Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.

Posts tagged “Liberal

What is Fascism?

Fascism is a hard ideology to define because nearly every modern government or political movement has been called ‘fascist’ by somebody. I contend that fascism was a political movement unique to the early 20th century, especially in Europe, because its worldview was shaped by events and philosophical ideas from the late 19th century until the interwar period. Some people have called states like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq ‘fascist’, but I believe that there is a big difference between authoritarian dictatorship and genuine fascism.

article-1220263-00D3DAC400000190-853_468x286_popup

So how did fascism originally develop? It grew out of a European intellectual movement which criticized the alienating effect that industrial society had on modern man, as well as late 19th century critiques of Liberalism and Positivism. They believed that industrial society robbed men of their individuality; however they wanted to assert it at the same time. These ideas were adopted by many young people, especially young, middle-class socialists, because they wanted to rebel against what they perceived as pointless and archaic bourgeois morality and conformity. This is why in the 1930s, fascism looked like it might actually take over Europe: it successfully harnessed people’s dissatisfaction with modern society and directed it into political channels.

1069px-Gustave_Le_Bon_about_1900Fascists were influenced by philosophers like Gustav Le Bon who wrote about the need for a strong leading figure to lead the masses against social ills. He believed that people were fundamentally irrational, and should embrace their irrationality. This was taken up by fascist ideologues who thought that their members’ irrationality should be harnessed by the leader and directed into political action, which was mostly comprised of beating up socialists, communists and trade unionists (or Jews in the case of Nazism). Fascism was a fundamentally violent ideology which praised war and conflict. Both Hitler and Mussolini believed that war was the highest expression of human ability and society, and sincerely thought that life was a continual conflict between people for limited resources (hence the title of Hitler’s autobiography, Mein Kampf). To fascists war was a good thing because it let nations or races decide who was the strongest and who deserved the planet’s resources.

hitler-mussolini-florence-italy-second-world-war-ww2--rare-amazing-incredible-pics-pictures-images-photos-nazi-germanyFascism’s insistence on embracing irrationality is one thing that makes it hard to comprehend; although Hitler and Mussolini wrote their respective handbooks about fascist beliefs, they ultimately rejected concrete doctrines and always acted in response to current events. This is why a lot of fascist rhetoric and actions seem to be contradictionary.

The First World War gave fascism its mass base. Veterans across Europe felt alienated in civilian society after the war, which could not understand their experiences on the frontline. A lot of them wanted to return to an idealized comradeship and hierarchy of the front line, which fascist organizations like the SA and the Blackshirts offered. A lot of them didn’t actually care about the nuances of fascist ideology, they just felt like they didn’t belong in civilian society and needed order and comrades. Instead of a real enemy opposing army, fascism offered them a frontline against post-war society which was especially attractive in revisionist countries like Germany and Italy, where many wanted to destroy the existing Liberal order which they blamed for their countries’ humiliations.

dhs9_zps4bc26c6bUnlike socialists and communists, fascists wanted to cure modern society’s alienation through the creation of a hierarchal state made up of different social classes working together for the benefit of the nation. This is called ‘corporatism’ and is fascism’s only real contribution to economic thought. The competing segments of industrial society would be united by the leader act entirely through the state, which incidentally would preserve existing capitalist hierarchies and strengthen them. Fascists were for a sort of inverted social-democracy which would give social services to its members but not to anyone else. If you were not a member of the nation or the Volksgemeinschaft – tough luck. This is why many people participated in Fascist and Nazi organizations like the DAP or Hitler Youth; if you did not actively participate in the national or racial community, you were not a part of it and would be socially ostracized (or worse) and denied state benefits. They didn’t necessarily believe in fascist ideology, and many opposed it, but the fascist state required them to participate in it.

mussolini-01The major difference between fascism and socialism is that the former was all about preserving hierarchy and bourgeois society, while getting rid of industrial alienation through the creation of a totalitarian society. Mussolini thought that by giving up your individuality to the totalitarian state, you could have your energies and efforts multiplied by its services. Paradoxically, by surrendering individuality, alienation would somehow disappear. In industrial societies, fascism was popular with the middle class because it offered a cultural and social revolution which would keep hierarchies and fortify them through corporatism. Unlike conservatism, fascism wanted a cultural revolution that would create a “New Fascist Man” who had no individuality separate from the state. This is why it was appealing to the middle class; it let them vent their frustrations about modern society and be little revolutionaries while simultaneously protecting their property and position in the social hierarchy.

