Jump to content

Filthy Liberals


Recommended Posts

Thomas Jefferson, an outspoken early liberal, who fought constantly against the early conservative Alexander Hamilton, summed up the difference between the two in a thoroughly biased statement that sounds (to liberals) still accurate today:

 

“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:

 

1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.

 

2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests.”

 

---

 

In pointing to trust, Jefferson is getting to the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives — where they put their trust.

 

http://donellameadows.org/archives/liberal-isnt-a-dirty-word-conservative-isnt-either/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except today the divide is far greater, I think. That's probably natural given that 50% of America was served for 8 years their identity politics, cops bad/criminals good, 681 genders, intolerance of opinion, hey, give terror a chance, what's the worst that can happen?; but now the other 50%, those that detest all of that, have the mic. I'll guess that in another 8 years the chart will find center again.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Jefferson, an outspoken early liberal, who fought constantly against the early conservative Alexander Hamilton, summed up the difference between the two in a thoroughly biased statement that sounds (to liberals) still accurate today:

 

“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:

 

1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.

 

2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests.”

 

---

 

In pointing to trust, Jefferson is getting to the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives — where they put their trust.

 

http://donellameadows.org/archives/liberal-isnt-a-dirty-word-conservative-isnt-either/

 

I disagree. Liberals often distrust people. RichardGibbons in other thread doubted that people were smart enough to make intelligent decisions in healthcare. For very similar reasons liberals are against school choice. Liberals also doubt that people can be trusted to manage their retirement funds.

 

The divisions between liberals and conservatives has more to do with interest group alliances, tribalism, historical factors and other ideological differences like for instance the liberal belief in big government vs the conservative belief in markets/big business. What for instance does the historical liberal support for socialist dictatorships such as USSR, Cuba or Hugo Chavez have to do with trusting people. For that matter how are any of the following connected: abortion rights, environmental protection, pro-immigration, high taxes, ending rape culture,decriminalization of marijuana. Historically none of these things were connected. For instance many early feminists were for alcohol prohibition, against immigration and against abortion. The fact that these things are connected to liberals today has nothing to do with a coherent worldview and everything to do with political interest group alliances which are reinforced by the media and the tribalism of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since liberals profess such trust in people, I propose that every liberal on this board post their credit card numbers, pins, bank transit numbers, email passwords on this thread. This would be a good way for them to demonstrate their unqualified trust in people.

 

DooDiligence you go first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conservatives: let people live their life.

 

Yeah!  I mean, unless said person happens to be a woman who wants an abortion, or a man who wants to marry a man, or dumb things like that.

 

But if living your life involves one-stop convenience shopping for guns and booze, or dumping your used car oil in a hole in your back yard, then conservatives often have a refreshing "live and let live" attitude.

 

(In case it's unclear, tongue is firmly planted in cheek.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Jefferson, an outspoken early liberal, who fought constantly against the early conservative Alexander Hamilton, summed up the difference between the two in a thoroughly biased statement that sounds (to liberals) still accurate today:

 

“Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:

 

1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.

 

2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise, depository of the public interests.”

 

---

 

In pointing to trust, Jefferson is getting to the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives — where they put their trust.

 

http://donellameadows.org/archives/liberal-isnt-a-dirty-word-conservative-isnt-either/

 

I disagree. Liberals often distrust people. RichardGibbons in other thread doubted that people were smart enough to make intelligent decisions in healthcare. For very similar reasons liberals are against school choice. Liberals also doubt that people can be trusted to manage their retirement funds.

 

The divisions between liberals and conservatives has more to do with interest group alliances, tribalism, historical factors and other ideological differences like for instance the liberal belief in big government vs the conservative belief in markets/big business. What for instance does the historical liberal support for socialist dictatorships such as USSR, Cuba or Hugo Chavez have to do with trusting people. For that matter how are any of the following connected: abortion rights, environmental protection, pro-immigration, high taxes, ending rape culture,decriminalization of marijuana. Historically none of these things were connected. For instance many early feminists were for alcohol prohibition, against immigration and against abortion. The fact that these things are connected to liberals today has nothing to do with a coherent worldview and everything to do with political interest group alliances which are reinforced by the media and the tribalism of people.

 

This.

 

What is isn't considered r/left is constantly changing. It's quite clear there's good ideas on both sides. If you can't find any good in the opposition's ideas, you aren't looking. I read the wsj and nyt every day, good stuff all around.

 

If you really dive into any long term issues, the reason they haven't been solved yet is because they ARE complicated, it you don't see they are complicated, you haven't spent enough time studying the issue. You know, if you don't think this stuff is hard, you're stupid etc...

 

Quick anecdote, although I don't really care a whole lot about the abortion issue. In march I was in france for a month climbing and I spent some time with a group of four, two from Atlanta, two from SF, I mentioned I had recently watched a few abortion debates and found it strange that a pro choice women wouldn't admit that a baby is a baby at 8 months, only 8 months specifically, which I reiterated three times. This was the beginning of a two hours conversation, the end result was that not one of the four would admit this, which seemed absolutely bizarre to me. However, I loved this result, I loved it that these four, educated (two phd's one master's) thought of an 8 month old as a "fetus" and a "parasite".

 

At the beginning of this conversation I thought I could start with general acceptance that an 8 month old is in fact alive, a baby, a person, with all the rights and that would lead to a reasonable conversation about at what point a baby is a baby and not a fetus. We discussed a few things such as what states allow abortion up until what time, the fact that at around 7.5 months, a baby(fetus?) has lungs developed enough that it doesn't need additional support, babies(fetuses?) can live outside the womb at this point which seems to me a pretty clear point at which you have to accept it is a person. We discussed that the time period at which a baby can survive with support has come down over time. They continuously pointed out the political/legislative problems with ever accepting a baby is a baby at any point in the process.

 

I'm pro choice to a point, 8 months is clearly beyond that point to me.

 

After accepting that I couldn't get them to admit that an 8 month old is a baby, I tried reductio ad absurdum. I asked them if we lived in a star trek world, and I could simply beam the baby out of the mother using a transporter, at again, 8 months specifically, with no possible harm to the mother, if they would be okay with that. Considering clearly an aborting mother doesn't want the baby, why not beam the baby out? I was convinced they would agree to such a proposition. They continued to ask what would happen with the placenta, what would happen to the mother, etc etc to my astonishment. I assured them that transporters work at the atomic level and that all and only the unwanted parts could be beamed out at no harm and no cost to the mother.

 

I can't say for sure why, maybe it's because of one's propensity due to ideologies, tribalism, or what seems to be most people's inability to hold two diverging ideas in their mind simultaneously, they would not agree with this proposition. It is a mother's choice whether or not a baby is beamed out of her womb or dissected, apparently.

 

It was at this moment, I gained a whole new level of confidence regarding the potentially massive divergence of opinion in the stock market.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...