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

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 10/22/09 - 07:15 AM:	#11
Some would say that today's liberals do not feel the individual is capable of, or at least not inclined towards, making intelligent choices. Laws are required, therefore, to assure that proper "choice" is made, such laws to be enacted by those who know what is best. Your liberal sounds rather conservative.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 205

Posted 10/22/09 - 07:39 AM:	#12
Liberal vs Conservative? In America they are both ultra far right wing fascists. To the rest of the world, left wing is socialist and right wing is capitalist. itinerant wrote: 3) Solutions to problems should match the structural level at which they occur. That is, problems faced by individuals should be solved by individuals, problems faced by communities should be solved by communities, etc. In the case of 1&rsquo and 2&rsquo, their conjunction is incoherent if we accept 3&rsquo, “The solution to problems in the food industry should match the structural level at which they occur.” Combining 1') and 3'), we'd get: the problems are systemic, so the solution should be systemic, too. From the above, it may already be clear why neither conservatives nor the radical left fall prey to such incoherent reasoning. Put simply, conservatives deny 1) and accept 2): the system is fine, so individuals just need to make better choices. This is consistent with 3), just as is the radical left’s acceptance of 1) and denial of 2): the system has problems, so the solution is to change the system in a way that prevents them from reoccurring. So I guess my point is this: it’s incoherent to be a liberal. The only consistent options are to be a conservative and dogmatically reject any socioeconomic research that shows potential problems with the socioeconomic system, or be a radical leftist and argue that the system needs to be fixed if systemic problems are to be fixed. Have a nice day. 1.) What you perceive as a problem others might not. 2.) Health is an individual, not collective problem. Freedom says that I am as free as I like to make unhealthy choices, and I am free to face the consequences of them (ie I can not expect society to pay for my heart surgery). 3.) In a free society there are no socioeconomic problems, there are only consequences. If a consequence is, to you, a problem, then you don't suddenly have a right to impose on everyone else the 'solutions' to what you regard as a problem. The only problem would exist when someone asserts claims of authority on others by telling them what they can or can't eat. If some bozo dies because he couldn't resist shoving Big Macs down his throat, or he is 'discriminated' against because of it, tough, to me that isn't a problem he couldn't have avoided had he had the state of mind to govern his primal desires. 4.) The real solution to the problem, discriminating against people of such habits, like getting them to pay for 2 seats on an airplane, like saying employers are free to discriminate because they realize that someone's obesity is reflective of their values and way of life, is the solution to the problem, because it might be a little incentive for people to stop eating McDonalds and start going to the gym. It isn't that difficult. So society constructs its own solutions - it doesn't need yours or anyone's 'intellect' at diagnosing 'socioeconomic problems' to help it correct itself.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 205

Posted 10/22/09 - 07:42 AM:	#13
ciceronianus wrote: Some would say that today's liberals do not feel the individual is capable of, or at least not inclined towards, making intelligent choices. Laws are required, therefore, to assure that proper "choice" is made, such laws to be enacted by those who know what is best. Your liberal sounds rather conservative. Yeah, funny how people who claim to support societal equality can only accomplish it by claiming INHERENT inequality between themselves and others! Lol what bozos. They alone know best the way in which we are all equal! Haha, give me a break.

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1414

Posted 10/22/09 - 11:22 AM:	#14
itinerant wrote: Sorry, but the movie contradicts itself repeatedly. Here's why your interpretation of 1) is off: the movie shows a family who can't afford to buy fresh vegetables, but it concludes by saying, "Consumer power! Individuals can change the system just by buying organic!" This is deeply incoherent or even pathological reasoning. On the contrary, that is a whole argument in and of itself: if you don't want to be like them (the unfortunately cash strapped family) demonstrate to the people running the system that they have to change their practices if they want to stay in business. Given the nature of supply and demand, as a tactic for changing unfavorable elements in a capitalistic system, it is legit. Cut of the demand and you'll change the supply.
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/22/09 - 11:35 AM:	#15
jaoman wrote: if you don't want to be like them (the unfortunately cash strapped family) demonstrate to the people running the system that they have to change their practices if they want to stay in business. Given the nature of supply and demand, as a tactic for changing unfavorable elements in a capitalistic system, it is legit. Cut of the demand and you'll change the supply. This still doesn't work. Who is it that is supposed to change demand? Well, those with the economic power to do so. Is that the majority or even a substantial minority of us? No. So, "we" can't change the system just by changing "our" purchases as individuals. "We" just ain't enough people.
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

jaoman
On the Road...

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 13, 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Total Topics: 82
Total Posts: 1414

Posted 10/22/09 - 11:43 AM:	#16
itinerant wrote: This still doesn't work. Who is it that is supposed to change demand? Well, those with the economic power to do so. Is that the majority or even a substantial minority of us? No. So, "we" can't change the system just by changing "our" purchases as individuals. "We" just ain't enough people. HUH? Who exactly is “them” in this case? As far as I know, by far the greater majority of the population purchases and consumes food products. In what possible way does that qualify for minority status?
"With no relation to class or social background, whether it suits them or not, people yearn for a dream. Sustained by a dream, hurt by a dream, revived by a dream, killed by a dream. And even after being abandoned by a dream, it continues to smolder from the bottom of one's heart... probably until the verge of death. A man should envision such a lifetime once. A life spent as a martyr to the god named "dream." - Kentaro Miura

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/22/09 - 11:52 AM:	#17
Odin wrote: Liberal vs Conservative? In America they are both ultra far right wing fascists. To the rest of the world, left wing is socialist and right wing is capitalist. Speaking of incoherent, how do you reconcile this with your 1)-4)? Just curious.
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

itinerant
reluctant marxist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2006

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 259

Posted 10/22/09 - 12:06 PM:	#18
Who exactly is “them” in this case? Aw, c'mon. Let me spell it out: how the hell are most people supposed to afford to buy organic veggies when they can't even afford the non-organic ones? Or, let's broaden the context: how are most people supposed to afford to buy, say, organic veggies and at the same time pay for their homes, cars, education, healthcare, etc.? "Love me, love me, love me. I'm a liberal."
Philosophy should be more than an apology for capitalism

To Mega Therion
Grand Moff

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 11, 2009

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 180

Posted 10/22/09 - 12:19 PM:	#19
I take exception with your characterisation of conservatives. At least in the sense in which, say, Burke, Taine and this humble poster are conservatives (and from what I know Americal conservatives are supposed to be influenced by this strand more than the crown-sword-altair fantasies of De Maistre and co.), a conservative recognises that there are problems in society. He would even want to see them solved in his lifetime. But he is skeptical of excessive government intervention and policies based on ideology that characterise much of left-wing politics.

Odin
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 205

Posted 10/22/09 - 12:39 PM:	#20
itinerant wrote: Speaking of incoherent, how do you reconcile this with your 1)-4)? Just curious. Why would they need to be reconciled? One is a definition, the other my beliefs.

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.