Just in case you didn’t know that liberals irritate me


From Being Liberal‘s page on Facebook.

I’ve written before about why I do not consider myself a liberal. I rejected the label many years ago.

I want free healthcare;
Healthcare is a basic human right and free healthcare is entirely attainable.

I don’t want money for nothing;
But fundamental human needs like food and shelter should be met for EVERYBODY.

I don’t expect any election to bring the result I want;
I want the entire system to change to bring about real, direct democracy.

I do want businesses to be unprofitable;
As the profit motive breeds sociopathic behavior.

I don’t want the wealthiest Americans to pay for everything;
I want there to be no “wealthiest Americans.”

I do not understand why liberals spend so much time apologizing to the Right. They try so hard to find common ground, as if finding common ground with people who have sociopathic beliefs is a good goal. “No no no, it’s not that I want FREE healthcare, god no, how silly!” No, it’s not silly. It’s not even particularly liberal, in other countries. In many countries, free or almost free healthcare is just a given, and it is appreciated by people on the Right and Left.

There’s this tendency for liberals to waste their energy distancing themselves from socialists as much as possible. “We don’t want money for nothing.” I don’t know very many people who think that everybody should get money for nothing. Ironically, money is so abstract nowadays that it is the wealthy, the people who invest and speculate, who receive money for literally nothing. It drives up the prices for food and housing – you know, those non-abstract things that people actually need. It is these basic necessities, the resources themselves, that should be shared, or in terms that neoliberal economists can understand, be “free.”

The idea of an election in any country having the results I want is ridiculous. I don’t think countries should exist. They’re just territories marked by militaries; the human equivalent of pissing in the dirt. Elections are essentially frauds; democracy in Western “democracies” isn’t participatory or direct; it is an authoritarian rule of one of a handful of (or two in the US) parties that are at the beck and call of the wealthy. Choosing between a couple corporate puppets is not democracy.

Lord, how liberals love to go on about how much they love capitalism! “It isn’t capitalism that’s the problem, it’s unregulated capitalism,” they say, or “corporatism.” Despite the fact that the profit motive is what causes everyday human beings to behave like sociopaths, it isn’t the profit motive that needs to change, just how much the profit motive is controlled. God forbid anybody have the radical idea of getting rid of the root cause of our problems!

What exactly would be “their share” when it comes to the wealthiest Americans? Is there something inherent about them that means that they deserve more wealth than the average American? History suggests no. Wealth in our current system is primarily obtained through luck and privilege, by benefitting from a long history of exploiting other people, so why should we allow some people to have it while others don’t? There should be no “wealthiest Americans.”

~ by owlcat on 29 May, 2013.

31 Responses to “Just in case you didn’t know that liberals irritate me”

  1. basically agree

  2. yes sorry i forgot the ;) I read an email from a Christian that was a classic cult of the rich and entrepreneur. Universal health care would wreck the country and disadvantage the poor. The rich don’t have too much of the pie they just create more pie. How can you argue with that logic?

    • Whew, I was worried for a second there. You can’t argue with logic that isn’t logic.

      • its from the wealth is a sign of Gods blessings and God hates slackers which is in the Bible. But they then forget the helping the poor part. The guy is sincere so what gives?

        • Some people are sincerely stupid. The only thing I can think is either resignation (if that person was poor) or an excuse to hoard their wealth (if they were rich).

        • I put it down to cultural conditioning, its hard for them to think outside that box. The guy isn’t stupid.

        • No, I think a lot of people who believe stupid things aren’t stupid in all regards. But yeah, it’s difficult to understand how somebody can be trained to be that blind.

        • Even Adam Smith knew without a moral system the invisible hand would see businessmen ripping people off. They see the good side side of human nature and forget the bad.

  3. Who cares given you can google Michelle Bachman, or Rush Limbaugh to find hysteria let alone embarrassing quotes from the so called republican voice. Liberals may be spineless and whiney, but they are not overtly entitled and bat shit crazy.

    • I never said they were as bad as conservatives, but I get tired of liberal ideology being touted as the only alternative, or even a good alternative, when ideologically speaking, it is only a thin line away from conservatism. And given that I have no conservative friends because I wouldn’t be able to be friends with a conservative, I think it is important to critique what I find to be some of the more dangerous points of being a liberal.

      Clever alias, btw

  4. Why do you feel you can’t be friends with conservatives, when moderate ones do exist? If the line is so thin between them then where’s the issue? The lesser of two evils will always fight bc of they’re similarities so what are you meaning overall?
    Thx, it was an obvious play off yours. :)

    • When I say conservative, I mean the types of people who would vote for Bush. There is nothing moderate about that. You cannot be “moderate” and think that Bush would be the lesser evil. I will not be friends with anybody who is racist, homophobic, or sexist, or blame the poor for being miserable. That’s where I draw the line. There are deluded liberals who think that they care about the poor and think capitalism is a-okay, but don’t blame the poor for their situation. Ones that do are not friend material, as far as I’m concerned.

  5. Yes, but your ideals align more with a moderate conservative talking point than that of a true liberal. Your argument does not express or condone a liberal message or mindset. I only mentioned moderate conservatives to reflect a similar mindset you may actually share; once you have weeded out the pro bush traditional republicans. Examples like Megan McCain, who is pro choice, for gay rights, and stands for most of your listed statements may provide some common ground.

    • I have no idea how you could possibly think that my ideals align more with mods/conservatives. Given the fact that I’m a left-wing anarcho-socialist, if I were to choose one ideology out of lib/mod/conservative, I’d have to go with liberal. As far as I’m concerned, the spectrum looks like this: http://owlcat.org/2013/06/11/just-an-illustration/

      Moderates and conservatives love capitalism even more than liberals do, and my primary stance is against capitalism.

  6. My point is not to dive off into sub categories of anarchy or left wing ideology. Essentially, your statements reflect that of a moderate conservative, bare minimum. Thus you should, (in theory ) be able to have moderate conservatives as friends. That’s all I’m saying.

    To reference Hillary Clinton, as a true example of liberalism:

    For free universal healthcare
    Believes in healthy tensions between financial institutions, is against free market capitalism.
    Does want votes to count, though every political sect does on paper.

    Your lashing out at liberals only reflects your true moderate conservatism. The overall disdain of liberals confuses you for what we really stand for. Liberals do not love Capitolism. Name one example of liberals for Capitolism. I can mention one true famous liberal who made, “Capitolism, a Love Story.” A true exposé of the platform true republicans use to destroy the middleclass.

    Your only connection so far to tried and trur liberalism is your socialist claim, and voting rights. Thus, still could claim other categories.

    • You seem confused about what capitalism is, so I’ll explain. Capitalism is an economic system where bosses control the means of production, and pay workers to produce commodities through labour. It is a system of undemocratic control over the workplace. I know no liberals who wish to see workers controlling the means of production in society, because liberals believe that managers/bosses are a special class of people who have specialized skills that “low-skilled” workers simply couldn’t have. Capitalism is a system where profit is the primary motive – liberals wish to control corporations, but not get rid of the profit motive. They are for “small businesses,” small ventures that are still capitalist, and thus have an undemocratic structure, but are less likely to be the massive forces of destruction that large corporations are. They support legislative control over the more vile tendencies of corporations, but do not wish to get rid of the profit motive – the very reason why corporations have vile tendencies in the first place. They tend to have a Keynesian view of capitalism – that it is the best economic system there is, but that it needs to be controlled.

      Some liberals look to the social democratic nations in Scandinavia as perfect examples of liberal democracies. However, the reforms they support in the US don’t come close to those of Scandinavian countries. Social democrats are more likely to sympathise with socialists than liberals are – however, they are STILL pro-capitalist, because they do not support worker control over the means of production, or the dismantling of for-profit businesses.

      Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to oppose legislative control of corporations. They tend to support quasi-laissez-faire capitalism; they have utter faith that the capitalist market forces will somehow create good in the world. They support “Free Trade” agreements, the destruction of the environment for the purpose of “strengthening economies,” the exploitation of workers in Third World countries, the dismantling of labour laws and unions. They support the neoliberalism of Milton Friedman – an ideology so evil that it helped create the military regime of Augusto Pinochet.

      Now, I’m going to challenge you to look beyond the left/right spectrum as you’ve been taught it – that liberals are left and conservatives are right. This is ahistorical. You seem to believe that if you’re not liberal, you’re automatically conservative, which completely ignores the fact that the spectrum is much broader than liberal/conservative, as illustrated by my newest post.

      The only points that I agree with some conservatives on (the conservatives who are socially liberal) are points that liberals also agree with. These points are, as you mentioned, things like supporting same-sex marriage and being pro-choice. These are liberal points – that’s why these conservatives are referred to as “socially liberal, economically conservative.” Supporting free healthcare is a social democrat stance that some liberals agree with. My entire point in this post is that many liberals, when confronted by conservatives, will backtrack and say, “Oh, I don’t really support free healthcare,” or, “I don’t want money for nothing,” which is basically touting the conservative line. This is evidenced by the very picture that I am criticising in my post; a picture that I sourced from a liberal page on Facebook.

    • So, to answer your question: “Name one example of liberals for Capitolism [sic].”

      The example is in my post. The part where it says, “I do not want businesses to be unprofitable; I want them out of the regulatory and political process.”

