Why liberalism is destined to fail

[paxamericana]

It's not hedonic freedom that people need, it's a purpose. A frame work of moral and ethical constraint in which to organize their beliefs and action. There is nothing about sexual freedom that isn't hedonic. Sex without the responsibililty of bringing forth another life is no different than narcotics. Liberal society have fallen into the worship of the golden calf through peddling rights as if rights alone are inherently valued. The civil rights movement was fundamentally based on christian belief against tyranny but not against worship. It's not let my people go. Let my people go, so that they may worship in the wilderness. Liberal society devolve without the foundational faith that created it.

Edited May 18 by paxamericana

[John Stone]

7 hours ago, paxamericana said:

It's not hedonic freedom that people need, it's a purpose. A frame work of moral and ethical constraint in which to organize their beliefs and action. There is nothing about sexual freedom that isn't hedonic. Sex without the responsibililty of bringing forth another life is no different than narcotics. Liberal society have fallen into the worship of the golden calf through peddling rights as if rights alone are inherently valued. The civil rights movement was fundamentally based on christian belief against tyranny but not against worship. It's not let my people go. Let my people go, so that they may worship in the wilderness. Liberal society devolve without the foundational faith that created it.

...................... likely be a mistake to label the GOP conservative tho; should be remembered that Trump added 8 trillion to the national debt during his first term - only God knows what it will be at the end of the second, despite DOGE. 

Both the black and white cats spend like drunken sailors .............. it's just one of them sees the people as a priority., the other is more transactional. 

 

 

[paxamericana]

5 minutes ago, John Stone said:

national debt

Go away, shoo. World currency reserve status. I got bigger fish to fry.

[John Stone]

14 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Go away, shoo. World currency reserve status. I got bigger fish to fry.

......... a majority living in cardboard boxes and eating out of dumpsters

America Great and alone ......... can both be true?

No. 

Ur standing on the shoulders of genius - FDR, Truman and Ike. 

[paxamericana]

6 hours ago, John Stone said:

can both be true?

It’s more like who’s a better alternative? None. Guess you’re all stuck with the petrol dollar.

[Michael Hardner]

On 5/18/2026 at 9:39 AM, paxamericana said:

It's not hedonic freedom that people need, it's a purpose. A frame work of moral and ethical constraint in which to organize their beliefs and action. There is nothing about sexual freedom that isn't hedonic. Sex without the responsibililty of bringing forth another life is no different than narcotics. Liberal society have fallen into the worship of the golden calf through peddling rights as if rights alone are inherently valued. The civil rights movement was fundamentally based on christian belief against tyranny but not against worship. It's not let my people go. Let my people go, so that they may worship in the wilderness. Liberal society devolve without the foundational faith that created it.

Wow.  I'm surprised how much I liked this post.

I want to add my idea, which is that hedonic living is endorsed by every political party in the west as 'pursuit of happiness'

My guy is "Ike".  I have Eisenhower's  book beside me and he gives an impassioned plea for society to reject mass pop culture, which is far more pertinent than the  'military industrial complex' speech, which is quoted frequently.

Here's the thing that I predict... in a scant "few" generations, we will see a decline in hedonistic life and a return to values such as family, empathy and security.
 

And it won't come from left- OR right- political parties, it will come from people.

[John Stone]

Liberalism emphasizes individual freedoms and rights.

It advocated personal autonomy and that protection through the rule of law.

Liberalism promotes limited government intervention and equality before the law, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of color or creed have a fair chance to succeed.

Liberalism, while often associated with individual rights, also recognizes the importance of social justice as well as collective responsibility to enable a balance between personal liberty and community needs.

 

Fascist leaders believe in the supremacy of certain groups of people based on race, religion, ethnicity and nationality.

Their objective is to deny rights.

Historically, fascist regimes cultivate images of their leaders as great figures to be admired ……and followed. The so-called ‘cult of personality’ is perpetuated through the mass media and propaganda, images and grandiose structures.

The ‘leader’ ultimately grooms his following to believe that he has mythical status – if possible, this grooming includes high officials within the church, on reward of favor.

A fascist leader does NOT operate without a well conceived agenda ………promoted on half-truths, corruption and above all, lies, nuance, or innuendo.  

Fascism and authoritarianism are often confused

Mussolini vs. Putin

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, John Stone said:

 

Liberalism, while often associated with individual rights, also recognizes the importance of social justice as well as collective responsibility to enable a balance between personal liberty and community needs.

Whose justice would prevail and how?

Liberalism seems to assume a moral sphere but doesn't curate it explicitly.  So subjugation of some people happens, and there's always some public resistance to addressing this.

[Barquentine]

On 5/18/2026 at 10:39 AM, paxamericana said:

It's not hedonic freedom that people need, it's a purpose.

Conflate much? Liberalsim and Hedonism are not the same thing.

Hedonism is the philosophical doctrine and lifestyle that identifies pleasure and happiness as the highest good and the primary goal of human life. Rooted in the ancient Greek word h?don? (meaning "pleasure"), it posits that all human behavior is motivated by the desire to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Liberalism asserts that the individual is the supreme value in society. Key tenets include:Individual Rights: Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion.Equality: Equal treatment under the law and equality of opportunity.Consent: Governments derive their legitimacy only from the people they govern.Rule of Law: A framework of impartial laws that apply to everyone, preventing arbitrary use of state power

[John Stone]

5 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Whose justice would prevail and how?

Liberalism seems to assume a moral sphere but doesn't curate it explicitly.  So subjugation of some people happens, and there's always some public resistance to addressing this.

............. liberalism believes in an  arbitrator, rule of law equal if not in practice than in perception, 

SCOTUS is the arbitrator. 

Once the apolitical arbitrator is compromised? 

We all fall down. 

[Barquentine]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here's the thing that I predict... in a scant "few" generations, we will see a decline in hedonistic life and a return to values such as family, empathy and security.

People with families already have those values.

Young unmarried people just want experiences, hedonistic pursuits. The vast majority of us grow out of that.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, John Stone said:

............. liberalism believes in an  arbitrator, rule of law equal if not in practice than in perception, 

SCOTUS is the arbitrator. 

Once the apolitical arbitrator is compromised? 

We all fall down. 

That's the thing.

Big societal changes will scramble the power ratios that convert ethical thinking to moral thinking.

 

Watch out 😲

2 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

People with families already have those values.

Young unmarried people just want experiences, hedonistic pursuits. The vast majority of us grow out of that.

There's something to this...

[John Stone]

7 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

People with families already have those values.

Young unmarried people just want experiences, hedonistic pursuits. The vast majority of us grow out of that.

............. suppose there is a difference between 'lust' and 'love'? 😁

 

[John Stone]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's the thing.

Big societal changes will scramble the power ratios that convert ethical thinking to moral thinking.

 

Watch out 😲

There's something to this...

Morals be what u do  when on one is watching?

I hope ur not equating ethics  to institutions that has corrupted the world for hundreds of years in their hypocritical view of determining morals to the faithful? 

That said, I've seen the power of faith. 

An individuals experience thru life determines their morals? 

What they have seen and what they have experienced. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, John Stone said:

 

1. I hope ur not equating ethics  to institutions that has corrupted the world for hundreds of years in their hypocritical view of determining morals to the faithful? 

2. An individuals experience thru life determines their morals? 

3. What they have seen and what they have experienced. 

 

1. I don't think I equated them.  This sounds like an anti religion statement, which if true misses my point.

2. Morals are community based mores I think.

3. How much Davey and Goliath they watched too...

[Moonbox]

On 5/19/2026 at 12:28 PM, Michael Hardner said:

Wow.  I'm surprised how much I liked this post.

I want to add my idea, which is that hedonic living is endorsed by every political party in the west as 'pursuit of happiness'

My guy is "Ike".  I have Eisenhower's  book beside me and he gives an impassioned plea for society to reject mass pop culture, which is far more pertinent than the  'military industrial complex' speech, which is quoted frequently.

Here's the thing that I predict... in a scant "few" generations, we will see a decline in hedonistic life and a return to values such as family, empathy and security.
 

And it won't come from left- OR right- political parties, it will come from people.

You like this post? 

It's pseudo-profound intellectual gobbledygook, and very likely AI-written (or at least heavily assisted) at that.  

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You like this post? 

It's pseudo-profound intellectual gobbledygook, and very likely AI-written (or at least heavily assisted) at that.  

It completes Nietzsche ...  not pseudo-profound but profound.

How can humans, who evolved with life-challenging constraints daily, ever hope to cope with limitless pleasure even for the poor ?

[Moonbox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

It completes Nietzsche ...  not pseudo-profound but profound.

Considering Nietzche was deeply anti-christian and anti-religious, and the opening post decries the lack of christianity (the foundational faith or moral framework) in today's societies, I'd say that profundity is questionable.  

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

How can humans, who evolved with life-challenging constraints daily, ever hope to cope with limitless pleasure even for the poor ?

I understand how starved you/we are for this sort of deep-thinking and serious discussion, but this OP is nothing but a bunch of philisophical buzzwords and emotionally charged abstractions posturing as intellectual depth.  The connecting logic and reasoning to support bundling together sexual freedom, hedonism, narcotics, liberal rights, idolatry, christianity (or lack theirof) and how they lead to societal collapse is non-existant.  

Edited May 22 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. Considering Nietzche was deeply anti-christian and anti-religious, and the opening post decries the lack of christianity (the foundational faith or moral framework) in today's societies, I'd say that profundity is questionable.  

2. I understand how starved you/we are for this sort of deep-thinking and serious discussion,

 

3. ...but this OP is nothing but a bunch of philisophical buzzwords and emotionally charged abstractions posturing as intellectual depth. 

4. The connecting logic and reasoning to support bundling together sexual freedom, hedonism, narcotics, liberal rights, idolatry, christianity (or lack theirof) and how they lead to societal collapse is non-existant.  

1. I think that the God is Dead essay (read it if you haven't) in the Gay Science is on point with that post.  Nothing to do with whether there is a God or not... just about what kind of world do we end up with without "God"

2. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL.... You know me ❤️

3. Once my dog barked... but it kind of sounded like "oh no"... and I spent the next 15 minutes trying to get him to talk.  That's just how I work...

4. I mean... it's implicit though.  "The pursuit of happiness"... gave us freedom of religion, pornography and everything in between.  

----

 

I guess I'll just launch my own thoughts on this so we can continue:

Don't you think there is an inherent problem with "the pursuit of happiness" in a world without God ?  I am agnostic, with a religious background and so I don't care about peoples' hobbies so much but in a world where all forces are directed to make things easier, sweeter, less challenging, and dumber dumber dumber... can we be surprised where it ends ?

I'm pretty sure the Chuds thought Jesus was watching them 100 years ago and so they worked the dustbowl, went to church and got married.  But without the opiate of the masses, how do we stop the seven deadly sins ?

Especially when so many make money off them ?
 

Quote

The standard list of seven includes the following vices: [1]

• Pride (Superbia😞 Considered the original and most serious sin. It involves an excessive love of self, exaggerated self-importance, and a disregard for others or God.
• Greed / Avarice (Avaritia😞 An intense, disordered desire for material wealth, status, or earthly goods over spiritual values.
• Lust (Luxuria😞 An excessive or disordered craving for physical and sexual pleasure.
• Envy (Invidia😞 Resentment or sorrow over the good fortune, traits, or possessions of others, coupled with a desire to possess them or strip them away.
• Gluttony (Gula😞 The overindulgence and overconsumption of food, drink, or material items to the point of waste.
• Wrath / Anger (Ira😞 Uncontrolled feelings of hatred, revenge, or vengeful anger that disrupts rational thought and harms others.
• Sloth / Acedia (Acedia😞 Spiritual or physical apathy, laziness, and a failure to utilize one's gifts and perform necessary duties. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

TO ADD

 

When I posted the list, the Avancode editor changed the closing brackets to sad faces, which makes sense... looks like gargoyles on the roof of Notre Dame or the ghost in the machine maybe)

Edited May 22 by Michael Hardner

[Moonbox]

27 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I think that the God is Dead essay (read it if you haven't) in the Gay Science is on point with that post.  Nothing to do with whether there is a God or not... just about what kind of world do we end up with without "God"

Nietzche saw the death of religion as an opportunity and a necessity that came with dangers, rather than something to be avoided.  Whether or not the values and priorities that replaced it were good or bad was the question, not whether religion needed to fall to allow personal autonomy.    

