The fundamental lie (creed) of liberalism

vanity | supercat

[supercat]

The evil cancer of modern liberalism has spread through society. Few people, however, recognize its root. It all boils down to a simple credo:

Hardship is bad, and society should work against it.

This statement seems at first obvious, indisputable, and self-evident. It is also, however, FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG. Unfortunately, this lie has become so ingrained into our culture I don't know how to root it out. Perhaps someone here will have some ideas.

Economists recognize that [generalized] Demand is an unlimitted force. Attempts to satisfy it can consume unlimitted resources and yet still not succeed. Worse, if Demand were somehow ultimately satisfied, the result would be economic disaster.

"Hardship", though more generalized, is a driving force which possesses those same properties. Fundamentally, hardship involves seeing things which one wishes were better. The better things become, however, the better one will wish they were. Since the driving motivation behind the human spirit is a desire to make things better, a world without hardship would be fundamentally incompatible with it.

The true goal of liberalism is to undermine the human spirit--to create a population of slaves. By denying that hardship is not just inevitable but also necessary they seek to convert a nation of human beings into a nation of sheep.

[supercat]

Sorry for the vanity [what happened to 'your opinions/question'?] but as I was waxing philosophical on other threads I came to a revelation I'd not seen written elsewhere and which I think may be a useful key to understanding the enemy we face. I only hope others else here can use this insight to help forge a plan of action to combat it.

[slimer]

bump

[ricpic]

Goethe is reported to have said; "The dangers in life are infinite, and safety is one of the worst of them."

[Ghlade]

Interesting argument, but you haven't sold me yet.

"The evil cancer of modern liberalism has spread through society. Few people, however, recognize its root. It all boils down to a simple credo:

Hardship is bad, and society should work against it."

This might be true. If we take your definition of hardship, essentially "unrealized goals", that may account for some of the left's more utopian aims. Many of the "safety-net" and welfare programs are in theory supposed to eliminate suffering.

"The better things become, however, the better one will wish they were. Since the driving motivation behind the human spirit is a desire to make things better, a world without hardship would be fundamentally incompatible with it."

This part of your argument is a problem. After all, didn't you say earlier that the eradication of hardship, "all goals being met", is absolutely impossible? This would mean that, despite the intentions of leftists, the human spirit is in no danger at all. Oddly, your argument seems to work in FAVOR of liberals. If liberals are attempting to "make things better", and if "the better things become, the better one will wish they were"- it seems like liberal policies would compliment that aspect of human nature you describe instead of undermine it!

Your reference to slavery is also peculiar. Do you really believe that liberals (1) cognizant of the fact that a perfect world would not necessarily be good for humanity and (2) honestly believe they could achieve it and (3) want to achieve it out of actual malicious intent? I'd have a much easier time buying a theory that portrayed liberals as misguided than out and out malevolent.

[boris]

I seem to have Mark Twain as the guy who said, "The worst thing you can do to a man is to tell him he can have what he wants."

Anybody know if this is the right attribution?

--Boris