10 pts to the person who can argue a liberal position using logic, and not emotion?

I don't think anyone could seriously consider American liberals to be "left wing" insofar as the term has usually been understood. American politics essentially stops at left-center; the real left wing is occupied by communists, revolutionary socialists, anarchists, etc.

Now then, as to arguing for liberal positions:

- Tax Policy: American liberals favor progressive taxation so as to keep the distribution of wealth and income stable. While some on the right take this to be a form of retribution due to liberals' supposed hatred of the rich, history shows that economic leveling is sensible and necessary for the functioning of the capitalist system. In economics as in all other areas, things which can't go on forever don't. The problem with allowing wealth - economic power - to be continually concentrated into the hands of a few is that it simply can't go on forever; once this concentration reaches a certain point, people at the bottom can no longer afford to buy the products produced by the firms owned by the investor class. This collapse in demand causes corporate earnings and prices to implode; without remedial action, capital is destroyed, leaving everyone worse off. Far from "punishing the rich," progressive taxes actually ensure the durability of the capitalist system in which the rich occupy the dominant position.

- Healthcare: The quasi-private American healthcare system is, objectively, the most inefficient in the world. We spend more per person than any other country, yet have the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Medicare alone - just medicare - comprises a greater percentage of GDP than the ENTIRE HEALTHCARE INDUSTRIES of Canada, France, the UK, and many others. We're also the only developed country without universal healthcare. There are many problems with the current system, but perhaps the most significant is the lack of universal coverage itself; the uninsured often can't afford even the basic treatments or preventive measures necessary to maintain good health, so they generally wait until they have a medical emergency to seek care. At this point, they go to an ER - which itself is unnecessarily expensive - for expensive treatments that could have easily been prevented had they merely had the means to seek care from a family doctor. This in turn puts a high demand on the healthcare sector, driving up prices for everyone. And, as prices increase, more people forgo buying insurance, creating more demand in the long run, and so on, in a self-perpetuating upwards spiral. Additionally, in the current system, even those with coverage change their insurers very frequently, leaving managed care organizations with little incentive to invest in prevention. In short, the current American system is woefully obsolete; a relic of a bygone era where people often spent their entire lives working for one or two firms.

- Abortion: Liberals tend to be "pro-choice," which isn't "pro-abortion," but rather "anti-government-prohibition" of abortion. Even if we can agree in principle that abortion is a tragedy, that is not to say that anything would be gained were government to prohibit it. Quite the contrary, the experience with prohibition of alcohol, and now drugs, shows quite clearly that prohibitive decrees not only fail to rid society of the prohibited good/service, but also introduce a whole host of new problems arising from its now-illicit nature - violent crime resulting from black market transactions, unsafe products due to lack of oversight, etc. Most liberals thus take the position that the government should attempt to minimize the number of abortions, but that it should remain safe and legal.

- Energy Policy: Liberals acknowledge that market prices for certain products do not always include their total economic costs; economists call this a "negative market externality." The energy industry arguably externalizes more of their costs than any other. The government spends staggering amounts of money on defense of our economic interests (usually energy resources) around the globe; the problem is that these expenditures, while having a real cost to citizens, are actually just subsidies for oil and gas firms. Substitute forms of energy - i.e., wind and solar power - are far cheaper in absolute terms, but aren't as competitive in an unfettered market, as their costs are pretty much fully reflected in their market price, while many of the costs of their carbon competitors are not. Additionally, liberals feel that our dependence on far-flung energy resources poses an enormous threat to our national security, as the interruption of such supplies would bring the economy to a halt. Thus, we believe that government should implement a strategic energy policy to get us off of such carbon-based energy sources. Increasing domestic supplies of oil and gas (i.e., offshore drilling), while economically beneficial in the short run, only serves to prolong the inevitable transition away from them. Government encouragement of this transition - rather than delay of it - will provide the US with a future competitive advantage in the high value-added green energy technology industry, providing good jobs, economic prosperity, and real security.

**Edit**

"do you really think companies would not lower their prices so that people could buy them? how could they make any money if they didn't."

Theoretically, that's how it works. Theoretically. However, as is often the case, the system doesn't work quite as well in practice as it does on paper. In reality, what happens when the concentration of wealth becomes extreme is this:

- Consumers stop buying and default on their debts they can't pay back.

- Banks hoard capital due to their losses; the flow of credit stops.

- Businesses, faced with falling demand and tight credit conditions, seek to preserve earnings by laying people off, scrapping investments, cutting dividends, and hoarding cash.

- The laid off workers cut back on spending and some default, causing more insolvencies, and so on.

Now, normally this corrects itself; as people cut consumption, the excess inventories and misallocated capital are liquidated, banks recapitalize, and growth resumes. However, when the concentration becomes severe, this process doesn't have a floor. Left unmitigated, the inevitable result is revolution.

As a moderate, I can say that it seems to me that you prescribe to the totalitarian view that the US is split between the conservatives and everyone else ( 'liberals,' left wingers, etc..)

I can ask the same question of you --give me a logical argument about anything that hasn't been tampered by right wing, fundamental Christian ideology--or the common practice of dismissing anything or anyone that does not agree with you.

The fact that you will not talk about the Iraq 'war' is a perfect example--the blunt truth is that Bush and Co. were obsessed with Suddam Hussein BEFORE 9/11 and created a steering committee to juice up the reasons to invade. Fact, not fiction..no emotion involved. The resulting consignment of our forces in Iraq meant we could not commit enough people to catch the real perpetrators of 9/11 who for the most part are still at large.

And I give you another right wing nightmare concerning the ecology--(and Yes the extreme left needs to be muzzled) but what about global warming? Conservatives dismissed it entirely even though 90% of the worlds' scientists saw it coming (it took a federal court to dislodge the EPA's official findings from Bush who was hiding it because it supported the global warning front). And why did the conservatives fight the global warming theory?---because Al Gore was associated with it...no sh--! There is such an obsense and passionate hatred for anything left of absolute conservatism (this post being one) that people will gnaw their limb off to get away from anything that smacks of a liberal idea.

So, how about this...give me one of your right wing ideas and see if you can defend it without conservative dribble, denial and died in the flag false patriotism that defines right wingers today.

Good luck

Gay Rights(P.S. i am not a liberal but want those 10 points, nor am i gay).

While many argue that homosexuality is an abomination against God, this in itself is a sin. With the knowledge that only God should be able to judge others, and the consequent fact that ones religious fervor does not have a direct correlation with their sexuality, this creates a scenario where people oppose gay marriage under the false crusade of religion.

A anti-gay argument is further chastised by the argument of a 'sacred unity between man and woman'. This argument is laughable because of how marriage is treated today. To someone from a century ago, marriage today would appear to be a weak form of dating. The multiple marriages people go through creates the 'band forever' seem more of a 'band of love until i get bored or cheat on you'.

With both of these arguments unfounded, the only other arguments that can be made are those that are founded on bias opinions with little support whatsoever.

Hope yall enjoy reading.

What topic are you labeling left or liberal ?

Poverty ? Both left and right claim to be against it -- and both have a plan to eliminate or reduce it

War -- opps off topic -- but both sides want the same thing -- a safe good economically strong USA

--- Israel --- I am sorry but I can't someone decided that I am not allowed to ask a question containing that word and am only allowed to use it for now in answers

--------- Censorship

The left is against it the right is against it

What should be censored ?

Both say crime --- and only crime

What is crime ?

That is a thorny one but doesn't divide well into the left right divisions your laying out

Torture ?

It has been proven not to give reliable information --- I know of no right wing anyone who says other wise --

The left is against it the right is against it

There is a small group that is for it hiding under a right wing banner -- but they will soon be hiding under the left wing banner because that is where the power is and that is what that group is loyal to --- so that isn't a political left right thing either

---------------

So give me the topic -- and even if I hate the position you want me to play --- fine I am up for it --- It is always a good exercise

Go

OK. The Bush tax cuts are a bone of contention with the Left, I will use this argument. Tax cuts in a time of war was one of the worst moves advocated by the Republicans. Not only were the tax cuts unprecedented (no other President had ever done this) but they were strongly warned against by top Economists, both Left and Right. These tax cuts have left us more vulnerable to a Depression far worse than that of the Great Depression, which occurred in a time of budget surpluses. I would submit to you that by this single act Bush has arguably placed the U.S. in it's weakest economic position in History.

I will ask for two things before I answer, 1) to offer a topic, so as to remove any confusion as to what will or will not meet your criteria, 2) what qualification do you have to judge "logic"? I ask because I have studied classical logic and rhetoric. So what is your qualification on the subject?

I ask you to quantify what would be an acceptable topic and your qualification to judge logic. You have satisfied neither. Why? I would suggest that you do not have the grasp on this very broad and sloppy question that you are attempting to frame. You have lost control of your topic and the logic behind it has fallen in that you can not defend what you can not define. Nice try perhaps it worked on some but I would like to point out the right leaning answers here that cheer you on are lacking any logic in favor of simple minded, emotional cheer(following).

OK here's the Deal Kiddies... ME, Born in California ... Served U.S. Army 1968-1974 ... Bought My 1st house/Property in 1971. Never Married, Lived with at Least 6 Wonderful Girls, and about 3 Not so wonderful Gals, for more than 2yrs. at a strech. went to Jr. college 2 yrs.(majored in Female Anatomy) Worked in Grocery Stores right out of H.S. 5/6yrs. Drove a Beer Truck/Salesman 7/8 yrs.Every grocery/Liquorstore/Bar/Pub/Pizza Joint/Deli/Bait Shop/Strip Joint in The Whole dammed county-Over 950 accounts. had a Calif. Real estate Lic. for 8 years Listed or sold about 55 properties.. Owned 4 of my own props. which I managed and maintained(with helpers) Wrote up at least 60 Lease Agreements over the years. So Whats the Point ?? Oh Shitt !! I forgot .. Oh Yea .. Point, (not counting out of state, Military) In California, mostly my Realm, I have met THOUSANDS of Peoples, yep Thousands,, and ya know sumthin'? Not one .. Nary a ONE, EVER said to Me "I'M a LIBERAL" !!! Can ya Imagine THAT ?? Probably cause I NEVER joined/affiliated with ANY political party, so I didnt go around asking what "party" everyone was COMMITED To, mainly cause I DIDNT GIVE a SCHITT !! The Ten Comandments,(havent been to Catholic Servecies since 12yrs. old) and The U.S. CONSTITUTION are The ONLY Guides I have Ever Needed. So when many here at YA, use "Liberal" in most, or ALL their Q & A's its an AUTOMATIC o"LIElly, Hannfaggity, MindMelt-Mental Midget Red Flag 4 me. .. The so called Liberals' or Decent Conservatives Are NOT This Countries Problem.. The MURDERS and TERRORISTS, and Our Future EXECUTIONERS are Right HERE > > http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=327 ... ... http://www.uaff.us/deathcamps.htm

Since you've already concluded that all liberal positions are not based on logic, there's no logical reason to try to convince you otherwise.

And your own logical thought processes are in question if you believe that there's no difference in positions on environmental issues, like pollution, between the left and the right.

The intergration of many cultures- to take examples of how other countries work to better our own... for example the EU does this all the time. - and uses it in all of Europe

Women getting education- so that families do not have to have more children for sons - meaning less over population of the world. Also females will be aware of STDs and will know how to not contract them or pass them on. (This is for the countries where, obviously, women aren't yet allowed education)

Better working conditions, dignity for workers, decent wages, child labor laws, forty hour work week have all come about through union organizing and electing liberals to high office.

The Civil Rights Act and the end of segregation came about as result of massive demonstrations during a liberal administration.

I consider myself conservative, but I'll take a shot:

We should not kill fetuses because all life is important, no matter the condition in which we find it.

THAT should be a liberal position.

Edit: With all due respect to the contributor, Phil M's response is a piece of garbage.