Can you be too "liberal"?

[HannahBanana]

Being neo-liberal at all is being too liberal; it shirks personal responsibility and in the name of allegedly finding the deeper and more profound they merely look for excuses as opposed to looking for reasons.

Liberalism makes people feel essentially helpless and removes the blame from the people who often commit crimes, as Stan pointed out. These are the sort of people whose solution for drug addiction is giving them more drugs at sanctioned methadone clinics, the sort of people who keep encouraging a class war mentality amongst the people of the world.

And you think that conservatism doesn't have any downsides to it?

 

[Verv]

And you think that conservatism doesn't have any downsides to it?

I dislike the people who want to essentially run people's personal lives through their own moral codes, but other than that... Conservatism by definition is just appealing.

I simply believe people should be free to live their lives however they want and we should not be forced to pay for other people's mistakes (rather, let charities do their jobs) and more than that, guys like Hussein and Kim and the Burmese Junta should sometimes get deposed...

It is really simple stuff and based on the principle that men should be free to do as they please and bad guys should not be free to terrorize people.

Liberty & personal responsibility, my friend.

 

[HannahBanana]

I dislike the people who want to essentially run people's personal lives through their own moral codes, but other than that... Conservatism by definition is just appealing.

I simply believe people should be free to live their lives however they want and we should not be forced to pay for other people's mistakes (rather, let charities do their jobs) and more than that, guys like Hussein and Kim and the Burmese Junta should sometimes get deposed...

It is really simple stuff and based on the principle that men should be free to do as they please and bad guys should not be free to terrorize people.

Liberty & personal responsibility, my friend.

So you think that the poor shouldn't be helped at all, even though poverty is a vicious cycle that's often near-impossible to escape?

You think that people who can't afford health care shouldn't have it, even though that could very well mean death for them and/or their spouse or dependents?

You think that mentally ill individuals who cannot afford a stay at a rehab clinic (and who had already spent time in the psychiatric ward of their local hospital) should just roam the streets?

You are ignoring so many situations in which people wouldn't be able to "fend for themselves" without government interference. So why exactly do you think that Conservatism is better than Liberalism, then?

 

[KarateCowboy]

So you think that the poor shouldn't be helped at all, even though poverty is a vicious cycle that's often near-impossible to escape?

You think that people who can't afford health care shouldn't have it, even though that could very well mean death for them and/or their spouse or dependents?

You think that mentally ill individuals who cannot afford a stay at a rehab clinic (and who had already spent time in the psychiatric ward of their local hospital) should just roam the streets?

You are ignoring so many situations in which people wouldn't be able to "fend for themselves" without government interference. So why exactly do you think that Conservatism is better than Liberalism, then?

Conservatives have been found to be more liberal with their money than liberals regarding charity. It has been found that despite earning on average 6% less, conservatives give on average 30% more of their income to charities (both secular and religious) than liberals. Whether secular charitable activities, giving blood, or returning money when they are accidentally given too much change, conservatives outrank liberals. Conversely: people who most agree that the government should be redistributing wealth are typically among the least charitable.

The fact that people are willing to have things like social security or socialized medicine shows that they care about people and are going to help each other anyway, so why do we need to give the government more power when doing that? But let's say no one cared. Let's say you're right that people were sick and dying in the streets and no one cared a bit. If no cares, do you think the government formed by those same people is going to care? Again, there is no need for the government to step in.

If you think everyone should have health insurance: great! Start a health insurance company and figure a way to provide cheap insurance for everyone. Or negotiate with your company so that part of your payments goes to help others who can't afford it. Or volunteer at clinics. Become a doctor and work two days a week for free. Become an investment guru and make millions and donate the proceeds to health charities. Help start Health Savings Accounts. There are tons of ways to help.

If it is moral to force someone to pay for another person's private medical needs then it is moral. Period. Which means we must allow people to go into health clinics with a gun and get services without paying for it.

 

[HannahBanana]

Conservatives have been found to be more liberal with their money than liberals regarding charity. It has been found that despite earning on average 6% less, conservatives give on average 30% more of their income to charities (both secular and religious) than liberals. Whether secular charitable activities, giving blood, or returning money when they are accidentally given too much change, conservatives outrank liberals. Conversely: people who most agree that the government should be redistributing wealth are typically among the least charitable.

The fact that people are willing to have things like social security or socialized medicine shows that they care about people and are going to help each other anyway, so why do we need to give the government more power when doing that? But let's say no one cared. Let's say you're right that people were sick and dying in the streets and no one cared a bit. If no cares, do you think the government formed by those same people is going to care? Again, there is no need for the government to step in.

If you think everyone should have health insurance: great! Start a health insurance company and figure a way to provide cheap insurance for everyone. Or negotiate with your company so that part of your payments goes to help others who can't afford it. Or volunteer at clinics. Become a doctor and work two days a week for free. Become an investment guru and make millions and donate the proceeds to health charities. Help start Health Savings Accounts. There are tons of ways to help.

If it is moral to force someone to pay for another person's private medical needs then it is moral. Period. Which means we must allow people to go into health clinics with a gun and get services without paying for it.

Sorry, but I'm still a liberal. I'd rather actually care about others than want them to suffer. Plus, I'm a total peacenik.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I'd rather actually care about others than want them to suffer.

Where did I even insinuate at suggesting at implying not to care?

And from the evidence, liberal values make a man less caring.

 

[quatona]

And from the evidence, liberal values make a man less caring.

Be that as it may - the interesting question to me is: What is the more effective way to make people in need being taken care of?

I´m also curious what you have discerned as "liberal values". I´m sensing that you are lumping "liberalism" and "socialism" together.