I value political liberty and political rights (freedom of thought, speech, conscience, and the press, the right to vote, civil equality) more highly than economic liberty and economic rights (property rights, freedom of enterprise, freedom from want, economic equality). I’m in favor of progressive taxation and generous public provision of education, pensions, and health care. I think people should have enough to eat and a roof over their heads, even if they haven’t done much to deserve it. I reject the idea that the market is the singular bedrock of society while everything else is a parasitical growth. I want government to do something about environmental degradation and gross social and economic inequality. I’m a secularist and a supporter of equal rights for women and gays. And when it comes to wanting World Peace, I’m practically a Miss America contestant. So I’m a liberal. — Hendrik Hertzberg
A paragraph that addresses the different kinds of freedoms that exist. Political liberty and economic liberty might sound like a monolithic mass of freedoms, they’re both after all, a kind of “liberty,” but if you read libertarian thought at any length, you’ll quickly realize that the two concepts are entirely distinct for some people, and one and the same for others, which is the root of a lot of disagreement. Here’s the blog response of a conservative to the above paragraph:
Hertzberg’s description of liberal values struck me as fundamentally fair. Conservatives such as me don’t think that people should receive generous education, pensions, and health care when they haven’t done anything to deserve them. We think generous welfare causes people to become parasites, whereas the free market encourages people to be self-reliant. We want government to encourage equal opportunity, but we don’t want it to enforce equality by redistributing wealth. Although conservatives want World Peace, we believe that freedom isn’t free. And finally, I have to admit that conservatives are less willing to protect the environment and less likely to insist on the separation of church and state.
The aspect of the author’s description that I found most interesting was that liberal’s prefer political liberty while conservatives prefer economic liberty. Liberals believe in restricting economic liberty to ensure that political liberty can exist and even thrive, whereas conservatives believe that political liberty cannot thrive or even exist without economic liberty. — Mike Kueber
Kueber doesn’t address here in which way his beliefs actually represent liberty, but they certainly do - the economic kind. The kind where you’re not bound to pay for anyone other than yourself. No matter how personally distasteful you find this belief, that is a kind of liberty, and I think a lot of arguments would become more productive if we spent more time in thinking about which freedoms we value more than others and why.
I hope that more discussions in coming years will wrestle with the idea of compromise. Morals - liberal, conservative, sexual, whatever - owe a lot to the instinct to impair the competition. It’s important that when we look at ideals, including our own, we evaluate how much of them is compromise, and how much of it is unreasonable self-interest, and respond to those ideals based on their spirit of compromise and mutual understanding rather than much we personally relate to the underlying principles.