4 ms·

While there are certainly nuggets of truth in what you say, your "the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix

While there are certainly nuggets of truth in what you say, your "the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them" is nonetheless an exceptionally uncharitable way to re-frame people trying to get their government to enact change. It reminds me of that infamous Pride and Prejudice review: "Just a bunch of people going to each other's houses." There are a multitude of issues that can only be solved systemically, like abortion rights, or the housing crisis, or homelessness, or wage theft, or "delay, deny, defend", school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence, etc. Like, believe it or not, but there are many issues that are not fixable by just fixing it like it's a squeaky door hinge or a neighbour's overgrown lawn. And even with issues like homelessness, if you wanted to do your bit by providing food, you can get arrested and fined for that, depending on the jurisdiction. Like, yes, liberals tend to have certain amount of defeatism where they wont attempt to help anyone if they can't help everyone. And yes, there are issues with "liberal" intellectualism, particularly within the middle class. But some of the charges you make are misattributed: there is literally a meme ("Who Wants Change? Who Wants To Change?") which my game-dev community has a version of ("Who wants to make a game? Who wants to code that game?"). You could make a similar one about story-ideas and actual authors. This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. It's just kind of human nature. But I feel like this accusation, for many, comes from a Fox-and-the-Grapes style resentment towards the middle class, which tends to lean more liberal. And like... this is just bog-standard class warfare, not actual ideological difference.

9rx 1y ago
> the housing crisis What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed. > homelessness What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own. > wage theft What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that. > "delay, deny, defend" The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen. > abortion rights Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires. > school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here? > This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment. > It's just kind of human nature. To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard? [1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.
- Defletter 1y ago
  > [the housing crisis] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need... There are a multitude of things that could be done: public housing; rent caps; better zoning; ignoring nimby-ism; subisiding new and denser construction; subsidising first-time buyers; etc. > [homelessness] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need... Pass laws preventing (and undoing) hostile architecture; repeal vagrancy laws; open facilities for the safe consumption of drugs; more shelters; allow them to register a place (eg: a post office) as a permanent address to receive mail; subsidise places that open their toilets/showers to the homeless; repeal laws criminalising feeding the homeless; etc. > [wage theft] What is the system going to do other than... Make wage theft a crime instead of a civil wrong? And yes, one of the best ways is to join a union, so while we're here: repeal all union-busting laws; laws that prevent unions from striking; and laws that let employers retaliate against union action; laws that let employers hire temporary replacement staff during a strike; etc. > ["delay, deny, defend"] The Amish... It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward. Like, yes, the Amish generally have day-to-day better health outcomes due to the manual labour and better diet... but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period. > [abortion rights] but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement... It's kind of odd that you bring up cannabis here since this is in large part a liberal success of getting governments to listen to them and pass state-legislation to legalise cannabis. This is also an exceptionally odd take with regard to abortions: you are effectively saying that hospitals and medical professionals will be willing to risk their careers, licences, fines, and jail time, if not execution, if enough people want them to? What? Do you happen to be an anarchist? > [school shootings...] What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here? This is tricky because solutions that have worked in other countries likely wouldn't in the US because of its obsession with guns. Some people say that it's not a gun crisis but a mental-health crisis... okay then, then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy? Ultimately, the best way to reduce gun crime is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. That could mean gun buybacks; banning bump-stocks; making gun companies liable for crimes committed with their guns; force guns to require insurance; background checks; reverse the Supreme Court decision to separate federal gun rights from well-regulated militias; etc. --- There's a pattern here in your responses where you question the existence of systemic solutions to societal problems, and I have to ask: do you consider other countries at all? Obviously, like I've already mentioned, it's not always possible to simply adopt another country's policies 1:1 and have them work. But different countries have different rates of these issues: do you think that countries with less just have a more charitable populous or something? I mean, there may be some truth to that, but all your responses here are essentially rejecting the notion of systemic solutions at all in favour of just being charitable. Liberals are more likely to think in terms of systems, and I may concede that many liberals are stuck in systemic thinking. But all this is ultimately missing this point of my original comment: we're quibbling here over how to solve societal problems... conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.

9rx 1y ago

> the housing crisis What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed. > homelessness What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own. > wage theft What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that. > "delay, deny, defend" The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen. > abortion rights Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires. > school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here? > This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment. > It's just kind of human nature. To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard? [1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.

Defletter 1y ago
> [the housing crisis] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need... There are a multitude of things that could be done: public housing; rent caps; better zoning; ignoring nimby-ism; subisiding new and denser construction; subsidising first-time buyers; etc. > [homelessness] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need... Pass laws preventing (and undoing) hostile architecture; repeal vagrancy laws; open facilities for the safe consumption of drugs; more shelters; allow them to register a place (eg: a post office) as a permanent address to receive mail; subsidise places that open their toilets/showers to the homeless; repeal laws criminalising feeding the homeless; etc. > [wage theft] What is the system going to do other than... Make wage theft a crime instead of a civil wrong? And yes, one of the best ways is to join a union, so while we're here: repeal all union-busting laws; laws that prevent unions from striking; and laws that let employers retaliate against union action; laws that let employers hire temporary replacement staff during a strike; etc. > ["delay, deny, defend"] The Amish... It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward. Like, yes, the Amish generally have day-to-day better health outcomes due to the manual labour and better diet... but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period. > [abortion rights] but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement... It's kind of odd that you bring up cannabis here since this is in large part a liberal success of getting governments to listen to them and pass state-legislation to legalise cannabis. This is also an exceptionally odd take with regard to abortions: you are effectively saying that hospitals and medical professionals will be willing to risk their careers, licences, fines, and jail time, if not execution, if enough people want them to? What? Do you happen to be an anarchist? > [school shootings...] What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here? This is tricky because solutions that have worked in other countries likely wouldn't in the US because of its obsession with guns. Some people say that it's not a gun crisis but a mental-health crisis... okay then, then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy? Ultimately, the best way to reduce gun crime is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. That could mean gun buybacks; banning bump-stocks; making gun companies liable for crimes committed with their guns; force guns to require insurance; background checks; reverse the Supreme Court decision to separate federal gun rights from well-regulated militias; etc. --- There's a pattern here in your responses where you question the existence of systemic solutions to societal problems, and I have to ask: do you consider other countries at all? Obviously, like I've already mentioned, it's not always possible to simply adopt another country's policies 1:1 and have them work. But different countries have different rates of these issues: do you think that countries with less just have a more charitable populous or something? I mean, there may be some truth to that, but all your responses here are essentially rejecting the notion of systemic solutions at all in favour of just being charitable. Liberals are more likely to think in terms of systems, and I may concede that many liberals are stuck in systemic thinking. But all this is ultimately missing this point of my original comment: we're quibbling here over how to solve societal problems... conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.