The emphasis on maintaining private property and hierarchy was what made fascists hate socialists and communists. Fascism marketed itself as the “Third Way” between Liberalism, which was responsible for alienation and the post-war Wilsonian order, and Socialism, which threatened to take bourgeois property in an economic revolution. Conservatives and fascists usually got along because they both hated the same things, but most conservatives failed to understand the revolutionary aspect of fascism and believed they could be controlled to curtail workers’ rights and revise the Paris Treaties, which didn’t really work out.

Advertisements

WHY DO PEOPLE VOTE AGAINST THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST?

There are several reasons, lack of education, racial intolerance, racial resentment, and a gullibility that borders on arrogance, I know this will probably piss off some people, but there are truths that are self evident, these folks have been sold an illusion called the American dream, and they buy it because they can see how wealthy their GOP masters have become, and they lack the education to work out that this dream can only work for the few and not the many. This ties into the bullshit notion of American exceptional-ism which only reinforces feelings of superiority over what they regard as not real Americans. Generations of these folks have been brought up on a diet of fear and lies about illegal immigrants and lazy colored people living on government handouts which will come out of their taxes if the ever reach that threshold. To these people modern democracy and progressive social policies are interpreted as welfare for non white Americans, so it is no surprise that every time the government tries to introduce things like social security, medicare, etc, the right wing screams communist, and the gullible echo, it is also a sad and regrettable fact that a lot of these people resent the passing of the civil rights act. Therefore instead of showing gratitude to the party that has ensured them some quality of life, they blindly vote GOP and dream of Beverley hillbillies and that elusive American dream.


It’s simple. Fear trumps Reason.

There are solid scientific reasons for why fear is such a motivator in politics. The parts of our brain that control fear and reason evolved in different ways and are connected in different ways that give fear the upper hand.

The human brain’s fear center is the amygdala, an almond-shaped bundle of neurons near the brain’s center. In the course of evolution, the amygdala’s fear circuitry got a head start on the neocortex, the seat of conscious awareness. The amygdala is simply more evolved.

It’s tough to overcome our fears because of the way the two sites are connected to the rest of the brain. The amygdala has a one-way pipeline to the neocortex, but there’s no return feed, meaning that the logical, thoughtful cortex can be overrun by the brain’s fear machine. It takes a lot of persistence and concentration to make things work the other way around, but it’s doable.

What makes fearing socialism a potent political tactic is the possibility that for some people the amygdala and the neocortex might actually be in sync on this topic.

If you truly believe that Democrats are moving toward socialism — and if you genuinely fear whatever you think socialism is — your logical neocortex has no reason to control the fear impulse. The amygdala goes wild, especially at Tea Parties.

The trouble for Democrats is that appealing to reason to assuage the fearful just won’t work in this case. Unless they want to try acknowledging that they are drifting toward socialism, and that it’s not really so scary.


This is how “Conservatives” view “Liberals”:

Liberal

 

President Barack Obamaadvocates the use of unsuccessful Keynesian economic concepts. He is considered by many to be the worst president ever.

liberal is someone who favors increased government spending, power, and control, as in ObamaCare, as well as censorship of Christianity. Increasingly, liberals side with the homosexual agenda, including supporting homosexual “marriage”. Many liberals favor a welfare state where people receive endless entitlements without working. Liberals are often anti-Christian, or otherwise disagree with moral or social principles held by many American Christians. They prefer atheism over the Christian faith, as atheism has no objective morality to hinder their big government plans. The liberal ideology has worsened over the years and degenerated into economically unsound views and intolerant ideology. Some liberals simply support, in knee-jerk fashion, the opposite ofconservative principles without having any meaningful values of their own.

Polling data has consistently shown that a increasingly large percentage of Americans identify as conservative, rather than as liberal, currently by 38% to 21%.[1]

A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices:

  • Spending money on government programs (the significant economic problems in the Eurozone due to government debt will no doubt increasingly discredit this aspect of liberal ideology and make things more difficult for advocates of liberal economic ideologies)
  • Government’s ability to solve economic problems[2]
  • The belief that terrorism is not a huge threat, and that the main reason for Muslim extremists’ hostility towards America is because of bad foreign policy [3]
  • Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion
  • Cessation of teacher-led prayer in classrooms and school/state-sponsored religious events.
  • Gun control
  • Anti-Americanism
  • Affirmative action[4]
  • Opposition to government regulation or restriction of obscenity, pornography and violence in video games as a First Amendment right[5]
  • Government-funded medical care, such as Obamacare
  • Belief in evolution
  • Destroying the Christian foundations on which America was built on.
  • Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education
  • Placement of men and women in the same jobs in the military
  • Legalized same-sex marriage and homosexual adoption
  • Tax and spend economics
  • Economic sector regulations[6]
  • Spreading of political correctness
  • Destroying liberty
  • Ending Western morality
  • Non-syndicalist labor unions
  • Encouraging promiscuity through sexual education (the teaching of safe sex) rather than teaching abstinence from premarital sex[7]
  • A “living Constitution” that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it is thought to have been intended.
  • Government programs to rehabilitate criminals
  • Abolition of the death penalty
  • Environmentalism[8]
  • Globalism
  • Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.
  • Opposition to full private property rights.[9]
  • Reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine
  • Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act
  • Opposition of Operation Iraqi Freedom, a major part of the War on Terrorism
  • Opposition to the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq
  • Regulation of business rather than a laissez-faire capitalist economy
  • Opposition to the Constitution. Liberals seek to expand federal power at the expense of local government and silence the conservatives who hold them back, violating the 10th and 1st Amendments respectively.
  • Denial of traditional gender roles
  • Support of financially irresponsible policies
  • Advocating policies which are proven to be incorrect
  • Encouragement of global warming alarmism
  • Persecution of Christianity with deference to other religions, such as Islam.

Liberals currently use two Clauses of the Constitution to try to expand their power: the Commerce Clause and the General Welfare Clause. The General Welfare Clause mentions “promoting the general welfare”. This to a liberal means taxing the rich at increased rates and redistributing that money. The Commerce Clause, on the other hand, says that Congress has the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, between the states and with the Indian tribes. Since the days of FDR this Clause has been interpreted very loosely and has resulted in the federal government expanding its power. The latest example is The Affordable Care Act (ACA), better know as Obamacare. In the ACA, the liberals justify the individual mandate by saying it regulates commerce between the states.

The decline in liberal principles can be illustrated by how Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can’t be transferred from the private to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. Yet today, decades later, Democrats and liberals are in lock-step with public sector unions, as they “donate” money to the reelection campaign in exchange for more taxpayer money in their wallets and fluffed up pensions.

Current dictionaries describe the liberal ideology by pretending that a liberal is “a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties” or “a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets,”[10] or “open-minded or tolerant, especially free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.” or “favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.”[11] In practical usage, the term “liberal” is more closely synonymous with “radical,” “immoral,” “anti-freedom,” or “bad.”

Contents

 [hide]

Liberals and Uncharitableness

American Liberals have been observed to give less to charity than American conservatives.[12]In addition, per capita atheists andagnostics in the United States give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.[5][6][7]

For more information please seeLiberals and uncharitableness and Atheism and charity

In March of 2008, George Will wrote at RealClearPolitics concerning the United States:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives….

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

— Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.[13]

Atheists and agnostics often reject Biblical morality (and therefore conservative Christianity ) and hold to moral relativism.[14] Therefore, it is not surprising that per capita atheists and agnostics inAmerica give significantly less to charity than theists even when church giving is not counted for theists.[8][9][10]

Liberal politicians and uncharitableness

The political magazine the American Spectator featured an article which focused on liberal politicians and uncharitableness exposing the hypocrisy of the liberal politicians it featured.[15]

In addition, Barack Obama has been criticized concerning his lack of charitable giving.

Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity

See also: Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity and Liberal Christianity

According to a 2007 study reported in the Journal of Family Issues, adherents of liberal Christianity are more likely to engage in marital infidelity than theologically conservative Christians.[16]

As noted above, liberals are more likely to adhere to evolutionary belief than conservatives. A study conducted by the Australian National University, revealed that belief in evolution is associated with moral permissiveness.[17]

Liberalism and bestiality

See also: Liberalism and bestiality

The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[18] See: Atheism and bestiality

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide andeuthanasia)[19]. Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University (Princeton University is a very liberal school – see: Liberalism and bestiality).[20] Peter Singer was installed as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University in 1999 and in 2006 it was reported that he still worked part-time in that capacity. [21] In 2006, it was also reported that Singer worked part-time as Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics since 2005.[22]

Joe Carter’s First Things article entitled The Dangerous Mind declares concerning Peter Singer declared:

Singer has spent a lifetime justifying the unjustifiable. He is the founding father of the animal liberation movement and advocates ending “the present speciesist bias against taking seriously the interests of nonhuman animals.” He is also a defender of killing the aged (if they have dementia), newborns (for almost any reason until they are two years old), necrophilia (assuming it’s consensual), and bestiality (also assuming it’s consensual).[23]

On October 5, 2011, the British newspaper The Telegraph wrote an article which discussed how homosexuality “rights” have emboldened individuals to ask for so called bestiality “rights” (see: Homosexuality and bestiality).[24]

In 2010, the liberal state of Washington has the highest number of reported cases of bestiality in the United States even though it was merely the 13th most populous state according to the 2010 United States census. (for more information please see: Washington state and bestiality).[25][26][27]

In 2005, four legislators in the liberal state of Massachusetts tried to soften its bestiality laws.[28]

LifeSiteNews reported:”In 46 hours of programming, NBC contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to adultery were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, bestiality, and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.[29] See also:Liberalism and bestiality

The Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception).

A study found that “Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively).”[30]The atheist population has a higher suicide rate and lower marriage rates than the general population (see: Atheism and suicide and Atheism and marriageability and Atheism and health).

For more information please see:

Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant

See also: Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant

Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.[31]

Below is an excerpt of the chant:

Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].[32]

Liberals and Superstition

2384975035 230a0eac30.jpg

The Wall Street Journal reported: “A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology[33]

Also, in September of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:

The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.

“What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience, such as evolution than evangelical Christians….

This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,” skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.[34]

Liberalism in the United States Today

Smear merchants.jpg

Democrats and most media outlets in the U.S. are blatantly liberal.[35] Liberalism in North America today practices three primary tactics to attack the Republican Party, and sometimes to attack American values in general. These three liberal tactics can be pronounced using the following acronym: SIN. Liberals (1) shift the subject, they (2) ignore the facts, and they (3) name call.[36][37]

  • Liberals typically support a “mixed” economy, a policy similar to that of fascism[38]
There’s another goal, from my point of view, which is to try to lay the groundwork for a radical political force which would conceive of itself as distinctly to the left of moderate, reformist American liberals. And that has two aspects. One is to try to change that liberalism, to transform it by analysis, critique, and activism; the second is to build a radical movement which would be an autonomous force in its own right, which would be distinct from the traditional American liberal consensus. This radical part of the program involves not simply supporting the liberal students against conservative students and conservative professors, but trying to act on them, to push them to the left. It also involves trying to find and support, even trying to help create, networks of radical students in law school and of radical professors around the country — students and teachers who see themselves as wanting to go a lot further than most people want to go. [39]

Liberal Rankings of Congress Members

The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings[40] of how liberal each member of the United States Congress is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.

American liberalism, demographics and expected tipping point in the decline of American liberalism

See also: American atheism and Decline of atheism and Global atheism

Due to the explosive growth of global Christianity in traditional cultures and their influence on Western Christianity and the higher birth rate of conservative Christians and religious conservatives, social conservatism is expected to rise.

The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufman wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Righteous Inherit the Earth? concerning America:

High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the ‘Redeemer Nation’ to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family.[41]

Liberalism in Europe today

In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves liberal are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe[42] is a party of the European Parliament that represents most liberal parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many liberal parties throughout the world,[43] such as the Liberal Party of Australia.[44]

Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians for promoting lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them “liberals” or neoliberals. Thus, just as in the US, “liberal” may occasionally be used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called “liberal” in Europe, it has an entirely different meaning than in the US. In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European socialist or social democraticparties.[45]

Historical Liberalism

In history, the word “liberal” has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the “Third Way”. In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the U.S. failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.[46]

Original meaning: Classical Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with conservative values such as moral values and traditions derived from Northern European Protestantism.

