APP - Why should people believe in Liberalism?

AssHatZombie said:
Your conception of what america is though is entirely errant, despite all your studies and bullshit. the very conception of a nation is a group that functions to benefit all members of the group. Business is happy selling itself as a public good. "what's good for business is good for america" or " a rising tide raises all ships", or "free markets accrue the greatest savings to the consumer". And these aphorisms are sometimes true, but globalization turns them on their heads.

in the globalized world, the role of "nation" is recast as a government that controls an area of land and manages all it's policies to the maximum benefit of corporations and giving less and less power to people who work for a living.

The rising tide no longer raises all ships, as managers are paid per employee downsized. And no matter how cheap cheap slave labor makes things, they're still too expensive when you're income is zero.
Click to expand...

Equal chance of opportunity, not equal chance of circumstances. That is the liberty America was founded upon. But since this doesn't protect the group as a whole, I guess that means liberty is bad in your book.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Your conception of what america is though is entirely errant, despite all your studies and bullshit. the very conception of a nation is a group that functions to benefit all members of the group. Business is happy selling itself as a public good. "what's good for business is good for america" or " a rising tide raises all ships", or "free markets accrue the greatest savings to the consumer". And these aphorisms are sometimes true, but globalization turns them on their heads.

in the globalized world, the role of "nation" is recast as a government that controls an area of land and manages all it's policies to the maximum benefit of corporations and giving less and less power to people who work for a living.

The rising tide no longer raises all ships, as managers are paid per employee downsized. And no matter how cheap cheap slave labor makes things, they're still too expensive when you're income is zero.
Click to expand...

that happens with or without globalization

and really, hasn't globalization been around for hundreds of years....east india company et al....
 
midcan5 said:
A little boy walks into first grade and the teacher asks his name. My name is Southern Man says the little boy. Interesting the teacher replies, and why do you call yourself Southern Man. The little boy puzzled now, thinks hard, starts to answer but is obviously confused. The teacher recognizing the little boy is too young for knowing why, says, well that is nice and someday maybe you will know why you call yourself Southern man.
Click to expand...
I call myself Southern Man because it tends to highlight the ignorance of my fellow posters. Thanks for the demonstration. Ppfffttt...
 
WinterBorn said:
I cannot think of any traditional values that were rejected just to reject traditional values. I also do not see the point in keeping these "traditional values" simply because they are traditional values.


Can you cite an example of social liberalism, in which traditional values were rejected for no reason?
Click to expand...
Good question!
 
Southern Man said:
Social liberalism can easily be rejected for what it is, rejection of traditional values blended with "white guilt".
Click to expand...
So your saying our founding fathers should have never have rejected a thousand years of traditional values when they started a revolution?

I don't know about you but my values are based on principles of standards of a quality considered desirable or worthwhile. My values are not based on what someone believed 100 or 500 years ago. That would be senseless.

So you may feel that based on tradition it is wrong, for example, for gay people to marry but I believe that the principles of freedom and liberty are desirable qualities and that means how two consenting free adults choose to validate and affirm their affection and commitment towards each other is their free right and liberty to choose.

This does not mean that I reject tradition. It means I value the principles of liberty and freedom.
 
WinterBorn said:
I don't think anyone wants to see single parents, but the "traditional values" violation is that she had sex out of wedlock, and either refused to marry the guy or he bailed. Traditionally, she would have given the child up for adoption.

There is a huge difference between community stigma and laws making it illegal.
Click to expand...

true, however, i would posit that before we had mass transportation and things like credit cards, media etc....if you were a scarlett letter in your community, it might as well have been illegal....in fact, i would also say it can happen today....exhibit 1,004,693

i grew up in a small church community (though i moved around, the church community is somewhat small) and when my parents divorced, though it was my dad who left, my mom got the big fucking red scarlett letter...she left the church a couple of years later when she figured i was old enough to make up my mind, she would have left it sooner, but wanted us to continue in the church until we could decide whether we wanted to go or not
 
Southern Man said:
Social liberalism can easily be rejected for what it is, rejection of traditional values blended with "white guilt".
Click to expand...

What's wrong with rejecting traditional values?

I reject sexual purity, loyalty to nations rather than humans, and authority other than that which is just. And you reject that it is unnecessary to take life in cases which it is unnecessary to take life (you are a cold blooded killer) and that it is necessary to be fair to those who are being unfairly treated. IMHO, you should be executed without hesitation. You deserve to die. Traditional values are the foundation of all evil, and should be abolished, and all practitioners of traditional values should have their lives taken, as they have taken the lives of many amongst them pointlessly.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
So your saying our founding fathers should have never have rejected a thousand years of traditional values when they started a revolution?
Click to expand...
You can't seem to get over this simple fact, Moot: The Founders weren't liberals by the modern definition, social, fiscal or otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top