My Problems With My Country

[ilw]

I think i wasn't looking when i quoted :"> meant to quote

Say what you want, the death penalty sure deters those who would murder again.

is that clearer, or was it the rest of it equally bad It was a bit of a stream of consciousness type post.

Liberalism moves, therefore, toward radical individualism and the corruption of standards that movement entails.

"By destroying the traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified.....Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is it's own negation:
The artificial, mechanized or brutalized control which is a desperate remedy for it's chaos."

I agreed whole heartedly with what that guy said about liberalism up until the point he mentioned corruption, then it gets a little biased i think. Liberalism imo represents a purifying of standards, freeing them from traditional prejudiced or uneducated bias. yes this may constitute a destruction of values imposed by religion, for me that makes perfect sense in a secular society, as for removing constraints imposed by family, community and morality, I'm not 100% sure i understand what this means so i can't really argue, though the removal of moral values sounds intriguing.
Liberalism for me is all about change, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better, but imo its the only way society will progress. Obviously theres a balance to be struck, if you try and change too fast you'll be in the shit just as much as if you change too slow.

[j2k4]

ilw-

I think he meant corruption in the literal sense of loss of original (or pure) intent rather than connoting the negative-in the same sense "ignorance" literally means "absent knowledge of".

[3RA1N1AC]

that description of liberalism, and correct me if i poorly summarize the gist of it, essentially complains that liberalism focuses entirely on individual freedom rather than on communal responsibility. this is typically in regard to society, family, culture, etc. if you consider liberal economic policy, there's a pattern of trying to strengthen communal bonds across economic lines by reducing the disparity between the upper & lower classes. although the middle & upper classes inevitably resent having to support the poor. especially the middle class, since they're given very few opportunities to avoid paying taxes. you could just dismiss this as pandering for votes, but how to explain the middle & upper class voters who support such policies which do not benefit themselves? surely there is some sense of charity & altruism involved, contradicting the idea that liberalism is all about selfishness.

and then mainstream conservativism is nearly the opposite on both social and economic points. conservatives typically have no problem with trying to enforce their views of social/communal correctness through law, but when it comes to economy it's an every-man-for-himself situation with zero regard for the health of society. it's the liberal approach to society, taken and applied to economy. isn't a wall street mover 'n' shaker just as much a libertine regarding economics, as a san francisco bohemian might be in regards to social taboos? consider the t.s. eliot quote: "Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is it's own negation: The artificial, mechanized or brutalized control which is a desperate remedy for it's chaos." although intended as a reference to society, it's also a perfect fit for economics-- communist dictatorship as a reaction against the "individual comes first" laissez-faire capitalism.

the founding fathers and early government of the united states expressed great concern for the rights of individuals and minorities by putting restraints on majority rule-- with ideas like the separation of church & state, freedom of speech, the electoral college, the system of checks and balances, etc in order to prevent tyranny on several fronts including the tyranny of the majority. liberalism is by no means a mere appendix to the american way.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by ilw@20 November 2003 - 16:34
yeah it comes down to your hard earned tax dollars, I'm sure we could all save $15 a month by killing off some of those spongers.

You may think these people are not fit to share your society, but you'd kill them to save money? I'm just curious, but i notice you mentioned rapists and paedophiles, would they all get the death penalty as well?...

It costs $89,065 a year to house an elderly prisioner. It costs $49,922 a year for the others. Currently there are about 56,167 people in prision. With 7,000 elderly, it costs around $3,077,965,641 a year. And strangely enough, they're given opportunities I'm not. Prisoners are able to take university courses or learn trades free of charge. I'd have to pay well over $3,000 a semester if I wanted to do that.

It has nothing to do with saving money. If a person is capable of killing well over 15 (and likely closer to 61) people over a period of time, and have absolutely no remorse for their actions, they frankly don't deserve to live. Obviously they don't value life.

I said I shouldn't have to pay to house all manner of scum. Perhaps they ought to take responsibility for their own actions.

[j2k4]

Why, for purposes of this thread, don't we limit the parameters of the discussion to liberalism as it applies to societal considerations?

To interject the economic angle as counterpoint, or a defense of Liberalism on other fronts, creates an impasse in debate.

If you will agree, I will begin by stating that Liberalism has the effect of making amorallity a desirable condition, and defines freedom as life without stricture of any kind; indeed, as ilw ( and Mr. Eliot) say, Liberalism's core impetus is the continual (that is to say, unending) "refinement" of life, the shedding of "traditional" prejudice, or "uneducated" bias (BTW-what about "non-traditional prejudice", or "educated bias"? Are they okay?), what is the result when Liberalism has achieved the removal of all such "impediments?

Would not chaos result?

Is it your contention, 3RA1N1AC, that humans are somehow inherently capable of growing up and living a life uninformed by any parameters other than those they themselves choose?

How do they choose these limitations when Liberalism indicates limitations are to be ignored?

How, for example, would one who shrugs off societal mores to conclude that it is wrong to kill another human being?

[3RA1N1AC]

DOES liberalism make amorality a desirable condition? (notice in my previous post that i did not in any way concede to the claim that liberalism's inevitable result is immorality.)

or does it merely tolerate diverse moralities? moral relativitism is a far cry from anarchy. when you deal with absolute morality and come down to the point where you've got to prove the authority of a moral, it's inevitably going to become a religious issue. religious texts serve as incredibly weak proof in the modern age. and if it comes down to that, then the separation of church & state is compromised because the government is granting legal authority to a religion.

i think at this point, moral relativism is a necessity, given the unprecedented global intertwinement of culture, politics and economy that we have nowadays. all the cultures and religions of the world will not simply crumble away in favor of western (much less american) morality. for a government to be morally relative toward the rest of the world, but morally absolute toward its own citizens, would be hypocritical. so i'd say the trend must be toward moral relativism, both internationally and domestically, whether to the chagrin of conservatives or not.

and murder doesn't fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of morality. the government can address the issue of murder without invoking morality because the constitution (and the laws established through its authority) acts as a practical contract between the government and the citizenry. and one of the terms of the contract, implied or otherwise, is that the government does its best to ensure the well-being of the citizens that defer authority to it.

[j2k4]

Ah, moral relativism.

And how do we achieve this global consensus we must default to?

Take any single issue, and use moral relativism as a means of arbitrating international conflict.

Leave out the fact of religious influence in other countries and cultures; if we must operate under the (suddenly) onerous separation of church and state, so must they, yes?

Try getting the Islamics in the mideast to absent religion from their decision-making process.

After all, we are not bringing our Christianity to Iraq-the reason our troops find themselves under fire is that they are "infidels" who do not subscribe to Islam.

Tell the Palestinians they can't hate Israel and it's Jews anymore, because to do so violates the new international caveat separating church and state.

How would you propose to accomplish this?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@20 November 2003 - 20:05
Leave out the fact of religious influence in other countries and cultures; if we must operate under the (suddenly) onerous separation of church and state, so must they, yes?

Try getting the Islamics in the mideast to absent religion from their decision-making process.

After all, we are not bringing our Christianity to Iraq-the reason our troops find themselves under fire is that they are "infidels" who do not subscribe to Islam.

Tell the Palestinians they can't hate Israel and it's Jews anymore, because to do so violates the new international caveat separating church and state.

How would you propose to accomplish this?

other countries can let religion rule their decision-making all they want. it's not our job to make any other country do anything. if they don't want liberalism (to the degree that american conservatives are more liberal than, say, most of iran), democracy, hollywood movies, greasy cheeseburgers, racial & religious tolerance, or separation of church & state, there's nothing in our constitution that says we should push any of that on them. if we were moral relativists, we wouldn't desire to make them comply with our ideals.

maybe there is a religious motivation to attacking american soldiers in iraq, or maybe to some degree it has to do with the fact that we've invaded a country and overthrown its government. especially in the wakes of events of like the JFK or 9-11, it isn't kosher to express such a sentiment-- but chickens do come home to roost. pax americana and all that.

[ilw]

I was just thinking, is morality necessary, because as you say it does eventually come down to spiritualism i.e. a mystically defined good & bad, which i don't believe in and which in a truly multicultural society seems impracticable. So thinking about it I may be completely amoral, however, I think that in order for society to work you don't need morality, but you do need an underlying philosophy, ie not something that tells you whats right or wrong, but simply something which tells you what you can and can't do.

[j2k4]

Okay-

Just what do the two of you choose to call this "framework" for acceptable social behavior?

You've ruled out morality, etc., and denied religion, family, etc., as being an "underlying" philosophy.

What is it?

Where does it come from?

Who defines it?

Remember now, nobody has a right to tell anybody what to do, and Liberalism dictates that we strive to be free of constraints.

Since nobody or nothing is to be exalted or held in higher regard than anyone or anything else, whence do societal rules come?

3RA1N1AC-

Make up your mind:

Is it to be moral relativism or not?

Why do we need to practice it in order that we might accomodate the rest of the world, but not the other way around?

Are you suggesting the U.S. and it's "philosophy" are entirely without legitimacy, or that in any case, it must subordinate itself to this "global mandate" you seem to think exists?