One shortcoming of Liberalism
10-07-2004, 10:59 PM
#1
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
One shortcoming of Liberalism
Some of you more “enlightened” folks have ridiculed me for making the statement “Liberalism is a mental disease.”
Some have posted various definitions of what “mental disease” means.
And at least one of my fellow I-clubbers said he placing me on his “ignore” list.
I’ve been called “disillusioned”.
The names don’t hurt, as people that mean more to me have called me worse. Far worse.
In all honesty, I matters not to me what your political beliefs are, or what you think of mine. There’s room a plenty in this country for all of us.
What does bother me, though, is that those of you whom I’ve “offended” with the statement above, can’t or won’t admit the shortcomings of your political affiliation.
So, please allow me to point one out for you.
The basic Liberal mantra is that the rich hate the poor and are always looking for ways to screw them over.
This is at odds with the fact that the Democratic Party, who for arguments sakes are “more liberal” than the GOP, receives most of it’s funding from large donations. Link
After talking with my Liberal brother in law over the last 7 years, I have concluded that Liberals, or at least rich Liberals, feel guilty about having wealth. In order to prove that they don’t hate the poor, that they can feeeel what it’s like being poor; Liberals subject themselves (and all of us) to “progressive” taxation.
Placing more of the tax burden on the rich, believing that it won’t hurt them as much, is insane.
Liberals are all for wealth redistribution and not wealth creation because Liberals believe that wealth is a finite resource. People that have “too much” owe those who have “too little.”
There is, for all practical purposes, unlimited wealth to be had by anyone willing to work for it. Yes, those with money will have an easier time increasing their wealth as compared to those who have less.
But back to how this “limited” resource is redistributed by the Liberals.
Through Social Engineering, property of the wealthy is given to the poor under such titles as “Welfare”, Food stamps, Section 8, etc.
But do the poor receive enough to overcome whatever trouble life has brought to them, or rather just enough to make it to the next hand out? Link
There are many more points on which to base the statement “Liberalism is a mental disease”, just as there are (a few) points to be made that Right Wingers are insane.
I guess my point is…lighten up, this is just the internet.
Some have posted various definitions of what “mental disease” means.
And at least one of my fellow I-clubbers said he placing me on his “ignore” list.
I’ve been called “disillusioned”.
The names don’t hurt, as people that mean more to me have called me worse. Far worse.
In all honesty, I matters not to me what your political beliefs are, or what you think of mine. There’s room a plenty in this country for all of us.
What does bother me, though, is that those of you whom I’ve “offended” with the statement above, can’t or won’t admit the shortcomings of your political affiliation.
So, please allow me to point one out for you.
The basic Liberal mantra is that the rich hate the poor and are always looking for ways to screw them over.
This is at odds with the fact that the Democratic Party, who for arguments sakes are “more liberal” than the GOP, receives most of it’s funding from large donations. Link
After talking with my Liberal brother in law over the last 7 years, I have concluded that Liberals, or at least rich Liberals, feel guilty about having wealth. In order to prove that they don’t hate the poor, that they can feeeel what it’s like being poor; Liberals subject themselves (and all of us) to “progressive” taxation.
Placing more of the tax burden on the rich, believing that it won’t hurt them as much, is insane.
Liberals are all for wealth redistribution and not wealth creation because Liberals believe that wealth is a finite resource. People that have “too much” owe those who have “too little.”
There is, for all practical purposes, unlimited wealth to be had by anyone willing to work for it. Yes, those with money will have an easier time increasing their wealth as compared to those who have less.
But back to how this “limited” resource is redistributed by the Liberals.
Through Social Engineering, property of the wealthy is given to the poor under such titles as “Welfare”, Food stamps, Section 8, etc.
But do the poor receive enough to overcome whatever trouble life has brought to them, or rather just enough to make it to the next hand out? Link
There are many more points on which to base the statement “Liberalism is a mental disease”, just as there are (a few) points to be made that Right Wingers are insane.
I guess my point is…lighten up, this is just the internet.
10-08-2004, 08:19 AM
#2
Wow, thanks for that timely and well-informed explanation of why liberalism is a mental disease. Great research too. All of your links backed up your opinions so well. There really is no angle with which to dispute your theory.
You obviously have such a great knowledge of politics. Whats keeping you from running for office some day?
You obviously have such a great knowledge of politics. Whats keeping you from running for office some day?
