The Philosophy of Liberalism

Point taken. I didn't mean to indicate that people should take the new or different merely because it is new or different without due consideration.

 

It is pretty funny to me. The level of idiocy on this scale only comes around once in a lifetime. Before liberal philosophy we had the mullet hair style to laugh at. Now the mullet cannot hold a candle to liberalism.

 

You know as much about evidence as you do liberalism, don't you?

 

I wouldn't discount trial and error. It's a proven method used in nature and society a like. We use it every day in our own personal lives. Errors/failures are part of evolving, learning, and growing. If we could perfectly evaluate every idea/concept prior to implementation and see all potential outcomes, we wouldn't be human. We would be super human. I get your point though, that is being a liberal doesn't mean you have to support every new idea simply because it's new.

 

The catch is first being aware of potential problems, and then trying such things in a form where you can back off. Something like a major health care policy like Obamacare winds up having such a stranglehold that changing it becomes both expensive and difficult- and living with it becomes expensive and difficult. Caution, common sense, always are appropriate.

 

Caution is appropriate. Common sense may not apply to uncommon, complicated problems.

And no one can foresee all outcomes. Obamacare's shortcomings versus what it provided benefits wise is a wash in favor as clearly shown by the growing support of it since implementation. You can't let perfection be the enemy of progress. You take the best steps you can, evaluate, and them improve as you sustain and maintain. Lots of buzzwords, but getting something done is usually a function of defining the goal properly, not saying we need a health care system that's perfect with no consequences we couldn't foresee or test.

 

Problem is that those ordinary people embrace most anything where somebody else will pay or something is free or great benefits are touted- but fail to understand the financial aspects and burdens of them Wise men know nothing is really free, but you see that used as the most common slaes pitch for everything from a veggie chopper to a health plan. Everybody thinks that somehow, it will actually work- and it never does.

A good health care cost is altogether possible. However the vast amount of insurance that we pay- and I mean the doctors and hospitals and the pharma companies, paid to defend against the worlds largest and most aggressive tort lawyer crusade, pushes our costs far beyond what is necessary- but no body wants to look at that. Why? Because you may be entitled to compensation, for damn near anything and the lawyers want half of it.

Americ has more than three times the lawyers per capita of the second closest nation in the world. THREE TIMES. And they are usually suing over medical issues.

 

Weird comment given you've just made basic error. Fortunately for you liberalism doesn't expect full knowledge.

 

The philosophy of loserism is pretty sad. Oh, you said liberalism.....

 

Is there a difference?

 

All part of the plan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

 

Any lesson in this? Perhaps its to never underestimate the immaturity of right wing comment.

It must be difficult mind you. Liberalism is a dominant political economic school of thought. Conservatism, in contrast, just refers to a weighting system which maintains the status quo.

 

Except today Conservatism means preserving a system that has produced the greatest civilization in history while "liberalism" represents returning to a Stalinist commie society.

 

This is a painfully ignorant comment. How are you to critique liberalism when you don't even understand it?

 

There is a wide gulf separating you and the poster you criticize...you are an idealist and deal with political philosophy in a intellectual but erroneous manner....your antagonist is realistic and understands the world much better than you up there in your ivory tower looking down on folks....deceiving yourself for sure but perhaps a few others also.

America has a long history of pragmatism and self reliance...all that has been abandoned in favor of a nanny state that promises and promises so much to so many...yet delivers so little and in the end all their promises have turned out to be a pipe dream.

From liberal JFK's vision of....ask not what your country can do for you...but what can you do for your country.

To obama...........and the erroneous liberal elitist view of America as a racist nation that needs to be fundamentally changed.

 

I don’t see a battle over the uterus as one the conservatives need to push to control through the govt. but they do.

 

As a businessman I don't have time for idealism. So you've started with prance. Now you could attempt reference to international political economy here and critique liberalism through the realist perspective. However, that will typically derive an anti-free trade outlook and nationalist fever.

There is certainly nothing ivory tower about this. Its basement party politics. Of course those party politics continue to be dominated by right wing thought. That's why, for example, there is under underprovision of public goods (except for national defence) and a welfare state incapable of maintaining the physical efficiency of the underpaid. It's also why, unlike almost all liberal democracies, you stand out with underclass problems (and ironically have to corrupt lumpen proletariat rhetoric to hide from hating your fellow Americans)

 

One vs a hundred. And they'll try to control it from the other direction like with China eventually.

 

Does China normally control the uteruses of American females?

 

Steerike 1 not even in the ball park with my point.

 

The "left" calls itself progressive, not liberal.

 

Well, there are liberals then there are lefties. Lefties are even further left of liberals.