The important role of liberals.

Liberals whine all the time about everything and are either stupid and/or completely crazy, so you don't want them running the country.

However corrupt politicians often pay off people who criticise them to go somewhere else and liberals, being stupid and/or crazy, are very hard to pay off. Every man has his price, but if you get enough liberals whining away so the total expense of avoiding responsibility will be too high, there will be no way to escape justice for the corrupt politician or whoever is up to no good.

So you need liberals and you need enough of them to police a wide variety of issues in a heated paranoid manner. However the more liberals you have, the more influence they have over the government. So you need to find a balance between the corruption caused by liberals with their corrupt ideals and the corruption they alleviate through criticism.

I'm trying to make al ist of factors to understand how to control the proportion of liberals and how many and what type of liberals are needed. This is it briefly so far.
:the liberals' ability to criticise
;how crazy liberals are and how much money is needed to subvert them
;how much need there is for criticism ie. how much corruption there is
;how many people are in a position to commit the various crimes and how much money they have

The role of the media and action groups is a very important factor, since hierarchial groups are easier to bribe than an assorted movement. Michael Moore for instance makes a lot of money for not criticising certain companies and officials and the new york times is a liberal newpaper that occasionally expresses some avidly non-liberal points of view. It's obvious what is going on.

>>40
Original thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Classical liberalism's today's equivalent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Socialist version also called neo-liberalism and they can be rightfully called pseudo liberals, because they don't fully support freedoms that liberalism embraces:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism

I actually rarely find arguement with wikipedia, and even in this case i primarally agree with you.   however in this case i am pointing to much older philosophies.  trying do devide politics into "change to something new or go back to tradition" is a rather stupid and pointless argument.  This is much the same way that the label "progressive" is a lie because it is led by politicians and politicians are never for progress.

           Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.[3] Many elements of this ideology developed in the 17th and 18th centuries. As such, it is often seen as being the natural ideology of the industrial revolution and its subsequent capitalist system. The early liberal figures that libertarians now describe as their fellow "classical liberals" rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance.[4]. Such thinkers and their ideas helped to inspire the American Revolution and French Revolution.

           OK this is a simple enough philosophy.  I am even willing to put the label "liberal" on it for the sake of this arguement.  Now with my simple definition of conservative and liberal we have to exact mirror philosophies that are encouraged to have conflict.  this definition of liberal is simply what i have been using for conservative.  and by wikipedia the definition of conservative is this:

Conservatism is a philosophy defined by Edmund Burke as "a disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve".[1] The term derives from conserve; from Latin conservare, to keep, guard, observe. Classical conservatism does not readily avail itself to the ideology of objectives. It is a philosophy primarily concerned with means over ends. To a conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_Conservatism
 
               these two definitions are far from being able to define everything because they aren't clean cut enough.  Certain issues are covered by both.  For instance it is a traditional national philosopy that a man has the right to own a firearm, it is also a liberal philosophy because it falls under the govenment not stepping on that persons rights.  Also over time an issue that stars on one side of an arguemnt can move to another.  Case in point: the republican party has always been conservative since it's conception.  The problem is that it started as a 1 platform pary, that being anti-slaver, a decidedly liberal(by your definition) concept at the time, as it covers both bringing about social change, and stoping the govenment from keeping freedom from people.  Today however if a party were to preach a return to slavery it would be promoting a CONSERVATIVE philosophy as it would be advocating the return to a traditional and outdated system,  and definately not liberal as it would be the govenment allowing the rights of individuals to be taken away.  now politicans and parties can change sides all they want by the definitions i put forward, however the issues are always on one side or the other making what we see as the "modern definiton" of conservatism and liberalism, or even classical conservatism and classical liberalism extreemly flawed.

         Most liberitarians still define themselves as conservatives still.  not really because of any knowlege of the subject, or any particualar like of the word.  it's just that the primary focus of the political party is economics.  they tend to agree with republicans on economics far more often that democrats, and republicans define themselves as the conservative party.

        Social liberalism i won't really go into unless it comes up again.  lets just say that i believe it to be a political wet dream and a fantasy.  A nice thought in form, but seriously lacking in funcion.  Another advantage of the defining system i brought up is it defines Social liberalism and simmular philosophies as exactly what they are, blends and mixes of the two over philosophies.  where as the modern definition of conservatism will ALMOST always fall under liberal by my definition because it tends to advocate govenment forcing "traditionalism" down peoples throats,  there is nothing wrong with tradition, but it has little actual meaning and certainly doesn't require getting involved in politics

politicians are never for progress.

Except for the ones trying to crawl to the top.

politicans are all about progress. they want to progress from one office to another so they are in a better position to screw over the rest of the population.

>>44
3 types of politicians:

1. Power hungry psychopat, most common form of politican. Appears to be nice man, but blatantly lies about everything. Cares mostly for money and his position.

2. Popular crusader, soccer mom type politician mostly against single thing. Popular versions are anti-gun politician whose family member was killed by guns and hysteriously anti-sexual politician, because she/he was raped. 

3. Politician who actually cares about people, most rarest type not that they don't exists, but they are commonly just commoners and get little to no votes.

>>8
u morons, libertarians = libertarians, liberals are people who are liberal.

the term CONSERVATIVE has been around since before left/right politics. usually conservatives vote with leftists or rightists, depending on what's best. you people remember the conservative coalition or democrats and republicans?

>>you people remember the conservative coalition of democrats and republicans?

i typo'd that, fix'd

Democrats support a republic method of representation, why is this?

>>48
not democrats. americans support it.

>>49
So why don't the democrats disband since they are not needed?

>>50
because that's not what democrats are there for u fucking moron. u think democrats are there to try to make america a direct democracy and republicans are there to keep a republican democracy?

man, you fail to the fullesWHERE IS SARAH CONNOR

>>50
>>51

         if the democrats were disbanded than another simmular party(probably the green party) would pick up a majority of democrats, and as a result become more like the former democratic party, and we would still have practically the same 2 party system.  if the republican party disbanding would be the same situation.  So it wouldn't really matter if a major party disbanded or not. although a change in party leadership would likely happen which is always good.

>>51
So why don't they change their name to the liberal-republican party? Kinda like how another party in the past didn't change their name after they changed ideology.

>>52
See above. Also the Green party wouldn't need to change it's ideals since all the ex-democrats would join them anyway and all they have to do is keep their original leadership so no ex-democrats change their main policies.

After spewing "conservative" in their retoric for the past 100 years the republican party would risk alienating their current constuency to change their name in such a way, even though the name of a political party means nothing.

party policy changes based oh who is in the party and who they are trying to get into the party.  the green party wouldn't so much change their ideology to suite those they were picking up, they would simply add on more in places where their platform had limited scope. the overall policy would change very little seeing as they agree with the democrats on most issues, and tend to just want to take it a few steps furter.  the point was really that the disbanding of a political party wouldn't exactly create a 1 party system in the us.  another party would simply fill in the gap.

>>54
NO nono... I meant the democrats change their name to the liberal-republican party.

i answered that
      "After spewing "conservative" in their retoric for the past 100 years the republican party would risk alienating their current constuency to change their name in such a way"

>>55

    sorry i really misread that twice.  for starters the main constuentcy of the democratic party is seen(even by them) to be stupid.  i mean they argue about illiterate voting, foreign language voting. and remember the design of ballots were argued to be unfair to people too stupid to read them.  I mean they helped pass laws that let catatonic people vote.  they want people living in asylums to far from reality to say anything coherient to vote.  imagine the problems if there were two parties on the ballot and both had "republican" in the name.  that would really fuck up all the dumbasses they want to vote for them.