Risks and the liberal’s solution to them.


“Boy, life is filled with risks. The most important decisions in life are those decisions that holds the greatest of risks. Liberty by the very nature of its concept is the accepting of the responsibility of those risks as they occur. A perfect state of existence would then be viewed as a state of existence without risks.

The problem with people is the fact that they view life in terms of the absolute. And they attempt to deal with the problems in life with this concept as the basis of their reasoning. In other words if the answer to a problem isn’t one thing then it must be another thing. And since the one thing is seen in terms of the absolute then the other thing is also seen in terms of the absolute instead of terms of the relative.

This is recognition of the cause and effect approach to problems. This is the scientific approach to problems. This is the approach that both, Psychology and Sociology uses in the study of human behavior. It is the foundational basis by which practitioners of those disciplines consider each of those disciplines as a science.

This is also the deterministic approach to problems. It is an approach that studies the effect in order to determine the cause. By the study of the effect of human behavior it can be determined whether or not the cause is to be considered as desirable or not. If the cause is not desirable then the solution is to eliminate the cause in expectations of bringing about a desirable effect.

This is also the Liberal’s approach to the domestic problems of this nation. It is the approach that poverty is the cause of violence. Eliminate poverty and you will eliminate violence. In other words, since violence is the inherited risk of poverty then to eliminate poverty is to eliminate the risks of violence thus creating the perfect state of existence. And in their minds this is an achievable goal.

The Liberal also recognizes that while there are those who would willingly consent to sacrifice in order to eliminate poverty that it necessitates the collective to sacrifice in order to eliminate poverty. And in order to achieve this they recognize the need to use the means of force. And once this is considered as an acceptable means then liberty and freedom no longer can be seen as being synonymous concepts. This is their understanding of any problem of society.”

I just nodded as I thought then asked, “grandpa, do you think that any liberal would deny the above statements?”

Grandpa just looked at me in a surprised manner and said, “I would hope so, boy, I truly do. For the man who does not is a man who would deny another man of the gift of free will.”

Advertisements
Categories: Ethics and Morality, Politics, Science | Tags: , , , , , | 4 Comments

Post navigation

4 thoughts on “Risks and the liberal’s solution to them.

  1. BB-Idaho

    In considering “Eliminate poverty and you will eliminate violence. In other words, since violence is the inherited risk of poverty then to eliminate poverty is to eliminate the risks of violence thus creating the perfect state of existence. And in their minds this is an achievable goal.” Not achievable…but a worthwhile goal, IMO. We recall Louis XVI
    and Marie Antoinette ignoring poverty (encouraging it, in fact by taxing only the peasant)
    and of course that worm turned. Even Churchill, recognizing the attractions of communism for the desperate, instituted social security many years prior to FDR.
    Aside from any moral, religious or humane reasons, there are pragmatic reasons
    for reducing poverty…particularly in a nation which prides itself as a world leader.
    As relates to ’cause & effect’, we only note the recent industrial emphasis on identiying
    ‘root cause’ as a solution to otherwise continuing problems in process and production.
    I would argue that ‘collectives’ are unavoidable unless marooned a desert island…so
    we need deal with the society to which we belong. I kinda think….

  2. The Griper

    BB,
    i think everyone, both the left and the right would like to eliminate poverty. the only difference being is the means to be used in addressing the issue.

    and from a point of view of philosophy as well as reality i agree with you poverty cannot be eliminated. but while you and i may agree on this i’d say the majority of your leftists colleagues would disagree with the both of us.

    and from a scientific viewpoint i’d have to agree with them on this. it can be lowered by the use of force to a level that when tested it could be declared as being eliminated as long as you abide by the premises they use.

    how? because it would be measured in terms of how sociology measures it and there is an element in their method that does not exist in the hard science that you practiced. that element being the test of “significant difference”. with this poverty could still exist but it would not be considered as significant enough to be considered.

    as an aside i will say that if sociologists were consistent in their use of the scientific method as conceived they would have to admit there is already is a small collective of people that would fall under this catagory, that collective being the collective of homosexuals.

