[Monsieur D'Arque]

We've all seen the dark side of conservatism- even if you were a fan of the Bush administration, or at least not hating it, you had to see the darker undercurrents running on the outskirts of the Republican party at the time, and the really radical right-wingers are truly terrifying to Republicans and Democrats alike.

But, is there a radical left-wing? Can a person be too liberal? What constitutes "too much liberalism?" We've all got examples of too much conservatism, but is there an opposite? Are there certain lifestyles, liberties, or anything that society should NOT tolerate?

Discuss.

PS: It may be important to note that the media is careful to not call the currently reigning party "liberals," but prefers the term "moderates" to differentiate them from the more radical liberals... like what? Or, like who?

[random_person]

If you mean 'liberal' as in 'supporting freedom', then I suppose that being non-interfering in personal liberty to the point that the structure of law degenerates and it becomes every man for himself (in other words, anarchy) would be 'too liberal'. However, while anarchism exists as a school of tought, this will likely never occur as the legitimate political state of any developed country.

[wtfchuck]

The far-left extremism is eventually anarchy, so therefore I'd say "too liberal". Though liberalism is still much more preferable than any right-wing government.

[Pounce]

I think you have to define your terms. What do you mean by liberal? And I really didn't see the Bush administration as being "radical right".

[JesseMVP]

European or American conservative and liberal?

And liberalism by America's standards would not end in anarchy. That would be radical conservatism (which should logically lead to libertarianism all the way to full-on gun nuts living in communes screeching "GET OFF MAH LAWN!"), which is not what the Republican Party has really followed.

Radical American liberalism ends in something like the novel 1984. Government holding everyone at the same level through an extreme form of socialism.

Both are terrible, of course.

Really, there's not much of anything you can't take too far. Kind of a silly question in my oh so humble opinion.

[Matthew]

Yes.

[UniquePerspective]

[Pounce]

[What you own]

Oh lord yes!!!!

[kozafluitmusique]

Yes.

[shakalakababy]

God yes. The town I grew up in is probably one of the most if not the most liberal towns in the country. And it honestly drives me crazy sometimes. People there feel like they have the right to do whatever they want and thus the streets are flooded with homeless people and crazies. And no one really cares about anything. I could get into R rated movies when I was 12. And the things most people protested seemed ridiculous to me. I mean there are certain benefits to it of course but I much prefer where I go to school because things are more moderate.

[Jman383]

[Pannic]

[curlyhairedsoprano91]

Ohhh yeah.
A moderate dose of liberalism is healthy, IMHO, but it can definitely go too far.

[Dax]

I agree with those who have said yes.

.

[SmallTownIngenue]

Of course. IMO, no one should be too liberal or too conservative. I try not to get involved in politics too much, but I would identify myself as a moderate as I agree with some conservative views but I am raised liberal and I tend to lean towards that side anyway.

But yes, it can go way too far when it comes to liberalism AND conservatism.

[Orestes Fasting]

Economically, yes, it is dangerous to go either too far to the left or too far to the right. Too laissez-faire and you get 19th-century boom/bust cycles, worker exploitation, and no consumer protection. Too statist and you get Soviet Russia. A mixed system is the only way to avoid complete dysfunction, so the debate becomes how much state intervention is necessary--it's kind of a given that either extreme would be crazy.

Socially, I think you could go pretty damn far in terms of legalizing non-harmful things before you ran into crazy territory. On the other hand, yes, it is easy to get very ridiculous very fast with social protectionism, aka the "nanny state."