10-08-2004, 08:28 AM
#3
250,000-mile Club President
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bizerkeley
Posts: 4,770
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
I had to take you off the ignore list just to see what sort of false arguments you were going to make, and sure enough, what you've posted here is filled with generalizations and false premises, you simply do not understand logic and reason.
Well you might consider me a "liberal" because I think you are a radical right wing goon, but I never said, implied, or believed anything like "the rich hate the poor", in fact I have never heard anyone even here in radical berkeley make any such claim, so any arguments you make based on this premise are simply wrong.
So from a sample of observing one person's opinion, you habve come to a conclusion about everyone you consider a "liberal". Personally I wouldn't be so quick to draw such a broad conclusion.
Actually if you look at a history of US tax codes, this country has always had a progressive tax, up until very recently- like the last 15-20 years we had REALLY progressive taxes with crippling rates for the highest income brackets.
What we have now is practically a flat tax rate except for the fact that the wealthy have many means at their disposal to avoid taxation unlike those with more limited resources- giving us an effectivly regressive tax structure.
Again you make a claim that I have no experience to back up, who ever said that they are "All for wealth redistribution and against wealth creation"?
I think a vast majority of liberals recognize value in work and that wealth creation is a desireable socio-economic motivation.
Boy you really stepped out on a limb with that one, I would suggest that without exploitation of common property or exploitation of other people, there are in fact bounds to the amount of wealth that can be ethically accumulated, maybe not hard limits, but certainly nobody on the planet is actually doing a billion dollars worth of WORK, those sorts of number are only accumulated through exploitation and consolidation of wealth created by others.
The problem with many of you so-called conservatives is that you act as if you have absolutely no sence of ethics, you think it is OK for example, if a factory owner closes his plant in the US and opens a factory in China paying workers pennies a day, because he's the owner and he deserves to make the most profit he can.
You think its OK for a company like Enron to go around buying out other power companies based on credit they wrangled by cooking the books, and when the executives walk away with billions in assets they have looted from the retirement accounts and all, that's just "private enterprise in action".
You think its OK for Dick Cheney, while Defence secratary to subcontract all of the military infrastructure development to Halliburton, then to move from Sec of Def to Halliburton CEO, where he oversaw the company doing business against US law with Iraq through foreign subsidieries. Then to move in as VP, continuing to get deferred compensation from Halliburton while they get NO-BID contracts to the tune of billions of dollars.
Executive compensation in this country is completely out of line with actual value and worth of their contributions, in most of the world executive compensation is on the order of 30-40X the lowest paid employees of respective organizations, whereas here in the US its running something like 400X.
Get rid of these corrupt practices and wealth creation would be a whole lot easier for anyone who actually works.
As it is right now, even those making upwards of 100,000 a year in many parts of this country are effectively "working poor" as real estate prices combined with even our historically low mortgage interest rates, utilities and cost of living are all getting so far out of control.
I agree that a lot of wealth, even "practically unlimited" as you suggest- should be the reward for hard work, but all too often it isn't.
Only because of a fundamentally flawed economic structure that rewards wealth with more wealth, whereas if we encouraged more spending we would actually be fuelling the general economy with all that wealth instead of it piling up in the hands of the most corrupt and powerful.
If your premise of wealth being unlimited is true, this should not matter at all.
Taking a premise from your reading of "liberal false premises" doesn't give your argument much support.
I guess that depends on what "poor" person you are talking about.
lumping "the poor" into one group misses the point that you are talking about individual people who all have their own dreams, ambitions, and set-backs.
Not everyone who is poor is that way because they're "lazy" just as not everyone who is rich got that way through corruption.
I can't get behind either of those statements, mental illness is one thing, political philosophy is another thing entirely.
If you want to engage in an intelligent discussion of these sorts of matters, I would only ask that you try to avoid using arguments based on fallacious reasoning, you might look here if you need a better idea of what a fallacy is:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
But if you're going to keep spouting BS, you will go right back on my ignore list
Our country is in an moral and ethical crisis, with very wrong-minded idealogs having taken the reins of power through subversion of our electoral process.
The regime in charge of America right now has no limits to their ambitions, they intend to rule the world, and I just think that's wrong.
History has proven time and again that such hubris and ambition can only be countered by the collective might of the rest of the world, if we don't change regimes NOW, we should fully expect that we will be alone when faced with WW3.
Small minded thinking like you display is exactly what has enabled these forces to the extent that they have power now.
Clear reasoning and common sense are the only way out.
But with the general state of education in this country we are most likely doomed.
Originally Posted by Oaf
The basic Liberal mantra is that the rich hate the poor and are always looking for ways to screw them over.
