That's all I want to start with in this stand. Liberals are right!

("take a stand" rules apply.)

You are incorrect. They are left. Conservatives are right. By the way I don't think the words liberal or conservative have any meaning at all unless one is talking about a particular issue and the opposing points of view are identified.

("take a stand" rules apply.)
This whole "take a stand" thing isn't working.

Don't be sad. I was just trying to be funny.

I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing here Hippocrates. Please clarify (using a new thread if necessary). Thanks!

In what way do you mean...

As a political doctrine? (Progressive politics)

or

As a social philosophy? (Egalitarianism)

or

Both?

Both. I favor individual rights. I favor limiting the power of governments (when possible) and of corporations (when they become so powerful as to threaten individual rights). And to the extent that a society produces surplus resources (as is the case in most developed societies), I favor measures aimed at ensuring that all people have equal opportunity for success.

Yay, the first "take a stand" response in accordance with the rules!

Does that goal require a large govermnent redistributing resources? For example education, up to and beyond university level?

To the extent that a society is structured in such a way that permits certain people to achieve great success, I believe it is sensible to ask those very successful people to shoulder some of the responsibility for extending opportunities to others (particularly for example the children of disadvantaged parents, who cannot be held to account for their low station in life). The simplest way I see for doing this is via a graduated taxation system, which I do not regard as redistribution of wealth.

I think a private educational system built upon the profit motive is not conducive to my goal of equal opportunity for all, so yes I believe a successful society should direct some of its resources to funding or subsidizing the education of those of its citizens who cannot afford or for some other reason do not want a private education.

My take on this is that the real reason you do this is to foster stability and progress in a society. Or to the wealthy person, the less poor and homeless and so on that you have in a society, the less theft and crime you will have of your money that you have worked so hard for. And you will end up with a better educated and healthier workforce. Oh, and the people will make more money with those better jobs.

And on and on...

P.S. the stupidest thing that our nation can be doing in an impending depression is to underfund schooling. It's the only real hope that a society has to recover and be strong for the next generations.

You didn't read the rules.

spblat wrote:
I don't consider this a "Communist" "redistribution of wealth" but a necessity for a democracy. There's no way that everyone will have the ability or opportunity to make piles of money. Therefore, if we have only private schools, only the wealthy will receive a good education. However, EVERYONE has the right to vote and needs a decent education in order to be a responsible citizen. An ignorant populace will be even more prone to the kind of total nonsense we are now witnessing in some "town halls," with unscrupulous politicians spreading lies to scare people. They should all know better--politicians and citizens alike. (Ironically some of these people are so ignorant or foolish that they don't know their own Medicare is a government-run health care system!)

Taxes are also needed for things all citizens use: roads, police forces, fire departments, etc. I would also extend the list to hospitals and doctors: I think we need to redesign the health care system so that all have access to health care and health insurance--not just the wealthy and the elderly. Private charities do terrific work but are unable to fund everything from schools to roads to police and fire departments to health care.

Heh. My response was technically on-topic other than the bit about education at the end :)

I think it's not only morally proper for wealthier people to pay more but also it's good business sense as well.