Why can't liberals think for themselves

They hold very strong beliefs but if you actually question them about their beliefs they will be unable to form a coherent argument and will resort to name calling. There are some right wingers who are also like this but I find this problem seems to be mainly with left wing liberal hipsters. Is there any particular reason for this?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

username1628823

I think it's because people like Russell Brand just give them a sort of dogma to follow; they don't formulate their beliefs for themselves.As a result, they cannot defend them.

However, I'd also like to say that not all liberals are 'hipsters'; quite a few of them are clever.

Reply 2

RayApparently

You're generalisation is a bit like me talking about how Daily Mail reading right-wingers can't think for themselves...

The main issue is probably because left-wing arguments have moral bases that are difficult for a non-philosopher to justify and the other arguments tend to be complex. One can accept something on the basis of it seeming morally just with little technical understanding. Of course, I don't know what your questioning is like - though I'm sure it is extremely fair and scientific.

Reply 3

zippity.doodah

"conservatives", as opposed to libertarians (on the right), are just as bad as "liberals" in my opinion

Reply 4

L i b

Original post by intelligent con

I am a right-wing liberal. How do I fall into your daft generalisation?

Reply 5

Birkenhead

Original post by intelligent con

Ridiculous. Liberalism does not have a monopoly on immaturity.

Reply 6

intelligent con

Original post by RayApparently

I did say many right wingers had similar issues. I just said it seems more predominate among lefties

Reply 7

RayApparently

Original post by intelligent con

I did say many right wingers had similar issues. I just said it seems more predominate among lefties

And those are my reasons why you might perceive that in everyday conversation. In my experience right-wingers either are extremely politically aware or completely clueless. Lefties have a wider spread.

Reply 8

intelligent con

Another thing I don't understand is they hate things such as 'the big banks' and the iraq war yet they support the labour party

Reply 9

ParasiteRex

You should make the distinction between those who are economically liberal and the Grauniad readers to whom you refer, though the readership has been as conservative as Mail pundits in response to articles about the Calais crisis and Pakistani child-sex gangs. A lot of them have taken flight to the Huffington Post and other clickbait news sites.

Reply 10

Falcatas

Most 'liberals' are unaware of the ideology they really support.

When they say the want to increase taxes on the rich, they don't realise they are actually supporting people to hand over money at the point of a gun. Their ideology lacks basic ethical foundations such as universaility.

Reply 11

Birkenhead

Original post by Falcatas

Do you not support any level of taxation?

Universality? What do you mean by this?

Reply 12

Falcatas

Original post by Birkenhead

Do you not support any level of taxation?

Universality? What do you mean by this?

Well I think all taxation is theft.

And by universaility it means it can be applied to everyone, everywhere at any time.
It is it wrong today for you and I today, it was wrong 1000 years ago for other people.

'Murder is wrong' is a universal statement.

Theft is wrong should be as well but many do support taking from the rich to give the poor.
I understand this is for moral reasons but then we get the problem that stealing is wrong for some people. Other times it is acceptable. It is no longer universal.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 13

Birkenhead

Original post by Falcatas

Well I think all taxation is theft.

And by universaility it means it can be applied to everyone, everywhere at any time.
It is it wrong today for you and I today, it was wrong 1000 years ago for other people.

I guess 'Murder is wrong' is a universal statement.
Theft is wrong should be too but many do support taking from the rich to give the poor.
I understand this is for moral reasons but then we get the problem that stealing is wrong for some people. Other times it is acceptable.

Taxation isn't theft. Any reasonable person understands that at least some taxation is worth the continuation of public services and public investment in society. If your complaint is that taxation is unequal, I would make the point that it has a fairness in that those with more will be much less affected by paying more than those with less would. If everyone paid the same amount it would mean that those with less would pay more proportionate to what they had, and vice versa. In this sense the rich aren't really paying more at all, but the poor would pay more if taxes were equal.

You can't compare murder to taxation. It's absurd. If nothing else, governments that implement taxes do so with democratic mandates, and I've illustrated above that some measure of taxation is necessary for a civilised society to continue which I'm sure most of us would want.

Reply 14

Messiah Complex

I think you'll find that I'm actually influenced not only by modern events but a lot of what I've read from very intelligent people of decades gone by. Such influences include Oscar Wilde, Bertrand Russell, George Orwell, Martin Luther King, Albert Einstein, Picasso and Mark Twain. I'm pretty sure all of these people are well capable of thinking for themselves. I have read numerous literary works which has helped formulate my viewpoint. I do not believe in the failings of an ideology but the failings of humans in accepting that a different outlook towards life through education can actually lead to an ideology working. Socialism has been let down by humans.

The people were the flaws, not the ideology. To me, this does not indicate that there is a problem with the ideology itself but with us. However, so many people refuse to criticise the human race or accept our faults and our self centric outlook as a species and therefore blame the ideology, of course which cannot fight back. Most humans today see things in the way hunter gatherers did and thats fending for themselves rather than the societal collective. To achieve true socialism you need people's outlook to change so they value the group rather than the individual.

My political beliefs are all laid out and I know fully what I stand for because having studied the work of many of those before me I know now what I believe to be the correct path.

1. I want the political system revolutionised
2. I want devolution to regions
3. I want socialist devolved regions
4. I want money to be distributed more evenly within those democratically devolved socialist regions
5. I want agreements between regions to be created to avoid civil wars between regions

Why? I'll answer each above with the corresponding number below.

1. I believe more local government will allow people to have more control on issues that matter to them, to have a more in touch political class that works on a local level building trust and to ensure that political projects are community focused.

2. Why devolution? People want to see results in their own area and people want money they make to go into improving their lives. They also want more say in this. Of course, certain regions within the UK now make a net loss and are propped up so the exact split of regions would need to be cost effective with investment being put in the right places to make self sustaining regions

3/4. I want them to be socialist with money in these regions being distributed more fairly but the rich in these regions would still have a high quality of life because money would be going back into the local community to improve roads, to improve schools, to improve everything. These people would actually be the heroes of their local community as the money they make would actually keep the community alive.

5. This agreement is necessary to avoid situations arising whereby one area is doing better than another and another area wants to by force try and take that region. This is always a problem with devolution because regions are smaller and often less powerful. There would be a written agreement all regions sign up to much like the international agreement currently in place that states any attacking region becomes a national threat. All other regions would then be against that region. What region in the UK is going to make the first move when it has the rest of the UK to deal with?

Please don't say I've not done research or thought this through. Of course this isn't the entire thing or I'd be here all night but I have thought about it and done loads of research and I agree with people like Einstein who I believe is spot on. Only though education will we move from the self focus to a collective outlook and overcome that psychological barrier.

Far too many people in the UK currently only think about how much tax they're paying and how they're getting done over. We need to change that so people think 'my money is being spent on the local people, the roads, its doing good, I'm improving peoples lives' and they need to feel that that is a massive thing because it is. When people are being fed because of your taxes its great. When people are being clothed and sheltered because of your taxes its great. You should take pride in that, not see it as a slight on your pay cheque.

Humans have many faults. Do not blame ideologies for them. That's just the cowards way out. Self reflection is needed and we as a human race need to do it a lot if we're ever to continue advancing.

Thanks. I suggest you read the works or listen to the works of these great people as it'll open your mind.

Reply 15

Gjaykay

Man you people are crazy. No taxes? There are two things certain in this life: Death & Taxes.

We tax the rich more because they can afford to pay more, and yeah they pay faaaaar more than their fair share, but honestly that's the only way it's gonna work. It's advantageous to the rich that everyone can go to school, get health care, not end up dying in a gutter. People with more money means they can spend more which means people can make more money. Win - Win - Win! It's not hard ffs.

"Help The Helpless" should be the phrase going through every politicians mind when they write a bill. You people can bitch and moan from your castles and all that nonsense, but when you're living on a shoestring budget, living penny to penny, having to know exactly whats in your bank account for fear of going into an overdraft and getting a fine which if you pay will cost you upwards of a week of food, you don't know **** about what the country is actually living in. And I don't mean as students where you spend all your money getting drunk and hitting on the Uni bike every weekend. I mean being forced to stretch a single bag of pasta out to last you a month because you're not gonna have food otherwise.

I'm forced to live that way, and it sucks. If politicians or you people had to live like me and countless others all that'd go through your heads is "what can we do to help the helpless" rather than "lets kill all the poor"

TSR makes me sick sometimes. Have some empathy, dicks.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 16

Falcatas

Original post by Birkenhead

Do you realise that our society would collapse without any taxation? We would not be able to fund a universal police service or legal representation for those who couldn't pay, or universal healthcare, or universal education...

Taxation isn't theft. Any reasonable person understands that at least some taxation is worth the continuation of public services and public investment in society. If your complaint is that taxation is unequal, I would make the point that it has a fairness in that those with more will be much less affected by paying more than those with less would. If everyone paid the same amount it would mean that those with less would pay more proportionate to what they had, and vice versa. In this sense the rich aren't really paying more at all, but the poor would pay more if taxes were equal.

You can't compare murder to taxation. It's absurd. If nothing else, governments that implement taxes do so with democratic mandates, and I've illustrated above that some measure of taxation is necessary for a civilised society to continue which I'm sure most of us would want.

Taxation is theft, it is the forced handing over of property. Perhaps you think is it justified but regardless it is still theft.

It is not necessary either.
There will still be healthcare, policing and education because these things are certainly wanted, just they will be voluntarily funded which of course means they will be competing with other groups for those services.

They would end up being much better quality as well. For example, the police are paid regardless of the job they do. They have no incentive to search for stolen goods.

You would voluntarily fund what you want and not fund what you don't want.
However with state taxation you don't. You fund everything they do.
Which includes funding the arrest of people caught with drugs and funding the murder of people overseas, (usually brown people).

I am certainly not saying it will be a overnight transformation, that certainly would be very chaotic indeed.
What is certain is the current system will eventually collapse due to increasing government debt.

Original post by Gjaykay

I have never said of advocated 'kill the poor' that is a baseless lie.

I do care about the poor which is why I am against minimum wages, the welfare and drug laws, all of which have trapped poor people in state dependency.

People seem to forget that as taxation increases, charity decreases. Things would end up being a lot cheaper as well.
Maybe you should have empathy when you have no problem with pointing guns at people to hand other their possession to others.

Why don't you find a rich person and threaten him yourself to give money to someone else, if that is the moral thing to do? No, you can't handle pointing the gun yourself so you just let other people do it.