• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Liberals Coherentists or Foundationalists?

Mmm?

  • I'm a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are coherentists.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not a liberal, liberals are foundationalists.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
People get kidnapped all the time.

Yeah, but are people in a situation where without getting kidnapped they would starve ...

What? How can children even exist without a beginning?

It can't its called sex ... relevance???

I don't like liars. Everyone who's studied Marxism know "socially necessary labor time" is central to his ideas.

Yes, but it wasn't what he thought peopel "should" get paid, nor was it what he thought people "were" paid .... It had to do with the analysis of value and price ....

Again, it was POSITIVE economics, not normative ...

Any calibrated position will yield consistent results. You just have to use the same one over and over.

Different people have different regiments for defining this however.

Explain that to me ... It also has to yeild results that fit with other results used by other methods of examination ...
 
Yeah, but are people in a situation where without getting kidnapped they would starve ...

The reason they're hungry is because they're kidnapped.

It can't its called sex ... relevance???

Children don't have sex to create themselves.

Yes, but it wasn't what he thought peopel "should" get paid, nor was it what he thought people "were" paid .... It had to do with the analysis of value and price ....

Again, it was POSITIVE economics, not normative ...

If the proletariat owns the means of production as a class, how else would workers get compensated?

Explain that to me ... It also has to yeild results that fit with other results used by other methods of examination ...

Yes, calibration has to be consistent.

If you and I use the same instruments, but calibrate them differently, then fitting our results together won't make sense.
 
One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces. ...

I'm just a retired engineer, not quite up to what you're assuming about a typical persons knowledge and assumptions. Your interest is apparently is comparing coherentism to foundationalism. However, in your post you describe in detail only coherentism without giving a sufficient definition of the correct foundationalism. It seems possible to me that there could be many foundationalisms. Is this correct or not? Then is there a correct foundationalism and many incorrect ones?
 
Last edited:
I'm just a retired engineer, not quite up to what you're assuming about a typical persons knowledge and assumptions. Your interest is apparently is comparing coherentism to foundationalism. However, in your post you describe in detail only coherentism without giving a sufficient definition of the correct foundationalism. It seems possible to me that there could be many foundationalisms. Is this correct or not? Then is there a correct foundationalism and many incorrect ones?

Yes, I didn't explain foundationalism much because I thought the post was long enough. The poll could also be worded, "Are liberals coherentists or not?"

There are many foundationalist methods, but not all foundationalist methods are the same.

For example, in Kantian ethics, you have hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives depend on the hypothetical situation. Categorical imperatives apply across the category of situations.
 
Yes, I didn't explain foundationalism much because I thought the post was long enough. The poll could also be worded, "Are liberals coherentists or not?"

There are many foundationalist methods, but not all foundationalist methods are the same.

For example, in Kantian ethics, you have hypothetical and categorical imperatives. Hypothetical imperatives depend on the hypothetical situation. Categorical imperatives apply across the category of situations.
Several methods? That's a bit confusing since the method is rather basic. Is there something consistant about a foundationalist method? How complex is it?
 
Several methods? That's a bit confusing since the method is rather basic. Is there something consistant about a foundationalist method? How complex is it?

Foundationalists can be divided between absolutists and universalists.

Absolutists take a particular thing they like, and say everything in society has to revolve around that. For example, maybe someone likes apple pie, so they build society around preserving apple pie.

Universalists take the "taking" faculty itself, and say that has to revolve around society. For example, different people like different pies. Society is built to let people choose which flavor pie they want.
 
The reason they're hungry is because they're kidnapped.

Well that doesn't justify the kidnapping ...

Children don't have sex to create themselves.

AND WHAT???

If the proletariat owns the means of production as a class, how else would workers get compensated?

According to Old Marx "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

But the whole socially necessary labor time was later Marx, i.e. Capital, where Marx wasn't proposing normative economics he was only doing purely descriptive economics.

Yes, calibration has to be consistent.

If you and I use the same instruments, but calibrate them differently, then fitting our results together won't make sense.

GIve me a concrete example where calibration is arbitrary.


Ok ... Let me clear up my views on this coherentism and foundationalism with conservatives vrs liberals.

In history, when we had monarchies conservatives came up with divine providence, or right to rule as a defence of the monarchy, but viewed it as foundational.
During slavery conservatives came up with racism and racial supremacy to defend slavery and imperialism, that was viewed as foundational
During feuadalism conservatives came up with gallantry and knightly virtue to defend feudalism, that was viewed as foundational
In Ancient mesopotamia priestly authority was defended with concepts of national Gods and, i.e. we as a people belong to one god, that was viewed as foundational.
In Modern times Capitalist power is defended with concepts of private property and ayn Rand style "libertarianism," it too is viewed as foundational.
In Mordern times State power is defended with concepts of patriotism, national identity and so on, they are also viewed as foundational.

THe point is all of these "foundational" elements are really only defences of power, they are not based in any deeper root of universal "freedom," "equality" or whatever, they are mearly arbitrary institutions masquerading as foundational values which serve the one purpose of defending those in power, THAT is the conservative foundationalism.

Now all the opposing revolutionary concepts, democracy, classical liberalism, emancipation, socialism, anti-nationalism and so on are all based on foundations, but they are OPPOSING powers that be, they are also based on much more fundemental "foundational" elements, such as freedom, equality and so on.

What the conservative does is find power and create a foundational framework to defend it.
What the liberal (I prefer revolutionary) does is find power and challenge it based on a much more fundemental foundational frame work.

The reason it SEAMS like a coherantist, is that many liberals don't treat asserssions as axioms, then NEED to defend it, they must rationally explain things. Conservatives on the other hand just create a foundational frame work to fit whatever power structure they are defending.
 
Well that doesn't justify the kidnapping ...

I agree...

AND WHAT???

...which is why I'm confused.

According to Old Marx "from each according to his ability to each according to his need."

But the whole socially necessary labor time was later Marx, i.e. Capital, where Marx wasn't proposing normative economics he was only doing purely descriptive economics.

OK, but how do you define "needs"? That depends on the lifestyle.

Furthermore, since when are people motivated to do anything just to satisfy needs? We work to live, we don't live to work.

It all goes back to childraising really. You seem rather bent on giving birth to people just to make them slaves.

GIve me a concrete example where calibration is arbitrary.

Arbitrary? If anything, I said calibration is vital. The point is you need to keep it consistent.

It's like how you have to keep things balanced when you're doing algebra. The particular balance doesn't matter, but you have to balance things.

Ok ... Let me clear up my views on this coherentism and foundationalism with conservatives vrs liberals.

In history, when we had monarchies conservatives came up with divine providence, or right to rule as a defence of the monarchy, but viewed it as foundational.
During slavery conservatives came up with racism and racial supremacy to defend slavery and imperialism, that was viewed as foundational
During feuadalism conservatives came up with gallantry and knightly virtue to defend feudalism, that was viewed as foundational
In Ancient mesopotamia priestly authority was defended with concepts of national Gods and, i.e. we as a people belong to one god, that was viewed as foundational.

Yes, these are all virtue based maxims.

In Modern times Capitalist power is defended with concepts of private property and ayn Rand style "libertarianism," it too is viewed as foundational.

I'm not a libertarian (as you can tell from my defense of children), but free markets are justified from the autonomy of personhood.

In Mordern times State power is defended with concepts of patriotism, national identity and so on, they are also viewed as foundational.

Patriotism is a tricky concept. On the basis of Statist-ethno-jingoism, I agree, but on the basis of culture, you're talking about abstract narrative which defines who we are, so that's different.

