Why Liberals Can’t Think: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Why Liberals Can’t Think » Why Liberals Can’t Think

Why Liberals Can’t Think
Or, why it’s incoherent to be a liberal

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Why Liberals Can’t Think

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 11/06/09 - 02:44 PM:	#71
unrealist42 wrote: I said that bicyclists have as much right to the road as motorists. It would be up to you to explain how motorists have more rights to the local roadways (which are not supported by fuel taxes but by more general local taxes) than bicyclists. Well, if you put them on level ground, then it is easy to explain. There are far more motorist than there are bikers. If both of them are merely "privileges" under your definition, then the one biker should not get a disproportional amount of public services and funding in favor of the clearly many more motorists. The amount of public service should be distributed depending on the amount of people using them. If the amount of people using the service doesn't matter, we would need a lane for skateboard, roller blade, scooters, and any other form of transportation you can think of. I might as well claim that I should have the right to a skateboard lane.
Keep it simple.

petter
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 06, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 11/06/09 - 04:01 PM:	#72
Now I'm just a small-town Texas farmer, and I don't know much about philosophy. I do have well enough time to think about things, though. When I'm, you know, farming. I don't think liberals have any general solution which they apply to every problem. And I certainly don't believe it's "we have to make better choices". "We have to make better choices" is just a means of solving the problem, it is not the solution itself. Liberals who argue this way, in the example of Food, inc. claim that if we do not buy "bad companies'" foods, these companies will have to change if they want to maintain profit. So the actual solution would be to change the company. And the headline is typical closed minded stuff, just so you know. I should call my post "Why people who think that there are other people who are actually are incapable of thinking, can't think."

