Liberalism Is Eating Itself

Posted by Eudaimonia 11 years ago to Politics
70 comments | Share | Flag

Excellent article.
Deserves attention of Gulchers.

All Comments

  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That's one of the true problems with the way we evaluate intellectual property. It is a very fine line to discriminate between a truly novel concept and merely an improvement upon what is existing - especially when it comes to anything written in code.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I read nearly the entire piece just now; for the first third or so, I wanted to send the URL to everyone I know so they can see what America has become because of the 'ruling class.' The author echoed many ideas and themes I've written about and argued for for decades.

    Then I got to the middle section and watched the tide turn from 'both sides are equally guilty' to 'the ruling class are Godless, non-believing Democrats,' and I wondered what happened.

    Then, as I tried to complete the last third or so, I realized that the author is NOT, like in the first third, acknowledging guilt and blame for BOTH 'major parts of the ruling class,' but is expressing a theological basis and righteousness that I wholeheartedly can not support.

    So I won't be forwarding the link to anyone I know, but I might quote some of the early parts in other discussions.

    Thanks for the link! It was a very enlightening read.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Love it! Back when Amazon was trying to patent their 'one click checkout' I was reminded of my mom buying groceries at the A&P supermarket downtown around 1955...

    When the cashier asked, 'is there anything else?' and mom replied 'no,' the clerk moved one lever on the cash register to the 'complete' position and the total appeared.

    One-click checkout, 1955-style. Electromechanical, and totally NON-web OR 'electronic,' but the same metaphor, and here was Amazon trying to claim it as IP.

    To me that's a bit like trying to patent David's sling as an improvement over rock-throwing by hand...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Spot on, CG. Some months back I had the epiphany that there is really ONE 'major party' operating in the US; it just carries two flags... one blue, one red, but the its goal is but one: Control.

    Each 'half' just stakes out the territory they want to control. Personal or Economic Freedoms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago
    I agree with most of this article, except I don't think leftist ideology is in trouble because of this. Rightwing ideology works almost exactly the same way. They have a symbiotic relationship that maintains the bipartisan consensus. It's not a conspiracy, but it just works out that way. They can debate "traditional marriage support" but the question of the gov't being a huge chunk of GDP is not on the table for discussion except for thirdparty candidates who are shut out from the debate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by straightlinelogic 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I in no way meant to exempt conservatives. I too am a believer in individual rights protected by a government limited to that function. The article was about liberals so I talked about liberals, but I am in agreement with many of the points made in your link.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by plusaf 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree, but since my location on the Nolan Graph is damned close to the 'Libertarian Corner,' MY 'problem' is that both liberals AND conservatives 'cannot let me ignore them,' as BOTH groups have decided what's right for them is right for everyone, including me, whether I agree or not.

    I've collected some thoughts and comments here...

    http://www.plusaf.com/lessons/fear-guilt...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Lana,

    Thank you for clearing that up because it seemed that you were using Libertarian and Liberal interchangeably. I do agree with you that they are socially liberal although I might differ with you on my understanding of “human diversity.” However, please keep in mind that there is a great difference between libertarians and the Libertarian Party. As a political party they have no cohesion or clear vision for the future. I do also disagree as to your view about conservatives, I believe that is because you probably believe that republicans are conservatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I also agree that the labels Conservative and Liberal have very little meaning anymore. However that is because those “names” in a political sense haven't had meaning in a long time. The conservatives only belong to the Republican Party because they have no strong organization of their own and most republicans only pretend to be conservatives.

    Of course the word “liberal” has been turned around to mean nothing anymore. Certainly the Democrat Party denies being liberal in the real meaning of today. Liberal Progressive/Socialist and worse should be the name for them.

    “Democrats,” especially those in the present administration know nothing of economics and certainly don't understand how tax policies affect our economy. Of course, most “Republicans” know nothing about those subjects either.

    I would agree, a new strong party is needed, but in my view that should be a Conservative Party, but please remember, a multi-party establishment will lead to further balkanization of this nation.

    My hope is that a Conservative Party will grow out of the disintegration of the Republican Party.

    Fred Speckmann
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Why ...I was talking about the Libertarian Party, as the most Randian group. The Libertarians are very Liberal when it comes to human diversity. As long as there is no victim there is no crime. They are also very fiscally conservative. The point I was making is that the modern label for Conservative encompasses a wildly diverse group which makes the label...meaningless. I really wish we had more parties. The two monoliths are dinosaurs and have outlived any usefulness.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Dear Lana,
    I'm not sure whose belief you are referring to, yours or libertarians, when you state, "Libertarians believe that there is no crime unless there is a victim ( you can't be your own victim).?

    I would reverse that statement to, there is no victim unless there's a crime. There are such things as victimless crimes. you may have a legitimate argument on whether those victimless crimes should be crimes at all, but that is a different argument.

    I am curious to know what "Randian groups" you're referring to that fits one of my definitions for liberals. If your point is that some of Rand's beliefs may have been socially liberal, i don't disagree.

    However this debate has strayed from my disagreement from you that all bankers and politicians can be done without and that a utopian life can be found. as I stated before, I would disagree with you.

    Furthermore, I believe that many in the Gulch seem to believe that Ayn Rand's philosophy is the end all and be all. I believe that it is the beginning of a philosophy and many here can add and expand on her beliefs.

    Fred Speckmann
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Libertarians believe that there is no crime unless there is a victim ( you can't be your own victim).
    That opens the doors to what you defined as what Liberals believe to be OK....To quote you "everything is acceptable from lifestyles to drugs to abortion". Yet one of your most Randian groups fits one of your Liberal definitions. So which is it?
    Which politician group is conservative or how does conservatism express itself in American politics?
    Getting all muddied...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Lana,

    I'm curious as to who you think ventured into absolutes,
    The word, "liberals in general" should have pointed out that I certainly wasn't speaking in absolutes. By definition, when speaking of groups it is understood that not all within that group are in lockstep.

    As to Heinlein, he was speaking about absolutes and and the vaunted consensus. I would agree with him, if there's consensus, e.g. "man made Global Warming," then the consensus is bound to be wrong.

    Fred Speckmann
    commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lana 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Conservatives...liberals are just labels. As soon as you venture into absolutes you lose the truth. Heinlein said " If everyone knows such and such, then it ain't so by at least ten thousand to one".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ stargeezer 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    The ruling class is that group of people who have moved themselves into a place where they can control the common man (us) by force. Anyone thinking that they will do what it takes in order to bring peace a harmony to the world are deluded.

    The most important reason that the founding farhers placed the 2nd A in the bill or rights was to assure that the people would be able to bring the force of arms against a tyrant who gains power by deception. To insure that we can take our country back from those who would give it away OR who would bring force of arms against the American people.

    It's not rich people we need to worry about, we need to be concerned about the puppet president some rich people might buy the path to the WH.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    What's the ruling class? The most common answer people give is Wall Street. Then there are those (not anyone here) who say it's a Jewish conspiracy. I've also heard it's anyone who donates enough money that she/he could arrange a personal call with the POTUS.

    I reject all that. Someone who knows how to do something that serves lots of willing customers is the closest thing to a ruling class.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Bobhummel 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    i don't hate the other side, i just want them to fail in their efforts to enslave me to their irrational ideology. But as these Alinski statists get more power and start confiscating the the productive results of me mind, I will fight back. I will not be a slave to their emotion driven quest for utopia. It did work for Plato's republic, Hobbs' Leviathan , Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia or Marx's communist manifesto. Why should it work for these morons. A rational free mind working in it's our self interest will ALWAYS be successful.
    Cheers
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mccannon01 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "Superlooters". LMAO. Reminds me of the mosquitos that hover around my porch in the summer. No matter how much repellant you deploy, there's always one that gets through to suck your blood.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Welcome to IT. The GUI wasn't invented by Microsoft either - or Apple - but rather Xerox PARC, as was the mouse. The software industry is rife with copying - partly because most software isn't really "novel" at all and partly because the realm of IP law is so new that courts are practically inventing precedent with every case.

    I'm not justifying the rampant IP theft going on, just pointing out that the real problem in software is in defining what constitutes a real and novel method of doing something anymore.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo