From what I understand, the generally accepted main tenet of liberalism goes something like this, and I’m paraphrasing:
‘Do what you want as long as it’s not affecting me in a way I don’t want to be affected.’
Sorry, but although that might seem at a first glance to be a reasonable way of conducting a society, and it might have seemed to be so to politicians who lived centuries ago, we are now aware of a little something called the butterfly effect, which means that we are all interconnected and affect each other, but to various degrees, and something that somebody does on another part of the world which might be interpreted as insignificant at first may eventually have great consequences on the entire planet.
We don’t all live in a separate little universe. Stupid decisions affect the entire society. Although due to its sheer size the costs of individual stupidity in big societies is mitigated, it does not disappear.
Given how I’m short on time and not very keen on debating the same issues over and over, I’ll just copy paste a part of a post I made on another forum as an example of what I mean:
“An individual may escape the cruelty and harshness of reality, but the system has to deal with it. I’ll give you an example: Say, for the sake of simplicity, that there are 100 people in a society. Of all these 100 people, everybody does their role in maintaing the society - some are police/military, and they defend it from other humans and animals that would attack it (protectors). Others are providers and make clothes, food, etc. etc. However, one person decides that they don’t want to work. They would rather get handouts. They decide to exploit the system that gives a certain amount of money for a child, and have 9 kids (all of whom, like their parent, refuse to actually work), and so they live better than an average person who has to work. That individual has, indeed, successfully escaped the natural consequences of their own behavior. However, the society still has to deal with it one way or another. A society has to give almost a tenth of its food, clothes, etc. to individuals who don’t contribute to its maintenance. THIS is why it is an important question to ask: ‘What would happen in nature?’. Because the more things a society allows that are anti-nature (like people refusing to work for a living and being given shit for free instead, when in nature the opposite would happen and they would die off), the more the society allows things which contribute to its own collapse as more resources are drained than given back. Basically - an individual can escape dealing with nature, but the system is still faced with it and forced to find ways to maintain the high degree of artifices (what we call a living standard). The cost for weakness and degeneracy is always paid, either by the individual, or the system. The cost can be transfered and so escaped by one entity, but ultimately it can not be made to disappear and so somebody, somewhere… will pay.”
And below is another, which can also serve as an example of what happens when a group applies short-term thinking vs long-term thinking, and why short-term thinking is inferior
“Humans can either construct laws that effectively dominate and overcome nature, or they can make inefficient laws that are contra-nature and so essentially self-defeating. For example, let’s say that there exist two groups of humans which are more or less equal in everything, except in one thing when it comes to the laws they constructed - group A consider it not only legitimate, but obligatory, according to their laws, to kill babies with down syndrome. Group B, however, considers it immoral, and so they outlawed it and it is made illegitimate, which results in a part of population, let’s say 10%, being affected with the down syndrome and thus not capable of giving back to the system as much as they take. Eventually, the groups A and B declare war, and given that they are more or less equal in everything else, the group B loses the war and gets conquered because 10% of its population has down syndrome, which means they perform worse than a person unaffected by down syndrome would perform. Ultimately group B also fails long-term in saving down syndrome people from the natural consequences of their condition, the very reason why they conceded to weakening their society.”
In conclusion, yes, it does affect me when some retard decides to fuck another retard and have a child that is more retarded than both its parents together, and the retards spread and multiply until the entire country is nothing but retards and in a couple of centuries it collapses or gets conquered by a country that isn’t replete with retards. Or it manages to drag the entire world into retardation. See the movie Idiocracy.
EDIT: Removed quote function cause it makes the text uglier and smaller.
