Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

No kidding! Not to mention all the generalizations about both NT's and Aspies and the elaborate theories we pull out of our asses when it comes to overanalyzing things we have little experience or insight with. We're just as irrational as NT's except we rationalize our irrationality with off the wall BS. It's only a matter of style. We're not cyborgs for f**k's sake, we're still just as prone to the inherent weakness, stupidity, arrogance, and shortsightedness of humanity as anyone else.

PS: I hate to have a serious tone and all, but it gets on my nerves when people talk about logic as if it's anything more than a deductive format of self-consistency and completeness. That's all it really is, everything else is just conflated BS. Ironically people like to conflate their own biases, assumptions, interpretations and stubbornness with it. Even more ironically, people like to take incomplete information, fill in the blanks with all those things, and call it logical.

I'd like to see anyone else but an allegedly logical Aspie have a full throttle meltdown, and still try to pass as unemotional.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's essentially impossible to talk about politics without appeal to emotion. Some people expect everyone to be outraged that the government can confiscate money and regulate voluntary trade in order to keep society functional and fair. Others people expect everyone to be outraged by the unequal hardship and unfairness that is an inescapable outcome of a "pure free market". Disparate groups, both hardened in their moral/emotional inclinations, who don't share the same outrage are bound to talk right past each other.

Beneath all the supposedly high-minded rhetoric ideologies are motivated by a combination of perceived self-interest and/or raw emotion derived from subjective moral judgements about society. It's not so much a matter of "informing" people or teaching people to think critically to arrive at the "correct" answer. Liberals who think conservatives will ever be persuaded through "correct information" are deluded and don't understand human psychology. Poor conservatives will continue to vote against their economic best interest not primarily because they are misinformed on what is in their best interest, but because they have a belief that they are "rugged self-made individuals" and any admission that they are dependent on greater society for their needs is an insult to their pride, regardless of how they might suffer.

There is no such thing as an ideology without an "emotional appeal" at it's foundation.

Now you're just inserting words to fit your argument. Congrats on looking more foolish.

he pointed out a wrong perception of intent and meaning portrayed in your quote.
nothing to do with an argument

<snort>
you mean I'm 'speaking clearly.' That's what it means to use words to argue with that fit your argument, darling.

Still waiting for an answer as to how a 'libertarian society' works, functions, and funds itself.

Markets are largely unregulated. Government functions are limited.

ruveyn

You can still have a central government. I would love to see the federal government shrink dramatically while the states take on a more prominent role. There are many flavors of libertarianism. One extreme would be no government.

A libertarian society would work off the market. Pretty much how it is today minus the stupid regulations. Less taxes and regulations would mean more efficient markets.

Those "stupid regulations" keep consumers from being injured or killed by the products, and protect the life and limb of workers who make said products.
And as for leaving the states to handle most affairs in place of the national government - I think history has adequately demonstrated how state governments left to their own devices run roughshod over unpopular minorities.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I disagree. Those regulations do more harm. Firms have a strong incentive to provide safe products. Otherwise they would go out of business. For instance the FDA kills more people by denying life saving drugs than stopping those that are harmful. You also can't ignore the conflict of interest.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzpAyc0avtU&feature=related[/youtube]

For one thing, I'm not about to trust anything put forth by John Stossel or Fox Noise.
For another, history is on my side of the argument. That terrible FDA and those horrendous other regulatory agencies only came into existence because big business couldn't be trusted to put the safety of consumers and workers over profits. And who's going to self-regulate if consumers have nowhere else to go for goods or services?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I disagree. If we have adequate competition then there will be self-regulation. It's only when you have oligopolies like you have now (thanks to government) is where you run into trouble.

Then how do you explain the cesspool of dangerous products and working conditions prior to government regulation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? That was the day of unregulated capitalism, when nothing came before profit. What you're looking for is a right wing utopia in a past that had never been.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Businesses are normally the ones that try to limit competition, while the government tries to encourage it.

Amen.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer