Why liberalism is clearly ridiculous
- Thread starter Terxpahseyton
- Start date
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
I am kinda wondering about that myself.
Okay, I get the bacteria analogy. Now, can you describe a liberal parallel and its conservative counterpart? A real world example.
Kennigit
proud 2 boxer
It's almost as if none of you even bother to read the clarifications
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Does it need to be a "conservative" counterpart? Can it merely be a bureaucratic counterpart that has institutional controls on change and behavior? Perhaps even in the pursuit of liberal-minded ideals?
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
Easy pie. Except for one thing. 'its conservative counterpart'?
That does not sound good. No, no.. Not good at all. I am referring to liberalism. Not liberals and conservatives.
But 'liberalism', you know, the ideology which has marked the entire Western style of politics (and, really, by that point at the very least, world politics), Adam Smith, free markets, freedom, individualism... Dame. Actual liberalism! I mean actual liberalism. Not American-left-wing-politics for some very weird historic reason happening to be known as liberalism... Oh god, dear..
Is your question still valid?
I think I am past that feeling by now to be honest - I just take it as it is coming...
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
I read them alright. I didn't understand them.
You mean this all makes perfect sense to you? And therefore it should make sense to me too?
The meaning of "the harshness of the triviality of the faults of reality" is kind of obscure, imo.
So, what's the bottom line, then? The tl;dr? Free Trade is a Big Bad Thing?
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
There is so much to respond to that I felt I had to make a cut at this point. For the sake of myself and of the length of this post.
Anyway, the rest of your post is really besides the point, by a hundred thousands miles, so I'll just let this IMO utmost dubious statement stand there
It, however, is meaningless to this thread.
But I encourage you to keep reading so you may reach the deeper wisdom inhibited by this very thread (mostly by me).
Link to video.
- muhahahaha *shutter*.
Rather, it is as organized as the local dominating peer group of your high school. There is no official head, nor law. But there is all this and and more, nevertheless. Just within people's minds rather on dry paper. Within their expectations. Remember that one, while we are at it. It is all about peoples' expatiations. All of it. Well and how it meets their aspirations, naturally. Hoping that went without saying.
But I guess perhaps not. Since ridiculous artificial formulas have been so popular. (yes I went there)
w-w-w.......
Just go.
GO
And READ, again.
No more is to be said.
Just... go.
Alright - no, I can not say it. It just is too painfully. Too... just go and read again and tell me that you see your error.
Please. Please!
That - I find is very good.
There is no effective difference, IMO
Hah
You are right dear tim.
Another fine way of putting it.
Ah, that explains the tobacco reference by TF. I still can not make heads or tales of it.
Anyway, the rest of your post is really besides the point, by a hundred thousands miles, so I'll just let this IMO utmost dubious statement stand there
I like your style.
It, however, is meaningless to this thread.
But I encourage you to keep reading so you may reach the deeper wisdom inhibited by this very thread (mostly by me
).It most definitely is. Just not on account of a single authority akin to the - uhhh - GOVERNMENT
Link to video.
- muhahahaha *shutter*.
Rather, it is as organized as the local dominating peer group of your high school. There is no official head, nor law. But there is all this and and more, nevertheless. Just within people's minds rather on dry paper. Within their expectations. Remember that one, while we are at it. It is all about peoples' expatiations. All of it. Well and how it meets their aspirations, naturally. Hoping that went without saying.
But I guess perhaps not. Since ridiculous artificial formulas have been so popular. (yes I went there)
WHAT?
w-w-w.......
Just go.
GO
And READ, again.
No more is to be said.
Just... go.
Alright - no, I can not say it. It just is too painfully. Too... just go and read again and tell me that you see your error.
Please. Please!
Oh, it makes more sense now that I know you meant Classic Liberalism. Yeah, they suffer from the is/ought fallacy a ton.
Edit:though that may be more a modern thing, due to Hayekian thinking.
Edit:though that may be more a modern thing, due to Hayekian thinking.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
No, it is actually a fatal flaw that was present at the very beginning of liberalism, and since then has spilled over every left-wing ideology that has followed since.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
So ... Are you saying liberalism is sugar? Or that I am drunk and will regret what has happeneded here in the morning?
In the first case - I like your analogy.
In the latter case - you analogy breaks down. For reasons. Besides the point.
I love this phrase: 'Besides the point' Just like that - snap! Great stuff.
I agree
I love it.
Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
DISCLAIMER
Liberalism means:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.
Liberal means:
Someone advocating liberalism.
It is about the principle. The foundation.
It is about our world.
Okay, Biatches
Let's have some clear talk.
However, you see, the problem starts with the 'clear' or 'dry explaining'.
To understand this problem it is necessary to understand the severe shortcomings of language. Naturally, it would be very distracting to explore those to much extend right now, but so much can be said: Language IMO only requires meaning by association. Some narratives are ingrained into our culture. They do not just stand for themselves. They 'live'. They are like hash tags, leading you to vast varieties of points of views.
What I have to say does not. It is alien, theoretical, dry, meaningless.
And that makes all the difference.
The great riches of associated points of views. Liberalism has that fortune. My point of view does not. So I endeavored into picturesque illustrations so you may actually understand.
However,
That did not went well. But perhaps it can strengthen the case of the plain later on. I sincerely count on it.
Anyway
YEEEEES
Oh god Hygro. I once threatened you with unduly acts. I shall do so again, now.
Thank you!
But!
The real thing is the scope and relevance of this issue.
This is not about just saying 'Well , I do not like how things are'
or complaining a particular malice like unemployment or discrimination or wealth disparity.
THIS IS ABOUT THE ROTTEN WAY OF THE ROTTEN WHOLE.
HOW VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING IS THE F OF U OF C OF THE K OF THE E OF THE D.
Everything.
Because the system, the core, the root, the basis, the idea, the all – because it is all a bunch of BS.
Why?
Because liberalism makes no sense whatsoever!!!
Let's make this plain, now
(FINALLY!)
Yeah, see, humans are for all we know distinctively magically in how they will act.
That is –
oh...
oh...
not magically at...
AT
ALL
NADA
NOTHING
NO MAGIC
NONE
So, that is a problem.
BECAUSE THAT IS THE PREMISE OF MOTHERTLOVING LIBERALISM
See, we if any other factors are just let loose in whatever environment - We do not expect any 'fulfillment'.
They just, you know, do what they do.
Oxygen reacts with hydrogen. Silicious does what the frack ever sicilium does. And so forth.
Things do stuff which each other. And that is it.
The observation/categorization/prediction of such is called science.
So how is this related to human needs?
Oh, not all.
Yes, liberalism thinks, it is, though.
Why?
Oh, they are idiots. Don't mind them. No, wait.
Mind them. They, well.... they rule us. Pretty much everything. I know... I know! I don't know what happened.... Yes, yes I am sure Hitler had something to do with it.
So, as it turns out, liberalism is the answer to human needs! Hooray! How easy was that, people?! Really... HOW EASY WAS THAT?! My God … we got lucky!
Almost... magically lucky
See... we just had to let people loose ….. YEAH!
A DISCOURSE ON LIBERALISM
- You just tell them loose and magically things turned out – give me a break!
- NO! Not at all, dear Sir. We did not do that. We did not have anarchy. We had capitalism! We let them loose like kettle kicked on its ass, alright. But we did so within a market of property and free exchange. That is what we did!
- So you established some ground rules in your environment. You restricted the force of resource transfer to factors 'wanting' it themselves, mutually
- Yeah!
- So...?
- Well – that means human desires are optimized – as much as possible anyway!
- WTH... Why?
- Well – isn't it obvious? If humans have to compete for what resources they want on account on what they personally want – in the end all will be as happy as possible!
- That makes no sense whatsoever.
- Whut?
- All you have to say is 'Whut?'?!!! Look, lets just pretend all people wanted was resources, ignorin' the major screw-up u got for a model – like, MAJOR as big as the Chinese Wall, but let's pretend – why would some universal competition guided by mutual agreement lead to universal optimal satisfaction? Why?
- Well – see there I have this curve and that curve and...
- I will have to slap you know
*SLAP*
That only establishes that the exchange will be stable at some point.
NOTHING ELSE.
- W.....bu---what?
- Nothing else.
- Oh.
- Yeah
- So.....
- So I guess your system has nothing to do with optimization of need satisfaction. Let alone with needs not directly described by money.
- I guess. But..
- BUT WHAT?! What is the reason of this sheet?
- But, if we still assumed that is was all about money and if we assumed that the stability of the exchange of money was equal to the optimization of needs...
- You are drunk or high or just randomly weird.
Go home.
There is no clear logic or superiority.
It just is fracking random.
