Can you articulate WHY contemporary liberalism is destructive to America?

[Lank]

I am eager to hear from you, my friends and colleagues-

Why do you think liberals are harmful?

 

[HTRN]

The term itself is a bit of a misnomer. A true "liberal" through the course of history is someone who believes is absolute civil liberties, or the rights of the individual and not the state.

Somewhere around 100 years ago the "liberals" were co-opted by the progressive movement. These are the folks that would like to legislate a "world where there is no fear" and "a world where there is no wants."

Today's liberal is a statist, not unlike the neoconservatives. The state is the direct enemy of liberty and freedom of the individual. So the ideas of the liberal require that the property and privacy rights of the individual are violated (by force) to try to satisfy the un-natural idea that there can be no wants. This initiative is based squarely on the politics of ENVY. Envy is a disgusting, destructive force that drives people to want to destroy others and their fortunes. It is a direct enemy of auspiciousness.

 

[BradM]

If you're talking modern liberalism, it's because modern liberalism seeks to only promote freedom within the context of socialism and the well being of the "greater good." individual freedom is not a concern; this is known as positive freedom. In this system everything may be limited upon the individual if it having that freedom does not benefit society as a whole. The question then becomes, who determines what is best for society as a whole? Modern Liberalism is akin to socialism in that although it is looking for a classless society based on ultimate equality, this system can only work if all parties are in agreement; human nature being what it is, this is a utopian dream that can not exist in reality.

Classical liberalism is defined by negative freedom, giving the individual as much freedom as possible within a social context so that an individual can achieve total self-fulfillment, whatever that may mean to them. Libertarians like myself believe in this as it creates a meritocracy, in which those individuals who choose to pursue and achieve have the tools necessary for success, and those that don't fall prey to Darwnism.

Modern liberalism cannot work as it strives for a classless society and equality in a world in which these things don't exist.

I have a ~20 page paper I wrote on the subject for a comparative ideologies class last semester if you want more info.

 

[xtry51]

+2

What they said

 

[Climbnsink]

Suffrage is the bullet that killed liberty. Progs and commies having influence are all a result of suffrage. Good luck turning that clock back.

 

[MassMark]

Wow. That's a wrap. Nice posts gents...Reps inbound...

 

[Madball13]

Wow. That's a wrap. Nice posts gents...Reps inbound...

Easy now, don't go rushing to close this down, it could turn into a decent out-yoself thread.

 

[BradM]

I disagree, universal suffrage isn't the issue; government expansion outside of the framework of the constitution is.

 

[DitchDigger]

I couldn't have said it better myself !
+1,000

 

[BradM]

A good place to start if you want to learn the basics of numerous political ideologies and actually know what you're talking about
This book was a good primer for my other classes.

http://www.amazon.com/Political-Ideologies-Fourth-Andrew-Heywood/dp/0230521800

 

[cb1]

I am eager to hear from you, my friends and colleagues-

Why do you think liberals are harmful?

Modern liberals are harmful because they are pursuing an ideal that can never be realized. Liberalism (by which I mean the socialist movement in its current form) is a movement without an end. What's more, in order to pursue this ideal, their system must necessarily be forced on those that do not choose to accept it. Nothing will ever be good enough, equal enough, or fair enough to placate them.

Putting aside the necessary and inevitable destruction that comes with force feeding an absurdly tyrannical Orwellian style nanny state down our throats on the road to nowhere, the biggest problem with liberalism is that, ironically, it is what we would call historically conservative. In such a system you are an individual insomuch as you are part of a group. For most here it is probably difficult to fathom since we are largely republicans (literally, not the party though probably that as well) and libertarians. In a historically conservative political system, things are done for the benefit of the group and therefore as a member of the group you also benefit. Look at the classical Greek city states. They were "democratic" but conservatively so. Think of the socialist motto: "from each according to his abililty, to each according to his need". In such a system you exist as part of the group but never outside and apart from it as an individual.

This makes the libertarian notion of individual freedom and responsibility and the socialist collective completely and utterly incompatible. They cannot exist in the same space at the same time.

 

[BradM]

BradM fun fact - George Orwell (of 1984 fame) was actually named Eric Blair, and despite the warnings in 1984, was an English Socialist.

 

[Mattyweb]

I always think of mordern liberals equating to the Borg from Star Trek. Mindless drones with no individuality, consuming everyone else's resources but not producing anything of their own.

 

[Lank]

My, I am impressed with the thoughtful responses here. I really didnt have any doubts about the quality of the responses (I expected), but some of you clearly have a well defined and reasoned explination.

I struggle daily to try to educate those around me about the dangers of contemporary (not classical) liberalism, and neoconservatism. I try to explain how the progressive left (which has earned my lifetime attention to defeating)- has brainwashed so many.

How many people know that a progressive income tax is marxist?

How many people know about the crimes of the federal reserve? How many care?


I think we are doomed.

 

[Madball13]

My, I am impressed with the thoughtful responses here. I really didnt have any doubts about the quality of the responses (I expected), but some of you clearly have a well defined and reasoned explination.

I struggle daily to try to educate those around me about the dangers of contemporary (not classical) liberalism, and neoconservatism. I try to explain how the progressive left (which has earned my lifetime attention to defeating)- has brainwashed so many.

How many people know that a progressive income tax is marxist?

How many people know about the crimes of the federal reserve? How many care?


I think we are doomed.

Not enough people know the progressive income tax is marxist or public education for that matter. Try telling a union teacher that public education is one of the ten planks to communism.

 

[Lank]

What really angers me is that all in the name of "fairness", people eagerly vote for obama, and other socialists who believe it is correct to take from those who earn, to give to those who dont earn.

This is nothing more than a paraphrase of "to each according to need, from each according to ability".

FORCED Wealth redistribution BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is wrong.

 

[Horrible]

Modern liberalism cannot work as it strives for a classless society and equality in a world in which these things don't exist.

It all looks good and sounds good on paper, but human nature destroys the model. There will always be people that are power-hungry and dependence on the government for all your needs creates that power structure that ultimately leads to the ruling class and everyone else.

 

[Donvin999]

You know I find it quite sad when I look at what this great country has become. We have gone from a society which was skeptical of government to one that expects this faceless creation to provide for our every need! I along with I believe most on this board prefer a government which provides me with ONLY those services which I cannot provide for myself! However I also ask that they do not take from me! Also I've got this kinda crazy idea which I will throw out there and that is with today's technology (as I type this on my iPhone) do we really need elected officials we could conceivably vote on bills directly! Although my idea is not without issues I believe we no longer require a representative government. All criticisms welcome guys! Lol

 

[Lank]

I would be worried about electronic voting mechanisms- how could we verify illegals and massive left wing voter fraud wouldnt occur? We cant even get people to show ID to vote

 

[Madball13]

We have forgotten the most important part of the political/governmental process: ME

 

[Lank]

Also- we need to begin to use the word Secession more frequently.

I for one will move to the first state successful at doing so

 

[Donvin999]

Also just a funny observation as to the fact that we constantly need new laws mostly due to the fact that legislators feel they need to do something! I forget where the quote comes from but it goes " all human suffering is due to out inability to sit still in a room" or something to that effect.

 

[Lank]

Also just a funny observation as to the fact that we constantly need new laws mostly due to the fact that legislators feel they need to do something! I forget where the quote comes from but it goes " all human suffering is due to out inability to sit still in a room" or something to that effect.

Meddling in our daily lives is a trademark of the progressive

 

[whatluck]

Contemporary liberals are communists.

 

[HTRN]

Many Contemporary liberals are communists.

As many contemporary "Conservatives" are fascists.

Just ask some of the members here that believe in big government that picks business winners and losers.

 

[whatluck]

As many contemporary "Conservatives" are fascists.

Just ask some of the members here that believe in big government that picks business winners and losers.

Contemporary conservatives are fascists. But this is a topic for another thread.

 

[HTRN]

do we really need elected officials we could conceivably vote on bills directly!

You can have your mob rule, as long as I am not a member of your society! I prefer liberty and freedom, thanks.

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

This is not just an old quote from Franklin, it is quite exactly the truth.

If we had direct vote NO ONE would be safe in their property!!!

As there are always a majority of people who prefer to vote your property to them vs having to actually create or earn anything.

Send me your address in a PM, and I will send you a copy of Atlas Shrugged and a copy of Liberty Defined.

 

[HTRN]

Contemporary conservatives are fascists. But this is a topic for another thread.

Fair enough. Thank you.

 

[whatluck]

As there are always a majority of people who prefer to vote your property to them vs having to actually create or earn anything.

Mob rule or democracy, we've still ended up exactly here.

 

[DaveB]

My Take. Liberals base decisions on feelings and what "feels" right and fairness as they define it and worse they believe those feeling to be truth. They lack real logic, reason and fact to back those feelings. They conjure and twist truth to suit there needs because they know they are wrong. They do not accept responsibility for there failures. Frankly, they don't realize their failures and blame everyone else for failures in the system yet continue "feeling" they can make a difference.

Read this last night in Atlas Shrugged and it struck me worth remembering and seems to fit what I see in our schools, media and government.

He felt an anger too intense to identify except as a pressure within him: it was a desire to kill.

The desire was not directed at the unknown thug who had sent a bullet through the boy’s body, or at the looting bureaucrats who had hired the thug to do it, but at the boy’s teachers who had delivered him, disarmed, to the thug’s gun – at the soft, safe assassins of college classrooms who, incompetent to answer the queries of a quest for reason, took pleasure in crippling the young minds entrusted to their care.

>snip<

He thought of all the living species that train their young in the art of survival, the cats who teach their kittens to hunt, the birds who spend such strident effort on teaching their fledglings to fly – yet man, whose tool of survival is the mind, does not merely fail to teach a child to think, but devotes the child’s education to the purpose of destroying his brain, of convincing him that thought is futile and evil, before he has started to think.

From the first catch-phrases flung at a child to the last, it is like a series of shocks to freeze his motor, to undercut the power of his consciousness. “Don’t ask so many questions, children should be seen and not heard!” – “Who are you to think? It’s so, because I say so!” – “Don’t argue, obey!” – “Don’t try to understand, believe!” – “Don’t struggle, compromise!” – “Your heart is more important than your mind!” – “Who are you to know? Your parents know best!” – “Who are you to know? The bureaucrats know best!” – “Who are you to object? All values are relative!” – “Who are you to want to escape a thug’s bullet? That’s only a personal prejudice!”

Men would shudder, he thought, if they saw a mother bird plucking the feathers from the wings of her young, then pushing him out of the nest to struggle for survival – yet that was what they did to their children.

Armed with nothing but meaningless phrases, this boy had been thrown to fight for existence, he had hobbled and groped through a brief, doomed effort, he had screamed his indignant, bewildered protest – and had perished in his first attempt to soar on his mangled wings.

They treat us like children when we say "wait!", "stop!", "why?" "That makes no sense". They are conditioning our children to be weak, submissive and dependant on the governmnet and others to protect them. They are failing society, the future, our existance but will never admit it.