About Me

Name: Libertybob
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

"Moral" Basis of Liberalism

This was a comment I posted on Voice of Reason's website. I don't have much basis for posting it here except that since I believe it to be an extension of my previous post "the Lure of Liberalism", I want to increase its exposure.
See the original post that inspired it: http://voice.townhall.com/ "why some good, religious people are liberals."

Onwards:

I believe liberalism to be dangerous because it doesn't just use intentions as the basis to judge what is moral, it does so at the denial of reality and the falsehood of thinking your social vision is greater than another. This was encapsulated in your insight that "if Religion is good, a system that is based on altruism must also be good. How can Religious people remain consistent and object to a selfless economic system?"

This is the foundation of liberal thought, and because they are based in good intentions of caring for the poor, unprivileged, etc, it means if one opposes their policies then one is morally lacking in some regard.

I have a question I like to ask liberals that hits at the core of their vision of inequality in the world. Usually they tend to be favoring some new social program (like universal healthcare.) I simply propose that since cutting taxes will increase government revenue, we should cut taxes in order to fund the program. The idea of helping others at the expense of their socialist ideas always causes a moral dilemma. I either than get to sit as they try the verbal gymnastics to justify why that can't be done, or I get to teach them the Laffer Curve and a little reality.

What surprises me most when I do this is that they often when confronted with allocation of resources is that rather than incorporating it into their argument, they try to dismiss it. It is as if reality is beneath consideration.

It surely is easier to believe that we live in a world where "problems" and "crises" can simply be "solved," if only we have the moral fortitude to do so. It is much harder to understand the intricate reality behind such. In fact, nobody could hope to understand the all the implications that liberal "solutions" entail on every individual, which is why the remedy to liberal thought is a correct understanding of freedom and a desire to maintain it.

Yet, as you pointed out in your reference to the type of slavery we live in today, to implement the liberal solution is to force others to be as "moral" as they are through coercion. "When a politician calls for higher taxes to fund one of those 'feel-good' programs, s/he is promoting a coercive confiscation of our money. Since money is obtained from work, such coercive taxation is synonymous with enslavement." If the fruits of labor go to another, such as the government, then it is slavery of different degree, not kind.

That the results of liberal policies cause more harm than good is not acceptable to those who believe that a system that is based on altruism must also be good. In fact, it tends to reinforce it. New "problems" are now present, which must also be "solved." It is rarely noted that those problems were created from previous solutions.

But I also believe this is the greatest ally in the war of ideas. Since there are well intentioned people who support leftist policies because they believe them to be moral, if they can learn enough to see through the facade, they may flee the party line. Then it simply is a matter of teaching them how to truly be altruistic. Thus conservatives have two major obstacles to overcome. Revealing the errors of the other side and correcting mis perceptions of conservative principles.

"Incidentally, this is not a argument against charity - which is a VOLUNTARY form of altruism" Indeed, it is an argument FOR charity. I believe the most moral system, and the one that has its basis in the teachings of Jesus, is that people should choose to be charitable. If they are coerced, it is not counted unto them for righteousness as they did not do it of their own free will. If they voluntarily part with their wealth to help those around them, the world will become a better place. The only way to have people with the capacity to do that is to allow each individual the right to expand their own wealth as much as they can, as long it is not at the expense of others. Criminals, no. People working to provide others with products and services the people desire in their own quests to better their lives, yes. This is the parable of the talents.

The Parables of The Talents and The Good Samaritan. Good ammo for conversations with the good, religious liberals.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (7) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive