Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
What's specifically is wrong with liberalism?
- Thread starter EnderJE
- Start date
The Red Dragon
New member
more control to a governing agency to ensure equality...too idealistic (difficult to work in practice)
U
UA_Iron
Guest
JerseyArt said:
that sounds like christianity?
M
Mr_MAX
Guest
conservatives.. are so close minded
UA_Iron said:
Nah, at its root Christinaity is an individual affirming religion. It, unlike secular humanism, teaches the great inate value of the individual human being.
Which is one of many reasons why it is incompatible with liberalism, and why religious individuals generally offer littel support to the far left.
To the contrary our belief in representative government is based on a theological understanding of humanity. All men are created equal, all men are born with certain inalienable rights. Power flows from the people to the government because it was upon the individual that God bestowed these qualities.
Which is one more reason why communism necessitates the destruction of all religion to achieve its leftist utopian dream
IHateAmerica
New member
JerseyArt said:
Sounds like the war on terror.
mrplunkey
New member
Liberalism is well-intended, it's just too theoretical. Too many of their initiatives, while they sound great (like the 5+ Trillion we've spent to "end poverty") just don't fly.
It's not a coincidence that academics and others who are just a little too far from the day-to-day working guy (i.e. Hollywood) flock to liberal ideas in general.
Ever notice how so many people are liberal in college, but once they have a wife, 2.4 kids, a mortgage, a dog and a white picket fence they tend to become more conservative?
It's not a coincidence that academics and others who are just a little too far from the day-to-day working guy (i.e. Hollywood) flock to liberal ideas in general.
Ever notice how so many people are liberal in college, but once they have a wife, 2.4 kids, a mortgage, a dog and a white picket fence they tend to become more conservative?
Thank you JA and Mr Plunkey for some insightful answers.
JA, I'm not sure how you see it as an individual hating ideology. However, I do see the idea of the "greater good". At the same time though, it does preach taking care of those in need. Is that not a good idea for the masses?
MrP, yes, I do notice how often liberals are mainly those who are twice removed from the day to day life (except in Canada...ugh). At the same time, I also notice those who are in day to day life are bitter people who gave up on whatever dreams that had a long time ago and "settled". This is not mean to be reflective of EVERYONE who lives in day to day life, just the bitter people that I deal with on a daily basis. Anyways, couldn't I use this to indicate that cons ideology is mainly for those who have settled?
JA, I'm not sure how you see it as an individual hating ideology. However, I do see the idea of the "greater good". At the same time though, it does preach taking care of those in need. Is that not a good idea for the masses?
MrP, yes, I do notice how often liberals are mainly those who are twice removed from the day to day life (except in Canada...ugh). At the same time, I also notice those who are in day to day life are bitter people who gave up on whatever dreams that had a long time ago and "settled". This is not mean to be reflective of EVERYONE who lives in day to day life, just the bitter people that I deal with on a daily basis. Anyways, couldn't I use this to indicate that cons ideology is mainly for those who have settled?
EnderJE said:
It teaches that the individual is inherently greedy, selfish, and incapable of making the correct choice when left to his own devices.
It seeks to enforce its view of how things should be on that individual, dispossesses him of his or her property and the fruit of his labor, and puts him in servitude to the state.
You dress it up nice maing, with fanciful promises of some leftist utopia, but essentially you seek to harness your dream on the back of every person wiling or not, and use force and threat of confinement when he doesnt comply.
You pursue an equality of outcome that denies the individual his inherent right to pursue his interests and his dreams. More so, you label him selfish and even a criminal for wishing to do so.
I've been given one life in this world. I dont wish to spend it in servitude to your vision, however glorious you may imagine it to be.
Man was born to be free, not shackled by the state like some work horse to pursue someone elses "well intentioned" vision.
You speak of liberalism caring for the individual through aid. Youc care for nothing Your entire philosophy is that some other individual is morally obligated to support everyone else, and if he doesnt, you will confiscate his property and put him in prison for failing to comly to your beliefs. You even discourage private mercy in favor of some all consuming state sponsored version, which does nothing more than spread the misery over a larger portion of the population while placing the state in almost full control of the nations wealth
bluepeter
New member
Some good answers although I am a liberal and espouse little in terms of ideology that is being detailed here. I think part of the problem is that many Americans categorize any and everybody left of conservative as a 'liberal'. I don't subscribe to many of the supposed liberal philosophies that American conservatives state liberals supposedly embrace. Is this obfuscation or just disdain for anything left of center? I don't know. Either way, a liberal ideology without trampling on the rights of the individual is far more palatable to me than the right side of the spectrum. I find it amusing that many conservatives rail about the rights of the individual and yet most cannot see a homosexual as an individual with rights.
I embrace several conservative philosophies but cannot subscribe to things such as homosexuals being denied the rights of heterosexuals, women being unable to abort a child under any circumstance, polluting the environment is not a big deal etc. etc.
I embrace several conservative philosophies but cannot subscribe to things such as homosexuals being denied the rights of heterosexuals, women being unable to abort a child under any circumstance, polluting the environment is not a big deal etc. etc.
JerseyArt said:
First things first, I take a little offense to your seemingly pointed post. If I wasn't then I apologize for the next tirade.
I don't dress up anything nicely. I see the liberalism for what it is with the NDP. I have seen what it can do to a province / state. I live in Canada and see every day what it has caused to happen. I have seen victim mentality first hand as it has brought down some well meaning friends.
Do not tie me to any belief that you think I may have without asking me first.
The purpose of the post was to get a deeper level of understanding from the people here rather then it degenerate into a "its stupid" blow by blow. That's all most seem to be able to do here, so I wanted to see what they were thinking or were they bandwagon jumping without being able to articulate their views clearly.
At the same time, I have seen cons go to the other extreme and not help out anyone in their time of need. I have seen selfishness first hand and seen owners treat their staff like chattle. The staff leave, but the owner gets the last laught by destorying the former credibility with poor references and bad press.
So I ask, what is right / wrong with either seeing how both taken to an extreme can seem bad.
RaZor Ramon
New member
EnderJE said:
I see where you coming from and I do thing that is the case with a lot of the new found conservatism that spreading like wild fire. With that said, it not always the case. It's the best intrest of those with a lot of money to be conservative. I'm moderate. I'm liberal when it make sense to me and conversative when it makes sense to me but I'd be more liberal if I had to pick one side.
EnderJE said:
What Blue said. It was never meant to be a personal critique of you. I have no idea what you believe, it was a rhetorical post directed at all liberals.
But I acknowledge I have a deep disgust about most things liberal. It is at its core a master/slave philosophy with the same tired "but I take good care of my slaves" mentality
chewyxrage
New member
Conservatives want less involvement from the government in their personal lives, no?
Bush is a conservative and it seems he is only taking our personal rights away. What's the deal then?
Bush is a conservative and it seems he is only taking our personal rights away. What's the deal then?
U
UA_Iron
Guest
Conservatives are all for less government interaction...when in reality every single republican president has made the government grow by leaps and bounds. Conservatives like to bash the liberal point of view without subscribing to the fact that their own side is one giant hypocrisy.
I think the US should follow a european model of democracy, like Germany and The Netherlands. More of the middle ground would be represented and less of this extremism would take place. If bush upholds the neocon agenda then he is a radical.
I think the US should follow a european model of democracy, like Germany and The Netherlands. More of the middle ground would be represented and less of this extremism would take place. If bush upholds the neocon agenda then he is a radical.
The heart of every liberal program and idea is redistribution of wealth. Every liberal idea and program is rooted in the idea of taking something from its producer and giving it to someone else.
This is merely theft. If I take what belongs to you, against your will, I am stealing it. Whether I use a gun, or legislation, it is theft.
The most essential rights of all are property rights. If property rights are not respected, then no other rights are possible. If property rights are abrogated, any other rights can be abrogated.
Liberalism does not respect property rights, and therefore, at its core, is anti-person. What greater evil could there be?
This is merely theft. If I take what belongs to you, against your will, I am stealing it. Whether I use a gun, or legislation, it is theft.
The most essential rights of all are property rights. If property rights are not respected, then no other rights are possible. If property rights are abrogated, any other rights can be abrogated.
Liberalism does not respect property rights, and therefore, at its core, is anti-person. What greater evil could there be?
chewyxrage
New member
JerseyArt said:
Patriot act is pretty rediculous. It takes away checks on law enforcement and potentially my privacy.
ChewYxRage said:
The problem with the Patriot Act is not how Bush and Co are using it.
The problem is what will happen when future administrations MISUSE it. There are a lot of historical precedents for this; RICO, for example, has been used for much other that what it was intended, including arresting owners of strip clubs where the community did not want them, etc.
ANd surely you are familiar with the Interstate Commerce Act and the way it has been misused / expanded, right?
So you understand, then, that the problem with the Patriot Act is not Bush and Co., it is what will happen in 20 years.
This is off topic anyway. I like peaches.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
JerseyArt said:
not so much the personal rights as the penalties for insignificant stuff aka "the war on drugs"
lets spend massive amounts of money trying to stop something we cannot stop and then overburden our prison system with minor drug offenders who get more time than child molestors.
Again, its a no-brainer. Lets fight against drugs, no one will be opposed to that while dicking around with real issues that might lose us votes.
U
UA_Iron
Guest
MattTheSkywalker said:
any potential for misuse means it was flawed from the beginning and should have never been enacted. Lying to ourselves and saying that its not going to be misused is just stupid.
UA_Iron said:
Better hope in your time machine and go back to 1776 bor. You're ignoring political realities.
While I agree with you philosophically, I live temporally. (For the U of A crowd, that means "in current reality".)
ChewYxRage said:
Then which of its provisions do you find unnecessary?
Keeping in mind that it was passed with wide support on both sides of the aisle.
I am by inclination extremely libertarian, and worry about the poetential abuses of any such expanded powers. But I am also a realist, and I cant find fault with the particulars given the level of threat and trust that we as a osicety are wise enoguh to scale it back when the need is less urgent.
UA_Iron said:
You're confusing "conservative" with "Republican". Don't do that.
Would you like to enjoy the 12% unemployment that these countries have? How about the far higher tax burden? Sound good? Not trying to flame you homie. You just have a lot of reading to do.
UA_Iron said:
Simplistic bor, no offense.
If you imagine there arent offsetting societal costs to the inevitable rise in drug usage your kidding yourself.
Cheaper prices, easier accessability and no restrictions will inevitably lead to a rise in the customer base.
Personally I fluctuate between a fuck them all, let em all overdose and just one more asshole the liberals will try to sling across my shoulder to carry after he fries himself on that crap.
JerseyArt said:
I don't believe in "societal costs". They are an abstraction made real by liberal policies.
MattTheSkywalker said:
I understand your point maing, but the reality is thats exactly what you and I would be doing.
Although hardly naive, Im constantly amazed at the new ways in which they go out of their way to give away my money. Encountered a mom some time back who receives a $500-$600 stipend from social security because her 2 year old child is dyslexic. Not even to use for education/remediation, but just cause.
WTF
How do you even diagnose a two year old with that disorder, and even if it is possible, how does it in any way burden the mother with extra costs or expenses?
IHateAmerica
New member
JerseyArt said:
Patriot acts I and II. They were passed through congress without your representatives even being allowed to read them. Idiocy is when people like you claim that you live in a free country.
JerseyArt said:
We could talk about wasting dollars all day long bor, and the drug war too.
The idea of intervention by government, whether based on a conservative ideology or a liberal one, is always wrong, and represent (by definition) liberalism, when they occur.
A lot of conservatives are hypocrites. But our country has moved so far LEFT that conservative politicians have to be that way to get elected.
Libertarian ideas like phasing out Social Security and corraling public education / vouchers seem radical. Scary how liberal this country is.
IHateAmerica
New member
JerseyArt said:
Let me spell it out for you. You said something to the effect that liberalism involves sacrificing individual rights for the greater good. How does an act gutting the first, third, fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth amendments in the name of fighting terrorism not appy?
As for congress not reading the act, it was Ron Paul (R-Tex) who said this to the New York Times.
MattTheSkywalker said:
Conservatism at its root isnt anarchy, just minimalism. The government has its place, even with respect to intervention. I think you'd be hard pressed to find many conservative thinkers who would abolish child labor laws, the military, law enforcement or a host of other programs or services.
Government does have an obligation to further the most basic societal interests in order for it to thrive.
I think drugs are a cusp issue, and as I noted earlier, I vacillate on the matter. Im unure whether the purity of the policy with respect to libertarian ideals outweighs the reasonably anticiapted harm to society as a whole.
IHateAmerica said:
You were not talking to me, but I will talk to you anyway.
The PA is a liberal piece of legislation. If you are trying to use this to prove the Bush is a liberal.....guess what? He is. This is far from news, and it does not disprove anything or call any ideologies intio question.
Don't confuse "Republican" with "conservative".
I like beer. And raspberries.
MattTheSkywalker said:
Dat's all Folks
IHateAmerica said:
Your claim was that it was passed without a chance of being read by represntatives in the government when the particulars were debated in the public arena even before passage.
As to the rest, it "guts" nothing, although it does place more restrictions on a number of them than we have known in the past.
As I stated to UA, no one on either side of the aisle suggests they are dieal, just temporarily necessary.
Ill ask you the same question I did him. Which of the provisions do you find unnecessary and why.
Dont waste our time with some lame "all fo them" response
JerseyArt said:
Yep, government has its place, agreed, and it needs money, too. I like term limits as a solution to most federal government woes. And also the line item veto.
Society does not have interests that differ from individual interests. Society is merely a collection of individuals. Government should allow individual interests to thrive, acting only to protect and preserve the rights of individuals.
To me, drugs are a no-brainer. You either own your body or you don't. The current drug policy has had little to no effect on preventing drug use and related crime; further, it has driven the cost of drugs up, progressively lowering the threshold at which people are willing to take the chance at being involved in the game.
I worry when I hear the phrase "society as a whole", even when conservatives say it
IHateAmerica
New member
MattTheSkywalker said:
I agree with you, just with the people watching Faux News did too. Also, I think the term "liberal" has a special definition in the United States, or connotation at the very least, which is unheard of elsewhere.
IHateAmerica
New member
Here are a few I dont like:JerseyArt said:
The national database for 'suspected terrorists' sections 301 and 306. Immunity to law enforcement engaging in spying against the American people section 312. Section 102 makes news gathering illegal. Section 106, secret trials. Section 322 allows Homeland security to extradite citizens whereever they wish. Section 411, expands crimes punishable by death. Sections 122 and 123 allow for domestic surveillance wirhout a court order.
Section 110 removes sunset clause from first Patriot Act.
The only thing you have to hate now are freedom fries.
Razorguns
Well-known member
This country hasn't become as liberal as people think.
I mean, we all just voted in a conservative president once again -- even after all the tree-huggin' pinko liberal facist media were predicting for months, some huge hippie backlash of epic proportions during the election.....
NOT!
Biggest Liberal Michael Moore lovin' OWNING in history as far as i'm concerned. Nov 2004.
I mean, we all just voted in a conservative president once again -- even after all the tree-huggin' pinko liberal facist media were predicting for months, some huge hippie backlash of epic proportions during the election.....
NOT!
Biggest Liberal Michael Moore lovin' OWNING in history as far as i'm concerned. Nov 2004.
MattTheSkywalker said:
I disagree with term limits. It's inherently anti fredom of choice. We already have term limits. They're called elections
This discussion is in danger of quickly becomeing too semantical. I dont disagree with your analysis of the proper role of government.
Id rather not turn this discussion into a drug debate. And as I stated earleir my won view vacillates.
How far do privacy rights extend. If two guys which to sell themselves to fight to the death for a national tv audience should it be allowed? Should people be allowed to sell their organs?
I worry when I hear the phrase "society as a whole", even when conservatives say it
Can't argue with you there. In my defense I didnt sleep well last night
UA_Iron said:
You lost me bor. My statement was that liberals view individuals as inherently greedy (no needy) and selfish. In response they profess that individuals should sumbmit their wills and liberty to the state who can more benignly govern and distribute the fruits of an individuals labor.
Was never discussing socilaism, except in description of what was wrong with the left.
As for libertarianism being far right, see Matt's response, it is a great post
U
UA_Iron
Guest
JerseyArt said:
innacurate.
How can you be needy and selfish but give yourself to the state?
At first it looks like you're talking about libertarianism which is extreme right, then it sounds like you're talking about socialism.
Get it straight, bro.
IHateAmerica said:
Uhh
No they don't
Let me help bor. Ive read the acts, and numerous legal opinions because they do concern me, at least parts.
There is a case to be made, but you havent made it. You are the one making the assertion, therefore it is incumbent on you to repsent a case in support of your position.
The intellectual equivelant of "Bush is the devil" only works with other mindless liberal parrots. If you wish to convince thinking America, you need to explain your concerns.
As it stands you simply are presenting vague exxagerations
UA_Iron said:
Broseph,
Libertarianism is not extreme right. It is not extreme anything. It is only a belief that individual liberty is the highest possible existence of man, and that government's paramount role is to protect individual liberty.
It amazes me that a college student, who, no offense, has not experienced a lot in life yet, believes ALREADY that the idea of individual liberties being prized above all else is "extreme". The indoctrination of our education system is working.
The Bill of Rights is a libertarian document, and in fact, the 10th Amendment (states' rights) is designed to prevent federal interference into matters best determined by local governments. Extreme? Only in our brainwashed person-enslaving culture.
Instead of drawing a line from left to right:
COMMIE PINKO LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING NAZI
...................... ................. .................. ................ ................
SOCIALIST LEFTIST MODERATE REACTIONARY FASCIST
Try drawing a circle:
. . . . . . . . libertarian
liberal . . . . . . . . . . . conservative
. . . . . . . commie nazi
Because Nazi was, after all, the German abbreviation for National Socialist.
COMMIE PINKO LIBERAL CONSERVATIVE RIGHT-WING NAZI
...................... ................. .................. ................ ................
SOCIALIST LEFTIST MODERATE REACTIONARY FASCIST
Try drawing a circle:
. . . . . . . . libertarian
liberal . . . . . . . . . . . conservative
. . . . . . . commie nazi
Because Nazi was, after all, the German abbreviation for National Socialist.
Similar threads
