PDA

View Full Version : Why Do You Think Liberalism Fails?



Hanna
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 02:39 PM
Why do you think liberalism fails ? But as for me liberalism is an ideology that often contest others and question every ideas that one could think of.

MockTurtle
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 02:52 PM
Liberalism has various meanings; and, its relative degree of success also depends on the circumstances, IMO. I consider the Classical Liberals (the tradition of many of America's Founding Father's) to be far less 'cooky' than modern liberals in contemporary society, mainly because the conditions that our Founders dealt with were so completely dissimilar from our own. In a basically homogeneous society (racially, culturally, spiritually, etc.), I can understand why certain people might believe that 'liberalism' would make sense, because the individuals within the society are so naturally similar that there isn't much need for 'group consciousness' and 'on the surface' strategies for group success. Things tend to function smoothly by themselves, especially if the natural culture of said people is kept intact. This, to me, is what liberalism represented in its early stages (i.e. pronounced individualism, emphasis on liberties, laissez faire economics, lack of group consciousness or ethnocentrism, etc.).

The problem though, is that this is totally irrelevant today given that our objective conditions are so different. Today, it doesn't make sense to favor a lack of ethnocentrism and group consciousness and a completely 'open' attitudes towards everyone and everything, because intergroup competition is fierce and society isn't homogenous any longer. It doesn't make sense to avoid explicit cultural strategies and maintain a loose attitude on cultural preservation, because now we have a chaotic mixture of 'cultures' all competing against each other. Simply put, it 'fails' because it is from a different era.

Loddfafner
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 03:01 PM
What do you mean by liberalism? There is the European meaning of supporting free trade; there is the American meaning of blunting the predatory edge of capitalism so as to prevent Marx's predictions; there is the bogeyman of American talk radio; there is the live-and-let-live philosophy of life. I see liberalism as one of those words that is too ambiguous to be useful for communication.

The practice of questioning everything is, in my opinion, one that strengthens a people and has raised European civilization above all others. American liberalism fails because it is a climate that holds people back from questioning things.

Another weakness of liberalism that is actually neither unique nor a necessary feature is an impoverished and naive view of human nature. According to this view, humans are nothing more than dependent variables that social policy can manipulate until society reaches a state of perfect balance. That this view is not unique to liberalism is evident in the thread on pornography.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 03:59 PM
I will define liberalism as any kind of political ideology that is founded on individual rights as opposed to individual and collective duties. This is not entirely unreasonable since individuals can be trusted to pursue their rights whereas they must be compelled to do their duties. In my view, Thomas Hobbes formulated liberalism when he advanced the idea that the power of the state is legitimized by a social contract where individuals cede some of their rights to the state in order to receive protection of the same. The functionality of the state is thus ensured by self-interest.

My main problem with this lies in the fact that the concept of individual rights or even individual existence is entirely fictional. Our original state of existence is not solitary, it is the tribe as a polity of common descent and common spirituality, an organism derived from kinship where the whole is always more important than its parts. Liberalism is based on a one-sided focus on man's anti-social tendencies, completely neglecting his other nature, which is rooted in the community.

To sum it up: I think liberalism fails, because it fails to accommodate the nature of man.

Loddfafner
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 04:38 PM
I will define liberalism as any kind of political ideology that is founded on individual rights as opposed to individual and collective duties.

As far as the liberal state is concerned, we are abstract bundles of rights with no agency beyond our choices in the market and the voting booth. American liberalism, however, does encourage responsibility for community and environment even though its vision of that community leaves out and erodes the bonds of a common ethnic heritage. Liberalism is a richer tradition than one might expect of the caricature that so many conservatives love to hate.

A month or so ago, a man whose fears were nourished by conservative talk radio blamed liberals for his own problems and for those of the nation. He invaded the Unitarian Church ( a liberal bastion) in Knoxville, Tennessee and opened fire. He was surprised to find the liberals fighting back. One of them stood in front of his gun and sacrificed himself so that the children could escape. Ironically, it was the loss of his welfare check that set him off, and one of his complaints was that liberals were soft on terrorism.

Hauke Haien
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 07:21 PM
American liberalism, however, does encourage responsibility for community and environment even though its vision of that community leaves out and erodes the bonds of a common ethnic heritage. Liberalism is a richer tradition than one might expect of the caricature that so many conservatives love to hate.
American 'liberalism' is social liberalism. Social is the modifier, liberalism remains the base. It expands on the notion that the state guarantees freedom by limiting it and creates a positive freedom (entitlement) along with negative freedom (to be left alone). Its priorities remain wrong with universal liberty preceding social bonds. Thus, all of humanity is eligible to be part of such a state and to enjoy the freedom it forcibly spreads.

Economic liberals, many of whom identify as 'conservatives', are willing to permit social destruction as long as it contributes positively to the free market, e.g. strong pressure on women to participate in the economy under all circumstances, even if the birth rates drop to a level that ensures extinction (ENTER: mass immigration). Personal freedom is often a secondary consequence of such processes that increase mobility by destroying social obligations.

There are of course many more varieties with similar defects.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 12:39 PM
The problem with liberalism is that it is contrary to human nature, and it views the world as it thinks it should be, rather than how it actually is.

This is present in their economic policies which remove the incentives towards creative and productive behavior and the disincentives towards risky or unproductive activity. Their educational policy operates as an extension of this.

This is present in their policy to restrict personal gun ownership because they think it will reduce crime. Even though statistics show this to be untrue, that is just makes law abiding citizens more vulnerable to crime, they still persist in this.

This is present in their view towards the criminal justice system. They can't comprehend that criminals are evil, they think they can rehab them and send them back out into society, and think that if we just had better schools and more welfare then people wouldn't commit crimes.

This is present in their attempts to force integration. They can't comprehend that people want to live, and socialize with others like them. They even insist that race only is skin color.

This is present in their views on gender and family. They refuse to comprehend that there are natural differences between men and women, and don't think it is necessary that children should be raised with a mother and a father. They remove the things that used to bring and keep families together, then puzzle over why there are more broken families.



Also the phrase 'society is judged by how it treats its lowest members' is the mantra of liberals. This attitude is ever present in their policies, which aim to benefit the lowest members of society. What kind of dumb standard is that to judge society by? Society should be judged by what is best for the people as a whole. Do we judge ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient Egypt as 'great' because they reduced levels of homelessness, had a more equal distribution of wealth, and treated their criminals with kindness?

"We are the wealthiest country in the world, it is unacceptable that people are homeless"

"Even criminals have rights"

They spend an enormous amount of money on trying to teach retarded kids to tie their shoes, and get people with no interest in education to pass basic levels, and give little resources to those who actually are highly capable and interested in learning.

MockTurtle
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 02:12 PM
This is present in their attempts to force integration. They can't comprehend that people want to live, and socialize with others like them. They even insist that race only is skin color.

This, I think, is probably one of the most important points, and deserves to be emphasized. Put another way, they refuse to accept the idea that human beings are innately tribal; they only see human beings as interchangeable units that can be molded and shaped purely by environement. They neglect the complex interplay between the genetic and the environmental, and therefore create a heap of confusion as a result.

stormlord
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 04:36 PM
The American (and other newer) conceptions of liberalism completes destroys any rational discussion of this topic, it's like two people talking about completely different things that have the same name, a conversation is impossible. Hearing things like "gun control" ascribed as being liberal when it is anything but, is highly confusing. Classical liberalism (real liberalism) can work perfectly well, as said before, when it operates within a group. Most of the criticism about liberalism not allowing for human nature aren't valid assuming the originators intended it to be applied, as it was for centuries, as an in-group social system. Britain and America were some of the most liberal cultures in the world in the 19th century, they never allowed unchecked non-European immigration etc.

Classical liberalism also by definition acts less as society, and more as a metaphorical container for society. In no way does it preclude against the political views/actions generally advocated by preservationists. In a true classical liberal society things like private businesses operating race based hiring practices, and other preservationist ideas would be prefectly legal.

Personally I'd say a closed society (no mass immigration etc) organised along classical liberal lines would be an ideal one, giving people the space to develop a healthy culture without being indoctrinated.

Hauke Haien
Monday, September 22nd, 2008, 11:45 AM
If a society is based on individuals, any boundary is purely arbitrary and usually defined by those participating in it. Import masses of Mexicans? Why not, it generates profit and those new citizens are as good as any American as long as they worship a set of symbols. America used Europeans in the past and when that source dried up, anyone became eligible.

Britain on the other hand was a mercantile nation that used her colonies in order to strengthen her domestic industry and remained so until the repeal of the Corn Laws, since it had become more lucrative to use free trade as a means to push goods on foreign nations.

Then came decolonization and the adoption of the American model.

Meister
Tuesday, January 11th, 2011, 04:07 PM
Extreme Liberalism is an idea linked with Socialism which tries to achieve a state where no one and nothing suffers.

Problem is it is not possible for this to happen for two reasons, "No Pain, No Gain" and Politically Correct Idealologies tend to clash with each other.

So we have a situation where a Government will close a factory down effecting it's own people only to have the same products made overseas in a sweat shop environment at a cheaper price. So how is this fair for anyone?

Then these locals go on Welfare another liberal construct and stay there while the same government imports immigrants who also take their jobs and University places.

Now PC groups clashing that amuses me. Halal is the brutal slaughter of an animal, this clashes with Animal Rights Groups but Islam trumps Animal Rights so Halal stays. However if this was mink coats, PETA would be splashing the red paint with abandon.

Where are all the Feminists with the rise in rape in the Western World? Racism trumps womens rights. So they stay quiet.

This is why Liberalism fails it is too busy trying to take care of special interest groups and lets it's own people and the majority suffer. Nature dictates you take care of your own, where are the Liberals going to be if Islam prevails, no wonder so many English and Germans are converting. I probably would too if only to be able to storm the Governments when it happens and scream "I don't you so".

Which I would learn to say in Arabic :D

Ardito
Wednesday, January 12th, 2011, 02:54 PM
To sum it up: I think liberalism fails, because it fails to accommodate the nature of man.

I would have put it in terms of God, myself, but this gentleman pretty much said what I would have.

Slivers
Saturday, February 11th, 2012, 04:49 PM
Liberalism seems to put certain sections of people on the defense in different ways and reasons. It does seem that liberalism has a certain place in societies, I think liberalism would be much more successful in homogenous populations and far more tolerable. In the west though most liberals take a stance against whites and most anything relating to whites (atleast within the past 50 years)
I would also find the ideas of their own "Progressiveness" to be offensive- They use that word to appeal to open minded peoples who want better and don't consider implications further down the road.

They condemn the dissent they encourage. And they are usually encouragers of dissent.
If you disagree with liberalism, you're best off on the defense for right now.

I remember as a very young child going to stay with my great grandparents during the weekends while my parents were at work. They had painted portraits of Roosevelt and JFK in the dining room. And my GGparents who I still lovelove even though they are gone would still most likely support the Democratic party. But I do not believe this country is in better shape after that type of leadership. We were not in need of that side of progressive.