Posted on 04/18/2008 5:36:17 AM PDT by Kaslin
The biggest problem with liberalism is that much of it is based on incorrect assumptions about human nature, the government, and how the world works. That's why liberal policies that seem so well-intentioned often have such disastrous results over the long-term. Until liberals start to understand these truths, their ideas will continue to be damaging to their country and the world.
Human beings are born selfish and badly behaved: You, me, your father, Mother Theresa, the Pope -- we were all savage, self-centered little animals when we were born and it was only through the socialization process that we became fit for other humans to live with. That's why people do need religion, rules, and social pressure to be convinced to behave. It's also why projects like communism, which assume that people can be brainwashed to completely disregard their own nature and love their fellow citizens every bit as much as they love themselves, are always doomed to fail.
Change is often a bad thing: It goes without saying that sometimes laws, traditions, and moral practices should be changed, but it shouldn't need to be said that change for its own sake is not a plus either.
Unfortunately, there are far too many people who treat massive changes, changes that have the potential to permanently impact our society in a negative way, very cavalierly. Sure, we'll change the definition of marriage, legalize drugs, weaken the Christian church, allow countless numbers of illegal aliens from a neighboring country to become citizens, etc., etc., etc. -- what could go wrong? A lot, actually.
In fact, if you look back through our history, for every positive change on a large scale, getting rid of slavery for example, you can find multiple significant changes for the worse: like killing children by the millions via abortion and massive increases in illegitimate births because of welfare. That doesn't mean we should avoid change. Let me repeat that: that doesn't mean we should avoid change. However, we should take great care before making massive changes to the way our society works.
People are different: This would seem to be a rather obvious point, but it's one liberals seem to have a great deal of difficulty digesting. In their mind, women and men should be treated as if they have exactly the same predilections and abilities. Different races should perform identically well, in precisely equal percentages, in every activity, and any difference between people must be explained by some sort of unfair societal constraint placed upon the less successful.
However, you must take the uniqueness of the person and the group he's a part of into account. People don't have the same backgrounds, interests, talents, or cultural experiences. Because of that, nothing could be more foolish than to treat every person as if he's an interchangeable widget that should fall into some statistical category to make a bunch of bean counters in D.C. happy.
Most nations are interested in what's good for them: The only thing liberals love better than big government is even bigger government. So, yes, they love using the power of the federal government, but they're even more in love with the idea of building up the United Nations or some other form of world government.
Setting aside the fact that the bigger government gets, the less efficient it becomes, there's another huge problem with the United Nations: it's comprised of individual nations that view the organization as little more than a way to further their own interests, which may oftentimes be in conflict with those of other nations.
The truth is that most people and most nations are primarily interested in taking care of Number One. Moreover, those that don't think that way and feel strongly enough about it to take action beyond a few platitudes or token contributions are few and far between. So since that is the case, any nation that doesn't have strong safeguards for its own national interests in any sort of deal it enters into with other nations or groups of nations, is extremely foolish indeed.
Most nations are interested in what's good for them: The only thing liberals love better than big government is even bigger government. So, yes, they love using the power of the federal government, but they're even more in love with the idea of building up the United Nations or some other form of world government.
Setting aside the fact that the bigger government gets, the less efficient it becomes, there's another huge problem with the United Nations: it's comprised of individual nations that view the organization as little more than a way to further their own interests, which may oftentimes be in conflict with those of other nations.
The truth is that most people and most nations are primarily interested in taking care of Number One. Moreover, those that don't think that way and feel strongly enough about it to take action beyond a few platitudes or token contributions are few and far between. So since that is the case, any nation that doesn't have strong safeguards for its own national interests in any sort of deal it enters into with other nations or groups of nations, is extremely foolish indeed.
Most of the world operates by the law of the jungle except when they fear the consequences of doing so: Ann Coulter once said that, "the natural state of the world is Darfur. The freakish aberration is America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world." Throughout much of history, the idea that most of the world operated by the law of the jungle was so self-evident, that few people doubted it.
However, because the world's only Super Power is a benevolent force that has worked very hard to keep global conflicts to a minimum despite getting very little credit for its actions, many people allow themselves to believe that the world is a relatively ordered and civilized place. That's not so. The prosperous and democratic nations of the world may not have any designs upon their neighbors, but most nations are neither prosperous nor democratic, and the only thing stopping them from taking what they want by force is their inability to do so.
The federal government is by its very nature, slow, stupid, expensive, and inefficient: There are always politicians promising to "reform government" or "make government work," but the federal government always has been and always will be a poor, misshapen tool compared to the free market.
That's because their money isn't on the line and they don't go out of business when they fail. So, the more we keep the functions handled by the federal government at an absolute minimum, the better off we will tend to be as a nation.
Every problem is not fixable: The poor? They are always going to be with us. War? It's always going to exist. Inconveniences and annoyances? We're never going to live in Utopia -- not on this earth anyway.
That's not to say government should never try to help the poor, avoid war, or make a more perfect society. Again, let me repeat that: that's not to say government should never try to help the poor, avoid war, or make a more perfect society. However, there is also something to be said for letting sleeping dogs lie and just accepting that the government cannot and should not try to fix every problem.
That's because not only is it impossible to fix every problem, but because the government's efforts are usually ineffective and often as not, over time, it simply ends up creating a new set of problems to be solved.
self ping for later...
That may (or may not) be true when Moslems interact with each other, but isn't also true that the "rules" do not apply to interaction with "non-belivers"? In other words they can justify any action against non-belivers simply because they are non-belivers.
Because this is a denial of reality, it takes energy and attention to sustain. It also means that when anyone else disrupts the peace and tranquility of the mental utopia, it is taken as an attack on the personal identity of the liberal victim.
It is my personal opinion that every person, in their late childhood, makes a fundamental decision about where “reality” will be for them: will it be the real world, which means they realize their thoughts must conform to that reality in terms of facts and principles, or are they free to build a reality of their own, in their own mind.
This is why it is so essentially important for the future of the nation that children be able to escape the liberal public education system and go to schools of their own choice. Liberals own the primary school education establishment. Liberals control the teacher credentialing mechanism; you cannot get a teacher's license unless you graduate from one of the schools they control. They also control the accreditation machinery. A school cannot get government funds unless it is accredited by liberals. They control the degree-granting mechanisms of higher education.
The only answer is homeschooling and vouchers to allow parents unable to homeschool to send their children to alternative schools that will be more to the parent's liking.
ping
Islam as a religion of peace is only that to another Moslem. If you happen NOT to be Moslem, then you don’t have the priviledge of peace...You are an “unbeliever” and should be killed....
Some religion of peace, eh?
Is Islam all bad? No. Some aspects are pretty positive. But the bottom line is that Islam is a barbaric and destructive force. Look at the Islamic world -- it's backward. Look at how the Islamic world has interacted with outsiders for 15 centuries -- lots of violence.
All bad? No. But bad enough to reject utterly.
Yeah, what was that article not too long ago?
British students went on a field trip to a mosque and the Imam told them they were no better than dogs.
Everyone should read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.
This “fragility” of the “liberal” worldview is the reason that they will not allow, and will use force if necessary to stop, any opposing viewpoints.
The “peace” to which they refer is when the entire world is Muslim, dhimmi (slave), or dead.
#11. No matter how many times you repeat something, that will not make it true.
Reminds me of the Whitney Houston song:
I believe that children ARE our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be
This, and the demon kids chasing Judas, make these the two most darkly funny scenes in recent cinema.
Hillary is a not so closeted Marxist and Obama, HA, that (expletive deleted) is now quoting Karl Marx only using nicer words - as pointed out by Brit Hume a week or so ago. And as in his not so apology, apology, about Rev Wright where he blamed the evil corporations and Capitalism for today's problems.
There are 65 card carrying members of the Democratic Socialists of America sitting in Congress right now (aka Congressional Progressive Caucus) - led by Bernie Sanders and Pelosi. The DSA website used to have a direct link to Congress and its members, but was removed when they were outed.
These people should be in Federal Prison for sedition. They are a direct threat to the Republic. And 'Liberals' they ain't.
Don’t agree on the prison time -
but... they shouldn’t be allowed (by the press, us, etc - not the gov’t) to hide their affiliations and core beliefs from the voting public.
“I think you have a warped view of Islam.”
I wonder how most of us came to the opinion we have regarding Islam? It couldn’t be terrorist bombings, beheadings, etc. could it?
If he (we) have this view of Islam, he came by it honestly enough.
Christians denounce actions like these committed by other Christians . Where are the muslims denouncing the atrocities committed in the name of Islam?
I haven’t heard a lot of Christians or Buddhists or Jews telling me to “submit or die”.
Maybe YOU have a warped view of Islam. Go read some of the works by Bernard Lewis and get back to us.
Regards,
EEDUDE
The liberals think you can
Great article, great post.
“In the absence of religion people are likely to do whatever they think they can get away with.”
Religion inspires us to become better people, but I don’t think it is correct to say that without it, people will do anything.
I saw a survey recently where people were asked what made them behave properly, and religion was far down on the list. The number one thing that made people behave was social pressure—the fear that their friends would find out what they did and look down on them for it.
Religion is not very strong in many parts of Europe, but it is not really too dangerous to go there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.