      That was a picture that was reblogged by several liberal friends, from a group on Facebook called, “Being Liberal.”


      That is synonymous with being pro-capitalism.

  7. You have maybe 18 different talking points intermingling all at once here. It’s like a cluster of an interesting rant meaning well, but coming off as a pseudo attack. One that says I don’t read. Lol. I said I didn’t want to oblige your contradiction of a liberal anarchist label etc. If you knew anything about anarchy or capitalism, you’d understand that Anarchy can’t work in any type of system that has money. Therefore if you believe in money, you are not an anarchist. Whoever decides who will print, distribute, and control the money, starts the process of defiling the principles of anarchism. Anarchist are the opposite of control, regulation, rules, and the boundaries set in place by capitol. It essentially wants to go back to the dark ages of a time before the IRS. Therefore, Ron Paul is an anarchist. He wants to stop policing the world, and rid us of the federal reserve. That’s anarchy.

    Capitalism revolves around capitalist, who are the speculators. They are not merely the boss. A capitalist is someone who takes money, invest in something to get more in return, without consequence, aka the big gov’t bail out. Bankers, loan sharks, wall street goons, speculate who will be the latest victims to instigate into reversible mortgages or whatever scheme to turn a profit. They are not always the boss, but will always be bailed out of their bad investments.

    I feel the problem you have is you don’t understand wealth. Real wealth has no political boundary or ally bc they are above it all, and make all of the decisions. They are not always liberal or republican. Hillary Clinton sits on the board of directors for Walmart. That’s a huge if not best example of capitalism crossing all political lines. Your mentioning of Facebook, another billionaire capitalist regime with it’s retarded/annoying app market. I loathe Facebook, and its spying and prying into our privacy rights, it’s completely unjustified. Though I won’t begin to blend my points of discussion into other things. I will focus on my one point.

    Which was your initial post came off as very unfair rant, that was somewhat contradicting. You want corporations to make money, you don’t want corporations to make money enough money to be wealthy, and never have to be regulated? A rather scrutinizing attack against liberals without merit or consideration on how similar all sides are, here, in the United States. Thus making it really not matter at all, given nothing will change. I also don’t agree with former or present US citizens, who live overseas, and bash our way of politics. I’m not too patriotic but something feels rather button-down there.

    • So you’re writing a rambling rant that doesn’t even make sense, and there’s obviously no point talking to you anymore. I really don’t understand what you’re doing on my blog. Ron Paulites are vile, right-wing creatures. There is nothing anarchistic about Ron Paul. You are in serious need of a history lesson, if you think anarchism and capitalism are compatible. Try reading Kropotkin for a start.

  8. You don’t want businesses to be unprofitable, or function without regulation, yet somehow wish them to have a wealth cap. You want them to pay their share in taxes without getting all of their profits?

    • What are you on about? I don’t want businesses to be profitable. I am against profit. You are saying the opposite.

      Businesses shouldn’t need regulation if they don’t operate for profit. They should be cooperatively run non-profit collectives where the workers control every aspect. Have you ever heard of collectives/cooperatives/syndicates/soviets in your life? It appears you haven’t. It is entirely possible to barter and trade without profit; this happened in the communes in revolutionary Spain, and 7 million people were involved.

      Corporations shouldn’t exist. They are entities that are legally required to put profit above all else.

      And no, I don’t believe that money as it exists today is a good thing.

      Anarchists are inherently anti-capitalist. We are absolutely opposed to laissez-faire capitalism. When given a choice between corporations with free reign and corporations with their power stripped from them, we support the latter. Corporations are the most authoritarian entities on the planet. Thus, anarchists vehemently oppose them.

  9. You’re so cut and dry. It shows where you’re at. I could write a paper why he could be labeled an anarchist or similar to anything. Try reading my comment again. There are similarities in everything… I’m not for ron paul, I’m simply making a point. I believe you can’t believe in money if you are an anarchist, and no I’m not alone there. IF you don’t understand my point, I’m not offended, I’m sorry I can’t say the same for you. I’ll try your reading your book advice bc I don’t care, and I found your blog from a site I’m not mentioning. I’m not sure why I read it, given I’ve never agreed with much here.

  10. You can’t be against profit, And expect the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share. Not for profits Make the Most money. My friend works at Lutheran Life Communities, a non-profit religious elderly homes that rakes in millions. They just bought Kronos, a hr software program for 80 grand, bc they can! You don’t appreciate wealth enough to understand it. You despise it, for little to no reason.

    RIGHT, Anarchist, anti capital, yes, duh.

  11. Under fascism, the profit motive continues to be the primary motivation of contributors to the economy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: