Why are you a liberal?

[Ferguson97]

Counterpart to the "why are you a conservative" and "why are you a leftist" threads.

[dead0man]

because it's the correct way to be

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), democracy, secularism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion and a market economy.

it should be the political base for everyone.  We can bicker on the details, but I suspect the vast majority of people in western countries agree with the above.

[John Dule]

Because liberalism has increased mankind's standard of living more than every other ideology combined.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As dead0man gets at, we are all liberals unless we fundamentally reject certain consensus, or used-to-be-consensus, values that really, really shouldn't be rejected given the alternatives.

[Ferguson97]

As dead0man gets at, we are all liberals unless we fundamentally reject certain consensus, or used-to-be-consensus, values that really, really shouldn't be rejected given the alternatives.

Should have specified, "liberal" as is commonly used in American politics, not in the broad, academic sense.

[John Dule]

As dead0man gets at, we are all liberals unless we fundamentally reject certain consensus, or used-to-be-consensus, values that really, really shouldn't be rejected given the alternatives.

Should have specified, "liberal" as is commonly used in American politics, not in the broad, academic sense.

No. We're taking our word back.

[TheReckoning]

As dead0man gets at, we are all liberals unless we fundamentally reject certain consensus, or used-to-be-consensus, values that really, really shouldn't be rejected given the alternatives.

Capitalism shouldn’t be questioned?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

As dead0man gets at, we are all liberals unless we fundamentally reject certain consensus, or used-to-be-consensus, values that really, really shouldn't be rejected given the alternatives.

Capitalism shouldn’t be questioned?

"Market economy" normally implies capitalism, sure, but the most successful (or least unsuccessful) attempts to build socialism historically have generally involved an acceptance of some role for market forces, rather than a pure planned or command economy. Think of Tito's Yugoslavia, or even, say, midcentury Britain, as compared to Stalin or Hoxha.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Poverty under the brutal capitalist regime:

[Antonio the Sixth]

Poverty under the brutal capitalist regime:

This data has... many problems. There are methodological ones (like how PPP is calculated), but those are above my pay grade tbh. There's also the fact that this trend weakens then disappears entirely if you look at thresholds that are objectively more meaningful, like $5 or $10 per day, and even reverse itself when you exclude China.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

Poverty under the brutal capitalist regime:

This data has... many problems. There are methodological ones (like how PPP is calculated), but those are above my pay grade tbh. There's also the fact that this trend weakens then disappears entirely if you look at thresholds that are objectively more meaningful, like $5 or $10 per day, and even reverse itself when you exclude China.

Nobody had electricity in 1800 and the vast majority of people have it now.

How would you explain that?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Poverty under the brutal capitalist regime:

This data has... many problems. There are methodological ones (like how PPP is calculated), but those are above my pay grade tbh. There's also the fact that this trend weakens then disappears entirely if you look at thresholds that are objectively more meaningful, like $5 or $10 per day, and even reverse itself when you exclude China.

Nobody had electricity in 1800 and the vast majority of people have it now.

How would you explain that?

Interesting fact! Shame it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

[jamestroll]

I believe in human dignity and have sympathy for the underdog.

Environmental concerns. Conservatives do not particularly care about conserving the environment.

Racial issues/Immigration

Belief in science.

Conservatives view life as too rosy. No, not everyone has equal chances.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Poverty under the brutal capitalist regime:

This data has... many problems. There are methodological ones (like how PPP is calculated), but those are above my pay grade tbh. There's also the fact that this trend weakens then disappears entirely if you look at thresholds that are objectively more meaningful, like $5 or $10 per day, and even reverse itself when you exclude China.

Nobody had electricity in 1800 and the vast majority of people have it now.

How would you explain that?

Are we going to argue that John D Rockefeller Sr. was in poverty because he couldn't afford a smartphone?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

I am a liberal because I believe certain principles such as consent of the governed, democracy, basic freedoms, et cetera - see dead0man's post here - ought to be foundational values.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

I do think when picking political ideologies it's a matter of a pick your poison and I think liberalism is ultimately the one that makes the most sense. The principle of tradition for the sake of tradition is something I've never understood which has made even moderate conservatism hard for me to understand and support. I'm also sceptical of entrenched hierarchies and authorities which is inherently anti-conservatives. I've also grown steadily more hostile to the self-identified left of the liberal sphere, which is often infected with weird strains of utopian crankery and seems to have a deeply authoritarian core embedded inside of them. Ultimately I see collectivism as being far too misused through history and think that ultimately enabling people to be free to make their own choices is best thing the goverment can do. After all, I can only speak about my personal social preferences and see no reason why I should have to impose my preferences on others*.This is a bit warped by the fact that I'm also a utilitarian so I'm in favour of state intervention if on the net it improves personal liberty, for example, I'm in favour of drug prohibition because I view addiction as something that inhibits a person freedom by creating a dependency.

I am a bit dejected however by the modern trend of liberalism, and am not blind to many flaws of historical liberalism such as famines, colonialism and slavery often justified by many self-identified liberals. Ultimatley all ideologies come with their own baggage and it's a matter of picking the ones you can live with and of all the ideologies I think liberalism has made the best peace with it's ghosts especialy when compared to the far-left and the far-right.


Mordern liberalism is however something i'm growing a bit estranged from, I think there is increasingly an elitest technocratic bent with regards towards many modern self-identified liberals that I find incredibly off-putting that I think it's inherited from the broader centre-left sphere. Like I see many arguments post-Brexit about the evils of the referendum and the nesseicty of experts as deeply disturbing and most elite in a way that doesn't reflect well on the people who make them. I also do think morder-liberals have been to quick to dismiss concerns about pandemic measures as whining instead of reflecting on why people are getting increasigly freaked out about them

*Marxism is merely the most common one.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Because I'm American.

You might as well ask why I was born in the early 90s.

[S019]

Well fundamentally I believe some amount of civil liberties as well as liberal democracy are important. I also believe in economic freedom.

[Malarkey Decider]

Poverty under the brutal capitalist regime:

This data has... many problems. There are methodological ones (like how PPP is calculated), but those are above my pay grade tbh. There's also the fact that this trend weakens then disappears entirely if you look at thresholds that are objectively more meaningful, like $5 or $10 per day, and even reverse itself when you exclude China.

Wrong.

even reverse itself when you exclude China.

Wrong Again. While China has been one of the most efficient at erasing poverty, tremendous advances have been made in Latin America, The Middle East, SE Asia, and even India now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That's fair enough. I'm pretty sure the trend does disappear when you take the $10 threshold AND exclude China, but I'll admit that's reaching a bit.

Still, it is worth noting that the rise flattens a lot when you look at the higher threshold (not that $10/day is a very high threshold to begin with! It's still abject poverty). So I'm still gonna call the initial graph severely misleading.

[Malarkey Decider]

That's fair enough. I'm pretty sure the trend does disappear when you take the $10 threshold AND exclude China, but I'll admit that's reaching a bit.

Still, it is worth noting that the rise flattens a lot when you look at the higher threshold (not that $10/day is a very high threshold to begin with! It's still abject poverty). So I'm still gonna call the initial graph severely misleading.

I actually was interested to see if this was true, so I did some quick calculations comparing a couple of different graphs on the OurWouldInData website.

In 1980, 2.5 Billion of the 3.5 Billion Non-Chinese people lived on less than 10$ a day (71.4%)

In 2017, 4 Billion of the 6.1 Billion Non-Chinese people lived on less than 10$ a day (65.5%)

So, a modest decrease, but still a significant one. I do agree with you that the first map is misleading, and would rather showcase the one displaying multiple income levels. However, I would keep in mind that more people living on $9 instead of $2 is still a significant achievement, and it is worth understanding changes in income levels, even at such a low level.