The difference between a liberal attitude and a conservative attitude in modern society

These are some of my opponent's quotes that I will concentrate on to make counter points "I think that it is important to distinguish between the liberal philosophy, and today's liberal philosophy implementation." "Be that as it may, this debate is really about the role that liberalism plays in today's America." Opponents Characterization of conservatism and his views; "Conservative philosophy is one of tolerance, acceptance, and belief in the individual," "Conservatism does not discriminate, nor demand that you believe a certain way." "I personally feel that each and every one of us should be allowed to lead the life we choose, go down whatever path we desire, and build the world as we see fit, as long as it does not harm others." "The government should only be as large as needed to get the job done…" Liberalism means many different things to many different people. A misapplication of a philosophy by a political party should not be used to attack Liberalism itself. My opponent may not realize the burden he will have placed on his own argument by doing so. By his own logic he would also have to adopt the Republican Party's recent record as "the role that *conservatism* plays in today's America." If he chooses to accept this then his definition of conservative is in conflict with the reality of Republican Party action. The Federal government, while headed by Republicans, instead of rolling back government has expanded it and according to the conservative David Frum increased spending faster then under any president since LBJ. Frum also states that the Bush White House has also increased the government's involvement in prescription drugs and energy. The Republican Party has also attempted to increase the power of the FBI and CIA to spy and investigate Americans, wants to change the constitution to stop states from legalizing gay marriage, continue farm subsidies (corporate welfare). It seems quite clear that "the role that *conservatism* plays in today's America" is negative. Again I will mention that conservatism today wishes to ban many things, I have already listed many, most of the time to make people "feel good". Universal Health Care on the other hand is not a "feel good" measure but is in my opinion a right. In society, government is the main way that members of that society interact to provide services and solve problems so they cannot only be free but be prosperous. My opponent has stated that universal health care systems are bad because they are "burdensome and costly system that limits healthcare options for participants, and de-incentivizes doctors and practitioners across the board." My opponent claims that Canadians hate their national health care system. But I will agree that Canada has faults in its system. According to the New York Times, "Canada remains the only industrialized country that outlaws privately financed purchases of core medical services." This is not acceptable to me and shows that Canada is not the best example but it is amazing that despite that Canada still has more doctors per person, has a lower infant mortality rate, a higher life expectancy, spends less money on health care per person and also spends a lower percentage of government revenue on health care. This according to "OECD Health Data 2007: How Does Canada Compare". I must also not the fact that Americans go to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs and medical marihuana (something conservatives are often against despite your "no harm" principle). When it comes to gun control there are "liberals" and "conservatives" who have taken different views on the issue. Philosophically liberalism supports the right or the liberty to bear arms. My opponent early in his last post mentioned Socialism and said, "there are reasons for this failure that find their roots at the base of human nature, involving forces like competition, freedom of choice, and human motivation." He then later attacked any idea about income redistribution on basically the same points. My opponent seems to be in favor of a free trade laissez faire economy and has stated that that liberalism and socialism go against human nature. I disagree; first I would like again to point to the income distribution in this country and the growing gap between rich and poor. If the economy as is benefits the rich, what in the motivation and nature of the majority should push them to keep the status quo? Isn't everyone's prosperity in the interests of both the group and the individual? My opponent would also have to explain people who sacrifice fortune for others, those in the military and public school teachers are just two examples. The market is not a perfect invisible hand that my opponent thinks it is. Philosophically and actually liberalism favors a regulated market economy. Pure capitalism has no moral or ethical concerns when it comes to wages, safety or what products can or should be sold. Regulation is necessary to bust monopolies, raise tariffs, set standards, and protect the worker from exploitation. My opponent has blamed much of outsourcing on regulations and taxes. But this is an over simplification of the big picture. The big picture is that costs in a modern western country will always be greater then in the third world. The only way a worker in American can compete with a 1 dollar an hour worker in another country is to do his job for 99 cents an hour. That's pure capitalism, a giant race to the bottom. Tariffs and regulation are necessary to make up for the fact we have pay our worker a fairer wage. Also, taxes and regulation on large corporations allow an opportunity for the small business owner to compete. The market is necessary for all the reasons my opponent said, but to let it run amok leaving behind the vast majority of citizens is not the answer. Liberalism is not about the government saying you need me, but that we need each other. We need police to keep the peace not rent a cops, we need public school teachers to give ALL children an education, not just those with the money for private schools. We need small businesses, that make and keep jobs in America and that are connected to their community, more then we need giant corporations who only care about their bottom dollar. My opponent's brand of conservatism does not say, "You can do it". It says, "No matter what societal or economical forces are arrayed against you, You Are Alone, and your community will never help you because your success and wellbeing have nothing to do with this country."