37 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. I mean... it's implicit though.  "The pursuit of happiness"... gave us freedom of religion, pornography and everything in between.  

That's taking centuries of legal, social and philisophical development and turning it into a single, rhetorically punchy (but historically and philosophically dubious) statement.  

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Don't you think there is an inherent problem with "the pursuit of happiness" in a world without God ?

No, because you’re including suspect assumptions that do a lot of heavy-lifting. “Pursuit of happiness” doesn’t imply moral emptiness without God.  It just means that there isn't a governing body defining what is good or bad for everyone.  

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

1. Nietzche saw the death of religion as an opportunity and a necessity that came with dangers, rather than something to be avoided. 

2. Whether or not the values and priorities that replaced it were good or bad was the question, not whether religion needed to fall to allow personal autonomy.    

3. That's taking centuries of legal, social and philisophical development and turning it into a single, rhetorically punchy (but historically and philosophically dubious) statement.  

4. No, because you’re including suspect assumptions that do a lot of heavy-lifting. “Pursuit of happiness” doesn’t imply moral emptiness without God.  It just means that there isn't a governing body defining what is good or bad for everyone.  

1. And he was right... Again. 

2. Ok...

3. What's dubious about it? All of these things.... From the French philosophers, through the American enactment of a state based on individual freedom, to the eventual freedoms that occurred... Occurred... They're pretty well recognized as points on the same curve no? 

I don't think it's controversial or particularly deep to point that out. 

4. Well, there always has been kind of a governing body... Morality develops culturally, and I think Nietzsche talked about that But I'm by no means a scholar of philosophy. 

Pursuit of happiness as a cornerstone for a nation state is definitely different than what came before, and again, I don't think that's controversial. 

 

[John Johnston]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. And he was right... Again. 

2. Ok...

3. What's dubious about it? All of these things.... From the French philosophers, through the American enactment of a state based on individual freedom, to the eventual freedoms that occurred... Occurred... They're pretty well recognized as points on the same curve no? 

I don't think it's controversial or particularly deep to point that out. 

4. Well, there always has been kind of a governing body... Morality develops culturally, and I think Nietzsche talked about that But I'm by no means a scholar of philosophy. 

Pursuit of happiness as a cornerstone for a nation state is definitely different than what came before, and again, I don't think that's controversial. 

 

Right. The definition of what is considered happiness will change with time. 

Just now, John Johnston said:

Right. The definition of what is considered happiness will change with time. 

Expectations. 

[Barquentine]

22 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

limitless pleasure even for the poor ?

 limitless pleasure? No such thing! Every kid learns that by their third bowl of ice cream.

[Barquentine]

14 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Pursuit of happiness

Interesting that it's the 'Pursuit of happiness" not just 'happiness" that's an unalienable right.

 

14 hours ago, John Johnston said:

The definition of what is considered happiness will change with time.

Is there a definition that fits every individual? Freedom from want or pain? That never changes.

[Michael Hardner]

54 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

 limitless pleasure? No such thing! Every kid learns that by their third bowl of ice cream.

Then they ask for (and get) a fourth... 

It's hyperbolic for me to say limitless pleasure but it sure is a CRUSH of pleasure compared to the distractions available to the very poor 100 years ago.  

The west is soft and the world tends to settle imbalances, like a country that can withstand bombings versus a country that cringes at a 50% hike in gasoline prices.  

Just some thoughts here...

50 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

1. Interesting that it's the 'Pursuit of happiness" not just 'happiness" that's an unalienable right.

2. Is there a definition that fits every individual? Freedom from want or pain? That never changes.

1. Yes, because the former describes activity in life and the latter is kind of impossible.
2. Even want and pain are subjective.