Why is there so much liberal hate?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't have a problem with modest social safety nets, what I have a problem with is a bloated bureaucracy that makes it incredibly difficult to start a business. You could literally start a business overnight in Hong Kong, and they had massive social mobility between the classes because it was so easy to start a business on a shoestring without the "invisible foot" of government holding you down.

Also, when you have a big chunk of the populace either employed by or dependent upon the government, it's very easy to get into this feedback loop where more and more people vote for more and more government because it's whats in their interest, while actual productive work is increasingly taxed and regulated because none of that government activity actually makes money, it just moves it around.

Yep, something Liberals cannot comprehend. Hong Kong, with literally no land resources is an economic powerhouse.

there are plenty of nations making huge amounts of money on medical services of a specific kind, education of foreigners and probably other things i have no direct knowledge of,
if the expenditure on equivalent services abroad is higher there is of course net loss.


as for bloated government, i dont think you will find many that like the idea, any beurocracy needs trimming and pruning to maintain healthy growth, in the modern political climate it becomes very hard to do so in any timely manner, making what should have been small shoots end up as whole branches.

that issue doesnt have much to do with any particular ideology or action but sheer self interest, we have allowed politics to be an actual career choice.

But who is to decide who is really in need? I've heard one tea party spokesman say that all disability payments should cease, as he figured all disability claims are fraudulent. And then there's the situation in the inner city, where people get on public assistance because there are hardly any jobs available locally since business fled decades before with the influx of ethnic minorities - or if they remained, only hired a few, or are staffed from outside the neighborhood.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It depends on where you go. In Europe, libertarianism and anarchism are virtually identical. In the U.S., libertarianism is usually right-wing and anarchism left-wing. Either way, both are forms of radical individualism.

It's amazing how this discussion is still going after over fifty pages, but hasn't been about the original subject for a long time.

And? I'm not a Tea Partier or their spokesman, so I don't particularly care what they have to say. I'm more in favor of reforming the system in such a way that there is less red tape and overhead, not less benefits, than I am for just slashing programs. What I am morally willing to to is to temporarily close the programs to new applicants, take care of the existing beneficiaries while taking a blowtorch to the redundant layers of administration, and then use the money saved from firing all of those bureaucrats to reopen the programs to new applicants. Will people suffer during the closed period while the rolls are closed? Yep. Will those career bureaucrats with no other job skills that just got suddenly canned suffer? Yep. I'm willing to live with that to fix the system long term, I'm tired of putting a buck in and only 15 cents making it to the beneficiaries because of all layers of management; I'd rather just pay the fraudsters and call it a cost of doing business than continue the current system. I'd do the same thing to the school system too, but I'd also add vouchers.




So, making it easier to open a business would be a good thing, right? Productive and employed people have less need for safety nets, which frees up more money to take care of the people in genuine need, and employed people are much less likely to turn to crime, thus also reducing the demands put upon law enforcement and the penal system. Doesn't that sound like a good tradeoff, getting a panacea of benefits from new local businesses, reducing a number of social ills, and all for the cost of cutting some onerous regulations (years of schooling for "nail technicians?, etc) and endless legal hoops people need to jump through to got out on their own?

Well, it's kind a shitstirring topic that can be answered basically in two ways:

People hate liberals because they suck.

People hate liberals because those people suck.

It sort of invites tangents.

First point - I'm not willing to let either disability applicants or the social servants who help them suffer.
Second point - It would be absolutely great for businesses to move into poor neighborhoods, and employ people so they wouldn't have to depend on a social safety net. But as I see it, it's business owners who stay away from inner city neighborhoods like the plague - or if they do, they often don't hire local people - out of racial prejudice and not living up to their part of the social contract.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well, the majority of libertarians I've encountered are extremists. Even Hong Kong has a progressive tax system and subsidized housing.

There is a small welfare state in Hong Kong, yes, mainly related to public housing. It's not a libertarian paradise by any means - hardcore pornography is still illegal in Hong Kong.

Do you understand that $400/month is not enough to live on in any decent manner?
Have you ever heard of Maslow's heirarchy of needs? Humans are not economic robots; economic models that pretend that they are, are delusional.

