What is the #1 reason why the Left's philosophy doesn't hold water?


April 16, 2003, 03:20 PM
Inspired by pax's thread I figured I'd start my own. You tell me your opinion on it, eventually I'll chime in with mine. Have at it!

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the #1 reason why the Left's philosophy doesn't hold water?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
April 16, 2003, 03:32 PM

Greg L
April 16, 2003, 03:32 PM
Lack of logic actually.


April 16, 2003, 03:36 PM
"Misfortune on the part of A does not automatically create obligation on the part of B."

Sean Smith
April 16, 2003, 03:37 PM
Score one for Tam! :D

April 16, 2003, 03:41 PM
Constipation leading to arrogant, insufferable lack of logic!
Probably accounts for the facial expressions as well.


April 16, 2003, 03:43 PM
Human nature is the flaw. Humans are motivated to produce something because they receive something in return, i.e. Capitalism. If one receives something for doing nothing, they will continue to do nothing. In addtion, the one that does produce will be motivated to stop because they are not recieving the benefits of their work. Its a lose/lose propostion and exaclty opposite to why our country was founded.

April 16, 2003, 03:44 PM
Lack of respect for private property.

April 16, 2003, 04:04 PM
Being gun related, that bad guys follow will follow the rules. They're BAD GUYS. They go out of their way to harm others and infringe upon decent folks' life, liberty and property. What makes you think they're going to register a centerfire rifle with one or more of the following parts?

With everything else, I'm on break and don't have time to jump into that one just yet!

April 16, 2003, 04:32 PM
Because the lion will always eat the sheep.

April 16, 2003, 05:04 PM
They don’t reconcile the gap between discontinuous core ideas.

Example: Everyone is equal but celebrate the diversity of certain folks.

Therefore, their plan doesn't lead to a set goal by a clear and continuous path. Its a lot like trying to use an M.C. Escher drawing as a road map.

April 16, 2003, 05:58 PM
Good stuff everyone!

I would echo what Tamara said. My problem is exactly what Tamara describes. The more I hear the Left, the more I realize that they will blame everything on somebody else. But they NEVER, EVER EVER, roll up their sleeves, and get to work.

Standing Wolf
April 16, 2003, 06:10 PM
Leftism is completely unrealistic. It's based on fear, envy, spite, hatred, and more fear. It apes logic while having no intellectual content of its own.

I think of it as a psychological disease.

April 16, 2003, 06:15 PM
Short version:

Liberalism is a philosphy based on wishes and happy thoughts that can not survive on its own when applied to the real world.

April 16, 2003, 06:21 PM
"Misfortune on the part of A does not automatically create obligation on the part of B."

Since we are humans and supposedly superior to animals, it all depends upon how 'automatically', 'misfortune' and 'obligation' is defined in the context as stated above.

My beef with the left's philosophy is that they believe better than I what is and is not good for me.

April 16, 2003, 06:24 PM
It's based on individuals not having natural rights.

April 16, 2003, 06:41 PM
Blackhawk- I was thinking that too. Then I realized that the Left redefines natural rights. For example, now somehow they think that everyone has the natural right to "feel safe" or to "good healthcare". :barf:

April 16, 2003, 06:42 PM
The left's flaw is that it is based on two assumptions, the first being the whole of the collective is greater than the sum of its parts and the second being that people won't cheat when given the opportunity during the practice of communism's distribution 'from each according to their ability to each according to their need'.

The first assumption is only vailid when working for the group can inspire individuals to work harder, longer and smarter than they would otherwise.

The second is only possible in a beehive.

April 16, 2003, 06:47 PM
Detached from reality.

Glock Glockler
April 16, 2003, 07:21 PM
Weakness of charachter

If one suffers from arrogance and jealousy, it is very natural to think of oneself as superior to of others, and to covet the possessions of those that have more.

If one is a reactive person, they look outward to distribute blame for what they percieve to be wrong, as well as the source of it's correction.

That's it in a nutshell. All other arguements that they throw out are merely intellectualized attemopts to justify what their flawed charachter emotionally wants to believe. To accept that what one wants to believe does not correspond with reality is a very painful and uncomfortable process. In the industry, we refer to this as cognitave dissonance.

Why would someone want to go through pain and discomfort? For the same reason that they wouldn't want to go through the cold, harsh reality that is life. Forget that, let me back in the womb, or the nanny state, for that matter.

Marko Kloos
April 16, 2003, 07:26 PM
The main weakness of socialist ideology is its lack of consistency. It lacks consistency becasue it is based on emotions, not logic. Since emotions are subjective and internal, it is bad to make public policy based on them.

April 16, 2003, 07:59 PM
...but i had a thought the other day that many liberals believe what they believe not because it is right, but because it is attractive to them and attractive to people who might vote for them....
if i wanted political power (assuming i had not compunctions or principles) i would tell the masses i would take care of them......feed them....clothe them......heal them....on and on.....unfortunately, when you let the govt do those things, you let it make decisions it has no business doing....and America did not become a great nation by making everyone equal and giving everyone healthcare and food.....granted i want everyone to be happy and healthy and all that, but i dont think a nanny state is right
Some/Most/Many liberals (i dont know) might not think like i described in the first paragraph, but I believe...check that KNOW that there are politicians out there who are betraying the principles that made American great for power

April 16, 2003, 08:03 PM
If one were to start with Glockler's statement, one would result in Tamara's, lendringser's, Meek and Mild's, SodaPop's, etc. statements. Then ultimately in what BowStreetRunner said.

April 16, 2003, 08:24 PM
Their philosophies are not based in reality.

April 16, 2003, 08:34 PM
If I could wax philosophical about this for a moment...

I've encountered extreme Left philosophies in action in Africa, Europe and South America, as well as here in the USA, and I think I can speak with some depth of knowledge and experience about them.

To me the deepest root of the problem is very simply defined. The Left will work for, or against, an idea and/or a thing, but not a person. They have a fundamental blind spot about the value of the individual. Their hysterical cries about "human rights" and "it's for the children!!!" are actually inhuman in the effects they have on individuals. They regard society - the broad mass of the people - as fundamentally more important than each individual member who makes up that society. This is why they so often try to take over, or alternatively divorce themselves from, faith-based communities: every major deistic faith emphasizes that the individual is important, that individual decisions and actions count.

This is illustrated very clearly in the RKBA battle. The Left decries the thing - the gun - and ignores the person wielding it. The Left also ignores the effects of disarming the righteous - they're satisfied that the "evil thing" has been removed, and ignore the effect on now-defenceless individuals.

Of course, many right-wing movements have precisely the same problem. They try to mobilize people into a mass movement, just as does the Left. This is why, IMHO, the dimension of religion and spirituality is so vitally important - it's often the only area of society that consistently practices, and preaches, individual responsibility (which, of course, translates into individual rights of the proper kind - taking responsibility for exercising a right, rather than demanding to be able to exercise the right without the corresponding duties and responsibilities). I know there are many who will disagree with me on the importance of the religious dimension, but there we are...

April 16, 2003, 08:42 PM
Also, by focusing on the collective and denying the rights and responsibilities of the individual, it helps make it ok for me to cheat and lie - since I am working for the collective good, my individual sin can be overlooked as statistically insignificant.

April 16, 2003, 08:54 PM
For the wealthy liberals, just because they can afford and want to pay taxes up the yinyang doesn't mean other people should be subjected to it.

As my pastor (not necessarily a conservative, but we don't talk politics) says, one must realize, "Not everybody is like me."

April 16, 2003, 10:07 PM
...Preacherman....i agree

April 16, 2003, 10:13 PM
The Wall Street Journal has another angle on this in one of today's editorials (see http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003345):

The Liberal Pessimists
Why do American elites scoff at American values?

Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

With the Pentagon declaring the end of "major combat" in Iraq, most Americans are responding with relief and pride. Our troops have performed with skill, courage and even honorable restraint in deposing a dictator half a world away in less than a month. The puzzle is why some Americans, especially media and liberal elites, continue to wallow in pessimism about this liberation.

Two weeks ago these elites were predicting a long war with horrific casualties and global damage. Then at the sight of Iraqis cheering U.S. troops in Baghdad, they quickly moved on to fret about "looting" and "anarchy." Now that those are subsiding, our pessimists have rushed to worry that Iraqi democracy and reconstruction will be all but impossible. What is it that liberals find so dismaying about the prospect of American success?

In discounting these gloomy new predictions, it helps to consider their track record. Among the anticipated disasters that haven't come true: a "nationalist" uprising against U.S. troops, * la Vietnam; the "Arab street" enraged against us; tens of thousands of civilian casualties and a refugee and humanitarian crisis; bloody house-to-house urban combat; Iraq's oil fields aflame, lifting oil prices and sending the economy into recession; North Korea ("the greater threat") using the war as an excuse to attack; the Turks intervening in northern Iraq and at war with the Kurds; and all of course leading to world-wide mayhem.

We could attach famous names or institutions to all of these positions, but (space limitations aside) our question today is less who than why? America's liberals weren't always so dour about their country's purposes. As recently as the 1960s, their favorite son (JFK) offered to "bear any burden" to extend the promise of freedom. Why are they so afraid of freedom's expansion now?

One answer is simple partisanship. The Iraq war would never have happened without President Bush's determination, and many liberals can't bear to admit he was right all along. The American left has developed a special antipathy for Mr. Bush, more than for any President since Nixon. Experts in moral ambiguity, they especially detest his certitude, which is rooted in religious faith. Perhaps they have come to loathe him so much that they can't even bring themselves to relish this broader American triumph.

Another answer is the continuing legacy of Vietnam. That failure remains the defining event in the lives of the men and women who now run most of our idea-forming institutions and media. Vietnam has made them forever suspicious of the use of force on behalf of American national interest.

They shelved those doubts for a time under Bill Clinton, albeit only when the cause wasn't "tainted" by national interest (Haiti, Kosovo) or when it was constrained by the "international community" (the U.N.). But they simply don't trust that, left to their own devices, the American government and military will act in a moral way that leaves the world better off.

Our former editor Robert Bartley offered a third, and more philosophical, explanation in his column on Monday. Citing Thomas Sowell, he noted that today's left has become a self-insulated elite convinced of its own virtue. In this view, these members of "the anointed" operate in an echo chamber that listens to and rewards one another to the point that they refuse to admit contrary evidence. If you repeat often enough that Iraqis couldn't possibly welcome Americans as "liberators," you can't process those TV images in Baghdad. Instead of freedom, you see only "anarchy" and American troops that somehow "allowed" looting.

We aren't saying that all liberals have succumbed to this pessimism about American purpose. Many have seen Iraq's evil squarely for what it is and have supported the Bush Administration's attempts to remove it. They include the Washington Post editorial page, Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, Democrats Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt, such writers as Christopher Hitchens and Bill Keller, and above all Tony Blair.

But the majority of the American left, and especially its leading media voices, remain flummoxed if not embarrassed by America's Iraq victory. These include most Democrats in Congress, the editors (though not all reporters) of the New York Times and its acolytes at CNN and the major networks, and of course most academic experts. They can barely bring themselves to celebrate the downfall of a tyrant before predicting the awful challenges to come.

They now find themselves in league with those on the pessimistic and isolationist right who also opposed this war. The difference is that Pat Buchanan and his allies think the U.S. is too good for the world and will be corrupted by it. The liberal pessimists think the U.S. isn't good enough.

We don't write this in any spirit of gloating, because in fact this union of American left and far right may pose a long-term problem for liberated Iraq. Nation-building will require both patience and political consensus to succeed. Looking for vindication, these voices may too quickly look for reasons to call every mistake or difficulty a disaster--and demand a U.S. retreat. As optimists ourselves, we'll hold out hope that the sight of free Iraqis will cause at least some of them to revive their faith in American principles.

April 16, 2003, 10:40 PM
Just last night on cspan-2, Michael Novak, an AEI scholar who'd just returned from a long trip to Europe, totally ripped into European Union countries. He said their socialist policies ensure that it's all they can do to survive; that they have no real defense capability as a result; that they want peace and quiet, and that they are somewhat irked that their grand plan of forming an EU that can combat American dominance hasn't worked out very well.

April 16, 2003, 10:46 PM
"What is the #1 reason why the Left's philosophy doesn't hold water?"

It fails to take into consideration human nature and our falabilities.

April 16, 2003, 10:57 PM
They seem to have a profound problem with men and women of real strength, real character and real and practical thought and action. This is because they themselves are weak and the people previously described (unintentionally) expose them for the weakness that has infested every manner of their being. The only way to save face from their deep and possibly subconscious feelings of shame is to be critical of much of what is right.
There's certainly nothing wrong with being weak. Many are totally content with their weakness. Clint Eastwood even said, "A man's got to know his limitations.". Just don't dare try to build yourselves up by putting down others who don't ascribe to your victim mentality and "civilized" notions which are actually quite uncivilized.

Mike Irwin
April 16, 2003, 11:03 PM
Some of the left's philosophy does hold water.

Where they truly lose it for me, however, is in the concept that government knows what is best for me.

CZ 75 BD
April 16, 2003, 11:06 PM
See below.:p

April 16, 2003, 11:19 PM
The Left decries the thing - the gun - and ignores the person wielding it. The Left also ignores the effects of disarming the righteous - they're satisfied that the "evil thing" has been removed, and ignore the effect on now-defenceless individuals. Now hold on there Little Buckaroo!

You are dangerously close to asserting that there may be some people who are better than others and you should know durn well that all of us were cut from the same little batch of cookie dough. By talking about good and bad individuals you imply that we are not all good, wonderful, perfect... which shows your Judeo-Christian bias against those poor little ethically challenged socio economically deprived chillun of poverty. :what:
Just kidding.

What I meant to say was, Amen, Preacher. :D Liberals have got an excuse for everything and everyone, ignoring the truth that there are good and evil people. :barf:

April 16, 2003, 11:41 PM
"Misfortune on the part of A does not automatically create obligation on the part of B."

Since we are humans and supposedly superior to animals, it all depends upon how 'automatically', 'misfortune' and 'obligation' is defined in the context as stated above.

Oh, I'll settle for standard Webster's definitions. ;)

"(Unemployment/Illness/Injury/Hungry Kids) on the part of Joe Schmoe does not give him the right to hold a gun to Jane Doe's head and demand money." When an individual with hungry kids uses a gun to take $100 from you, it's called theft; when that same individual uses the IRS to take $100 from you, it's called taxes. What's the difference?

The big problem with "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" is that it penalizes abilities and rewards needs.

April 16, 2003, 11:43 PM
Preacherman- That post was excellent.

April 17, 2003, 07:08 AM
the Left doesn't understand human nature. Or, more properly put, they don't believe in it. That's why they attribute crime to poverty, etc. And that's why they always embark on projects to remake society, such as the New Soviet Man. They just don't see that human nature will never change, that you can make all the economic and legal changes you want without affecting it. This single fact explains all the behavior of the left, for example: if you don't believe in human nature, it's an easy step to not believing in the uniqueness of individual human beings and seeing them (as someone else pointed out on this thread) collectively instead. Then there's no problem with liquidating individuals who threaten the plan for the group.

And if there's no unique individual human, and no human nature, then belief in God is unacceptable because it posits a higher authority than the state, and an immortal soul which will outlive it. In the end, leftism always leads to killing.

April 17, 2003, 07:13 AM
They start with a square peg, and when they find a that the hole is round, they blame the hole, and the proceed to pound a square peg into a round hole.

When faced with a theory vs facts.. and there's a conflict, they pick theory and disregard the facts..

April 17, 2003, 08:50 AM
You fellows say it well. This is how I usually argue the impracticality of liberalism.

Ask a liberal to not finance his/her idea with your money. The first answer is along the lines of , "oh it's not your money it's the govenments money."

Try to make them understand the Government can only give money it has taken from someone else.

Old Joke:

Budget garu for the Capital is at lunch awaiting his wife.

Fellow comes up and asks about his 4 billion dollar program, "Don't worry", our hero tells him.

Another guy comes up and asks about his 200 Million dollar project, "Hay, that's chump change, we can get that through several different ways, and no one will even see it."

