Latest Protests

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Not just welfare. But liberalism has played a role in the cultural and economic downfall of blacks in this country, I genuinely believe that.

"Liberals" would disagree with you Jim. "Liberals" would probably have a different notion of culture and economics than you probably have. Culture, for a "liberal," is flexible, fluid, and constantly changing. Supposedly, all cultures for a "liberal" are to be tolerated, even promoted. Of course, that's not really true, but "liberals" believe that's true. And, anyway, it doesn't matter if it's true or not since all cultures will change and disappear anyway. In fact, "liberals" probably believe that being open and loving to all cultures would soften the hard edges of any that might not quite fit with the others. And, with a bit of societal (government) "assistance," the hard edge ones would be transformed to the better. The "better" being what they believe is better. Finally, all the cultures would disappear eventually, even with a bit of government regulation to help their way to extinction.

As for economics, you should know by now that "liberals" have a different notion of economics than you probably have. Whether they admit it or not, their notion of economic well being is not having as much stuff as you personally can afford. There is an inherent inequality in that sort of consumerism. All things should be distributed evenly, including health care as well as all the things that they consider necessary.

The fact that you might be more capable of acquiring wealth should not redound to your personal well being or to your desire for personal luxury. Your talents and abilities should benefit the well being of society at large, and the fruits of your abilities should equally be enjoyed by all. And you, personally, in return will gain not only the appreciation of society, but will be rewarded equally with all the benefits that society has to offer.

"Liberals" would consider welfare an equalization of the distribution of stuff--for the benefit of society. It would be, probably, a temporary fix not to just get some back on their feet, as your notion might be, but at least a temporary societal adjustment until the government assists us all into a truly egalitarian society where welfare would not be needed because everyone will automatically share in the good that society has to offer. In a sense, everybody will be on the greatest, most generous and equally distributed welfare system society has to offer. It will be an economic transformation that eliminates the friction between cultures (most of which, if not all, will have dissolved through government assistance), and will, if disseminated worldwide, end war, famine, human misery in general.

And "Liberals" obviously are not concerned by government debt. That is debt that the people owe to themselves. At least that will be so when the extinction of inequality (income or otherwise) is achieved. Those to whom money is owed will understand that forgiveness of that debt is a forgiveness that they will participate in. After all, they will automatically be given all the good, what's left of it, that society has to offer equally as it is given to everyone else.

So the temporary malfunctions which you call a "downfall" in so-called minority communities is a prerequisite to the coming change. Rather than hating what has happened to blacks under "liberalism," you should appreciate that it is a step toward the coming necessary equality. The upheavals occurring should be assisted in order to stimulate the necessary change in the distribution of society's goods

I don't believe it because I hate liberalism, that's backwards. It's because I believe (I know for a certainty) that liberalism has been disastrous, that's why I hate liberalism.

I think that there is a widespread confusion about what "liberal" means. Most people attribute concepts such as liberty, tolerance, equality, and such good things to what is called modern political liberalism. Actually, it is not liberal in those ways. Those good things are restricted by "liberal" government's regulations. And, probably, necessarily so.

To be truly liberal in the fullest sense would verge on anarchy. If one is truly flexible, tolerant, accepting of all things, one would have no stable foundation for a process of living. Certainly, such a thing as liberal government would be a contradiction. Liberalism can function only in smaller more personal doses. Society at large needs some method of cooperation to exist.

The present method of political liberalism is not liberal in its application. As it is applied, it is very authoritarian. It is somewhat liberal in its approach. It doesn't adhere to any foundational principles. It legislates and adjudicates at will and fancy--by various personal notions of good and justice and so-called equality. However, if there is any observable direction of modern political liberalism, it is toward an authoritarian state which is forming through a process of destruction of the constitutional order by a series of "crises" that is herded by "liberal" helpers and by temporary "fixes," legislative and judicial, which head us into a sort of benevolent dictatorship.

I don't think you hate actual liberalism. Try the word Progressivism. That has a more distinct meaning.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I think that there is a widespread confusion about what "liberal" means. Most people attribute concepts such as liberty, tolerance, equality, and such good things to what is called modern political liberalism. Actually, it is not liberal in those ways. Those good things are restricted by "liberal" government's regulations. And, probably, necessarily so.

To be truly liberal in the fullest sense would verge on anarchy. If one is truly flexible, tolerant, accepting of all things, one would have no stable foundation for a process of living. Certainly, such a thing as liberal government would be a contradiction. Liberalism can function only in smaller more personal doses. Society at large needs some method of cooperation to exist.

The present method of political liberalism is not liberal in its application. As it is applied, it is very authoritarian. It is somewhat liberal in its approach. It doesn't adhere to any foundational principles. It legislates and adjudicates at will and fancy--by various personal notions of good and justice and so-called equality. However, if there is any observable direction of modern political liberalism, it is toward an authoritarian state which is forming through a process of destruction of the constitutional order by a series of "crises" that is herded by "liberal" helpers and by temporary "fixes," legislative and judicial, which head us into a sort of benevolent dictatorship.

I don't think you hate actual liberalism. Try the word Progressivism. That has a more distinct meaning.

"Most people attribute concepts such as liberty, tolerance, equality, and such good things to what is called modern political liberalism"

That's how people who call themselves liberal, describe liberalism. The convenient thing about describing your beliefs that way, is that it allows you to describe everyone who disagrees with you, as being opposed to those good things, and thus the other side is naturally inferior.

"Culture, for a "liberal," is flexible, fluid, and constantly changing"

Oh, it's changing all right, it gets nuttier and nuttier all the time. 5 years ago, if I told you that it would be controversial to say "if you have a wee wee, I think you should use the men's room", you would have laughed it me. But thanks to "progress", here we are. Yippee.

"you should know by now that "liberals" have a different notion of economics than you probably have"

Oh, I agree. I look at the economic situation that blacks are enduring, and my heart breaks. When liberals (progressives) look at that, they say "see, our economic plan works". I will go to my grave wondering if that is working as they intended - are progressives that sinister? Or are they that oblivious as to what is happening?

"So the temporary malfunctions which you call a "downfall" in so-called minority communities is a prerequisite to the coming change"

How long does the collapse have to last, before we can say it's not temporary?

"I don't think you hate actual liberalism. Try the word Progressivism. That has a more distinct meaning"

Agreed. I just don't bother to make those distinctions.

"the fruits of your abilities should equally be enjoyed by all. And you, personally, in return will gain not only the appreciation of society"

Yes, and as we all know, Progressives are just falling all over themselves to appreciate those who have achieved success. Progressives aren't trying to divide us along these lines by calling them the "one percenters", and claiming that they "don't pay their fair share", heavens no.