The evil of Liberalism

[McCulloch]

Liberals are not good people.

When did Liberalism become an evil thing? Is Liberalism evil? Shouldn't we all be a bit more liberal?

[kayky]

So, are you saying that Obama is president because he has dark skin?

How did you get that from anything I wrote?

Regarding racism, I believe it is alive and well among progressives as well as some others.

Anyone can be a racist. But it is undoubtedly more prevalent among right-wingers.

Regarding discrimination in general, I do not accept the concept of race, we all discriminate continuously for various reasons. I find it best to discuss discrimination on a case by case basis.

You evidently do not live in the real world.

For example, I am asked quite often to get something off of a shelf for a short person. What, am I some kind of second class citizen that I should have to do that? There should be a law against such sizeist behavior, right?

This is a ridiculous comparison.

[kayky]

And they were Democratic white males.

Yes. It was around that time that the Dixie-crats deserted the Democratic party and became Republicans.

[kayky]

You want to see real racism, watch the left go after conservatives like Clarence Thomas or Miguel Estrada, far harder than they would white conservatives. Can't have blacks and latinos off the liberal plantation, can they? Witness Clarence Thomas' 'high-tech lynching', as he rightly put it.

As I recall, Clarence Thomas's problem was with a black woman. I believed her.

[East of Eden]

You want to see real racism, watch the left go after conservatives like Clarence Thomas or Miguel Estrada, far harder than they would white conservatives. Can't have blacks and latinos off the liberal plantation, can they? Witness Clarence Thomas' 'high-tech lynching', as he rightly put it.

As I recall, Clarence Thomas's problem was with a black woman. I believed her.

And here's a black man who says Antia Hill lied:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell101007.php3

Funny how liberals jumped on Clarence Thomas while excusing Bill Clinton's many adulteries, sexual harrassments, and even credible charges of rape.

[East of Eden]

Because the race baiters in the race business wouldn't have anything to do otherwise. The civil rights movement won when the laws were changed in their favor. Some people may not like blacks because of their color, but some don't like Christians or conservatives either.

And affirmative action is one of those laws.

No, its just more discrimination.

[Darias]

History shows that government interventionism does more harm to inflame the problems of past government interventionism than it does to alleviate it. The unilateral invasion of Iraq and the subsequent nation rebuilding did nothing to combat religious and political extremism; and instead only served to fuel the problem.

What does the war in Iraq (which I opposed by the way) have to do with affirmative action? Government intervention is sometimes a good thing.

The Iraq war is a very clear example of government solutions for government-created issues gone horribly wrong. I am of the opinion that affirmative action is yet another well-intentioned idea that does more harm than good to correct problems created by government.

Back to this topic at hand. One must ask themselves why women and minorities were at a disadvantage to begin with. Did the laws and actions of government in the name of the will of the people prolong misogyny and racism? Yes, until reason took hold of society, persuading them to take a stand against those laws.

Yet it took government to change discriminatory laws. Most white males in the South fought tooth and nail against these changes.

I don't think you realize how this argument sounds to a libertarian. It's like saying that we need President Bush because he's the only one who can repeal the Patriot Act. I submit that the forces which created a problem are ill-equipped to correct it efficiently, not to mention unworthy.

Claiming that only the state could reverse discriminatory laws created and enforced by that same institution is nonsense.

Why did most white males in the south feel the way they did in the first place, because slavery was legal and later because segregation and racism was propagated in public schools.

But thank god for the government! How else would we have corrected the horrible things it wrought upon our society?

You're arguing that people should not be persuaded by reason of a more moral position. You're arguing that force must be applied to bring about moral ends, or the illusion of tolerance. And you're doing it all in light of the information age we live in.

"Moral persuasion" is all well and good. But human nature being what it is...yes, sometimes force is necessary.

I for one am not going to pretend that human beings will always obey their better angels, as would be necessary for a Communistic society to work.

But I think that both of us are horribly mistaken to make wide sweeping assumptions about "the nature" of our species as a whole -- if it can even be said that humans share some ill-defined "nature."

I find it grossly offensive, the idea that all men are so corrupt and irresponsible or uncaring that they cannot elect for themselves to do the right thing, either under moral conviction, monetary incentive, or reasoned persuasion -- but instead that they must be subjected to government force. They must be commanded to be charitable via the law -- upon penalty of imprisonment: legalized theft more commonly known as your patriotic duty or generosity. That they must be commanded to be well -- their choices being restricted by the nanny state.

The idea that hate must be made illegal, because tolerance cannot stand on its own. The idea that you can't drink that big soda because those in government think your health is their prerogative and responsibility. If the government doesn't do something then everyone will be fat. This is all utter nonsense.

[center][/center]

In other words, if mankind is too flawed to act morally, how are those in power best equipped to make the laws? Are those in government more enlightened and moral than the rest of the population? No? Then why point to the state as the answer to all our problems?

You're underestimating human morality and goodness,

You're kidding, right?

Not at all. I think you would have to assume that all men are fundamentally rotten and incapable of responsibility or compassion to assume that government force is necessary for society to function in a civilized manner. I think you would be a big fan of Hobbes:

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.

This nightmare scenario was brought to you by the man who believed this would take place without a strong authoritarian government and king to rightly guide the people, to think for them, and do good works on their behalf. Our only safeguard against chaos was tyranny. This of course is the ultimate logical conclusion of your initial assumptions.

[center][/center]

and you're assuming that government force and coercion is the only means of bringing about effective and rapid change. And on top of all that you're intrusting state power with this well intended task, as if it possesses the moral authority to do so -- and as if it exclusively deserves the power to bring about positive change, given its atrocious track record.

The government is made up of people we have elected to represent us. It is not some monolithic "power." We have given it moral authority and power. If we don't like the choices they make, we elect different people to take their place. I think it is an overstatement to say that the track record of the US government is "atrocious." It very often ends up doing the right thing.

Government is a fiction, much like any other deity. The state is the concentration of power with guns and legal impunity to initiate force and violence upon others (taxation, eminent domain, imprisonment for non-violent drug crimes, destroying your vehicles and boats, and invading your home in the name of security, etc.) The matter of whether or not a minimal state is necessary to protect life and property is debatable. But whether or not you have a government in place, there needs to be institutions in place for society to function. You can't take away the government crutch and have no substitute.

The government and gods are nothing to fear. It's their followers and those who lead them that need to be looked out for.

While a state comes to exist by the consent of the majority, politicians are not accountable to you. Politicians are bought and paid for by corporations; they don't even know who voted for them, yet you believe they are accountable to you?

Those in power can literally do whatever they want, redefine your rights however they want... no silly document, even the Constitution, can stop them. Just look what our current president has done with the expansion of executive power. Writing letters to your congressman and adding your signature to petitions is akin to the effectiveness of prayer in a godless universe. Some even go so far as to say voting doesn't matter either; maybe it doesn't. I remain unconvinced for the simple reason that if only statists voted, regardless if most everyone else believed in freedom, we'd still be under a nanny state authoritarian system.

And please, your constant use of "we" is becoming tiresome. We are not the Borg. There is no we. There is you and I and a society of individuals. Using we to refer to the majority, or the people you agree with, or the government reeks of collectivism.

It makes no sense whatsoever to give credit to government for social change reflected in the laws. Why thank the government for women's suffrage when the state made it illegal for them to vote in the first place.

This is a circular argument. It also took the government to change those laws.

It's not a circular argument to cite the source of the problem as not being the best solution for that problem. The mistake is to praise government for alleviating a problem it created.

Civil disobedience to government laws put pressure on the state to have them rewritten. Government is not a god that suddenly had a change of heart, or did the right thing out of compassion.

Government is good at only one thing. It knows how to break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you couldn't walk.'

How does government "break legs"? Can you give specific examples of how this occurs?

I could use countless examples of this. How about the fact that people claim "we" have to have a gigantic military because of all the terrorists who hate America because of how foreign policy has been conducted over the past century around the globe? Or the fact that we have to have federal student loans to afford tuition, which would be much more affordable were it not for the existence of that program?

Even if I were to grant you the idea that affirmative action has been extremely successful in every way, combating racism and helping minorities, etc. ..... the process by which it was done is immoral and you can't forget what caused the problem to begin with. Ends do not justify means.

This is a ridiculous argument. It is not immoral to force immoral people to behave as if they were moral. It is not immoral to protect the weak and disenfranchised from the tyranny of the powerful.

The initiation of force is immoral because it violates the principles of non aggression; recognizing the crime of violating consent via coercion is part of the fabric of modern law; this is how rapists are prosecuted, it's why pedophilia and zoophelia are crimes, etc.

How are you being consistent by saying the state is the exception to the rule... or that the state should have a monopoly on force?

If I rob a man and give his money to a homeless person, this is immoral; it doesn't matter if it was for a good cause. If I take someone's money upon pain of death or capture (thus destroying the possibility of voluntary consent), then I am an immoral person. And it's an insult to humanity to label that process a charity or patriotic duty. To consider theft moral just because the state does it, is a bastardization of the concept of morality altogether.

However, affirmative action, when it comes to private businesses, does not help. If someone is a racist, will his views towards minorities improve if he is forced to hire them or welcome them into his establishment? Will his racist position not be easily validated by others, as though he were persecuted?

The attitudes of the racist are his own business. His behavior, however, can be governed.

No one's business should be dictated by those in power or by the majority, so long as their business does not infringe on anyone else's rights. A racist's property and shop belongs to him and he can do what he wills with it. No one has the authority to make him live or think a certain way upon penalty of fine or imprisonment. If you want to intrench someone's bigotry, persecute them for it.

Leave him alone, and no one will do business with him and he will fail. Let him deal with the full weight of the consequences of prejudice. Don't validate his hatred by forcing him to become tolerant with guns and imprisonment funded by taxpayer dollars.

You are assuming this dude is an aberration. I can assure you, that without government intervention, we would still have Jim Crow and segregation in the South.

The flat earth society has not been fined or imprisoned by the ministry of truth lately, and look how irrelevant and benign that movement is today.

The reason why there is a Baptist church on every street corner in America is because the Romans believed that torturing and persecuting Christians was the best way to combat an immoral or flawed idea. Christianity is the largest religion in the world today because people thought force was the best way to promote sound and ethical ideas in society. Criminalizing speech and behavior that does not use violence only attracts people to the movements deemed forbidden by the state.

Affirmative action forcibly applied to private companies is about effective as curbing racism as forcing every family in America to adopt a child of a minority ethnic background, and then calling them racists for not complying -- followed by fines.

Don't deny perfectly qualified people to make a race quota. Don't perpetuate the idea that race matters more than character or qualifications. Be diverse, yes, but don't do it because government says so; do it of your own initiative, volition, and morality.

We tried it that way. It didn't work.

There's that "we" word again. I'm sorry, who tried what? What didn't work, for who? and why?

Truly, the state is the god of the atheist.

How so?

Well I can't speak for all atheists, but if you believe a fiction is the solution to all your problems, that those who are employed by the state are philosopher kings who always act in our best interest and who know what's best for us, and if you believe that government is fundamentally good and to be trusted, or that it's accountable to you, or that without it, men would be worse than savage -- then you're fundamentally no different from a believer in god who thinks men need religion to be good, and that without god or religion, society would collapse.

If you can be moral without god, why do people assume you must employ government force to be moral as well?

Because that's just the way people are. They won't behave unless you make them.

People won't be good to one another unless who makes them? You mean to tell me that someone cannot give out of the goodness of his heart without a gun to his head or threat of imprisonment? People can't drink responsibly, or eat healthfully, or do the right thing without fear of the law? Last time I checked, the law is horribly ineffective at stopping those who intend to break it.

Do you think we're all just irresponsible children without someone or something to call master? Call it god or government, I'll have no part in that.

[center][/center]

[East of Eden]

I don't agree with everything she said, but she nailed the producers vs. the looters problem.

There is no room for the weak or disadvantaged in Ayn Rand's world.

Yes, like you I'm sure she supported abortion and 'mercy killing'.

It has everything to do with it. American corporations should be creating jobs for Americans. But instead they cheat the system, and the middle class continues to shrink.

Your bias is noted, but answer my question about who creates jobs. Small companies actually create most jobs also, are they evil also?

I wish it were just that simple. But the wealthiest in our system cheat the system that enabled them to get wealthy in the first place. Do you know how poor you have to be to get welfare? You would rather see children go hungry?

Our poor would be considered wealthy in most of the world. One of their problems is obesity.

"To whom much is given, much will be required." --Jesus

Completely out of context, Jesus was referring to our personal responsibilities, when the government taxes you it isn't charity. Jesus never told the Roman government to do anything. I'll compare my giving to anyone on this forum.

Most people want to work and will if given the chance.

Not really. Once again the facts are at variance with your worldview:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham ... ngton-post

Jesus told me that the poor and oppressed were indeed my business.

OK, so you personally help the poor, maybe take in a homeless person, don't tell someone else what to do.

New York Times:

After Plant Explosion, Texas Remains Wary of Regulation

Adrees Latif/Reuters
The explosion in April of a fertilizer plant near West, Tex., was so powerful that it registered as a 2.1-magnitude earthquake. McLennan, the county that includes West, has no fire code.
By IAN URBINA, MANNY FERNANDEZ and JOHN SCHWARTZ

WEST, Tex. — Five days after an explosion at a fertilizer plant leveled a wide swath of this town, Gov. Rick Perry tried to woo Illinois business officials by trumpeting his state’s low taxes and limited regulations. Asked about the disaster, Mr. Perry responded that more government intervention and increased spending on safety inspections would not have prevented what has become one of the nation’s worst industrial accidents in decades.

“Through their elected officials,� he said, Texans “clearly send the message of their comfort with the amount of oversight.�

This antipathy toward regulations is shared by many residents here. Politicians and economists credit the stance with helping attract jobs and investment to Texas, which has one of the fastest-growing economies in the country, and with winning the state a year-after-year ranking as the nation’s most business friendly.

Even in West, last month’s devastating blast did little to shake local skepticism of government regulations. Tommy Muska, the mayor, echoed Governor Perry in the view that tougher zoning or fire safety rules would not have saved his town. “Monday morning quarterbacking,� he said.

Raymond J. Snokhous, a retired lawyer in West who lost two cousins — brothers who were volunteer firefighters — in the explosion, said, “There has been nobody saying anything about more regulations.�

Texas has always prided itself on its free-market posture. It is the only state that does not require companies to contribute to workers’ compensation coverage. It boasts the largest city in the country, Houston, with no zoning laws. It does not have a state fire code, and it prohibits smaller counties from having such codes. Some Texas counties even cite the lack of local fire codes as a reason for companies to move there.

But Texas has also had the nation’s highest number of workplace fatalities — more than 400 annually — for much of the past decade. Fires and explosions at Texas’ more than 1,300 chemical and industrial plants have cost as much in property damage as those in all the other states combined for the five years ending in May 2012. Compared with Illinois, which has the nation’s second-largest number of high-risk sites, more than 950, but tighter fire and safety rules, Texas had more than three times the number of accidents, four times the number of injuries and deaths, and 300 times the property damage costs.

As federal investigators sift through the rubble at the West Fertilizer Company plant seeking clues about the April 17 blast that killed at least 14 people and injured roughly 200 others, some here argue that Texas’ culture itself contributed to the calamity.

“The Wild West approach to protecting public health and safety is what you get when you give companies too much economic freedom and not enough responsibility and accountability,� said Thomas O. McGarity, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law and an expert on regulation.

Since the accident, some state lawmakers began calling for increased workplace safety inspections to be paid for by businesses. Fire officials are pressing for stricter zoning rules to keep residences farther away from dangerous industrial sites. But those efforts face strong resistance.

Chuck DeVore, the vice president of policy at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative study group, said that the wrong response to the explosion would be for the state to hire more “battalions of government regulators who are deployed into industry and presume to know more about running the factory than the people who own the factory and work there every day.�

This antiregulatory zeal is an outgrowth of a broader Texas ideology: that government should get out of people’s lives, a deeply held belief throughout the state that touches many aspects of life here, including its gun culture, its Republican-dominated Legislature and its cowboy past and present.

Texas is one of only four states with legislatures that meet as infrequently as possible, once every two years, as required by the state’s 137-year-old Constitution. From the freewheeling days of independent oilmen known as wildcatters to the 2012 presidential race, in which President Obama lost Texas by nearly 1.3 million votes, the state’s pro-business, limited-government mantra has been a vital part of its identity.

Yep. It's all about the bottom line in Texas. I'm just glad I don't live in Texas.

I would have to look into this more before I believe the NYT, but is it is so bad people don't have to work there. At least Houston is safer than Chicago due to their gun freedoms Chicago doesn't have.

Do you ever go on Facebook? Take a look at some of the anti-Obama pages. For a lot of people, it's all about race.

I really don't see that, Bush got way more criticsm than the thin-skinned Obama does. I have to agree with Hillary Clinton here:

“I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.�

[kayky]

And here's a black man who says Antia Hill lied:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell101007.php3

Funny how liberals jumped on Clarence Thomas while excusing Bill Clinton's many adulteries, sexual harrassments, and even credible charges of rape.

I still believe Anita. And I don't excuse Clinton's indiscretions.

[kayky]

No, its just more discrimination.

Only in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

[East of Eden]

And here's a black man who says Antia Hill lied:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell101007.php3

Funny how liberals jumped on Clarence Thomas while excusing Bill Clinton's many adulteries, sexual harrassments, and even credible charges of rape.

I still believe Anita. And I don't excuse Clinton's indiscretions.

So if Anita Hill was right, and Thomas should not have served on the court because of that, Clinton shouldn't have been president either, right?

BTW, rape is much more than an indiscretion, it is a serious crime.