The inherent failure of Liberalism

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
The inherent failure of Liberalism

Notes on the right
by V. Detlef von Eck, Pol.D.
02/06/2001

Definitions of liberalism are elusive. Different liberals propose profoundly different conceptions of the liberal state. There are, however, basic values and basic assumptions that unite most reasonable liberals.

According to most liberals, the liberal state should foster and guarantee at least the basic values of plurality, freedom, rights, equality, and distributive justice. Liberals emphasize these values because they permit the individuals of the liberal state to live and act autonomously. One can almost see John Dewey’s notion of the ‘individual as an independent value and thinking center’ lurking behind the notion of liberal autonomy.

The basic values yield the following basic assumptions that unite most reasonable liberals. Thinking and living patterns of individuals must reflect a plurality of reasonable conceptions of the good life in the liberal state. The liberal state must guarantee the freedom and equality of its citizens. Equally important, the liberal state must create and maintain a just distribution of goods citizens need to pursue and sustain the various conceptions of the good life. Of course, equality in distribution demands that the liberal state maintain the right of each citizen to these goods. Furthermore, citizens of the liberal state can and should decide for themselves the conceptions of the good life and they can and should act autonomously within the private sphere of those rights.

Liberals may differ in their interpretations and emphasis of the basic values and basic assumptions. More importantly, they may differ about how the liberal state and its citizens pursue autonomy and the good life. The key to the effective liberal state is the concrete manifestation of its basic values and assumptions in its plan of action.

Egalitarian in nature, effective liberal plans rely on the voluntary or forced redistribution of wealth. In the name of the poor, the elderly, and the children, the liberal state redistributes from those who have it to those who do not. In a democratic society, liberals rely on the voting power of the masses to legislate taxation, social security, welfare and other liberal plans and programs.

Taxation and majority rule provide the muscles for all other plans and programs such as equal educational rights in the form of affirmative action or equal health care in various health programs. Liberals codify morality into a legal system. Plans and programs multiply as the liberal state grows in numbers and complexity.

It is interesting to note that the liberal state reduces almost everything to the common denominator for egalitarian purposes except religion. Religion presents an inherent threat to the liberal state because religion maintains that ultimate authority is an entity other than the liberal state or the individual citizen. Therefore, the liberal state nullifies the potential religious threat by aggressively separating religion from the liberal state.

However, the liberal state faces inherent doom in the profound evil that lurks behind the blinding facade. Like socialism and communism, liberalism cannot succeed in its utopian vision of the good life. Although reasonable liberals, as all liberals, deny the inherent and profound consequences of liberalism, the failures of socialistic and communistic states reinforce the weakness of the liberal state.

The fact is that liberal programs result in the direst consequences of creating and fostering values that ultimately destroy the liberal state. For redistribution of goods to work, the liberal state must emphasize the importance of recipients over donors. The poor and the weak shall indeed inherit the liberal state. The ultimate elimination of those who create wealth also eliminates those who most often are the economic movers and shakers of a society.

Programs such as affirmative action result in preferential treatment of one group of citizens over another based on the occurrences of past injustices. Inherent in such programs is the creation and emphasis of adversary groups that are profoundly divisive to the unity of a state. Liberal policies and programs to remedy past injustices only create new groups of victims.

Social welfare policies and programs betray the socialistic and communistic aspect of the liberal state. The total focus is on needs at the sacrifice of what is deserved. In the process, large segments of the population become wards of the liberal state. The irony of liberal egalitarianism is that policies of redistribution of wealth create an even larger class of have-nots. Void of any real sense of practicality, liberals answer with more social welfare thereby creating an even larger class of have-nots.

The irony of liberal egalitarianism is even more blatant in the educational policies and programs of the liberal state. The disproportionate emphasis on the lower achieving students at the cost of the more talented students creates and fosters acceptance of low standards. Without doubt, low educational standards and large numbers of uneducated citizens lead to the demise of any modern technological state.

The liberal focus on non-worship over worship infuriates many religious people. The liberal state subtly focuses on humanism to satisfy the spiritual needs of its citizens. There is no doubt that liberals understand well that religions such as Christianity find their seat of ultimate authority not in humanity, but in God. For people of faith, any political arrangements must include tolerance and care for the religious nature of man.

At the end of the day, the liberal state fails to ensure the good life of its citizens. The egalitarian attempts to ensure equal conditions and equal results are systemic flaws of liberalism as they are of socialism and communism.

http://www.polecatologist.us/arts/vonv20010206.htm
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
Good essay, rsr.

Liberalism's biggest failing is that it makes assumptions about human nature that aren't true. It assumes we can all be made equal. But this won't happen, because God or nature made us UNequal. It assumes we can all be made virtuous, but of course, governments cannot make people virtuous. We will be in conflict. Some are smarter than others. Men are men and women are women. Etc. A good ideology takes this into account.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
Good essay, rsr.

Liberalism's biggest failing is that it makes assumptions about human nature that aren't true. It assumes we can all be made equal. But this won't happen, because God or nature made us UNequal. It assumes we can all be made virtuous, but of course, governments cannot make people virtuous. We will be in conflict. Some are smarter than others. Men are men and women are women. Etc. A good ideology takes this into account.
Look at what liberalism has in store for all of us. On 3/29 Dems passed a $400 bilion tax increase

Even an elderly couple will take it up the ass if these nuts get their way
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Good essay, rsr.
it would have been good if RSR had written it.... as it is, it is just another bit of bit in the mounting pile of evidence that RSR isn't really a human being at all, but rather a poorly programmed conservative newsbot.

I wish he would prove me wrong by actually answering questions now and then.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Look at what liberalism has in store for all of us. On 3/29 Dems passed a $400 bilion tax increase

Even an elderly couple will take it up the ass if these nuts get their way
any luck in finding that bill that raises the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15%?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
it would have been good if RSR had written it.... as it is, it is just another bit of bit in the mounting pile of evidence that RSR isn't really a human being at all, but rather a poorly programmed conservative newsbot.

I wish he would prove me wrong by actually answering questions now and then.
The truth is something you would not recognize if it came up and bit you on your wrinkled ass

Nice to know you want to take more of everyones money no matter if they are single, married, with or without kids, or retired
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
The truth is something you would not recognize if it came up and bit you on your wrinkled ass

Nice to know you want to take more of everyones money no matter if they are single, married, with or without kids, or retired
editorials aren't facts.

you really need to understand the difference.


any luck on that link to the bill?


did you even TRY Thomas, or do you not know how to use it?
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
editorials aren't facts.

you really need to understand the difference.


any luck on that link to the bill?


did you even TRY Thomas, or do you not know how to use it?
I know you will not believe the AP. It is the most under reported story I have ever NOT read, but I found this.

Using your "logic", if you were on the Titantic you would not believe the ship was sinking until the iceberg that the ship hit could be produced


It is the most under reported story I have ever NOT read, but I found this.

LOL, a Federal budget of nearly $3 trillion and libs whine it is NOT enough!


House Approves Democratic Budget Plan
Thursday March 29, 3:14 pm ET
By Andrew Taylor, Associated Press Writer
House Approves Democratic Budget Plan; Measure Boasts Surplus if Bush's Tax Cuts Expire


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House Thursday narrowly passed a $2.9 trillion Democratic budget blueprint predicting a big surplus in five years but relying on the expiration of tax cuts to do so.
The 216-210 vote sets up negotiations with the Senate, which last week passed a budget blueprint with similarly large spending increases for education, defense, homeland security and veterans programs.

The measure comes in response to Democratic complaints that Bush has shortchanged domestic programs funded each year by appropriations bills -- including education, health research and grants to local governments -- while awarding deficit-boosting tax cuts tilted toward the affluent.

Democrats said the $2.9 trillion plan for next year would point the way to a surplus after years of red ink under Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress. Republicans said that $153 billion surplus in 2012 would appear only if tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003 expire in four years -- amounting to the "largest tax increase in American history."

The future of the Bush tax cuts will likely be decided after the 2008 presidential election. While in the majority, congressional Republicans never held votes to make all of them permanent, despite Bush's annual calls to do so.

Bush huddled with House Republicans at the White House, saying afterward: "We spent time talking today about our strong belief that we've got to keep taxes low. "

The Democratic budget received brickbats from Republicans because it would produce a $153 billion surplus in 2012 only by assuming tax cuts enacted during Bush's first term expire. Those tax cuts include lowered rates on income, investments and large estates, as well as breaks for married couples and people with children.

At the same time, the plan awards domestic agencies, on average, budget increases of 6 percent over current levels, far the less than the less than 1 percent increases recommended by Bush.

Congress' annual debate on the budget is guided by an arcane process in which a nonbinding budget resolution sets the stage for subsequent bills affecting taxes and benefit programs such as Medicare, as well as the annual appropriations bills.

In most years, Congress leaves alone difficult budget issues such as the unsustainable growth in benefit programs such as Medicare and simply focuses on the 12 annual bills funding the budgets of Cabinet agencies such as Defense, Education and Agriculture.

This year is likely to be such a stand-pat year. Decisions on the fate of the Bush tax cuts are expected to wait until after next year's presidential election.

Extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would cost about $250 billion in 2012 alone, which would balloon to $389 billion after accounting for extending other tax cuts and adjusting the alternative minimum tax so that it does not ensnare more than 20 million additional middle class taxpayers.

Democratic leaders view passing a congressional budget plan as a key test of their ability to govern. The GOP-controlled Congress failed to pass a budget last year, which fouled up passage of the annual spending bills lawmakers pass each year.

The Democratic budget blueprint calls for a nearly $25 billion increase next year for domestic programs popular with lawmakers in both parties, approving Bush's record $50 billion budget increase for the Pentagon's non-war budget and $145 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year.

Those spending boosts would cause the deficit to rise from $209 billion this year to $241 billion in 2009 before increased revenues from the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts rapidly generate a surplus.

The rival Senate plan contains would fail to generate surpluses since it dedicates $180 billion to extending several of the most popular tax cuts due to expire at the end of 2010.

One of the most important features of the Democratic budget plan is to require lawmakers seeking to cut taxes or boost benefit programs -- such as Medicare, children's health care or farm subsidies -- to "pay for" the changes with tax increases or offsetting spending cuts.

That rule would greatly complicate efforts later this year to boost funding for a popular health insurance program for poor children.

Democrats opted to put off politically painful decisions on shoring up the finances of Medicare and Social Security.

Republicans countered with an alternative plan cutting $279 billion from federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid over the next five years -- far greater cuts than proposed by Bush in February.

The plan, authored by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, top Republican on the budget panel, would fully extend the 2001 and 2003 rounds of tax cuts, at a cost of about $450 billion. But Ryan's plan lost by a sweeping 160-268 vote.

Ryan warned his colleagues that the looming retirement of the Baby Boom generation threatens to swamp the budget because of the spiraling costs of Medicare and Social Security.

"If we don't get a handle on our fiscal situation, if we don't recognize the fact that if all we do is raise taxes to balance the budget in 2012, you're going to go right back into deficits soon thereafter if we don't control spending, if we don't reform government," Ryan said.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
so...you DON'T know how to use http://thomas.loc.gov/ do you?

what a fucking loser


:badgrin:
You still deny Dems passed the biggest tax increase in the nations history - you fucking jerk?

It is twits like you that will make 08 so much easier for Republicans and make my local animal shelter $500 richer
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
You still deny Dems passed the biggest tax increase in the nations history - you fucking jerk?

It is twits like you that will make 08 so much easier for Republicans and make my local animal shelter $500 richer
All I am doing is asking you to back up your assertions that the budget bill passed by the democrats raises the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15%. You said it. Back it up. That's all. Either back it up or retract it. It really is that simple. I'll wait.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
All I am doing is asking you to back up your assertions that the budget bill passed by the democrats raises the marginal tax rate for the lowest bracket from 10 to 15%. You said it. Back it up. That's all. Either back it up or retract it. It really is that simple. I'll wait.
I have shit for brains

You are to smug and cocky to accept the reality

Libs often fall into this debate tactic- they are right and everyone else in wrong
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
and correct me if I am wrong...but when the republicans PASSED their tax cuts at the beginning of the Bush administration, did they or did they NOT include the sunset provisions that automatically repealed the tax cuts after a period of time? It would seem to me that if the republicans had not planned on the tax cuts only being a temporary stimulus to the economy, THEY would not have written the sunset provisions into the legislation in the first place.
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
I have shit for brains

You are to smug and cocky to accept the reality

Libs often fall into this debate tactic- they are right and everyone else in wrong
please provide me with the text of something other than an op-ed piece of a page from a republican congressman's website that states that the lowest bracket moves from 10 to 15%.

That is all I am asking. Just put up or shut up.

SHit...I even gave you the link to Thomas.... go USE it
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
please provide me with the text of something other than an op-ed piece of a page froma republican congressman's website that states that the lowest bracket moves from 10 to 15%.

That is all I am asking. Just put up or shut up.

SHit...I even gave you the link to Thomas.... go USE it
so you are saying the lowest wage earners did NOT get a tax cut in 2001

so if Dems voted to repeal the tax cuts so the lowest wage earners are getting it up the ass from the oh so compassionate liberals

either admit it or you shut up
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
dems are not repealing anything...they are allowing the tax cuts to sunset just exactly like the republicans planned for them to.

the adjustment of the tax rates was written into LAW by the republicans in congress and signed into law by a republican president.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
dems are not repealing anything...they are allowing the tax cuts to sunset just exactly like the republicans planned for them to.

the adjustment of the tax rates was written into LAW by the republicans in congress and signed into law by a republican president.
I look forward to the libs trying to tell single, married couples, and retired people how they did NOT raise their taxes - they just let the tax cuts expire

Republicans wrote the provision in a feeble attempt to work with Dems - this is their thanks
 

maineman

Rookie
Joined
Dec 29, 2006
Messages
13,003
Reaction score
572
Points
0
Location
guess
Republicans wrote the provision in a feeble attempt to work with Dems - this is their thanks
do you have a link to anything that would state that the sunsetting of tax cuts was put into law for that purpose? Or is that just your opinion again and you are trying to push that off as fact?

I will disagree with that opinion. I say that the republicans wrote the sunset provision into law because they firmly believed that the tax cuts were only a temporary economic stimulus and not good long term economic policy.

Prove me wrong.
 
OP
red states rule

red states rule

Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2006
Messages
16,011
Reaction score
573
Points
48
do you have a link to anything that would state that the sunsetting of tax cuts was put into law for that purpose? Or is that just your opinion again and you are trying to push that off as fact?

I will disagree with that opinion. I say that the republicans wrote the sunset provision into law because they firmly believed that the tax cuts were only a temporary economic stimulus and not good long term economic policy.

Prove me wrong.
I posted the link on the other thread (not that you bother to read them)

Libs demanded the sunset provision or they would not vote for it. In 2001, Dems still held the Senate - that was their demand

At least libs are not letting anyone out of their rape of the American taxpayers - everyone is going to get screwed if they get their way

Tax cuts always stimulate economic growth and generate more revenue
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top