THe point is all of these "foundational" elements are really only defences of power, they are not based in any deeper root of universal "freedom," "equality" or whatever, they are mearly arbitrary institutions masquerading as foundational values which serve the one purpose of defending those in power, THAT is the conservative foundationalism.

Actually, I was going to say the exact opposite.

Cohesion depends on what the most powerful elements of a set are in defining how things cohere. If you're weak, sensitive, thin-skinned, ugly, or odd, then society is entitled to overwhelm and/or ignore you.

There are many realpolitik conservatives out there who believe in rugged individualism, but they're really national socialists. Conservatism first and foremost is about preserving due process and the rule of law. Property comes from properness, not the other way around.

Now all the opposing revolutionary concepts, democracy, classical liberalism, emancipation, socialism, anti-nationalism and so on are all based on foundations, but they are OPPOSING powers that be, they are also based on much more fundemental "foundational" elements, such as freedom, equality and so on.

What the conservative does is find power and create a foundational framework to defend it.
What the liberal (I prefer revolutionary) does is find power and challenge it based on a much more fundemental foundational frame work.

The reason it SEAMS like a coherantist, is that many liberals don't treat asserssions as axioms, then NEED to defend it, they must rationally explain things. Conservatives on the other hand just create a foundational frame work to fit whatever power structure they are defending.

No offense, but I don't think you've talked with many leftists. In fact, Marxism itself is about owning the means of production via dictatorship of the proletariat since the base defines the superstructure.

The overwhelming majority of leftists I've talked with recognize power analytics (Foucault) before discourse ethics (Habermas). If outcomes are not equal, they seek to correct the system. They don't care about liberty because they don't embrace that people are different. They just want to level the playing ground and intimidate others into worshiping them as the bureaucratic center of attention.

I see what you're saying about conservatives because some do embrace rugged individualism nonstop, but your treatment of children convinces me you're no different. You expect children to surrender authority despite how they don't consent to be created. On top of that, a socialist society would expect them to work merely to have their needs satisfied rather than actually learning social values and imaginatively cultivating culture.
 
Last edited:
One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

A liberal response typically goes that it doesn't matter what the particular puzzle pieces are. It just matters that they fit together.

The problem, of course, is that raises the question, "How do we know what fits in the first place?"

Liberals typically claim that "what fits" spontaneously emerges among dynamic interactions between people.

Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to care that spontaneous emergence doesn't necessarily yield compatible solutions. It's at this point that we see that liberals are tyrants. They don't care if slim minorities fall through the cracks of society. They just care about the big picture as long as the minority is too insignificant to be bothered. This is why liberals love free speech and democracy - they love how people can be intimidated from appeals to absurdity, and they love to employ mob justice in forsakening independents who don't conform. To boot, they can claim that they tried by giving people a shot to fit in, so they don't have anymore due diligence to be responsible for.

Ironically, this appeal to democratic popular sovereignty is how liberals become elitists. For example, lets say liberals claim that 1% of society is a tolerable insignificant minority that can be allowed to fall through the cracks for any particular issue. Given a society which has multiple issues...

99% * 99% = 98%
98% * 99% = 97%
97% * 99% = 96%

If society multiplies 69 issues, this leads to only 50% of society being compatible across the board.

If society multiplies 229 issues, this leads to only 10% of society being compatible across the board.

If society multiplies 458 issues, this leads to 1% of society being compatible across the board.

Issues don't have to be big matters here. We don't have to be talking about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, income equality, environmental protection, or labor reform.

They can be simple things. Things like, "When should people be allowed to play music into the night?" or "Where should a road be built?" or "Should we teach school curriculum this way or that way?"

The point is liberal coherentism doesn't actually include all people. It just includes most people, and when "most people" gets repeated over and over, this leads to a very small minority actually being compatible with what society stands for.

It also leads to social tyranny because those who are more compatible over more issues are treated as superior to those who are less compatible.

Troll threads belong somewhere else.:2wave:
 
Foundationalists can be divided between absolutists and universalists.

Absolutists take a particular thing they like, and say everything in society has to revolve around that. For example, maybe someone likes apple pie, so they build society around preserving apple pie.

Universalists take the "taking" faculty itself, and say that has to revolve around society. For example, different people like different pies. Society is built to let people choose which flavor pie they want.
This doesn't help me much with the process for developing the foundation for foundationalists. But I have to note that a coherentist could agree with the absolutist in the case of a pie and they might not know that they agree only on the result of a entirely different process and reason. Is it also possible that the coherentist can decide that liking apple pie is of no particular siginficance, but the foundationalist may think it is critical to like apple pie the best?
 
This doesn't help me much with the process for developing the foundation for foundationalists. But I have to note that a coherentist could agree with the absolutist in the case of a pie and they might not know that they agree only on the result of a entirely different process and reason. Is it also possible that the coherentist can decide that liking apple pie is of no particular siginficance, but the foundationalist may think it is critical to like apple pie the best?

Exactly.

Coherentists come in two varieties as well:

Relativists argue that society is built to accommodate all possible pie flavors.

Nihilists argue that no particular flavor is important, but society will spontaneously choose one for everyone to accept.

The similarity between absolutism and (coherent) relativism you pointed out above is called moral particularism.
 
Last edited:
Can we get a "Facepalm" emoticon?
 
One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

A liberal response typically goes that it doesn't matter what the particular puzzle pieces are. It just matters that they fit together.

The problem, of course, is that raises the question, "How do we know what fits in the first place?"

Liberals typically claim that "what fits" spontaneously emerges among dynamic interactions between people.

Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to care that spontaneous emergence doesn't necessarily yield compatible solutions. It's at this point that we see that liberals are tyrants. They don't care if slim minorities fall through the cracks of society. They just care about the big picture as long as the minority is too insignificant to be bothered. This is why liberals love free speech and democracy - they love how people can be intimidated from appeals to absurdity, and they love to employ mob justice in forsakening independents who don't conform. To boot, they can claim that they tried by giving people a shot to fit in, so they don't have anymore due diligence to be responsible for.

Ironically, this appeal to democratic popular sovereignty is how liberals become elitists. For example, lets say liberals claim that 1% of society is a tolerable insignificant minority that can be allowed to fall through the cracks for any particular issue. Given a society which has multiple issues...

99% * 99% = 98%
98% * 99% = 97%
97% * 99% = 96%

If society multiplies 69 issues, this leads to only 50% of society being compatible across the board.

If society multiplies 229 issues, this leads to only 10% of society being compatible across the board.

If society multiplies 458 issues, this leads to 1% of society being compatible across the board.

Issues don't have to be big matters here. We don't have to be talking about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, income equality, environmental protection, or labor reform.

They can be simple things. Things like, "When should people be allowed to play music into the night?" or "Where should a road be built?" or "Should we teach school curriculum this way or that way?"

The point is liberal coherentism doesn't actually include all people. It just includes most people, and when "most people" gets repeated over and over, this leads to a very small minority actually being compatible with what society stands for.

It also leads to social tyranny because those who are more compatible over more issues are treated as superior to those who are less compatible.
Gee, a poll using $5 words. :roll:

Where is the "I'm a liberal, and. think this poll is STUPID" option?
 
Can we get a "Facepalm" emoticon?

How about this jpg?

facepalm.jpg
 
I agree...

Good thats the end of that ...

...which is why I'm confused.

You still havn't shown its relevant ...

OK, but how do you define "needs"? That depends on the lifestyle.

Furthermore, since when are people motivated to do anything just to satisfy needs? We work to live, we don't live to work.

It all goes back to childraising really. You seem rather bent on giving birth to people just to make them slaves.

A: I don't suscribe to early Marx so I find no need to defend that
B: Its something that has to be worked out.
C: People are motivated by many many many things, but the argument that people won't work without the threat of lack of livelyhood has been debunked over and over again, by anthopologists, economists, sociologists, and empirical evidence now.

D: As far as your last sentance, I don't see where you get that at all, other than in your own head.

Arbitrary? If anything, I said calibration is vital. The point is you need to keep it consistent.

It's like how you have to keep things balanced when you're doing algebra. The particular balance doesn't matter, but you have to balance things.

Arbitrary in the sense that you could calibrate it to anything and it would still work to give good evidence.

I'm not a libertarian (as you can tell from my defense of children), but free markets are justified from the autonomy of personhood.

No they arn't at all ...

Actually, I was going to say the exact opposite.

Cohesion depends on what the most powerful elements of a set are in defining how things cohere. If you're weak, sensitive, thin-skinned, ugly, or odd, then society is entitled to overwhelm and/or ignore you.

There are many realpolitik conservatives out there who believe in rugged individualism, but they're really national socialists. Conservatism first and foremost is about preserving due process and the rule of law. Property comes from properness, not the other way around.

There are NO arguments here ...

The whole thing about the weak, sensitive and so on, is just an assersion, you don't get that at all, and as I said leftists DON'T buy into ONLY cohesion, NO ONE does, not one person, even nihilists , of coarse things have to be coherant, but that doesn't mean there are no foundations, so your juts making **** up.

Your idea of what conservatism is says it all, due process and rule of law, but a very specific kind, only the ones that defend the systems of power.

As far as property comming from properness, thats an assersion, property comes from power, and threat of violence, always has always will, the appeal to properness is an afterthought to defend it.

No offense, but I don't think you've talked with many leftists. In fact, Marxism itself is about owning the means of production via dictatorship of the proletariat since the base defines the superstructure.

i AM a leftist ... and I've STUDIED Marx, I've studied MANY interpretations of Marx ...

So if I were you I would shut your mouth trying to tell me what Marxism is about.

The overwhelming majority of leftists I've talked with recognize power analytics (Foucault) before discourse ethics (Habermas). If outcomes are not equal, they seek to correct the system. They don't care about liberty because they don't embrace that people are different. They just want to level the playing ground and intimidate others into worshiping them as the bureaucratic center of attention.

A: Most leftists are not strict historical materialists, or moral nihilists, infact the vast majority are not.
B: Foucault ultimately DID care about liberty, but he rightly pointed out that the concepts of liberty in society are shaped by the class structure.
C: Lefitsts never claimed that people are not different ....
D: Leftists were the ones that made liberty possible in the world
E: No arguments here juts baseless assersions.

Look, I'm gonna need some actual proper arguments, not just bull**** asserssions.

Leftists care about liberty, REAL liberty, not liberty for those who can afford it.

I see what you're saying about conservatives because some do embrace rugged individualism nonstop, but your treatment of children convinces me you're no different. You expect children to surrender authority despite how they don't consent to be created. On top of that, a socialist society would expect them to work merely to have their needs satisfied rather than actually learning social values and imaginatively cultivating culture.

A: the whole rugged individualism is a strawman, I never said anything about that.

B: My example of children is an example of what an argument justifying authority could be .... But if you think parents should not be able to say anything to their kids then fine, thats an argument to be had.

C: What your saying about you supposed socialist society is a strawman, your just making **** up. A socialist society (I do NOT, nor do most leftists buy into early Marx's models, which were made specifically for a certain time and place) is nothing more than a democratization of the economy.

People under capitalism work only to have their needs satisfied, what your describing is Capitalism, socail values come from different sources than the economy, and imaginatevely cultivating culture in Capitalism is only something you can do if you can afford it, socialism wants to extend that ability to everyone.

Look man, I want to read REAL arguments, no more of this strawman, redherring, made up bull****.
 
