THe Liberal Mind:A Psychological Problem

[Bullypulpit]

This <a href=http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml>study</a> is a meta-analysis of some 50 years worth of accumulated data, and outlines what makes political conservatives tick. It does not brand them as mentally-ill, it does not take a judgemental stance. What scholarly, peer reviewed research does Rossiter cite?

Did you read the book?...Or just cut-and-paste the blurb from the dust-cover?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Let's look at these assertions point by point.

...his (the Liberal) agenda does not insist that the individual is the ultimate economic, social and political unit, it does not idealize individual liberty and the structure of law and order essential to it; it does not defend the basic rights of property and contract; it does not aspire to ideals of authentic autonomy and mutuality; it does not preach an ethic of self-reliance and self-determination; it does not praise courage, forbearance or resilience; it does not celebrate the ethics of consent or the blessings of voluntary cooperation.

The individual is the most fundamental unit of any society. But to assume that the primacy of the individual supercedes the needs of the society he/she lives in is mistaken. It is equally mistaken to assume that the demands of society may supercede the rights and needs of the individual. The two must exist in a state of dymnamic equilibrium.

The primacy of the idividual over society would render laws ineffective, as the individual is the ultimate arbiter of his/her fate, and laws would infringe upon the autonomy of the individual. In a society where the primacy of the individual rules, autonomy and mutality are contradictory values. Courage and resilience in pursuing one's own ends might be recognized and applauded, forebearance would be irrelevant. As for consent and voluntary co-operation, what use would they be? It would be the law of the jungle, the strongest get what they want, everyone else be damned.

It does not advocate moral rectitude or understand the critical role of morality in human relating. The liberal agenda does not comprehend an identity of competence, appreciate its importance, or analyze the developmental conditions and social institutions that promote its achievement. The liberal agenda does not understand or recognize personal sovereignty or impose strict limits on coercion by the state. It does not celebrate the genuine altruism of private charity. It does not learn history’s lessons on the evils of collectivism.

Where the primacy of the individual reigns supreme, morality would be irrelevant except where it ensures the survival of the individual, and then it would be the morality of the predator. Compentence in the acts of brutality neccessary to ensure the survival of the fittest would be the only competence relevant in such a world. There would be no real social institutions, nor any state worth the name to impose its will. Altruism would not be a trait for survival. And as for collectivism, that is the folly of the primacy of society over the individual made real.

In the end, a world where the primacy of the individual is the sacrosanct, you have anarchy. In a world where the primacy of society is the rule, you have totalitarianism. The individual is not some absolutely independent entity with absolutely inalienable rights, or defined by society as having no rights at all. Likewise, society is not simply a group of unrelated individuals, nor some absolute phenomena which imposes its will upon the individual without restriction.

And that is the beauty of the the Constituion and the Bill of Rights. It established a dynamic balance between the needs of the individual and the state. If anyone is guilty of distrubing that balance, it is the Bush administration, in the favor of the state.

 

[red states rule]

Let's look at these assertions point by point.



The individual is the most fundamental unit of any society. But to assume that the primacy of the individual supercedes the needs of the society he/she lives in is mistaken. It is equally mistaken to assume that the demands of society may supercede the rights and needs of the individual. The two must exist in a state of dymnamic equilibrium.

The primacy of the idividual over society would render laws ineffective, as the individual is the ultimate arbiter of his/her fate, and laws would infringe upon the autonomy of the individual. In a society where the primacy of the individual rules, autonomy and mutality are contradictory values. Courage and resilience in pursuing one's own ends might be recognized and applauded, forebearance would be irrelevant. As for consent and voluntary co-operation, what use would they be? It would be the law of the jungle, the strongest get what they want, everyone else be damned.



Where the primacy of the individual reigns supreme, morality would be irrelevant except where it ensures the survival of the individual, and then it would be the morality of the predator. Compentence in the acts of brutality neccessary to ensure the survival of the fittest would be the only competence relevant in such a world. There would be no real social institutions, nor any state worth the name to impose its will. Altruism would not be a trait for survival. And as for collectivism, that is the folly of the primacy of society over the individual made real.

In the end, a world where the primacy of the individual is the sacrosanct, you have anarchy. In a world where the primacy of society is the rule, you have totalitarianism. The individual is not some absolutely independent entity with absolutely inalienable rights, or defined by society as having no rights at all. Likewise, society is not simply a group of unrelated individuals, nor some absolute phenomena which imposes its will upon the individual without restriction.

And that is the beauty of the the Constituion and the Bill of Rights. It established a dynamic balance between the needs of the individual and the state. If anyone is guilty of distrubing that balance, it is the Bush administration, in the favor of the state.

No, what liberals want is for people to be dependent on government. Libs want the solution to any problem to be the government

Without people depending on government, libs would lose their power. That is why libs oppose any attempt to reform SS or to have people invest their OWN money

Libs want the producers to pay high taxes, and in turn libs will give that money to their base; thus ensuring their votes

 

[mattskramer]

No, what liberals want is for people to be dependent on government. Libs want the solution to any problem to be the government

Without people depending on government, libs would lose their power. That is why libs oppose any attempt to reform SS or to have people invest their OWN money

Libs want the producers to pay high taxes, and in turn libs will give that money to their base; thus ensuring their votes

Yawn. It is just one man’s opinion. It more closely describes extreme liberalism than it does moderate liberalism. There is probably an article somewhere defining conservatives as those who would have noting for government to do.

If there were fraud and corruption in the private sector, the buyer better beware. If you take a bad drug that kills you, you can sue the drug maker unless you are already dead. If you fall on hard times and need a hand up, there should be no government to help you. If no charity will help you, you are free to starve and die on the street. If you are too poor to get insurance and are stricken with cancer that is just too bad. Perhaps Pat Robertson will pray for you.