    as for social programs to address the issue of poverty such as social security the evidence would declare that everyone who relies on these programs are still among the empoveriched. so how successful as these programs been? evidence shows that the only way out of the state of poverty is through private sector. if you can cite a single person who was lifted out of the state of poverty by these welfare programs. i’d like to meet him.

    as for collectives, i agree that they are unavoidable. but the term “collective” has two meanings. the first and most common usage of the term is the view of being a singular individual unit. it is this meaning that sciences of psychology and sociology uses to measure by. by this meaning other words can be substitued in its place. it is by this meaning that people use to declare that groups have rights.

    the other meaning denotes a body of people in regards to each individual being separate units as opposed to a singular unit. it is by this meaning that rights are assigned to the individual person.

    the left uses the first meaning and the right uses the second meaning.

  3. BB-Idaho

    Difficult, if not impossible to ascribe absolutes regarding the social sciences; the
    practioners recognize such by concepts such as relative deprivation
    and the use of statistics. As for the private sector..it giveth and it taketh away,
    for I know of several hardworking folk who were ‘lifted out’ and then laid off. IMO,
    the goal of safety net welfare is primarily to maintain those in poverty with a modicum
    of basic necessity (as I recall from school eons back..food, clothing & shelter). Since
    so many are currently employed by gov’t of one sort or another..teachers, police,
    firemen, professors, soldiers, and yes bureacrats/politicians..we may assume one
    can be ‘lifted out’ by other than private sector. [as an aside, we note that many
    of these folks move back an forth from private to public sector based upon their
    profession, for example retired generals moving into corporations at high levels,
    physicians working in private practice going into Nat. Ins. of Health, etc]
    I’ve never quite figured out the Randian concept of ‘collective’, so won’t argue
    it other than it would seem that groups have rights; as Americans we indeed
    have unalienable rights….
    As for ‘hard science’ sometimes even that data becomes statistics..I’m thinking
    of the variabllity in ammunition primers where impact sensitivity is evaluated in
    terms of H-bar & Sigma to predict an all-fire/no fire level over a range of firing
    pins of varying foot-lb impact..or the nefarious statistical mechanics
    which support the quantum theory in physics. Aside from the Heisenberg
    Uncertainty Principle, though, the physical sciences are admittedly much more
    straight forward! 🙂

  4. The Griper

    the big difference between the physical sciences and the social sciences is that the physical sciences have a branch of science of measurement called “Physics”. the social sciences have no such branch. and, as far as i am concerned, until the social sciences can come up with a branch similar to that branch they cannot justify calling themselves a science, especially the discipline of sociology. it is that branch that allows for absolute conclusions which is the goal of science. it is that branch of science that allows science to go beyond realm of theories into the realm of theorems. it is that branch that allows the prediction of a fact rather than just a possibility.

    it is the physical sciences that exemplifies the philosophical concept of “determinism” in every way.
    ————————————-
    as for welfare recipiants, i can say only this. i am a student of human behavior. i have no idea why but that has been a passionate past time of mine. i have taken many a course in psychology as well as in sociology to further my understanding of this issue. and being in the situation that i have chosen in life i can say that i understand them far better than most persons. i have lived with enough of them as tenents, so as to declare that the welfare system does more harm than good.
    reason:
    once a person finds themself on the welfare roll for a length of time they become mentally dependent upon it. you can see it in their eyes as the saying goes. they become so dependent upon it that even the thought of losing those benefits puts the fear of God in them. after a time they actually lose faith in their own ability to provide for themselves and their kids. you can actually hear that fear in their voice with their response to the idea of being “forced” off of welfare. one could easily refer to it as a mental addiction.

    i might also add that i believe that this mental addiction is one reason that welfare recipients are probably abusive parents too. they are suffering from withdrawal symptoms at the time and take it out on their kids. i have had to get between a welfare parent and child many a time in order to protect that child.

    and i assure you my experience is not episodic and more than observational in regards to this issue. so, when you hear contempt in my response to those who advocate for a welfare state and their excuses for it, it isn’t because i have no feelings for the poor as many a liberal like our friend, Truth, have accused me of but from personal knowlege and experience of what actually happens when a person finds themself dependent upon it.

Be respecful or your comment will be deleted. Also know that Alinsky tactics do not phase me

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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: