Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility

I only saw a very short and seemingly ignorant opening and figured it was just stupid liberal bashing. I by no means meant to be rude. No matter: We are removing our responsibility to give to charity, support our parents, friends and fellow human beings who need it and placing it with a mandated program administered by the government. Welfare is just one method of decreasing the personal responsibility of the individual and placing it on the government. Do you disagree? -your logic is quite blurry. i, personally, donate to charity when i have a feasible amount of money to do it with. Not to say im an embodiment of liberalism, but i still support welfare, simply, because no matter how much i individually contribute, there will never be enough chairty to fix those issues that welfare takes care of. Im sure the general concensous of liberals would agree. besides that fact, it doesnt absolve you of responsibility becuase youre paying for it trough your taxes. Why isn't saving an option for many? People are already paying increased taxes for social security, why not let them keep more of thier money and let them save it responsibly? -the people that reap the biggest benefit are people who dont have adequate money saved because they dont make much and therefore, dont pay very much in taxes. you (im guessing since you seem to own a computer) and I will probably never see much of that money under the ideal "liberal" social security plan. all the same, the point is by no means to absolve repsonsibility, but to help out those who need it. tell me how ignoring those people is more repsonsible. Those advocating universal health care often cite European health care as an example. The ultimate goal of Liberals everywhere is universal health care for everyone, not just the uninsured. -That first sentance is circumventing logic. there are many "european" examples from all out healthcare (i. e. France) to almost all out (i. e. UK) to only for the poor (i. e. italy) to only for the poor (i. e. norway). So to say that liberals point to europe is misconstrued. AGAIN, the purpose, whether you agree or not with the logic, is to help those who need it, not absolve repsonsibility. People pay taxes and business pay taxes, a large portion of which goes to education. The more taxes that businesses pay, the less they are able to pay thier employess, and the more taxes people pay the less money they have to spend so what they do get paid goes less far. Personally I pay almost 30% out of my paycheck for income tax alone. Imagine if everyone instantly began making 30% more than they do now? Do you think paying for education would be a problem? (and we're just talking about income taxes). -So we should foresake education so that their potential future employers can pay them a dollar more? And yes, it would be a problem. Some people, even with 100% of thier checks (which youll agree is unrealistic) still cant pay for their kids education along with everytihng else. Your argument has turned from liberalism is absolving repsonsibility to survival of the fittest. By default a woman doesn't have a choice except not to get pregnant. The benefits of medical technology and trained doctors ALLOWS the woman to have an abortion. How can something that is a privledge and not a right NOT be legally impeedable by the federal government? At the very least this should be left up to the states to decide. This is beside the point though. I do think that people go out and have sex for the fun of it, and when they realize they got pregnant due to thier own irresponsibility, they get an abortion. Regardless of how you feel, the end result is less responsibility for the individual. -freeodm to make choices is a right, not a privledge. And even if you want to assume it is, what gives the government, or you or I for that matter, the right to deny someone thier privliges because we disagree with the morality? I agree that people can be irresponsible, but its not the liberal position to advocate a lakc of responsibility, but rather, the freedom and responsibility to make your own choices. So now the responsibility for the murderous behavior isn't on the murderer, it's on the government to rehabilitate/isolate/take care of him? You're proving my point. -You make it sound like going to high security prison for life is some kind of resort. the government takes on the role of rehabilitator/isolater/care giver when it builds prisons in the first place. Under lockes social contract, for the government to have the universal right to lock up prisoners, it has to do its part to take care of them. the purpose of prison is not punishment, its exactly what i said: rehabilitation and isolation when the former is not possible As opposed to the people forming unions and taking pre-emptive action (such as leaving the corporation or boycotting thier product or service) to facilitate this change on thier own? -Unionizing is a HUGE part of liberal ideology. The purpose of opposing the corperation is to change legislation for the betterment of the future workers who then wont have to deal with the same issue. Are you claiming anti-war as a key Liberal position? Can you clarify? Do you mean anti-war as in pacifist or anti-war as in you don't like war? (who does? ) War and the protection of the people is one of the governments core responsibilities, and is the primary reason behind it's creation, and hence the responsibility falls to the government and the military (including the soldiers) both. It is the people's responsibility to elect responsible politicians with a focus on protecting our country. Not going to war requires far less responsibility than making the decision to go to war. -You dont have to play dumb. Its pretty well accepted that conservatism favors war mroe often than liberalism. And youre half right: PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE is a key governent function under any circumstance. That includes non-war functions (see above this argument). Liberalism bacsk defensive war, not offensive. This puts responsiblity on the government to take care of its own political issues. Never has there been a war between countries, only between governments. The people are merely an entitiy to be used by the government. Theyre brave and i love them, but there place is not to die for political reasons. Who's to say that decreasing personal responsibility is bad in the first place? If what I'm saying is true and this is what Liberalism seeks, and you're a Liberal, be proud of your position and explain why reducing personal responsibility is a good thing. -If you feel that way, fine, but my bliefs are what they are because I believe its what is best for society. Youre topic was "Liberalism seeks to absolve people of personal responsibility" and i by no means am seeking to do that. I believe most, if not all, liberals would agree.