| |
Discussion: Are liberals OVER?
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Darren-5-08
Because it's not up to the state to decide who deserves what. And because, quite frankly, life isn't fair, and it isn't our job to make it fairer for certain people by taking from others what they have earned.
|
Microwave ha! Logic ha power! 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 40,566
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Scandal & Media
Lol, sis... Every western country is neo-liberal. Neo-liberalism =/= socialism in the slightest. The Republican party falls into the category of neo-liberalism, as do other capitalist right/center ideologies.
People need to stop with this whole socialism = crazy liberals thing. Private free-market economies and center/center right politics IS liberalism, just the same as center/center left politics.
|
You people are confusing classic liberalism, an economic term with liberalism in modern language. I don't recall free-market philosophies involving meddling with income inequality or fighting for LGBT rights? Liberalism nowadays is based on Keynesian philosophy.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 2,070
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/13/2012
Posts: 32,832
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Darren-5-08
Because it's not up to the state to decide who deserves what. And because, quite frankly, life isn't fair, and it isn't our job to make it fairer for certain people by taking from others what they have earned.
|
Ok so why don't we go back to feudalism if life isn't fair and doesn't have to be?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/13/2012
Posts: 29,559
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/18/2013
Posts: 2,070
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MaRy
Communism is coming back girls and its gonna be equality!
|
No thanks. I am not here for my rights being taken away.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 9,799
|
How are liberals over when Hill's lead is already past 1 million and the poll numbers showed that 18-25 all voted blue
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 18,398
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MaRy
Ok so why don't we go back to feudalism if life isn't fair and doesn't have to be?
|
I agree! Absolute monarchy here we come. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by MaRy
Ok so why don't we go back to feudalism if life isn't fair and doesn't have to be?
|
Because feudalism was inefficient and ineffective. Capitalism is the fairest way to distribute wealth possible. The amount of money one gets is determined by the value of their work on the free market. A high school History teacher might have great knowledge and work hard but earn crap, simply because he can be very easily replaced with another graduate. The supply is greater than demand. Doctors, on the other hand, are nearly always in shortage, because it's a very difficult university course to complete and the job comes with great responsibility.
The government doesn't have any money. All of its money comes from taxes. If the taxes are higher for the rich and lower for the poor, while the poor receive government aid, it's basically theft and redistribution of wealth without any valid reason. It's not like the rich people don't deserve their money, they provide or used to provide something so coveted in the market that other people valued it more than the money they gave them.
About inheritance, it's a controversial thing. I was not born a billionaire, however I don't shout and demand money from people like Paris Hilton, because 'it's not fair'. What I can say in that subject is that stupid people with inherited fortunes do not have to be more successful than very intelligent and well educated people from impoverished backgrounds. I support scholarships for intelligent students from poor families to give them a chance to move up the wealth ladder in a fair way, or a system of repayable loans like it is in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/28/2011
Posts: 27,495
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Scandal & Media
It's so funny when people call democratic socialists 'liberals'. Liberalism is literally everything they're against; wild west capitalism, private free-market economy, minimal government/taxation, etc. Like...
The only difference between centre-left liberalism (ie, the Democrats) and centre-right liberalism (ie, the Republicans) for the most part is stances on social issues like LGBT rights, abortion, etc.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
You people are confusing classic liberalism, an economic term with liberalism in modern language. I don't recall free-market philosophies involving meddling with income inequality or fighting for LGBT rights? Liberalism nowadays is based on Keynesian philosophy.
|
Well no. Free market was just one minor aspect of liberalism. The origins of liberalism stem out of the Enlightenment era in which philosophers campaigned the separation of church and state, individual rights against the government and rule of law based on reason/secular principles.
That doesn't mean privatise everything under the sun, that is a neo-liberal agenda. Liberal philosophers understood that privatisation wasn't the answer to everything, and the role of the state was still important for protecting individual freedoms and the rest of society in general
|
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 2/6/2012
Posts: 18,398
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
You people are confusing classic liberalism, an economic term with liberalism in modern language. I don't recall free-market philosophies involving meddling with income inequality or fighting for LGBT rights? Liberalism nowadays is based on Keynesian philosophy.
|
That doesn't change the fact that every moderate right ideology in the west is also neo-liberalism or that democratic socialism =/= liberalism. Classic liberalism didn't involve a great number of things that are issues now.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 2,555
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
Neo-liberal is just a euphemism for a socialist. And that's a system that has failed nearly literally everywhere it was implemented. Good luck living off other people's money.  |
What are you talking about, neoliberal economic policies are the **** REAGAN pushed and the liberals who have a hard-on for a free market. 
Neoliberals like Clinton were annoying centrists who preferred to never combat how crony capitalism was harming their constituents because it offered them still immediate financial gain.
Neoliberalism is not socialism in any way, lmao.
Quote:
Originally posted by Scandal & Media
It's so funny when people call democratic socialists 'liberals'. Liberalism is literally everything they're against; wild west capitalism, private free-market economy, minimal government/taxation, etc. Like...
The only difference between centre-left liberalism (ie, the Democrats) and centre-right liberalism (ie, the Republicans) for the most part is stances on social issues like LGBT rights, abortion, etc.
|
THIS. Thank god there's someone actually politically literate here.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Javan
Well no. Free market was just one minor aspect of liberalism. The origins of liberalism stem out of the Enlightenment era in which philosophers campaigned the separation of church and state, individual rights against the government and rule of law based on reason/secular principles.
That doesn't mean privatise everything under the sun, that is a neoliberal agenda. Liberal philosophers understood that privatisation wasn't the answer to everything, and the role of the state was still important for protecting individual freedoms and the rest of society in general
[IMG]step on ttos[/IMG] |
What do the roots of liberalism have to do with classical liberalism I'm talking about?
Everything government-run or owned is doomed to be less effective than private.
[IMG]Nice try, Jan[/IMG]
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/5/2011
Posts: 30,130
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Jan
Because feudalism was inefficient and ineffective. Capitalism is the fairest way to distribute wealth possible. The amount of money one gets is determined by the value of their work on the free market. A high school History teacher might have great knowledge and work hard but earn crap, simply because he can be very easily replaced with another graduate. The supply is greater than demand. Doctors, on the other hand, are nearly always in shortage, because it's a very difficult university course to complete and the job comes with great responsibility.
The government doesn't have any money. All of its money comes from taxes. If the taxes are higher for the rich and lower for the poor, while the poor receive government aid, it's basically theft and redistribution of wealth without any valid reason. It's not like the rich people don't deserve their money, they provide or used to provide something so coveted in the market that other people valued it more than the money they gave them.
About inheritance, it's a controversial thing. I was not born a billionaire, however I don't shout and demand money from people like Paris Hilton, because 'it's not fair'. What I can say in that subject is that stupid people with inherited fortunes do not have to be more successful than very intelligent and well educated people from impoverished backgrounds. I support scholarships for intelligent students from poor families to give them a chance to move up the wealth ladder in a fair way, or a system of repayable loans like it is in the UK.
|
This post is everything
I will disagree on the final paragraph though. Inheritance is not controversial to me at all. Capitalism is based on consensual exchange of goods, services or wealth between people. The key word being consensual. Paris Hilton may not have to be successful, intelligent or entrepreneurial to make money because of her fortune. However, her fortune came to her by way of a consensual agreement between her and her family. Her father/grandfather/anyone else earned their wealth, and it is entirely up to them to whom it is distributed when they die. Which is why I also support scholarships, because they also involve money voluntarily donated to colleges and universities so that they may be passed on to students under the terms stipulated when the money was donated.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Yeah, my usage of the term neoliberal was unfortunate. I used it in a different context, however, to distinguished leftist gibberish from the original philosophy of classic liberalism. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 2,527
|
it's just an artpop era, liberalism will come soon
maybe next single i guess
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/7/2015
Posts: 3,830
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Darren-5-08
This post is everything
I will disagree on the final paragraph though. Inheritance is not controversial to me at all. Capitalism is based on consensual exchange of goods, services or wealth between people. The key word being consensual. Paris Hilton may not have to be successful, intelligent or entrepreneurial to make money because of her fortune. However, her fortune came to her by way of a consensual agreement between her and her family. Her father/grandfather/anyone else earned their wealth, and it is entirely up to them to whom it is distributed when they die. Which is why I also support scholarships, because they also involve money voluntarily donated to colleges and universities so that they may be passed on to students under the terms stipulated when the money was donated. |
Well said, actually. Never thought of it like that.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/14/2011
Posts: 48,397
|
We're stronger than ever
It's a bit shameful that so many of you gay men are against us btw. Liberals helped you get your RIGHTS.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 5/27/2016
Posts: 2,555
|
"Tax is basically theft" 
Rich people really ain't ****. I hope y'all don't ever use things paid for through taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's actually quite the opposite. 