' causes like gay-rights and abolishing the death penatly would be non gratis in communist China.
You're talking about social policy. It has nothing to do with economic policy. You can be socially liberal but economically conservative, or vice versa.
What I think you confuse is a 'liberal' tendency to be the first to speak up when there is some justification on 'the rich' using their money to effect an unnatural outcome on democracy.
Again, this is more social policy, but it all ties in to what I said about politicians. I feel strongly that politics in the U.S. has become structurally corrupt. Massive amounts of money are needed to run for election successfully. Floods of political ads for months is the norm. The electorate has become increasingly short-sighted, and Congressmen have to run every 2 years. When the reelection campaign takes up to a year, a congressman is constantly in campaign-mode. Campaign contributions are very welcome, legal or otherwise, because he needs the money to stay in office (otherwise he'll have to go back to the public sector and WORK for a living - yuk!) This holds true for all politicians, left or right. And of course, money buys favors.
The U.S. really needs to get a handle on this. No political mass-media campaign should be allowed more than a couple of weeks before an election, as a start. You can't spend THAT much money in 2 weeks, and it would reduce the dependence of these guys on those seeking to buy influence.
Again, this is valid for all parties, right to the top. Hell, the Chinese government managed to buy influence in the Clinton White House.
The U.S. MUST wean their politicians from all this money.
And, lately, the 'liberals' have been screaming the loudest about breathtakingly corrupt corporate practices.
This is a very complex subject which should be the subject of another thread. But it is my personal belief that the "corruption" or rather, the seeking of profitable annual reports at all costs, was largely born of the 1990's stock market boom and the "new economy", which was allowed to run rampant and out of control. Desperation caused such corporate mismanagement as much as greed.
...Liberals yelling about spending millions on, say, "midnight basketball" (to use an old right-wing favorite)programs for poor inner city youth may easily seem to be making the rich subsidize the poor...specifically, the black, urban poor...
Again, we are talking about politicians. Don't ever trust them. They are only after votes, and are willing to spend public money on anything that may attract positive attention, regardless of any real value (positive or negative) it may have in the long term. Democrat or Republican makes very little difference.
Also, a quick scan of some of the ultra-rich shows us some surprises...
They've earned the right to their eccentricities
. But you are mixing up social and economic policy again. There are very few wealthy people who are sincerely liberal in an economic sense, but socially they can be all over the map.
Perhaps if the media perception was one of wealthy individuals or companies making more of an effort to earn an honest living instead of one full of fuzzy math and golden parachutes, that fairness would translate to the jury box too.
That is part of the problem - public perception. The media reports on the Enrons and Worldcoms, but say little or nothing about the many millions of managers and employees in tens of thousands of companies who do in fact earn their living as solidly and honestly as they know how. Such fraudulent activities were the exception, not the rule. That does not mean that it should not be harshly addressed of course. But the public perception was blown a little out of proportion.
But even before that. How do you explain the huge award given to that dumb woman who spilled McDonalds coffee all over her crotch. If that was not vindictiveness, I don't know what is.
The only thing you should feel when shooting a terrorist: Recoil.