|
 RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
 Liberalism 
#1067538 - 11/19/02 08:14 PM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hi all,
I thought I would throw this out and see what kind of response I got.
Why I distrust liberals and people who populate the Left Wing:
(Let me add that I don't really trust Right-Wingers either)
I will candidly admit that no person, no matter how insightful, is capable of understanding every aspect of human behavior because it is something that does not always follow a predictable pattern. Each individual has a lifetime to be influenced by a myriad of environmental, cultural, and social occurrences which(even with conformity running rampant in my opinion) makes every person somewhat unique. I realize that by attempting to neatly categorize a large
amount of people, I might fall prey to generalization. But even with this admission, I still think that my observations are applicable to a large number of people who call themselves "liberal".
At a brief glance, liberalism appears very noble and altruistic. I believe that
people who are liberals truly do elicit genuine concern for humanity. They believe
that it is necessary for us to try to correct the injustices and inequities that plague
mankind. However, I have noticed some glaring weaknesses in their thinking that I cannot ignore.
There are various types of liberals. I have decided to narrow my descriptions to the slight, moderate, and extreme liberals, with the hopes that most of the other liberals that populate the world will fall somewhere in between.
Slight liberals have beliefs that hover more towards the center of the political spectrum. They espouse all of the standard centerpiece liberal beliefs (equal treatment of all people no matter what their personal beliefs, economic standing, etc.. may be). They respect freedom and demand that it be recognized. Ironically, the most recognizable trait of the slight liberal is apathy. They believe in these things and would like to see them instituted so that everyone in the world may benefit from them, but most of them don't do anything about it. They just won't admit that they are self-centered. Most of the time their beliefs are
purely aesthetic things which please their sensibilities and idle concerns, but that are not powerful enough to elicit concerted action.
As someone gets more towards the moderate and extreme liberal beliefs, they have a tendency to impose what I call the "Oppression Dialectic" on their observations of the world.
The moderate liberals use a more muted version of the "Oppression Dialectic".
They examine situations and seperate the participants into two parties; the people
"on top" or the winners(who possibly have unfair advantages), and the people who just couldn't succeed in the said situation, who deserve pity and sympathy. Moderate liberals don't like to see disadvantaged people experience disappointment, failure, and hardship(strangely enough, they sometimes take pleasure in seeing people they construe as being "on top", fail.). They
have a tendency to disapprove of winning; because when someone wins there is somebody who didn't win. Usually they sympathize with the perceived loser.
I can understand the moderate liberal's desire(which arises out of empathy) to shield people from disappointment and to root for the underdog, but attempting to eliminate failure from the human experience is not natural. I think that failure is a valuable part of life. It has the capability of teaching important lessons such as humility and wisdom. If looked back upon with a clear head, failure can help a person determine what they need to do or change in order to succeed. People were not meant to float through life while experiencing no disappointments. If all that everyone experiences is a rigged and controlled success, where failure is abolished and everyone is equal, it is not true success. It is a sham. You are taking a person's right to pursue what they want and what they want to
achieve, and relegating them to a forced equality with their fellow man. Sure, you raise some people out of the depths of failure, but you also limit other people's access to success and it's fruits. I can think of nothing that is more unnatural, restricting, stifling, and insulting to human ambition and self-determination.
Of all of the forms of liberalism, I think I am most qualified to talk about extreme
liberalism, because I used to be heavily influenced and controlled by it. To put it bluntly; I was young and naive and I didn't thoroughly question the tenets that I excitedly embraced.
The extreme liberals utilize the "Oppression Dialectic" in a much more shrill and
audacious way than the moderate liberals do. They examine a situation and seperate the participants into two parties; the power-hungry oppressors who sadistically and tyrannically pursue and wield absolute control, and the victimized and oppressed group, who have to live under such humiliating and inhumane circumstances. They always disapprove of the people they view as the oppressors and use every chance they have to discredit them. They exaggerate every mistake, shortcoming, and failure of the oppressors. They always side with the perceived underdog, and oftentimes sympathize with, attempt to justify, or outright ignore, any innappropriate behaviour of the members of the perceived oppressed community. They also exaggerate every hardship endured by, and every accomplishment of, the oppressed. Extreme liberalism can be summarized as a militant, warped, and misguided empathy that is brought about
by disaffected cynicism. It is a belief system that is almost always confined to young people, because the impetuousness and irrationality that taint it are also common symptoms of youth. On a certain level, I can admire and appreciate the energy, rigor, and determination of extreme liberals. But, it is hard to ignore the lack of wisdom, open-mindedness, and level-headedness, that mark it.
The main flaw of people who have ardent beliefs is that they oftentimes believe in the correctness of their ideals so much that they will not seriously consider or review any other points of view. People who are influenced or controlled by a system of thought tend to see what they want to see and not what is actually there. Liberals are no exception.
RandalFlagg
(My first post in months. yee haww!!)
|
 Fred Garvin
Male Prostitute
Registered: 09/24/02
Posts: 1,657
Loc: The northern part of sout...
Last seen: 18 years, 2 months
|
|
Nice post.
--------------------
The above statements are just the incoherent babblings of your friendly neighborhood Cracker!
Shur drinkin kils brane sells--but only the week ones!!
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
|
Very good, I'm glad you're back posting. 
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
carbonhoots
old hand
Registered: 09/11/01
Posts: 1,351
Loc: BC Canada
|
|
Hmm, since you distrust liberals, I must be your opposition. Although I wouldn't call myself liberal, I'd maybe fit the profile...
Well, that was a nice speech, you've got some speaking skills, for sure...
In reply to:
They espouse all of the standard centerpiece liberal beliefs (equal treatment of all people no matter what their personal beliefs, economic standing, etc.. may be)They respect freedom and demand that it be recognized
Even conservatives would say they believe in equal treatment of all, and the recognition of freedom. Only an SOB wouldn't believe in these things.
The oppresion dialectic is an intresting idea, but what of it? I don't think that just because someone can recognize clear oppresion of a slavemaster variety, they examine everything in life that way, and are on a hopeless mission to eliminate all losers, (and in their blind passions but by necessity, kill the games or something)
And the extreme liberals sounds more like a mixture of maturity and passion than a seperate ideology...anyways, this speech hits me like it's an attempt to frame the situation in a context quite out of reality. The nice tone, the patronizing opening of the discription of liberals...all in an attempt to dismiss the notion of slavery/economic unfairness as some kind of psychotic condition of 'dialectic oppresion'
Could you imagine?
Man to wife...
"Do you know they pay 50 cents an hour in the Maquiladoras? And the people drink polluted water and live in filth? All the while Walmart and whoever else is profiting billions!"
Wife to man...
"Oh dear, calm down, you know you suffer from Dialectic Oppresive/conpulsive disorder"
Maybe someday the'll have a pill for that. The're probably working on them now. Haha
I think liberals, as you call them, can see the bigger picture and recognize that we don't have to wait for the market to do everthing. Cuz it won't anyways. There's nothing wrong with applying conscious thought to building a society, rather than wait for the market mechanism of a larger and larger private profit to happen. In some cases, it would never happen.
I've gotta go but I'll give you a quick example, I read it would cost 12billion US to provide the people of the world with a clean drinking water infrastructure. (those that don't already have one, that is)
We could wait till the cows came home and the market wouldn't have delivered it. The rich countries of the world could EASILY come up with the money, tomorow, and would if not for the greed of the ruling classes. How far would that go to diminish the threat of terrorism, clean water for everyone...a gift from first world to third. The 'war on a vauge emotional term' will cost something like that anyway...or way more...I've gotta go.
--------------------
-I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me
CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES
Edited by carbonhoots (11/19/02 11:56 PM)
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
The trouble is the so-called "winners" prefer to live in a communist paradise themselves. It's only the poor who must follow the dictates of the "free market". The rich themselves prefer communism - massive government intervention to close off markets and corporate welfare - rich corporations living off the largesse of the poor taxpayer, awarding themselves massive pay rises. They may talk a lot of shit about the "end" of communism but if you are in a rich corporation communism is very much alive and well. We now need to let the poor access this corporate communist paradise.
"All of this might be tolerable if meritocracy promoted genuine talent. Unfortunately for believers in free-market orthodoxy, no one has been able to discover a connection between executive pay and a company's performance. Between 1994 and 2001, the TUC found that the median annual salary and bonus for the highest paid directors grew from ?201,000 to ?416,073 in 2001, an increase of 107 per cent. Average employee pay in the same companies rose from ?19,272 to ?25,223, just 31 per cent. Executives keep paying themselves more even when their companies are in crisis. The stockmarket crash pushed the value of the FTSE 100 down by 30 per cent between 2001 and 2002. Researchers at Income Data Services found that chief executive officers at FTSE 100 companies none the less saw their salaries rise by 9.7 per cent. Their average earnings passed the ?1.5m mark this year.
They are increasing their riches not because they deserve to be paid more but because they can get away with taking more"
http://www.observer.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,841727,00.html
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
|
Extremely well said.
Two quotes come to mind:
"If a man is a conservative when he is 18 he has no heart, if he is not one when he is 40 he has no mind."
Winston Churchill
"That which a man had rather were true he more readily believes."
Thomas Bacon
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: ]
#1069457 - 11/20/02 11:00 AM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Conservatism could be summed up as the belief that one's wealth and success can be attributed entirely to the greatness of their character, and not to a random series of chance events.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
They espouse all of the standard centerpiece liberal beliefs (equal treatment of all people no matter what their personal beliefs, economic standing, etc.. may be)They respect freedom and demand that it be recognized
Even conservatives would say they believe in equal treatment of all, and the recognition of freedom. Only an SOB wouldn't believe in these things.
True. These are beliefs that are commonly held by most people, no matter if they are liberals or conservatives. Because slight liberals hover towards the center, a lot of the things they believe in are very similar to what centrists or slight conservative believe in.
The oppresion dialectic is an intresting idea, but what of it? I don't think that just because someone can recognize clear oppresion of a slavemaster variety, they examine everything in life that way, and are on a hopeless mission to eliminate all losers, (and in their blind passions but by necessity, kill the games or something)
And the extreme liberals sounds more like a mixture of maturity and passion than a seperate ideology...anyways, this speech hits me like it's an attempt to frame the situation in a context quite out of reality. The nice tone, the patronizing opening of the discription of liberals...all in an attempt to dismiss the notion of slavery/economic unfairness as some kind of psychotic condition of 'dialectic oppresion'
Could you imagine?
Man to wife...
"Do you know they pay 50 cents an hour in the Maquiladoras? And the people drink polluted water
and live in filth? All the while Walmart and whoever else is profiting billions!"
Wife to man...
"Oh dear, calm down, you know you suffer from Dialectic Oppresive/conpulsive disorder"
I think liberals, as you call them, can see the bigger picture and recognize that we don't have to wait for the market to do everthing. Cuz it won't anyways. There's nothing wrong with applying conscious thought to building a society.
There certainly is oppression in the world. Not everybody who recognizes oppression in the world will haphazardly use the "oppression dialectic" to explain every situation. But, in my experience, liberals are more likely to do this(and I should add, oftentimes blindly) than anybody else.
We of course must strive to make things as tolerable and as much to our liking as is possible. But, it is pointless to ignore reality and attempt to completely "fix the world". It is like trying to leap up to the top of a mountain in one jump. But, people attempt it again and again. This world will never be perfect. How can perfection arise from, or be expressed by, such an imperfect creature as Man?
My contention is that Man is not capable of making a perfect world. There has
never been an idea that originated from Man that was able to lift the human race completely out of it's depravity, and there never will be. That is why liberalism is oftentimes an exercise in futility.
In a utopian society where there is no hunger, everyone recieves a basic level
of material sustenance (even those that are not physically or mentally capable of producing anything), and there is no greed or vice, people would need to put forth a remarkable effort and sacrifice personal interest. This will never happen. Human beings are too enslaved by their whims. People will always exhibit every possible emotion and motive, from the most caring empathy to the most despicable selfishness. It has happened since the beginning of time and will happen until the end of time. No amount of "enlightenment" will ever change the fickleness and unpredictability of Man's behavior.
I will not be responsible for the entire human race. I am only responsible for myself. And, whereever I am in life, I either put myself there or I let myself remain there.
RandalFlagg
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
#1069499 - 11/20/02 11:13 AM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The trouble is the so-called "winners" prefer to live in a communist paradise themselves.
When I gave my critique on liberals, I was not just focusing on their view of economics. I was trying to put down into words their basic belief system that applies to all topics (the environment, race relations, etc..). But, if you wish to talk about economics, I will be glad to do so.
First, I will give my personal opinion on economics. A pure free market system would allow people to do anything in the pursuit of profits. They could dump toxic waste in the ocean, or pay their employees 20 cents an hour. Obviously, a pure free market system would result in the quick polarization of wealth and destruction of the environment. I believe in a free market system with regulations, that is controlled by a democratic government, so the general population can change things as they see fit. Monopolies are outlawed, pollution is
controlled, etc.. So the bad things about capitalism can be diminished or avoided altogether.
The "winners", i.e. people who are economically well off, have the resources at their disposal because of their own effort, or the effort of their ancestors, and are entitled to enjoy it in any way that they wish.
The "downtrodden", i.e. the people with limited financial resources, should have access to good educational opportunities so that, if they wish to, they can pursue economic success.
t's only the poor who must follow the dictates of the "free market".
The rich themselves prefer communism - massive government intervention to close off markets and corporate welfare - rich corporations living off the largesse of the poor taxpayer, awarding themselves massive pay rises.
They may talk a lot of shit about the "end" of communism but if you are in a rich corporation cmmunism is very much alive and well. We now need to let the poor access this corporate communist paradise.
"All of this might be tolerable if meritocracy promoted genuine talent. Unfortunately for believers in free-market orthodoxy, no one has been able to discover a connection between executive pay and a company's performance. Between 1994 and 2001, the TUC found that the median annual salary and bonus for the highest paid directors grew from ?201,000 to ?416,073 in 2001, an increase of 107 per cent. Average employee pay in the same companies rose from ?19,272 to
?25,223, just 31 per cent. Executives keep paying themselves more even when their companies are in crisis. The stockmarket crash pushed the value of the FTSE 100 down by 30 per cent between 2001 and 2002. Researchers at Income Data Services found that chief executive officers at FTSE 100 companies none the less saw their salaries rise by 9.7 per cent. Their average earnings passed the ?1.5m mark this year.
They are increasing their riches not because they deserve to be paid more but because they can get away with taking more"
The poor are just as greedy as the rich.
Man's main weaknesses are selfishness and self-interest. The only thing
that can consistently fuel a large amount of the population's actions is profit. Religious and ideological beliefs will motivate some people. But, greed is the only sure thing that can be used in order to convince the mass majority of people to accomplish something. In order for someone to want to do something, they need to get a reward. There is no point in fighting this trait. We are human beings, we are greedy, and there is not much we can do about it. If we must live with this trait then we must try to use it to our advantage. That is why I believe in an economic system where people are allowed to pursue whatever they wish.
RandalFlagg
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Phluck]
#1069883 - 11/20/02 12:31 PM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So you are saying that the rich are lucky?
They possess no superior talents? No unique gifts? Nothing other than a 'random series of chance events' allowed them to become wealthy?
So then, by your logic again, the only difference between the garage band I was in in the 60's and The Beatles was luck.
Kewl! I am glad to know that. Now I am sure that our lack of talent had nothing to do with it. What a relief it is.
Thanks! 
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
But, greed is the only sure thing that can be used in order to convince the mass majority of people to accomplish something. In order for someone to want to do something, they need to get a reward. There is no point in fighting this trait. We are human beings, we are greedy, and there is not much we can do about it.
Nah, i don't buy it and history really doesn't bear it out. For the vast majority of human existence we lived in bands of around 30-100 who shared everything equally. There were no Bill Gates and beggars in those groups. Our natural trait is to share and help each other. It was only with the introduction of agriculture when people could hoard food that this started changing. And of course capitalism elevated greed and selfishness beyond all other human traits because it suits the purpose of the minority at the top.
Perhaps the reason the world is so fucked up now is that traits which are so contrary to human nature are pushed as being the ones to worship. i don't think being greedy and selfish is natural human nature at all - try giving and being generous one day and check out how wonderful you feel. You don't get that feeling from kicking a begger when he's down - no matter how many free-marketeers tell you they deserve it.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
shogun221
God in the Wired
Registered: 09/27/02
Posts: 108
Last seen: 17 years, 6 months
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
#1072107 - 11/20/02 11:08 PM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"We continue to recognize the greater ability of some to earn more than others. But we do assert that the ambition of the individual to obtain for him a proper security is an ambition to be preferred to the appetite for great wealth and great power."
--------------------
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. ~FDR"
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 1 year, 5 months
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: ]
#1072239 - 11/20/02 11:52 PM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
"They possess no superior talents? No unique gifts? Nothing other than a 'random series of chance events' allowed them to become wealthy?"
Pretty much. Some of them are talented, some aren't. There are many hard working intelligent people who never manage to make any of their dreams become reality.
"So then, by your logic again, the only difference between the garage band I was in in the 60's and The Beatles was luck."
No, that's stupid. That's not even remotely following my logic. I didn't say everyone is equally talented. The difference between your band and the Beatles is luck and (probably) talent as well. The difference between your band and say, Creed is merely luck.
There are many, many, many amazing musicians who never had any commercial success whatsoever. There are many more un-talented shills who have had enormous commercial success.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
Edited by Phluck (11/20/02 11:54 PM)
|
Ellis Dee
Archangel
Registered: 06/29/01
Posts: 13,104
Loc: Fire in the sky
Last seen: 6 years, 13 days
|
|
Frankly, the main problem I have with liberals is that they want to take away my freedom and most of all they want to take away the freedom of the people they claim to want to help. As far as the economic issues go I'm mainly conservative, but somewhat liberal, For example I'm in favor of liberal welfare to work programs and in favor of giving children free health care and otherwise in favor of most of the current economic saftey nets. But, the economics are a secondary issue to me and don't affect the way I vote, which is freedom first.
--------------------
"If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do."-King Solomon
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
Edited by Ellis Dee (11/21/02 03:34 AM)
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Xlea321]
#1072798 - 11/21/02 04:08 AM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
Nah, i don't buy it and history really doesn't bear it out. For the vast majority of human existence we lived in bands of around 30-100 who shared everything equally.
That is pure speculation. When one speaks of "history", one properly may speak only of RECORDED history. It has not been definitively established by anthropology that the "vast majority" of human existence before the dawn of recorded history was spent in groups of 30 to 100 people, although it seems logical to PRESUME that a hunter-gatherer society could exist with a base that small.
Even if we concede that the majority of hunter-gatherers before the dawn of recorded history DID live in groups of that size, there is no evidence to show that they shared everything equally.
Our natural trait is to share and help each other.
If this is true (and in my opinion it is), why is it necessary for this sharing and helping to be mandated by law and enforced through violence?
And of course capitalism elevated greed and selfishness beyond all other human traits because it suits the purpose of the minority at the top.
Capitalism "elevates" nothing. Capitalism leaves one free to do as one pleases. If you want to work eighty hour weeks and hoard every cent you make, fine. If you want to work just barely enough to get by, fine. If you want to work forty hour weeks and give half your earnings to charities, fine.
Perhaps the reason the world is so fucked up now is that traits which are so contrary to human nature are pushed as being the ones to worship.
Which traits are those? Who is "pushing" them? In which countries are these traits being "pushed"?
i don't think being greedy and selfish is natural human nature at all
History says otherwise. History aside, you have obviously never dealt with pre-schoolage children, have you? There is nothing more self-centered, greedy, and selfish on this planet than a human infant before it has been civilized.
You don't get that feeling from kicking a begger when he's down - no matter how many free-marketeers tell you they deserve it.
Free marketeers don't kick beggars. Free marketeers create jobs. Beggars have been known to take jobs.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Phluck]
#1072816 - 11/21/02 04:19 AM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Phluck writes:
There are many hard working intelligent people who never manage to make any of their dreams become reality.
And many who do. There are very few lazy dim-witted people who manage to BECOME wealthy, however. There are some who fit that description who INHERITED their wealth, but those people are in the minority.
Some people DO become wealthy by good luck, just as some people DO go bankrupt by bad luck. But if you study the ever-growing demographic sector defined as "millionaires" in the United States, for example, the most common unifying attributes among them is the willingness to work long hours, the willingness to take risks, and the intelligence to make mostly correct decisions and few incorrect decisions in a business context.
Does this mean that EVERY intelligent, hardworking risk-taker will become a millionaire? Nope. But it does mean that few if any dim, lazy folk who hide their cash under their mattresses are likely to become millionaires.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 years, 2 months
|
|
carbonhoots writes:
There's nothing wrong with applying conscious thought to building a society, rather than wait for the market mechanism of a larger and larger private profit to happen. In some cases, it would never happen.
Thinking is good. Conscious thought is even better. Force is bad. Force initiated by an entity (government) whose sole moral justification is to protect its constituents from the initiation of force is not just bad, it's the ultimate example of a contradiction.
The problem with the Leftist approach is that it accepts unquestioningly the premise that it is morally correct to FORCE people to do stuff. Virtually all Leftists explicitly state that not only is it morally correct, it is morally ESSENTIAL to force people to do stuff. To a Leftist, leaving people free to peacefully pursue their own lives is IMMORAL, because while they are peacefully pursuing their own lives, people they have never met are dying of hunger or disease or being tortured in Tibet or whatever.
We could wait till the cows came home and the market wouldn't have delivered it. The rich countries of the world could EASILY come up with the money, tomorow, and would if not for the greed of the ruling classes. How far would that go to diminish the threat of terrorism, clean water for everyone...a gift from first world to third.
What "market" are you talking about? Why is it necessary for the rich countries to give the poor folks jugs of Clorox? It has been known for decades that putting five drops of simple laundry bleach in a gallon of water renders it safe for human consumption, unless it is grossly contaminated with radioactive sludge or PCBs or something. Laundry bleach is widely available and dirt cheap, even in developing countries. For the first six years I lived in the Dominican Republic (when I got all my water from a well) I treated every single gallon of water I used for drinking and cooking this way. So did all my neighbours. Cheap, foolproof, quick, easy. Even the poorest countries in the world (such as Haiti, where this method is used universally) can provide their own bleach.
pinky
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Phluck]
#1073327 - 11/21/02 09:53 AM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I didn't say everyone is equally talented. The difference between your band and the Beatles is luck and (probably) talent as well. The difference between your band and say, Creed is merely luck.
Ha ha! I hate Creed too. I have fantasies about putting the lead singer on a prime time reality show where he is tortured mercilessly.
RandalFlagg
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Phred]
#1073339 - 11/21/02 09:59 AM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The problem with the Leftist approach is that it accepts unquestioningly the premise that it is morally correct to FORCE people to do stuff. Virtually all Leftists explicitly state that not only is it morally correct, it is morally ESSENTIAL to force people to do stuff. To a Leftist, leaving people free to peacefully pursue their own lives is IMMORAL, because while they are peacefully pursuing their own lives, people they have never met are dying of hunger or disease or being tortured in Tibet or whatever.
A liberals view on society is one that seems to not respect an individual's right and
responsibility to determine his own fate and standing in life. It is a view that individuals are not capable of making a perfect world if left to their own devices. Man therefore must have beliefs that "guide" Him along toward a better existence. The glaring contradiction of this attitude is that it simultaneously exhibits a love of, and condescending distrust of, humanity.
RandalFlagg
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Liberalism [Re: Phred]
#1073344 - 11/21/02 10:02 AM (22 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
If this is true (and in my opinion it is), why is it necessary for this sharing and helping to be mandated by law and enforced through violence?
I think you're confusing human nature with the current state of society. If you'd been living in Nazi germany in 1938 you would have assumed human nature was dressing up in black shirts and kicking jews. You would have been equally wrong then.
Capitalism leaves one free to do as one pleases
As Bill Hicks said "You are free to do as we tell you".
History says otherwise
History says for the vast majority of human existence we lived in small communities based around sharing and caring for each other. Don't confuse "history" with "the last hundred years". No-one knows what society will be like in 5000 years time.
Free marketeers create jobs.
Tell that to the people of Flint, Michigan.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Kratom Capsules for Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck 
Buy Bali Kratom Powder
Edit 
Reply 
EchoVortex
1 2 3 all )
kake
Luddite
Silversoul
lonestar2004
Phred