Clinging to liberalism.

[Autumnleaf]

IMO, we espouse post-modernism since our observations of the world show no absolutes. this furor over gay marriage and related issues has made me think. those who advocate gay marriage often use absolutist rhetoric to support their case. this rhetoric also involves a lot of socially liberal thinking.

But isn't social liberalism largely a product of its time? In the 18th or 19th centuries, given their sensibilities and general world knowledge, what else could people of that era have conceived? One reason religion is waning in human affairs is that it can no longer be used to explain natural phenomenon. Science certainly existed in that period, it essentially is the maturing stage of modern scientific progress. People such as Darwin have been elevated to god-like status. Since he announced his theory, creationism has fallen out of favor.

Due to this absolutist tendency within social liberalism, are those who push for the retention of such attitudes beholden to cite the nature of these absolutes, and why these values should hold in all cases?

[Ghostwheel]

Due to this absolutist tendency within social liberalism, are those who push for the retention of such attitudes beholden to cite the nature of these absolutes, and why these values should hold in all cases?

I'll need your position unpacked and explicated upon before I can answer you. Before I can even understand you, for that matter. For example:


What, exactly, do you take to be social liberalism?


What, exactly, do you take to be absolutism?


How does the former subscribe to the latter?


If you can fill these in, I may begin to be able to follow your thoughts on this matter.

[Causa Mortis]

The logical extension of the Jeffersonian and Voltarian rhetoric you're referring to is for government to remove itself from all but enforcing the contractual portions of the ordeal. The more sacred implications were never the providence of government to begin with.

[Autumnleaf]

I'll need your position unpacked and explicated upon before I can answer you. Before I can even understand you, for that matter. For example:


What, exactly, do you take to be social liberalism?


What, exactly, do you take to be absolutism?


How does the former subscribe to the latter?


If you can fill these in, I may begin to be able to follow your thoughts on this matter.

1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it.

2. Absolutism is the view that you are right and people who disagree with you are wrong. There is no middle ground. No room for compromise. Hence, such positions appear to be self evident to those who hold them to the point that they often refuse to rationally defend their position. They prefer to ridicule and engage in name calling with those who disagree with them.

3. It defines the sacred cow of ideas they irrationally defend.

[Causa Mortis]

1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it.

Traditional morality has traditional rewards. It works for most people in most situations. It doesn't work for everyone. I have no idea why we use government to impose traditional morality - valuable though it may be for most - on everyone when it doesn't work for everyone, particularly for something as innocuous as whom one chooses as their permanent roommate.

Additionally, if I am only engaging in traditional morality because it is the law and I'm not free to do otherwise, am I really moral, or just subservient?

Peccadilloes aside, I have very traditional values, and intend to have a family some day. That these values work for me does not imply that I feel they are "right" or that I have any business in imposing them on a neighbor.

[Typhon]

Are we talking about modern American "liberalism" or actual liberalism?

[Causa Mortis]

Are we talking about modern American "liberalism" or actual liberalism?

The modern American left has very much carried the banner of expanding personal freedoms associated with classical liberalism. He's confusing and not confusing the terms at the same time.

[Tocsin]

Chasing Bogeymen is always such fun...

"I can no longer sit back and allow Communist Liberal Socialist infiltration, Communist Liberal Socialist indoctrination, Communist Liberal Socialist subversion and the international Communist Liberal Socialist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

[Typhon]

The modern American left has very much carried the banner of expanding personal freedoms associated with classical liberalism. He's confusing and not confusing the terms at the same time.

Well in some ways, sure. But the modern left certainly steps on the individual in other ways. Their meddling with gun laws and stifling the free market, for examples, leave much to be desired for an individual's freedom. They also seem to have no problem in using the State as their vehicle of coercion against others, so I'm less than convinced with their claim to the title of Liberalism.

[Verdeverde]

I will focus on today's SL variety. I view today's Social Liberalism mostly as an exercise in group think, a fashion led ideology replete with 'feel goodisms' --devices, so-called philosophies and platforms--isolated from any hard-tested, reasoned framework. It is a powerful tool of manipulation by power brokers made up of short term confections, sloppy empiricals, starry-eyed visions. Many tenets of so-called morality are seen as inhibiting, mean-spirited, judgemental by SLs. But morality is not a spontaneous bolt from the head of a Victorian as a means to control. Morality is an evolved system that aided in the sustained co-operative survival and propagation of the species from the first crude social units. Granted, "morality" has also been a tool of control by social and religious influencers/leaders-- but at its core, morality is a required grid that keeps our diverse human family from imploding (a tenuous proposition nowadays). Standards and rules. Today's SL herd mentality is blind to sustainable systems (Nature, harsh and beautiful, adaptive, iterative, but rule-based-- is the omnipresent lab that reminds us). But SLs first and foremost are emotionally driven and rewarded by an artificial sense of hyper altruism ( though usually undemonstrated as many are self absorbed, but this doesn't matter to a social liberal, as they are fed in the 'now' on words and feelings) SL's are often wrapped in an aura of self-perceived elevated enlightenment. This perceived enlightened view lustily takes a hammer to the glass to demonstrate a passionate 'truth to power' in shattering the status quo. Consequences of such actions are not proactively considered as the emotional force of casting off the shackles of the system is so intoxicating. SL is NEVER objectively held to account against essential conditions. As such, it is a fertile garden for political manipulation. In many ways, since it is often embraced without the filtered rigor of reason, social liberalism is 'ala mode' fairy stories that eventually pop like soap bubbles.

[thod]

Traditional morality has traditional rewards. It works for most people in most situations. It doesn't work for everyone.That is understood and acceptable. The objective is to find the optimal solution. It reminds me of curve fitting to a set of points. You want most people to gain without placing too heavy a burden on outliers.

Think of medians and means. A few extreme outliers does not change the median but moves the mean away from the bulk of the data points. Those data points would seek to eliminate the outliers so as to bring the mean back to themselves.

[zibber]

I will focus on today's SL variety. I view today's Social Liberalism mostly as an exercise in group think, a fashion led ideology replete with 'feel goodisms' --devices, so-called philosophies and platforms--isolated from any hard-tested, reasoned framework. It is a powerful tool of manipulation by power brokers made up of short term confections, sloppy empiricals, starry-eyed visions. Many tenets of so-called morality are seen as inhibiting, mean-spirited, judgemental by SLs. But morality is not a spontaneous bolt from the head of a Victorian as a means to control. Morality is an evolved system that aided in the sustained co-operative survival and propagation of the species from the first crude social units. Granted, "morality" has also been a tool of control by social and religious influencers/leaders-- but at its core, morality is a required grid that keeps our diverse human family from imploding (a tenuous proposition nowadays). Standards and rules. Today's SL herd mentality is blind to sustainable systems (Nature, harsh and beautiful, adaptive, iterative, but rule-based-- is the omnipresent lab that reminds us). But SLs first and foremost are emotionally driven and rewarded by an artificial sense of hyper altruism ( though usually undemonstrated as many are self absorbed, but this doesn't matter to a social liberal, as they are fed in the 'now' on words and feelings) SL's are often wrapped in an aura of self-perceived elevated enlightenment. This perceived enlightened view lustily takes a hammer to the glass to demonstrate a passionate 'truth to power' in shattering the status quo. Consequences of such actions are not proactively considered as the emotional force of casting off the shackles of the system is so intoxicating. SL is NEVER objectively held to account against essential conditions. As such, it is a fertile garden for political manipulation. In many ways, since it is often embraced without the filtered rigor of reason, social liberalism is 'ala mode' fairy stories that eventually pop like soap bubbles.

Some people are so goddam far off, I wonder how they even got there.

[Doggzilla]

Well in some ways, sure. But the modern left certainly steps on the individual in other ways. Their meddling with gun laws and stifling the free market, for examples, leave much to be desired for an individual's freedom. They also seem to have no problem in using the State as their vehicle of coercion against others, so I'm less than convinced with their claim to the title of Liberalism.

Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations.

I'd like someone to point out some regulations which they feel are unwarranted, since most regulations keep people from being killed or prevent corruption on a wide scale. I'd also like to see statistics related to how these regulations increase costs, and actually prove that the money disappears and does not create new jobs making exactly the same income as the money which is spent on the regulation. In other words, prove the money disappears, and that it is any different from any other service job, except with meaning.

[scorpiomover]

Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations.

I'd like someone to point out some regulations which they feel are unwarranted, since most regulations keep people from being killed or prevent corruption on a wide scale. I'd also like to see statistics related to how these regulations increase costs, and actually prove that the money disappears and does not create new jobs making exactly the same income as the money which is spent on the regulation. In other words, prove the money disappears, and that it is any different from any other service job, except with meaning.I think the concern is that people in general have been promised that things would be better than they used to, and yet this is not people's experience, certainly not in countries that embraced a lot of social liberalism, like the UK. But it is even apparent that countries like the USA, that have embraced only a bit of SL, are also heading the same way.

Like someone promises to all in a non-union industry, that if everyone joins a union, that everyone will be much better off, and everyone does, and it seems on the balance sheets that everyone is better paid, and should be better off. But after tax, paying the union dues, and all the rest, that what is left in your pocket, can buy you far, far less than the little bit your father earned. One starts to wonder if the figures are being added up properly.

[Verdeverde]

Thank you for demonstrating with breathtaking precision the well known SL autopilot response of never approaching the substance of the argument head on, idea by idea-- but rather, tantrum-style, insulting the one presenting it.

Silly.

[sunitaishot]

1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it.

Social conservatism pronounces a best practice of how society should function. what evidence is there for this best practice?

2. Absolutism is the view that you are right and people who disagree with you are wrong. There is no middle ground. No room for compromise. Hence, such positions appear to be self evident to those who hold them to the point that they often refuse to rationally defend their position. They prefer to ridicule and engage in name calling with those who disagree with them.


Social conservatives are the ones who cite the absolute nature of their beliefs, by simply affirming "it was that way long ago, so it should be now".


3. It defines the sacred cow of ideas they irrationally defend.

How is the fact that everybody has his or her own goals in life irrational.

[thod]

Social conservatism pronounces a best practice of how society should function. what evidence is there for this best practice?

The idea that societies are competing and the ones that survive are fittest and therefore better than other models.

Social conservatives are the ones who cite the absolute nature of their beliefs, by simply affirming "it was that way long ago, so it should be now".

As above, we have found a winning formula. Something we know works pretty well for most people. There may exist something better but there are tremendous costs if wrong.

[LaoTzu]

One reason religion is waning in human affairs is that it can no longer be used to explain natural phenomenon. Science certainly existed in that period, it essentially is the maturing stage of modern scientific progress. People such as Darwin have been elevated to god-like status. Since he announced his theory, creationism has fallen out of favor.


