so for no-liberal minded people...

[Ardentfrost]

Well, the problem is you can't educate all people equally or in the same way. I obviously don't have the secret yet because eventhough certain liberal friends of mine and myself can have good conversations about what to do about immigration problems or gay marriage or whatever else, I have a hard time convincing them where the economic problems exist in our government. Well, let me rephrase, they see there are problems where I see there are problems, but we come to different conclusions, as previously mentioned. I always thought I was good at explaining things, but this is something I have yet to be able to overcome: the anti-corporation economics indoctrinated into our generation.

So, I have no answer... I just keep trying I recognize when ones are close to the fence, and I know when ones are hopelessly lost into accepting socialism. So that affects whether or not I bother seeing if certain people can admit that perhaps what they have come to accept through liberalism MIGHT not be the right way to go or not.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I think MOST liberals are liberal for good-hearted reasons. One guy I know is all about the less fortunate. That is the REASON he is a liberal.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I think that's fine: to want to help people. But it's the methods that get me. The guy I mentioned before thinks that a socialist government that dabbles in every part of people's lives is completely ok as long as people are being helped. He even admits (when I prod him about it) that the government is notoriously inefficient at helping people (and doing other things it promises), but he is ok with that.

Now, he's an exception I think. Most liberals will admit the CURRENT government is inefficient and often hurts more than it helps, but thinks that giving it more power, not less, is the answer.

Now, to me that is insanity. How can you look at how the increasing power of the government correlates with it's ineffieciency and not come to the conclusion that further increasing power only creates more ineffieciency? To admit that and be ok with it is one thing, but to refuse to even see that seems crazy.

And it's that crazy that most of my liberal friends are. They buy into the "corporations are evil" thing so much, they refuse to believe that there is any chance that corporations can be good.

But again, I don't hate liberals. I think they can be taught economics enough so that they'll want to reduce taxes instead of increasing them. And when a liberal is exposed to more sensical economics (as opposed to the crazy shit that is accepted), I think the next logical step is libertarianism. It's a lot harder to convince a conservative republican that gay people are ok (which is a personal and/or religious preference) than to show a liberal good economics (which is math)... liberals are supposed to be the smarter ones anyway, right?

What is a corporation? It is organized economic activity on a large scale. And it can be subject to corruption and greed and stupidity just like any other human endeavour. But somehow as if by magic liberals can't see these same problems with government as long as people of like minds are in charge. Yes, the majority have good intentions, but the people they support in positions of power often do not. And even with the best of intentions there are so many things the Federal government cannot do well and should not do. It is hard for both parties to admit that these days. But to the liberals it is even harder.

[Ardentfrost]

Well, that's what I often point out... that they don't trust corporations because they supposedly look out for themselves more than the people, but the government does the same thing. Not only that, but corporations and the government being able to scratch each other's back creates all the corruption they hate so much.... and the more powerful the government is, the more they are able to scratch the backs of corporations who, in turn, are able to scratch the politicians' backs more.

It's a downward spiral.

[SICKGUY]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

And it's that crazy that most of my liberal friends are. They buy into the "corporations are evil" thing so much, they refuse to believe that there is any chance that corporations can be good.

i remember reading this ad on craigslist, and this chick was like "you must hate wal-mart and understand why" wtf? wal-mart is annoying, but its not because of their business practices. the place just get me in a bad mood. its too crowded, and atleast the ones near me, they are full of the sleaziest people around. thats beside the point though. to base making friends on something so lame, its just stupid and childish.

i get really annoyed with people that wear being a liberal (or whatever they are into) on their sleeve. the assholes that are more posers than real thinkers. they are like the atheists that try to bait arguments over religion, just to be dicks and pretend they know something others dont. i honestly dont care what im labeled as. i sort of just see the world as it is to me. i do my best to not be a follower and always try to see all sides of arguments. you can go back on any of my post from LL and OT, and you will never see an opinion thats not genuine. i would never spit an opinion that i felt was a popular one among other liberals if it wasnt what i felt personally.

also, its not like i ever went out to be a liberal, its just how i think. its not really like i made a decision one day, its just the environment and people i have been exposed to in my life. its hard to explain, and most people think its bullshit, but this country really can be different when youre a minority. growing up, the democratic party were the ones that seemed to care about us. most conservative kind of thinking sort of clashes with the lower class in this country. if youre in a mexican family living in a lower class area, the republican party is not looking out for you.

this post sort of went all over.

[Ardentfrost]

Well, it's good that you come to your own conclusions and have your own ideas. As long as you think about it and have reasons for stuff, that's respectable.

But we all have to fight stereotypes. If your conclusions align you with liberalism, you've gotta just deal with people assigning you that stigma. Same with my views aligning me with libertarianism. When there's an issue I don't have an opinion on yet, I don't go rush off to lp.org to see what i should think. I think about it, read various things, and come to my own conclusions.

A good recent example of this is the immigrant thing. A year ago I had little to no opinion on immigrants. I thought they should probably try to speak english, but I know I wasn't going to support the police going to their houses and forcing them to speak english. Then with all the stuff that happened in the past year, I started to become more and more opinionated on the issue. As I often do, I looked at things from an economic and historical standpoint, and so my opinions became more clear (then I do what I normally do, I test my opinions out on forums such as these to see if it's good or not). After all that, I did look around and see what other libertarians thought about the issue, and found that it's one of those things where there are many opinions in the party... I still think mine is the best though

The point is, free thinking isn't the same as sack riding. Plus, if you come to your own conclusions and do your own research, then you can deal with opposing opinions better, and can even have your mind changed instead of thinking "well, the republicans/democrats/etc.. say it's this way, so that must be right because I am one of them."

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by SICKGUY

what exactly about liberals do you dislike?

The problem is the "Great Liberal Hypocrisy"

Liberals in general want the government to re-distribute wealth in favor of the poor, but when it comes to doing the giving, they end up giving much less. In other words, they want to help the poor, but they want to use the power of the government to make sure it is others who help the poor, not themselves.

This has been documented over and over. The latest study and book on the subject is this: Who Really Cares • Arthur C. Brooks

here are the chapters and arguments:

(Ch. 1) Conservatives give more money to charities than liberals.
(Ch. 2) Religion is involved, even accounting for more giving to secular institutions.
(Ch. 3) Redistributionists are less generous personally than anti-redistributionists.
(Ch. 4) Government intervention (including welfare) suppresses giving.
(Ch. 5) Families with children are more generous and that patterns of giving are taught to children.
(Ch. 6) Generally, Americans are more generous than people in other countries, in donating both money and time.
(Ch.7) Charity has great benefits for the giver (or as the chapter is extravagantly titled: “Charity Makes You Healthy, Happy, and Rich”).
(Ch.8) Charity can be encouraged, and should be encouraged, by better laws, policies, and practices.
(Appendix)The book ends with a 24 page appendix summarizing the main databases used and providing tables showing some of Brooks’ regression and probit analyses.

I think it is indefensible to demand the government take other people's money and give it to the poor when you refuse to first do so yourself. For this reason alone, I can't stand liberals. The rest of the stuff they believe in is based on fair differences of opinion that I don't have a big problem with.

[Thomas Crown]

I'll make a list:
1. Telling me how I can spend my money.
2. Entitlement attitude.
3. Minority rules (i.e.; doing things for the minority at the detriment of the majority)
4. Apologist attitude (i.e.; crime isn't ones individual responsibility, it is society that drove them to crime)
5. Punishing those that work hard by taxing them more so that those who do not want to work don't have to.
6. Treating the religious like they are all involved in a mass hallucination and that they are all stupid.
7. Caring less about security and strength than about being politically correct.
8. Political correctness.

There are many more reasons, but this is just a few.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Conservatives have been working on taking things that aren't physical though, like freedoms. What's worse, a tax or a loss of freedom?

but that's not what this thread is about. Threadjacking should be covered under the patriot act!

[ballz2wallz]

I disagree with their line of thinking. It's too often emotionally-driven, illogical, and lacks reasoning. It frequently takes a myopic view of issues, assuming they are independent of each other. I believe that everything is a part of a bigger and more complicated issue, but they often make decisions without understanding anything else beyond the issue at hand. Take, for example, Wal-mart.

It fits well with the old saying 'if you're not liberal when you're young you don't have a heart, and if you're not conservative when you're old you don't have a brain'.

I, for one, greatly dislike their thinking they know how to better live my life than I do.

[TheScatman]

Them using the state to attain what some joke as "cosmic social justice". Can only happen through natural change and the free market. see: affirmative action, welfare state and anti-discrimination laws.

as for socially, I agree with them to a large extent that government should get out of our personal lives but I probably differ on whether certain things are morally wrong (in a personal not political sense)

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I disagree with their line of thinking. It's too often emotionally-driven, illogical, and lacks reasoning. It frequently takes a myopic view of issues, assuming they are independent of each other. I believe that everything is a part of a bigger and more complicated issue, but they often make decisions without understanding anything else beyond the issue at hand. Take, for example, Wal-mart.

It fits well with the old saying 'if you're not liberal when you're young you don't have a heart, and if you're not conservative when you're old you don't have a brain'.

I, for one, greatly dislike their thinking they know how to better live my life than I do.

what about so called "conservatives" (who are really facists if you asked Goldwater) telling people whether they can buy birth control, use drugs, and who they can contract with (marriage)?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

what about so called "conservatives" (who are really facists if you asked Goldwater) telling people whether they can buy birth control, use drugs, and who they can contract with (marriage)?

Hard drugs dont just affect the user. They affect his family, his neighborhood, his work, etc....

Late 1800s, society lost control and the masses were drunks and drug addicts. Society starts to fall apart if no one is working, no one is taking care of their kids.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Hard drugs dont just affect the user. They affect his family, his neighborhood, his work, etc....

Late 1800s, society lost control and the masses were drunks and drug addicts. Society starts to fall apart if no one is working, no one is taking care of their kids.

Even if that late 1800's part was true, which it isn't, prohibition was not the answer, if you recall.

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Hard drugs dont just affect the user. They affect his family, his neighborhood, his work, etc....

Late 1800s, society lost control and the masses were drunks and drug addicts. Society starts to fall apart if no one is working, no one is taking care of their kids.

i'd like to see proof that in the late 1800's that was the case. if anything, books have shown prohibition has caused drug potency to increase (since sentencing is usually done by weight, dealers want to get the most money for the weight they transport).

And again, if you want to cop out and claim "neighborhood effects" you better be willing to support the entire welfare state, because one can always claim that poverty or poor health care "effects others".

[TheScatman]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Even if that late 1800's part was true, which it isn't, prohibition was not the answer, if you recall.

you'd think with what a complete failure the war on drugs is and prohibition was, that drug warriors would finally give up

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by TheScatman

you'd think with what a complete failure the war on drugs is and prohibition was, that drug warriors would finally give up

No, the answer is obvviously to give them more power! duh!

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Even if that late 1800's part was true, which it isn't, prohibition was not the answer, if you recall.

And no control on hard drugs isnt the answer either.


They gave out herion to alcoholics because the medical opinion was hey at least a herion addict wont beat up his wife or kids.



Prohibition leads to problems but dont act like free access is ok. We have enough problems today with alcohol abuse and that is a relatively light drug.

you'd think with what a complete failure the war on drugs is and prohibition was, that drug warriors would finally give up

War on drugs is a failure and a horrible destruction of personal liberties. But there is are steps between War on Drugs and selling herion at 7/11 to 15 year olds.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thomas Crown

I'll make a list:
1. Telling me how I can spend my money.
2. Entitlement attitude.
3. Minority rules (i.e.; doing things for the minority at the detriment of the majority)
4. Apologist attitude (i.e.; crime isn't ones individual responsibility, it is society that drove them to crime)
5. Punishing those that work hard by taxing them more so that those who do not want to work don't have to.
6. Treating the religious like they are all involved in a mass hallucination and that they are all stupid.
7. Caring less about security and strength than about being politically correct.
8. Political correctness.

There are many more reasons, but this is just a few.

[RMNIXON]

RMNIXON from a previous thread:



The Primary difference between Liberals and Libertarians
Both believe in as much personal freedom as possible.

Only the libertarians have an equal belief in personal responcibility. Liberals have a constant tendency toward outside social and political causes for almost any behavior and try to shape that behavior to their agenda while playing lip service to free will concepts.

Both believe that power corrupts.

Only the liberal believes "they" have some special immunity while in public service. The libertarian knows this is a problem of the total human condition and therefore power should be limited and divided as much as possible in all human affairs. Liberals want as much centralized power they can get as long as "like minded" people have that power. Their academics still hold fantasies that Communism could work if only it were tried by the right kind of people! Libertarians know that any political system must work for human nature as it is, not fantasies about selfless human societies. They also understand that in a free market system our selfish tendencies can work to the advantage of most if not all people.