Bless their hearts...

[WashingtonBay]

My subtitle is a very strange figure of speech. I'm not sure it makes a lick of sense either :D But it sounds good.


Subject: Thread on DU: Is it wrong to teach liberalism as the correct ideology? - Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x933228#933229)


I think it's truly a fascinating read, from a lot of perspectives. Most interestingly, the kid thinks Liberalism is the only possible right answer, but can't really articulate why... And those who try to help him really don't understand conservatism at all either.

I can't help but think his paper is going to be 'not very good'. I wish I could ask.

Anyway... food for talk... :popcorn:

[Tiz]

I'll have to look at that again. My eyes spontaneously began to cross, and I didn't get far enough into it to form an opinion.

Nailing jello to a wall came to mind for some reason.

[FredRock]

So...someone is mad that another person got a good grade for having the wrong opinions? I think he's just jealous that the dude is 99% for writing an essay. My question is, what did the guy do wrong to lose that 1%?

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Gawd... it's so hard to read that tripe over there. Lord help them if they ever tap a subject that's more than an inch deep.

Having just finished up The Fountainhead... it's amazing to see that text come to life in the weak collectivist ramblings of a place like DU. Part of it just crystalizes the observation that collectivism sprouts from that weakness of the mind that doesn't dare challenge their own emotions. Liberals ~feel~ what they believe to be right, and stop, but cannot express that belief in a logical argument.

Because: There is no logical argument that justifies taking by force the life energy from one man and giving it to another man. That's wrong, and it's always wrong, no matter how much the other man appears to need it. No amount of need justifies enslaving others to provide. No amount.

And since I've just finished Fountainhead... I find that I must quote from it. From Roark's courtroom speech:

“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.

“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

So...someone is mad that another person got a good grade for having the wrong opinions? I think he's just jealous that the dude is 99% for writing an essay. My question is, what did the guy do wrong to lose that 1%?

See... that's the product of a liberal mind, to think that someone else's achievement somehow diminishes or threatens his own effort. It doesn't, of course. That he hasn't even read the other paper to know what he thinks he's competing with... says it all. He doesn't care.

[JackieB]

Because: There is no logical argument that justifies taking by force the life energy from one man and giving it to another man. That's wrong, and it's always wrong, no matter how much the other man appears to need it. No amount of need justifies enslaving others to provide. No amount.


I agree with you, but that wouldn't be a definition of liberalism.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I agree with you, but that wouldn't be a definition of liberalism.

Sorry Jackie. Yes, it is. It's the absolute definition of liberalism (which is really collectivism). Liberalism is just one man making demands on the life-energy of another without compensation.

Once you get past all the feel-good BS of collectivism... it comes down to one simple fact:

Liberalism is the pre-eminence of the interest of the collective over and above the interest of the individual. The interest of the collective is supreme. The collective cannot stand the achievement of the individual because it illuminates the vacuum of the collective. The individual must be crushed.

[JackieB]

Because: There is no logical argument that justifies taking by force the life energy from one man and giving it to another man. That's wrong, and it's always wrong, no matter how much the other man appears to need it. No amount of need justifies enslaving others to provide. No amount.


Sorry Jackie. Yes, it is. It's the absolute definition of liberalism (which is really collectivism). Liberalism is just one man making demands on the life-energy of another without compensation.

Then the Founders of the US who owned slaves and all of the slaveholder's whose way of life the US officially supported from 1787 (first Constitution) to 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) all followed a policy of liberalism?

They justified slavery through need. They needed to own and work slaves to run their businesses.

[Tiz]

Gawd... it's so hard to read that tripe over there.




Whew! Kinda worried I'd be the only one.:)

[Tiz]

Sorry Jackie. Yes, it is. It's the absolute definition of liberalism (which is really collectivism). Liberalism is just one man making demands on the life-energy of another without compensation.

Then the Founders of the US who owned slaves and all of the slaveholder's whose way of life the US officially supported from 1787 (first Constitution) to 1863 (Emancipation Proclamation) all followed a policy of liberalism?

They justified slavery through need. They needed to own and work slaves to run their businesses.





This doesn't sound like an apples to apples situation, Jackie. Individuals making the choice to have slaves doesn't seem related to collectivism at all. They took the slaves freedom, but they didn't dispense it to someone else.

[JackieB]

They took the slaves freedom, but they didn't dispense it to someone else.

The slave holders most certainly did. They dispensed the slaves' life energy (work and benefit from that work) to themselves, their family members, business partners, their local governments for special projects, and anyone else they felt like.

