The defects of Liberal Thought

Liberals are diverse, and so are Conservatives. But, nevertheless, both share common characteristics, otherwise they would not be classed together. There is clearly a close similarity between Clinton and Obama (in fact, between them, the difference between their ideologies and policies is so minimal, that the only issues between them seem to be personal. They don't debate economic or social issues because they agree on those). On the other hand, there is clear difference between Obama and Clinton, and McCain, since McCain is still conservative.

The meaning of the terms, "Liberal" and "Conservatives" have changed from the 19th century when we now talk of "Classical Liberalism" which emphasized civil liberties (see John Stuart Mill's essay "On Liberty")

So, although the meanings of the terms have shifted, Conservative are still, well-conservative. And Liberals seem to me to have forgotten their heritage.

It isn't like politics works anyways.

Reinforcement of beliefs comes, more often than not, from the believer's inability to deal with his environment than from the environment itself. Fear, insecurity, and ignorance are even stronger perpetuators of ideas than their negations.

Because of that, your opinion that the stereotypes confronted by liberalism reflect reality, and your attempt to attack "liberalism" with a small set of vague criticisms, I have a good idea of which of those sets of motivations I referenced drive your opinions.

How can you be intellectually honest with espousing concepts like, " the believer's inability to deal with his environment than from the environment itself ".

How can you relegate the personal responsibility of individuals towards non-accountability by providing idealistic determinations of personal behavior.

The slippery slope you are climbing is reflective of your critical thinking skills and absolute disconnect from any measurable benchmark of common sense.

We should not be commenting on modern American liberals and conservatives. Both terms are bastardizations brought about by the rah-rah politics of the American climate. We Americans are just fat, lazy, and happy. We are more interested in finding a team to root for than actual benefitting ourselves through politics.

It isn't like politics works anyways.

Whatever "politics works" means, the terms, "Liberal" and "Conservative" are useful short-hand terms for describing a set of views this or that person has about politics and social issues. Of course, these terms may be misleading when transferred from a European context to an American context, and one should be aware the the differences, just as one should be aware of how both terms have changed in meaning from time to time. And we can be more accurate when we make distinctions like, A is a social liberal, but an economic conservative. But none of this detracts from the usefulness of these terms as short-hands. One useful distinction was made (I think) by the late William F. Buckley, when he distinguished between "being a conservative" and "being a conservative". A person who is conservative will take a generally conservative approach to political and socio-economic matters, but will not have a rigid set of principles to which he strictly adheres. But "a conservative" will have a rigid set of conservative principle (e.g. on abortion, or on taxes) on which he will allow no deviancy. In my view, a conservative (or for that matter, a liberal) is like a man who insists on driving at exactly the speed limit no matter what the particular conditions are. Someone who is foolish.

I was simply saying that the conditions for what constitutes "a conservative" or "a liberal" in American politics are sensationalized and brings about a climate where either designators implies that someone has a specific set of views. However, I would say that Locke, Montesquieu, Bastiat, and Mill fall under the title of "a liberal" even though they were certainly not dogmatic or rigid in their opinions.

I am a libertarian, albeit at the rather radical end by way of Proudhon, Tucker, Bakunin, and Austrian political-economic thought. Unfortunately, with the advent of Ron Paul and Neil Boortz, I foresee a similar standardizing and dumbing-down of libertarian thought as well.

I agree with your sentiments that those who fall under or accept those titles are generally foolish, but I don't think it is necessarily the case, and furthermore it is why I don't think we should be addressing such individuals.

I am not really sure what is controversial about that "concept". I shouldn't need to provide examples of people being willfully obtuse because the truth is not what they wanted.

You said " Reinforcement of beliefs comes, more often than not, from the believer's inability to deal with his environment than from the environment itself. Fear, insecurity, and ignorance are even stronger perpetuators of ideas than their negations.

How can you possibly separate an individuals personal decision (belief) that is based on their interpretation of their empirical environment, and then indicate it is their inability to view and react to their own environment correctly (according to you), and that is why stereotypes continue to exist. The statement is nonsensical and extremely self-serving.




I know what all of the words mean, but when you place them all together in that order, I get a little confused. What and whose personal behavior have I provided, how is it idealistic, and where have I tried to do away with personal responsibility?

I said,
How can you relegate the personal responsibility of individuals towards non-accountability by providing idealistic determinations of personal behavior.

Because how you provided a ridiculous concept on the differences between the environment and the actions or beliefs that are produced by the environment. They are one and the same (where else can we get our information). Can't you see the self-indulging idealistic premise that you just create, whereby providing non-accountability ( or simply the freedom to make decisions) to individuals, because the interaction of the environment and the individual was just not quite right. The process of interfacing with the natural world is what it is, and needs to be defined as Reality.


I know that the slippery slope is the definitional argument from the conservative, but you have left me at a loss as to what slippery slope I am "climbing".

The inadequacy of the original definition has been sufficiently explained. Let's get back on topic and drop the personal back and forth.

Ruthless Logic - Either find something to contribute to this thread, or stay out. A discussion of liberal though would be wonderful. But comments which do nothing but insult some perspective need not be made in the first place.

As a liberal, I welcome critical discussion of liberal politics, and would be more than happy to entertain your thoughts if those thoughts are something more substantial than slander just as easily thrown at any other perspective.

Notice how easy this is: The leading edge of enlightenment only welcomes the inherent methodical discipline of articulate thought, and thoroughly dismisses the plodding cadence of Ruthless Logic's ideas.

Ready to move on from this silliness?


Your right, my sentence can certainly be construed as a negative attack on liberal ideology, but it is nicely written ( I see that you stole my words) with the intention of thought provocation by utilizing descriptive language that juxaposed two main ideologies.


P.S. besides it was fun and easy.

They were certainly classical liberals. But Mill was not "a liberal" in that he was prepared to temper his views to the situation. But, in these days, and in America, Mill would have been thought to be conservative, although, of course, not "a conservative". Rush Limbaugh is not only conservative, but he is a conservative. The same kind of distinction, I imagine, can be made between being a libertarian, and being a libertarian.

But do you see the difference between "a X" and just someone who is X?

Modern liberalism in the US has been borne of really just a few major historical figures and events. First, the international liberalism as espoused (really idealized) by Woodrow Wilson, with a sense that the US should be concerned about the well-being and freedom of people outside our country. Second, the environmental movement was politically legitimized by Teddy Roosevelt, more than anyone else. Third, social liberalism took modern form under Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, but really extends back through the labor crises of the early 1900s and all the way back to the abolitionist movement. Finally, economic liberalism was a phenomenon largely led by FDR during the Depression and WWII, then supplemented by Johnson in the 1960s (i.e. with Medicare).

All of these are historical phenomena that are largely the interests of self-identified liberals, and they constitute the major themes in modern American liberalism.

I find it quite boorish, the regurgitation of interpreted historical benchmarks in an effort to create credibility by hanging on to the coattails of the aforementioned events, but find it exciting when an individual can achieve personal credibility with current and relevant examples describing our dynamic political landscape and the potential political impacts of the newly acquired insight.

As I have admitted to being a libertarian, you may have guessed that I am particularly concerned with property rights. (It should be noted, however, that while I do draw much of my opinion of market provision of social structures and institutions from the Austrian tradition, my viewpoint is tinged with a more traditional anarchist [or even nihilistic via Stirner] position on property and what is natural and or just) I think freedom is only protected through property, and only when property is protected can other freedoms be protected (indeed I take the Rothbardian position that all rights are property rights that stems from the ultimate right of self-ownership).

In modern liberalism, I see this obsession with democratic political movement, civil liberties, and guarantees of equality and freedom through positive government action as not only an abandonment of the original core principles of liberalism, but a direct attack on them.

Modern American Liberalism has managed to create greater dependency and standardization upon the state by stealing a moral argument from people who valued nothing greater than liberty and individualism and cut the heart out of it.

I find it quite boorish

...the regurgitation of interpreted historical benchmarks in an effort to create credibility by hanging on to the coattails of the aforementioned events

but find it exciting when an individual can achieve personal credibility with current and relevant examples describing our dynamic political landscape and the potential political impacts of the newly acquired insight.