Is this the mindset that goes, “Well, there are safety nets, so why should I have to bother?” Isn’t Boris’s lament merely liberal conditioning? How likely is it that his parents reared him with liberal Marxist ideals? And if they did, how likely is it that they will be surprised when they learn that Boris would rather screw around than care for his sister?
Is this why liberalism is morphing into centrism? Have liberals lately realized that their philosophy, seeded in the last century, has grown into a thorny thicket they did not anticipate? This almost has to be assumed, since we don’t want to assume that Liberals are intrinsically bad people.
Heaven knows that things were, overall, no better under the conservative regimes. Those times sucked for quite a different reason: fascism is no improvement over communism. The Conservative wouldn’t allow Boris to party even if his sister was fine. But save them for another thread.
What about the Liberals? Does Boris make you ashamed?
Here I thought you were starting a thread to discuss the philosophy of liberalism. History, principles, and so on; kind of an educational thread, like the many libertarian and socialist ones. Seems like a good idea, as we use the word liberal often with the assumption that we all mean the same thing by it. I don’t know what to tell you about Boris other than selfish dicks come in all stripes. Why do you assume he is a liberal?
Lib, maybe I’m slow today. Please point out the “liberal” philosophy espoused by Boris. Please tell me where the “Marxist ideals” come into play here. And please explain to my why conservatives are not selfish, but liberals are.
While we’re at it, please provide me a decent working definition of “liberal.”
I’m sure you weren’t trying to offend. I’ll not take offense until I understand what you’re trying to say.
Well, William Ewart Gladstone and Lord Rosebery, not to mention Campbell-Bannerman, would probably not be too concerned about Boris being unable to party. And they were certainly Liberals.
Gilligan pointed out that we need to define terms here. So what is the “Liberal” that you feel the Boris story illumines? Not asked in hostility, just to be sure that we are not debating with “liberal=radical socialist” assumed on one side and “liberal=caring individualist” on the other. Or worse, “minimarchist” vs. “welfare statist” – both having been common usages for the term at different points during our lifetimes, Lib.
What, you mean that tersely cryptic answers aren’t okay on your threads? C’mon, Lib!
In other words, your post is pretty silly. You’re drawing false comparisons within hypotheticals without defining your terms…there are straw men (“liberal conditioning”) and veiled ad hominem attacks everywhere (“we don’t want to assume that Liberals are intrinsically bad people”)…
Really, Lib. You can do better than that.
Any other comments I’m saving till you answer andros’s post.
I would define liberalism as a philosophy this way:
Metaphysic: Politics
Epistemology: Closed discourse
Ethic: Sympathy
Politics: Egalitarianism
I don’t mean to insult liberals any more than they mean to insult me when they say Libertarians are uncharitable. Perhaps I am operating from ignorance, just as they are. Straight Dope seems the place to dispell ignorance, and this forum seems to be the place to debate effects of the liberal ethic. If I’m wrong, and you’re a liberal, then tell me why Boris’s attitude about his sister isn’t a safety-net attitude? Why is it any different to say, why worry about my sister, my parents will take care of her versus why worry about the poor, the government will take care of them?
Now, we’ve put libertarianism through the wringer here, with many liberals claiming that libertarianism is naive and that its consequences would be great. I’m saying that I suspect the safety-net mindset is a consequence of liberalism. I’ve answered a hundred hypotheticals in these forums, and now here’s a real person (Morris Boris) expressing a safety-net mindset. I’d like to see it addressed.
Okay? I’d like to see the liberals buckle down and talk about this. And I’d love to see you condemn Boris and explain why your ethic is not applicable here. I mean that in all sincerity. I want to find some common ground with you people. Surely it is there. I dislike conservatism as much as you do, so what’s up with Boris?
Poly
If you will research the matter, you will discover that (American) liberalism and conservatism reversed meanings about the time of the Wilson Administration. Jefferson was a Liberal; Burke was a Conservative; and libertarianism is also known as classical liberalism (ala Bastiat).
Lib, if I read the original thread aright (and I believe I do), the hypothetical Boris lives in an “exotic” country somewhere in the southern hemisphere. I see no remark within the OP pertaining to the political regime or philosophy under which Boris was raised, probably because Boris, being a shallow and profligate young man, doesn’t find it particularly important.
Since when did callow youth look to a particular political philosophy to justify irresponsibility, apathy and aloofness? Do you really think “the Conservatives wouldn’t allow Boris to party even if his sister was fine” is a true statement? The scion of the wealthy and priveleged classes have always been known to party, regardless of the prevailing political climate. If Boris’ lament reveals any general trend, it has more to do with economics than with politics.
Boris makes me weep for humanity. Boris represents, to me, everything bad about the New Age “love thyself” philosophy, which says that everyone’s desires and opinions are equally valid, and that there is no place for shame or humility.
Boris shows us how self-involved and dispossessed of their own roots Western youth can become when not firmly guided by a culture of responsibility — the kind of culture that promotes conservative ideals such as self-sacrifice and a cohesive family unit, but that also creates such liberal ideas as the Peace Corps, the EPA and “sit-ins” to protest War.
Boris makes me ashamed of the modern drive toward instant gratification, but neither he nor you make me ashamed of my liberalism.
Explain again please the part where boris is counting on the State to do anything at all? If he is an uncharitable soul, what does it matter whether the “safety net” on which he relies originates with the State, from his fellow family members, from private insurance his sister may have purchased or anywhere else?
Or does libertarianism prohibit private insurance or charitable people other than boris?
Thank you. I can’t tell you how relieved I am. Where (specifically) is my definition of liberalism mistaken?
Are you saying that I have confused the Liberal philosophy with the New Age philosophy?
Manny
Please stop with the red herring. Boris is counting on someone else, which is exactly the sort of displacement that liberalism effects. Libertarianism does not allow people to abbrogate their responsibilities and obligations.
I don’t get the link to “liberal” issues at all. Are you saying that Boris’ parents would like his moral support but he wants to go party instead? Then yes he should compromise and party in his spare time while giving his parents’ support.
Boris could just as well argue “My sister made bad choices in her life that led her to have a coma. She is responsible for the consequences. I am not responsible for my parent’s happiness either. They are adults and free to make their own decisions as to what is best for them.”
Libertarian, I have found than many who consider themselves ‘liberals’ in our political scheme, would hardly do justice to the designation. If the true spirit of liberalism was alive and well we would not keep throwing more and more resources into the same old ideas (ie more money for failed Government solutions to every possible problem). Liberals are supposed to challenge the establishment - an important function in any society, a sort of sanity check. But instead todays ‘liberals’ are all about what they can get from the establishment, and just how big and mighty an establishment they can build.
I posted something similar in a thread for Liberals cheking in, and as far as I recall no one made a real rebuttal. Here’s another chance.
I’ve had some experience with Marxist/Communist thinking, and I don’t recall the family being of less concern to the average citizen, although I understand the ‘safety net’ thinking you are refering to, I think this example is less to do with political orientation and more with a selfish kid. The example I would give is one where Boris showed up for work, punched in, and went home to drink or met up with his drinking buddies at the bar, because he knew someone else would do the work for him, and he’d still get paid, and could not be fired. That’s one that went on for decades all over the communist Soviet Union.
My point is that there are literally hundreds of ways in which this particular responsibility could be dealt with.
In a libertarian context, the sister could very well have purchased private insurance that would ensure that she receives care far beyond that available in the current Statist environment. If that is the case, boris would be exactly free to slough off his moral responsibility to his sister as he is if her care comes from the State, from her parents or from benevolent aliens from the planet Zagrax.
So the answer your question is no. Boris’ lament is not “merely liberal conditioning”. It is “merely being an uncaring jerk”. Uncaring jerks can exist in any context.
How lovely. “No, really, some of my best friends are liberals. They’re almost like normal people.”
*Lib, just because some self-professed liberals have attacked you and your philosophies is no reason to tar all liberals with the same brush. I’m rather surprised at your vehemence and vitriol. It’s attitudes like “all liberals are Marxists” the maintain the walls between philosophies. Kinda like “all athiests are bad people.” Got that one wrong, didn’t you?
I’ll second Xeno. I really just don’t see how Boris exemplifies liberalism. A lazy, uncaring, and quick-fix mentality, sure, but I think that’s less of a result of his liberal indoctrination than that he’s a dick.
Letting someone else deal with the messes is not a result of liberalism, IMO. On the contrary, I think that the human tendency to laziness is what has allowed the development of the welfare state throughout human history. Governements arose in the first place to do the things that people could not or would not do themselves. Everyone wants something for nothing. It’s only been in the past century or so that technology and wealth have progressed to the point where we as a people can award ourselves that something.
It’s difficult to say, of course, and there’s no way to cite any of this. My gut disagrees with you, but there’s no possible evidence I could provide.
I think it’s also important to note that there are very few liberals (of the ilk you seem to be describing) in the US. And few conservatives as well. There are instead liberal and conservative issues and agendas. The sheeple (including policymakers) are hardly likely take personal resposibility for anything, regardless of their self-labelling.
“Epistemology: Closed discourse”
Nope. Although this is rarely applied by self-professed “liberals” now days, the actual epistemology is: Open examination of public policy. The liberal philosophy is anti-dogmatic and accepting of new ideas, not structured and closed in.
“Ethic: Sympathy”
Wrong again. Ethic: Responsibility. As a devout follower of Jesus, you should relate to this ethic. "“Whatsoever you do to these, the least of my brothers, you do unto me.” Liberal philosophy requires us to take responsibility for our society’s actions toward the poor, the weak, the minority members, and the unrepresented.
“Politics: Egalitarianism”
OK.
No. I was giving you an equally half-assed assessment of what, in modern society, gave rise to Boris. I think you’re blaming Boris’ selfishness on an “entitlement” mentality, and that nothing in that OP indicated such a mentality.
Sure it does, as long as it’s by contractual agreement (such as with a private insurance company). And if you mean their familial responsibilities and obligations, I was under the impression that libertarianism didn’t interfere with the actions of peaceful, honest people.
Thanks for the clarification on liberal philosophy, xeno. A question on “Ethic: Responsibility” – I see this as different from the ethic of libertarianism (non-coercion) like this – in libertarian ethics, it is wrong to harm someone. In liberal ethics, it is wrong to harm someone, but additionally it is wrong not to help him (if he needs help), since we are responsible for him. That would explain the need for state welfare – the state enforcing the ethic of responsibility, the same way it enforces the ethic of non-coercion. Would you agree?
