Why do most liberals hate Capitalism and love Government?

reply to post by brainwrek


No. They want the system automated. They want to be able to both get people the help and continue on with their own lives. Or, and this one's better, maybe we'd like for the people who can't thrive in a capitalism to live in a society where they're capable of thriving -- where theoretically, everyone is capable of thriving, instead of one in which only those lucky enough to have the skills and attributes which are good in a capitalism.

Maybe there's also a certain element of wanting everyone to think the same way we do. And maybe that's a problem. In fact, it almost definitely is. But it's a different problem. If you rag on us for that instead of what you are on about, I can respect you.

What's a seat monkey?

[edit on 24-3-2010 by Solasis]

All it is is classic divide and conquer, and this nation is being divided and conquered. You are given the illusion of choice between two idealogies which are at the end of the day in bed with eachother marching towards the same goal and dragging the ignorant with them. Please don't get lost in the false left/right paradigm, it's what they want.

Originally posted by brainwrek
Liberals hate capitalism because they are in fact losers who cannot fend for themselves

I am a liberal and own my own business. Strike #1

and need government to take care of them because they are irresponsible morons

I am a liberal, graduated college WITHOUT any Student loans. Strike #2

who would gladly sacrifice the freedoms and money of other people because they have a serious case of wallet envy.

I am a liberal and financially comfortable. Strike #3

You are out dude. Generalize much?

I honestly don't know what makes some people so ignorant, but whatever it is sure seems to be working.

why do libs love big government?

they want free s**t...

reply to post by Solasis


Not everyone is capable of thriving. Thats why we have janitors and burger flippers.

Some people lack the motivation to do anything for themselves, and as a result want government to take care of them.

No matter how much "help" is given, there will always be losers. That is a fact of life.

Originally posted by Solasis
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

I don't see your point. Or, rather, I see your point, but it's hugely faulty. Selflessness is only the opposite of selfishness. But there's a loooot in between. No one is one or the other; but most people prefer one to the other. Socialists tend to prefer selflessness, and strive to be as close to that paradigm as they can be. It's a lot easier to be purely selfish than purely selfless, but have you ever met someone who's purely selfish? Who never, ever does something which doesn't benefit them but does benefit someone else?

Selfish is not defined as being a never ever doing anything for others type of situation but is defined as being a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others. Selflessness tends to be defined as "unselfish" or showing concern for others without regard for self. Neither definition fits the reality of how people behave.

If selfishness is a chief concern for ones own interest, especially with disregard for others, then what word exists to define a chief concern for ones own interest especially with regard for others? Certainly that word is not selfless, and that selfless tends to define a behavior that exhibits a lack of regard for self and total regard for others, makes finding a person to fit that description difficult. It is difficult to find a person who actually has a chief concern for his own interest, especially with disregard for others, but they do exist, we tend to see them as hermits or misanthropic, and we tend to view selfless people as being philanthropic, however, all philanthropists have shown a great proclivity towards protecting their own interests.

In reality, it is impossible for any species on this planet to act selflessly. All species tend to act in either pro survival ways or anti survival ways, and pro survival requires a chief concern for ones own interest, because if you aren't looking out for your own interest then who is? Conversely, anti survival beings don't necessarily act in selfless ways, but instead tend to alienate others, while not at all looking out for their own best interest.

It is not in a social beings best interest to have disregard for others, thus, the definition of selfishness is faulty, and given that so many dictionaries tend to use the word "unselfish" to define selflessness, the definition of selflessness becomes faulty as well. The word selfish used as a pejorative has become a tool of the left to push forth socialist ideals that place the needs of the collective over the needs of the individual and that is the primary difference between capitalism and socialism, not that capitalists are selfish and socialists are selfless, but that capitalists are individualists and socialists are collectivists.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Although I feel where you are 'trying' to come from on this one I think you may not quite understand what is going on.

Conservatives (today's conservative I should state) are just as guilty today of creating big government to run rampant.

However, we do need a happy balance. For allowing corporations to grow and buy up all of its competition to become the only player is virtually just as bad. We MUST have regulations or one side will simply grow too large and swallow up everything.

Do I believe liberals hate freedom like you are implying? No. I believe that they think that conservatives hate freedom.

We must have a good balance of both. Unfortunately right now we do not and thus we are suffering in a big way.

It is actually very simple. A utopia simply cannot exist without it's counter-part, anarchy. You cannot have shadows without light and light cannot be without casting shadows. So if you want to have a 'perfect' society you must also have 'flawed' society to balance; sort of like demolition man (I can't believe I actually could reference that for something :lol. The happy perfect world was on top, while the flawed and angry world existed below. So here is where socialism and capitalism are seperated in the basest way.

Socialism attempts to distribute both perfection and flaw equally to all so that we are all the same (liberal); Capitalism lets individual's personal decsions decide how much they receive of both (conservative).

Forgive me if that analogy seems strange, but it is a great indicator of the difference.

Liberals believe themselves to be the great saviors of all and that everyone should be equal. Problem is they do not realize that everyone IS already equal, you were the day you were born and everyday since. It is the human condition that leads us to seperate ourselves into classes to make us feel unique, special, important. We were BORN unique, special and important; not one of us is completely like the other. Liberals hate capitalism because it is wrench in their ability to control the masses; money talks and for most people it is louder than propaganda. The power of liberals is their propaganda, their ability to convince you they are right, virtuous and altruistic, while providing very little concrete evidence of such.

I would just like to say that the term 'Liberal' and 'progressive' really refer to the same group of people, but they can be EITHER Democrat or Republican.

Liberal: "We have to make sure Timmy doesn't hurt himself on the swings, so lets only let him swing while we are pushing him. That way we will make sure he doesn't hurt himself, hopefully we will be fast enough to catch him if he falls."

Conservative: "Well Timmy wants to play on the swings, tell him to be careful and lets hope he doesn't fall. If he does then we can help him back up, and he will have learned a valuable lesson about being safe."

One wipes your butt, the other teaches you to wipe your butt.

To live is very different from being alive.

reply to post by brainwrek


Just because they're underachievers doesn't make them a liberal. I'd say most of the people from my high school who didn't go on to college and are still working menial jobs around their hometown were the politically apathetic and/or libertarians who couldn't care one way or the other. The upper echelon, both liberals and conservatives, went on to college. It seemed like most of them were liberals, but not all of them. There was a study that came out recently that said the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to be liberal.

Why do most liberals hate Capitalism and love Government?

I love how to use such a wide brush to paint all liberal. That is like me saying all conservatives hate cheese and love bran. Ridiculous!

Government steals more capital and wealth from the people then anyone yet liberals and progressives think the Government is almighty.

That statement shows how little you really know about liberals. For starters it is totally false.; The government collects more capital and wealth from the people then anyone, maybe, but steals? No.

The liberals and progressives want the government to control every aspect of our lives because to them government knows best.

Once again, you don't know jack about liberals. Neither me nor any liberal I know holds that view. What, do you really believe liberals embrace tyranny, and enslavement? So unlike any other group of humans on the planet, or in history, liberals are the only people who want to be a slave? I'm sorry, but that sounds ludicrous!

Isn't government knowing best an anti American sentiment?

To word a question this way is a bullying tactics to cast doubt on someone's patriotism to get the other person to back off their view. It's not a pretty tactic and it shows that the accuser has no real argument. Accuser loses credibility in any debate for using this gimmick.

Obama said in a 2001 interview that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed because it restrains government and it doesn't talk about the redistribution of wealth.

In case you have been keeping up, the real redistribution of wealth has already took place over the last 30 years and especially the last 15 years.

According to the Economic Policy Institute www.epi.org...
The 400 American households with the highest incomes also have enjoyed a much faster pace of income growth than the vast majority.
The figure looks at inflation-adjusted pre-tax and after-tax income growth for the 400 top-income families between 1992 and 2007, based on new data recently released by the Internal Revenue Service. It shows that while pre-tax income grew by a staggering 409% over that 15-year period, after-tax income increased even more, by 476%.
The third line in the figure offers some perspective by showing the change in the pre-tax median household income over the same period, which grew just 13.2%. The median pre-tax household income for a family of four in 2007 was $50,233, while the top-earning 400 households earned a median $345 million, almost 6900 times as much income. In contrast, in 1992 the ratio was just a sixth as large, with the top 400 households having 1124 times as much income.