See Classical Liberalism. Compare Libertarianism.

Notable liberal “intellects”

See also: Infamous liberals

Liberal Organizations of thought

Source: The Politix Group

Quotes on Liberals

“I never use the words Democrats and Republicans. It’s liberals and Americans.” -James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Ronald Reagan

References

  1.  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1042/winds-of-political-change-havent–shifted-publics-ideology-balance
  2.  http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
  3.  http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
  4.  http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
  5.  The Warren Court, led by liberal Justices William O. DouglasHugo BlackAbe FortasWilliam Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren issued 36 decisions granting First Amendment rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.
  6.  http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs
  7.  Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program FundingFox News, Monday, June 25, 2007
  8.  and environmental organizations, for example Greenpeace
  9.  For example, the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court issued the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.
  10.  http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=liberal&sub=Search+WordNet&o2=&o0=1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=00
  11.  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal
  12.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
  13.  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
  14.  http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152
  15.  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1c5_1238044128&c=1
  16.  Are There Religious Variations in Marital Infidelity?
  17.  Morals decline linked to evolution
  18.  The Basis of a Christian Worldview
  19.  The Basis of a Christian Worldview
  20.  The Dangerous Mind by Joe Carter, First Things
  21.  The dark side of sexual freedom: American ‘zoophiles’ take on the language of equality – October 5, 2011 – The Telegraph
  22.  Pet Abuse -2010
  23.  2010 United States Census data
  24.  2011 Political map – CNN
  25.  [Massachusetts bill to repeal fornication, adultery, and blasphemy, and to soften bestiality laws]
  26.  Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive
  27.  A prevalence study of bestiality (zoophilia) in psychiatric in-patients, medical in-patients, and psychiatric staff – Int J Psychosom. 1991;38(1-4):45-7.
  28.  The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far
  29.  The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far
  30.  [1]
  31.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122178219865054585.html
  32.  Media Bias basics. Media Research Center.
  33.  Scott Baker. Did Herman Cain Give the ‘Don’t Miss’ Speech at CPAC?The Blaze, February 12, 2011.
  34.  YouTubeHerman Cain: “Stupid People Are Ruining America”, February 11, 2011.
  35.  Video discussion about how modern liberalism is actually fascist by author Jonah Goldberg..
  36.  Liberal Values in Legal Education Duncan Kennedy (professor at Harvard Law School)
  37.  http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm
  38.  Why are 2012 and 2020 key years for Christian creationists and pro-lifers?
  39.  http://www.alde.eu
  40.  http://www.liberal-international.org/
  41.  [2]
  42.  [3]
  43.  “Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs.” Greenberg and Bailey [4]
  44.  http://s151.photobucket.com/albums/s151/candypop_02/Serial%20Killers/John%20Wayne%20Gacy/?action=view&current=SERIAL_KILLER_John_Wayne_Gacy_In-1.mp4
  45.  http://www.digitaljournal.com/image/45527

See Also

Further Information

[hide]

v • d • e

Liberal Characteristics and Traits

 
Ideology
 
Policy
 
Tools
 
Traits
Arrogance • Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Class warfare • Cronyism • Deceit • Double standard • Denial • Hypocrisy • Journalistic malpractice • Propaganda • Race baiting • Stupidity • Style • Troll • Uncharitableness • Whining
 
Other

Karl Marx Can Help Us Understand Health Insurance Industry!

In order to rethink fundamentally the debate surrounding health care reform, we need to first understand what exactly health insurance is and what it insures. With external objects, such as a home, a car, or a boat, we know exactly what a policy insures: a home, a car, a boat, respectively. We insure for the recovery, whether by repair or replacement, of the products that we buy in case of damage or loss.

How About Your Health Insurance?

With health insurance, if we are lucky to have it, we are able to secure funding for the necessary cost of recovering our health from a catastrophic disease. In this sense, there seems to be no difference between a car policy, for example, and a health policy. However, this does seem quite right.

In the case of a car, we understand without a doubt that it is an external object that is physically separate from us. The same with homes, boats, and other things. Unlike these objects, however, our health is not external. It is what makes us function, what enables us to lead productive, meaningful lives. It allows us to be who we are. It is inconceivable to even imagine that our health is somehow external to us. So then can we talk about the health insurance industry in the same ways as we talk about the property insurance industry?

How Then Is Health Insurance Even Possible? Enter Marx.

In order to understand this problem, I propose that we use the Marxian concept of “alienation.” Karl Marx uses this concept to understand the relationship of labor to its product in his manuscripts from 1844, This concept is useful in helping us understand how our health undergoes the same process of “alienation” from ourselves in a dialectic process that makes health both ours, but at the same time not ours. Let me explain.

Let us agree first that to work is human nature. As humans we are defined by the work we do. In fact, we are our work, and our names often reveal that. We are Smiths, Masons, Coopers, Shoemakers, Millers, etc.

However, as soon as these products enter the cycle of being bought and sold for profit, the relationship we have with these products undergoes a fundamental change. They become something alien to us and take on a life of their own, complete separate from us. So as they accrue value, the workers who produced them see their ownership in them diminish while at the same time seeing their own value in proportion to the value of their products diminish. According to Marx, “[t]he greater his [worker’s] activity, therefore, the less he possesses. What is embodied in the product of his labour is no longer his own. The greater this product is, therefore, the more he is diminished.”

This is precisely how the process of “alienation” starts. The worker starts to be “related to the product of his labour as to an alien object.” The “alienation” of the worker in his product means not only that “his labour becomes an object, assumes an external existence, but that it exists independently, outside himself, and alien to him, and that it stands opposed to him as an autonomous power.”

So as the worker works, the more he produces through his work, the more alienated his activity becomes from himself. It becomes a “commodity as it enters a fundamentally different relationship, “a commercial relationship, a relationship of exchange, of buying and selling.” Thus, our work, that which defines us, that which is our nature, becomes the source of profit, not for us, but for those who control it.

Our Health Has Become a Commodity For an Entire Industry.

This process of “alienation of labor” helps us understand just how the health insurance industry works today. Our health, that which enables us to work, becomes alienated from us. We insure our health as if it were an external object just like a car, a home, or a boat.

The way the health insurance industry is set up in today’s America, the “industry” insures our health only as long as it is productive. Our health is wrested from us, made into an external object, with which to draw enormous profit, not for us, but for those who control the “industry.” It is literally “alienated” from us having undergone the transformation from something intrinsic to us to an external product. The health that is insured , however, is not the whole of our health, from good to bad, but only that part that is productive. Only that part that makes profit. Only that part that generates profit.

The word “industry” itself is apt in describing our current insurance system. Under “industry” we assume that there is a concrete, external object produced through human labor that is insurable. The word itself propagates the idea that our health is capital, curiously not our own, but rather the capital with which the industry itself becomes wealthier and wealthier. The recent revelation of the outlandish salaries of the insurance companies’ executives reflects that. Somehow, we feel deep down that this is not right. That our health is not a commodity. That is why there is a great outrage at these exorbitant salaries.

Hence, the problem with this model is that, as Marxian model of “alienation” points out, our health maybe insured, but we are not. As soon as we are not able to produce that desirable external object, our health, we are no longer insurable. And why not? Because we are no longer the owner of our health. The insurance companies are. Those that profit from owning our health are. Hence, the healthier we are, the less ownership we have of our health. This is the Marxian dialectic is at work.

Can You Really Be Alienated From Your Health?

In my opinion, it is absurd to think that our health is something that can be alienated from us, commodified by a whole industry for its profit. Commodities exist solely for the profit of the owners. However, insuring our health is not like insuring a car, a home, or a boat. There is no pretense about these objects being external. If we lose them, we do not die. On the other hand, if we lose our health and our insurance because we are no longer healthy, we die for the simple fact that we cannot afford the care necessary.

It is time to fundamentally rethink the structure of health care. First of all, we need to move away from the notion that our health is something to be insured by an “industry.” The notion that it is any part of an industry is a fundamentally wrong. “Health insurance industry” itself is a misnomer. Health is not a commodity. It cannot and ought not to be commodified. Our health should not be used for profit.

We need to take back the ownership of our health. Let’s bring the care into “health care” instead of giving it to an “industry.” Our lives depend on it.