Oh – yes- there are 'laws' of motion. The free market. Ignoring the obvious inherent wrongness of them - those 'motions' are not related to our actual desires, needs... They are most motherheavenly clearly not. That is as evident as that I am not a dingo.
There are as related to them as that the reaction equation of oxygen and hydrogen makes anyone of both factors happy.
They are just factors within paradigms. Which see human actions as mere money or 'utility' accumulation machines and which are all about keeping things stable or unchanging.
Why again is that good? I have no fracking idea.
It is a train wreck.
However, it also is the dictate of politics since centuries.
Money accumulation is the laser point. And we are cats chasing it.
Pre-modern medicine is pre-liberalism. Liberalism is non-medicine. Actual medicine is actual interest in human needs and in what way/system/structure/market/what-the-hell-ever those needs are served best.
Well – caring about actual humans is a fracking good start, I'd say!
I could now add an appendix (while, no, but still great stuff!) on how Adam Smith is misunderstood by everyone except Adam Smith experts but I'll safe that for now.
Moderator Action: Evading the autocensor is not allowed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Liberalism means:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.
Liberal means:
Someone advocating liberalism.
It is about the principle. The foundation.
It is about our world.
Okay, Biatches
Let's have some clear talk.
Well I appreciate the principle interest. After all, what else can a crazy Internet conspiracy theorist ask for than a student of the applied present system to question his case
However, you see, the problem starts with the 'clear' or 'dry explaining'.
To understand this problem it is necessary to understand the severe shortcomings of language. Naturally, it would be very distracting to explore those to much extend right now, but so much can be said: Language IMO only requires meaning by association. Some narratives are ingrained into our culture. They do not just stand for themselves. They 'live'. They are like hash tags, leading you to vast varieties of points of views.
What I have to say does not. It is alien, theoretical, dry, meaningless.
And that makes all the difference.
The great riches of associated points of views. Liberalism has that fortune. My point of view does not. So I endeavored into picturesque illustrations so you may actually understand.
However,
That did not went well. But perhaps it can strengthen the case of the plain later on. I sincerely count on it.
I do not know what I just watched. And I stopped in the middle of it. But I liked it, and I like you. And your verbs.
Anyway
YES
YEEEEES
Oh god Hygro. I once threatened you with unduly acts. I shall do so again, now.
Thank you!
Yes - yes it would
But!
The real thing is the scope and relevance of this issue.
This is not about just saying 'Well , I do not like how things are'
or complaining a particular malice like unemployment or discrimination or wealth disparity.
THIS IS ABOUT THE ROTTEN WAY OF THE ROTTEN WHOLE.
HOW VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING IS THE F OF U OF C OF THE K OF THE E OF THE D.
Everything.
Because the system, the core, the root, the basis, the idea, the all – because it is all a bunch of BS.
Why?
Because liberalism makes no sense whatsoever!!!
Let's make this plain, now
(FINALLY!)
Yeah, see, humans are for all we know distinctively magically in how they will act.
That is –
oh...
oh...
not magically at...
AT
ALL
NADA
NOTHING
NO MAGIC
NONE
So, that is a problem.
BECAUSE THAT IS THE PREMISE OF MOTHERTLOVING LIBERALISM
See, we if any other factors are just let loose in whatever environment - We do not expect any 'fulfillment'.
They just, you know, do what they do.
Oxygen reacts with hydrogen. Silicious does what the frack ever sicilium does. And so forth.
Things do stuff which each other. And that is it.
The observation/categorization/prediction of such is called science.
So how is this related to human needs?
Oh, not all.
Yes, liberalism thinks, it is, though.
Why?
Oh, they are idiots. Don't mind them. No, wait.
Mind them. They, well.... they rule us. Pretty much everything. I know... I know! I don't know what happened.... Yes, yes I am sure Hitler had something to do with it.
So, as it turns out, liberalism is the answer to human needs! Hooray! How easy was that, people?! Really... HOW EASY WAS THAT?! My God … we got lucky!
Almost... magically lucky
See... we just had to let people loose ….. YEAH!
A DISCOURSE ON LIBERALISM
- You just tell them loose and magically things turned out – give me a break!
- NO! Not at all, dear Sir. We did not do that. We did not have anarchy. We had capitalism! We let them loose like kettle kicked on its ass, alright. But we did so within a market of property and free exchange. That is what we did!
- So you established some ground rules in your environment. You restricted the force of resource transfer to factors 'wanting' it themselves, mutually
- Yeah!
- So...?
- Well – that means human desires are optimized – as much as possible anyway!
- WTH... Why?
- Well – isn't it obvious? If humans have to compete for what resources they want on account on what they personally want – in the end all will be as happy as possible!
- That makes no sense whatsoever.
- Whut?
- All you have to say is 'Whut?'?!!! Look, lets just pretend all people wanted was resources, ignorin' the major screw-up u got for a model – like, MAJOR as big as the Chinese Wall, but let's pretend – why would some universal competition guided by mutual agreement lead to universal optimal satisfaction? Why?
- Well – see there I have this curve and that curve and...
- I will have to slap you know
*SLAP*
That only establishes that the exchange will be stable at some point.
NOTHING ELSE.
- W.....bu---what?
- Nothing else.
- Oh.
- Yeah
- So.....
- So I guess your system has nothing to do with optimization of need satisfaction. Let alone with needs not directly described by money.
- I guess. But..
- BUT WHAT?! What is the reason of this sheet?
- But, if we still assumed that is was all about money and if we assumed that the stability of the exchange of money was equal to the optimization of needs...
- You are drunk or high or just randomly weird.
Go home.
There is no clear logic or superiority.
It just is fracking random.
Oh – yes- there are 'laws' of motion. The free market. Ignoring the obvious inherent wrongness of them - those 'motions' are not related to our actual desires, needs... They are most motherheavenly clearly not. That is as evident as that I am not a dingo.
There are as related to them as that the reaction equation of oxygen and hydrogen makes anyone of both factors happy.
They are just factors within paradigms. Which see human actions as mere money or 'utility' accumulation machines and which are all about keeping things stable or unchanging.
Why again is that good? I have no fracking idea.
It is a train wreck.
However, it also is the dictate of politics since centuries.
Money accumulation is the laser point. And we are cats chasing it.
Pre-modern medicine is pre-liberalism. Liberalism is non-medicine. Actual medicine is actual interest in human needs and in what way/system/structure/market/what-the-hell-ever those needs are served best.
An improvement?
Well – caring about actual humans is a fracking good start, I'd say!
I could now add an appendix (while, no, but still great stuff!) on how Adam Smith is misunderstood by everyone except Adam Smith experts but I'll safe that for now.
Moderator Action: Evading the autocensor is not allowed
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
MilesGregarius
Half-baked Renegade
Your post above included four infinitives in a row which reminded me of the song in the video, the last four lines of which are also infinitives: "To work. To play. To live. To love."
If you didn't watch it to the end - or remember Schoolhouse Rock from growing up on Saturday morning cartoons in the US in the '70s - you won't make the connection.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
OK.
Is that it, then?
Chasing money is the illusion we all fall for instead of caring for each other?
I'm rather underwhelmed. This is old hat, imo.
I don't even think it's true.
It is true for some people, and it is true of most people for some of the time. But it isn't true for the majority of people for the majority of their time. (I think Abraham Lincoln said that.)
And yet... maybe I still misunderstand you. And maybe you know where you're going with this.
Spoiler :
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
DISCLAIMER
Liberalism means:
Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.
Liberal means:
Someone advocating liberalism.
It is about the principle. The foundation.
It is about our world.
Okay, Biatches
Let's have some clear talk.
Well I appreciate the principle interest. After all, what else can a crazy Internet conspiracy theorist ask for than a student of the applied present system to question his case
However, you see, the problem starts with the 'clear' or 'dry explaining'.
To understand this problem it is necessary to understand the severe shortcomings of language. Naturally, it would be very distracting to explore those to much extend right now, but so much can be said: Language IMO only requires meaning by association. Some narratives are ingrained into our culture. They do not just stand for themselves. They 'live'. They are like hash tags, leading you to vast varieties of points of views.
What I have to say does not. It is alien, theoretical, dry, meaningless.
And that makes all the difference.
The great riches of associated points of views. Liberalism has that fortune. My point of view does not. So I endeavored into picturesque illustrations so you may actually understand.
However,
That did not went well. But perhaps it can strengthen the case of the plain later on. I sincerely count on it.
I do not know what I just watched. And I stopped in the middle of it. But I liked it, and I like you. And your verbs.
Anyway
YES
YEEEEES
Oh god Hygro. I once threatened you with unduly acts. I shall do so again, now.
Thank you!
Yes - yes it would
But!
The real thing is the scope and relevance of this issue.
This is not about just saying 'Well , I do not like how things are'
or complaining a particular malice like unemployment or discrimination or wealth disparity.
THIS IS ABOUT THE ROTTEN WAY OF THE ROTTEN WHOLE.
HOW VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING IS THE F OF U OF C OF THE K OF THE E OF THE D.
Everything.
Because the system, the core, the root, the basis, the idea, the all – because it is all a bunch of BS.
Why?
Because liberalism makes no sense whatsoever!!!
Let's make this plain, now
(FINALLY!)
Yeah, see, humans are for all we know distinctively magically in how they will act.
That is –
oh...
oh...
not magically at...
AT
ALL
NADA
NOTHING
NO MAGIC
NONE
So, that is a problem.
BECAUSE THAT IS THE PREMISE OF MOTHERTLOVING LIBERALISM
See, we if any other factors are just let loose in whatever environment - We do not expect any 'fulfillment'.
They just, you know, do what they do.
Oxygen reacts with hydrogen. Silicious does what the frack ever sicilium does. And so forth.
Things do stuff which each other. And that is it.
The observation/categorization/prediction of such is called science.
So how is this related to human needs?
Oh, not all.
Yes, liberalism thinks, it is, though.
Why?
Oh, they are idiots. Don't mind them. No, wait.
Mind them. They, well.... they rule us. Pretty much everything. I know... I know! I don't know what happened.... Yes, yes I am sure Hitler had something to do with it.
So, as it turns out, liberalism is the answer to human needs! Hooray! How easy was that, people?! Really... HOW EASY WAS THAT?! My God … we got lucky!
Almost... magically lucky
See... we just had to let people loose ….. YEAH!
A DISCOURSE ON LIBERALISM
- You just tell them loose and magically things turned out – give me a break!
- NO! Not at all, dear Sir. We did not do that. We did not have anarchy. We had capitalism! We let them loose like kettle kicked on its ass, alright. But we did so within a market of property and free exchange. That is what we did!
- So you established some ground rules in your environment. You restricted the force of resource transfer to factors 'wanting' it themselves, mutually
- Yeah!
- So...?
- Well – that means human desires are optimized – as much as possible anyway!
- WTH... Why?
- Well – isn't it obvious? If humans have to compete for what resources they want on account on what they personally want – in the end all will be as happy as possible!
- That makes no sense whatsoever.
- Whut?
- All you have to say is 'Whut?'?!!! Look, lets just pretend all people wanted was resources, ignorin' the major screw-up u got for a model – like, MAJOR as big as the Chinese Wall, but let's pretend – why would some universal competition guided by mutual agreement lead to universal optimal satisfaction? Why?
- Well – see there I have this curve and that curve and...
- I will have to slap you know
*SLAP*
That only establishes that the exchange will be stable at some point.
NOTHING ELSE.
- W.....bu---what?
- Nothing else.
- Oh.
- Yeah
- So.....
- So I guess your system has nothing to do with optimization of need satisfaction. Let alone with needs not directly described by money.
- I guess. But..
- BUT WHAT?! What is the reason of this sheet?
- But, if we still assumed that is was all about money and if we assumed that the stability of the exchange of money was equal to the optimization of needs...
- You are drunk or high or just randomly weird.
Go home.
There is no clear logic or superiority.
It just is fracking random.
Oh – yes- there are 'laws' of motion. The free market. Ignoring the obvious inherent wrongness of them - those 'motions' are not related to our actual desires, needs... They are most motherheavenly clearly not. That is as evident as that I am not a dingo.
There are as related to them as that the reaction equation of oxygen and hydrogen makes anyone of both factors happy.
They are just factors within paradigms. Which see human actions as mere money or 'utility' accumulation machines and which are all about keeping things stable or unchanging.
Why again is that good? I have no fracking idea.
It is a train wreck.
However, it also is the dictate of politics since centuries.
Money accumulation is the laser point. And we are cats chasing it.
Pre-modern medicine is pre-liberalism. Liberalism is non-medicine. Actual medicine is actual interest in human needs and in what way/system/structure/market/what-the-hell-ever those needs are served best.
An improvement?
Well – caring about actual humans is a fracking good start, I'd say!
I could now add an appendix (while, no, but still great stuff!) on how Adam Smith is misunderstood by everyone except Adam Smith experts but I'll safe that for now.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Mise
isle of lucy
Is this the real life??