Originally Posted by Oaf
After talking with my Liberal brother in law over the last 7 years, I have concluded that Liberals, or at least rich Liberals, feel guilty about having wealth.
Originally Posted by Oaf
In order to prove that they don’t hate the poor, that they can feeeel what it’s like being poor; Liberals subject themselves (and all of us) to “progressive” taxation.
Placing more of the tax burden on the rich, believing that it won’t hurt them as much, is insane.
Placing more of the tax burden on the rich, believing that it won’t hurt them as much, is insane.
What we have now is practically a flat tax rate except for the fact that the wealthy have many means at their disposal to avoid taxation unlike those with more limited resources- giving us an effectivly regressive tax structure.
Originally Posted by Oaf
Liberals are all for wealth redistribution and not wealth creation because Liberals believe that wealth is a finite resource. People that have “too much” owe those who have “too little.”
I think a vast majority of liberals recognize value in work and that wealth creation is a desireable socio-economic motivation.
Originally Posted by Oaf
There is, for all practical purposes, unlimited wealth to be had by anyone willing to work for it.
The problem with many of you so-called conservatives is that you act as if you have absolutely no sence of ethics, you think it is OK for example, if a factory owner closes his plant in the US and opens a factory in China paying workers pennies a day, because he's the owner and he deserves to make the most profit he can.
You think its OK for a company like Enron to go around buying out other power companies based on credit they wrangled by cooking the books, and when the executives walk away with billions in assets they have looted from the retirement accounts and all, that's just "private enterprise in action".
You think its OK for Dick Cheney, while Defence secratary to subcontract all of the military infrastructure development to Halliburton, then to move from Sec of Def to Halliburton CEO, where he oversaw the company doing business against US law with Iraq through foreign subsidieries. Then to move in as VP, continuing to get deferred compensation from Halliburton while they get NO-BID contracts to the tune of billions of dollars.
Executive compensation in this country is completely out of line with actual value and worth of their contributions, in most of the world executive compensation is on the order of 30-40X the lowest paid employees of respective organizations, whereas here in the US its running something like 400X.
Get rid of these corrupt practices and wealth creation would be a whole lot easier for anyone who actually works.
As it is right now, even those making upwards of 100,000 a year in many parts of this country are effectively "working poor" as real estate prices combined with even our historically low mortgage interest rates, utilities and cost of living are all getting so far out of control.
I agree that a lot of wealth, even "practically unlimited" as you suggest- should be the reward for hard work, but all too often it isn't.
Originally Posted by Oaf
Yes, those with money will have an easier time increasing their wealth as compared to those who have less.
Originally Posted by Oaf
But back to how this “limited” resource is redistributed by the Liberals.
Through Social Engineering, property of the wealthy is given to the poor under such titles as “Welfare”, Food stamps, Section 8, etc.
Through Social Engineering, property of the wealthy is given to the poor under such titles as “Welfare”, Food stamps, Section 8, etc.
Taking a premise from your reading of "liberal false premises" doesn't give your argument much support.
Originally Posted by Oaf
But do the poor receive enough to overcome whatever trouble life has brought to them, or rather just enough to make it to the next hand out?
I guess that depends on what "poor" person you are talking about.
lumping "the poor" into one group misses the point that you are talking about individual people who all have their own dreams, ambitions, and set-backs.
Not everyone who is poor is that way because they're "lazy" just as not everyone who is rich got that way through corruption.
Originally Posted by Oaf
There are many more points on which to base the statement “Liberalism is a mental disease”, just as there are (a few) points to be made that Right Wingers are insane.
If you want to engage in an intelligent discussion of these sorts of matters, I would only ask that you try to avoid using arguments based on fallacious reasoning, you might look here if you need a better idea of what a fallacy is:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
But if you're going to keep spouting BS, you will go right back on my ignore list
Originally Posted by Oaf
I guess my point is…lighten up, this is just the internet.
The regime in charge of America right now has no limits to their ambitions, they intend to rule the world, and I just think that's wrong.
History has proven time and again that such hubris and ambition can only be countered by the collective might of the rest of the world, if we don't change regimes NOW, we should fully expect that we will be alone when faced with WW3.
Small minded thinking like you display is exactly what has enabled these forces to the extent that they have power now.
Clear reasoning and common sense are the only way out.
But with the general state of education in this country we are most likely doomed.
Last edited by psoper; 10-08-2004 at 08:31 AM.
10-08-2004, 09:06 AM
#4
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: location location
Posts: 1,661
Car Info: 98 Impreza Outback Sport
... I guess he thought he was safe to spew horrendously flawed arguments once you said you are ignoring him...
Very well done- you tore every one of his statements apart with little effort, and more importantly, you kept a level head and didn't sink to his level.
This should be a lesson to all that well-thought out, logical arguments can have more bite than personal cheap shots and half-truths that some people (who blindly agree) may think are witty or humerous. It should also serve as a warning to all to think about what you are posting and the potential it has to be shredded to pieces, as seen above.
Very well done- you tore every one of his statements apart with little effort, and more importantly, you kept a level head and didn't sink to his level.
This should be a lesson to all that well-thought out, logical arguments can have more bite than personal cheap shots and half-truths that some people (who blindly agree) may think are witty or humerous. It should also serve as a warning to all to think about what you are posting and the potential it has to be shredded to pieces, as seen above.
10-08-2004, 10:26 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,402
Car Info: 02 WRX wagon=dead; rollin' in a Craptastic Camry!
Economics is the study of scarcity. Wealth is limited or else we would have no need for money.
I don't think many believe that the rich hate the poor. But I think a strong argument can be made that it is human nature to profit off the fruits of other people's work.
The fact is if you are very well off, it does NOT hurt as much to pay higher taxes. I should know, I grew up very poor and am now in the highest tax bracket. I didn't have shoes that fit when I was in elementary school. Paying higher taxes now means I chose to put tile in my kitchen instead of granite.
Now, hopefully you are sitting down, this liberal believes there are MANY shortcomings of what you are calling "liberalism". I believe government should foster an environment of oppurtunity, and those that wish to take advantage of it should be rewarded, while those that can't be bothered to work should reap what they sow. The United States has arguably done a better job of that over the last 100 years than any other nation, but there is room for improvement and we should not become complacent. Bureaucracy is inefficient, and funneling tax dollars to government programs intended to foster oppurtunity are therefore inefficient. Some of these programs work better than others. Part of the problem is the unwillingness of politicians to assess the effectiveness of programs, and re-tool those that are not effective. IMHO, one of the most effective ways to redistribute wealth is to fund education - particularly college and trades after high school. It is obviously not an easy problem, but we must keep trying.
An immigrant I work once told me that the streets in this country are cluttered with gold. All one has to do is figure out how to reach down and pick it up. I'm inclined to believe him.
I don't think many believe that the rich hate the poor. But I think a strong argument can be made that it is human nature to profit off the fruits of other people's work.
The fact is if you are very well off, it does NOT hurt as much to pay higher taxes. I should know, I grew up very poor and am now in the highest tax bracket. I didn't have shoes that fit when I was in elementary school. Paying higher taxes now means I chose to put tile in my kitchen instead of granite.
Now, hopefully you are sitting down, this liberal believes there are MANY shortcomings of what you are calling "liberalism". I believe government should foster an environment of oppurtunity, and those that wish to take advantage of it should be rewarded, while those that can't be bothered to work should reap what they sow. The United States has arguably done a better job of that over the last 100 years than any other nation, but there is room for improvement and we should not become complacent. Bureaucracy is inefficient, and funneling tax dollars to government programs intended to foster oppurtunity are therefore inefficient. Some of these programs work better than others. Part of the problem is the unwillingness of politicians to assess the effectiveness of programs, and re-tool those that are not effective. IMHO, one of the most effective ways to redistribute wealth is to fund education - particularly college and trades after high school. It is obviously not an easy problem, but we must keep trying.
An immigrant I work once told me that the streets in this country are cluttered with gold. All one has to do is figure out how to reach down and pick it up. I'm inclined to believe him.
10-08-2004, 10:35 AM
#7
Originally Posted by BlingBlingBlue
IMHO, one of the most effective ways to redistribute wealth is to fund education - particularly college and trades after high school.
One of the main differences between the parties are where they choose to invest.
Democrats (liberals) choose to invest in education and bettering the people of the United States (welfare programs) to improving the economy.
Republicans (conservatives) choose to invest in big business and military spending to improve the economy.
10-08-2004, 10:51 AM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Blue-faced in a red state
Posts: 2,256
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
oh, and dont forget jails.
Dems like to build up minority communities for the future through education, while their counterparts stray to the other side... feeding the monster that is the prison system with complete disregard of inner-city renewal programs and truly compassionate anti-drug programs
Dems like to build up minority communities for the future through education, while their counterparts stray to the other side... feeding the monster that is the prison system with complete disregard of inner-city renewal programs and truly compassionate anti-drug programs
10-08-2004, 12:32 PM
#9
iClub Silver Vendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Originally Posted by BlingBlingBlue
IMHO, one of the most effective ways to redistribute wealth is to fund education - particularly college and trades after high school. It is obviously not an easy problem, but we must keep trying.
An immigrant I work once told me that the streets in this country are cluttered with gold. All one has to do is figure out how to reach down and pick it up. I'm inclined to believe him.
An immigrant I work once told me that the streets in this country are cluttered with gold. All one has to do is figure out how to reach down and pick it up. I'm inclined to believe him.
I will agree completely that funding education offers the highest ROIs for taxpayer's money.
But to give the have nots assistance carte blanche is insane, as it's human nature to do as little work as possible for the highest reward.
And for the rest of you, I provided my point of view and instead of offering up some evidence that Social Liberalism is superior to say Conservativism, you attack me.
How can we conduct a debate without following the most basic debate structure of "Point, Counterpoint"?
Here's one more for you
BTW, I'll be the first Mf'er to admit that the Religious Right, Right WIngers, etc are insane.
But can you say the same for Liberalism?
10-08-2004, 01:23 PM
#10
VIP Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Detroit, Where the weak are killed and eaten...
Posts: 2,064
Car Info: 02 Impreza WRX Sedan & 2008 GMC Sierra 4x4
Originally Posted by Oaf
BTW, I'll be the first Mf'er to admit that the Religious Right, Right WIngers, etc are insane.
But can you say the same for Liberalism?
But can you say the same for Liberalism?
I consider myself pretty liberal and I voted for Bush in the first election because I liked the guy over Gore. He seemed more honest than Gore. More down to earth. Plus Gore was a stiff. But I am voting for Kerry this time because I don't like the path we have gone down since Bush was elected.
10-08-2004, 01:31 PM
#11
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UCIrvine
Posts: 3,312
Car Info: '05 Crystal Grey Metallic WRX Sport Wagon
Being socially liberal is built into the genes of all humans. If it was not, we would not exist. Back when humans were not so advanced as now, we were not the dominant beings on the planet. In that time period, we needed help from other humans and generally all humans worked together. Wars and battles were rare, because it was far more important to defend against predators than to claim dominance over another human. Only since humans have become the 'ultimate earth bound being' have we had problems between humans. And so, in this way, being socially liberal is the way we were made by nature (or a god or whatever you believe). Conservatism, and the mindset that you should take care of yourself above taking care of the species, is a side effect of there being too many humans alive...in other words, social liberalism works SO well that conservatism has to happen in an attempt to limit our population. Altruism is a basic human instinct that is one of the most prevelant reasons that we still exist as a species. Social liberality's single largest attribute is altruism. So in this way, conservatives can be seen as those least adept at surviving in 'jungle' or 'dog-eat-dog' world despite the common idea that only the largest and strongest survive. We are here because of survival of the fittest...in the case of humans, those who were given the attribute of altruism have survived because they worked together to overcome common threats to survival. If you recognize that altruism is the single most important aspect of the human personality in terms of the survival of the species, you also must recognize that social liberalism is the attempt to incorporate altrusim into every facet of our society to better our species.
No attacks on you Oaf, just some of what I believe and some of my reasons for thinking that being liberal really is morally better than being conservative.
No attacks on you Oaf, just some of what I believe and some of my reasons for thinking that being liberal really is morally better than being conservative.
10-08-2004, 01:38 PM
#12
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by MVWRX
No attacks on you Oaf, just some of what I believe and some of my reasons for thinking that being liberal really is morally better than being conservative.
Even if you don't believe that liberal>conservative you're insane if you don't hink you need both. Extreamism is rarely the answer. You need an amalgom of both as pure conservatism would lead to a upper class/poverty class society and too much liberalism would lead to a sicialist society. If the conservative ideal was the only right answer, would our founding fathers have set up specific stipulations for a multi-party system? Hell no.
-Chris
10-08-2004, 02:05 PM
#15
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Walnut Creek, CA
Posts: 3,709
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by FUNKED1
Balancing selfishness with altruism, that's important. We each need to do this daily.
The problem with liberals is that don't want to give us the right to make these decisions on our own.
The problem with liberals is that don't want to give us the right to make these decisions on our own.
And the conservatives will take it too far the other direction... that's the point. Both are needed... the ratio however is debatable.
-Chris