Is this the end of liberalism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I edited the post so there's more content but it's clear you're not reading all the way through.

I read what you posted.

However, the trend in both the US and Europe is a shift to the right and liberals imploding on themselves, which as I said earlier they are unable to fix because it would require adopting Conservative social policies and abandoning a lot of their failing Social Justice policies. The only other option is that they implode on themselves. Both options will inevitably cause a shift to the right.
 
I read what you posted.

However, the trend in both the US and Europe is a shift to the right and liberals imploding on themselves, which as I said earlier they are unable to fix because it would require adopting Conservative policies and abandoning a lot of their failing Social Justice policies. The only other option is that they implode on themselves. Both options will inevitably cause a shift to the right.

i'll give you even odds for your situation happening. how much money are you gonna bet?
 
The difference is that companies enforce dress codes on their own property, they aren't whining that they find tattoos incredibly offensive so their dress codes really ought to be enforced in public areas also.

Right, but the end result is the same. It's an accepted restriction on speech in an institution that really, the vast majority of the population has/uses (the private world).
 
The left is so powerful that even the right advocates baby killing:

Have you ever wondered whether, if given the opportunity, Jeb Bush would go back in time to kill Adolf Hitler in his crib?

Well, wonder no more.

“Hell yeah, I would!” the former Florida governor told HuffPost. “You gotta step up, man.”

The question initially arose when The New York Times Magazine polled its readers last month and found that a plurality of respondents said they would, in fact, kill Hitler as a baby.

Bush was then asked the question directly via the email address that he distributes widely to public audiences: Jeb@jeb.org. But he did not answer the inquiry until asked on camera by HuffPost, while riding on his campaign bus in New Hampshire.

Bush did acknowledge that murdering the future German dictator before he had the chance to ignite World War II would be an act that could set in motion unknown consequences.

But the 2016 Republican presidential candidate remained emphatic that he would, in fact, kill Hitler -- even if the future leader of the Third Reich were an especially cute baby.

“It could have a dangerous effect on everything else, but I’d do it -- I mean, Hitler,” Bush said with a shrug.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-on-killing-baby-hitler_5640e1b6e4b0411d3071da54?eoy9zfr
 
Liberalism is stealing our freedom and manhood plus Liberalism is dying.

And on top of that, here's a 10 page cartoon download.

above link said:
Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.
Well that's pretty interesting and something I did not know. Do you agree with it?

I'm guessing from previous posts of yours that your being facetious here, but I'll answer just in case: my problem isn't with people being offended, it's with those people then throwing a hissy fit and demanding that nobody ever offend them again. It's like something went wrong with these people's development and they failed to grow up emotionally. People in college are supposed to be adults. Young adults, yes, but still adults. Time to act like it.
For most humans the judgment centers in the brain don't fully develop until about age 25-26. That is part of the reason college students do so many interesting things that the rest of think of as a bit odd.

I was agreeing with your point and elaborating on what you said.

Opinions and feelings =/= truth

Truth can be proven and is not arbitrary. Feelings and opinion are arbitrary and can't be proven, so therefore they can't be truth. Personally, I find it to be very monotonous and a waste of time to deconstruct a concept as basic as "truth," which any adult with common sense knows what it is.
Well at least that rules out any discussion involving the Bible.

Are you equating "truth" with the methodologies of science and math?
 
Originally Posted by abradley View Post
Liberalism is stealing our freedom and manhood plus Liberalism is dying.

And on top of that, here's a 10 page cartoon download.
Quote:
Originally Posted by above link
Capitalism, he wrote, is the only system of economics compatible with human dignity, prosperity, and liberty. To the extent we move away from that system, we empower the worst people in society to manage what they do not understand.

Well that's pretty interesting and something I did not know. Do you agree with it?
Yes, I do.
 
So would you agree that artificially suppressing the free market supply of labor with immigration controls empowers the worst in people?
 
If it is true, how do we account for the terrible, terrible working conditions that business owners and corporations have (and do) subjected their workers to over the centuries? Under capitalism, as we see it, greed and profit take precedence over compassion. In most cases the only solution has been government intervention.
 
For most humans the judgment centers in the brain don't fully develop until about age 25-26. That is part of the reason college students do so many interesting things that the rest of think of as a bit odd.

True, but I wasn't that much of a whiny brat when I was that age. I was deeply stupid in a lot of ways, to be sure, but I don't recall ever throwing a fit that somebody I didn't like was going to be allowed to speak on stage in my general vicinity. Of course I also wasn't upper middle class like a lot of the current crop of shrieking morons are so maybe I just had better things to worry about, such as "Oh hey, I need to find a job like yesterday."
 
If it is true, how do we account for the terrible, terrible working conditions that business owners and corporations have (and do) subjected their workers to over the centuries? Under capitalism, as we see it, greed and profit take precedence over compassion. In most cases the only solution has been government intervention.

That's not an absolute. Employees are expensive to train and replace if they get injured, or sick. It's in a company's best interest to keep them safe. I work on large industrial construction sites and the majority of the safety regulations are not government, or union regulations and we have extremely strict regulations. Some are so strict it can be frustrating.
 
Were Nazis right wing?

But that's for another thread.

Back on subject, Civman has a point, the left appears to be feeding on itself.
IRRC 'Black Lives Matter' haven't invaded right wing rallies, only Dem rallies.

Factually speaking, yes. By definition fascism if the extreme right and communism is the extreme left on the X axis. Both were authoritarian on the Y Axis (which goes from authoritarian to anarchist).
 
Factually speaking, yes. By definition fascism if the extreme right and communism is the extreme left on the X axis. Both were authoritarian on the Y Axis (which goes from authoritarian to anarchist).

Fascism and Communism are both big government totalitarianism and two sides of the same coin. Really they each operate outside of the left-right paradigm and are ideologically almost identical in practise - forget what their propaganda says.

However, because of this you can understand why Conservatives don't like big government. Generally speaking these kinds of governments gain power through leftist policies because liberals like big government. The Nazis were National Socialists after all.
 
If it is true, how do we account for the terrible, terrible working conditions that business owners and corporations have (and do) subjected their workers to over the centuries? Under capitalism, as we see it, greed and profit take precedence over compassion. In most cases the only solution has been government intervention.
Human beings will be Human beings. The point is you need to control them and their excesses.

Capitalism is natural to us human beings, go to third world countries experimenting with socialism and the economy is a disaster but at the same time market women are doing fine with capitalism.

Pilgrims Socialist Experiment Failed too...
Intercollegiate Studies Institute ^ | November 26, 2004 | Francisco
Posted on 8/24/2009, 7:10:41 AM by kingattax
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2322871/posts

Even as the Left still flirts with socialism (and I'm being nice with the word, "flirts"), the first Pilgrims who arrived here in 1620 learned their lesson early: socialism, even on the scale of the Pilgrims colony at Plymouth Rock, doesn't work.

William Bradford wrote about his "experiment" with socialism then in his journal, "Of Plymouth Plantation". Check it out sometime in a library or get it on Amazon. It is an early primary history of the Pilgrims' spirit of adventure, free enterprise, and devotion to religious freedom. We could use a little taste of their spirit today.

I pulled the following excerpt from this website: http://www.pngusa.net/~mjwrose/rightminded/thanksgiving.htm

Enjoy this brief history:

On August 1, 1620, a ship called the "Mayflower" left England with 102 passengers bound for the New World. The manifest included two groups. The Separatists, led by William Bradford, had fled their homeland and the oppressive Church of England under King James I in search of a home where they could live and worship God according to their own conscience. The Strangers sought the New World for other reasons. Together they formed the Pilgrims.

Their intended crossing to Virginia strayed off course, and they instead landed on Cape Cod -- outside the territory covered by the King's Charter. Thus, the Pilgrims were responsible for their own governance. Following the nine-week journey, the Pilgrims composed an agreement that would establish just and equal laws for all members of the new community. Indeed, the revolutionary ideas expressed in the Mayflower Compact were derived from none other than the Holy Bible.

Only then, on November 11, 1620, did the Pilgrims leave the Mayflower. A cold and barren wilderness awaited them. There were no friends to greet them, no houses to shelter them, nor stores of food to sustain them. That first winter was perilous, as half the Pilgrims died of starvation, sickness, or exposure.

When spring arrived, an Indian named Squanto taught the settlers how to plant corn, fish, use fertilizer, and stalk deer. Bradford wrote that Squanto was "a special instrument sent of God for their good beyond their expectations."

In October, following their first harvest, Governor Bradford set aside a day of thanksgiving. Squanto, his chief Massasoit, and other members of the tribe were invited to the thanksgiving feast. The Indians brought deer and turkeys, while the Pilgrim women cooked vegetables and fruit pies. The purpose of the feast was not to give thanks to the Indians or Mother Earth, as contemporary history textbooks commonly report, but as a devout expression of gratitude to God.

What modern history texts also omit is that the contract the Pilgrims brokered with their merchant-sponsors in London specified that everything they produce go into a common store, with each member entitled to one common share. In addition, all the land they cleared and the structures they built belonged to the community.

William Bradford, Governor of the new colony, realized the futility of collectivism and abandoned the practice. Instead, Bradford assigned a plot of land to each family and permitted them to market their own crops and other products, thereby unleashing the power of free enterprise. What Bradford had wisely realized was that these industrious people had no reason to work any harder than anyone else without the motivation of personal incentive.

Thus, what can only be called the Pilgrims' attempt at socialism ended like all other attempts at socialism -- in failure. What Bradford subsequently wrote about the experiment should be in every American history textbook. The lesson provided therein is invaluable.

"The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato's and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and :) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :):) :) :) :) much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense."

And what happened after collectivism was replaced by capitalism and the concept of private property?

"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content."

The Pilgrims soon found they had more food than they could eat, so they set up trading posts and exchanged goods with the Indians. The profits they realized allowed them to pay off their debts to the merchants in London. The success and prosperity of the original Plymouth settlement attracted more European settlers, setting off what came to be known as the "Great Puritan Migration."

Three hundred and eighty-two years later, Americans still set aside the fourth Thursday in November each year as a celebration of thanksgiving. Although this quintessentially American holiday has become more secular than religious, it was originated by devoutly Christian people who were expressing gratitude for the bounty brought forth by their labor and the blessings bestowed upon them by God.

IMO Capitalism is a natural for us humans, socialism isn't.
 
a) appeal to nature is not a valid argument
b) even if it were - "natural state" that's only existed for the last mmm 800 years? 1000 if you're being generous?
 
a) appeal to nature is not a valid argument
b) even if it were - "natural state" that's only existed for the last mmm 800 years? 1000 if you're being generous?

Capitalism is basically competition. Humans compete with each other and other animals in their environments constantly. Evolution is made possible by selecting the best genes and discarding the undesirable ones through competition. Business works much the same way. The best businesses survive. The one's that are bad at competing fail, or aren't as successful.
 
Factually speaking, yes. By definition fascism if the extreme right and communism is the extreme left on the X axis. Both were authoritarian on the Y Axis (which goes from authoritarian to anarchist).
Was Fascism Right-Wing (Again)? by JONAH GOLDBERG May 5, 2015 2:06 PM @JONAHNRO

The often very interesting blogger Pseudoerasmus has a long post about whether fascism can be considered left-wing (picking up from another post by John Holbo at Crooked Timber). Pseudoerasmus focuses on the question of Italy’s place on the left–right spectrum, though when convenient he cites examples from Nazi history. He is very skeptical, arguing that in “historical terms” fascism should be seen as right-wing. “I think the issue is kind of obvious,” he writes, “but it’s always good to have an excuse to pontificate on matters historical.” I agree, so let me offer some counter pontification.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/417926/was-fascism-right-wing-again-jonah-goldberg

The point he makes is the people of the day said it was Left, even left of FDR's early New Deal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom