Why You Can't Argue With a Liberal 2.0

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Yes it's the liberals who ignore the facts in a debate.

& pigs fly.

Just saw one fly by...
Most Liberals utilize the Alinsky rules in a debate and the "Big Lie" method.
"What difference,at this point,does it matter ?" - Classic Alinsky.

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

Just a little rational thinking for you...

Capitalism, conservatism, and right wing politics cannot be separated from the economic aspects of those schools of thought, because the effects of the one, are directly related to the effects of the other, in every single way.

To discuss therefore, any of those subjects without referring to the others, is nonsensical, and any exploration of events which fails to take into account the real terms effects of an economic model, by examining its knock on effects, cannot be said to be complete.

So, for example, mentioning the state of western economics and the massive corporate gains which have been made in recent years, is utterly without any value unless one balances that bullet point by accepting that foreign affairs meddling and war for profit played a role in it, as did the disenfranchisement of many millions of Americans, Britons, Europeans broadly, and other nationalities, as a result of the banking crisis. None of these things are unrelated and mentioning any one of them without the others, is to skew the discussion utterly.

This is what you are doing here.

Why on earth do so many people think that Liberals are not also Capitalists?

Liberalism is not incompatible with Capitalism. You can have liberal capitalists. Liberalism is not 'a religion'. Nor is it a dogma.

Look:


liberal
ˈlɪb(ə)r(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: liberal

1.
willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.
"liberal views towards divorce"
favourable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.
"liberal citizenship laws"

(in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform.
"a liberal democratic state"



2.
(of education) concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.


3.
(especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal.
"they could have given the 1968 Act a more liberal interpretation"



noun
noun: liberal; plural noun: liberals

1.
a person of liberal views.
"a concern among liberals about the relation of the citizen to the state"

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

You've played right into the hands the MSM, big business and your Government wants you to...

You have pigeonholed yourself and your enemies into two separate camps. Two ends of a scale. Black and white.

That's game over - no meaningful discussion or agreement can come from that. Only further war.

a reply to: Painterz

I think this is referring to liberals from the political point of view. Although there are moderates, left-wing liberals inevitably become more socialist, which is the antithesis of capitalism.

a reply to: and14263

I agree that the bifurcation of political ideologies in this country is a problem. Divisiveness is not going to get us anywhere, I can agree with that. Perhaps I am perpetuating that with this post, or pointing out the culprit? I guess it is a matter of perspective.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I would say it is more that capitalism is an economic side effect of allowing people to have liberty and to be secure in their persons and property.

When that happens, wealth is side effect as some people will choose to amass it. The problem is that while such greed is not wonderful, it is a side effect of liberty. Very often the same people who hate those who choose to amass vast wealth also demand the personal freedom to choose to indulge in every manner of vice: hard drugs, prostitution, pornography, whatever they can think of to indulge in that THEY desire.

They see no similarity of impulse, nor do they see their hypocrisy. When taken to the extremes, every one of those vices is also destructive, personally and to those around them who end up suffering the fallout. Other folks will suffer for their excesses; they just choose to turn a blind eye to it, or downplay the seriousness of it.

Thing is that in order to have liberty, you have to allow things like vice and personal wealth even on what you might consider an obscene scale. It doesn't mean you have to like it, but intellectually speaking, if you want certain choices for yourself, then you need to grant the freedom of personal choice to others too because really, what business is it of yours?

a reply to: ExNihiloRed

*reads this quote*

I don't mean this in a broad-insulting-stroke-of-the-brush sort of way. I mean that in a sincere, realistic way.

*reads the rest of OP seeing that it is a broad-insulting-stroke-of-the-brush about liberal philosophy*

Riiiiight...

a reply to: ketsuko

So, what happens then, when the freedom that one person has to amass vast wealth, necessitates that someone else not be able to have enough to live on.

The economic model upon which US and indeed western capitalism is founded, cannot operate with one hundred percent of the people living under it, employed and employed gainfully. Structurally speaking, there must always be a certain number of people, who do not have work, and therefore safety, security, food, health, homes, light, warmth, or any life to live worth a god damn.

If everyone were employed at once, who could be employed at all, then inflation would skyrocket. If you also consider that on top of that structural necessity, there will be jobs shortages aside from that, especially now, what with automation, and the jobs drain to nations with cheap labour, the issue becomes even more clear. There is no actual way, that the economic model we are operating under, and the one most vhemently upheld by those who are most often heard to lambast the jobless, or the poorly paid, can function when everyone has a fair slice of the pie.

So with the greatest respect to your response above, and with its contents borne well in mind, I fail to see how we can justify all the frankly dishonourable conduct which apparently keeps us all in smoothies and iPhones, how it can possibly be legitimate in its origin or outworking when it issues from a theory which demands that a certain percentage essentially suffer, so that others can prosper massively.

a reply to: TrueBrit

You are operating from the proposition that there is one pile of wealth and never any more. That is simply a false premise.

Under that assumption, when I grow a garden and decide to sell the excess produce, I have somehow stolen that produce from other people. How can that be? Those other people would not have had any opportunity for any of that food had I not taken the initiative to grow it. I'm not selling tomatoes, peas, and corn I took out of other folks' mouths, off their tables.

By growing those plants and creating those vegetables on my own, I grew the wealth base (made the pie bigger), and because I did that, I should be secure in my right to do with it as I see fit.

a reply to: ketsuko

No one who grows and sells produce is free to do it to the best of their ability and maximise the most of their garden space though. Regulators rock up pretty soon to tell you your produce does not conform to all the specifications of the FDA or some such. There was a thread on just that about three years ago, bloody terrible business that was!

ETA: And it is not my model I am working from, nor is it my suggestion that one hundred percent employment is impossible in a capitalist nation. This is widely understood by economists and students of that field. My interest in it is purely political of course, but the concept did not originate with me, of that I can assure you!

a reply to: TrueBrit

Regulation is not free capitalism though.

I am arguing that capitalism is a side effect of personal liberty. People who are free will choose to do things ... like grow and sell the produce of their gardens to others who would rather not have large gardens but might prefer to specialize in other things.

Regulation is anti-choice, even if you want to look at those regulations you might think are necessary. They still remove (or seek to remove) choice.

a reply to: ketsuko

No.. Regulation is not free capitalism.

But nor is the sort practiced in the USA, and another thing to note, is that it has not been practiced in the USA since the federal reserve opened its doors at least, and was probably on the way out before then for a while too.

And still we come to this issue, where regardless of ones own ingenuity, free capitalism does NOT allow for any scenario to ever come about, where everyone has at least enough to live on, and gain it by the work of their hand, and this is not me saying this, but you can look it up. Type "100% employment in capitalist economic models" into Google, and read the links that pop up. Some of them are bloody depressing reading.

Sounds like the OP's upset because he can't convince everyone he speaks with that he's right. Why oh why do people have different opinions?! So frustrating.... Of course being so arrogant that you consider anyone who has a different opinion than your own to be unworthy of engaging in discussion might not be the best way to influence people... But hey, rave on with your condescension

a reply to: ExNihiloRed