8 votes

How a liberal looks at the world

Sometimes you have to step back and look how someone else looks at the world to see why the world is as screwed up as it is. I copied this comment out of the comments section on yahoo simply because it expressed a sincere belief that is 180 degrees from mine and would like everyone's thoughts on it. Please no name calling as that would not help. Unless its funny then thats okay.

a day in the life of joe "THE TEA PARTY MEMBER" republican--by john gray

Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn’t think he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dads; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republican’s would still be sitting in the dark)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, "We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have".

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Look in the mirror

The only redistribution that we have in this Country, accelerates the wealth to the Top 1%.....and not to the bottom.

Hence, the genesis of the whole "Occupy Wall-Street" phenomena.

Things are unbalanced and unfair, but only for the masses (working folks and unemployed) and not for the wealthy Elites. The only "stealing" going on is robbing from the poor and the middle-class, to fatten the wallets of the Oligarchs.

I do not weep for the "suffering" of David Rockefeller.

"Look in the mirror"? Huh, what? Is my name David Rockefeller?!

Yes, stealing from the middle-class and poor. That's what taxes are.
That is redistribution, what you are advocating for.

Way to try to change the subject.

Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

A plane load of liberals land in Somalia...

...and begin enforcing living minimum wage laws, fining residents for building violations or condemning homes for failure to have licensed contractors, shutting down non-certified water supplies, seizing GMO grain, unionizing any businesses they can find and forcing employers to provide full medical, dental, and retirement benefits or convincing workers to strike, etc, etc.
What they don't get is that the prosperity has to exist for them to parasite the regulations onto the economy. Children do not work in coal mines anymore because the culture and economy became rich enough to rise above that. THEN we could "regulate" the few remaining few. They think the regulation came first, then we lived well.

In a nutshell, a liberal either:

In a nutshell, a liberal either:

1. Refuses to believe that firms will meet customers' demands in the absence of government force (i.e. they completely misunderstand forces of market competition)

2. Refuses to believe that customers are capable of having sensible demands. (i.e. think people can't make good decisions for themselves)

I find the second point especially interesting, and always have:

If someone can't be trusted to make decisions that solely affect themselves, how the hell can they be trusted to make decisions for others via voting?

Private profiteers seek monopoly - not 'customer demands'

The concept of a wonderfully balanced "free-market" that dutifully serves customers demands at attractive prices (Comcast?), and advances the public interest does not exist anywhere.

The reason is because the profiteers are addicted to their profits and wealth...not what makes the best sense for environmental safety, workers safety, worker security, or any altruistic goal or demands.

The private bankers seized control over this Country along time ago, and we see the Corporations seeking consolidation, monopoly, offshore labor & manufacturing, loopholes, and total control.

Liberty and survival become impossible if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes stronger than the Law itself, and the democratic state. That is the definition of Fascism - ownership of government by a group, or any controlling private power. And there is no way to change that private control and tyranny by the ballot box.

Jefferson said we should chain man down by the constitution. The attempt to do this failed, because if you don't first chain-down private power (Banksters, Oil capitalists, etc.), any so-called "public-power" (the government) will just be overrun by it and corrupted.

That is the situation that we have today (Wall-Street, Rothschild-Rockefeller control, War-profiteer control, and their Media Monopolies to trick the public)

"Profiteer"...such a hilarious word.

"Profiteer" is a freaking hilarious word, as it tries to vilify such an unambiguously positive thing.

Profit, at it's most basic sense, is what happens when someone can produce more value for another person than it cost the producer to produce. It is, by definition, creating wealth by making other people's lives better.

The only time profit seeking is dangerous is because of misguided government action.

Take monopolies, for example. The only way to achieve a monopoly in a free market is to develop products that are too good and too cheap for any competitor to compete with. For one thing, this is extremely unlikely. For another, it's not even a bad thing if a firm (sorry, "profiteer") could do it.

The only time a monopoly can hurt a customer is when competitors are forcefully excluded from entering a market. This can only happen either directly or indirectly by government law.

I just read your post again and maybe we're saying the same thing...

