
The blog is a view of life, science, politics and education from an engineering perspective. As engineers, we are taught to view the world objectively. We can hope, believe and calculate a particular outcome, but natural laws are inflexible and pay no heed to who we are or what we believe. We must approach the objective dispassionately, while compensating for our own distorted perceptions. Balance is also a key element; balancing between the ideal and the pragmatic, balancing cost and functionality, balancing analysis with action, etc.
Scheduling routine critical self-analysis is the foundation to objectivity. If we do not fully understand and compensate for our own failures, tendencies, habits and skewed thought processes, we will not see the world as it is. Without a regular critical self-analysis we will see the world as we are and then fall prey to self-delusion.
Failure is a great teacher. When failure is coupled with perseverance, it produces the fruit of patience and humility. An engineer, fresh out of engineering school is typically set up for failure early and often. The failure breaks the new engineer of any ideas of self-importance, arrogance and book smarts. Only then can the new engineer be formed and molded into a productive element in the industry.
Thanks,
Bernie
What is the final objective of liberalism?
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism/progressivism is the equal sharing of miseries.
—Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
As I watched the first presidential debate between Obama and Romney, I was asked a question on where I thought Obama was going to take the country, "If Obama had complete power and authority, what systems would he put into place and how would the country be structured politically and economically?" Frankly, I didn't have an answer. But I thought the question would make for a good debate on this blog.
When Obama and US liberalism has reached its final objective, what will it look like? Will it be the police state of Cuba? Will it represent the ‘soft socialism’ of Europe? Will it look like the complex Chinese model with a capitalist/control economy but with very limited personal liberties?
I have never seen a clear statement of objectives and defined outcomes from the liberal politicians and organizations. I have seen general statements of disconnected ideas of objectives. But a document was never produced on what the goal is and how to get there.
Publicly stated objectives of past Liberals
The Johnson administration launched the ‘war against poverty’ with the goal of creating a social contract in which all people in the US will not need to worry about food or housing regardless of their employment status. Government will supply the safety net to prevent anyone from falling too far.
According to Gloria Steinem the goal of social liberalism is to remove the stigma of moral choices; “…must remove the concept that one lifestyle or birth control choice is better or worse than any other.”
Senator Edward Kennedy has stated that the Democratic Party would create an economic environment in which the economic standing of all people will be equalized; ie, all US citizens will roughly have the same access to material goods.
“The democratic liberal tradition then, as expressed through the 'Objective' aims for real democracy, in the sphere of the economy, the state, and broader civil society as opposed to the rule of wealth. It seeks to abolish poverty and social injustice, and to precipitate a more just, compassionate and humane order based upon dignity, autonomy and human solidarity.” Fabian Society
Friedrich Nitzsche said that the objective of progressivism and socialism is to elevate the state over the individual. The liberties of the individual must be curbed for the benefit of the state, because unbridled individual liberties are inconsistent with a progressive economy. The state has the power to enact the greater good over the ability of the individual.
The concept of a social utopia is easy to sell. Everyone wants a society of equality and peace. Everyone wants to escape the consequences of their own decisions; particularly the bad decisions. The idea of government saving us from ourselves has appeal.
The theme of ‘the greater good’ is often repeated in some form as the objective of liberalism.
But what would this ‘greater good’ look like? Is it possible to achieve a greater good? The attempt to create a greater good is extremely expensive as we are finding out…as demonstrated in Ireland, Greece, Italy, Spain, France, etc. And in many countries the ‘greater good’ has been abandoned in favor of remaining solvent.
I give liberal politicians the benefit of the doubt and I believe that in general, their concepts of liberalism are theoretically nice. But the idea that they fail to grasp is that man is too corrupt to be trusted with the power necessary to take liberalism to its end-game.
In the liberal utopia, what will restrain the evil vices of man?
Statements in opposition to liberal ideals
“The search for a liberal Nirvana, like the search for Utopia or the end of history or the classless society, is ultimately a futile and dangerous one. It involves, if it does not necessitate, the sleep of reason. There is no escape from anxiety and struggle.” Christopher Hitchens
Friedrich Hayek, in his book, ‘The road to serfdom’ used this phrase to sum up progressivism: "What has always made a progressive country a hell on earth has been precisely that social re-distribution has tried to make it our heaven."
Similarly, Milton Friedman, “In our attempts to create heaven, we have created hell.” “Do gooderism is the root of all evil not covered by greed.”
President Reagan said that liberalism will not work because everyone is not created the same; some have more ambition, some are better actors, some are better athletes and some have a more keen mind. The cream will rise despite the best efforts of the liberals to keep mixing.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.





37 Comments
MGarber - Oct 05, 2012 9:22 AM
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 10:46 AM
being smart ! He wants to put an imput he deems correct as the gravitational force .
Yet is dumbfounded why his gravity is not working correctly ! lol... Problem is garber
you need to be more grounded . lol...
MGarber - Oct 05, 2012 11:16 AM
(sigh)... Sure.... loveit!......Lenin was my homeboy!
Did you ever think of getting a hobby??
WFB resident - Oct 05, 2012 12:47 PM
communism why not move to one of those countries ? Greed on your side for forcing
others to live the way you want . lol...
ExToDResident - Oct 05, 2012 1:07 PM
corrupted by the vices of man. Hopefully (and I think history seems to agree;
witness the wealthy that existed in so called "socialist" societies) the goal of
socialism is to not so much eliminate the wealthy as to raise the poor out of abject
poverty.
Disparity in income will always exist, it always has and it always will. However even
income disparity isn't as much the issue as the stagnant wages that have plagued
the middle class for more than a decade. It doesn't matter how much money you
let the rich keep if there isn't a middle class consumer to drive the economy we are
not going anywhere.
I would be just as interested to find out what the final objective of conservatives
would be. It seems to me that conservatives want the US to be a feudal state.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 05, 2012 4:30 PM
I fear you have outdone yourself. Putting your words in a dead man's mouth.
Give me your link or source of the Ted Kennedy abomination.
I also fear your "Liberal Ideal" is nothing more that figment of your conservative imagination.
We have NEVER had a pure capitalistic economic system in this country. It has always been a "mixed system" that borrows very heavily from capitalism.
I really don't think you would want pure capitalism. I most certainly would not.
It is very clear that you are trying to conflate liberalism with socialism. That is like equating conservatism with fascism. And I know you would never do that.
Please, please, please ..... get a dictionary!
And USE IT!
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 05, 2012 4:37 PM
Man-O-Man, you must read some really weird schit!
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 05, 2012 4:59 PM
From my understanding of social justice, it implies a level economic playing field, an equalization of results.
In one of Senator Kennedy's first speaches on the Senate floor, in 1964, he called for social justice and racial and economic equality.
http://chn.org/Kennedy.html
In this article, Kennedy is described as pushing for economic security by providing for the poorest Americans, raising the minimum wage, increasing benefits through HUD, etc.
Kennedy was heralded as 'a champion of the poor'. How did he get this title? What policies did he enact to help the poor? I think it was his drive to reduce the economic gap between the rich and poor; push for economic equality.
The wierdest stuff I read is Friedrich Nitzsche and Christopher Hitchens. They both have some serious issues.
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 05, 2012 7:21 PM
It took me a little while to read the article on Free thought blog.
For starters, I am an adherent to the Just World hypothesis. Not only does it make sense, it works. Without consequences for action, there is no civil society.
Society has set up guidelines for civil behavior. We frown on theft, murder, laziness, slander, etc. As a result, we have created laws to curb that activity. However, honesty, politeness, kindness, patience isn’t rewarded; it is expected. But it is its own reward.
Second, the guy makes a statement that I wholeheartedly disagree with. “It is this fallacy that allows us to look at the horrendous disparity between the living conditions of First Nations people, of women, of people living in starvation in southeast Asia and Africa, and rationalize it.”
I am not sure where this guy got his information…but it is 180 degree from what a Just World Hypothesis teaches. One of the prime Just principles is compassion and generosity. Not only do I support a mission in Africa because it is my duty, I do it because I care for the Africa people and I want their condition to improve.
The author of the article points out the Ivory Coast. The Ivory Coast was doing relatively well until the US and France launched in civil uprising there to overthrow its government. Now it is chaos with mob rule.
Injustice happens when the Just World Hypothesis isn’t upheld. Crime causes poverty. To reduce poverty, society needs to actively combat crime. It is precisely when crime is allowed to persist that economic turmoil develops.
Third, the article doesn’t address the end game of liberalism.
Carl Hicks - Oct 05, 2012 9:13 PM
can't happen.Complete control is just as unattainable as a utopian society is.
Liberalism or conservatism shouldn't have end game scenarios , a society needs
both to remain free.
I agree with MGarber as to the greater good and also Pierre as to socialism/
liberalism being equals as incorrect. The two are not synonymous.
In this country it isn't the poverty level crime that causes economical turmoil as
Don Henly wrote,a man with a briefcase can steal more then a man with a gun
MGarber - Oct 05, 2012 9:29 PM
and from Tom Waits:
"The large print giveith and the small print taketh away".
MGarber - Oct 05, 2012 9:32 PM
and from Tom Waits:
"The large print giveith and the small print taketh away".
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 05, 2012 11:06 PM
Don't tell me that you don't have an ideal of what government should look like and how it should function? Anyone even mildly interested in politics has an ideal and then they push for it otherwise they would have no interest.
Some time back I did my own evaluation of the Federal government and its $3.7 trillion budget. If I were king for a day, I would cut spending by about $1.5 trillion along with a massive amount of regulation. For every dime that is spent, some poor guy is being taxed to pay for it.
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 12:17 AM
What a stupid comment !!! lol...
WFB resident - Oct 06, 2012 12:18 AM
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 06, 2012 7:33 AM
First off, your arithmetic is a little "fuzzie" their Bernie.
But you are spot-on with regard to the poor guy - because it sure ain't the rich guy.
Pierre Del Norte - Oct 06, 2012 8:05 AM
I asked for your Kennedy source and you gave me that?
I am glad you were honest enough to admit the words you put in his mouth were really based on your understanding of social justice.
Social justice is a principal in which I believe strongly. It really speaks to the kind of society that we, as humans, want to live within. It does not mean equality of economic wealth, but rather an equality of economic opportunity and human rights.
Public education, social security, minimum wage, medicare/medicaid - the progressive income tax, are all designed to meet that objective. The are also designed to blunt those sharp jagged edges of capitalism.
Believe me, I am a huge fan of capitalism. Buy I also recognize it's limitations. One of it's greatest weaknesses the tendency to "commoditise" everything. Everything has a price to be factored into the cost of the enterprise.
That weakness is most evident when it comes to the human element.
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 06, 2012 8:57 AM
Your definition of social justice sounds palatable.
I wholeheartedly believe in the equality of opportunity, not the equality of outcome.
I believe that our disagreement is based on degrees. To what degree should we provide public education? (Families need some skin in the game and choices in education) What should the minimum wage be; $3/hr, $7/hr, $15/hr? Should the minimum wage be a Federal issue or a state issue?
I do disagree on Medicaid. It has been a disaster.
When I push for balance, my idea of balance will disagree with yours. Unless our ideas are well defined, it is difficult to compare the ideas.
Bernie Ziebart - Oct 07, 2012 7:22 AM
"Public education, social security, minimum wage, medicare/medicaid - the progressive income tax, are all designed to meet that objective."
It this were truly the objective, I would hear from politicians that we have arrived. We have met the objective. Now we will put a stake in the ground and maintain it.
But that it not what I hear. I constantly hear new reasons why government should grow and take on new powers.
- Oct 07, 2012 9:58 AM
If poverty is a consequence of crime the correlative effect of a lower crime rate
would indeed be a lower poverty rate ... right? Well, that's simply not the case.
According to FBI* statistics the crime rate has been dropping across the board
for all categories of crime.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-
u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls
Yet, the number of people living in poverty is at an all time high. The US Census
Bureau** states: "There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from
43.6 million in 2009 ─ the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest
number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published."
http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb11-
157.html
* The FBI is a government agency under the complete control of Barack Hussein
Obama and therefor cannot be completely relied upon as an unbiased source of
data.
** The US Census Bureau is another government agency under the complete
control of Barack Hussein Obama and therefor cannot be completely relied upon
as an unbiased source of data.