Why do people hate Liberals?

[Spoonman]

Crisis? What Crisis?

 

[Foxfyre]

The problem comes in trying to push competing political ideologies into 'sides' along one dimension. The Nolan chart does a much better job of mapping the different ideologies of current parties and leaders, but all such mappings are artificial at best.

The latest split over the NSA spying (witnessed most measurably in the recent vote on Justin Amash's amendment) shows a more meaningful divide - in my view - between authoritarians and libertarians in both parties.

I have to object here. The Nolan chart is useless in mapping American ideologies. Look at it:

Can you look at a George Zimmerman, the debates over gun control, the ruthless application of political correctness, the demands that the haves support the have nots to a greater extent, the demands that private corporations, say insurance companies, include contraceptives in their coverage at no additional cost to the policy holder, etc. and say that the liberal/statist is for more personal or economic freedom?

Now libertarians and conservatives, as I define those terms in America in modern times, definitely are for both more personal and economic freedom.

And this one gets it wrong almost as badly:

Both of those seem far less wrong than the utter ambiguity of six different custom definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'. If we're just arguing over who gets to control definitions, I'll bow out. That's an important debate, but not very interesting. I'd rather look at just what different groups and agendas represent in terms of ideology.

I have no desire to control definitions. I have simply begged that we agree on them so that we know who and what we are referring to when we use the term 'liberal' or 'conservative'.

 

[RKMBrown]

I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.

However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.

Fox I know you don't get it. But I'll try again nonetheless.

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that forces people into a grand social contract such as social security is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract.

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act. It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME. Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs forced slavery and I find that really odd.

 

[thanatos144]

To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.

What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH. We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that which we fear." We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east. I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders. Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism. Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.

Do those tin foil hats come in adult sizes to?

 

[thanatos144]

I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.

However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.

Fox I know you don't get it. But I'll try again nonetheless.

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that forces people into a grand social contract such as social security is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract.

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act. It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME. Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.

we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want

 

[Foxfyre]

I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.

However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.

Fox I know you don't get it. But I'll try again nonetheless.

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that forces people into a grand social contract such as social security is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract.

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act. It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME. Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.

And once more it is YOU who doesn't get it. Social contract does not take people's liberties away and it does not involve government at all UNTIL the people have put together the social contract.

Social security is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Affirmative action is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Obamacare is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Dictates and edicts from government of ANY kind are NOT social contract.

But a group of people voluntarily combining their resources for mutual benefit and putting ordinances into place such as a neighborhood association or a volunteer fire district or a shared water or sewer system or a school IS social contract and is the intended unalienable right of people to do according to the Founders.

Social contract is a dictate or edict from a group of people of like minds and for mutual benefit for government to enforce or implement

The Founders intended we the people to tell the government what it will do and what it cannot do. THAT is social contract.

The government dictating to the people what they can and cannot do and what they will be required to do is not.

And bringing that into the thread topic, it is the American liberals, progressives, leftists, statists, political class who want very little social contract to be allowed and who want a whole lot of authoritarian federal government with power to order whatever society they think they want.

It is the American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals who want the concept of social contract restored and the federal government pared back to its original intent.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

To not bend over and kiss terrorists ass like Obama and Paul does not make one a war hawk.

What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH. We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that which we fear." We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east. I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders. Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism. Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.

Do those tin foil hats come in adult sizes to?

What part of my post confused you?

 

[RKMBrown]

I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.

However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.

Fox I know you don't get it. But I'll try again nonetheless.

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that forces people into a grand social contract such as social security is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract.

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act. It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME. Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.

we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want

What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power? I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.

 

[dblack]

What terrorists? Osama was a CIA Agent. All we needed to do was put a friggin lock on the airplane cockpits. DUH. We did not need to spend trillions of dollars fighting a war on "that which we fear." We are chasing ghosts in the deserts of the middle east. I've seen no evidence that Newt is of the belief of small government and using our military primarily to defend our boarders. Newt appears to me to have bought into the Neo-Con vision of colonialism. Obama got elected based in part on his stating he would end it. He left it there and made it worse, I can only surmise, because he has no balls.

Do those tin foil hats come in adult sizes to?

What part of my post confused you?

The words longer than six letters.

 

[rightwinger]

I am about as far from an authoritarian re big government as it gets short of anarchy.

However because I support the concept of social contract, and you would deny me what I consider to be an unalienable right in that regard, you would be the authoritarian in the Libertarian (big "L") view that you hold on that.

Fox I know you don't get it. But I'll try again nonetheless.

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that forces people into a grand social contract such as social security is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract.

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act. It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME. Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs forced slavery and I find that really odd.

In what bizarre world do people get to choose which government programs apply to them?
Do you get to choose whether your tax dollars pay for a war you don't believe in? Do you get to choose whether you should have to pay for police protection? and you choose which roads your taxes pay for?

Social Security is still around because it is immensely popular with the voting public. So much so that candidates can kiss their chances of getting elected goodbye if they try to cut it

Your references to forced slavery are insulting to not only yourself but all Americans.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox I know you don't get it. But I'll try again nonetheless.

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that forces people into a grand social contract such as social security is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract.

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act. It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME. Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.

we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want

What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power? I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.

Again, social security is not social contract.
Medicare is not social contract.

A group of people organizing a savings and loan coop or pooling their resources in an investment IS social contract.

A group of people voluntarily pooling their resources to lure a doctor into the community or forming a group to share insurance costs IS social contract.

 

[RKMBrown]

Social contract does not take people's liberties away and it does not involve government at all UNTIL the people have put together the social contract.

Social security is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Affirmative action is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Obamacare is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Dictates and edicts from government of ANY kind are NOT social contract.

But a group of people voluntarily combining their resources for mutual benefit and putting ordinances into place such as a neighborhood association or a volunteer fire district or a shared water or sewer system or a school IS social contract and is the intended unalienable right of people to do according to the Founders.

Social contract is a dictate or edict from a group of people of like minds and for mutual benefit for government to enforce or implement

The Founders intended we the people to tell the government what it will do and what it cannot do. THAT is social contract.

The government dictating to the people what they can and cannot do and what they will be required to do is not.

And bringing that into the thread topic, it is the American liberals, progressives, leftists, statists, political class who want very little social contract to be allowed and who want a whole lot of authoritarian federal government with power to order whatever society they think they want.

It is the American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals who want the concept of social contract restored and the federal government pared back to its original intent.

.

>>> Social contract does not take people's liberties away and it does not involve government at all UNTIL the people have put together the social contract.

That's a lie promulgated by the tyrants of the majority.

>> Social security is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

What is the difference? Are you going senile? First you say you are all for social contracts like social security. Then you say you are not authoritarian. Then you say agree SS is an authoritarian dictate. And this circle of contradiction makes sense to you?

>> Affirmative action is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Ok...

>>> Obamacare is NOT social contract. It is an authoritarian dictate of government.

Ok...

>>> Dictates and edicts from government of ANY kind are NOT social contract.

Then you are just playing with words. SS and medicare have been called the grand social contracts of our day. I'm not making it up.

>>> But a group of people voluntarily combining their resources for mutual benefit and putting ordinances into place such as a neighborhood association or a volunteer fire district or a shared water or sewer system or a school IS social contract and is the intended unalienable right of people to do according to the Founders.

Agreed.

>> Social contract is a dictate or edict from a group of people of like minds and for mutual benefit for government to enforce or implement

And how is that not what SS is? Make up your mind. Is voluntary agreement necessary or not?

>>> The Founders intended we the people to tell the government what it will do and what it cannot do. THAT is social contract.

No that is your opinion of a goal of a small group of people.

>>> The government dictating to the people what they can and cannot do and what they will be required to do is not.

Point?

>>> And bringing that into the thread topic, it is the American liberals, progressives, leftists, statists, political class who want very little social contract to be allowed and who want a whole lot of authoritarian federal government with power to order whatever society they think they want.

Then you and I are in violent agreement and you are just mincing words?

>>> It is the American conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals who want the concept of social contract restored and the federal government pared back to its original intent.

You appear to ascribe the term "social contract" as some form of altruistic libertarian and/or classical liberal ideal. You may be confusing the broad term "social contract" with the piece of paper we like to call the constitution.

 

[Intense]

This discussion does not belong in Philosophy. i.e. 'The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.'

"The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible sense of the term hang together in the broadest possible sense of the term." Wilfrid Sellars

The discussion is heated, and side tracked, yet it is rooted in the judgement of Liberal Philosophy. The direction the thread takes is in the hands of the participants. It is a philosophical discussion.

My take, personally, would be to distinguish between true Liberalism, which I have zero problem with, and Statist Progressivism, which I find Totalitarian. The Statist Utopia is a Paradise for the ruling class, and the connected. It is Hell on Earth, for the rest.

The thread should rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them. Then they wonder why they get nowhere.

"Why do people hate liberals"? Because the man in the box tells them to. What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means. That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box. His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate. You're not supposed to ask "why". Ignorance is Strength.

The thread should rooted in philosophy, but most seem to want to continue to pollute the discussion with the same-old hackneyed bullshit terms, hanging on to them for dear life rather than dare to ever question them. Then they wonder why they get nowhere.

You mean like stuff like this?


"Why do people hate liberals"? Because the man in the box tells them to. What the man in the box doesn't tell them is what 'liberal' means. That would be too much like understanding, and understanding is definitely not the objective of the man in the box. His objective is getting you to engage you in the Two Minutes Hate. You're not supposed to ask "why". Ignorance is Strength.

As Individual Liberty is attacked and eroded away, this is your big concern? Freedom of Speech is an important tool, as much for the listener as for the speaker. You might want to consider that. Personally, I find those most offended by speech, and ideas, not their own, are out of balance. Life is about more than controlling others and bending them to anyone's will. Witness, and bearing witness of what you see, is both a developed skill, and an obligation to conscience, at the least.

No construct is of more value, than the principle purpose it was created to preserve.

The point about the thread being rooted in Liberal Philosophy was in relation to the forum it is located in, and why.

 

[Foxfyre]

RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted. And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law. They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.

That is NOT social contract.

Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote. Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department. Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program. But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.

Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.

 

[freedombecki]

Historical amnesia...

Jackie Kennedy was hounded by conservatives for her extravagant spending in refurbishing the White House

Harry Truman had the White House completely gutted and rebuilt from the inside out

Imagine the outrage if the Obamas did that......they can't even take a freaking vacation

Huh? This administration when not out to a double lobster lunch is on permanent vacation from accountability!

Save us your childish nonsense and show the nice people how Obama has taken more vacation than previous Presidents

What? Obama worry?

 

[thanatos144]

Fox I know you don't get it. But I'll try again nonetheless.

Authorizing and/or agreeing with a government program that forces people into a grand social contract such as social security is an act of force against the peoples' right to choose to not engage in your grand social contract.

Forced social contracts are authoritarian.

Liberty does not include the right to take other people's liberties away from them. Why is that concept so hard for "some" people to understand?

My defense from YOUR attack on my finances is not an authoritarian act. It is not an authoritarian act because YOU DON'T OWN ME. Excuse my caps but you seem like an intelligent sort but don't seem to get the concept of liberty vs force slavery and I find really odd.

we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want

What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power? I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.

Do you know whats sad??? Is you and dblack dont even realize you guys try to force your brand of fascism IE liberalism on the rest of us....Most of us are quite content with having the power to shape our government as we need it not as YOU DEMAND we have it.... You guys are very progressive in your attitude. When a opinion is stated you guys ether twist and spin what was said or you personally attack.... The personally attacking thing doesn't bother me cause I do it right back...Libertarians today are no better them democrats in almost all fashion except taxes...You want complete freedom to do what you want with out having consequences and refuse to pay for those that happen. It is like children demanding a new toy but refusing to work for it.

 

[RKMBrown]

RKMbrown, I have known quite a few folks who were adults at the time social security was enacted. And not one single one of them was even advised, much less consulted and asked for imput and consent, before social security was enacted into law. They were required to participate by an edict of government and not through any voluntary decision of their own.

That is NOT social contract.

Social contract can be the people of a city or state voting on a referendum that will become law IF there is a majority vote. Or it can be a community organizing a volunteer fire department. Or it can be a neighborhood organizing a neighborhood watch program. But it is the people themselves mutually deciding what will and will not be of benefit to them and not government deciding that for them.

Now you seem to be unable to distinguish the difference between those two things, and I write this purely for the education of the few who do have the capacity to understand the difference between those two things.

You are quibbling over terms. As if the "contract" of "social security" is not a "social contract."

Why do you think you own the right to define the term "social contract?"

From websters:

Social Contract: an actual or hypothetical agreement among the members of an organized society or between a community and its ruler that defines and limits the rights and duties of each.

No mention of authorization. No mention of "vote."

Yes fire departments are funded and operate under a social contract.

SS is an insurance program managed by the US government by State and Federal Agencies under a different social contract.

 

[RKMBrown]

we are a Republic not a fascist anarchy that you seem to want

What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power? I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.

Do you know whats sad??? Is you and dblack dont even realize you guys try to force your brand of fascism IE liberalism on the rest of us....Most of us are quite content with having the power to shape our government as we need it not as YOU DEMAND we have it.... You guys are very progressive in your attitude. When a opinion is stated you guys ether twist and spin what was said or you personally attack.... The personally attacking thing doesn't bother me cause I do it right back...Libertarians today are no better them democrats in almost all fashion except taxes...You want complete freedom to do what you want with out having consequences and refuse to pay for those that happen. It is like children demanding a new toy but refusing to work for it.

I want the freedom to do what I want, yes. I'll be responsible for my own decisions. I work and have never taken a dime of welfare from this authoritarian government. I don't want you to pay for any consequences of my decisions. I mean this will all respect, you are a dirt bag liar, screw you ass hole.

 

[thanatos144]

What does the grand social contracts of social security and medicare have to do with separation of federal and state power? I'm all for returning this nation back to a republic.

Do you know whats sad??? Is you and dblack dont even realize you guys try to force your brand of fascism IE liberalism on the rest of us....Most of us are quite content with having the power to shape our government as we need it not as YOU DEMAND we have it.... You guys are very progressive in your attitude. When a opinion is stated you guys ether twist and spin what was said or you personally attack.... The personally attacking thing doesn't bother me cause I do it right back...Libertarians today are no better them democrats in almost all fashion except taxes...You want complete freedom to do what you want with out having consequences and refuse to pay for those that happen. It is like children demanding a new toy but refusing to work for it.

I want the freedom to do what I want, yes. I'll be responsible for my own decisions. I work and have never taken a dime of welfare from this authoritarian government. I don't want you to pay for any consequences of my decisions. I mean this will all respect, you are a dirt bag liar, screw you ass hole.

Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh bullshit. You wouldn't even hold yourself responsible when your actions harm others. Or did you think people made laws just to inconvenience you?

How have my actions harmed others? What laws are you talking about? What do laws protecting people from assholes like you have to do with STEALING MY PAYCHECK TO PAY YOU TO SIT AROUND ON YOUR ASS? Is that your "philosophy?" Do nothing and live off the labors of others?