It’s like an after school special.
This is a good find. I agree with the theory that conservatives are more healthy not because they’re religious but because they have different personality traits from liberals.
I would not say they need to be institutionalized, but the liberals I know are quite worse off than the conservatives. They are always physically unimposing, socially awkward and struggle with basic life responsibilities.
@thatoneguy it’s fascinating to watch you take any piece of information and make it fit whatever notion you please.
It usually works. Face it, liberals are defective and fortunately you’re dying out.
It seems to me that this sort of exchange reflects more one’s prejudices than scientific knowledge.
[Study finds liberals living longer than conservatives, moderates – Chicago Tribune]
1 Like
We’re not. It’s actually the other way around given that many conservatives and right wingers are in their 60s and over. Except for looking for info that fits your view, I have no idea where you get the idea that liberals are dying out. I think it’s wishful thinking, because you are afraid of things like Socialized medicine and alike programs.
I just took the first google hit on “classic liberalism”. Let’s say it was born sometime before the American Revolution. Are you saying that was a crazy idea? Are you saying economic freedom and civil society are crazy ideas? Are you saying “liberal” means something completely different now? Please define?
Liberalism only exists among the W.E.I.R.D. population, which is not reproducing. Once they’re gone, so is liberalism.
So, liberalism did not lead to the French or American revolutions? It was not a response to the monarchies that had spread throughout the world? It didn’t lead to more secular forms of government?
You are looking back about 20 years and turning a blind eye to centuries of history.
Most of those values existed before Liberalism. Liberal values are basically individuality, personal freedom and equality and they’re not universal at all. They developed by chance in Northern Europe and have never flourished anywhere else except maybe to a small extent in Japan; but even that is different.
France and America are W.E.I.R.D. societies. Monarchies have been replaced in other parts of the globe but not with liberalism.
1 Like
I guess the liberals who have one to two kids are dying out? Please, I really doubt liberals are a dying breed.
May i remind you that theses values have been engraved in the universal declaration of Human rights, adopted by ONU and signed by its members, even dictatorships and Islamic states.
You are right when you say that they are not implemented every where and only imperfectly. You are too much restrictive when you imply that they are not recognized outside European countries.
Now, which are the opposite values ? Inequality, deprivation of personal freedoms ? Racism ? Apartheid ? Do you promote them ?
Even if the systems are fart from perfect, i prefer to live in a western country where the " liberal values" are implemented than in China, a totalitarian state.
The state which rejected these values during the 20th century was the nazi state.
To go further, theses values became dominant in Europe, in the 18th century, same time as capitalism. And they are necessary for a functioning market economy, as is an independent legal and court system.
But they are shared by socialists and anarchists and every democrat.
1 Like
Values are applied to varying degree depending on the situation and class. Principles are fundamental.
To quote the great Chomsky
“The liberal ideals of the Enlightenment could be realized only in very partial and limited ways in the emerging capitalist order: “Democracy with its mono of equality of all citizens before the law and Liberalism with its right of man over his own person both were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economy,” Rocker correctly observed. Those who are compelled to rent themselves to owners of capital in order to survive are deprived of one of the most fundamental rights: the right to productive, creative and fulfilling work under one’s own control, in solidarity with others. And under the ideological constraints of capitalist democracy, the prime necessity is to satisfy the needs of those in a position to make investment decisions; if their demands are not satisfied, there will be no production, no work, no social services, no means for survival. All necessarily subordinate themselves and their interests to the overriding need to serve the interests of the owners and managers of the society, who, furthermore, with their control over resources, are easily able to shape the ideological system (the media, schools, universities and so on) in their interests, to determine the basic conditions within which the political process will function, its parameters and basic agenda, and to call upon the resources of state violence, when need be, to suppress any challenge to entrenched power. The point was formulated succinctly in the early days of the liberal democratic revolutions by John Jay, the President of the Continental Congress and the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court: “The people who own the country ought to govern it.” And, of course, they do, whatever political faction may be in power. Matters could hardly be otherwise when economic power is narrowly concentrated and the basic decisions over the nature and character of life, the investment decisions, are in principle removed from democratic control.”
The problem is, you and I live on different planets
It might be that you go by direct experience, rather than a broader historical and geographic view. Check out the entry on the United States. It takes a lengthy entry to explain how “liberal” has a different meaning there than in other places. If you are judging liberals in general based on what Republican politicians say about them, then you will have a very skewed definition.
1 Like
So what? Most countries have fans of Jazz also. They aren’t most people and they aren’t in positions of power.
Chomsky may be right about some things, but not this. The idea that capitalism refutes liberalism is nonsense. Liberalism could not even exist without capitalism.
That’s not why supplied the link