[WashingtonBay]

I'm not following... JB... What is your point here? Enslaving others is wrong.... then and now. Where's the conflict?

[natisha]

I'm not following this whole thread. Sometimes you guys are just too deep for me.

[WashingtonBay]

Well, I think JB thinks there a conflict with whether our founding fathers believed enslaving people was ever OK, or whether it makes them 'liberal' in thinking it was OK.

I think the right-or-wrong of their thinking on this point doesn't matter as much as the right or wrong our our thinking... But I think the point they were wrong on, was not the part about enslaving people, it was on the definition of who is a real person with rights. That's where they were wrong.

If they are people, it's wrong to enslave them.
If they are not people, the founders didn't see a conflict there. It was a capitalist idea not unlike keeping livestock to do their work. A liberal or socialist version would maybe have been to give the same number of slaves to everyone, or for the state to own the slaves, and then pay the citizens an equal share from their efforts. Something like that. :) Either way... all the options are wrong.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

No: it was wrong then to enslave men to serve plantations, just as it's wrong now to enslave men to serve liberals.

[Arrow]

Because: There is no logical argument that justifies taking by force the life energy from one man and giving it to another man. That's wrong, and it's always wrong, no matter how much the other man appears to need it. No amount of need justifies enslaving others to provide. No amount.


Interesting...so how does being mean-spirted and nasty, calling people names, demonizing people and like that fit in? Are you not in fact attacking the life force of folks who have done you no more harm then have an opinion different from your own? What about sucking the entire life and positive energy out of a HORSE website with your nastiness fit in with that, RD? Of course, Baywind Farm Forum isn't a PERSON per se, but I have to laugh at you talking about taking life energy away from people!

[WashingtonBay]

And I suppose you think your contribution there ^ is a positive one?
Check your hands Arrow... they're not clean, regarding name calling, demonizing, or nastiness toward people who hold a different view than your own.

But the important difference between this and slavery is, you give only what you choose to give, to it.

[natisha]

^SCORE!!

[JackieB]

I'm not following... JB... What is your point here? Enslaving others is wrong.... then and now. Where's the conflict?

My point is that according to RD's definition, the Founders who owned slaves, the slaveholders, annd US policy from the creation of the US until the Emancipation Proclamation would be considered liberal/liberalism.

I don't believe that RD would say these people were liberal or that the early US followed a policy of liberalism. His definition is incorrect.

[JackieB]

Liberalism is just one man making demands on the life-energy of another without compensation.


To restate my argument here, I just presented the slavery example to illustrate that RD's definition of liberalism doesn't work.

It would be kind of ridiculous to suggest that the Founders (those who owned slaves - not all did) and slaveholders were liberals or that the early US followed a policy of liberalism. Yet it fits perfectly into RD's definition.

That fact is (to get to the point) that RD is defining liberals/liberalism incorrectly. It doesn't mean what he's saying at all.

[JackieB]

Well, I think JB thinks there a conflict with whether our founding fathers believed enslaving people was ever OK, or whether it makes them 'liberal' in thinking it was OK.

I completely agree. That was my point. They weren't liberals, and RD's definition doesn't work.

[WashingtonBay]

I thought that's what you were saying... but I think the error is not in whether enslaving people was OK, it's in who they defined as a person. <--That, was their blind spot, not liberalism, per se. That said... I agree that what RD calls liberalism is far too vague to make a definition out of. I'm sure he could clarify it, I'm just not sure we'd all want to read it. Might be quicker for him to just tell us all to read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead :D And there's an inherent problem with any ideology being defined by it's opposition. Those defined are hardly ever satisfied, no matter how close it is. Who are we really? Who we think we are, or who others think we are?

[JackieB]

That said... I agree that what RD calls liberalism is far too vague to make a definition out of.

That's all I was saying, really. I'm pretty liberal on a lot of issues and I would object to RD's definition.

Where RD is on very solid ground is in maintaining that the Founders and the Constitution most definitely did not intend for us to get to the curent amount of social services and federal aid for individuals. I don't see how Barney Frank could argue that one, although I suppose he would.

However, I guess the liberals would say that it's perfectly acceptable to mold and change the role of government support in our lives as long as those changes are made legally. And we have the court system to challenge changes if we think they were made outside of the law.

Further, one could argue that the government isn't taking anything from anyone and giving it to someone else without permission because our elected representatives voted for these things and they represent us. If we vote against a politician and he/she wins, that person still represents our interests from a legislative standpoint until we get to the next election. It sucks sometimes, but that is how it works.

The real problem as I see it is that we have two Americas. We are so divided in what we think is acceptable for government's role. And we aren't in two neatly divided camps either as we discover when we suggest modifying Social Security, Medicare, farm subsidies, etc. Even ultra-conservative Americans will resist those changes. Cut government spending, but not what's being spent on me.

I do accept though that RD is representing what the Founders envisioned.

If you look at a country like Denmark, that has a lot more social programs than we do, they are pretty happy with their "nanny state", but it's because they all (more or less) want it and feel they get value from their taxes. It's never going to be that way in the US.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I completely agree. That was my point. They weren't liberals, and RD's definition doesn't work.

Jackie... just because liberalism requires the enslavement of people, it doesn't follow that liberals are the only ones that enslave people.

[JackieB]

Jackie... just because liberalism requires the enslavement of people, it doesn't follow that liberals are the only ones that enslave people.

Good point.

I don't accept that liberalism requires the enslavement of anyone, but we went round and round on that one when you just couldn't accept that people could voluntarily choose to be communist if you wish.

I look at the fact that we do have a functioning democracy in the US that respects the rule of law (peaceful transition of power), so we (as in collectively as a nation) are getting what we want.

But I certainly accept that you don't feel like you are getting what you want at all, that this isn't what the Founders wanted, and that the US is headed in the wrong diection. I further agree that unless we can find a way to control our spending that we probably are doomed as nation. I do think that we will ultimately find that solution just the way we got mobilized to win WWII, but it won't be pretty. The cuts will be drastic.

[natisha]

JackieB~Further, one could argue that the government isn't taking anything from anyone and giving it to someone else without permission because our elected representatives voted for these things and they represent us. If we vote against a politician and he/she wins, that person still represents our interests from a legislative standpoint until we get to the next election. It sucks sometimes, but that is how it works.

They don't really represent us when they pass Bills thousands of pages long that no one has read & full of pet projects, closed door deals, czars that only answer to the President (;))that kind of stuff. We will never really know where all our tax dollars go. Now the money spent is >the money coming in. I doubt our founding fathers had that in mind.

[Tiz]

The slave holders most certainly did. They dispensed the slaves' life energy (work and benefit from that work) to themselves, their family members, business partners, their local governments for special projects, and anyone else they felt like.

The "wealth" of the slaves is freedom, in my example. Slave owners didn't take their freedom, and give that freedom to someone else. There was no spreading the wealth around, as liberals think they have the right to do.

[Tiz]

Interesting...so how does being mean-spirted and nasty, calling people names, demonizing people and like that fit in? Are you not in fact attacking the life force of folks who have done you no more harm then have an opinion different from your own? What about sucking the entire life and positive energy out of a HORSE website with your nastiness fit in with that, RD? Of course, Baywind Farm Forum isn't a PERSON per se, but I have to laugh at you talking about taking life energy away from people!

Every time you pop up, Arrow, I wonder "What the hell is she so angry about?". Have you ever reread your contributions here? You sound one tick away from being completely unhinged.

Get some help. Your insurance covers it, I'm sure.

[JackieB]

The "wealth" of the slaves is freedom, in my example. Slave owners didn't take their freedom, and give that freedom to someone else. .

I see your point. I'm objecting to RD's assertion that - liberalism requires the enslavement of people. It doesn't do anything like that.

[Tiz]

If we are sending 50% of our earnings to the government, doesn't that mean we are working for the government? Kind of like a slave worked for it's master?

[JackieB]

They don't really represent us when they pass Bills thousands of pages long that no one has read & full of pet projects, closed door deals, czars that only answer to the President (;))that kind of stuff. We will never really know where all our tax dollars go. Now the money spent is >the money coming in. I doubt our founding fathers had that in mind.

Oh I'm sure that the Founders would be spinning in their graves over these things. But those representatives do represent us. Very poorly in many cases, but they do. That's how a representative democracy works.

I get what you are saying, though. Your money is being wasted and the things they are doing are risking our future. But we're not "enslaved". I feel pretty free, actually.

[natisha]

Oh I'm sure that the Founders would be spinning in their graves over these things. But those representatives do represent us. Very poorly in many cases, but they do. That's how a representative democracy works.

I get what you are saying, though. Your money is being wasted and the things they are doing are risking our future. But we're not "enslaved". I feel pretty free, actually.Try not paying what someone else says you must & see how long you are free.
I understand the reason for taxes but this is getting way out of hand.

