The sad fall of liberalism

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,260
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
 

Norman

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
30,477
Reaction score
14,057
Points
1,590
Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of rhetoric, not dialectic.

That's why it's always far more productive to just call them regressive morons.... which they are.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,260
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,860
Location
United States
And as if that second question wasn't example enough of just how absurd the ideology has become, the very next paragraph is a baseball bat to the head in terms of highlighting the insanity of it all.

The bankers who collude to deceive their customers, as US bankers did with the MERS mortgage system, were permitted to do so by the unwillingness of government to regulate them. The customers who were the victims of deception were essential to the production of Wall Street wealth. Why don’t libertarians recognize their role in the process, and their right to administer their own affairs?

The bankers did no such thing. Again, we see the left moving beyond nonsensical and disingenuous and on to outright lying. The bankers and investors were 100% honest in every aspect of the subprime mortgage market. Every last piece of information was fully inserted into the investment prospectuses. But nobody read the prospectuses except for Dr. Michael Burry. So he went to Wall Street and requested a new financial "product" - something called "credit default swaps" (essentially insurance to hedge against the mortgage investments). He made over $700 million because he did his job properly. Unlike lazy liberals who want to blame CEO's and banks by lying about them. Here is the entire thing documented:

 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
6,503
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Liberalism is dead you fucking windbag.

the only proof anyone needs is the fact no liberal made a run for Ofc in the dnc.




well, none that anyone can name w/o google.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,260
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Liberalism is dead you fucking windbag.

the only proof anyone needs is the fact no liberal made a run for Ofc in the dnc.


well, none that anyone can name w/o google.
Who are you talking to and why are you swearing at them? So far, every post in this thread is in agreement.
 

ThoughtCrimes

Old Navy Vet
Joined
Jun 25, 2012
Messages
4,126
Reaction score
875
Points
245
Location
Desert Southwest
Damn, but this is priceless!

The title of the OP is "The sad fall of liberalism". Then the originator of the OP cites and article, "11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites".

Generally speaking, liberals and liberalism are political schools of thought left of center in the political spectrum. Whereas libertarianism and Libertarians are to the right of center in the political spectrum. So why is the Article cited and quoted about Libertarians, and the narrative of the OP about liberalism and interchanging the terms liberal and libertarian?

It must be obvious that the person starting this thread doesn't know the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. That would be like grouping Martian Luther King, John Kennedy and President Obama with Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises and Ann Coulter as partners in solidarity of political thought.

Bottom line is that the OP is an EPIC FAIL!
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
6,503
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Liberalism is dead you fucking windbag.

the only proof anyone needs is the fact no liberal made a run for Ofc in the dnc.


well, none that anyone can name w/o google.
Who are you talking to and why are you swearing at them? So far, every post in this thread is in agreement.
blow me, its my day off and the rum is always gone.

plus your op was way to long


fucking wind bag


:D
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,260
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Damn, but this is priceless!

The title of the OP is "The sad fall of liberalism". Then the originator of the OP cites and article, "11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites".

Generally speaking, liberals and liberalism are political schools of thought left of center in the political spectrum. Whereas libertarianism and Libertarians are to the right of center in the political spectrum. So why is the Article cited and quoted about Libertarians, and the narrative of the OP about liberalism and interchanging the terms liberal and libertarian?

It must be obvious that the person starting this thread doesn't know the difference between a liberal and a libertarian. That would be like grouping Martian Luther King, John Kennedy and President Obama with Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises and Ann Coulter as partners in solidarity of political thought.

Bottom line is that the OP is an EPIC FAIL!
There is no "interchanging". The article name is irrelevant. The content and the fact that it was written by LIBERALS is what matters. Of course, we've already established your reading comprehension problem so none of us are surprised by the fact that your too lazy to read (and too stupid to understand) the article or my post.
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
54,260
Reaction score
7,062
Points
1,860
Location
United States
Liberalism is dead you fucking windbag.

the only proof anyone needs is the fact no liberal made a run for Ofc in the dnc.


well, none that anyone can name w/o google.
Who are you talking to and why are you swearing at them? So far, every post in this thread is in agreement.
blow me, its my day off and the rum is always gone.

plus your op was way to long

fucking wind bag

:D
That would be "your OP was way too long". But if you're that lazy to read that small post, I can't say I'm shocked by your illiteracy.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
56,675
Reaction score
14,368
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
The sad straw man fallacy that is the thread premise.
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
6,503
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Liberalism is dead you fucking windbag.

the only proof anyone needs is the fact no liberal made a run for Ofc in the dnc.


well, none that anyone can name w/o google.
Who are you talking to and why are you swearing at them? So far, every post in this thread is in agreement.
blow me, its my day off and the rum is always gone.

plus your op was way to long

fucking wind bag

:D
That would be "your OP was way too long". But if you're that lazy to read that small post, I can't say I'm shocked by your illiteracy.


and some porn for you to stroke off to
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
6,503
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
The sad straw man fallacy that is the thread premise.
shut the fuck up you useless pile of shit.

pos something with some substance for a fucking change
 

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
Republicans are more divided than ever before, the GOP is gasping for breath, and Liberalism sadly fell?



after they (Liberals) win the 2016 election remind them they hit bottom.
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
6,503
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Republicans are more divided than ever before, the GOP is gasping for breath, and Liberalism sadly fell?



after they (Liberals) win the 2016 election remind them they hit bottom.
what liberal is running for Pres?

sorry, trick question, b/c no liberal is running.



aaand proof bomb.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
Liberalism is fundamentally an ideology of rhetoric, not dialectic.

That's why it's always far more productive to just call them regressive morons.... which they are.
Please explain what you mean by, "an ideology of rhetoric not dialectic". Also, don't simply define the words, I am very familiar with them. I'd take on your second sentence, but it is as worthless a description as Islamo-fascists or compassionate conservative.
 

Siete

Platinum Member
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
34,325
Reaction score
3,973
Points
1,130
Republicans are more divided than ever before, the GOP is gasping for breath, and Liberalism sadly fell?



after they (Liberals) win the 2016 election remind them they hit bottom.
what liberal is running for Pres?

sorry, trick question, b/c no liberal is running.



aaand proof bomb.

Donald Trump is a Liberal running for POTUS.
 

Two Thumbs

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2010
Messages
38,220
Reaction score
6,503
Points
1,140
Location
Where ever I go, there I am.
Republicans are more divided than ever before, the GOP is gasping for breath, and Liberalism sadly fell?



after they (Liberals) win the 2016 election remind them they hit bottom.
what liberal is running for Pres?

sorry, trick question, b/c no liberal is running.



aaand proof bomb.

Donald Trump is a Liberal running for POTUS.
so are you voitng for him?

knowing that there are no others?

:lmao:
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
68,858
Reaction score
14,428
Points
2,180
Liberalism has been dead for decades. Now, all we have is this Marxist, limp wristed bullshit.
 

NYcarbineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
117,063
Reaction score
13,858
Points
2,210
Location
Finger Lakes, NY
Of course, there are millions of instances that could be provided to show just how far liberalism has fallen in terms of being an ideology of substance, having some integrity, honesty, etc. As it has been examined over the decades and its policies have failed so profoundly, those that subscribe to it have been forced to stoop to lower and lower measures instead of just abandoning a failed ideology. Most notably: nonsensical and disingenuous positions.

I think this is one of the many instances that are a good example. While doing some research I came across a specific section of this article hit me like a bolt of lighting for being a prime example of the nonsensical and disingenuous positions of the modern-day liberal. The article instructs its readers on questions to pose to libertarians to "defeat" them. Here was the second question in the article:

Which gets us to our next test question: Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?

Retail stores like Walmart and fast-food corporations like McDonalds cannot produce wealth without employees. Don’t those employees have the right to “coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes”—for example, in unions? You would think that free-market philosophers would encourage workers, as part of a free-market economy, to discover the market value for their services through negotiation.

Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?

Now...what is the problem with this? Well, for starters, libertarians are very open about the fact that the ideology revolves around the individual (and for the record here - I am not, nor have I ever been - a libertarian). So how is it a "gotcha" question to ask them if they support the collective??? But more importantly - how are employees banning together in the "collective" mindset to coerce a company into giving them what they want, "free-market"? It's not. At all. It's about the furthest thing from "free-market" that exists. If you were so good at your job, why would you need other people to step up and strike for you? If you were so good at your job, you could simply walk into your managers office and tell them what you want and tell them that if you didn't get it, you would leave. That is "free-market". The individual performing their talents and make a case for what their talents are worth. The last sentence in particular (highlighted in blue above) is the most absurd. Your value in the free market is completely and totally linked to you as an individual. If you decide to leave Walmart or McDonalds for a new job, does the new business accept all of your co-workers as part of the deal? Do they all come with you? Of course not.

As usual, the left - which has been annihilated on the battlefield of ideas - results to nonsensical and disingenuous positions to make a case which could not be made with a logical and rational position. They attempt to make the case that a single individuals "value" is actually the value of the collective and thus why any libertarian should logically support unions. Well, unless the collective accepts and leaves jobs together until they retire, then we can unequivocally conclude that each individual has their own unique market value in the free-market and as such, asking the collective (especially more talented, more valuable employees) to use their leverage to coerce a company to increase your compensation package above your value for your benefit (of which you will of course not give a portion of that increase back to said collective for their work in getting you that increase - proving the disgusting hypocrisy of liberalisms "collective mindset" while hoarding the increase instead of splitting it with the collective) is nonsensical and disingenuous.

Lastly, because libertarians are very serious about their commitment to freedom and choice, they would be the last people on earth to tell you that unions should be "banned". They wouldn't care if you had union - they just wouldn't be a part of one. Literally every aspect of this question fails in a very major way. It is so disingenuous and it's the epitome of the entire ideology and the people who subscribe to it.

11 Questions You Should Ask Libertarians to See if They're Hypocrites
When's the last time Conservatives had a major policy victory?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top