Liberalism and the impact on human nature

[whell]

This article really resonates deeply with me. I post it here not to inflame, though I'm sure it may to some. I post it here because it highlights the central flaws of liberalism, against the backdrop of the London riots.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ed-youths.html

One of the (many) key "payoff" quotes in the article is this:

"Of course it is true that few have jobs, learn anything useful at school, live in decent homes, eat meals at regular hours or feel loyalty to anything beyond their local gang.

This is not, however, because they are victims of mistreatment or neglect.

It is because it is fantastically hard to help such people, young or old, without imposing a measure of compulsion which modern society finds unacceptable. These kids are what they are because nobody makes them be anything different or better."

The "compulsion" the author refers to is the requirement to gainfully participate in society. This compulsion has been replaced by the welfare state, in which government benefits have replaced the central motivation of a portion of the population to care for and fend for themselves.

Life is hard, dreadfully hard for some. Life is also unfair. But unfairness and the desire for something better are also powerful motivating forces. "Necessity is the mother of invention". If individuals of a society have their motivation of necessity replaced by motivation based reliance and dependency, destruction of the individual and ultimately society will result.

There's much hyperbole in the article, which is not unusual in the Brit press. However, the message is a salient one. Look at the devolution of our own culture. Any sampling of daily news articles provide evidence of the lack of humanity and the decreasing social penalties for misbehavior. We've also decided it is not amoral to spend today for our own security and happiness, and send the bill to our children.

When we live life without purpose, without a notion that we owe a debt to society of our own labor (as opposed to society owing a debt to us), we lose our sense of purpose, value and compassion. If someone's sustenance is simply given to them, and they don't labor for it, then what value does it have? What value do the fruits of other's labor have (could this be why the left finds it so easy to impugn the successful - rich - in our society, and foment class envy)? Ultimately, if someone doesn't mightily contribute to their own sustenance or prosperity, what becomes of their sense of self - worth.

This is how the so - called benevolence of liberalism, to me, fails to take into account human nature as a central force. Devalue the individual in favor of "society", which is the ultimate outcome of applied liberalism, and society starts to break down.

I'm not expecting this to change anyone's minds, but it might provide insight into the minds of those who claim to be conservative. Conservatives are often viewed as compassionate or dispassionate. However, conservatives find no compassion in the destruction of fabric of society that is exemplified by what is occurring in the name of liberalism both abroad and in this country.

[JCricket]

I don't even know where to begin with this article. If there is a grain of truth to it, it is luck. I would like to know how the author gets his correlations?

Maybe it has more to do with the examples set by the adults and leaders. Maybe it has to do with the lack of integrity that the kids see. They have no reason to believe otherwise. They will live what they learn. Money may be part of the issue, but I believe it is far less a part of the problem.

These kids have seen and lived in a world devoid of ethics and virtue. What do you expect of them.

[finnbow]

Though there is certainly of kernel of truth in the article and your assertions, it seems more an example of interpreting what one sees through the lens of their own ideology. An articulate liberal could just as easily write an article about what's going on in London and pin the blame on conservatives. This is yet another example of "shit's hitting the fan - it must be the other guy's fault." (Refer to the blame game over the S&P downgrade and stock market collapse). It's much easier to make hay blaming the other guy that coming up with a cogent and effective solution. Criticism is the lowest form of human creativity.

Modern Conservatism seems to be an ideology of putting forth simple (or simplistic) answers to complex, vexing problems. What solutions, pray tell, does the GOP offer other than "cut taxes" (or maybe a "pray-in" in Texas?) If these dead simple GOP solutions were to be the answer, Mississippi, West Virginia and Arkansas would be this nation's economic powerhouses, instead of hotbeds of crystal meth abuse.

Another viewpoint:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/op...n-windows.html

You do recall, I suppose, the amount of praise that Conservatives were heaping upon Ireland (the Celtic Tiger) and Spain a fews years back for the no-holds-barred adoption of the tenets of American Conservatism. How's that working out?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Another viewpoint:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/op...n-windows.html

The article's final question:

"Britain’s current crisis should cause us to reflect on the fact that a smaller government can actually increase communal fear and diminish our quality of life. Is that a fate America wishes upon itself?"

Another way to state this: We've created a monster of government entitlements and a dependency class. We need to keep feeding the monster so it doesn't decide to consume us. Is that a fate America wishes upon itself?

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Modern Conservatism seems to be an ideology of putting forth simple (or simplistic) answers to complex, vexing problems. What solutions, pray tell, does the GOP offer other than "cut taxes" (or maybe a "pray-in" in Texas?)

Conservatism's home is not the Republican party. Frankly, I'm not sure conservatism has a home right now.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Conservatism's home is not the Republican party. Frankly, I'm not sure conservatism has a home right now.

I hear Hannity's constant refrain - "I'm a Conservative, not a Republican." To me, this is an admission that the years of full government control by Republicans of the White House and Congress (under Dubya) were catastrophic.

Time to change the label, it seems. OTOH, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, .....

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I hear Hannity's constant refrain - "I'm a Conservative, not a Republican." To me, this is an admission that the years of full government control by Republicans of the White House and Congress (under Dubya) were catastrophic.

Time to change the label, it seems. OTOH, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, .....

Dubya was never a died in the wool conservative. Right from thege-go he attempted to redefine conservatism, and made efforts to placate the left wing of the Donkey party. What did it get him? The left was never going to embrace him, and on any number of occasions he parted company with conservatives to his own political detriminet.

On the other hand, to call Bush's 8 years "catastrophic" would be a reach. There are any number of things that his political enemies could focus on. But there were some significant gains as well.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You do recall, I suppose, the amount of praise that Conservatives were heaping upon Ireland (the Celtic Tiger) and Spain a fews years back for the no-holds-barred adoption of the tenets of American Conservatism. How's that working out?

These are examples of too little to late, IMHO. There can be no denying the economic uptick that coinicded with the reduction in tax burden. Ultimately, there was also no escaping the debt burden of years an years of socialism.

[BlueStreak]

Whatever.

[d-ray657]

The liberal model with which I am familiar calls upon ALL to contribute to the good of the community. Rather than Nihilism, a liberal philosophy calls upon us to help each other, and also to help each other help themselves. Educational grants and loans are an example of helping young people to seek a better life through education. Drug rehabilitation seeks to bring wellness to sick people so that they can again be productive. Childcare programs help people work who would otherwise be set back by the high cost of private childcare. For a long time, until speculators overwhelmed the market, assistance with home ownership helped stabilize communities.

Certainly we can't say that things like clean air, fresh water and safe food harm the fabric of society. Things like child seats, safety devices on autos, housing codes, contribute to safety, not dependency. Doesn't it add to the sense of community to save forest lands, to preserve the natural beauty of vast areas of land, to maintain a variety of animal life? These aspects of the so-called liberal ideology are more likely to create a sense of shared responsibility than disrupt any moral code.

Regards,

D-Ray