Comments on: What it Means to be a Liberal http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/319 Notes from the intersection of law, society, technology, economics, and culture Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:13:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2 By: Ben Samuel Nelson http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/319#comment-5435 Ben Samuel Nelson Tue, 31 Oct 2006 03:37:51 +0000 http://www.lawsocietyblog.com/archives/319#comment-5435 I think The Poor Man Institute gave a worthy treatment of <a href="http://www.thepoorman.net/2006/10/22/department-of-the-bleedin-obvious/" rel="nofollow">the latter article</a>. Their review of it is called "Department of the Bleedin' Obvious". Anyway, right now I'm conversing over the former with Clark at <a href="http://www.libertypages.com/clark/10864.html" rel="nofollow">Mormon Philosophy and Theology blog</a>. I consider myself to be closely allied with principled modern liberalism, and a fair distance from libertarian stances. So I collect opinions about the meaning of "liberalism" as much as I can. And surely, this "top ten" list has left a great deal out. It isn't very clear about the common points of debate, says little about the historical links to related ideologies and the contemporary ambiguities of the term, and doesn't perform the kind of taxonomic niceties that I think research into these areas ought to do. Still, it's better than the usual nonsense you'll find out there, and was offered in the spirit of discussion, which is good. I think The Poor Man Institute gave a worthy treatment of the latter article. Their review of it is called “Department of the Bleedin’ Obvious”.

Anyway, right now I’m conversing over the former with Clark at Mormon Philosophy and Theology blog.

I consider myself to be closely allied with principled modern liberalism, and a fair distance from libertarian stances. So I collect opinions about the meaning of “liberalism” as much as I can. And surely, this “top ten” list has left a great deal out. It isn’t very clear about the common points of debate, says little about the historical links to related ideologies and the contemporary ambiguities of the term, and doesn’t perform the kind of taxonomic niceties that I think research into these areas ought to do. Still, it’s better than the usual nonsense you’ll find out there, and was offered in the spirit of discussion, which is good.

]]>