A third man comes up, "I am really worried about XYZ project the others are fighting it hard.", our stalworth says, "relax as soon as we give ABC program they will come around for about 1.5 Billion."

As this guy goes back to his table, our star's wife comes in and begins lunch.

All of a sudden the whole place hear's our hero yell, "1,500.00 dollars! just to fix the back porch!"

The moral is that when it's not your money, it is real easy to spend on your pet project.


The Soviet System collapsed because of one fundamental underlying problem that led to all the others symptoms.


It didn't work for them, and it will not work for us. That is why the individual rights and freedoms are the greatest and best method of decentrolization.

ASk a Liberal to give up control. watch what happens. First response is along the lines of "we don't want to control any body." this will evolve to "well you don't want anarchy do you?"
To "well someone has to help (fill in your victum of the week). they can't doit alone."

The post of being against things and not people is powerfull. I have to message that in to my arguement. But in the end it's about, no individual responiblilty so someone (Government) must do it for them!

And once government takes over, we are back into the problem of central control. by the way central control of smaller areas is better, but still central control.

Central Authorities should give frame works, then get the hell out of the way. Still need common law etc...

Great thread


April 17, 2003, 08:58 AM
Human Nature

People, organizations and governments which understand human nature and THEN MANIPULATE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH HUMAN NATURE are the ones that succeed.

To the extent that government in particular seeks to act in a matter that conflicts with human nature, it will ultimately fail.

April 17, 2003, 09:38 AM
I'm surprised to see that none of our resident lefties have replied to this thread. Hmmmm...

April 17, 2003, 10:13 AM
they dont care about facts, sort of like the "no blood for oil" signs, even though its been proven a war for oil is very unprofitable. Iraq would have sold us all the oil we wanted cheaper than we could pump it, not to mention the cost of war.

They dont understand the people on the other side of the issue. They hate guns but dont know a thing about them, read some posts on democratunderground.com for proof. Its always redneck this, inadiquite penis that, rich white man etc. They think its alright to lock up or kill people over things they dont understand, yet will let a burgler or rapist off with a slap on the wrist, no matter how many offences they commit.

i strongly suggest browsing democratunderground.com it will shock and horrify you, not for the faint of heart.:)

I would love to hear something from the other side of the issue

April 17, 2003, 11:37 AM
The problem with liberals is this -

Their security is more important than your freedom.

The next point is -

Responsibility is the flip side of freedom.


To be responsible for their own happiness & well being is foreign to them. That is the job of the government. That absolves them of having to worry about it. I believe this lack of personal responsibility in our country is the cause of much of our social problems today.

The government may mean well, but ends up "enabling" people with its "social programs"

April 17, 2003, 09:47 PM
Which philosophy would that be?
Very few of theirs make any sense, but I still like to be well read.
So, which one?

If we are talking about the general "ban the machine guns" garbage, then I can answer that.
The reason that gun control is lunacy is that criminals are people who, by definition, don't follow laws.
Passing laws that target criminals is like telling your dog not to pee on the floor.
It might feel good to tell him, but in the end, he doesn't really give a damn what you say and he is gonna do it anyway.

April 17, 2003, 11:31 PM
The implementation of 'their' social order comes at my expense. Whether I like it or not.

Removes personal responsability from individuals and places it on 'society'


April 18, 2003, 02:13 AM
Anti-War: Movement or Cult?

Link (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/73100.htm)

dance varmint
April 18, 2003, 02:14 PM
I attribute liberalism to a serious guilt complex about all the world's problems, unequal distribution of wealth, the existence of crime, the effect of humans on the environment, American military superiority, etc. Out of pure emotion and their logical vacuum, they blame Americans for being "greedy" (high standard of living) and "imperialistic" (defending ourselves and other democracies). They are guilty about our freedom and our resulting success, and they'd like our freedom to be curtailed by UN agreements co-authored by tinhorn despots. They are guilty about society's intolerance for criminal psychopaths, up until the moment a parolee kills someone they know.

If you enjoyed reading about "What is the #1 reason why the Left's philosophy doesn't hold water?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!