[Tiz]

Oh I'm sure that the Founders would be spinning in their graves over these things. But those representatives do represent us. Very poorly in many cases, but they do. That's how a representative democracy works.

I get what you are saying, though. Your money is being wasted and the things they are doing are risking our future. But we're not "enslaved". I feel pretty free, actually.

No, they don't, Jackie. Not that they aren't supposed to, but, they don't.

[JackieB]

Try not paying what someone else says you must & see how long you are free.


We'd have to pay anyway for things like the military, court system, congress to pass laws, and a few other things. It's the number of things and the amount we pay that has gotten out of hand. I'm not arguing with that part. It just doesn't meet any definition of slavery. I thought RD was getting a bit carried away with saying the liberalism means enslavement.

[JackieB]

No, they don't, Jackie. Not that they aren't supposed to, but, they don't.

I guess that's really the "Two America's" part I was referencing. One America wants its freedom and wants the government out of its life whereas the other America wants the government to do a lot of things to take care of it.

The problem is so much more complicated though, and genuinely hard for even well-intentioned politicians to address, because a single person can be firmly rooted in each camp on different issues. A person who is vehemently opposed to paying for the EPA, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services could be receiving a great deal more in Social Security, Medicare, and some pet project that his/her representative brought to the district.

It's a nasty challenge, for sure.

I do admire Paul Ryan for sticking his neck out there. His plan may not get too far, but he got out there on the front line and laid it out for everyone to see.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

We'd have to pay anyway for things like the military, court system, congress to pass laws, and a few other things. It's the number of things and the amount we pay that has gotten out of hand. I'm not arguing with that part. It just doesn't meet any definition of slavery. I thought RD was getting a bit carried away with saying the liberalism means enslavement.

Not all government is useless liberalism, Jackie. When I pay taxes for the protection of the military, courts and police to protect my property rights or other such things, then I'm paying for value received.

But when government starts taking from productive people merely for the purpose of giving to the non-productive... THAT is the enslavement I'm talking about. What other definition of slavery do you need? It is: Forcing one man to work for the benefit of another. It's wrong. Always has been and always will.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

I guess that's really the "Two America's" part I was referencing. One America wants its freedom and wants the government out of its life whereas the other America wants the government to do a lot of things to take care of it.

The problem is that the latter group cannot survive without the former. If the country really did split into "two Americas", two different countries along those lines, the country of the former would be wealthy and productive, and the country of the latter would be a destitute, third-world hell-hole. The moochers and looters depend utterly on the producers, and they hate the producers for it.

The problem is so much more complicated though, and genuinely hard for even well-intentioned politicians to address, because a single person can be firmly rooted in each camp on different issues. A person who is vehemently opposed to paying for the EPA, Department of Education, and Health and Human Services could be receiving a great deal more in Social Security, Medicare, and some pet project that his/her representative brought to the district.

A person either produces enough to support his life, or they do not. If they do then they depend on no man. If they don't, then they require some of the life energy from another person. If given freely, then it's charity. If taken forcefully... well..

[...snip...]

[JackieB]

If the country really did split into "two Americas", two different countries along those lines, the country of the former would be wealthy and productive, and the country of the latter would be a destitute, third-world hell-hole.


Denmark and Sweden aren't destitute, third-world, hell-holes. Would it be OK with you if we followed their models for taxation and social services?

That's the type of Americas that the liberals probably want. It is possible without ruin, but does go against the Constitution. I definitely understand the resentment.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Denmark and Sweden aren't destitute, third-world, hell-holes.

Stay tuned on that. They're also collapsing along with their neighbors. Seems that they have run out of "other people's money".

Would it be OK with you if we followed their models for taxation and social services?

No.

[JackieB]

Stay tuned on that. They're also collapsing along with their neighbors. Seems that they have run out of "other people's money".


Really? I didn't realize that the Scandinavian countries were having the same type of financial difficulties. Their citizens have typically enjoyed paying the high taxes and feel that they get a good value for their money. I think the tax rate is about 50% in those countries. Probably higher when you add in VAT and everything else.

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Really? I didn't realize that the Scandinavian countries were having the same type of financial difficulties. Their citizens have typically enjoyed paying the high taxes and feel that they get a good value for their money. I think the tax rate is about 50% in those countries. Probably higher when you add in VAT and everything else.

No... the scandanavian countries are approaching a meltdown. They're in much worse shape than even the rest of europe, which is pretty bad.