But, I would argue that there are different scales of "free markets" and some of them are actually quite free and balanced. Take the TV on which you watch your Comcast programming, for example. A TV this year is most likely much better and cheaper than 5 years ago, and WAY better and cheaper than a model 50 years ago. TVs are relatively unregulated and the barrier to entry is small, so there are many different manufacturers all trying to develop better technologies and undercut each other on price...thus the WIN WIN for the consumer.

"Advances of the public interest does not exist anywhere"...that's too funny. To bad you didn't get to experience dental work in the 1800s, you might have a different take on that statement.

Aristocracy of private power is no less oppressive than a King

An aristocracy of private power is no less oppressive than a despotic King.

> "The only time a monopoly can hurt a customer is when competitors are forcefully excluded from entering a market. This can only happen either directly or indirectly by government law."

Monopolies are always bad, and represent the antithesis of a "free market", and "consumer choice".

This can happen by either both: 1) government law unfairly aiding and assisting specific businesses (example: Halliburton, J.P. Morgan, ), or 2) also by the total absence of government law, and the lack of proper restraints on private power Example: Having weak, or unenforced "Anti-Trust" Laws (which defeats the "free market" concept).

Right now as we speak, the private Internet providers are scheming to consolidate and form giant Cartels to ruin public access to the Internet as we know it today. They want to create an oppressive "Cable TV" model, where you only get just a very limited and restricted "basic" subset of Web Sites that they want you to look at (you can bet that The Daily Paul won't be included but things like Ruppert Murdoch's "Fox News" propaganda will), -- unless the consumer is very rich, and can pay giant and abusive sums of extra money. This is very dangerous not only for our economic well being, but for "free market" enterprise itself, having free speech, free expression, social networking, and having an informed public. This is like a "Berlin Wall" over the flow of vital information. Unless you are rich -- you get a ""404 Access Denied" message, and are totally shutout!

In the early 1900s, everyone understood that "Trusts" or Cartels (synonymous with "Monopoly") were oppressive and threatened their economic well being.

But this is what the Robber-Barons that run and control this Country ruthlessly pursued (Rockefeller, Morgan, etc.) anyway, and they won. The government didn't invent or solicit the Cartels; it was the private Cartels that solicited the government, and overwhelmed the Electoral system with their private wealth. Our government was just too weak and too unregulated (or negligent in Law) to confront them, hold them outside the Law, and stop them.

When you live under a system of legalized bribery (Congress, Elections, Washington Lobbyists, private "Think-Tanks", etc.) -- the result can be nothing but a system serving just the narrow interests of the rich and well-connected ("The Carlyle Group", Halliburton, Dick Cheney, J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, Wall-Street Banks, etc.).

But The people are impoverished by these crooked men - and their crooked businesses, the systems they have designed, and their desire to control the World's Resources and Profit from it.

So Monopolies are the problem. The Rothschilds Bank is a private Monopoly (over our entire Nation's money). Our Laws and our government was too weak to outlaw the bribery, outlaw the private "Trusts" and Cartels, and prevent it from taking over.

An aristocracy of private power is a dictatorship that is worse than just an overbearing "government"....because you can't ever just "throw the bums out" at the ballot box and correct things. Regardless now of who is elected, the same corrupt privately-controlled Systems, and shadow power groups (CFR, Wall Street, etc.) still run the puppet show.

And if anyone gets in and really confronts them, as John Kennedy did, then they don't last too long...

Fair Enough...

Absence of government could also yield a negative monopoly: a monopoly in which the providers themselves forcefully exclude others from participating.

Actually, this is how bad monopolies form in illegal markets (like the mafia). Since black markets do not allow for government protections (cops) or ways to settle disputes (suits and courts), providers will use violence and coercion to keep out competition.

However, I still maintain that a vast majority of harmful monopolies arise from governments granting them special privileges over their competitors, often in the form of government regulations to keep out new players.

Of course people want to use government improperly to give them unfair advantages. This has been and always will be the case.

Either we need to:
1. control our government so it doesn't give out special privileges
2. rewire human nature to take away greed so people won't seek special favors

Certainly, number 1 is not easy. We need to constantly and vigilantly monitor our government and fight against the temptation to "let them give us a free lunch" and convince others to do the same.

But the other option, taking away greed, is a fool's errand. Greed is a constant part of human nature.

The solution to greed isn't to eliminate it...the solution is a system that channels greed into productivity that helps better the lives of others: the FREE MARKET.


> "The solution to greed isn't to eliminate it...the solution is a system that channels greed into productivity that helps better the lives of others: the FREE MARKET."

Okay...but recognize that in order to have a "free market", Monopolies and Cartels must not be allowed to form in the first place, and those that do exist -- must first be broken up.

Who will do this? It can only happen by a new focus on, and new aggressive prosecution of Anti-Trust Laws, and Laws regulating the reach of Wall-Street, and a dismantling of both the private "Federal Reserve" control, and the current way (Bribery) that U.S. Elections are allowed to be financed.

Today, the top 1% run everything---including our Elections, and even control of the "Supreme Court". And our Country has been Walmart-ized, and our native Manufacturing Base replaced by overseas sweat-shops -- to the injury and detriment of the "free" small business, and the "mom & pop" stores which have disappeared (and to the detriment of the American worker).

As long as we live under this direct subjugation of the Elite Top 1% (Oligarchs), then a "free market" is impossible and will never exist. Monopolies are the (controlling) tool of the Elite 1%, and is the issue here.

Finally, here is an important quote from Andrew Jackson, the last U.S. President to aggressively oppose the private Bank Monopoly:

"If we can not at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all grants of Monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, and in favor of compromise and reform in our code of laws and system of political economy."

--President Andrew Jackson


If a monopoly holds onto its monopoly status by simply offering the best price and best products and competitors are already able to enter the market but simply can't compete, then nothing needs to be done.

If a firm directly uses force to keep out competition, then that needs to be stopped by government.

If the government uses force to keep out competition (the most likely scenario), then we need to elect people to government that will stop doing that and allow competition to enter the market.

P.S. The rest of your spiel about Walmart, overseas sweatshops, and the American worker is nothing more than an amalgam of regurgitated incoherent soundbites you've been told to believe...and says very clearly to me in a bold voice "I don't know what I'm talking about". I oversaw operations at a factory in China for 5 years, and have never met people so thankful to have jobs. I'd love to see their reaction to you "compassionately" telling them that they can't have those jobs.

Between you and me, it must really throw your whole world view upside down to realize that yes, in fact, TVs are better and cheaper year after year and that even the richest person in the 1800s would have had a really shitty time at the dentist. That kind of flies in the face of the whole 1% conspiring to make life miserable for the rest us, doesn't it?

i had a teacher hand this to me in college

at the time I was pretty political-agnostic and I found it to be hilarious. a few people in the class didn't think so. looking back I can see how naive many "liberals" are, including myself, at the time.

Great Response.....


Is a Liberal a 'liberal'?

The first thought that came to mind is that I'm a Classic Liberal. The term 'liberal' was hijacked by the socialist 'progressives' back in the 1930's.

It is a bit amusing to let 'Liberals' know that they are not 'liberals', but rather socialist progressives. I let them know that prior to the 30's 'liberals' were very libertarian in nature. They usually scoff at the idea that there was ever a difference and proclaim that the word has changed. "We have a living language just like a living Constitution." they proclaim.

Another is 'Social Conservative'. Social Conservatives are simply Moral Socialists. They seek the Socialization of Morality. They I call Socialist Conservatives.

Hayek pointed out that Central Planners (often called Socialists) often bastardize language in order to bend the minds of the weak and also to create weak minds. One is less likely to pursue 'maximum freedom possible' if one can't describe it as a word. One is more likely to become Socialized if they think a 'society' is a group of people bound by territory or Representative, rather than a group bound by similar language, customs, and goals.

New Speak is not trivial. I find it rather sad that we no longer require Latin as a core curriculum as it teaches us etymology and that words have objective definitions and that subjectivity should be heavily scrutinized.

Cyril's picture

They swallowed it all

Many, if not most, of today's so-called "liberals" (esp. the self-proclaimed) are in fact socialists.

Sometimes, they don't even realize it.

All of them swallowed it all - the same old lie - after years of conditioning in public schools, ever since the 60s, for the oldest - e.g., Feinstein, Pelosi, et al - who are also the ones in charge of this country**, with the otherwise so-called "neocons" being barely different, by now.

** In charge of this country's foundations destruction, that is.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius


The so-called 'conservatives' in my area (Metro Atlanta) are as socialist as the Democrats, they simply want Morality and 'The Economy' centrally planned rather than Generosity and 'The Economy' centrally planned.

What most people fail to recognize is that 'The Economy' is simply the sum of all individual household economies. Economy being by definition: 'the management of a household'.

Hayek, and others, have shown demonstratively that Central Planning = Central Authority = Central Ownership

If you assume the responsibility to Centrally Plan a person's or group's Life/Labor/Property then you must assume the Authority to do so. If you have the Authority to Centrally Plan another's Life/Labor/Property then you in practice Own said Life/Labor/Property.

It sickens me that most people are willing or tricked into allowing a few people to 'Manage their Household' from afar. But sadly this is the state that most are in.

that's what is seen

What is unseen?

If someone writes a computer program that steals one million dollars from people's accounts, pennies at a time, and then gives $10,000 to a homeless guy, what is seen is that this person is a good guy. What is unseen is that this person is a thief.

The comment above is a typical liberal argument, beloved by the likes of John Stewart. "Look at all the good things the government has done." You can't just look at the good things. You have to look at the whole picture. And when you look at the whole picture, the bad outweighs the good by several orders of magnitude.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

I'm sorry

Every one of these is a lie.
Our water is not safe for consumption, pharmaceuticals are killing, etc. etc.

Southern Agrarian

this was my response.

we have had clean water since someone invented the well pump and ever since everyone (rightly) would only accept clean water I might as well point out that over 300,000 people a year die from taking CORRECTLY prescribed medication in america. So how much protection are those liberal drug laws?
Medical insurance greatly increases the price of all medication, so I have a liberal to thank for that?
Yes liberals passed laws that regulate the meat packing industry but what they dont tell you is that the government has no way to enforce those laws until after someone gets sick or dies, but what those laws do is require the meat packing industry to pay dozens of agencies for licenses and makes the meat packing industry buy a lot of very high dollar equipment that prices out almost anybody who wants to from opining their own meat packing business.
As for the label law I think its only honest and good that people be upfront about whats in their product that said their is no way to really enforce the law.
Actually the government regulates how dirty the air can be but if this country cared about property rights if a company polluted the air on your property you could sue them out of existence because they are hurting your property but liberals passed a law saying that big business can legally pollute your property only so much.
apparently joe lives in new york, washington dc, chicago or los angelies. Not many cities have a good public transport system. It takes a very dense population to make it worthwhile
Joe has a good job because he knows somebody or more likely he has skills he can market elsewhere for the same price. He is making someone money so he is worth his pay. He is a productive member of society.
Joe has a fifty fifty chance of being stiffed of his unemployment check if he ever needs it because the big government is unaccountable. But if joe used afflac or some other insurance they will pay him if he gets injured on the job and it will be livable, and cost less monthly than the unemployment taken out of his check every month.
The fdic prints money so that if joe saves money in the bank its worth less every year. Without the fdic we would not have inflation. The FDIC is a tax on savings.
Student loans are the reason why you can no longer afford college. Anybody can get student loans for any amount so no matter how expensive college is anybody can afford college. Thus joes children who go to college will be debt slaves when they leave college. thanks liberals for the slavery.
Joes car is not among the safest in the world because its made of aluminum to be light enough to reach fuel standards instead of steel. thanks liberals for the unsafe car.
I personally know people (Old people) who paid to have electric lines brought out to their house, and I know people who do not have electric lines at their house because they wont pay the money to have the electric complany put up the ten or so miles of line for their one house. so I guess this one depends on the state (assuming you just aint making stuff up)
If joes dad makes it to retirement the SS isnt enough to live on and if he doesnt live to retirement and he is divorced the union keeps the pension (Guess how I know this). Joes dad gave tens of thousands of dollars to the union over the years because they made it impossible to get a job without paying them off (guess how I know this).

No man is an island unto himself we are all building upon what a fathers left for us, but its insane to claim every good thing happened because of a liberal or every good thing happened because of a conservative a lot of good thing happened in spite of both political parties.