Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why can't liberals think for themselves Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Says the guy who is so clueless he believes Hayek favoured economic planning
    Never said that either. Although Hayek himself said, twice (in the works you haven't read that I politely showed you) that there are some circumstances where it is useful.

    I know the truth does not suit your superiority complex and that worthless piece of paper you have. Better luck next time child.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh look he writes in 1948 as well!

    In a modern community there are a considerable number of services which are needed, such as sanitary and health measure, and which could not possibly be provided by the market for the obvious reason that no price can be charged to the beneficiaries or, rather, that it is not possible to confine the benefits to those who are willing or able to pay for them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individ...Economic_Order
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Never said that either. Although Hayek himself said, twice (in the works you haven't read that I politely showed you
    If you think you've been polite in this interaction you're suffering from some profound delusions
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    If you think you've been polite in this interaction you're suffering from some profound delusions
    I was not originally, when I clarified I was behaving more civil. Then I realised it wasn't lack of clarification or emotive rhetoric that was the problem, it was your arrogance and inability to accept you are wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    Never said that either. Although Hayek himself said, twice (in the works you haven't read that I politely showed you) that there are some circumstances where it is useful.
    Now you're saying Hayek favoured planning, specifically, in certain certain circumstances, as opposed to social insurance etc?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Now you're saying Hayek favoured planning, specifically, in certain certain circumstances, as opposed to social insurance etc?
    You can't plan everything, Hayek supported it in circumstances when it was the lesser evil, such as using planning for social insurance issues... The main argument is that a collective simply could not take into account all of the needs of the economy due to the limitations of human rationality... that doesn't mean it doesn't always work.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord A)
    You can't plan everything, Hayek supported it in circumstances when it was the lesser evil, such as using planning for social insurance issues...
    I think you're confusing "planning" with services provided universally by the state. They are two different things.

    This view does not, of course, exclude the recognition of
    social ends, or rather of a coincidence of individual ends which
    makes it advisable for men to combine for their pursuit. But it
    limits such common action to the instances where individual
    views coincide; what are called "social ends" are for it merely
    identical ends of many individuals-or ends to the achievement
    of which individuals are willing to contribute in return for the
    assistance they receive in the satisfaction of their own desires.
    Common action is thus limited to the fields where people agree
    on common ends.
    Economic planning, such it as it is, is fundamentally inconsistent with Hayek's view that collective action is only acceptable where it is consistent with what all the affected individuals desired anyway. When Hayek speaks of planning, he means

    f a system of "planned economy" in which the entrepreneur
    working for profit is replaced by a central planning body.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I grow tired of this seperation of people into 'left' and 'right'. And 'liberal' and 'conservative. This isn't a game of football. People tend to be hybridised in their views.

    Also, the title of this thread is not 'Can liberals think for themselves?' or 'I don't think liberals can think for themselves' - it's 'Why can't liberals think for themselves' - it makes the assumption that they can't and doesn't leave it open for discussion. It is in fact a loaded question.

    Sooner people stop bickering between left and right like they're playing at being in opposing tribes, the better.

    My view is social democracy and social capitalism is where it's at - which is a kind of hybrid I guess. At the moment we have corrupt capitalism which is never going to work.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    omg why do people love defining groups for their political stance so often? listen to me. the things people say about 'liberals' one day, someone else will say about 'conservatives' the next. liberals/conservatives are intolerant/stubborn/greedy/illogical etc etc theyre all interchangeable. trying to tar everyone with the same brush is never gonna work.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmergencyBagels)
    omg why do people love defining groups for their political stance so often? listen to me. the things people say about 'liberals' one day, someone else will say about 'conservatives' the next. liberals/conservatives are intolerant/stubborn/greedy/illogical etc etc theyre all interchangeable. trying to tar everyone with the same brush is never gonna work.
    Well said.

    Trouble is, people get involved with this pseudo-intellectual political argument because they do politics as one of their courses, and have learned about 'left' and 'right' and a little political history, and loads of systems that didn't work because they were abused.

    Basically, compassion and philanthropy, as well as chances for people to better themselves is what you need for a good political system. Run by people with basic human morality.

    At the moment, we only really have the third one out of that. We are missing a lot of the first two.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmergencyBagels)
    omg why do people love defining groups for their political stance so often? listen to me. the things people say about 'liberals' one day, someone else will say about 'conservatives' the next. liberals/conservatives are intolerant/stubborn/greedy/illogical etc etc theyre all interchangeable. trying to tar everyone with the same brush is never gonna work.
    It's like football I guess. People like to become part of 'teams' which oppose other 'teams'. Maybe to give them a sense of superiority? Or competition? Either way, this is not what's needed in politics otherwise we will eventually arrive at a stalemate. What we need is a hybridised system that, while not being ideally suited to everyone, at least caters for everyone to a certain extent.

    So long as we have this banking culture and everyone wants to 'go into politics' because it's a good career, we are doomed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    It's like football I guess. People like to become part of 'teams' which oppose other 'teams'. Maybe to give them a sense of superiority? Or competition? Either way, this is not what's needed in politics otherwise we will eventually arrive at a stalemate. What we need is a hybridised system that, while not being ideally suited to everyone, at least caters for everyone to a certain extent.

    So long as we have this banking culture and everyone wants to 'go into politics' because it's a good career, we are doomed.
    possibly due to the tribal nature of politics; the importance of loyalty and group action requires common goals
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Here's a nice section from the cofounder of Paypal that might go some way to characterise the stupid blind optimism of liberals.

    (Original post by Peter Thiel)
    But in practice, we all sense that such gloating belongs to a very different time. Most of our political leaders are not engineers or scientists and do not listen to engineers or scientists. Today a letter from Einstein would get lost in the White House mail room, and the Manhattan Project would not even get started; it certainly could never be completed in three years. I am not aware of a single political leader in the U.S., either Democrat or Republican, who would cut health-care spending in order to free up money for biotechnology research — or, more generally, who would make serious cuts to the welfare state in order to free up serious money for major engineering projects. Robert Moses, the great builder of New York City in the 1950s and 1960s, or Oscar Niemeyer, the great architect of Brasilia, belong to a past when people still had concrete ideas about the future. Voters today prefer Victorian houses. Science fiction has collapsed as a literary genre. Men reached the moon in July 1969, and Woodstock began three weeks later. With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that this was when the hippies took over the country, and when the true cultural war over Progress was lost.

    Today’s aged hippies no longer understand that there is a difference between the election of a black president and the creation of cheap solar energy; in their minds, the movement towards greater civil rights parallels general progress everywhere. Because of these ideological conflations and commitments, the 1960s Progressive Left cannot ask whether things actually might be getting worse. I wonder whether the endless fake cultural wars around identity politics are the main reason we have been able to ignore the tech slowdown for so long.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    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?
    Are you a left winger yourself?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Ah that's interesting. It seems like this outdated stereotype of a liberal as a 60's head in the clouds hippy has stuck. Weird.

    No wonder people are always writing stuff about 'The left' and 'Liberals' if this is the picture they have of a liberal in their head.

    Liberal - interested in progression and change, and open to new ideas. Belief in Liberty for society, ensuring equality in terms of basic human needs and rights. Perhaps this is what the hippies stood for in the sixties but this ain't the sixties any more, and the same thing takes a very different form now.

    That explains it. I could never get my head round why some people seem so obsessed with 'The left' and 'Leftists' etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by frankieboy)
    Belief in Liberty for society, ensuring equality in terms of basic human needs and rights.
    They are the 'progressives', yes. Also, the liberty they desire is anarchy, but ensuring equality requires the force of the state... Not liberty at all.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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
    What a ridiculous statement.
    Liberal's don't 'hate' big banks, they feel they need to be regulated more, checked more and work for people and small businesses and should face punishments or even closure if they fail to do so.
    Plenty of liberals don't support the Iraq war, you're right. I don't, i was fully against it. Having said that, the conservatives were also fully supportive of it and Labour I guess are seen as the lesser of two evils. They could vote for the green of course, but that would be a wasted vote so they stick with Labour.

    You accused liberals of making sweeping generalizations and have just made two yourself, fair play.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intelligent con)
    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?
    The reason is that the majority of beliefs/views they hold sprung up less than 100 years ago.

    They're of this generation that has had their mind colonized. Essentially, they've been educated into submission. Notice they always claim how 'educated' they're? They've recieved a thorough Politically Correct education.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?
General election 2017 on TSR
Register to vote

Registering to vote?

Check out our guide for everything you need to know

Manifesto snapshots

Manifesto Snapshots

All you need to know about the 2017 party manifestos

Party Leader questions

Party Leader Q&A

Ask political party leaders your questions

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.