• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Liberals' Utopia will never be realized (fortunately) Here's Why...

Bassman

Next we have #12. The Larch
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
3,539
Reaction score
703
Location
West end of the Erie Canal (That's Buffalo, NY for
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Fred Hutchison September 14, 2004

Utopia: The perpetual delusion of the Left

By Fred Hutchison

When I was eighteen I knew that the left is generally deceived. It required a few years to find out what the core delusion was but many years to appreciate how radical is the lie they believe and why it leads to so much deception. The idealism of the left is based upon the romantic delusion that "progress" is inevitable and is leading us to a future utopia. Utopia is a romantic fantasy of a perfect future secular society on earth built by man with God left out. The cruel delusion of utopia is responsible for many of the twentieth century disasters such as brutal dictatorships, major wars, countless atrocities, and destructive revolutionary movements.

Why is utopia a false hope? Original sin. We are born contaminated by the nature of sin. All parts of our human nature are infected and corrupted. Such beings are constitutionally incapable of utopia. Yet, against all reason, experience and common sense many hope for an impossible utopia. Perhaps utopia is a substitute for heaven in a post Christian secular society.

Catastrophic Utopias

Attempts at utopia almost always have catastrophic results. Why is this? Utopias always turn out to be totalitarian in the end. There are no restraints on the power or the impulses of the rulers. If man is inherently good, as the left believes, and the revolutionary leaders are god-like beings, as utopian regimes invariably assert, why restrain their powers?
=snip=​




http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/040914
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,494
Reaction score
50,045
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Frankly, there's a lot of truth in that... so expect to be bashed mercilessly for it. :mrgreen:
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Frankly, there's a lot of truth in that... so expect to be bashed mercilessly for it. :mrgreen:
There is some truth I agree. However, what truth there is, is intermingled with speculation. For example, while I agree that most liberals feel that progress is inevitable (I know I feel that way), I have no real personal concept of what utopia would look like (nor do I ever think about it) and I certainly have a major problem with worshiping humans. So while, plausable in its initial assumptions, I don't see much truth in its conclusions.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There is some truth I agree. However, what truth there is, is intermingled with speculation. For example, while I agree that most liberals feel that progress is inevitable (I know I feel that way), I have no real personal concept of what utopia would look like (nor do I ever think about it) and I certainly have a major problem with worshiping humans. So while, plausable in its initial assumptions, I don't see much truth in its conclusions.
I don't think it's right for the article to universally bash people of the liberal persuasion.

I think it is important to note that some "utopias" can be small.
Like many supposed silver bullet cure all (i.e. universal health care.)
Progress is good but slow sustainable progress is better.
 

The Giant Noodle

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
7,333
Reaction score
2,010
Location
Northern Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
God thats a stupid article. I hate both parties but the republicans are just a pile of fools that fool themselves and THINK they fool independant thinking individuals. As much as I dont like democrats the republicans as a whole are bitter people with EXTREME hate and vile venom towards others. There are a few types of them....
the Jesus loving, no abortion types.....
the pro-gun, no taxes and less government.....
and then there are the ones that REALLY control and have the power. The wealthy and the people that are 90% greed that **** on other people and will do anything for another sale to get that extra buck. And THEY are the ones that con the OTHER 2 types of republicans to think that they actually GIVE a **** about them, just for their votes.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I don't think it's right for the article to universally bash people of the liberal persuasion.

I think it is important to note that some "utopias" can be small.
Like many supposed silver bullet cure all (i.e. universal health care.)
Progress is good but slow sustainable progress is better.
The way I see it is that no society is ever going to exist that has no problems, but this does not mean we should not try to fix what problems we currently have. I think that is a statement that most could agree with (since its such a nonspecific one).

The problem is in what different people believe the proper solution to whatever the problem is (or even if a certain condition really is a problem or not). Any intelligent person is going to realize that the world is a dynamic place and some societal troubleshooting of today may not work tomorrow, so to think we would ever get to a perfect state would be to deny the dynamic of an ever changing world. That is why I dismiss the idea of utopia.

But again, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix our problems, because if we do not take action, they will not go away (usually). So, I am less interested in a silver bullet cure and more interested in what I think will fix problems, even if we have to revisit those fixes again at some point in the future.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The way I see it is that no society is ever going to exist that has no problems, but this does not mean we should not try to fix what problems we currently have. I think that is a statement that most could agree with (since its such a nonspecific one).

The problem is in what different people believe the proper solution to whatever the problem is (or even if a certain condition really is a problem or not). Any intelligent person is going to realize that the world is a dynamic place and some societal troubleshooting of today may not work tomorrow, so to think we would ever get to a perfect state would be to deny the dynamic of an ever changing world. That is why I dismiss the idea of utopia.

But again, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix our problems, because if we do not take action, they will not go away (usually). So, I am less interested in a silver bullet cure and more interested in what I think will fix problems, even if we have to revisit those fixes again at some point in the future.
I agree and there is (mostly) nothing wrong with what your saying.
There are many instances when I know we are going to have to revisit a problem because the legislation doesn't deal with adverse behavior.

I think if we are going to try to fix things for people, we're going to have to start restricting/punishing behavior more, otherwise nothing can really be fixed.
That usually means less rights.
 

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,316
Reaction score
3,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The idealism of the left is based upon the romantic delusion that "progress" is inevitable and is leading us to a future utopia.
Ahh this is what the left thinks -according to the author of the paper.

Although not a true "leftist" (well in most sane minds) I do gravitate that way more so than to the right (it is a question of which is most repulsive to me, and one direction I find a lot more repulsive) I think the real outlook is more accurately "the left is based upon the notion that stagnation and regression is likely if we do not strive for progress", quite different from the straw man position that this entire article draws from.
 

tacomancer

Big Scary Liberal
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
39,778
Reaction score
20,611
Location
Akron
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I agree and there is (mostly) nothing wrong with what your saying.
There are many instances when I know we are going to have to revisit a problem because the legislation doesn't deal with adverse behavior.

I think if we are going to try to fix things for people, we're going to have to start restricting/punishing behavior more, otherwise nothing can really be fixed.
That usually means less rights.
I am of the position that help should be offered, but it may require that people meet certain minimum criteria that isn't onorous. I just don't think that the random chance of life is enough to offer everyone opportunity to make themselves what they wish to be.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I am of the position that help should be offered, but it may require that people meet certain minimum criteria that isn't onorous. I just don't think that the random chance of life is enough to offer everyone opportunity to make themselves what they wish to be.
I understand and do agree that sometimes, no matter how hard someone tries, they fail.
Realistic criteria is good as well.

I'm of two minds on these things, idealist libertarian and realistic fascist.
If I can't get anything resembling my way of government and freedom, then I'd rather live under a quasi fascist state.
With a somewhat heavy hand.

Sounds contradictory but both (in my mind) offer better solutions to fixing things than a kind of soft statism.
 
Last edited:

Spartacus FPV

Better You = Better World
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
14,870
Reaction score
7,126
Location
Your Echochamber
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Why is utopia a false hope? Original sin. We are born contaminated by the nature of sin. All parts of our human nature are infected and corrupted. Such beings are constitutionally incapable of utopia. Yet, against all reason, experience and common sense many hope for an impossible utopia. Perhaps utopia is a substitute for heaven in a post Christian secular society.
What an utterly moronic article, the argument is based on the existence of original sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all the cardinal values of his existence.

Whatever he was—that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love—he was not man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man.

- Ayn Rand
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The left does believe that we should strive to progress towards a future that is better than today. But to equate that to a longing for a totalitarian state is just silly. The definition of the left is that they favor personal freedom over economic freedom, and the definition of the right is that they favor economic freedom over personal freedom. A totalitarian wants both low personal freedom AND economic freedom:



For some reason folks on the right seem to constantly forget all about personal freedom... They describe the left as favoring totalitarianism out of one side of their mouth while they attack the left for fighting to let people marry who they want, for opposing the patriot act, for fighting for a woman's right to choose, for fighting against the death penalty and the drug war, etc...
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The left does believe that we should strive to progress towards a future that is better than today. But to equate that to a longing for a totalitarian state is just silly. The definition of the left is that they favor personal freedom over economic freedom, and the definition of the right is that they favor economic freedom over personal freedom. A totalitarian wants both low personal freedom AND economic freedom:



For some reason folks on the right seem to constantly forget all about personal freedom... They describe the left as favoring totalitarianism out of one side of their mouth while they attack the left for fighting to let people marry who they want, for opposing the patriot act, for fighting for a woman's right to choose, for fighting against the death penalty and the drug war, etc...
Personal and economic freedom are interdependent.
If you restrict one, you are restricting the other.

That's why I'm a libertarian.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Personal and economic freedom are interdependent.
If you restrict one, you are restricting the other.

That's why I'm a libertarian.
They can be related. Very low personal freedom makes it hard to have very high economic freedom and vice versa, but complete economic freedom and complete personal freedom are also incompatible. With complete economic freedom you just end up with the wealthy dominating the rest of the people completely. In the sense of "low government control" you might consider that freedom, but in reality it would just be a way to tranfer the power to oppress people from the government to the corporations, so I would not consider that freedom. Likewise, if you had total personal freedom, you couldn't really consider that economically free because crime and theft and whatnot would rob you of any real economic freedom.

Regardless though, between those poles you can have different mixes of economic freedom and personal freedom. For example, the countries in Scandanavia tend to have fairly low economic freedom, but extremely high personal freedom.
 
Last edited:

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
They can be related. Very low personal freedom makes it hard to have very high economic freedom and vice versa, but complete economic freedom and complete personal freedom are also incompatible. With complete economic freedom you just end up with the wealthy dominating the rest of the people completely. In the sense of "low government control" you might consider that freedom, but in reality it would just be a way to tranfer the power to oppress people from the government to the corporations, so I would not consider that freedom.

Regardless though, between those poles you can have different mixes of economic freedom and personal freedom. For example, the countries in Scandanavia tend to have fairly low economic freedom, but extremely high personal freedom.
I think that is mostly myth, as the existence of a corporation is usually because of government preference and privilege.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,494
Reaction score
50,045
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They can be related. Very low personal freedom makes it hard to have very high economic freedom and vice versa, but complete economic freedom and complete personal freedom are also incompatible. With complete economic freedom you just end up with the wealthy dominating the rest of the people completely. In the sense of "low government control" you might consider that freedom, but in reality it would just be a way to tranfer the power to oppress people from the government to the corporations, so I would not consider that freedom. Likewise, if you had total personal freedom, you couldn't really consider that economically free because crime and theft and whatnot would rob you of any real economic freedom.

Regardless though, between those poles you can have different mixes of economic freedom and personal freedom. For example, the countries in Scandanavia tend to have fairly low economic freedom, but extremely high personal freedom.

Most of what you said, sounds like a good argument in favor of steering a moderate/centrist course and avoiding all extremes of either left or right.
 
Last edited:

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think that is mostly myth, as the existence of a corporation is usually because of government preference and privilege.
That is certainly not what economists argue. The tendency towards monopoly is inherent in capitalism. Even Adam Smith says so. It just makes sense. The larger a company is, the lower their costs of production and the more power they have to raise prices, so they naturally beat out smaller competitors without regulation.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,494
Reaction score
50,045
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The way I see it is that no society is ever going to exist that has no problems, but this does not mean we should not try to fix what problems we currently have. I think that is a statement that most could agree with (since its such a nonspecific one).

The problem is in what different people believe the proper solution to whatever the problem is (or even if a certain condition really is a problem or not). Any intelligent person is going to realize that the world is a dynamic place and some societal troubleshooting of today may not work tomorrow, so to think we would ever get to a perfect state would be to deny the dynamic of an ever changing world. That is why I dismiss the idea of utopia.

But again, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix our problems, because if we do not take action, they will not go away (usually). So, I am less interested in a silver bullet cure and more interested in what I think will fix problems, even if we have to revisit those fixes again at some point in the future.

One of the things we have to look at, and really this IMO isn't strictly a left-right thing, is whether we're trying to change human nature, or ignore human nature, when we set about "fixing" something.

One of the great strengths of the Founders is that they recognized the duality of human nature: that no individual is all good or all bad, but that power tends to corrupt; and they set up our gov't accordingly.

Utopianism on the Left isn't always overt; often it is simply a matter of turning too quickly to government for solutions to problems, or believing that government can actually fix problems whose roots are in fundamental human nature; or in thinking that the frequency of any problem can ever be reduced to Zero.

Most of the people who would self-identify as Left-leaning are necessarily Utopians, but the far left most definitely is. Those who think we can actually end war entirely if only we disarm and blah blah blah...
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Most of what you said, sounds like a good argument in favor of steering a moderate/centrist course and avoiding all extremes of either left or right.
Yeah, I would agree. Just to be clear though, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are centrist parties really. The extremes are way off the grid of the US political spectrum.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That is certainly not what economists argue. The tendency towards monopoly is inherent in capitalism. Even Adam Smith says so. It just makes sense. The larger a company is, the lower their costs of production and the more power they have to raise prices, so they naturally beat out smaller competitors without regulation.
They are largely wrong.
Most, if not all, corporations get large by government privilege.
Almost every single example of a monopoly, or near monopoly, in history has been because of government privilege and preference.

In dynamic economies, with uniform and reasonable regulation, corporations rise and fall.
The fall is, usually, because of their largeness.
The inability to control and respond to market conditions as quickly as a smaller firm may.
 

teamosil

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
6,623
Reaction score
2,226
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
They are largely wrong.
Most, if not all, corporations get large by government privilege.
Almost every single example of a monopoly, or near monopoly, in history has been because of government privilege and preference.
No, that's not true. The biggest monopolies were mostly before the government started busting monopolies up- standard oil, bell telephone, etc.

In dynamic economies, with uniform and reasonable regulation, corporations rise and fall.
The fall is, usually, because of their largeness.
The inability to control and respond to market conditions as quickly as a smaller firm may.
Economies of scale totally overwhelm that.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,494
Reaction score
50,045
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah, I would agree. Just to be clear though, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are centrist parties really. The extremes are way off the grid of the US political spectrum.

I would have to disagree. Both parties are essentially alliances of many disparate intrests and factions, each of whom have their own axe to grind. Some of these factions within each party are indeed rather extreme, even if the parties as a whole are closer to the center... which at times is debateable.

One of the main problems I have with the Democrat party is their further-left-elements seem to be in charge too much of the time; the party leadership is often much further left than the average party member. My main problem with the Republican party is that all too often the least sensible and least principled among them seem to rise to positions of power.

As for the latter, I'm trying to help change that by working at the grassroots-and-primary-elections levels, to get the "good ol boy network" politicians and self-serving bastiches out of the running for office.
 
Last edited:

MaggieD

Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,659
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If man is inherently good, as the left believes, and the revolutionary leaders are god-like beings, as utopian regimes invariably assert, why restrain their powers?
My perception of the left is certainly not that they believe man is inherently good. My perception is those whose politics come from the left believe in wide redistribute of wealth. My perception of those who GOVERN from the left is that they think their constituents are STOOPID.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
No, that's not true. The biggest monopolies were mostly before the government started busting monopolies up- standard oil, bell telephone, etc.
Standard Oil was a product of the Pacific Railway act.
The Bell companies had a government granted regional monopoly.


Economies of scale totally overwhelm that.
Not true.
If it were, U.S. Steel would still have a majority market share like they did in the early 1900's.
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
19,015
Reaction score
8,112
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fred Hutchison September 14, 2004

Utopia: The perpetual delusion of the Left

By Fred Hutchison



=snip=​




Utopia: The perpetual delusion of the Left
Right off the top the guy is proven to be irrational and wrong in his analysis

Original Sin
Original sin is in the bible as part of the Genesis myth. For it to be an actual reason for why Utopia can never be reached it would mean the literal version of Genesis would have to be true. As that is not the case the entire reason for his arguement falls apart
 
Top Bottom