Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

So essentially it's all about control. You are saying, "I want society to work a certain way. If you don't want to play along, then I will force you to."

No. Society does work a certain way, and measures are necessary to ensure its function. It's a rare individual that would argue that public services like law enforcement, disaster relief, common currency, and the like should be deregulated and left wholly to the whims of community-minded individuals, but in order to provide those services, resources are necessary. Everyone wants those services, yes? So they all chip in (pay taxes) and in return receive their benefits. The option is technically there for any person or group that doesn't like this system to leave, of course - but every single sovereign nation on Earth runs on the same principle, even if their enforcement or the specific details vary. It goes back to the whole 'social contract' thing that I like to talk about - you know, the one you learn about in high school sociology/psychology?

Let me rephrase that, "I want a functioning society, I'm convinced that it can only function one way. Cooperate or I will force you to fall in line."

I never signed a contract, did you?

Social contract, JWC. There's a rather large difference between one of those and a legal contract. Social contracts abound at all levels of human interaction. To put it (very) roughly, a social contract is the customs, mores, and traditions of a society or group, both good and bad. The principle is the same whether you're sitting around at a D&D table with your friends (where there are 'rules' such as "Don't break the loot," and "If you don't use cheese, I won't,") all the way up to the national and international levels (where they form, among other things, those classifications of government power known as 'inherent' powers - powers all sovereign nations have by dint of being sovereign entities) and everything in between. A Boy Scout troop has a social contract. A city has one as a collective entity. Nations and cultures have them. Everyone on Earth that interacts with other human beings is subject to one whether they want to be or not - and if they don't like it, the options are to change it from within, rebel, or leave; all of these options have been rather famously used, all the way from things such as the Protestant Reformation and the American Revolution to the peaceful transfer of power when Canada became its own nation.

Honestly man, how do you not know this already?

Exactly. The problem is people are blind to enlightened self-interest. People tend to over-focus on their bottom line when exchanging good and services. They don't always realize that there are certain "invisible" costs to their activities that may end up coming back to bite them.

As for the morality of voluntary exchange, the idea that all voluntary transactions are quantitatively merit based and involve no element of coercion is deeply flawed. I don't know if anarcho-capitalists have never played a game of monopoly or poker. When you're winning in either of those games you have a definite bargaining advantage. If you have vastly more property or vastly more chips than other players you can strategically use your current wealth to throw your weight around and bargain/bluff your way to an even bigger advantage.

Oh, I've heard about it. It's just such a laughably stupid idea, though. That someone be expected to operate under an agreement which they were not party to. Any contract that is forced upon an individual under duress (cooperation or ostracism) is not a contract, it is an order. And it is usually employed as a justification for someone to make an unearned claim on the possessions of others. IE, "You live near me, therefore it is your responsibility to feed and clothe me when I can't or won't support myself."

I didn't choose to be born. I didn't choose my genetic makeup. I can't choose not to eat or drink or breathe. Sorry, life is not a free-for-all. As long as we live in the natural world, people have certain physical needs. Some are more privileged to live in advanced societies and are free to take these things for granted. If you ever wind up trapped on a small life-raft you better bet your ass you're going to be forced to cooperate as a team when the only alternative is death for the entire party.

Are you claiming that because cooperation is often necessary, that someone shouldn't be able to decide for themselves whether or not they choose to cooperate?

Also, we are not currently trapped on a small life boat; why should we act like it?

We might as well be in a small lifeboat - and it's brimming with billions of people ready to fall over and drowned.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Learn to swim.

Easy to say when space and resources are running out on this blue marble.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

There's plenty of ocean.

Are libertarians born without hearts?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Are you really attempting an "appeal to emotion" argument on a site for aspies?

I think most peoples' political views have more to do with their emotional disposition and who they recognize as their in-group than their reason. I've noticed that the further to the right the US moves the more radical the republicans get, and the same happens to the liberals in other countries. Ronald Reagan could almost be called a liberal in today's atmosphere. Political questionnaires ask questions like whether the rich are taxed too much or whether the government is too big or small, as if they expect the answers to be the same regardless of whether you live in Germany where the top tax rate is something in the 60% or you live in the USA where the top tax rate (if you take advantage of tax loop-holes) is something like 15%. Politics is kind of like religion in that your views are usually the same as your parents. In the scientific community it would be laughable for scientific hypotheses on a subject to be correlated to region as religious and political views are, and this is because if everybody actually thinks about their views, there should be no reason why your particular location should make any difference.

There is no real difference between the views of the politicians of either political party. Most of them are corporate employees, the only difference being that republicans are slightly more corrupt and insane and the democrats silence opposition when they're in power even though they take the same insane views as the republicans. I'm not saying conservatives are corrupt and crazy, I'm saying politicians and especially republicans are. The republican party no longer has a meaningful platform and anyone who doesn't see that doesn't pay any attention to the things they say and do.

My view is that propaganda networks like Fox News are used by rich people to keep people distracted and fighting while their rights and wealth are being taken away. The tea partiers and occupy wallstreet people really have the same goals if you talk to them. They hate each other just because they have different back grounds and associate with different (and entirely void) political parties and people like to demonize people with perceived differences.

So in conclusion, conservatives generally do not hate liberals. Crazy people who listen to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh hate liberals because they are misinformed and it is fun to find people to hate (e.g. spectator sports). "Liberals" who watch CNN are also misinformed, but I guess they aren't as hateful because that is not so much in a liberal's temperament. Obama is a conservative and the healthcare mandate that "conservatives" hate was actually introduced by conservatives in the 90's. No matter how much "liberals" give to republicans, the republicans always ask for more, and they're to the point now where they don't have any reasonable positions anymore and are just a party of as*hole rich people and easily manipulated poor people. People with legitimate conservative views, like Ron Paul, are shunned from that party.

To US Libertarians: if you actually pay attention to what goes on in the world, you'll find that less government does not always equal good. The golden era of the United States is usually called 1950-1970ish and the maximum tax bracket during this time period was as high as 90% and there were many government regulations. If you just think of important things like incarceration rates, health, education, etc, and you google them to compare the USA to other countries, the USA really just isn't at the top of the list, and we're more capitalistic than most other nations. I don't know about you, but I like to base my opinions on facts/empirical evidence.


Like the original poster said, there are some obvious situations where it is good for government to get involved. I will list some more situations in which government intervention is beneficial:

When there is economy of scale.
Example: It is easier for a single centralized authority to deal with transport than it is for there to be a patchwork of private entities with differing rules and regulations, and who all have a profit motive.

Tragedy of the commons
Example: If the government lets dumbasses who are afraid of autism skip out on their vaccines, we could see a recurrence of diseases like small pox and polio. I think small pox and polio would infringe upon my freedoms more than being made to get a shot.

Public good
Example: It is bad to give people a profit motive in areas like prison, the military, healthcare, and education. It is bad for people to make money through prisons and the military because obviously that will give someone an incentive to incarcerate more people and to start more wars (the USA is seeing a lot of this right now). It is bad to put a profit motive in healthcare because the goal is to make people healthy rather than to make more money by selling everything you can regardless of whether you need it or not (which is why so many people in the USA have medications that they don't need). Education is a public good because there won't be skilled laborers or intelligent voters if your education is related to your income.

The world is complicated and a single formula will not work the same for every situation. Probably the best explanation I have seen against libertarianism is an essay written by Huxley called "Administrative Nihilism." I have nothing against libertarianism if it's just the belief that the government generally does things more poorly than private companies, but there is no law of nature that says that this is always the case.

Also I will address people who talk about von Mises a lot. I looked into some of his ideas and it looks like his ideas are often cited to support views incorrectly. For instance people often say that "socialism" doesn't work and that's why there should be no government regulation. von Mises said things about socialism like is that no one is smart enough to make the economic calculation, so you need a market to figure out good prices. There are not very many cases of government controlled pricing anymore, so this argument really doesn't have anything to do with any modern discussions about the economy. I'm sorry if you are a couple decades behind the news.

No, I thought it a valid question.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer