Xeno
Thanks. As you can see in my post to Manny, I’ve changed my mind that liberalism fosters jerkism. Jerks can exist in any political context. The difference between liberalism and classical liberalism is that the former forces people who aren’t jerks to provide safety nets for jerks, whereas the latter shields nonjerks form responsibility for jerks.
I still say that the (guaranteed) safety net mindset (under the guise of “responsibility”) is not good.
Lib…Funny you would post this today. I was thinking about you yesterday. No doubt after reading another one of your, “everyone is out to get us normal hard working white guys” posts. Anyway, I was thinking about how I shouldn’t really resent your obviously paranoid outlook. I had come to the conclusion that you were just a little bit pathetic to be so preoccupied. Now I’m just stunned. Have you considered talking to a professional psychologist. It might be a good idea. You are starting to get a little scary. Please get some help before this thing has taken total control of your every waking thought. It just doesn’t seem healthy.
Needs2know
Oh yeah…and invite Zambezi perhaps form a group. You guys are starting to demons everywhere.
Needs2kno
What seems unhealthy, Needs2Know, is one man (who can’t get his days straight) ignoring another man’s acknowledgement of his own error.
Gilligan:
Sadly, yes! It’s one of the frustrating things about liberalism; since real political bodies rarely have the vision or will to work toward long-range solutions, we end up with short-sighted programs which allay our sense of social (or collective) responsibility but which often tend to perpetuate the very conditions we’re trying to alleviate.
I don’t have any good cure for that, sir; but there are two main reasons I find myself drawn to a liberal philosophy:[ul][li]I truly believe that all members of a society have certain responsibilities to all other members of that society, andI think those responsibilities can best be fulfilled through the organized actions of accountable governing bodies.[/ul][/li]Needs2know: I disagree.
(By which I mean I disagree that Lib is pathetic. I wish everyone cared as much as Lib does about the people around them. I believe he’s not out to “demonize” anyone, but that he’s sincerely trying to understand philosophies he sees as destructive.)
BTW, when I said “Sadly” above, I meant that regarding “the need for state welfare”, not regarding the ethic of responsibility!
Xeno
Thank you for your respect.
One problem, as I see it, with liberalism is this: “it is wrong not to help him (if he needs help)”. It is the determination of need, by its sheer vagueness if nothing else, that seems obfuscatory beyond remedy.
But don’t Libertarians have to determine “need” too? They will have to do private giving since the govt won’t help the “needful”; it is just that each individual person will determine the “need” (unless they form a charitable group).
Libertarian
Obfuscatory certainly, but not, I think, beyond remedy. 
Under the US system of government need is determined in a variety of ways, but most typically it is initiated by the “squeaky wheel” method, same as in any other system. At least we require investigation by committee before action can be legislated; this ensures that some accepted methodology is used to establish need, and to justify expenditures. Where this fails is when the methodology used to determine the need is questionable (i.e. where it is subject to manipulation by special interests)(another good subject for a GD).
Gaudere
Yes, Libertarians (who are not the topic of this thread ;)) do have to determine need. But for themselves. And they do not have Carte Blanche to transmute their own need into someone else’s burden.
Xeno
I think it fails in a lot more ways than that. For one thing, it addresses material need only, so that a family who might otherwise be able to afford their life’s dream might now have to forfeit that dream on behalf of needs they have not determined for people they don’t know.
Where liberalism fails ultimately is that its safety net is drawn (by force) from the property of its most successful citizens who happen to be the same ones who control its government which happens to write the legislation that determines the rules.
Thus, it is not the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Rather, it is the wheel with the most political clout that runs over whatever is in its way.
I apologize if offended you. I honestly had you mixed up with Zambezi at first. Please forgive me. I had a very stressful night last night with only about two hours sleep. I honestly thought that’s who I was addressing. I went back later after what I had done and realized that you are usually a little more resonable in your approach and much more inclined to be interested in other topics…meaning something besides constantly stressing about how the slothful, unwashed masses are riding the high life on your back.
Anyway, I do not belong in this discussion because I know absolutely nothing about Marx other than he was a communist or socialist or something like that. I also do not know exactly how these two philosophies differ exactly. I do know however that by everyone’s standards around here (my home town and aquaintances) they consider me a liberal. Liberal in my politics as opposed to conservative because I believe that a civilized society has an obligation to take care of it’s poor, infirm, and disenfranchised, even if that means the government must intervene.
And I still don’t understand how the story in the OP relates to liberalism or politics at all. Dense, I admit, but I keep hanging around here hoping that will change at least a little.
Needs2know
Ok, so why are you objecting to liberalism based on the vagueness of the determination of “need”, since both Libertarians and Liberals must do their best to determine what the “need” of a person is if they expect their help to be effective? It seems, if there is a problem with the vagueness of determining need, that both have to deal with it. As xenophon pointed out, at least the govt. uses investigation and consultation that is probably unavailable or highly impractical for private givers (which is why many people form charitable groups, also).
Material needs are absolutely not the only things addressed by a liberal approach to government! Educational needs, employment opportunities, safety in the workplace, protection from toxins in the environment, proven and relatively cheap medicines — the list is very long indeed.
Dream forfeiture or opportunity to work for the realization of dreams? Us “safety net” proponents tend to see truth in the latter half of that question.
I’ve never been convinced by claims that the elimination of government services paid for by taxes would result in equal security and a higher net income for most Americans. And I disagree (as always) with your characterization of taxation as theft. (I think a discussion of the libertarian definition of “force” would be a bit of a hijack here, since we’re talkin’ about liberalism. -It’s worthy of it’s own thread, though.)
20th century American history doesn’t tend to bear you out here, Lib. It was the 19th century (before all this liberalization of America that you’re lamenting took place) when the wealthiest and most successful Americans made the rules. In fact, it’s arguably the popularity of some aspects of liberal policy which has done most to prevent, in this conservative country, a congressional “status quo” mentality from developing.
I would say “that can overrun obstacles placed in its path.” It’s useful to observe that political clout can be shifted towards the needy in a way that economic clout could never be shifted.
You’re welcome.
And as long as we’re fessing up to things, I will admit that liberalism as currently practiced in the US can (and sometimes does) in fact create perverse incentives which lead to irresponsible outcomes, including over-dependence by some on the State to meet one’s material needs instead of doing it for oneself. That is separate and apart from whether one is an uncaring jerk, of course, but I don’t want you to think that I am unaware of the problem.
Work has precluded much of my participation today, but I found this, and was astonished until I thought it through a bit:
From Merriam-Webster:
As Spiritus has pointed out, dictionaries don’t seem to do very well with science definitions. (The same Merriam-Webster links natural selection to survival of the fittest.) Looks like it has confused liberalism with libertarianism and libertarianism with anarchy. But notice the dates!
Xeno
Whenever the majority oppresses the minority, it is a tyranny. Thanks for your clarifications.
Gaudere
The difference is this:
A A visit from a friend — “I’ve known John for quite some time, and in my opinion, he’s fallen on hard times through no fault of his own. Would you be willing to attend a charity sale we’re having on his behalf this Saturday?”
B A note in your mailbox — “Notice: Your income will be garnisheed by an amount determined by formula. Failure to surrender your income will result in severe penalties and possibly prison.”
Manny
It is my hope to find common ground with liberals in the same way I did early on here with atheists. Liberals are my cousins. After all, I am a classical liberal (alternate term for libertarian). I’m willing to have a go at it.
Often, undiscerning liberals think Libertarians are more conservative than liberal. I remind them that I support the elimination of all prohibitions against drugs, prostitution, and gambling, and the opening of borders to free immigration. Yeah, I’m a regular Jesse Helms! 
lib says
and
first quote- We live in a society that is a great big machine, a constantly fluctuating immense complexity which has people as its cogs. We routinely depend on the failure of others to ensure the constant movement of the machine. One example is businesses which fail; that is, not all businesses can prosper, and we count on that fact. Another is the unemployment rate; the government manipulates this rate to keep it at an ideal. If unemployment was zero, we would stagnate.
So in light of facts like this, what is wrong with a safety net? If we count on some members of our society getting screwed, why not have a system which would prevent them from falling completely into poverty?
second- I don’t quite get it. You are saying that the rich and powerful are writing laws which force lopsided amounts of money from them? Why is this bad, or more to the point, what exactly is the point? Seems to me that it’s a nicely balanced system: I get to write the rules, but as a result I have to give more of my money to the people who don’t.
Well, yeah, Lib, I know that tenet of libertarianism by now! I’m not a complete dullard. 
No, what I was questioning was your statement, “it is the determination of need, by its sheer vagueness if nothing else, that seems obfuscatory beyond remedy.” This seemed to say that the vagueness of “need” was a problem “beyond remedy” for liberals yet it was not so for libertarians. So is the problem of determining need established as an equal dilemmna for liberals and libertarians alike? If you wish to help those less fortunate, someone has to determine who needs help, whether it is a governemnt committee, chartiable organization or single person; this is a separate issue from whether the aid should be from whoever so chooses to give or from those who a representative government determines are obligated to contribute.
Hmm I always thought a tyranny was when someone promised the masses stuff to overthrow the goverment.
The problem is that the “liberal” parties have differing philosophies depending on what country you go to. In most other countries they fit the definition Lib posted, here they do not. The “liberals” there more closely align to our republicans and such.
Lib said
I feel the exact same way about liberalism.
Also we have neither a tyranny of the majority or the minority here in the US. But when it happens, I’ll go with the tyranny of the majority (portugal 1974) rather than the minority (Mao’s China, Pinochet’s Chile)
Gaudere
Libertarians do not seek to institutionalize and force upon others the remedy of some vague need. Liberals do. Need is to liberalism as decency is to conservativism. “Need (or decency) is what we say it is, and you have no choice but to do as we say.”
Vagueness is not a problem when you may decide for yourself.
For example, “ugly” is a vague concept. So long as you can decide for yourself whether John is ugly there is no problem. He might be ugly to you, but not to Spidey. She might pursue him; you might not. But suppose there was an entity that declared John to be ugly, and both you and Spidey were forced to leave him alone.