The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: arachnyd on August 25, 2012, 10:50:50 AM
-
Where is a good place to learn about liberalism?
Now I am a staunch conservative, and I am very vocal on my conservative stances. I find myself seeing disturbingly clearly that liberalism seems completely irrational, and seems to have little to no basis. However, I also recognize that there are large numbers of intelligent people who are liberals. (Although most liberals seem incredibly uneducated and have no basis). I am having a hard time understanding their angle, as typically in any discussion both sides have some sort of angle or basis, but the liberal angles seem disbunked in most situations pretty easily, so I felt the need to dig deeper and really understand what they want and how they think they can get there.
Now I met two people, one a college professor in Ecuador, one a PhD Candidate in Africa, who are both intelligent and to their liberal arguments, I can not disagree. They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have. We agreed to the outcome, we just disagree on the preference. They are both socialist or something off, but the viewpoint was that essentially the world would be better if America self-emploded and people around the world were equally dying in the streets.
Now once again, I disagree that that is the preferred outcome, but we all agreed that IS the ultimate outcome. I cannot tell them they are "wrong" because what it comes down to is I prefer a world where people can life, succeed, and make the best of their lives, and they don't. How can you argue with a fundamental differing in the basis of what is good?
American Liberals, even intelligent ones however, don't seem to agree this is the preferred outcome, so I have a hard time understanding their basis
Now when I go back to classical liberalism, the likes of John Locke and traditional liberal arguments, many of them seem to be... well... modern conservative arguments (or more accurately, often libertarian ideals). When I look into modern liberalism, it seems to be based on unalienable rights, however this doesn't seem accurate as the basics of most liberal arguments is the exact opposite- That we should impose on individual rights for the "greater Good". Basics such as "separation of church and state" don't seem to be basics at all, as modern liberalism seems goes against the ability for government to control churches, and freedom of religion clearly isn't a real basis either because liberals believe law should control religion.
Without crude responses, What is their basis? How can I figure this out?
-
I think liberalism should be in the DSM for a mental disorder.
As for a good source to learn about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
-
I think liberalism should be in the DSM for a mental disorder.
As for a good source to learn about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
I've done excessive research into ADHD, Dyslexia, Manic Depressiveness, and other mental disorders, so even if we all believe that, does that mean we shouldnt research it? ;)
ahh... WIKIPEDIA... I tried that, and some other sources, BUT that explicitly does not apply to the us>
I further dig into liberal philosophy... initially the likes of john locke and traditional liberal arguments... I realized what I should have realized a lot earlier, that traditional liberalism is well... conservatism (or libertarianism more precisely).
Now if that was a liberal, They wouldnt bother me so much, But that isn't the stance I see liberals ever taking. So I looked into modern liberalism, and what I've found is on "unalienable rights" except most american liberals are against individual rights (Gov't can impose on individual rights for the "greater good"), and "Separation of Church and State"/ "Freedom of Religion" yet most liberals support laws controlling church and religion. Most researchers seem to then point out that "americans" can't be modern liberals because there was never a strong caste system or Monarch/Dictator system to start with.
My path then went down the direction I was pointed, which is "social liberalism", which is the direction of Richard Ely, John Clark, and Henry Carter, however, they never created a political philosophy and abandoned their socialist thinking in time.
This lead to Lester Ward formalizing the basic tenets of social liberalism, which has lead him to be called the "father of the modern welfare state", which are now recognized as the term "socialism", and John Dewey, who advocated true democracy (yikes, True democracy is the only thing scarier than fascism) . However, Dewey was a Humanist (as an author of the humanist manifesto). Does this mean that modern liberalism is the same as Socialism or Humanism? Most conservatives seem to think so, but It seems like most liberals say they are not socialists or Humanists.
So if American Liberals are not classic liberals, and they are not modern liberals (that would be a libertarian), nor are they Socialists or Humanists, What is a "Modern, American Liberal"?
-
Where is a good place to learn about liberalism?
Now I am a staunch conservative, and I am very vocal on my conservative stances. I find myself seeing disturbingly clearly that liberalism seems completely irrational, and seems to have little to no basis. However, I also recognize that there are large numbers of intelligent people who are liberals. (Although most liberals seem incredibly uneducated and have no basis). I am having a hard time understanding their angle, as typically in any discussion both sides have some sort of angle or basis, but the liberal angles seem disbunked in most situations pretty easily, so I felt the need to dig deeper and really understand what they want and how they think they can get there.
Now I met two people, one a college professor in Ecuador, one a PhD Candidate in Africa, who are both intelligent and to their liberal arguments, I can not disagree. They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have. We agreed to the outcome, we just disagree on the preference. They are both socialist or something off, but the viewpoint was that essentially the world would be better if America self-emploded and people around the world were equally dying in the streets.
Now once again, I disagree that that is the preferred outcome, but we all agreed that IS the ultimate outcome. I cannot tell them they are "wrong" because what it comes down to is I prefer a world where people can life, succeed, and make the best of their lives, and they don't. How can you argue with a fundamental differing in the basis of what is good?
American Liberals, even intelligent ones however, don't seem to agree this is the preferred outcome, so I have a hard time understanding their basis
Now when I go back to classical liberalism, the likes of John Locke and traditional liberal arguments, many of them seem to be... well... modern conservative arguments (or more accurately, often libertarian ideals). When I look into modern liberalism, it seems to be based on unalienable rights, however this doesn't seem accurate as the basics of most liberal arguments is the exact opposite- That we should impose on individual rights for the "greater Good". Basics such as "separation of church and state" don't seem to be basics at all, as modern liberalism seems goes against the ability for government to control churches, and freedom of religion clearly isn't a real basis either because liberals believe law should control religion.
Without crude responses, What is their basis? How can I figure this out?
(http://babypeople.biz/babyj/wp-content/myimages/29eb3_communist-manifesto-cover1.jpg)
(http://urbantitan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/DasKapital-tradebit.de_.jpg)
That's a pretty good start right there.
-
I've done excessive research into ADHD, Dyslexia, Manic Depressiveness, and other mental disorders, so even if we all believe that, does that mean we shouldnt research it? ;)
ahh... WIKIPEDIA... I tried that, and some other sources, BUT that explicitly does not apply to the us>
I further dig into liberal philosophy... initially the likes of john locke and traditional liberal arguments... I realized what I should have realized a lot earlier, that traditional liberalism is well... conservatism (or libertarianism more precisely).
Now if that was a liberal, They wouldnt bother me so much, But that isn't the stance I see liberals ever taking. So I looked into modern liberalism, and what I've found is on "unalienable rights" except most american liberals are against individual rights (Gov't can impose on individual rights for the "greater good"), and "Separation of Church and State"/ "Freedom of Religion" yet most liberals support laws controlling church and religion. Most researchers seem to then point out that "americans" can't be modern liberals because there was never a strong caste system or Monarch/Dictator system to start with.
My path then went down the direction I was pointed, which is "social liberalism", which is the direction of Richard Ely, John Clark, and Henry Carter, however, they never created a political philosophy and abandoned their socialist thinking in time.
This lead to Lester Ward formalizing the basic tenets of social liberalism, which has lead him to be called the "father of the modern welfare state", which are now recognized as the term "socialism", and John Dewey, who advocated true democracy (yikes, True democracy is the only thing scarier than fascism) . However, Dewey was a Humanist (as an author of the humanist manifesto). Does this mean that modern liberalism is the same as Socialism or Humanism? Most conservatives seem to think so, but It seems like most liberals say they are not socialists or Humanists.
So if American Liberals are not classic liberals, and they are not modern liberals (that would be a libertarian), nor are they Socialists or Humanists, What is a "Modern, American Liberal"?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't research it.
As for social liberals, I am sure you already know what they are: People who agree with abortions and gay marriage is a start.
Modern, American liberalism:
Modern American liberalism is a form of liberalism. It includes Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism with support for social justice and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1] Modern liberalism stands in opposition to Conservatism in the United States on most issues, but its relationship to progressivism is debated
Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_liberalism_in_the_United_States
You can go a google search for 'Modern American Liberalism' and get a ton of hits.
-
Come to Woodstock NY and hang out for a week on the green. You'll learn more that you ever wanted to know if you can keep your sanity!
I can explain them simply, they are hippies that are stuck in the 70's!
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8RncWyIOcw[/youtube]
-
That could just as easily have been Woodstock, VT--just as many hippies, but with a shitload more cash to blow.
-
It is very basic and simple. There are two types of liberals. Type Ones are the evil ones who know exactly what they are doing to destroy society - and how to lie about it. Type Twos are the lazy, socially inept, emotionally retarded, mentally unbalanced, completely non-intellectuals who follow the Type Ones without question (your classic DUmmies, Cher etc.).
That's it.
-
It is very basic and simple. There are two types of liberals. Type Ones are the evil ones who know exactly what they are doing to destroy society - and how to lie about it. Type Twos are the lazy, socially inept, emotionally retarded, mentally unbalanced, completely non-intellectuals who follow the Type Ones without question (your classic DUmmies, Cher etc.).
That's it.
Hi5 .....
-
It is very basic and simple. There are two types of liberals. Type Ones are the evil ones who know exactly what they are doing to destroy society - and how to lie about it. Type Twos are the lazy, socially inept, emotionally retarded, mentally unbalanced, completely non-intellectuals who follow the Type Ones without question (your classic DUmmies, Cher etc.).
That's it.
I'll go you one better. Marx used to refer to non communists that were useful to advance the communist agenda "Useful Idiots". All libs are idiots on some usefulness scale, depending on if to their own self, they are true.
-
I'd imagine that A Theory of Justice by John Rawls might be a good start into liberal ideology.
-
I'd imagine that A Theory of Justice by John Rawls might be a good start into liberal ideology.
Saul Alinsky.
-
Try to find the writings of Woodrow Wilson. Also, research Margaret Sanger, and the "Progressives" of that era.
-
They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have.
Because America and most of Western Civilazation is "rich," we have enriched the entire world. Thanks to our generosity and the values instilled through Jewish and Christian faith, we have invented ways to end slavery, raised the standard of living for the vast majority of people world-wide, and have carried the word of eternal blessings to all the corners of the earth. Liberalism seeks to destroy America, which will in turn reduce the wealth of the entire world. It's a sad statement on a profoundly selfish group that they are so envious of those with much that they will cause great destruction to even those with nearly nothing. The group that supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn infants covers its wish to destroy humanity with a facade of "caring."
-
That could just as easily have been Woodstock, VT--just as many hippies, but with a shitload more cash to blow.
Yup. Did an overnight there earlier this year ('tween seasons). We had a good time but it do get a bit $$$ even during the off season.
ETA for OP: You might try "The Worldly Philosophers" for a bit of background if you have not already read it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Worldly-Philosophers-Economic-Thinkers/dp/068486214X
-
Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/)
-
I think liberalism should be in the DSM for a mental disorder.
As for a good source to learn about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
Good and source should never be used when referring to wikipedia. Also note, never refer to wikipedia.
-
Good and source should never be used when referring to wikipedia. Also note, never refer to wikipedia.
i used to think the same thing. But recent studies show that Wikipedia is as good a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
-
i used to think the same thing. But recent studies show that Wikipedia is as good a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
And you can no longer get a hard copy of Britannica if I remember correctly.
-
They have both argued that liberalism will destroy america, everyone will be worse off, but that it is better for everyone to be worse off, than to have what we have.
This is what Obama believes.
You may want to investigate Obama's benefactor George Soros.
The global financial crisis: opportunities for change
Andre Wilkens , 10 November 2008
Barack Obama's election will re-establish the credibility of the United States in the world but it will not reverse the trend of decline. The challenge ahead is to manage a peaceful decline of the west while rescuing as many of the west's liberal political and economic values as possible. This will only work if the multipolar world is accepted as a reality and as an opportunity for a new style of global cooperation and governance.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-global-financial-crisis-opportunities-for-change
Andre Wilkens is the director of the Open Society Institute Brussels (OSI-Brussels) and a founding member of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) Thought 1: The west is in trouble and has become a potential source of instability for the world
The network of Open Society Foundations or OSF (named Open Society Institute or OSI until 2011), is a grantmaking operation started by George Soros, aimed to shape public policy to promote democratic governance, human rights, and economic, legal, and social reform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations
Destroying America ? It appears to be so..........
http://articles.aberdeennews.com/2010-12-11/news/26441840_1_economic-theory-george-soros-governance
.
-
i used to think the same thing. But recent studies show that Wikipedia is as good a source as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Did you read the entire article? I also can attest to comment made to article that high school teachers will not permit Wikipedia used as a source to papers (nor will college).
-
Did you read the entire article? I also can attest to comment made to article that high school teachers will not permit Wikipedia used as a source to papers (nor will college).
And there will be no need for book burning in the Brave Net World there will be so few things left in print:
After 244 Years, Encyclopaedia Britannica Stops the Presses
By JULIE BOSMAN
snip...
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/after-244-years-encyclopaedia-britannica-stops-the-presses/
There are still plenty available on Craig's list if you are packing for Galt's Gulch.
-
And there will be no need for book burning in the Brave Net World there will be so few things left in print:
In the year 2525.....
-
And there will be no need for book burning in the Brave Net World there will be so few things left in print:
There are still plenty available on Craig's list if you are packing for Galt's Gulch.
I don't think I have seen an encyclopedia for well over 20 years now.
I read articles (and in my former life, books), lots and lots of articles. For this topic? Wikipedia? for real?
-
Here is another good link to understand the liberal mindset... (http://www.ronpaul.com/)
-
I don't think I have seen an encyclopedia for well over 20 years now.
I read articles (and in my former life, books), lots and lots of articles. For this topic? Wikipedia? for real?
I looked into selling encyclopedias in the '80s after my divorce as a source of exta income. Income halved costs doubled so I was looking for any alternative for extra money.
I have had several sets throughout my live (but long since given them away) including: World Book, Grolier, Britannica.
The truth of the matter is the Britannica was an antique set that in retrospect I wish I had kept as I have never seen another like it and it had stuff in it that you wouldn't find in newer versions.
-
I looked into selling encyclopedias in the '80s after my divorce as a source of exta income. Income halved costs doubled so I was looking for any alternative for extra money.
I have had several sets throughout my live (but long since given them away) including: World Book, Grolier, Britannica.
The truth of the matter is the Britannica was an antique set that in retrospect I wish I had kept as I have never seen another like it and it had stuff in it that you wouldn't find in newer versions.
I have a dictionary and a few random encyclopedia volumes. They all think Lyndon Johnson is still president.
-
I have a dictionary and a few random encyclopedia volumes. They all think Lyndon Johnson is still president.
I know a couple hippes who still think so too. :lol:
-
Good and source should never be used when referring to wikipedia. Also note, never refer to wikipedia.
My sentiments exactly. I watched a book TV program where a bona fide scientist in the area of climate dared to question AGW. He said his wikipedia page was nothing but blatant outright lies the first time he checked it after wikipedia came into vogue. He used the anyone can edit option, and corrected all the garbage, and posted the truth about his work. The next day all his wikipedia work had been completely undone, and all the lies were reposted. I trust very little of wikipedia, and ALWAYS verify if I do use it.
-
As much as I want to jump on the bandwagon of much of this, I'm going to keep it on target!
I'd imagine that A Theory of Justice by John Rawls might be a good start into liberal ideology.
Saul Alinsky.
Try to find the writings of Woodrow Wilson. Also, research Margaret Sanger, and the "Progressives" of that era.
You might try "The Worldly Philosophers" for a bit of background if you have not already read it.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Worldly-Philosophers-Economic-Thinkers/dp/068486214X
Center for American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/)
Thanks for these suggestions! I've been beginning look into several of these, and it looks like (at least most of) these will help.
Good and source should never be used when referring to wikipedia. Also note, never refer to wikipedia.
I know for any of our professional research... or when working with students... Wikipedia is never fair game, so I shy away from it. I've found a number of errors just in my own experience, and there is no way to track back errors for credibility and records!
-
Have you tried "The Dumpster" at a forum called, Conservative Cave?
Everything you need to know about the practical implications of modern day liberalism is there for the whole world to see and they can't wait to tell you all about it.
-
The most succinct examination of "progressivisim" I've found so far is "Ameritopia" by Mark Levin.
-
The most succinct examination of "progressivisim" I've found so far is "Ameritopia" by Mark Levin.
I need to read that. Thanks for mentioning it.
-
I need to read that. Thanks for mentioning it.
I love reading Levin. His books are short and very much to the point. No flowery language or bullshit.
-
The most succinct examination of "progressivisim" I've found so far is "Ameritopia" by Mark Levin.
I'm a Levin fan... although his voice gets to me if I listen to him, for some reason I hear his voice when I read his stuff too! haha.