Liberal Reason

[Commander-K25]

The following are not my own words, but I firmly believe it and could not have said it any better. This was written by Jim Kalb in his blog, Turnabout

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------

The glory of liberal reason

Liberalism proposes to make social life rational and equal. To that end, everything habitual, irregular, particular and opaque to liberal reason must be done away with as bigoted and oppressive. The things to be abolished include family life in any traditional sense, with its associated habits, attitudes and institutions, and ethnic distinctions, with the particular cultural standards that depend on them.

Some particulars:

All human interchanges must be bureaucratized so that obligations and rights — the right to privacy, for example — can be bureaucratically defined with adequate precision.

Any informal exertion of power must be subjected to full rational review. For example, in Australia school children who accuse their teacher of verbally or psychologically abusing them must have the right to complain to child protection investigators.

All institutions must be redefined so that promoting advanced liberalism becomes their fundamental reason for being. Thus, affirmative action has become essential to the core mission of the University of California.

Competition must be eliminated, because conflict would evidence the imperfection of the system. If a school sports day in England includes an “egg and spoon” race, parents must be banned from it ‘to spare the losers’. Instead, a reformed sports day featuring non-competitive events must be held in private.

Even sex must be rationalized. In Europe towns should arrange cut-rate hotel rooms for youthful sex, while in America laws against stripping must be done away with, because it’s constitutionally protected “expression.”

Some consequences of the attempt to achieve utopia:

Any approach to wrongdoing other than therapy becomes impossible, especially in the case of young people. As a result social institutions, especially those devoted to education, become radically degraded.

Recognition of the need for common culture and other conditions for a free and orderly society becomes impossible, because it would mean that the liberal order depends on something outside itself. To demonstrate the self-contained universality of the liberal order, and to disrupt any competing principle of order, populations must be mixed as much as possible. Any resulting problems — immigrant crime waves, for example — must be denied, blamed on pre-liberal residues, or treated as curable through bureaucratic management.

The impossibility of carrying on productive activity under conditions of total bureaucratic control means that social and economic life are increasingly carried on illegally.

In the absence of a principle of personal loyalty, officials have no reason not to feather their own nests and the system becomes radically corrupt.

The net effect: 80+ years after the Bolshevik revolution, the Soviet Union is still the future. Until the fundamental understanding of the world that gave rise to communism — scientific materialism — is done away with, we will just keep re-inventing the same thing.

[Alejandro1]

At 5/25/03 10:52 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: a lot of liberal propoganda

Reading that confirmed my already established belief: liberals will continously take away our rights as we move closer and closer to socialism.

[Jimsween]

As far as I'm concerned both liberals and conservatives are insane.

[Alejandro1]

At 5/25/03 11:51 PM, jimsween wrote: As far as I'm concerned both liberals and conservatives are insane.

I don't know Jim, I'm a conservative and I don't spew out loads of propaganda or walk around in a straight jacket. Anyway, it's more insane to be tied to a political party because those are inherently evil.

[Jimsween]

At 5/26/03 12:05 AM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 5/25/03 11:51 PM, jimsween wrote: As far as I'm concerned both liberals and conservatives are insane.

I don't know Jim, I'm a conservative and I don't spew out loads of propaganda or walk around in a straight jacket. Anyway, it's more insane to be tied to a political party because those are inherently evil.

Thats what I've been saying all along. And I just dont trust anyone more than 5 points any way on the political compass.

[Alejandro1]

At 5/26/03 12:10 AM, jimsween wrote: Thats what I've been saying all along. And I just dont trust anyone more than 5 points any way on the political compass.

Absolutely, it's best to be moderate on as much as you can, but sometimes you can't support both sides of an issue if you are strongly moved by one of the sides.

[AbstractVagabond]

Yeah. Both liberals and conservatives are freedom-stealing jerks. Liberals attack TV and music and conservatives has the Patriot Act. Liberals do it "for the children" and conservatives does it "in the name of God". Right now, the conservatives are worse than the liberals in this. When Clinton was president, it was the opposite. I guess it all comes down to the flavor of the month (or term).

[TheShrike]

Well, this all depends on what you belive, either as a liberal or a conservative.

I, for one, do not think that essay made any decent points, not in reguards to most people that call themselves liberal.

Claiming to be one or the other does not mean you also lay claim to every wacky idea set forth by your peers.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 5/25/03 11:44 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 5/25/03 10:52 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: a lot of liberal propoganda

Reading that confirmed my already established belief: liberals will continously take away our rights as we move closer and closer to socialism.

As oppossed to the current conservative administration in America, which is taking away your rights and moving you closer and closer to fascism .........

[House-Of-Leaves]

I generally dislike anything that will label me as one or the other.

I don't -fit- anywhere. I can see reason and logic in almost ever viewpoint, and the positions I hold don't coincide perfectly with any affiliation.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/26/03 03:59 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: As oppossed to the current conservative administration in America, which is taking away your rights and moving you closer and closer to fascism .........

Even if this is true, you're associating the actions of a few with the beliefs of the many.

Another mistake would be to think that conservative = Republican. It doesn't.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/26/03 04:19 AM, Commander-K25 wrote: Another mistake would be to think that Conservative = Republican. It doesn't.

A pre-emptive clarification, I mean that it doesn't ALWAYS.

[House-Of-Leaves]

At 5/26/03 04:19 AM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/26/03 03:59 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote: As oppossed to the current conservative administration in America, which is taking away your rights and moving you closer and closer to fascism .........

Even if this is true, you're associating the actions of a few with the beliefs of the many.

Another mistake would be to think that conservative = Republican. It doesn't.

Yes, this happens a lot, I'm afraid. So many times, the outrageous actions of the few end up being thought of as the norm for everyone else.

I also agree with your second comment, Commander. Conservative isn't always synonymous with republican, just as liberal isn't synonymous with democrat, or libertarian, or green party, or whatever. It's all so, so diverse, it's not really fair to make blanket generalizations.

[Commander-K25]

At 5/26/03 04:38 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I also agree with your second comment, Commander. Conservative isn't always synonymous with republican, just as liberal isn't synonymous with democrat, or libertarian, or green party, or whatever. It's all so, so diverse, it's not really fair to make blanket generalizations.

True. I actually believe in many libertarian ideals and principles. Of course, they're not really on the left, they're hanging somewhere off the scale.

[bumcheekcity]

Commander, I think that was quite possibly the biggest pile of crap anyone has ever written. Could you give me a link to the authours webpage or something?

Libertarianism says that people should have MORE rights, not less. What you have described there is a warped sort of extreme somethingism. Taking away everyones rights until they have none left seems like a warped political view to me.

A purely Libertarian state would allow everyone the complete freedom in their views to support any sort of government or system. More rights would be given, including ones like Abortion, which have sparked controvosy, but the point is people are free to choose. If they do want to have an abortion, thats OK, the lady can go to a doctor and get one. If she believes there is something morally wrong against abortion, thats her choice, and she doesn't have to have one.

The right to music would be given, not banned. And why the hell would anyone ban competition? It seems insane.

I may have misunderstood something here, or misread something. If I have, please tell me, but otherwise this still stands as the biggest load of crap I have seen this year.

[Slizor]

Liberalism proposes to make social life rational and equal. To that end, everything habitual, irregular, particular and opaque to liberal reason must be done away with as bigoted and oppressive. The things to be abolished include family life in any traditional sense, with its associated habits, attitudes and institutions, and ethnic distinctions, with the particular cultural standards that depend on them.

The first paragraph is where it goes wrong, in fact, the first sentence is where it goes wrong. Liberals want to make people equal? No no, that's Communists, Liberals are as far away from Communists as they are from neo-liberals. To clarify, liberals are in the centre, they want to make things MORE equal than under neo-liberalism, but don't seek to go anywhere near such basic measures as a maximum wage. As for the rational remark, I don't know where he got that from.

Now as this is his basic (meant to be self-evident as he decides not to qualify it) premise and it is clearly wrong, it sets him off in the wrong direction, which he continues with throughout.

Bumcheekycity: The article is aimed at liberals, not libertarians.

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/26/03 08:14 AM, Slizor wrote: Bumcheekycity: The article is aimed at liberals, not libertarians.

I see where I misinterpreted it slighty now.

And Slizor. Thanks for that, I'm using bumcheekycity as my new name

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/26/03 08:14 AM, Slizor wrote: Bumcheekycity: The article is aimed at liberals, not libertarians.

I see where I misinterpreted it slighty now.

And Slizor. Thanks for that, I'm using bumcheekycity as my new name

[Lyddiechu]

see, this is why i have no idea where i fit in.

i love the free market, but i also love certain aspects of socialism. i want to be able to buy firearms, but i want stricter controls on who gets them. i want to fund the military and education at the same time. i want to protect the environment. i want gay marriage, no media censorship, and a COMPLETE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WHICH WE DONT HAVE NOW!!! i also want the word god taken out of all american governmental literature. now where the heck does that put me?? i cant vote for fucking ANYONE!

[bumcheekcity]

At 5/26/03 09:34 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: see, this is why i have no idea where i fit in.

i love the free market, but i also love certain aspects of socialism. i want to be able to buy firearms, but i want stricter controls on who gets them. i want to fund the military and education at the same time. i want to protect the environment. i want gay marriage, no media censorship, and a COMPLETE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WHICH WE DONT HAVE NOW!!! i also want the word god taken out of all american governmental literature. now where the heck does that put me?? i cant vote for fucking ANYONE!

Vote for the Liberal Democrats. If you live in the USA, you have no hope of getting any of those things. Can I ask why you want a gun?

[karasz]

At 5/26/03 10:09 AM, bumcheekycity wrote: Vote for the Liberal Democrats. If you live in the USA, you have no hope of getting any of those things. Can I ask why you want a gun?

well an armed populace stops a tyrant from taking over... or at least can try to...

also the far-left liberals and the far right conservatives want the same thing... they just have different ways to get them...

liberals want everyone to be equal at the expense of the best... conservatives want to know who is the best at the expense of the poor...

in the end they both want power...

[JMHX]

Bah, Commander. Some of your random posts are okay, but they're never going to live up to Playboy Saddam. I still want to see a flash movie about Saddam in a purple rhinestone thong.

[AbstractVagabond]

At 5/26/03 11:07 PM, karasz wrote: also the far-left liberals and the far right conservatives want the same thing... they just have different ways to get them...

liberals want everyone to be equal at the expense of the best... conservatives want to know who is the best at the expense of the poor...

in the end they both want power...

*bows down* I couldn't have put it any better myself.

Beepity boppity boop. I got caught in some soup. (ignore that... just trying to get enough written text in to have it postable)

[nitroxide]

At 5/26/03 09:34 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: see, this is why i have no idea where i fit in.

i love the free market, but i also love certain aspects of socialism. i want to be able to buy firearms, but i want stricter controls on who gets them. i want to fund the military and education at the same time. i want to protect the environment. i want gay marriage, no media censorship, and a COMPLETE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WHICH WE DONT HAVE NOW!!! i also want the word god taken out of all american governmental literature. now where the heck does that put me?? i cant vote for fucking ANYONE!

Just because you favor towards one side or the other does that mean you have to accept all the views of one side because you belong to that party.I agree with many of your views maybe you just need to make your own fucking party.

[Nirvana13666]

At 5/27/03 03:58 AM, nitroxide wrote:

At 5/26/03 09:34 AM, Lyddiechu wrote: see, this is why i have no idea where i fit in.

i love the free market, but i also love certain aspects of socialism. i want to be able to buy firearms, but i want stricter controls on who gets them. i want to fund the military and education at the same time. i want to protect the environment. i want gay marriage, no media censorship, and a COMPLETE SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE WHICH WE DONT HAVE NOW!!! i also want the word god taken out of all american governmental literature. now where the heck does that put me?? i cant vote for fucking ANYONE!

Just because you favor towards one side or the other does that mean you have to accept all the views of one side because you belong to that party.I agree with many of your views maybe you just need to make your own fucking party.

I kind of don't fit in either. My mind is completely liberated from conventional views. If the world was fine doing the traditional thing then why want a change? Why need a change? I think it is because times change and so do the people that are born during the changing times. What worked for my grandparents will not work for my children. People spend way to much time defining and ridiculing political parties. Nothing gets done and good reforms aren’t heard cause they come from a liberal or a conservative. In the end we all want a place where we can have a voice that will make a difference. I think the most important thing to consider when defining the pros and cons of a political party is to try and understand what’s the outcome they want at the end of it all.