The Liberal Philosophy Made Clear

[Coloradomtnman]

I define liberalism as that resigned realization that government is a necessary evil.

The underpinning value of my version of liberalism is that the government can legitimately only rule only those things which it must because it can be proven that failure to do so threatens the commonweal.

My version of liberalism is that liberalism is NOT a suicide pact, therefore neither is it a set of defined rules or philosophies which must be adhered to come hell or high water.

My version of Liberalism believes that the world belongs to the living, not to an inappropriate devotion to anyone's myths about our floundering fathers, and certainly not to anyone's personal interpretation of the Constitution of the United States, either.

My concept of liberalism is that it is a modus operandi -- a way of thinking about the individual in regards to the society as a whole -- rather than a set of simple commandments.

I like that philosophy. Chock another good post up to editec. (I still can't give you anymore rep and I dole the stuff out like candy to children)

 

[Bern80]

But you see, that's arguable. There is significant peer reviewed scientific work that suggests that global warming has been accerlerating in the last 100 years. And scientists generally get their research money from many different places that are outside political influence: the NSF, state universities and colleges, etc. Not that scientists aren't fallible. But the logic is, what if global warming is accelerating? Whether we cause it or not, shouldn't we, based on the current models, attempt to slow if not halt it to avoid a lowered-quality of life?

I don't doubt it has accelerated. The data is the data. Why, is the question? I'm simply addressing the assertion that liberals are these rational beings that open minded. Look at the self professed liberals on this board. You have people like Old Rocks and Chris who can't even entertain the notion that man is not the cause of the warming trend (that appears to have ended roughly ten years ago).

Then why don't they. Yes, I know some do. But I can think of lots of examples where they don't.

This is a question of what consititutes reality? Call it 50%. Do more than 50% of major corporations treat their employees fairly or better or less than half? Look at the auto makers, they qualify as major corporations and they are in trouble arguably in large part because they treated their employees too well. The company I work for is a multi-million dollar one. In terms of benefits and pay and just plain care I KNOW the executives have for their employees, I can't complain in the least. My life's observations simply have not lead me to believe that most major corporations are in the habit of treating their employees poorly.

You also have to remember there are a lot of things that labor takes for granted. If you have any skills worth any thing at all you most likely work for someone that pays you two weeks to not work. They ultimately pay the bulk of your health care costs. The notion that even a good chunk of corporations are grossly mistreating their employees just doesn't fly.

Isn't there some kind of middle ground?

Of course, I just believe liberals have crossed it.

No system is perfect. Look at ours! I would say the liberals see more of the good in those systems and assume that conservatives have been propagandized into fearing anything associated with communism, such as socialism even though those countries' economies are hardly socialist.

Is that fear not justified? Isnt' socialism, communism, collectivism, whatever in herenlty a less free system? You ask anyone who identifies themselves as liberal and on the on the surface they will say they believe in freedom. I don't believe liberals understand or accept what freedom really means. Freedom has major downsides. A free society is one where you are free to pursue your aspirations. It also means you may fail in that pursuit and know one owes you anything if it happens. Freedom is accepting the results bad luck and/or bad decisions. It may sound nice on the surface to implement policies that eliminate life's risks, but doing so inherently requires removing freedom. I would most definately say that is something worth being afraid of. It is path that does not benefit society based on human nature. People grow by besting lifes challenges. How will society grow with policies that eliminate life's challenges? Some liberals on this board have gone so far as to state it is the OBLIGATION of your employer, no matter what the job to provide a basic standard of living for you. If your goal is x standard of living and in one society it will be provided and the other you have to work for it, what does human nature dictate most people will do?

And a liberal would contend that we should empower people TO help themselves first.

Look around this board some. That is NOT what the self professed libs are contending. As I said some have gone so far to say essentially that it is the role of your employer to take care of you. That isn't empowering.

I guess I don't understand your point in context to mine. Feel free to expound and, I hate to say, spell it out for me. My liberal bias might be clouding the view of the picture your painting.

It goes back to a free society. You are free to pursue happiness, but the essence of freedom dictates it is not garaunteed you will succeed in that pursuit. You are not entitled to happiness.

It is subjective that the belief that unborn fetuses are not human is ridiculous. That smacks of the same kind of self-righteousness that conservatives find so abhorrent in liberals.

It isn't subjective from a biological stand point at all. Are you really contending that a child is vastly biologically different 5 minutes before he/she is born?

Spending money on education never hurt.

No it doesn't, except it's the only solution you here from the left. more money, more money, more money. As if, if I give you $10 dollars your IQ will automatically shoot up 10 points. Alternatives have been offered, private schools, school choice vouchers, most of which are summarily dismissed by the left.

I personally don't know how I feel about gun control. I was an expert rifleman in the Corps, and I like venison and elk A LOT! But we do have one of the highest murder rates in the world. What do you think is the cause?

In a nutshell? People who function at a baser level of thought. I think if you answer my questions you will find out pretty quickly how you feel about. Those answers are either rationale or not. Would you be okay with government coming into your home and taking away the things you don't need? Why would you be okay with government confiscating something you have never used to unjustly hurt anyone with?

I agree with you but I don't think this takes into account the whole picture. What about the specific reasons I gave in my OP? Do you agree that large corporations and wealthy people reduce opportunity of the middle class?

No i don't. How do you believe this is being done? I thnk you need to consider how you are defining opportunity. I define it as whatever is possible, which I don't think is an unreasonable definition. How are major corporations limiting what is possible for people to achieve, or even making it more difficult?

 

[Old Rocks]

Liberalism is focused on the humane, on evidenced-based policy making, liberty to the extent that is doesn't infringe on others' rights, and environmental stewardship, among many other things.

Are you not infringing on my rights whenever you use a utencil of power, the federal government, to take from me money that I rightfully earned through my own labor in order to fascilitate what you deem in your own opinion to be good moral cause?

Are you not asking for a free lunch when you seek to avoid paying your share for the infrastructure that supports our present civilazation and way of life? Seems to me that you are seeking to be a whining parasite.

 

[Old Rocks]

Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman
But you see, that's arguable. There is significant peer reviewed scientific work that suggests that global warming has been accerlerating in the last 100 years. And scientists generally get their research money from many different places that are outside political influence: the NSF, state universities and colleges, etc. Not that scientists aren't fallible. But the logic is, what if global warming is accelerating? Whether we cause it or not, shouldn't we, based on the current models, attempt to slow if not halt it to avoid a lowered-quality of life?
............................................................
Bern;
I don't doubt it has accelerated. The data is the data. Why, is the question? I'm simply addressing the assertion that liberals are these rational beings that open minded. Look at the self professed liberals on this board. You have people like Old Rocks and Chris who can't even entertain the notion that man is not the cause of the warming trend (that appears to have ended roughly ten years ago).
.......................................................
All of the scientific societys for physicists state that the anthropogenic GHGs are the primary cause of the present warming that we are seeing. Those that study paleo-climatology state the same. But you think there has to be another cause, even though you cannot name one plausible one.

And you keep posting the fallacy that the warming ended ten years ago. Post some proof of that crap.

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

 

[Bern80]

Quote: Originally Posted by Coloradomtnman
But you see, that's arguable. There is significant peer reviewed scientific work that suggests that global warming has been accerlerating in the last 100 years. And scientists generally get their research money from many different places that are outside political influence: the NSF, state universities and colleges, etc. Not that scientists aren't fallible. But the logic is, what if global warming is accelerating? Whether we cause it or not, shouldn't we, based on the current models, attempt to slow if not halt it to avoid a lowered-quality of life?
............................................................
Bern;
I don't doubt it has accelerated. The data is the data. Why, is the question? I'm simply addressing the assertion that liberals are these rational beings that open minded. Look at the self professed liberals on this board. You have people like Old Rocks and Chris who can't even entertain the notion that man is not the cause of the warming trend (that appears to have ended roughly ten years ago).
.......................................................
All of the scientific societys for physicists state that the anthropogenic GHGs are the primary cause of the present warming that we are seeing. Those that study paleo-climatology state the same. But you think there has to be another cause, even though you cannot name one plausible one.

And you keep posting the fallacy that the warming ended ten years ago. Post some proof of that crap.

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years
ScienceDaily (Dec. 13, 2007) — The decade of 1998-2007 is the warmest on record, according to data sources obtained by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The global mean surface temperature for 2007 is currently estimated at 0.41°C/0.74°F above the 1961-1990 annual average of 14.00°C/57.20°F.

Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years

Going off on this tangent really belongs in another thread, so I'll be breif? Are you really that obtuse.

FOR GOD FUCKING SAKES THINK MAN.

That the the warmest 11 years have occurred in the last 13 years does not contradict data that the temperature increase has declined and remained virtually flat for the last 10 years. Do you not see how those two things in fact can be and probably will be mutually exclusive? If a rising curve begins to flat line OBVIOUSLY the highest points on the curve are going to be in the flat line.

This is why debating the issue with the likes of you so pointless. You are either being intentional, amazingly unobjective and obtuse or you possess the reasoning skill of a 12 year old.

 

[Sinatra]

I personally don't know how I feel about gun control. I was an expert rifleman in the Corps, and I like venison and elk A LOT! But we do have one of the highest murder rates in the world. What do you think is the cause?

_______________

Ah, yet another example of a liberal falsehood posing as truth simply because it is repeated over and over and over and over...

Are you quite certain that the United States has one of the highest murder rates in the world?