How come it's always ok for the redistribution of wealth to go to the top, but when a "trickle" is directed to the bottom, it's viewed as socialism? Is it true that the rich people's crap doesn't stink?

The Founders restrained and tied the hands of government because they didn't want one man or a government dictating to people how to live their lives.

Conservatives and liberals do share common views at times. Unfortunately they often get overlooked.

There will always be a split between those who trust themselves to manage their lives and those who want and trust a big government to manage their lives.

You know, 250 years ago when everyone knew how to live off the land, and without cars and electricity, there wasn't such a need to have a big government to handle stuff. I very much want my government to handle policing my streets, putting out my house fires, and changing my street lamps. I don't trust myself to handle that crap. Do you?

They steal the taxes they get for Medicare and S.S. and replace it with I.O.U.'s and this is why both programs are in trouble. They are pyramid schemes.

Those programs were set to help ALL Americans live instead of working until you fall over dead. Is that how you want it? Is that how your grandparents feel? Too bad they are in financial trouble because we really do need those programs. So do the 45 million elderly on S.S. and the 96 million on medicare and medicaid. Such a shame.

They have us in over 14 trillion dollars in debt, 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities and they borrow, waste and spend constantly.

This graph I present to you says it all: www.flickr.com...
Republican presidents inflate the debt, Democrat presidents deflate the debt. These are just the indisputable mathematical facts. Conservatives do NOT deserve credability for fiscal responsibility. The national debt clock has been taken down twice in history. Once under Clinton when it reached ZERO, and once under Bush when IT HAD NO MORE DIGIT SPACE to handle the number. Suck on it.
www.dailymail.co.uk...

I hear these liberals complaining about Capitalism yet many of them are rich because of capitalism. They want the slaves to live in a socialist country while they still bask in the freedom of Capitalism.

A study by Columbia University found there to be far more rich republicans than Democrats. Graph: www.stat.columbia.edu...
1. The alignment of income with party identification is close to zero among liberals, moderate among moderates, and huge among conservatives. If you're conservative, then your income predicts your party identification very well.

2. First focus on Democrats. Liberal Democrats are spread among all income groups, but conservative Democrats are concentrated in the lower brackets.

3. Conservative Republicans--the opposite of liberal Democrats, if you will--are twice as concentrated among the rich than among the poor.

I will say that it is a liberal democrat who is more likely to see the injustice in income inequality, than some "keep your lazy bum hands off my wealth" conservative attitude.

None of the things they pass in Congress will apply to them. They will always make sure they have loopholes that exclude them.

Is that why I always see congressmen running red lights while drunk, and killing American Eagles?

When you live in freedom and liberty there will always be an imbalance because some people will work hard and build a business while others will party their life away. This is freedom.

Yea, that is freedom. Freedom to chose what you want in life. You're GD right! My point from earlier has just been proven. You're underlying message is: "Keep you lazy bum hands off my..." If one wants to party their life away, it's sooo none of your business. Will they live as good as a hard worker, probably not. That was their choice though. They still had the opportunity living in America. God bless America!

What the liberals and progressives want is to try to stop this imbalance through redistribution of wealth and an almighty government. What they don't see is this way of thinking is truly anti -liberty and anti-freedom.

Once again, when all the wealth goes to the top it's "hard work", but when it goes to the bottom it's redistribution of wealth, and socialism. And there is that tactic again of questioning a liberal's patriotism. Sorry, but the wealthiest in this country have enjoyed way too much income inequality while the middle and lower class has had a boot on their neck. In Japan, CEOs only make 15 times their subordinates in pay, in Germany they enjoy 16 times, in America the top get 319 times higher pay than their lower coworkers. That Sh*t is WRONG!!!! Tea baggers understand this injustice as well as liberals, yet there is a divide amongst the two groups. Why?

In a free society your going to have people who don't take care of themselves and people who don't make it. If you try to regulate society to fix this imbalance that comes with a free society you will eventually have a slave nation instead of a free nation.

Once you make the pay difference reflect some semblance of fairness. Liberals aren't looking for socialism, but how about when a man lays block for 60 hours a week, yet can't afford a decent house and food, while a CEO can play golf all week and gets 10 million a year, is that fair? Hell to the NO!! It also isn't fair that someone who doesn't work at all get a paycheck from the taxes of others, I get that. Liberals would like to see a very hard working man not suffer from poverty, while a "lazy bum" rich guy gets all the breaks.

In conclusion, your views of liberals are not based in fact, but just a warped opinion. An opinion you were no doubt told to have by the constant hammering of republican talking points. I suggest you study the subjects more before adopting opinions based on the idea you "heard that a lot". You might find that liberals and conservatives have similar views on some subjects.

Originally posted by Mikemp44

Conservative: "Well Timmy wants to play on the swings, tell him to be careful and lets hope he doesn't fall. If he does then we can help him back up, and he will have learned a valuable lesson about being safe."

The part in bold... That is socialism. It is most definitively not capitalism. Except when capitalism gets institutionalized like it did with the whole bailout.

The problem I have with capitalism is not money, capital, because that is not really what it is.

Capitalism is 'private ownership of resources and their distribution'.

Capitalists take our resources and make them artificially scarce by either under producing, or over producing and destroying what they can't sell.
Capitalism requires this to survive, it's an artificial system that wouldn't work if it was honest and fair. So it's a flawed system from the start.
It doesn't address Human issues and needs, it addresses the wants and greeds of a few, and the wants and greeds of the capitalist has infiltrated society as a whole by their use of the media and it's social conditioning.

They even teach us in economics that resources are scarce, which is a lie.

The third world, for example, is starving because resources go to western countries where more profit can be made from those resources. The US alone produces enough food to feed all the worlds starving people. But corporations interest is not with people but profit, they are willing to kill people (by taking resources away from them) in order to maintain their own extremely high level of existence.

A lot of your food comes from third world countries, but the majority of the profit goes to wealthy western countries along with the resources.

How can people support a system that creates such an unfair result? Selfishness, simple. BUT that selfishness is conditioned into us, just like our over competitiveness. They keep us in fear by continually bombarding us with 'news' of all the things that are a threat to our lives, which makes us become more and more insular and self protective to the point of lunacy, where people think they are going to die any second if they don't secure themselves as much as they can before it all runs out.

I understand people looking after themselves, but what is the point in being at the top of the pyramid if it sits on a pile of dying rotting flesh?

[edit on 3/24/2010 by ANOK]

One mistake that too many people make on this site is confusing liberal/conservative with democrat/republican.

Liberal and conservative are ideals, democrat/republican are political parties. Democrats tend to embrace liberal ideals and republicans tend to embrace conservative ideals, but they are not exclusive and so should not be used for comparison. For example, the republicans have moved far away from one of the main tenets of conservatism lately, which is fiscal responsibility/smaller government - which is why many have left the republican party.

Liberal ideals believe in more governmental control to achieve equality among citizens. Conservative ideals are rooted in a smaller government with less personal intrusion. Liberal ideals follow taking some from everyone to help those in need. Conservative ideals follow allowing the individual to help those in need voluntarily and to succeed on their own merits and abilities.

While the political parties share much in common of late, the ideals do not and cannot be the same since they are polar opposites in most aspects.

I am cautious of both. Greed is a strong motivator. How do you keep corruption and abuse out of the market place? It seems that in Capitalism, its not cheating unless you get caught. And about the government?... well don't get me started

[edit on 24-3-2010 by sparrowstail]

[edit on 24-3-2010 by sparrowstail]

reply to post by Solasis


Ah you were almost right Solasis, I said CAN help him up, not WILL. That is the difference. In Capitalism we find what is called by economists "irrational consumer behaviour" or essentially giving money or services for no physical consideration or service. This behaviour increases in capitalist markets as the success of one inspire ths success of another. By saying CAN I am implying that I have the ability to help, but am not required to do so. Under socialist rule I would be FORCED to pick him up without any say in it.

Now obviously any kind individual would not leave a hurt child just sitting there, but you at least have a choice. Thankfully those of us on ATS tend to be a very altruistic bunch, and you strike me as such. But good show pointing that out my man

reply to post by 12GaugePermissionSlip


What you and others are doing is called class envy.

You worry about what a C.E.O. gets paid but this is do to a lack of understanding of economics.

We have a strong middle class so if everyone doesn't make it, they can still live a good life.

You mentioned Germany and Japan.

Germany's GDP is 3.65 trillion

Japan's GDP is 4.91 trillion

America GDP is 14.2 trillion

What people don't realize when you have an Apple, Microsoft or Google making billions of dollars this makes the economy better. This is why our GDP is 14 trillion.

So yes people who start a business make billions of dollars but you have a strong middle class.

Everyone is not going to make it in a free society. People will try to be actors or start a business and fail but our economy can handle this because we have a strong middle class.

I'm so sick of Americans wanting America to be Europe or some other socialist country when we have it so well here.

We have a 14 trillion dollar GDP but now we have a 14 trillion dollar debt with over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. We also have close to 10% unemployment.

Massive Government and massive debt is destroying this country. All of these social programs are due to crooked politicians and a liberal ideology that's anti American.

America is built on the God given liberty of the individual not a nanny state that buries our children in debt.

Originally posted by Mikemp44
It is actually very simple. A utopia simply cannot exist without it's counter-part, anarchy. You cannot have shadows without light and light cannot be without casting shadows. So if you want to have a 'perfect' society you must also have 'flawed' society to balance; sort of like demolition man (I can't believe I actually could reference that for something :lol

. The happy perfect world was on top, while the flawed and angry world existed below. So here is where socialism and capitalism are seperated in the basest way.

Socialism attempts to distribute both perfection and flaw equally to all so that we are all the same (liberal); Capitalism lets individual's personal decsions decide how much they receive of both (conservative).

Forgive me if that analogy seems strange, but it is a great indicator of the difference.

Liberals believe themselves to be the great saviors of all and that everyone should be equal. Problem is they do not realize that everyone IS already equal, you were the day you were born and everyday since. It is the human condition that leads us to seperate ourselves into classes to make us feel unique, special, important. We were BORN unique, special and important; not one of us is completely like the other. Liberals hate capitalism because it is wrench in their ability to control the masses; money talks and for most people it is louder than propaganda. The power of liberals is their propaganda, their ability to convince you they are right, virtuous and altruistic, while providing very little concrete evidence of such.

I would just like to say that the term 'Liberal' and 'progressive' really refer to the same group of people, but they can be EITHER Democrat or Republican.

Liberal: "We have to make sure Timmy doesn't hurt himself on the swings, so lets only let him swing while we are pushing him. That way we will make sure he doesn't hurt himself, hopefully we will be fast enough to catch him if he falls."

Conservative: "Well Timmy wants to play on the swings, tell him to be careful and lets hope he doesn't fall. If he does then we can help him back up, and he will have learned a valuable lesson about being safe."

One wipes your butt, the other teaches you to wipe your butt.

To live is very different from being alive.

Great post.

Liberals don't get the concept of freedom and like you said their are both democrats and republicans who are liberals.

Liberals don't realize a nanny state is anti freedom.

They say a person needs to pay them so they can redistribute the wealth. I have heard liberals say,"He makes x amount of dollars so why shouldn't he want to pay a little more in taxes."

Again, a liberal doesn't understand freedom.

If a billionaire wants to be Scrooge McDuck then in a free society he has every right to be and you can't force him to give you money.

Liberals want to tell you what to eat, what car to drive and how you should use energy.

They think if you just think and act like them then you would be better off. They think they know what's best for you.

This is not freedom.

In a free society people can live their lives in ways that you wouldn't and you can't force them through big government to live like you.

A more pertinent question would be 'why have American's misappropriated the world 'liberal' to mean socialist?'

Liberals believe in liberty, and that includes the freedom to be poor.

Minor semantics, but God, it grinds my gears.

reply to post by Mikemp44


Aaah. You do make a good point. Except that there are also a lot of capitalists who will say "Good, he fell off the swing. Now I get another one to myself!" Not all of them, but it would be very interesting to find out how many would.

As for the socialist situation -- They'd have squads of people making sure that kids who fell down got helped back up. I can't find an analogy for taxes on the playground, though!