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2253

Posted 11/06/09 - 04:43 PM:	#73
123savethewhales wrote: Well, if you put them on level ground, then it is easy to explain. There are far more motorist than there are bikers. If both of them are merely "privileges" under your definition, then the one biker should not get a disproportional amount of public services and funding in favor of the clearly many more motorists. The amount of public service should be distributed depending on the amount of people using them. If the amount of people using the service doesn't matter, we would need a lane for skateboard, roller blade, scooters, and any other form of transportation you can think of. I might as well claim that I should have the right to a skateboard lane. There may be more motorists than bicycle riders today in NYC but that is changing. More people cross the Brooklyn Bridge on bicycles than in cars every day and that has been increasing steadily. The pedestrian walkways across the bridge are becoming severely congested with bicycle riders during rush hour. They are precluded from using the motoring lanes even though they are the bigger users. Authorities are considering moving bicyclists onto the motorway and taking away one or two lanes from autos. Public services should be dispensed based not only on those who currently use them but also on those who would use them if they could but are precluded in some manner by current circumstances. It has lately become clear to the authorities in NYC that current circumstances on the city streets are not meeting the needs of the growing population of bicycle riders and that the use of bicycles will continue to increase over the near to long term. NYC, being a densely populated place, has not been able to accommodate all the motorists who wish drive on its streets for decades despite giving over vast swaths of the city to their exclusive use. It is obvious that other approaches to this issue need to be implemented and people encouraged to use other modes of transportation. The extensive transit system already operates at close to %100 capacity and new lines are being built at enormous expense but will only accommodate increases in population. Bike lanes can be implemented far quicker than new subway lines and at far less expense and will take people off the overcrowded transit system with little to no change in the overwhelming congestion that motorists face anyway. The Avenues in NYC are 6-8 lanes wide. There are 15 of them going north-south. That is over 120 lanes of roadway that does not include parkways or expressways. Currently bicyclists are restricted to the outer lanes of these roads, some 30 lanes, which they share with motorists so actually they only get a fraction of that, maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of a lane, so ~8-10 lanes for bicyclists out of over 120. These exclusive bike lanes would take 8-10 lanes out of the over 120 available for north south motoring and accommodate over 50.000 bicycle commuters. Is this really an unreasonable imposition on the 300,000 motorist commuters? In surveys many residents have indicated that they would rather ride a bicycle than ride in a car or take transit if they could do so more safely than current circumstances allow. You need to understand, NYC is not an auto-centric city, less than %20 of the population owns a car and fewer than %5 use their car to commute to work. It is very clear that motorists are not a majority of those people who travel from one place to another in NYC.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 11/06/09 - 05:53 PM:	#74
unrealist42 wrote: There may be more motorists than bicycle riders today in NYC but that is changing. More people cross the Brooklyn Bridge on bicycles than in cars every day and that has been increasing steadily. The pedestrian walkways across the bridge are becoming severely congested with bicycle riders during rush hour. They are precluded from using the motoring lanes even though they are the bigger users. Authorities are considering moving bicyclists onto the motorway and taking away one or two lanes from autos. Public services should be dispensed based not only on those who currently use them but also on those who would use them if they could but are precluded in some manner by current circumstances. It has lately become clear to the authorities in NYC that current circumstances on the city streets are not meeting the needs of the growing population of bicycle riders and that the use of bicycles will continue to increase over the near to long term. NYC, being a densely populated place, has not been able to accommodate all the motorists who wish drive on its streets for decades despite giving over vast swaths of the city to their exclusive use. It is obvious that other approaches to this issue need to be implemented and people encouraged to use other modes of transportation. The extensive transit system already operates at close to %100 capacity and new lines are being built at enormous expense but will only accommodate increases in population. Bike lanes can be implemented far quicker than new subway lines and at far less expense and will take people off the overcrowded transit system with little to no change in the overwhelming congestion that motorists face anyway. The Avenues in NYC are 6-8 lanes wide. There are 15 of them going north-south. That is over 120 lanes of roadway that does not include parkways or expressways. Currently bicyclists are restricted to the outer lanes of these roads, some 30 lanes, which they share with motorists so actually they only get a fraction of that, maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of a lane, so ~8-10 lanes for bicyclists out of over 120. These exclusive bike lanes would take 8-10 lanes out of the over 120 available for north south motoring and accommodate over 50.000 bicycle commuters. Is this really an unreasonable imposition on the 300,000 motorist commuters? In surveys many residents have indicated that they would rather ride a bicycle than ride in a car or take transit if they could do so more safely than current circumstances allow. You need to understand, NYC is not an auto-centric city, less than %20 of the population owns a car and fewer than %5 use their car to commute to work. It is very clear that motorists are not a majority of those people who travel from one place to another in NYC. While it is true that there are the group of people who you can point at and say "they don't need to drive", You would also need to account for all the "commercial" cars like taxis that fills up the road, along with all the trucks and vans that are there. All of which takes up space and shares the same road as all the personal vehicles. Just because congestion was bad before doesn't mean it cause no harm to make it worst. Again, how much the bike line gets used should be obvious just by looking at the road. Rather or not it's benefit out-weights the extra overhead cost to motorist (both personal and commercial) will be obvious in the near future. If the bike line gets used enough to justify the cost, then clearly I have nothing to complain about. And conversely if it doesn't, does that mean the bike like should be removed?
Keep it simple.

jambaugh
Philosophizer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2009
Location: Georgia

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 27

Posted 11/07/09 - 08:08 AM:	#75
Arkady wrote: Hmmm...what then is to stop an employer from firing someone for, say, cheering for a football team that the employer doesn't care for? Whether or not the employer frames this in strictly moralistic terms, under your reasoning he should have the ability to hire and fire anyone for nearly any reason he likes, even if that reason is totally unrelated to the person's qualifications and/or work performance. Right. And a.) if people feel he is acting unjustly they can likewise choose not to use his business, and b.) in a competitive free market the employer hiring and firing for reasons unrelated to qualifications and performance will find he has unqualified poor performing employees and his competitors acting rationally will put him out of business. If the employer's mere belief that an employee has acted immorally is the sole criterion, why can that not be applied to nearly any trait or action? For instance, imagine a Muslim who runs a business employing a number of non-Muslims. The employer discovers that one of his non-Muslim employees owns a pet dog (which he tends to in his private time). As a Muslim, he is offended by this notion, considering the employee's actions in owning a dog "immoral" and thus fires the employee. Would that be legally permissible in your view? Yes, in my view the force of law should not come into play. Now if an employee wants job security he can insist on a contract with grounds for firing as well as notice for quitting spelled out. Then if the employer or employee violates the contract they can invoke the courts and force of law to sue for breach of contract. But again that is my personal position on this matter and tangential to the discussion. The fact that I have an opinion different from what a "Liberal" has and that "Liberal" seeks to use force of law to make me conform to his version shows he is not liberal in the sense claimed earlier, i.e. he is seeking to imposing his moral values with the force of law. All laws impose moral values excepting where they establish arbitrary but necessarily uniform conventions of conduct (such as driving on the right side of the road). Again the reason I point this out is to point out to the "Liberal" that he still must justify the use of force where he seeks to do so. He is not automatically righteous by calling himself "Liberal". Whether and to what extent there should be sexual harassment laws should be argued not just on the ground of whether sexual harassment is "OK" or a bad thing but rather on the ground of whether it is a "bad enough thing" that it justifies invoking the threat of violence inherent in the imposition of law to stop it. Likewise other laws. The typical "Liberal"'s tactic is to accuse e.g. me for making this argument of being "for sexual harassment" or "for discriminating on the basis of sexual preference" or otherwise wanting to "hurt puppies" and such. I can be against such dreadful things while still liberal enough to feel my morality shouldn't be force on others at the point of a gun. Now I am not an anarchist but I a "Conservative" am far more liberal in the classic sense than most "Liberals".
James "Hmmmm.... toughy!" --Deep Thought (from the Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy)

jambaugh
Philosophizer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2009
Location: Georgia

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 27

Posted 11/07/09 - 08:27 AM:	#76
unrealist42 wrote: You are confusing privileges with rights. There is no right to have a business, it is a privilege granted by the state with many underlying requirements. I can form a business in the absence of a government and therefore it cannot be a "privilege granted by the state". If the state grants a monopoly for a utility then that is a privilege but not businesses in general. Also don't confuse forming a business with specific forms of incorporation which is a separate situation spelled out by law As to whether it is a right or not well that's an opinion and you need to justify your position. Do not two people have the right to form a free contract without government interference? Are you trying to tell me that the guy I hire to paint my house can only do so via privilege granted by the state? I must disagree. Now if the state wants to issue licenses with certain requirements that's fine so long as the state does not prohibit unlicensed business. When they want to step in with force then they need to justify doing so (e.g. prohibiting unlicensed selling of food as a matter of public health.) ((and whether that is sufficient justification is another debate but I use it as an example.))
James "Hmmmm.... toughy!" --Deep Thought (from the Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy)

Tobias
Metaphysical exorcist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Feb 17, 2003
Location: Just rub the mirror

Total Topics: 58
Total Posts: 5580

Posted 11/08/09 - 02:19 AM:	#77
I still do not see why I should accept 3. It is perfectly well understood that people's behaviour influences social structures, at least n my field, sociology of law it is a given. Just as much as societal structures influence the choice and individual makes. But that means a bourgeois revolution is perfectly possible. I don't think it is necessary, seeing that the average age at which people die contiuously goes up, so why I would want everybody to make better choices is beyond me. But certainly I would not be in favour of your cloak and dagger French revoilution style terror which you seem to hint at...
"The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you" "The Power of Kant compels you"

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2253

Posted 11/08/09 - 03:07 PM:	#78
jambaugh wrote: I can form a business in the absence of a government and therefore it cannot be a "privilege granted by the state". If the state grants a monopoly for a utility then that is a privilege but not businesses in general. Also don't confuse forming a business with specific forms of incorporation which is a separate situation spelled out by law As to whether it is a right or not well that's an opinion and you need to justify your position. Do not two people have the right to form a free contract without government interference? Are you trying to tell me that the guy I hire to paint my house can only do so via privilege granted by the state? I must disagree. Now if the state wants to issue licenses with certain requirements that's fine so long as the state does not prohibit unlicensed business. When they want to step in with force then they need to justify doing so (e.g. prohibiting unlicensed selling of food as a matter of public health.) ((and whether that is sufficient justification is another debate but I use it as an example.)) Businesses in this country were free to do pretty much as they pleased at the founding of this nation. Over the past 200 years or so the people have periodically addressed their grievances with this arrangement to the state which has bowed to these grievances by passing laws regulating business. That you show up 240 years later expecting some sort of tabula-rasa for businessmen, as if all the long and repeating history of businesses abusing the public does not exist and that the laws passed in reaction to this abuse are some sort of immoral imposition on your "rights"....it is a pretty audacious position, selfish and ignorant to an extreme. The government has little interest in regulating private contracts between private individuals but it does have an interest in "public business" since it is the state that people look to protect them in their dealings with businesses that operate openly.

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 346

Posted 11/08/09 - 07:33 PM:	#79
Actually, contract laws are probably one of the most regulated field in terms of business. It has little to do with "abuse to the public", rather most regulation are to promote "fairness" between businesses and promote competition. Without a body of power enforcing contracts laws, they are as useless as the paper they are printed on.
Keep it simple.

jambaugh
Philosophizer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 20, 2009
Location: Georgia

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 27

Posted 11/08/09 - 08:14 PM:	#80
unrealist42 wrote: Businesses in this country were free to do pretty much as they pleased at the founding of this nation. Over the past 200 years or so the people have periodically addressed their grievances with this arrangement to the state which has bowed to these grievances by passing laws regulating business. That you show up 240 years later expecting some sort of tabula-rasa for businessmen, as if all the long and repeating history of businesses abusing the public does not exist and that the laws passed in reaction to this abuse are some sort of immoral imposition on your "rights"....it is a pretty audacious position, selfish and ignorant to an extreme. The government has little interest in regulating private contracts between private individuals but it does have an interest in "public business" since it is the state that people look to protect them in their dealings with businesses that operate openly. Again I am objecting to the assertion that operating a business is a "privilege granted by the State". I assert it is not as neither is the right to own a handgun. Both require various degrees of regulation but that does not change their status as rights. An example of a "privilege granted by the state" is a utility monopoly such as your electric company. The government cannot grant me the privilege to do what I can do on my own. In the case of a utility monopoly the company (in exchange for far stricter regulation and for the sake of providing the necessary infrastructure) is granted exclusive privilege to provide that service. If I try to compete with the electric company stringing my own power lines along the right-of-way the government will coerce me into stopping. THAT is a state granted privilege. See: privilege! My assertion is this. Given no further qualifications a business is not a privilege granted by the State but a free contract between individuals and it is their right to make it. As needed we qualify and regulate. Businesses involving hazardous materials, or inherently having potential human health hazards (as per involving sewage disposal or food preparation)... in these cases the government is justified in stepping in with its force backed laws and regulating due to the potential harm via accidents or negligence. It is no different than the right explicitly granted in the constitution to free speech. There is no a priori regulation but there are qualified restrictions. The government outlaws sedition, inciting a riot, libel or slander, revealing sensitive information in times of war, false advertising etc. The assertion by me that there is a fundamental right or at least that an activity does not require State granted privilege is not the same as me asserting that such activity should be free of any and all regulation. If I offer to fix your toilet for cash money, we form a verbal contract, I fix it and you pay me then there is no "privilege" there. I build a reputation for fixing things and the word spread so I become a private contractor, where is the "privilege" there? And then between the right itself and the line where government needs to step in with guns and restrict behavior is the domain of individual responsibility to their conscience and their awareness of the (non-violent) ire of society. You don't like a business's practices which are within the law but you feel immoral? Protest! Raise awareness and call for boycotts. So long as you stay within the law and do not use violence, intimidation, libel or slander then you are also well within your rights (whether you are right or not in your condemnation). Just because I have the right to freedom of speech doesn't mean I am right in how I exercise it. If I assert that each individual has the right to form an enterprise that is not the same as saying that every enterprise is righteous and should never be restricted in any way. You are using the classic tactic of ignoring my assertion about how government should be limited by twisting it to me advocating the activity you are trying to limit through them. I don't think the government should be involved in restricting people's bad diets. However this doesn't mean I am for everyone eating greasy junk food 24-7. I think its stupid and very very wrong to teach creationism in science classes. But I don't think the government should dictate curriculum. Most especially I don't think the government should be in the charity business but that does not mean I am saying "Let them eat cake." You think "we" should help the poor? Fine! whip out your wallet and go find some poor. I have and I do on my own as I choose and with whom I deem worthy of my help. But charity at the point of a gun is fundamentally unjustifiable. Again freedom is always freedom to do the wrong thing. There should be a gap (as wide as is reasonably possible IMNSHO) between the line defining what people should and shouldn't do and the line defining where the government should step in an use coercive force to prevent people from doing certain things. Your inability to see the distinction demonstrates yet again the assertion used in the title of this thread.
James "Hmmmm.... toughy!" --Deep Thought (from the Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy)

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.