'Liberal' dystopia

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#1
Why is it that 'liberal' countries like canada often become soo dystopian?

First we need to realize that parties calling themselves 'liberal' tend to actually be leftwingers just catering to some of their potential voters such as homosexuals and trans people rather than any fundamental belief in liberalism. These modern 'liberals' are not actually ideologically committed to things like fundamental rights which isn't that surprising given that the notion of "unalienable rights" cannot rationally be defended, it's a rather religious concept.

Very often the liberties you are given by leftwingers are the liberty to do things that are outright harmful to your survival and reproduction such as taking drugs, having abortions and in some cases even "assisted suicide". When you actually need freedoms the most such as when you don't want some medical treatment or when you want to have a 13 year old girlfriend suddenly the freedom you were promised will be nowhere to be found.

Both liberalism and leftism have many issues and there also isn't any clear way to mix the 2, thus you can end up with a rather dystopian society when left-liberal people take power (the worst of both worlds).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#2
Equity and dystopia
One very prominent goal leftwingers share is the goal on the left is what they call "equity" which is basically "equality of outcomes".

Extreme leftism is about forcing everyone to be equal and this will involve ‘helping’ people who do not want to get ‘helped’ in the first place.

• locking up teens against their will "for their own good" even though they didn't even do anything illegal.
• compulsory medical treatments (vaccines, psychiatric drugs, etc).
• compulsory schooling, banning private schools.
economically destructive taxation targeting the most productive members of society 281
• not allowing people to just buy any drug they want (can result in trans people waiting years for HRT).
• heavy government control over which medical treatments are allowed at all and who can do them.
• making it illegal to con people out of their money.
• giving big welfare checks to people unwilling/unable to work.
• free healthcare to keep unfit people alive.

Letting people make their own decisions will lead to unequal outcomes and therefore the left prefers the government controlling most aspects of our life "for our own good" instead of allowing natural selection. Some people might actually make better decisions than the government would make for them but that will not be tolerated in a lefty society, everyone needs to be kept down to the same level.

Enforcing high taxes will require totalitarian control over the population, the taxes are needed to pay for the giant ineffective welfare state. Unfortunately over time high taxes and welfare will create a bad mentality among the population where people become increasingly irresponsible.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#3
About "equality if opportunity"
Some people think "we should at least make opportunities equal" but when you follow this to the extreme we run into obvious issues. People inherit a lot from their parents, not just money but also genes. in-addition some people will be much better at raising children than others.

People naturally want to create a better future for their children but allowing that also results in some children having better opportunities than others. In-addition people often want to create a better future for people they are related to (such as siblings) even if they are not their direct descendants, this is true for life in general.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3982664/

In order to actually get to real equal opportunity we would equalize genetics which would not only require massive government interventions but it would be outright harmful in reducing genetic diversity. We do not want everyone to be exactly the same since different tasks have different ideal genetics.

Eliminating the opportunity-difference from some parents being better than others would require raising everyone by the state where we make sure everyone get's the exact same education, etc which isn't really possible in the first place.

So while it is in the interest of society to make sure we take advantage of the potential different people have we should also accept that some people will have better opportunities than others.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#4
What about people who just want to die?
Naturally we (at least most of us) want's to prevent people close to us from just dying and this is a great example or where actual liberalism is in conflict with natural human desires.

There is actually already a comprimise for this that works relatively fine:
You have the right to refuse a medical treatment but you do not have the right to access a medical treatment that is clearly harmful
This means that while the government shouldn't have the right to keep you alive via various interventions against your will you also do not have the right to just have some doctor give you a lethal injection because you are depressed for the moment and just want to die. Increasingly however modern liberals are rejecting this comprimise and they demand that people are allowed "assisted suicide" even in cases like "mental illness" (after the psychiatry system failed to help because their treatment doesn't work).

 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#5
Environmentalism and anti-natalism
A lot of people claiming to be liberal are fanatical anti-natalists and environmentalists who want to prevent their own citizens from reproducing in various ways. This of course is societal suicide but the left-liberal people don't really care about the future of the society, they are generally opposed to things like imperialism and territorial expansionism.

So while there is value in protecting the environment often when in competition with other societies pursuing environmentalism too much will prevent you from effectively competing and thus we end up only with societies willing to discard the environment to make territorial progress. You might for example want to use fossil fuels to power your industry and military equipment and this remains the case even if C02 will result in catastrophic climate change for all countries, since it also affects competing countries it's not much of a factor when it comes to "societal survival of the fittest". Things that largely affect the local environment can still be important in that respect though.

The only thing you do by aggressively pursing environmentalism right away is creating a doomed society where people become depressed due to not being part of something greater with a promising future.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#6
Abotions
One rather gruesome feature of liberal societies is freely allowing females to do medically unjustified abortions. Very few if any (defending on definition) of the abortions are actually justified from a medical standpoint. Abortion should be define as an medical intervention done with the purpose of killing the fetus, you might for example want to abort a pregnancy due to genetic issue with the child (such as cystic fibrosis) but most abortions are not done for that reason:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/

Usually if the health of the mother is actually in danger you do an early delivery and then try to actually save the life of the child, this is what you do when you are involved with actual healthcare rather than just trying to kill children.

Not having children early will drastically increase the breast-cancer risk and this is also the case if you get pregnant and then have an abortion early (unclear if this is better or worse than not getting pregnant in the first place).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6199327/

Of course liberals aren't satisfied with allowing early elective abortions, they also want to allow gruesome late-term abortions.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#7
Atomization
Things like racial identification and blood ties often get away with making society efficient. In liberal societies "nepotism" is viewed as a sin, you are not supposed to hire your brother for a position instead of someone who is more qualified for the job.

Things like "critical race theory" and "white nationalism" are examples of segments of the population rejecting the liberal notion of ignoring 'race' (whatever that is), these things are generally opposed by conservatives but it's not surprising that some people reject unnatural liberalism in favor of their emotions such as pursuing policy that benefit people genetically close to them (such as other people who identify as black).
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#8
Sexually Transmitted Diseases and lack of real sexual freedoms
You are not actually free to just have sex various people in liberal societies. Liberal societies without exception have a massive issue with sexually transmitted diseases so you might get aids from having sex with someone, this is due to liberal societies not taking the actions needed to get rid of STDs.

In addition supposedely liberal societies tend to have a lot of restrictions when it comes to sex. Feminists push for high AoC and often they win
1672217619954.png


Increasingly due to feminism 'liberal' soceities have are enforcing cucked laws regarding consent even for people over the official AoC such as requiring consent for each individual sex-act "affirmative consent".
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#9
Ways to circumvent individual rights
Things like independent courts are not going to protect you against a bad government. There are many ways to cirvument 'individual rights' people supposedely have.

0. downgrade citizen status to one that has fewer rights or no rights at all.
1. find some crime to pin on the individual.
2. declare the individual mentally ill and thus incapable of making their own decisions 122 123 124 125
3. government custody of young people due to socially destructive behavior (up to age 21 in Sweden).
4. take into custody just for being suspected of crime, the individual will suffer a lot even if he or she is not convicted.
5. take children away from the individual into government custody as psychological torture.
6. let non-government actors harm the individual without consequences.
7. selectively drafting people to dangerous wars.
8. Let government actors harm the individual without consequences.
 

Admin

Administrator
Moderator
Messages
3,126
#10
2 chad seems free to have sex. incel are not due to feminist societies and high AoC
Chads can have sex but it comes with legal dangers, not nearly as great as MGTOW cels want to believe but it's still not great. Furthermore a lot of females will treat chads badly too, just look at Johnny Depp vs Amber heard.

Furthermore even if a chad is able to have a lot of sex it will very rarely actually result in pregnancy, in most cases she will be on the pill, demand condon usage or have an abortion.
 

Mr.Andrews

Active member
Messages
65
#11
I think liberalism can be very totalitarian. First of all liberalism never ceased conflicts. I think american authors of liberalism think like Saint Augustine when they have to justify aggression, something like "we have to spread liberalism and save people from dictatorship", its just a justification for war so it doesnt have to "make sense"... Its like when in ancient china, rulers were following pacifist ideologies, yet they ended up doing even more bloodshed and carnage... Even the NAP principle of libertarians can be used to engage in perennial war, for example they can say that somebody else was hostile and this justifies aggression.

In any case, all such ideologies are post hoc, so they can be used to justify any aggression. you will want to do war in any case, you will pay intellectuals to tell you why you do it, you will propagate ideas among normies if you win.
 
Top