We should really have some sort of bipartisan committee deciding who gets to join the forum and who doesn't. I say something like 30 active members. 10 Liberals, 10 Conservatives and 10 Libertarians (picked randomly every time). Somebody who wants to join is given the task of writing a political essay. If a majority of those 15 people understand it, the person is allowed to join. If it's ramblings like that of this thread, we reject them until they can write something sensical. I think it would improve the quality of the forum.

As far as this thread is concerned,

.... wtf?
 
We should really have some sort of bipartisan committee deciding who gets to join the forum and who doesn't. I say something like 30 active members. 10 Liberals, 10 Conservatives and 10 Libertarians (picked randomly every time). Somebody who wants to join is given the task of writing a political essay. If a majority of those 15 people understand it, the person is allowed to join. If it's ramblings like that of this thread, we reject them until they can write something sensical. I think it would improve the quality of the forum.

As far as this thread is concerned,

.... wtf?

I'll do you one better.

Why don't you ask children what they believe in before graduating them from school?

Actually, why don't you ask children what they believe in before allowing them into school?
 
The whole thing about the weak, sensitive and so on, is just an assersion, you don't get that at all,

Why would coherentists care about weak members of society? These are people who literally can't even speak up about their utility preferences.

The same goes for the strange. Leftists don't care about strange utility preferences. They care about equal utility preferences. Those who are difficult to work with get forgotten as unproductive or expensive.

and as I said leftists DON'T buy into ONLY cohesion, NO ONE does, not one person, even nihilists , of coarse things have to be coherant, but that doesn't mean there are no foundations, so your juts making **** up.

Can you show what foundations leftists base on?

Your idea of what conservatism is says it all, due process and rule of law, but a very specific kind, only the ones that defend the systems of power.

As far as property comming from properness, thats an assersion, property comes from power, and threat of violence, always has always will, the appeal to properness is an afterthought to defend it.

I never said anything about power. In fact, I referred directly to Habermas' discourse ethics.

i AM a leftist ... and I've STUDIED Marx, I've studied MANY interpretations of Marx ...

So if I were you I would shut your mouth trying to tell me what Marxism is about.

What did I get wrong?

A: Most leftists are not strict historical materialists, or moral nihilists, infact the vast majority are not.
B: Foucault ultimately DID care about liberty, but he rightly pointed out that the concepts of liberty in society are shaped by the class structure.
C: Lefitsts never claimed that people are not different ....
D: Leftists were the ones that made liberty possible in the world
E: No arguments here juts baseless assersions.

Look, I'm gonna need some actual proper arguments, not just bull**** asserssions.

Leftists care about liberty, REAL liberty, not liberty for those who can afford it.

Liberty isn't real. It's ideal.

I'm not sure how you can discern power from liberty if you don't understand that.

I'm really not sure how you interpreted Foucault as being about liberty either. He even talked about conflict being the height of life (biopower) and the driving force of social progress.

A: the whole rugged individualism is a strawman, I never said anything about that.

B: My example of children is an example of what an argument justifying authority could be .... But if you think parents should not be able to say anything to their kids then fine, thats an argument to be had.

C: What your saying about you supposed socialist society is a strawman, your just making **** up. A socialist society (I do NOT, nor do most leftists buy into early Marx's models, which were made specifically for a certain time and place) is nothing more than a democratization of the economy.

People under capitalism work only to have their needs satisfied, what your describing is Capitalism, socail values come from different sources than the economy, and imaginatevely cultivating culture in Capitalism is only something you can do if you can afford it, socialism wants to extend that ability to everyone.

Look man, I want to read REAL arguments, no more of this strawman, redherring, made up bull****.

Democratization enslaves supply to demand. Literally, you have to take the means of production away from those who produce more to those who consume more.

How that's liberty, I don't know.

As for parenting, I never said that parents can't say anything to their kids. If anything, they have to because children aren't born with social customs or values in their heads. Parents have to familiarize their children.

The problem arises when parents tell their kids to produce because children don't consent to exist. Hunger, exhaustion, and coldness are pressed upon them, not asked for.
 
One of the problems I have a lot when debating with liberals is their very sense of justice seems to be backwards. They seem to believe that something is justified only if it's surrounded by compatible circumstances, ignoring the value of something itself.

The first belief is called coherentism. The second belief is called foundationalism.

Obviously, coherentism is circular because it begs to know why something coheres in the first place. You can't have a puzzle without puzzle pieces.

A liberal response typically goes that it doesn't matter what the particular puzzle pieces are. It just matters that they fit together.

The problem, of course, is that raises the question, "How do we know what fits in the first place?"

Liberals typically claim that "what fits" spontaneously emerges among dynamic interactions between people.

Unfortunately, liberals don't seem to care that spontaneous emergence doesn't necessarily yield compatible solutions. It's at this point that we see that liberals are tyrants. They don't care if slim minorities fall through the cracks of society. They just care about the big picture as long as the minority is too insignificant to be bothered. This is why liberals love free speech and democracy - they love how people can be intimidated from appeals to absurdity, and they love to employ mob justice in forsakening independents who don't conform. To boot, they can claim that they tried by giving people a shot to fit in, so they don't have anymore due diligence to be responsible for.

Ironically, this appeal to democratic popular sovereignty is how liberals become elitists. For example, lets say liberals claim that 1% of society is a tolerable insignificant minority that can be allowed to fall through the cracks for any particular issue. Given a society which has multiple issues...

99% * 99% = 98%
98% * 99% = 97%
97% * 99% = 96%

If society multiplies 69 issues, this leads to only 50% of society being compatible across the board.

If society multiplies 229 issues, this leads to only 10% of society being compatible across the board.

If society multiplies 458 issues, this leads to 1% of society being compatible across the board.

Issues don't have to be big matters here. We don't have to be talking about abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, income equality, environmental protection, or labor reform.

They can be simple things. Things like, "When should people be allowed to play music into the night?" or "Where should a road be built?" or "Should we teach school curriculum this way or that way?"

The point is liberal coherentism doesn't actually include all people. It just includes most people, and when "most people" gets repeated over and over, this leads to a very small minority actually being compatible with what society stands for.

It also leads to social tyranny because those who are more compatible over more issues are treated as superior to those who are less compatible.

The more of this post I read, the less of it I understand. And I'm trying really, really, REALLY hard to understand it.
 
I'll do you one better.

Why don't you ask children what they believe in before graduating them from school?

Actually, why don't you ask children what they believe in before allowing them into school?

Don't try the harder levels until you comprehend the simpler stuff. You might hurt yourself.
 
Don't try the harder levels until you comprehend the simpler stuff. You might hurt yourself.

Exactly.

Why does society graduate people into adulthood (or enroll them in school) without asking about legal concepts?
 
We should really have some sort of bipartisan committee deciding who gets to join the forum and who doesn't. I say something like 30 active members. 10 Liberals, 10 Conservatives and 10 Libertarians (picked randomly every time). Somebody who wants to join is given the task of writing a political essay. If a majority of those 15 people understand it, the person is allowed to join. If it's ramblings like that of this thread, we reject them until they can write something sensical. I think it would improve the quality of the forum.

As far as this thread is concerned,

.... wtf?

At least he wasnt as bad as the pragmatarianism guy.
 
Is that the dude with the Rubik's cube?

No the pragmatarianism guy had the idea that all budgets should be subject to national referendum.

The rubik's cube guy was the origami guy I think and he was also far worse than dak, he was more of the cube guy kind of insane.
 
No the pragmatarianism guy had the idea that all budgets should be subject to national referendum.

The rubik's cube guy was the origami guy I think and he was also far worse than dak, he was more of the cube guy kind of insane.

I knew it was some sort of math game. Were you around when chuzlife was here? That was a piece of work.
 
Back
Top Bottom