I don't know of anyone who worships Darwinism, any more than I know of people who worship Banting or Salk...

People change. Attitudes change.


As far as the major problem with liberalism? It's the absolutist mindset of the deep conservative that warps liberalism. Warning of tyranny with bizarre leaps of logic, and outright lies.

[sunitaishot]

The idea that societies are competing and the ones that survive are fittest and therefore better than other models.



As above, we have found a winning formula. Something we know works pretty well for most people. There may exist something better but there are tremendous costs if wrong.

Where is this winning formula? I think basically it's a reflection of how people thought and valued centuries ago and it worked for them. What else could people in the 18th century know? Again, where is the best practice proven? Social liberalism is not necessarily inherently better, but it is a more practicable value system, based on current needs of society.

---------- Post added 07-02-2012 at 11:15 AM ----------

1. Social liberalism is the systematic dismantling of traditional morality as it relates to lifestyle choices, without regard for the social and economic consequences of doing it.

2. Absolutism is the view that you are right and people who disagree with you are wrong. There is no middle ground. No room for compromise. Hence, such positions appear to be self evident to those who hold them to the point that they often refuse to rationally defend their position. They prefer to ridicule and engage in name calling with those who disagree with them.

3. It defines the sacred cow of ideas they irrationally defend.

How do people worship Darwin?

The modern world is rooted on scientific principle, in most areas. Even those who believe in creationism, I'd imagine, would readily accept numerous scientific principles. Few doubt the validity of geology, meteorology or physics.

[thod]

What else could people in the 18th century know?

Aye, Thomas Jefferson was a simpleton.

Again, where is the best practice proven?


I am not arguing that it is best practice. Only that is good practice. That it survived whilst other systems failed is my proof. If you have climbed high in a tree, you may be able to climb a bit higher, but at the risk of falling to the ground. It is a question of if the risk is worth the reward.

based on current needs of society.

The needs of society are the same as they have ever been. Prove that these needs have somehow changed.

[Vagrant]

Thank you for demonstrating with breathtaking precision the well known SL autopilot response of never approaching the substance of the argument head on, idea by idea-- but rather, tantrum-style, insulting the one presenting it.

Silly.

It's difficult to read your original post without seeing a rant about "stereotypical" liberals as described by conservative networks in America. Your original post describes liberals much like a conservative figurehead like Glenn Beck might. But most people know Glenn Beck is a con man, who makes his money by selling falsehoods.

The reality is, modern American liberals want more personal freedoms, restrictions on LARGE corporations (to protect ordinary people), and equal rights for all. Ideally everybody would have equal opportunities as well.

This is hardly a "touchy-feely" idea either. It's pretty much utilitarianism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) -- more practical usage of resources and less waste.

@Autumnleaf -- I think you're mistaking the conservatives' absolute statements ("God hates faggots!" "Abortions are WRONG!") for liberal relative statements ("I think certain things are ok for certain people."). To call liberals absolutist in this country is laughable.

[Tristan]

Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations. Trivial information. Crashes are by definition an upset in regular conduct. Crashes are also expected in immature markets where the products are not widely-understood. This was the case with stocks and real estate, at one point. Now it is the case with derivatives. It's amusing to see congress debating on how to regulate derivatives, because the lawmakers themselves have to be briefed on exactly what they must say for their party. No one but derivatives traders has a clue what derivatives are. Why else would your party, i.e., the regulators, and the regulatory bodies themselves be so loaded-up with Goldman Sachs alumni?

Also, only two recessions out of the twelve since World War II occurred under a Republican House: the 1949 "Fair Deal" recession and the 2000 Dotcom Bust. The other recessions, including the most recent, had a Democrat congress. The House controls economic policy and the federal government's regulatory apparatus.

[Typhon]

Well, statistically their choices have much more positive effects. Violence is down 65% since 1994, and every industry which has been deregulated has had a crash which has then spread to the rest of the country. If you look up a list of recessions, you'll note that more than 75% are during the presidency of a republican, and that all of them are caused by a lack of regulations.

I'd like someone to point out some regulations which they feel are unwarranted, since most regulations keep people from being killed or prevent corruption on a wide scale. I'd also like to see statistics related to how these regulations increase costs, and actually prove that the money disappears and does not create new jobs making exactly the same income as the money which is spent on the regulation. In other words, prove the money disappears, and that it is any different from any other service job, except with meaning.

So what you're arguing is that "well they may not always protect an individual's rights, but gosh darn it the government just knows best for us." Seriously? Does that sound even remotely close to Classical Liberalism?

[Istalri]

As a very liberal person, I don't really see how you can call people like me "absolutist". I'm simply a practically minded person who finds contradictions and a massive pile of unfairness in our current system and I've come do an informed conclusion on the best way to solve this issue. My ideology (and that of basically every other liberal person I know) is revolved around expanding the rights of others. Basically we just want everyone treated with the basic respect every human deserves and for everyone to not treated poorly because of something about them.
Personally, I just go by "do whatever the hell you want as long as you don't hurt anyone in doing so". This "hurting" should be decided upon the basis of facts. For example: "a person being gay around my child will encourage them to be gay" is not really based in facts or reality, therefore it is an invalid argument against the rights of the GLBTQ community.

I'm just sick of society treating my like I'm less of a person than others because of certain traits. I'm sure many people feel the same. I don't think ensuring the rights of everyone and making sure they can do as they please is really absolutist. I would say that "you are gay, therefore you cannot ever get these rights" is far more absolutist.

[stasis]

Liberalism in the States is committing suicide by cupcake. Today we have lifestyle liberals who'd rather powder their hair with commodified concern packets and conscientious internet initiatives about polar bears and the forest than follow the ethics of freedom with the rhetorical force it deserves. They do not fight. Their boomer idiot forebears have convinced them that queued up positivity, passivity, and demonstrations of love are the way to oust the national theocrat radicals who've recently crushed American conservatism beneath an iron age contraption.

In a reality untinged by latte and pot smoke, love is fucking useless.

And now there are virtually no empowered conservatives left.

We're screwed.

[Nathanael]

The problem with these discussions is that political rhetoric has contorted words like "liberalism" to worthless scraps of language that don't mean anything. We have a lot of images, stereotypes and generalizations that we conjure up with signifiers, but they have very little bearing in reality.

Liberalism used to mean something. It had to do with a particular type of economics and a particular brand of freedoms that were popular, especially when contrasted to actual communitarian and fascist alternatives. People like John Rawls and Reinhold Niebuhr are actually quite conservative, in comparison to what people call "liberalism" today.

When people bemoan liberalism today, they usually have some wide range of vauge concerns that amounts to things are different(read: scary) and I don't like it. Let's go back to the way things were(read: the way I think they used to be).

[Doggzilla]

I think the concern is that people in general have been promised that things would be better than they used to, and yet this is not people's experience, certainly not in countries that embraced a lot of social liberalism, like the UK. But it is even apparent that countries like the USA, that have embraced only a bit of SL, are also heading the same way.

Like someone promises to all in a non-union industry, that if everyone joins a union, that everyone will be much better off, and everyone does, and it seems on the balance sheets that everyone is better paid, and should be better off. But after tax, paying the union dues, and all the rest, that what is left in your pocket, can buy you far, far less than the little bit your father earned. One starts to wonder if the figures are being added up properly.

What didnt they provide? A even dozen of them have higher per capita income than the US, while the others have very similar incomes, but the median income is higher. If the median is higher with the same average/mean, it means the wealth distribution is wider.

Also, socialist nations make up the vast majority of medical research. The US expenditure on research is absolutely dwarfed.

[Paul Siraisi]

I will focus on today's SL variety. I view today's Social Liberalism mostly as an exercise in group think, a fashion led ideology replete with 'feel goodisms' --devices, so-called philosophies and platforms--isolated from any hard-tested, reasoned framework. It is a powerful tool of manipulation by power brokers made up of short term confections, sloppy empiricals, starry-eyed visions. Many tenets of so-called morality are seen as inhibiting, mean-spirited, judgemental by SLs. But morality is not a spontaneous bolt from the head of a Victorian as a means to control. Morality is an evolved system that aided in the sustained co-operative survival and propagation of the species from the first crude social units. Granted, "morality" has also been a tool of control by social and religious influencers/leaders-- but at its core, morality is a required grid that keeps our diverse human family from imploding (a tenuous proposition nowadays). Standards and rules. Today's SL herd mentality is blind to sustainable systems (Nature, harsh and beautiful, adaptive, iterative, but rule-based-- is the omnipresent lab that reminds us). But SLs first and foremost are emotionally driven and rewarded by an artificial sense of hyper altruism ( though usually undemonstrated as many are self absorbed, but this doesn't matter to a social liberal, as they are fed in the 'now' on words and feelings) SL's are often wrapped in an aura of self-perceived elevated enlightenment. This perceived enlightened view lustily takes a hammer to the glass to demonstrate a passionate 'truth to power' in shattering the status quo. Consequences of such actions are not proactively considered as the emotional force of casting off the shackles of the system is so intoxicating. SL is NEVER objectively held to account against essential conditions. As such, it is a fertile garden for political manipulation. In many ways, since it is often embraced without the filtered rigor of reason, social liberalism is 'ala mode' fairy stories that eventually pop like soap bubbles.

Some people are so goddam far off, I wonder how they even got there.

Perfect!

---------- Post added 07-03-2012 at 02:34 AM ----------

Thank you for demonstrating with breathtaking precision the well known SL autopilot response of never approaching the substance of the argument head on, idea by idea-- but rather, tantrum-style, insulting the one presenting it.

Silly.

Beat me to it.

---------- Post added 07-03-2012 at 02:51 AM ----------

What didnt they provide? A even dozen of them have higher per capita income than the US, while the others have very similar incomes, but the median income is higher. If the median is higher with the same average/mean, it means the wealth distribution is wider.

Also, socialist nations make up the vast majority of medical research. The US expenditure on research is absolutely dwarfed.

What are your sources for this and your earlier statements? I'd say you're a bit quick with the stats considering how complex the underlying reality might be.

[stoopidkitty]

I saw "Clinging to liberalism" on the front page and immediately knew Autumnleaf made this topic. This is only about the 5th time that's happened.

[Ghostwheel]

Thank you for demonstrating with breathtaking precision the well known SL autopilot response of never approaching the substance of the argument head on, idea by idea-- but rather, tantrum-style, insulting the one presenting it.

Silly.

I don't see any substantive argument in what you've posted, just a bunch of unsupported declarations and straw men.

....Today's SL herd mentality is blind to sustainable systems (Nature, harsh and beautiful, adaptive, iterative, but rule-based-- is the omnipresent lab that reminds us). But SLs first and foremost are emotionally driven and rewarded by an artificial sense of hyper altruism ( though usually undemonstrated as many are self absorbed, but this doesn't matter to a social liberal, as they are fed in the 'now' on words and feelings) SL's are often wrapped in an aura of self-perceived elevated enlightenment....

This screed that you've posted is exactly what you've accused zibber of: an insulting tantrum without any substance.

Argument involves premises, conclusion, defined terms, supporting data. It's rather more than whatever half-backed generalizations and blind assertions just happen to pop into your head.

You may have a future on right-wing radio, though.

[thod]

Individual liberty is a good thing, everyone agrees on that. The liberal insists that maximising this will always lead to the best possible society. The conservative says that you will gain this extra freedom at the cost of a worse society. Thus although freedom is maximised in a lawless land, the overall position of the individual in such lands is worsened.

Take for example a herd of zebra which is preyed on by a pack of lions. All the zebras would gain from the elimination of the lions. They could easily gang up and kick the lions to death. Yet there is a risk involved too as some zebras will perish in the fight. Each individual zebra reasons that since it will gain just the same if it takes part or not, it is better to not take part and let the others do it. The result is nothing is ever done about the lions. If a herd could use compulsion, forcing every zebra to take part on penalty of death, the herd would prosper. This herd would then out compete the others. Yet that compulsion is a restriction of individual liberties.

The liberal sees the conservative as stupid for holding certain positions. Yet the reverse is also true. The conservative believes he has a more sophisticated model of the world. He weighs individual liberties with the effects on wider society. Too much liberalism can cause the bonds of society to break down and its lands are taken over by more cohesive groups.

[scorpiomover]

What didnt they provide? A even dozen of them have higher per capita income than the US, while the others have very similar incomes, but the median income is higher. If the median is higher with the same average/mean, it means the wealth distribution is wider. You'll have to be specific about which ones.

Cost of living in the UK is one of the top in the world. IIRC, only Japan comes higher. Income in the UK is comparative to the USA and other Western countries. Consequently, standard of living is way low. Some have even reported that they go without meals one day a week.

Also, socialist nations make up the vast majority of medical research. The US expenditure on research is absolutely dwarfed.That might be. But in the UK, millions are turning to alternative medicines, after turning to traditional scientific medicine repeatedly, with the same problem. That's of course excluding the millions who are turning to drink and drugs, to numb extreme physical pain, and extreme emotional trauma.

[One Big World]

Too many definitions of liberal to address so I'll just go with the modern, widely held definition of liberalism.

What I don't understand is how liberalism can claim that we are products of evolution and that we are all equal within the same breath.
I also see some striking similarities to some of the more frustrating aspects of religious structures.
Both are wildly inconsistent, cherry pick their sources to fit current trends and both are steeped deeply in guilt.
To their credit, they both at least try to make the world a better place.

[INTelliJent]

Individual liberty is a good thing, everyone agrees on that. The liberal insists that maximising this will always lead to the best possible society. The conservative says that you will gain this extra freedom at the cost of a worse society. Thus although freedom is maximised in a lawless land, the overall position of the individual in such lands is worsened.

Take for example a herd of zebra which is preyed on by a pack of lions. All the zebras would gain from the elimination of the lions. They could easily gang up and kick the lions to death. Yet there is a risk involved too as some zebras will perish in the fight. Each individual zebra reasons that since it will gain just the same if it takes part or not, it is better to not take part and let the others do it. The result is nothing is ever done about the lions. If a herd could use compulsion, forcing every zebra to take part on penalty of death, the herd would prosper. This herd would then out compete the others. Yet that compulsion is a restriction of individual liberties.

The liberal sees the conservative as stupid for holding certain positions. Yet the reverse is also true. The conservative believes he has a more sophisticated model of the world. He weighs individual liberties with the effects on wider society. Too much liberalism can cause the bonds of society to break down and its lands are taken over by more cohesive groups.

Coercion !== cohesion.

[Vagrant]

What I don't understand is how liberalism can claim that we are products of evolution and that we are all equal within the same breath.


What?

None of the major cultures emerged until about 6000 BC. Humans, who are K-selected species (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), do not evolve much in that amount of time. Anatomically modern humans started 200,000 years ago. Our suspected ancestors evolved 1.2-1.8 million years ago.

[Doggzilla]

Perfect!
What are your sources for this and your earlier statements? I'd say you're a bit quick with the stats considering how complex the underlying reality might be.

Anywhere. CIA factbook, World Bank, International monetary fund. You name it. The stats for socialist nations are vastly superior in just about any category. I cant really think of one that they arent doing better.

[INTelliJent]

Anywhere. CIA factbook, World Bank, International monetary fund. You name it. The stats for socialist nations are vastly superior in just about any category. I cant really think of one that they arent doing better.

Socialism always looks great at the beginning, as the future is cashed in for the present party. However, as the bill comes due, and the coercive structure becomes entrenched with corruption, the end will never be pleasant.

The US has been pursuing socialist policies for roughly 10-15+ years longer than Europe, and they have the advantage of sovereign money to prolong the agony. The US also has more irons in the fire than individual European nations, and a higher incentive for corruption. The more decentralized nature of the EU also leads to some increased efficiency in local matters.

Separately, everyone I know who visits Europe mentions how you must use public transit to get to anywhere, and that there really isn't much space period, even though Europeans I know think this is great.

Not everyone wants to live like a rat in a maze physically, even if economically.

[INTroJect]

Also, socialist nations make up the vast majority of medical research. The US expenditure on research is absolutely dwarfed.

I dont know what stats you are looking at, but Ive known researchers while in those countries and their lives revolve around the USA.

Anywhere. CIA factbook, World Bank, International monetary fund. You name it. The stats for socialist nations are vastly superior in just about any category. I cant really think of one that they arent doing better.

Oah? Let's check...


The USA has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world


Thats funny, your source seems to be refuting your claim.

---------- Post added 07-05-2012 at 07:03 PM ----------

Doggzilla, you also seem to be forgetting the distortion in that these countries have their defense paid for by the usa, can thus spend far less GDP on their own defense, and have more financial flexibility to pay for other pet projects. Take the US global military network out from under them, and these cute little programs of theirs suddenly wont look so nice.

[Doggzilla]

Thats funny, your source seems to be refuting your claim.

---------- Post added 07-05-2012 at 07:03 PM ----------

Doggzilla, you also seem to be forgetting the distortion in that these countries have their defense paid for by the usa, can thus spend far less GDP on their own defense, and have more financial flexibility to pay for other pet projects. Take the US global military network out from under them, and these cute little programs of theirs suddenly wont look so nice.

Go take a look at the stats before you go making absurd claims. Many socialist nations have higher military service rates than the US and higher expenditure, most have roughly equal rates.


Socialism always looks great at the beginning, as the future is cashed in for the present party. However, as the bill comes due, and the coercive structure becomes entrenched with corruption, the end will never be pleasant.

The US has been pursuing socialist policies for roughly 10-15+ years longer than Europe, and they have the advantage of sovereign money to prolong the agony. The US also has more irons in the fire than individual European nations, and a higher incentive for corruption. The more decentralized nature of the EU also leads to some increased efficiency in local matters.

Separately, everyone I know who visits Europe mentions how you must use public transit to get to anywhere, and that there really isn't much space period, even though Europeans I know think this is great.

Not everyone wants to live like a rat in a maze physically, even if economically.

Fact is that the EU average external debt is under $30k per capita, while the US external debt is over $50k per capita. Its a myth that Europe is swimming in debt and America is somehow better.

[Eridal]

What didnt they provide? A even dozen of them have higher per capita income than the US, while the others have very similar incomes, but the median income is higher. If the median is higher with the same average/mean, it means the wealth distribution is wider.

Also, socialist nations make up the vast majority of medical research. The US expenditure on research is absolutely dwarfed.

Once again I have to tell you to check your facts.

First off USA is #1 in research expenditures by a huge margin the closest in terms of US dollars is China which spends less than half as much. The only way we drop down away from the first position is if you look at it as a percentage of GPD (PPP) then we'd drop down to 6th but that's not the way to look at research and development spending.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ding

As for the income levels of individuals I already debunked your claim in another thread for the same reason you failed to either look at the right statistic for the information you seek or you've just been pulling them out of your ass either way you're wrong.

Now there is one point you got right which is that if you look at income distribution within the other developed countries close to the US in terms of GPD (PPP) per capita some of them have more equitable wealth distributions, but not all. Also you'll notice that many of the aforementioned countries tend to be rich in natural resources, specifically oil and natural gas, and have much smaller and typically homogeneous populations.

You keep going on and on about how much better "socialist" countries are than the US but the reality is not only are you mistaken about the above facts you are also wrong to label most of the countries you mention in this and other threads as socialist countries; This especially when you look at them economically. Even China is not a socialist nation economically anymore as they privatized most of their economy and now are doing better than ever. Just because a country has a robust safety net does not make it socialist.

::EDIT::
Just as a side note since you mentioned healthcare research specifically I'll just point out the US outspends everyone else by a huge margin.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._care_research

[Doggzilla]

Once again I have to tell you to check your facts.

First off USA is #1 in research expenditures by a huge margin the closest in terms of US dollars is China which spends less than half as much. The only way we drop down away from the first position is if you look at it as a percentage of GPD (PPP) then we'd drop down to 6th but that's not the way to look at research and development spending.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. ding

As for the income levels of individuals I already debunked your claim in another thread for the same reason you failed to either look at the right statistic for the information you seek or you've just been pulling them out of your ass either way you're wrong.

Now there is one point you got right which is that if you look at income distribution within the other developed countries close to the US in terms of GPD (PPP) per capita some of them have more equitable wealth distributions, but not all. Also you'll notice that many of the aforementioned countries tend to be rich in natural resources, specifically oil and natural gas, and have much smaller and typically homogeneous populations.

You keep going on and on about how much better "socialist" countries are than the US but the reality is not only are you mistaken about the above facts you are also wrong to label most of the countries you mention in this and other threads as socialist countries; This especially when you look at them economically. Even China is not a socialist nation economically anymore as they privatized most of their economy and now are doing better than ever. Just because a country has a robust safety net does not make it socialist.

::EDIT::
Just as a side note since you mentioned healthcare research specifically I'll just point out the US outspends everyone else by a huge margin.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts._care_research


What dont YOU understand? First place means nothing in this sense, because its still only a fraction of the total. Conservatives constantly state how every invention comes from the US and how socialist nations mooch off of everyone else. They do not, its insulting and bigoted. Statistically they are equal or superior. They serve their countries at the same rates, they have equal or higher productivity, and they *gasp* make products that people actually want, and therefore can export vastly more than anybody else!

Oh, and per capita income gets a bit slanted when 1% of the population has over 40% of income. That segment doesnt exist in socialist nations, so the real per capita income of the US is somewhere around 60-70% of socialist nations when you remove the top 1%.

Your argument that we are #1 is like saying the US has the highest speed limit because we have the slat flats out in the desert, or saying we have the best healthcare because we offer more cures which are just not available to the public. Bringing up statistics which mean nothing in terms of the overall context, which is high quality of life, means absolutely nothing. Pretty much you are yelling "my daddy has a bigger truck than yours!"

---------- Post added 07-07-2012 at 05:57 AM ----------

Oh, and what is your obsession against Nominal GDP? Why the hell would you not take into account inflation and conversion rates? I know why, because you are try to find even the smallest and most unreasonable ways to be able to tell yourself that somehow conservatives are right and cant ever be wrong. You just cant admit that a liberal could know something for once.

[INTelliJent]

Fact is that the EU average external debt is under $30k per capita, while the US external debt is over $50k per capita. Its a myth that Europe is swimming in debt and America is somehow better.

You didn't even read what I wrote.

[INTroJect]

Go take a look at the stats before you go making absurd claims. Many socialist nations have higher military service rates than the US and higher expenditure, most have roughly equal rates.

I went directly to your source and it says you are full of it.

[Eridal]

What dont YOU understand? First place means nothing in this sense, because its still only a fraction of the total. Conservatives constantly state how every invention comes from the US and how socialist nations mooch off of everyone else. They do not, its insulting and bigoted. Statistically they are equal or superior. They serve their countries at the same rates, they have equal or higher productivity, and they *gasp* make products that people actually want, and therefore can export vastly more than anybody else!


Seriously do you know how to read data at all because you are continuing to make some very basic mistakes.

First off the US spends about as much as the entire EU combined in research if you'd bothered to do any reading you'd have found that out. As for medical research the US accounts for up to 80% of the world expenditure on it so yes most of the research in this field DOES come from the US especially in the pharmaceutical field. Which debunks your whole moving the goalposts argument that the US spends a fraction of the total in both cases the US makes up a very significant portion of the entire research dollars spent worldwide. Whether you accept this or not it is a fact that is not in dispute by any reasonable party; the US is the leading country in terms of research dollars spend by a huge margin so much so that it takes an entire region to equal it in terms of dollars spent.


Oh, and per capita income gets a bit slanted when 1% of the population has over 40% of income. That segment doesnt exist in socialist nations, so the real per capita income of the US is somewhere around 60-70% of socialist nations when you remove the top 1%.


First of that is just plain wrong because the term 1% doesn't even mean what your trying to imply in your second sentence. There are rich people in "socialist" nations they just tend to be less prevalent and not as likely to be very rich like in the US. Not only that you can't redefine what per capita means and on top of that pull a figure out of your ass to try and support your new definition. What you are talking about is the median income which does a decent job of trying to deal with very high and very low incomes where averages do not. And just so you know by knocking on per capita income you are actually attacking a statistic which FAVORS the nations you keep trying to put on a pedestal.


Your argument that we are #1 is like saying the US has the highest speed limit because we have the slat flats out in the desert, or saying we have the best healthcare because we offer more cures which are just not available to the public. Bringing up statistics which mean nothing in terms of the overall context, which is high quality of life, means absolutely nothing. Pretty much you are yelling "my daddy has a bigger truck than yours!"


Not even worth responding to your emotional rant here. If you want to debate me use facts not emotional tirades in the future please.


Oh, and what is your obsession against Nominal GDP? Why the hell would you not take into account inflation and conversion rates? I know why, because you are try to find even the smallest and most unreasonable ways to be able to tell yourself that somehow conservatives are right and cant ever be wrong. You just cant admit that a liberal could know something for once.


First off I did not use Nominal GDP for the reasons I listed earlier, another incident of reading comprehension failure on your part. I tended to use GDP (PPP) which is GDP purchasing power parity or simply raw dollar amounts which for a single year do not need to be adjusted for inflation only to have all currencies converted to the US dollar. In fact I pointed out this very flaw in one of your other arguments in another thread which is that the only way one of your statements was true was if YOU used GPD (nominal) to support your argument. As before though instead of personal attacks why not try an objective argument supported by facts and relevant data.

[Doggzilla]

First off the US spends about as much as the entire EU combined in research if you'd bothered to do any reading you'd have found that out. As for medical research the US accounts for up to 80% of the world expenditure on it so yes most of the research in this field DOES come from the US especially in the pharmaceutical field.

So you can read wikipedia can you? So which one is it, are we equal to the entire EU or do we do 80% of the research? Biotech is not the same as healthcare.
The average world per capita spending on medical research is 44% of the US per capita spending, which means the US does less than 1/8 the total research. Do the math, 6 billion other people, 300 million Americans, which is 1/20th the world population. Multiply 20 by .44 and you get 8.8 times the expenditure.


First of that is just plain wrong because the term 1% doesn't even mean what your trying to imply in your second sentence. There are rich people in "socialist" nations they just tend to be less prevalent and not as likely to be very rich like in the US. Not only that you can't redefine what per capita means and on top of that pull a figure out of your ass to try and support your new definition. What you are talking about is the median income which does a decent job of trying to deal with very high and very low incomes where averages do not. And just so you know by knocking on per capita income you are actually attacking a statistic which FAVORS the nations you keep trying to put on a pedestal.

What do you mean Im not talking about per capita? removing the top 1% is called deviation. Its how you remove data which skews the facts. Like the standard deviation on IQ tests that keeps retards from making everyone look too smart.
And which is it? You just said knocking per capita harms socialist nations, when your previous post says only nominal makes them look good.


First off I did not use Nominal GDP for the reasons I listed earlier, another incident of reading comprehension failure on your part. I tended to use GDP (PPP) which is GDP purchasing power parity or simply raw dollar amounts which for a single year do not need to be adjusted for inflation only to have all currencies converted to the US dollar. In fact I pointed out this very flaw in one of your other arguments in another thread which is that the only way one of your statements was true was if YOU used GPD (nominal) to support your argument. As before though instead of personal attacks why not try an objective argument supported by facts and relevant data.

Thats what I said. I asked why you wouldnt use Nominal, so Im well aware that you didnt want to use it. But you are attacking yourself in the last paragraph when you say knocking per capita hurts my argument. Which one is it, is it good or not?
Also, the US spends 18% of its GDP on medicine, which is twice that of the highest socialist nation. If you apply that to the PPP numbers, it decreases income by about $4k, making us equal with Europe, but short the medical care and all the other good stuff.

Fact is, we spend a ton and get shitty coverage. Its unacceptable, and anybody who things Obamacare will actually increase inefficiency in the most inefficient healthcare system in the world, its just absurd. Efficiency can only go up.
And dont you think it might just be a bit better over there when they are calling the dutch "extreme right?" If their extremists are more humane than us, something is drastically wrong.

[Eridal]

So you can read wikipedia can you? So which one is it, are we equal to the entire EU or do we do 80% of the research? Biotech is not the same as healthcare.
The average world per capita spending on medical research is 44% of the US per capita spending, which means the US does less than 1/8 the total research. Do the math, 6 billion other people, 300 million Americans, which is 1/20th the world population. Multiply 20 by .44 and you get 8.8 times the expenditure.


Seriously learn to read before popping off these ridiculous comments. I never said we accounted for 80% of ALL research I said we accounted for 80% of medical research. For all research and development the US spend about 40% of the worldwide total according to figures from 2010. This is from a study published by the UK's Royal Society which is cited on the Wikipedia page I linked. I used Wikipedia mainly because it's easy to read not because it was the only source I had.


What do you mean Im not talking about per capita? removing the top 1% is called deviation. Its how you remove data which skews the facts. Like the standard deviation on IQ tests that keeps retards from making everyone look too smart.
And which is it? You just said knocking per capita harms socialist nations, when your previous post says only nominal makes them look good.


I can't even begin to explain all the problems in this statement specifically on how you attempt to use statistical terminology. Deviation is part of probability theory which is used to determine how far outside of the mean a value is. It has nothing to do with adjusting a data set like you're implying here. That's done by other methods such as using medians instead of mean like what is done for income or by weighting which is done with political polls based on likely voter turnouts.

As for the per capita comment it was implied but not stated I was referring to GDP (Nominal) per capita but I can understand your mistake there. And the reason it makes "socialist" nations look good is partially because it isn't taking cost of living into account which in the "socialist" nations you mention is typically higher than in the US.


Thats what I said. I asked why you wouldnt use Nominal, so Im well aware that you didnt want to use it. But you are attacking yourself in the last paragraph when you say knocking per capita hurts my argument. Which one is it, is it good or not?
Also, the US spends 18% of its GDP on medicine, which is twice that of the highest socialist nation. If you apply that to the PPP numbers, it decreases income by about $4k, making us equal with Europe, but short the medical care and all the other good stuff.


There's nothing contradictory about my position on the usage of GDP (nominal). Just because I mentioned that it supported your point doesn't mean I agree with your point and have already stated why it was incorrect.

Since you didn't understand it the first time I suppose I can explain it again why you don't use GDP (Nominal) per capita when talking about how much a typical citizen can buy within their own country. GDP (Nominal) per capita basically is determined by taking the GDP of a country, which is a measure of all the goods and services of a country produced within a year, and dividing by the average number of citizens of that country. This means it in no way accounts for cost of living making it problematic for determine how much someone can purchase with the amount of money they have.

Without taking cost of living into account there's no way to know whether making x amount per year is good or bad. Say you made 50k a year is that worth the same amount in say Arkansas as it is in New York? GPD (PPP) per capita on the other hand does attempt to look at cost of living when coming up with it's figures therefore it is the more appropriate to use when dealing with typical individuals within a country or comparing one country's citizens to another. Both are still very problematic for individuals though since GDP per capita is a generalization which isn't designed to look at individual citizens but it is still used as a quick way to look at standard of living of a country. Mainly it's purpose is to determine the relative wealth of the country as a whole based on the number of citizens rather than individuals within the country.

A better standard for looking at individuals is the Human Development Index (HDI) which tries to objectively sum life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living of a country into a numerical index which can be used to compare the well being of citizens from one country to the next. On this scale the US ranks #4 as of 2011. Whether this is a good standard or not is debatable but it is a commonly used one.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Fact is, we spend a ton and get shitty coverage. Its unacceptable, and anybody who things Obamacare will actually increase inefficiency in the most inefficient healthcare system in the world, its just absurd. Efficiency can only go up.
And dont you think it might just be a bit better over there when they are calling the dutch "extreme right?" If their extremists are more humane than us, something is drastically wrong.

First off you must assume that efficiency is already at the bottom for your statement to be true at this point I'd ask for proof of that as that is rarely the case. There is no reason to assume that just because the US has a currently inefficient system of healthcare delivery relative to other systems that it can't get worse than it already is.