<I made this point recently and I think it's worth repeating. If there is any disparity in the application of labels to describe political persuasion, it might be due to the fact that "liberal" has taken on negative connotations in today's environment, while "conservative" has not.

Okay, I think we've established that at least one of our number hails from a parallel universe. Welcome to our dimension, good buddy!

...Without specific examples of the alleged bias to examine, and - more critically -without a universal understanding of what the bandied-about labels really mean, I don't think you can really make the case one way or the other.



There is no mathematical precision to the meanings of words. However, Formal Logic attempts to systematize the evaluation of statements. Valid arguments cannot contain ambiguous statements or equivocation.



Boy, is THAT a load of horseapples, or what? I have said elsewhere that mental fog is a major weapon of the liberal.

Of course most words have exact meanings, even if they are not "mathematically" exact, whatever the hell that means. If you are using a lot of language with imprecise meanings, than the problem is on your end. I try not to use five-dollar words when a ten-cent word will do.

You are correct that "dictionary definitions" of political terms are hard to come by. Those I have run across tend to be tilted to make the political persuasion of the writer sound good and the others sound bad. Still, I think you would agree that certain political positions are easily identifiable as coming from one side or the other.

Let me try a simple layout from my viewpoint:

There are two basic philosophies in the world, collectivism and individualism. Basically, in collectivism, the role of the individual is service to other individuals, a collective, or those who are set up as his rulers. In individualism, the role of the individual is as a free agent, with a right to his own life and a right to the fruits of his efforts. Everything else is decoration slapped onto these basics, often for the purpose of confusing the listener, and every society is a mixture of the two, with larger or smaller portions depending on the society. However, this does not mean that the specific principles cannot be identified in each society, or that a society cannot be described as largely "individualistic" or "collectivist."

One can see right off that both standard American conservatism and liberalism have some aspects of both of these. I am more sympathetic to conservatives, since they are far less likely to impose statist solutions for problems, although there are exceptions (support of the draft and punitive drug laws are examples.) If anything, I would tend to define myself as libertarian, which is the political philosophy most consistent with individualism.

I am a big fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy, which runs a lot deeper than politics, but is the basis for political positions. A good, brief explanation of that is here.

There is more helpful information here.