"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind.” - Bob Marley

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Liberal Values: WTF?

Why is it a liberal value to promote illegal immigration and grant amnesty to 12 million (or is it 20 million) illegal immigrants, many of whom we will then have provide with public aid?

Why is it a liberal value to pretend that taking 12 million (or is it 20 million) illegal immigrants and making them in any way legal is not in fact amnesty? Once their illegal presence is forgiven, the amnesty is granted - the fact that they aren't yet citizens has nothing to do with it.

Those of us here legally will end up paying for people who are now here illegally. That sounds like state-sanctioned robbery to me.

Why is it a liberal value to prevent people from having the means of effective self-defense? Yes, I refer to gun control.

Why is it even more of a liberal value to, in particular, deny poor people the right of self-defense? Often, they are the ones who need it most.

Self defense for all people would seem to be something that liberals would value greatly. What is it that they value more?

In particular, why do liberals, when paying lip service to the Second Amendment, always talk about hunting, but never about defense? The Second Amendment does not talk about hunting but explicitly does talk about defense.

Why is it a liberal value to exalt every culture over the American culture - which, with all its faults (and there are many), has still made more people free and prosperous than any other?

5 comments:

Geoffrey Britain said...

"Why is it a liberal value to promote illegal immigration and grant amnesty ...to illegal immigrants, ...then... provide with public aid?"

Liberals dispute that characterization of their position as 'promoting' undocumented workers. (that term is a denial in and of itself) Additionally, they would argue that the taxes that illegals pay more than compensates for public aid.

"Why is it a liberal value to prevent people from having the means of effective self-defense?"

My perception is that liberals have issues with fear. They seek to lessen fear through control. By controlling the means of attack they hope to lessen violence.

"Self defense for all people would seem to be something that liberals would value greatly. What is it that they value more?"

Conflict resolution through control.

"why do liberals, when paying lip service to the Second Amendment, always talk about hunting, but never about defense?"

The means justifies the ends, so intellectual honesty is sacrificed upon the alter of doing 'good'.

"Why is it a liberal value to exalt every culture over the American culture?"

White guilt, moral cowardice and secularistic relativism are factors but the primary factor is the abandonment of traditional faith which, for all its faults does provide an explanation for why 'unfairness' exists.

Everything liberals believe proceeds from that philosophical paradigm.

bobn said...

Geoffrey,

Thanks for being the very first person to comment on my blog.

Somebody on one of the gun forums I frequent has the following sig line: "Calling illegal immigrants 'undocumented workers' is like calling drug dealers 'undocumented pharmacists'" - I aways get a kick out of that.

I am intrigued by your closing statement:

the primary factor is the abandonment of traditional faith which, for all its faults does provide an explanation for why 'unfairness' exists.

Everything liberals believe proceeds from that philosophical paradigm.


I'd love to hear more about the 'explanation for why 'unfairness' exists' part. I am an agnostic - sometimes I can believe in a higher power, sometimes I have trouble with it, especially the general portrayal of an 'all-loving, all-powerful' God, when I view the state of the world. I would very much appreciate any additional information or links you would be willing to provide on this topic.

Geoffrey Britain said...

“I am intrigued by your closing statement:”

”the primary factor is the abandonment of traditional faith which, for all its faults does provide an explanation for why 'unfairness' exists.

Everything liberals believe proceeds from that philosophical paradigm.”

”I'd love to hear more about the 'explanation for why 'unfairness' exists' part. I am an agnostic - sometimes I can believe in a higher power, sometimes I have trouble with it, especially the general portrayal of an 'all-loving, all-powerful' God, when I view the state of the world. I would very much appreciate any additional information or links you would be willing to provide on this topic.”

I’m happy to provide a fuller explanation though I cannot provide links, as these are my own insights.

If however, what you are asking is ‘why’ unfairness exists I can only offer a ‘logically speculative’ explanation based in personal spiritual/religious theory.

The spiritual/religious part however requires faith and faith is a demanding mistress. Faith does offer proof but counter-intuitively, you must first believe, then the proof appears. It is not a case of; first prove it to me and, then I will believe. Faith does not work that way.

The speculative part is simply that observation confirms and demonstrates reality’s logical and illogical nature. From mathematics’ ‘rational and irrational’ numbers, to the necessity of chaos and entropy in the function and foundational physical reality of the universe with entropy resulting in the impermanence of life itself, ample observational evidence exists that without life’s differences, it’s essential ‘unfairness’ the universe, as we know it could not exist. Put colloquially, ‘unfairness’ is built into reality’s DNA…

As to my premise, it is that the ‘secular liberal’s philosophical paradigm’ is a consequence of the abandonment of traditional faith. Specifically, the ‘hidden’, unintentional and consequential abandonment of ‘hope’ itself.

Consider that all major religions offer as ‘received truth’ explanations for life’s essential ‘unfairness’ and concomitant promises of an afterlife, or at least the assurance of the continuance of consciousness after mortal life.

This is not a minor issue, in fact it is part of the essential questions: why are we here? What is the meaning of life? What is my life’s purpose? Etc.,etc.

Whether people ignore these questions, obsess over them or occasionally give them fleeting thought, they remain implicit to the experience of life and profoundly affect our attitudes and behaviors.

It is a self-evident truth that to one degree or another life is ‘unfair’ to all.

Different talents, aptitudes, material abundance, parental and familial harmony and luck in love itself are but a few categories. Life itself is unfair because no matter how good we may have it, life itself will end and we will lose it all…

Whether characterized as a ‘received truth’ or as an ‘opiate for the masses’,
from the standpoint of the psychological benefits for those who accept these 'truths'
the factual veracity of the ‘explanation’ is irrelevant.

The value of an ‘explanatory conceptual framework’ that allows a ‘believer’ to accept life’s vicissitudes and life’s unknown as to date but certain ending with equanimity is of inestimable psychological value. A plausible explanation for life's unfairness allows adherents to function in a universe that allows bad things to happen to good people.

But secularism, agnosticism and atheism provide no solace nor answer to the essential reality that life contains unfairness for all, to one degree or another.

Left with no answer, the reaction is as always, one of 'fight or flight'. If flight from this reality is chosen, only despair and the escape of their drug of choice await. If fight is chosen, then the only reaction to this 'unfairness' is to try to control it, to make life be fair.

This explains the philosophical basis of all secularistic liberal positions on abortion, embryo stem cell research, cloning, etc., etc.

With no conventional belief in a soul, nor frequently in an afterlife either, only the outer reality of their experience is left to them.

The more extreme the allegiance to secularism and atheistic tendencies the more likely the rage against life's unfairness and the greater the belief that if only enough factors (people, economic and governmental systems, education, etc.) can be controlled, life itself can be made fair enough.

It is my contention that everything secularistic liberals believe proceeds from that philosophical paradigm.

I'll finish this very long post in another to follow.

not-a-liberal-gunner said...

This is a fantastic question and a great way to frame up the issue.

My wife is an immigrant and we've paid the US government over $3000 in the last three years to get her resident visa and she's my wife!

I know this country needs an immigrant workforce, but let them in legally, have them pay taxes, and let them go through the same process everyone else has to.

bobn said...

n_a_l_g

Amazing how the fraudsters can knock right through wityh fake weddings etc., but people doing it right, like you and your wife, take years. This stuff is so broken.

I like your blog, too. Sounds like you've had a reversal of opinion since you chose its URL. After seeing how badly the liberal gun-grabbers lie, I don't blame you.

About Me

I'm a 57 year old geek. I voted Democratic for 20 years, because I disliked the Republicans more. But now, nobody really speaks for me. I'm for Guns, for more correct government regulation of the financial world, against illegal immigration and amnesty. (in 2008 I ended up voting Republican - too many questions about Obama, and voting against anybody who voted for TARP 1.) In 2010 I voted a stright republican ticket because the Democrats have completely lost their minds.