My views are the opposite, in most respects, from libertarianism. However, in fairness, not all libertarians are extremists.

People who post on almost any subject online tend to be the most passionate ones. That can make it appear that everyone has extreme views.

Have you encountered the majority of libertarians?

I live in a very liberal town, so the vast majority of as*holes I've dealt with over the years have been liberals, it's just statistical reality for where I live; can I now argue that most liberals are as*holes because of my personal experience?

It is "extremist" to not want to be screwed over by the government?

ruveyn

In the US it is most effectively politically represented by Ron Paul, retaining his Republican affiliation with his socially conservative viewpoints against abortion, LGBT rights, and evolution; along with Alex Jones and Glenn Beck in the Media, and the Tea Party folks retaining their Republican affiliation, that the "official 200 to 300K registered libertarians" in the US, do not often agree with.

Libertarianism is supported the strongest on the internet among a demoraphic of individuals who are pro-abortion, pro LGBT rights, of atheist persuasion, who attempt to fit Ron Paul in because of his libertarian leanings.

Ron Paul's only chance was that his viewpoints were in restricting civil liberties as republicans would wish, while expanding economic liberties. But he did not fully and effectively represent the ideology of the US Libertarian party.

Technically, per politics and the official US libertarian viewpoint, it is the face of Gary Johnson, one that not many are familiar with in the general public, and one that not many on the internet supported.

The official Libertarian party is basically a hybrid of the democrat and republican parties that are deeply polarized. With about .005 of the registered voters in the US.

The official viewpoints of libertarianism in the US, is an ideology to end taxes and social welfare, that exists nowhere in any successful developed country. Hong Kong is not Libertarianism per this ideology as the citizens could not survive without social welfare or the collection of taxes.

The libertarian political point of view in the US, will never have success as long as they maintain this socially conservative republican leaning viewpoint on taxes and social welfare that about a third of the population can agree with, in opposition to other points of view the party shares accepted in the democratic party with close to half the population supporting social welfare programs, legal rights for abortion, and LGBT rights.

The Tea Party is considered a minority, and the official Libertarian party is considered a fringe minority, per political ideology in the US. That ideology neither has a chance of working in the developed world or a chance of being significantly supported in the US, per it's current 200 to 300K registers voters in the US.

The libertarianism ideology that about 20% of people support in the US, including the Internet is:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism


Ron Paul was as close to the ideology as possible, as far as getting votes, but it was impossible for him to be elected with his socially conservative anti-abortion, anti LGBT policies, as an actual Libertarian. He remains a Libertarian in Republican clothing, which generated about 20% of the vote, but official US Libertarian per Gary Johnson won't likely generate more than a few percentage points, because it remains an extremely fringe element in politics, per the official US Libertarian party ideology.

The type of Libertarianism ideology that is significantly accepted in the country per liberal social policies and conservative economic policies, has no party or politician to effectively represent it in politics, not even Ron Paul. It is an ideology that floats in cyberspace, and opinion polls, with the democrats representing part of those viewpoints, and republicans representing part of those viewpoints. And those supporting that ideology choosing to vote either republican or democrat, while identifying themselves with libertarian leaning, including those that have run for office like Ron Paul, and Gary Johnson who more effectively represented the official US Libertarian party ideology.

The Libertarian ideology of the poster Biz Boy, reflects that of the official US Libertarian party ideology, with Gary Johnson as the nominee, that is evidenced as a train that is going nowhere in the US, or any other developed country, per that political ideology of no government supported social welfare programs.

Estonia is as good as it gets, as something close to libertarian ideology. While economic freedoms government and taxing freedoms are strong in Hong Kong and Singapore, and social welfare programs are strong in subsidizing housing, personal freedoms are restricted above and beyond what one sees in the US or Estonia. One gets economic freedoms, govt/tax freedoms, but one also must play strictly by government rules per personal freedoms, or suffer the consequences.

Per the link below Hong Kong is #1 in economic freedoms and #1 in government and taxing freedoms, but rates #71 in personal freedoms.

http://www.stateofworldliberty.org/report/rankings.html