Too liberal?

[Phrost]

It's not a matter of how dare you expect it, but one of how on Earth can you think that expectation is realistic.

The expectation that people should, for the most part, live their own lives and take care of themselves?

Well yeah, I guess you're right; it is unrealistic.

 

[leftysergeant]

It's not a matter of how dare you expect it, but one of how on Earth can you think that expectation is realistic.

They still haven't gotten their minds around the concept that the self-made man is a myth, at least since the dawn of the Pleistocene.

 

[Phrost]

They still haven't gotten their minds around the concept that the self-made man is a myth, at least since the dawn of the Pleistocene.

I suspect the goalposts on your field come pre-mounted on rails so that you can shift them as is convenient.

 

[leftysergeant]

I suspect the goalposts on your field come pre-mounted on rails so that you can shift them as is convenient.

Nope. It has always been, and always shall be, my position that the self-made man is a naked savage running across the bushveld poking animals with a sharp stick for a living.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Last month on TV, I saw some folks out in Berkeley being interviewed. They seemed absolutely convinced that if enough people in the U.S. meditated, then violence in Afghanistan and Iraq would be reduced. They believed that part of the U.S. military budget should be set aside to teach people to meditate. I would describe them as too liberal.

In the interest of full disclosure, I find unbridled liberalism as undesirable as unbridled conservatism.

Meadmaker answered this for you, if unintentionally - see below. Whackos who think that praying got our boys home from the moon or that omming will bring the troops home are not necessarily liberal or conservative. The operative word is "whacko".

It may well be that the people you describe are ALSO liberals, but the activity you describe has nothing to do with that fact.

This is where I think the word "liberal" has lost any real meaning. Of course, PETA is associated with liberals, and would be described as such, but if I pick up a dictionary and look up the word "liberal", nothing in the dictionary describes anything that is in any way associated with PETA's agenda.

 

[Cynic]

The expectation that people should, for the most part, live their own lives and take care of themselves?

Well yeah, I guess you're right; it is unrealistic.

Exactly. The irony of couching the libertarian ideal in terms of responsibility is that pre-knowledge of the fact that many would suffer in such an environment requires libertarians to disavow any and all responsibility for such suffering, even though they would obstensively be the cause of such an environment's implementation. At the core of the libertarian ideal isn't responsibility but selfishness and depraved indifference.

At least, that's how a "liberal" would see it, which is why I mention libertarians at all. Wufwugy suggested that liberty was equality, that equality for all is required for liberty for all. But at their extremes, liberty and equality are almost mutually exclusives. To be just, each must compromise to allow for the other.

 

[Meadmaker]

Exactly. The irony of couching the libertarian ideal in terms of responsibility is that pre-knowledge of the fact that many would suffer in such an environment requires libertarians to disavow any and all responsibility for such suffering, even though they would obstensively be the cause of such an environment's implementation. At the core of the libertarian ideal isn't responsibility but selfishness and depraved indifference.

At least, that's how a "liberal" would see it, which is why I mention libertarians at all. Wufwugy suggested that liberty was equality, that equality for all is required for liberty for all. But at their extremes, liberty and equality are almost mutually exclusives. To be just, each must compromise to allow for the other.

Very well said.

 

[Phrost]

Exactly. The irony of couching the libertarian ideal in terms of responsibility is that pre-knowledge of the fact that many would suffer in such an environment requires libertarians to disavow any and all responsibility for such suffering, even though they would obstensively be the cause of such an environment's implementation. At the core of the libertarian ideal isn't responsibility but selfishness and depraved indifference.

At least, that's how a "liberal" would see it, which is why I mention libertarians at all. Wufwugy suggested that liberty was equality, that equality for all is required for liberty for all. But at their extremes, liberty and equality are almost mutually exclusives. To be just, each must compromise to allow for the other.

You're falling prey to the cold-hearted libertarian boogeyman stereotype. I don't know much about you personally, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about being able to think a bit more critically than that and not being the type who paints with broad strokes because it's easier than actually examining the issue.

Conversely, I won't speak on behalf of all libertarians, just myself.

The notion that people will not be charitable unless forced to do so is about the most cynical, anti-humanist thing I've ever come across. And this notion is implicit in nearly every item on the liberal politician's agenda; people cannot be trusted to take care of each other voluntarily, so they must have the omnibenevolent right hand of Government to firmly reach into a man's pocket while the left points a gun at his head.

The related, nonsensical notion that only government is capable of ensuring people treat each other "fairly" is equally if not more cynical.

Please define for me both "Equality" and "Fairness" in an unambiguous, objective, and empirical manner. Liberty's easy: it's the state of being free from coercive force.

I don't disagree with you that Liberty and Equality are at odds. What I object to is the constant shifting of the goalposts as to what constitutes "Equality"; considering how many liberals seem to feel that you achieve it by cutting the feet off the fastest runners, the hands off the hardest workers, and the tongues out of the mouths of those with the sharpest wit.

 

[Towlie]

No you cannot care too much about liberty and equality

My view is that government should care about and promote the general welfare of the citizens who created it rather than the profits of big corporations and their rich owners. In my book that constitutes a major component of liberal ideology and is the opposite of the right-wing ideology of fascism, which, contrary to the intentions of our Founding Fathers, permeates our nation.

And no, there's no amount you could care about that which would be too much.

 

[quarky]

I'm too liberal for my clothes.

 

[Phrost]

My view is that government should care about and promote the general welfare of the citizens who created it rather than the profits of big corporations and their rich owners. In my book that constitutes a major component of liberal ideology and is the opposite of the right-wing ideology of fascism, which, contrary to the intentions of our Founding Fathers, permeates our nation.

And no, there's no amount you could care about that which would be too much.

It's not a dichotomy: both Big Government and Big Business are threats to Individual Liberty. You don't have to chose one or the other and then pick up the pom-poms for it.

 

[Beerina]

I am aware that it is quite illogical to side with hardcore Conservatives on Social issues, but is there such a thing as being "too Liberal"? Along with a couple of other questions people should ask themselves.

-Has anybody here ever been labeled to be "too liberal"?

-Is it bad to be "too liberal"?, just like being "too skinny", "too big", etc.

- What would America be like if our society was fully Liberal, and Conservatism did not exist?

I exaggerate, but not by much, especially as the decades go by.

Of course, this touts Conservatism only insofar as they support capitalism. In other ways, they have their own severe problems.

 

[Phrost]

[qimg]http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll38/Gnurl/korea-by-night.jpg[/qimg]


I exaggerate, but not by much, especially as the decades go by.

Of course, this touts Conservatism only insofar as they support capitalism. In other ways, they have their own severe problems.

This post to be shortly followed by "No True Socialist/Communist..."

 

[Lurker]

The notion that people will not be charitable unless forced to do so is about the most cynical, anti-humanist thing I've ever come across. And this notion is implicit in nearly every item on the liberal politician's agenda; people cannot be trusted to take care of each other voluntarily, so they must have the omnibenevolent right hand of Government to firmly reach into a man's pocket while the left points a gun at his head.

You are aware that the poverty rate amongst the elderly dropped dramatically after Social Security was instituted, right? What stopped people from helping out their elderly family, friends and neighbors before the initiation of Social Security. There was no law stopping them from helping out.

 

[Phrost]

You are aware that the poverty rate amongst the elderly dropped dramatically after Social Security was instituted, right? What stopped people from helping out their elderly family, friends and neighbors before the initiation of Social Security. There was no law stopping them from helping out.

Most people tend to take care of their own families; we're kinda biologically wired to do so.

But I'd just love to see an actual source on that, chuckles. Really, it'd make my day ever-so-much more rosy.

 

[makaya325]

So Obama is not really a full blown liberal? Then why does he reject sending more Troops to Afghanistan?

 

[Cynic]

You're falling prey to the cold-hearted libertarian boogeyman stereotype. I don't know much about you personally, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt about being able to think a bit more critically than that and not being the type who paints with broad strokes because it's easier than actually examining the issue.

I think I can honestly claim to have come to that conclusion on my own, in a vacuum, not by adopting any sort of stereotype. The only libertarians I've ever had to deal with on a sustained basis are my in-laws, so it comes chiefly as a response to their particular brand of it. If there's a stereotype at work, perhaps they model it well. Without being discriminatory themselves -- that I can tell -- they genuinely seem to think that a business should be free from government-enforced obligation to refrain from descrimination, and that will just work itself out "naturally". There seems to be a huge blind spot that prevents them from seeing that these sorts of things work themselves out, naturally and ultimately, through through government.

The notion that people will not be charitable unless forced to do so is about the most cynical, anti-humanist thing I've ever come across. And this notion is implicit in nearly every item on the liberal politician's agenda; people cannot be trusted to take care of each other voluntarily, so they must have the omnibenevolent right hand of Government to firmly reach into a man's pocket while the left points a gun at his head.

The related, nonsensical notion that only government is capable of ensuring people treat each other "fairly" is equally if not more cynical.

As Ambrose Bierce observed, cynicism is the ability to see how things are and not how they should be. That's where I take my nick from, btw -- not because I consider myself particularly "cynical". My inlaws are some of the most generous people I know. But not everyone has family or belongs to a church. There has been stiff resistence to the growth of government for the purposes of maintaining a minimum acceptable level of comfort for the less fortunate in America since its founding, and yet it keeps building. The reason for that isn't the increasing influence of people who want to help them, but the increasing evidence that without such help, those people would exist below what we regard as minimum levels of comfort.

People are only willing to help out when they're in a position to help out. When everyone is stressed, then it's every man for himself. And that doesn't help those people much, does it? What the government provides is a mechanism for consistently providing help. I can't think of any arguments against consistency and thinking ahead toward future crisis in favor of short-sightedness, can you?

Please define for me both "Equality" and "Fairness" in an unambiguous, objective, and empirical manner. Liberty's easy: it's the state of being free from coercive force.

I don't disagree with you that Liberty and Equality are at odds. What I object to is the constant shifting of the goalposts as to what constitutes "Equality"; considering how many liberals seem to feel that you achieve it by cutting the feet off the fastest runners, the hands off the hardest workers, and the tongues out of the mouths of those with the sharpest wit.

I think what you're sensing isn't a shifting of the goalposts on equality so much as it is people pointing out that equality consists of more than one dimension. This isn't equivocation, switching from one foot to another to favor whichever one serves our pupose. Equality isn't as simple as being treated the same way, or cutting everyone down so they're all the same height. Many people considered segregated schools equality, but of course they weren't. Justifiable or not, affirmitive action is not, in itself, equality either. Equality is, taken as a whole, is ensuing that everyone is able to have the same exerience in life as anyone else. It's equal opportunity, not equally ignored by the government. For any meaningful fullfillment of the premise of equality, that which would actively attempt to prevent it must be held in check.

Failing to acknowledge the complexity of equality commits the logical fallacy of not taking all aspects into account. The goalposts isn't moving, they're just in a lot of places at once, and some of those places are inconvenient to your cause. The libertarian ideal would have us repeal the civil rights act, for instance. To suggest this is a good idea is to forget why it was created in the first place: people couldn't be trusted to act well enough on their own. More damning than the "cynicism" of thinking humans can be so base is the reality of it. True, we shouldn't need laws and enforcement, but apparently we do.

The charge that the best and the brightest are being handicapped to cater to the worst and the dullest is an interesting one. For one, I think it's overstated, as if the assistance those people get overshadows the success of those supporting it. Such a levelling effect simply does not occur. In addition, people have a tendency toss out this slippery slope (to a destination of total apathy where no one works to get ahead) while simutaneously forgetting that there is, in fact, a class people at any given point that can be described as the worse and dullest. By genetics, social disadvatage, or whatever, they exist and will always exist. People are not equal. The thrust of liberalism is to attempt to correct that problem such that everyone is at or above a minimum acceptable standard. The goal of libertarians would seem by all accounts -- and the existence of a stereotype does not deny its reality -- would seem to be to cut our losses and pretend they don't exist.

 

[sarge]

I am aware that it is quite illogical to side with hardcore Conservatives on Social issues, but is there such a thing as being "too Liberal"? Along with a couple of other questions people should ask themselves.

-Has anybody here ever been labeled to be "too liberal"?

-Is it bad to be "too liberal"?, just like being "too skinny", "too big", etc.

- What would America be like if our society was fully Liberal, and Conservatism did not exist?

- Are there any issues that Liberals make the wrong decision on? Do you disagree with some of their Ideas?

I'm new here. Maybe there is a dynamic I'm not familiar with, but.....

Assuming you are not trolling, and that you seek a discussion:

1. There are positions on a political scale that are as far illogicaly left as there are illogically right. It is as illogical to side with "hardcore" liberals as it is to side with "hardcore" conservatives.

2. Has anyone been labled too liberal, or have they been demonstrably too liberal? Of course people have been labeled "too liberal". Obama is "too liberal" according to a significant minority of Americans. Heck, Bush was "too liberal" according to a smaler (but significant) number of Americans.

3. Of course it is bad to be "too liberal". That's what "too" means. The devil is in defining what "too" means.

4. What would it be like if America was purple with red stripes? The question isn't framed very well. There really is no such thing as "completely liberal".

5. Of course there are issues that liberals make the wrong decisions on. Just ask your average conservative.

 

[Lurker]

Most people tend to take care of their own families; we're kinda biologically wired to do so.

But I'd just love to see an actual source on that, chuckles. Really, it'd make my day ever-so-much more rosy.

Always happy to oblige:

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/summer04/w10466.html

Between 1960 and 1995, the official poverty rate of those aged 65 and above fell from 35 percent to 10 percent, and research has documented similarly steep declines dating back to at least 1939. While poverty was once far more prevalent among the elderly than among other age groups, today's elderly have a poverty rate similar to that of working-age adults and much lower than that of children.

Social Security is often mentioned as a likely contributor to the decline in elderly poverty. Enacted in 1935, the Social Security system experienced rapid benefit growth in the post-WWII era. In fact, there is a striking association between the rise in Social Security expenditures per capita and the decline in elderly poverty, as Figure 1 illustrates (with both series scaled to fit on the same figure).

 

[Meadmaker]

I was going to make a response, but I decided it wasn't sufficiently on topic. I invite you to discuss the ideas of liberty, equality, and the ways in which they might clash, in the thread "Liberty, Equality, Moose."