Ah, the maturity and open-mindedness of the far left....

[Lumberg]

Thanks JA.

The liberal side of politics, while usually well-intended, is based on the idea that individuals are incapable of doing for themselves, and that a state based or society-based initiative must supersede individuals' attempts to provide for their own wants and needs.

It is therefore impossible for a liberal perspective to support objective criticism of itself; such criticism must (by defintion) undermine the liberal position's ideas.

Liberal ideas can only be adopted when people are silenced; their aims of subsidizing others through wealth redistribution (the hallmark of ALL liberal programs, however they are cloaked) can only be achieved by silencing those from whom the wealth is taken.

By "virtue" of their redistributive underpinnings, liberals are inherently person-hating - they do not recognize the basic right of a man to keep what he himself has produced. According to liberals, it must be given (in whole or part) to another. This is even more insidious than it sounds; perhaps intentionally, or perhaps as an unforeseen consequence: people then abandon the idea of doing for themselves and cling to a position that allows them to benefit from the redistribution of wealth.

Modern US liberals have used the "tyranny of the majority" to silence opposition; for example, wealthy people are painted as "greedy capitalist pigs" and their objections to redistributive programs are silenced as "just more greed".

Liberals must silence opposition if they are to obtain any power; the common means of doing it include class warfare, and appealing to emotion (We can't change Social Security...we'll have people dying in the street. What if it was YOUR grandma?)

These types of discussions are designed to restrict logical thinking and suppress our desires to be individuals. The comparison with the conservative movement, "neo" or otherwise, is just incorrect. it gains some measure of correctness when viewed through the lens of American politics, which has become a race to the bottom for vote pandering.

Ayn Rand would be proud.

But what about the Conservatives who believe humans don't have a right to decide for themselves whether they want an abortion? Or whether they want to be euthanized? While economically the Conservatives are more individualistic, for some reason they feel that humans are morally unable to decide for themselves. So it's a catch-22. Either way you vote it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

 

[jerseyart]

One example does not define an entire group of people.

That's true Lumberg, but I always find it preferable to offer up actual examples in comparisons than repeat the liberal standard response of "both sides do it so..."whenever they get caught in the wrong.

Every election cycle when they spew forth more class haiting, race hating propoganda campaigns I always hear parroted the claim that both sides are doing it, yet they are never able to offer up any credible examples from the republican side.

How many republican protest groups for example routinely attempt to deny access to speakers on college campuses? In contrast how many campuses is that not true of on the left?

 

[Lumberg]

JA I think Matt is a great contributor to EF, I just don't think you can hold up one or even five people as examples of why one side is better than the other. There are plenty of liberals who are very lucid and thoughtful.

What is the motivation of the liberal? What is the motivation of the conservative? I would like to think that's a consensus right there. My answer is "to enrich myself, and thereby make the world a better place for myself and my loved ones." "make the world a better place" is probably a common goal. People just disagree on the methods.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Ayn Rand would be proud.

But what about the Conservatives who believe humans don't have a right to decide for themselves whether they want an abortion? Or whether they want to be euthanized? While economically the Conservatives are more individualistic, for some reason they feel that humans are morally unable to decide for themselves. So it's a catch-22. Either way you vote it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

I posted a few posts back about the difference and interplay between liberalism, statism and politics.

What you are describing is statism. Conservatives can want to prevent a woman from getting an abortion, but absent the machinery of the state they cannot do it. When they use the promise of government intervention to obtain votes from the anti-abortion crowd, they are simply being politicians.

This is not merely semantics.

 

[Lumberg]

I posted a few posts back about the difference and interplay between liberalism, statism and politics.

What you are describing is statism. Conservatives can want to prevent a woman from getting an abortion, but absent the machinery of the state they cannot do it. When they use the promise of government intervention to obtain votes from the anti-abortion crowd, they are simply being politicians.

This is not merely semantics.

That's purely semantics.

Yeah I read that after I posted. I'm talking more from a personal standpoint. Pretty much every politician thinks he knows what's best for people better than the people themselves. Why else would they becoem politicians?

 

[jerseyart]

JA I think Matt is a great contributor to EF, I just don't think you can hold up one or even five people as examples of why one side is better than the other. There are plenty of liberals who are very lucid and thoughtful.

What is the motivation of the liberal? What is the motivation of the conservative? I would like to think that's a consensus right there. My answer is "to enrich myself, and thereby make the world a better place for myself and my loved ones." "make the world a better place" is probably a common goal. People just disagree on the methods.

Again Lummy, Im not arguing motivation . For the most part I genuinely agree that we want the same things, but just have different ideas as to which are the best ways to achieve those goals.


I have just found it to be true that liberals, despite all whines to the contrary, are very intolerant of contrasting opinions.

Look at the Florida election of 2k. Tell me the whole country wasnt shocked as hell to witness republican protesters out in force for a count made in an open manner.

Its just never really been a device of the right in this country to prevent opposing speech, we attempt to counter their arguments in the arena of ideas. Liberals in contrast are far more likely to attempt to simply squash all opposing speech, and its evident in every arena of life, even here.


I used Matt as an example because he evidences a mind set as much as anything. He doesnt abuse his power because frankly instinctually his philosophies are adverse to such an abuse. He believes in free speech and the exchange of ideas in a public fashion. He inherently trusts that reasonable people who hear both sides will be more sympathetic to his case, and is willing to chance if they dont, knowing full well he will have other opportunities to sway them. He believes in the individual.

Liberals to the contrary hate the individual, except a as cog in some larger misguided albeit well intentioned scheme. In liberalism people are too greedy, selfish and stupid to be allowed to make up their own minds and must be force fed wha to do and think. People who "know better" should be in charge of their lives. People shouldnt be allowed to decide, cause they might decide wrong, and even likely will.

Which is why the courts have become the preferred method of implementing liberal policy.
Try to get most liberals to make a similar concession....

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

That's purely semantics.

Yeah I read that after I posted. I'm talking more from a personal standpoint. Pretty much every politician thinks he knows what's best for people better than the people themselves. Why else would they becoem politicians?

Take your thought process a step further. Politicians not only "know what is better" but need to create the illusion that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

The Schiavo thing is a perfect example. Why would a Congressperson from any district other than western FL be remotely interested in this case? This is an example of a Congressperson creating a "solution" to a problem that has nothing to do with them.

This is government at its best. or worst.

 

[Lumberg]

In liberalism people are too greedy, selfish and stupid to be allowed to make up their own minds and must be force fed wha to do and think. People who "know better" should be in charge of their lives. People shouldnt be allowed to decide, cause they might decide wrong, and even likely will.

Again, you have explained exactly the motivation behind trying to make/keep abortions, drugs, and stem cell research illegal. All statist positions. I really don't think you can say one side does this and the other does not.

 

[jerseyart]

Again, you have explained exactly the motivation behind trying to make/keep abortions, drugs, and stem cell research illegal. All conservative positions. I really don't think you can say one side does this and the other does not.

What are you talking about maing.

Were discussing free speech issues.


Those other things you mentioned pit right to life and right to privacy issues against one another. Not even close to being the same thing, unless someone was attempting to silence the other side, and again, ironically enough it is the abortion protestors who are routinely silenced and jailed for speaking out.

The only exception is drugs, which is again not a free speech issue, but one of societal interest vs personal liberty. I confess Im somewhat wishy washy on that topic myself.

 

[Lumberg]

Liberals to the contrary hate the individual, except a as cog in some larger misguided albeit well intentioned scheme. In liberalism people are too greedy, selfish and stupid to be allowed to make up their own minds and must be force fed wha to do and think. People who "know better" should be in charge of their lives. People shouldnt be allowed to decide, cause they might decide wrong, and even likely will.

This is what I'm talking about.

If you're talking only about free speech here you need to be more specific.

how is this different from statists' stance that if people are allowed to decide for themselves whether to use drugs, they might decide wrong (to ue to the point of losing control of their life and becoming a burden on society, presumably?), if people are allowed to decide for themselves whether to harvest stem cells from aborted fetuses, they may (will) make the wrong decision, which is to do it, if people are allowed to decide for themselves whether to have or perform late term abortions...