Why liberalism doesn't work in the long-term.

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.

We should create a thread how no government of any kind works in the long term. :stuck_out_tongue:

If we’re gonna be like that… what does?

Even our sun will perish, in time.

The point is about thinking more long-term than short-term liberal thinkers, not infinitely more.

Yes, I understand what you’re saying, I’m just being cheeky. :wink:

I’m no fan of liberalism but I also equally abhor conservatism.

Anyways, the flaw of liberalism is its inherent misunderstanding of human nature that clouds virtually every political process it upholds. I view progressive liberals as hopeless utopian romantics. They’re idealists where there is a lack of realism in virtually all of their beliefs.

That problem is called “the tragedy of the commons”.

Yes. At last the tragedy of the commons leads to the extinction of those who work or contribute otherwise and support those who do not work or do not contribute otherwise and do not supprt anybody, although the latter have own children and the former not. So those who have offspring survive as long as they can have offspring, and the others who have no offspring die out. So it is worthwhile in a commons to be lazy, if a certain number of members is not lazy. But it is to be expected that more and more members of the group will behave lazy and group earnings will fall further, since - morally spoken - a typical human maxim is not the maximization of the own advantage but the avoidance of the own disadvantage. So the tragedy of the commons escalates and escalates, and the whole group gets into a rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict. In addition to the rationality trap that I just described, there is also the opposite case in which common resources are increasingly exhausted. In this way, not only many environmental problems, but, interestingly, the population explosion in many countries can be explained. The Neomalthusianist Garret Hardin believed that a liberal access to public goods will at last be the ruin of all. Therefore he called for corresponding restrictions.

I dont think liberalism is about minding your own business, but not minding your own business.

For instance, liberals want cameras everywhere and SWAT teams to raid people’s homes and ban their guns.

If I want to make a fat joke, or say something hilariously offensive and sexist, I can’t because liberals will blackmail me and fire me from my job.

Basically, we’ve came a lot from the stone ages. We’ve done the basics that need to be done. My system of government would be back to basics, less emphasis on extraneous goods. The only jobs we’d need would be farming, transportation, and building jobs. Famers, transporters, and builders would be very rich. Entertainment jobs would be the middle class, only getting bonuses for their art and entertainment if its any good (the philosopher artist class.) Everyone else would be low class welfare, boring entertainers would be on low class welfare until they make something decent. All taxes would go to science and military. There would be no military, just voluntary militia service, because people would enjoy playing militia and bearing arms.

That would be Age 1
Next would be Age 2, the robot age.
Farmers would be replaced by robot farming equipment, robot builders, etc. they would get a retirement plan but no new farmers would be needed. Only rich people would be programmers, mechanics, overlords and archetects. Entertainment would be the same, not replaced by robots. By that time, science would have figured out how to build the DNA machine and brain serum to enhance genius. Society would reach its apex. This would be the ultimate age, nothing more would be needed to be done. War is not a valid need of the economy, war does not bring in resources, only steal and inefficiently transport resources from enemy land. It only helps america’s economy because of human psychology being inspired from violence. It is not a mathematical necessity, only thing is america has a garbage economy that benefits from it.

I mind my own business and have absolutely nothing to do with minding anyone elses business

I do not want cameras everywhere and SWAT teams to raid peoples homes and ban their guns

And if you want to make a fat joke or say something hilariously offensive and sexist you can because I will not blackmail you and fire you from your job

In fact you would be far more likely to find me offensive for a lot of what I truly believe in you absolutely hate but it does not bother me so just saying

I do not care what anyone does long as it does not harm anyone else [ other than when it is morally justifiable ] so I am as liberal as it is possible to be

You are not an average liberal.

I dont hate what you believe, i hate the way you believe it. I hate that you continue to believe in nothingness when you die and you act like there’s evidence of nothingness when you die which there is not. You can’t have evidence of nothingness, it can’t exist, it is nothingness.

Gee whiz, I wish I was an American. Shucks!

What I do or do not believe in makes no difference to me after I die only while I am alive
And most of what I do believe in you do not even if you do not know what that actually is

How enlightening.

Also a potentially false statement, your beliefs may effect outcomes of timelines after your demise.

May? They most certainly will, but I suppose he wouldn’t care about it.

If everybody lived just for themselves and had no regard for the future generations, civilization would crumble.
So why would those of us who care about maintaining civilization tolerate those who contribute to its destruction with their apathy and parasitism?
By living in a civilization we are enjoying the fruits of our ancestors’ labor, and we are allowed to do so because it is expected of us to contribute back in equal or greater measure for future generations.
If somebody doesn’t do so, they shouldn’t get to enjoy the fruits of other people’s labor either, and they should go and try to be apathetic and parasitic in nature, outside of sheltering human artifices.

Yeah, even though I pointed out in my OP how that rule is non-sensical, and how we all affect each other to a degree, so everything one does or does not do causes pleasure or harm to somebody.

Bleh, just ILP quality of discourse I guess

So would you be in favour of public executions for someone like myself who is no use to society because if you are not then what is your solution

The solution is contained in the post you quoted from. Seriously, dude…

I meant his own timeline, lol. Surrept takes pride in trying to make sure nothing he does affects the timeline et al.

The main problem is that nations – in order to be nations – must be at least somewhat liberal to their own citizens. But then really big and rich nations ultimately see huge population increases, and need to continue giving the wealth away just to keep the restless masses sedated. Eventually, there are just too many people and too few resources to go round. It’s the cycle of life. Individuals go through it as do civilizations.

Look up Elliott wave theory.

That is a solution though it is not the only one and nor is it the most effective one either

Now I would be absolutely useless in the wild so putting me down would be the best thing to do

I would no longer be a burden to society and you would have a supply of free food so win win all round

If you are worried about killing me yourself then you could easily find someone else to do it for you instead

This idea is not new so do not think I am just saying it for shock value as that could not be further from the truth

I am rather disappointed in you for I thought you would think nothing of killing a nihilist like me but you live and learn

This sounds like a libertarian as much as a liberal, as far as it goes. Are you ok with condemning them both equally, or is there some difference to you?

democrats stole the term “liberalism” , then the world libertarinism was invented as a result. Democrats are everything but liberal, they are socialists.

so the headline should read as: why socialism/collectivism doesn’t work in the long term

what you call big and rich can be disproved by just looking at the world debt amounting to almost 10 times the global GDP, the rich nations are just much richer in debts.
overpopulation and too few resources can be disproved by investigating the global food waste amounting to 50% of the world food production.