Liberalism's Fatal Flaw

[there4eyeM]

So, charities are not currently filling the need.

 

[Contumacious]

Bullshit. I have been reading your posts . I have personal knowledge.


FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line.

The fascists define keeping the private sector in line when it allows the government to manipulate it into

feeding, clothing, insuring and educating the parasites ; when it finances a gargantuan welfare/warfare police state

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

HUH

WTF

When did he say that?

Your logical fallacy is strawman.

When he said this:

"FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line."

Assuming that he opposes Fascism, he thus opposes the necessity of government laws to keep the private sector from using slaves as its source of labor.

Bullshit


We hold these truths to be self-evident,


that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.


So individuals have a right to be FREE and to pursue happiness


So the government does have the right to prevent slavery - that is NOT fascism


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's start here:

Slavery was a private sector business practice. Why did it occur, and why did GOVERNMENT have to end it,

if it's a flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line?

Complete nonsense. Slavery was government law which allowed people to own other people. If those people resisted, the state would go after them. The same continues to this day, even if the means have changed to be less extreme.

So you support repealing the laws against slavery. I'm not surprised.

HUH

WTF

When did he say that?

Your logical fallacy is strawman.

When he said this:

"FASCISM is based on the flawed theory that government is needed to keep the private sector in line."

Assuming that he opposes Fascism, he thus opposes the necessity of government laws to keep the private sector from using slaves as its source of labor.

Bullshit


We hold these truths to be self-evident,


that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.


So individuals have a right to be FREE and to pursue happiness


So the government does have the right to prevent slavery - that is NOT fascism


.

He called it fascism not me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Charities are currently meeting the need in the U.S., then?

1. Marvin Olasky, in "The Tragedy of American Compassion," explains that human needs were taken care of by other human beings-not by bureaucracies. The important difference was that the latter may take care of food and shelter...but the former also dealt with the human spirit and behavior.
Welfare programs today, are Liberal….conservatives don’t look for material solutions, but understand that changing values is what solves the problem of poverty..



2. Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, and Hoover, welfare was handled by charities and churches, carefully considering who got the relief, and the reasons for same.

Under FDR, welfare and charity became a patronage endeavor, to get votes rather than to ease suffering.

The Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) doled out relief nationally to those states with the best political connections. The Emergency Relief and Construction Act of 1932 began with the best of intentions...but under the Democrats it went to well-connected friends, including mayors and governors.

Illinois, a swing state, got $55,443,721, which was almost 20% of the RFC's $300 million, more than NY, California, and Texas combined.
Murray Rothbard, "America's Great Depression," p.262-263.


3. Economist Jim Powell, in “FDR’s Folly,” notes that a disproportionate amount of FDR’s relief and public works spending “went not to the poorest states such as the South, but to western states were people were better off , apparently because there were ‘swing’ states which could yield FDR more votes in the next election.”

That basis for charity and welfare continues to this day!


Wise up.

The above poster

1. praises charity for the poor

2. believes that charity to the poor makes them lazy and unwilling to try to fend for themselves.

Interesting eh?

 

[there4eyeM]

A veritable conundrum, it would seem.

 

[Pete7469]

Somehow, you're still not getting it.

Most people understand that the way we communicate plays a role in the message we are communicating. Whether we like it or not.

If you think that hyperbole and bluster and name-calling and insults are an effective way to influence opinion, great, have at it.
.

It's real bitch figuring out how to tell parasites they're parasites because everybody thinks they're worth something but parasites actually degrade the standards of living for other people.

Perhaps you could come up with a better solution yourself, but for me I'm content to call a spade a spade and a queer queer and be done with it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. No ideology has ever been as good at the use of propaganda as the modern iteration of liberalism.
This is why it remains the most dynamic religion of our age.

Most important is to bear in mind that nothing could be further from the attitudes and values under which America was created, than that very ideology, Modern Liberalism.

Classical liberalism, the views if the Founders, what would be called conservatism today, is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.


2. "The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality." Who Cares about Inequality? | Don Watkins


3. To see the roots of 'Liberalism," and its commections to material equality, know this:
"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager




4. "The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality. Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it.

The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

..... the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Yet, there are still enough gullible voters who imagine that things will only be taken away from others....and given to them.
They're called Liberals.

The fatal flaw of liberalism is most, like the OP, are too stupid to understand it.

They were never taught to respect it, to defend it, or why it is the basis of the nation, which they would happily destroy trying to undo what holds it together, liberalism.

I'd certainly have to agree that you have some expertise on 'stupid,' having practiced it for a life time.....

But, let's prove that.

"...why it is the basis of the nation.."

Hardly.
It is the very antithesis (better look that up).



This nation was designed by the Founders to to advance individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Obamunist, Liberalism, Progressivism stands for collectivism, undue regulation, and overarching big government, ignoring the Constitution.

And that's what you vote for. You didn't know that, did you, you fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, charities are not currently filling the need.

How could they when the Liberal plan promises the what they wish without having to better themselves in any way?

1. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.
   1. Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence. Ferrara,
      "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb: How the Looming Debt Crisis Threatens the American Dream-and How We Can Turn.."
      

Stop being a dunce.

 

[Moonglow]

1. No ideology has ever been as good at the use of propaganda as the modern iteration of liberalism.
This is why it remains the most dynamic religion of our age.

Most important is to bear in mind that nothing could be further from the attitudes and values under which America was created, than that very ideology, Modern Liberalism.

Classical liberalism, the views if the Founders, what would be called conservatism today, is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.


2. "The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality." Who Cares about Inequality? | Don Watkins


3. To see the roots of 'Liberalism," and its commections to material equality, know this:
"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager




4. "The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality. Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it.

The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

..... the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Yet, there are still enough gullible voters who imagine that things will only be taken away from others....and given to them.
They're called Liberals.

The Founders must not have believed in all folks being equal, women were not. and neither were the slaves....

Philosophy of liberalism did include duty free trade, yet the USA had tariffs on imports, and taxes on whiskey production in the USA..

The left and Liberalism is two different creatures, since there are republican liberals also...

 

[Moonglow]

1. No ideology has ever been as good at the use of propaganda as the modern iteration of liberalism....

You finally admit that your propaganda sucks?

Are you admitting this:
Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.

Not all liberals believe in material equality...

 

[there4eyeM]

Look at your own post and the English used before calling anyone else 'dunce', 'Poli'.
The post cited, "So, charities are not currently filling the need.", does not mention 'welfare'. It is a recapitulation of your previous admission.
In fact, 'welfare' exists because the well-off and the so-called religious, and especially so-called Christians, were not doing enough. We might discuss what 'enough' is, but trying to reverse the argument as you do merely illustrates a strident compulsion to push an agenda antithetical to brotherhood and the original American spirit.

 

[Mac1958]

The country is clearly pushing away from this "every man for himself" libertarian thought, and it's the libertarian thinkers themselves who are doing part of the pushing - without realizing it, evidently. This stuff is a thought exercise only at this point.
.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The country is clearly pushing away from this "every man for himself" libertarian thought, and it's the libertarian thinkers themselves who are doing part of the pushing - without realizing it, evidently. This stuff is a thought exercise only at this point.
.

"The country is clearly pushing away from this "every man for himself" libertarian thought,..."

Your problem, though, is that the country never had that view.
In order to get dopes to agree to big government, Liberal had to convince folks like you that Americans wouldn't take care of one another.


Not only is this nation the most generous in the world...

1. "We usually hear about charity in the media when there is a terrible disaster. For example, after Hurricane Katrina, we heard about the incredible outpouring of private generosity that amounted to $6 billion. What gets less attention is that Americans routinely give that much to charity every week. Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
   The Generosity of America

2. And, has always been so...
a. On January 6, 1657 twenty-eight “Scottish men” signed the Laws Rules and Order of the Poor Boxes Society” in Boston, New England and formed the Scots’ Charitable Society. The founder stated that “…our benevolence is for the releefe of our selves being Scottishmen or for any of the Scottish nation whome we may see cause to helpe…”[1] Almost 350 years later this dedication to benevolent acts continues to guide the work of the Scots’ Charitable Society.
http://www.linknet1.com/scots-charitable/menu1/index1.html

b. ... how was "welfare" formerly handled? Noted in the minutes of the Fairfield, Connecticut town council meeting: "April 16, 1673, Seriant Squire and Sam moorhouse [agreed] to Take care of Roger knaps family in this time of their great weaknes...." "Heritage of American Social Work: Readings in Its Philosophical and Institutional Development," by Ralph Pumphrey and W. Muriel Pumphrey, p.22.

c. November, 1753, from the Chelmsford, Massachusetts town meeting: "payment to Mr. W. Parker for takng one Joanna Cory, a poor child of John Cory, deceased, and to take caree of her while [until] 18 years old."
See The Social Service Review XI (September 1937), p. 452.



3. And here is the major difference between current efforts and the earlier: charity was not handed out indiscriminately- "no prophane or diselut person, or openly scandelous shall have any pairt or portione herein."

The able-bodied were expected to find work,and if they chose not to, well....it was considered perfectly appropriate to press them to change their mind.
Olasky, "The Tragedy of American Compassion," chapter one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Look at your own post and the English used before calling anyone else 'dunce', 'Poli'.
The post cited, "So, charities are not currently filling the need.", does not mention 'welfare'. It is a recapitulation of your previous admission.
In fact, 'welfare' exists because the well-off and the so-called religious, and especially so-called Christians, were not doing enough. We might discuss what 'enough' is, but trying to reverse the argument as you do merely illustrates a strident compulsion to push an agenda antithetical to brotherhood and the original American spirit.

"So, charities are not currently filling the need." clearly implies the need for the failed Liberal welfare agenda.


"'welfare' exists because the well-off and the so-called religious, and especially so-called Christians, were not doing enough."
No it doesn't.

Big government has done everything in can to remove the ability of private citizens to provide charity.

"Obama Makes Fifth Attempt to Reduce Charitable Tax Deduction"
Obama Makes Fifth Attempt to Reduce Charitable Tax Deduction




It is difficult for me to accept statements that fly in the face of reality and facts....but if you feel it undeserved...I'll retract 'dunce,'...but promise to educate yourself to a fuller extent.
As I said earlier....wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And Sunday....a great day for 'coincidences'....if you believe in coincidence.

This day, City Journal just happens to provide an essay entitled:

"American Charity
The philanthropic tradition is what makes America different from other nations.

"America’s philanthropic tradition can be traced to the ideals that animated its founding. In Europe, nations were built by kings and despots. Though they have long been citizens with the full scope of democratic rights, Europeans still expect more from their governments than Americans do. In the United States, citizenship came first. The government was built by voluntary association. To this day, Americans expect individuals to exhaust all options for caring for themselves before turning to the government for help. “Philanthropy,” writes Zinsmeister, “is a huge part of what makes America America.

The proportion of Americans who participate in philanthropic activities—70 percent—is higher than the number who vote. In economic terms, philanthropy amounts to approximately 10 percent of GDP. No other country invests as much money and energy in the nonprofit sector.”
American Charity

For real Americans, it certainly isn't all about the accretion of personal wealth.....and that is Liberalism's fatal flaw.

 

[2aguy]

1. No ideology has ever been as good at the use of propaganda as the modern iteration of liberalism.
This is why it remains the most dynamic religion of our age.

Most important is to bear in mind that nothing could be further from the attitudes and values under which America was created, than that very ideology, Modern Liberalism.

Classical liberalism, the views if the Founders, what would be called conservatism today, is based on individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.

Modern Liberalism finds at its center, material equality.
That is its fatal flaw.


2. "The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality." Who Cares about Inequality? | Don Watkins


3. To see the roots of 'Liberalism," and its commections to material equality, know this:
"Every Leftist is, essentially, a Marxist…even though most eschew the title since the fall of the Soviet Union. Even so, Left-wing ideas are predicated on Marx’s materialist view. Philosophically, the term implies that only material things are real.

The Left’s concept of materialism broadens into the overarching desire to see every individual materially equal. The Left is less interested in creating wealth than in distributing it, and has been far more interested in fighting material inequality than tyranny, which is why Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc., tend to have the support of Leftists around the world."
Dennis Prager




4. "The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality. Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it.

The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

..... the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life."
Fee, Op. Cit.


Yet, there are still enough gullible voters who imagine that things will only be taken away from others....and given to them.
They're called Liberals.

Another excellent post.....

 

[2aguy]

Bah. Hand me a drink, im having sex

Does your wife or husband know?

 

[2aguy]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

No...what you are seeing is 12-16 years of indoctrination of our young people into the failed belief in modern left wing liberalism/progressivism/regressivism..........the government schools....controlled by the left wing education branch of the democrat party uses those 12-16 years to teach a failed system.......and then you guys say ......see.....people don't like conservatism......

Give us 12-16 years of unfettered access to teach about liberty, individual rights and responsibilities, limited government, checks and balances....and free markets....and we would have the wealthiest, healthiest and most powerful country in the world.......

But we have a 5th column of lefty nuts who have taken over education, the government bureacracies, journalism and entertainment......and they still can't completely control the country....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Contemporary conservatism's fatal flaw is that it is represented by people like the OP. Its decline in popularity is attributable in large part to its repulsive messengers.

Now, to address the thread specifically, there is a direct correlation. The proliferation of repulsive representatives of conservatism has effectively opened the door for a strong lurch to the left, and that's precisely what we're seeing. Leftists - and I don't mean traditional liberals, I mean hardcore leftists - should thank their lucky stars for conservative talk radio and its faithful and obedient adherents, obviously including the OP. You're getting a valuable assist here.

Yes, the far left has become stronger and more emboldened, in large part because of the unattractive antics of the far right. And whatever weaknesses and flaws you may want to attribute to liberalism will manifest more quickly and more broadly because of people like the OP.

It's happening by comparison.
.

No...what you are seeing is 12-16 years of indoctrination of our young people into the failed belief in modern left wing liberalism/progressivism/regressivism..........the government schools....controlled by the left wing education branch of the democrat party uses those 12-16 years to teach a failed system.......and then you guys say ......see.....people don't like conservatism......

Give us 12-16 years of unfettered access to teach about liberty, individual rights and responsibilities, limited government, checks and balances....and free markets....and we would have the wealthiest, healthiest and most powerful country in the world.......

But we have a 5th column of lefty nuts who have taken over education, the government bureacracies, journalism and entertainment......and they still can't completely control the country....

Why would liberals be able to exercise dictatorial control over public education when in fact the governing structure of public education at every level is

by ELECTED officials, or by people appointed or hired by elected officials?

Don't conservatives vote?

 

[The Great Goose]

Bah. Hand me a drink, im having sex

Does your wife or husband know?

Sometimes, i dont believe i know you, 2aguy.