Why Liberals Force Their Views On Others

The Tabula Rasa is the theory that humans are born with no innate attributes. The belief tends to fall to the nurture side of the nature v nurture debate.

Leftists believe that human beings are this blank slate, and that the right social and economic conditions will make people better. This construct ignores human nature. To them, the free will & self-interest which impels decision-making in human beings is the result of a direct input-output computation. We know this to be incorrect, but let’s presume for a moment that they are right.

If human interaction and behavior is expressed as a 1:1 ratio of input to output, then McDonald’s does indeed make you fat. Guns actually make you kill people, and cars make you drive while intoxicated. Human beings are the result of external pressures exerted upon them by Big Media, Big Corporations, Big Oil, ad nauseum, ad infinitum…

Conveniently, they never seem to mention the external pressure exerted by Big Government. I believe that the reason for this relates to their view of human beings as a blank slate.

If the human being is a blank slate, and advertising can create a desired behavior in a person (or person’s writ large), then force is the only factor which dictates human behavior. It (human behavior) is nothing more than a pre-determined response to direct stimuli. Said stimuli, in this case being, force. You tell someone not to look down, and the pre-determined result is that they look down. Thus, your pressure has forced them to look down.

This theory neglects the multitude of variables involved in each decision and just throws a blanket on the entire idea of human nature. If you study them in their natural habitat, you will see that they do this with almost all of their ideas.

An inability to understand or, more aptly put, deconstruct an idea and develop a fuller understanding of it’s components, causes, and results leads them to just throw a blanket (label – i.e. LGBT, African-American, etc..) over the entire idea and be completely satisfied with the result. This compartmentalization allows no room for deviation because deviation demands additional inquiry into the nature of humans, and that simply cannot happen.

So, if external pressure (force) is the only reason that people do anything, one can now begin to see the true motivation for why liberals force their views upon others. They believe that force, not persuasion (Thanks Jim22), is the only means of achieving their desired outcome, which is generally a completely homogeneous society where diversity and tolerance are celebrated in word, but condemned in deed.

They use the force of words or social norms to advance their views. If you don’t believe me, debate one of them. When they repeat the same tired memes over and over or call you a racist or a homophobe for not agreeing to their view of the world, come back and tell me how they didn’t use force to impose their views upon you.

They do not believe human beings to be capable of making their own decisions and therefore, they rely upon the force of government to impose their world view upon all who would disagree.

Any scrutiny of their idea of big government as arbiter of life’s decisions exposes the fragile underpinning of their world view and necessitates a deeper, much more complex, understanding to be developed. Their fragile minds are simply not capable of such exploration.

 

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Why Liberals Force Their Views On Others

  1. BigJimTX says:

    Excellent post nota. Thank you.

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    Yep. If I had a time machine, I would travel back in time and strangle the infant Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his cradle.

    “Hence although men had become less forebearing, and although natural pity had already undergone some alteration, this period of the development of human faculties, maintaining a middle position between the indolence of our primitive state and the petulant activity of our egocentrism, must have been the happiest and most durable epoch. The more one reflects on it, the more one finds that this state was the least subject to upheavals and the best for man, and that he must have left it only by virtue of some fatal chance happening that, for the common good, ought never to have happened. The example of savages, almost all of whom have been found in this state, seems to confirm that the human race had been made to remain in it always; that this state is the veritable youth of the world; and that all the subsequent progress has been in appearance so many steps toward the perfection of the individual, and in fact toward the decay of the species.”

    His theories on the natural goodness of man and the corruptability and perfectibility of humans by outside forces has been the source of much horror and no good in the world. Like, for example, the French Revolution.

    The architects of the French Revolution who believed that a better society could be created my molding citizens into better people. The French Revolution came only a few years after the American Revolution but was based on a very different view of human nature.

    The French view was a Rousseauian view that saw humanity in a state of nature as good and decent and that corruption is caused by institutions. All that need occur, the French revolutionaries believed, was that better institutions be created and the basic goodness of humanity would shine through. Those who resisted, therefore, were opposed to human improvement and enemies of the people. The American Revolution did not see the guillotines and rivers of blood in the streets seen by the French Revolution. Americans accepted the imperfections of their fellow men and worked to channel their self-interest into supporting the greater good. The French despised those who would interfere with their noble efforts to improve humanity and the result was thousands of heads rendered from shoulders.

    The French revolutionary’s view of human nature carried through to other leftists. When Karl Marx said, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” he was giving voice to this view of human nature. Clearly, Marx saw human nature as perfectible and that, given the right institutions, people would lose their self interest and greed and work hard and take no more than their share out of basic goodness. The Founders didn’t see humanity this way and neither do conservatives today. We know better.

    Ultimately, the view of the Founders and conservatives are much alike. Humans look out for their self-interest and do so largely without attention to morals or ethics. The leftist view of humanity is that the people are automatons who are infinitely malleable and, if they are corrupt, it is the fault of the institutions that define them. Conservatives believe that people corrupt institutions. Leftists believe that institutions corrupt people. Conservatives accept imperfections and self-interest and create societies to channel self-interest into the general welfare. Liberals try to create new societies by reforming human nature. The ultimate result whenever a reformation of human nature is attempted is the guillotine and the gulag. Every time.

  3. R.D. Walker says:

    It is a leftist article of faith that people are born pristine and good and, if they are corrupted, it isn’t their fault. People are noble creatures that are often polluted by modern nastiness like work, enterprise, faith, trade and technology. This is the thinking of Jean Jacque Rousseau. It is Ted Kaczynski. It is John Lennon when he wrote…

    Imagine no possessions
    I wonder if you can
    No need for greed or hunger
    A brotherhood of man
    Imagine all the people
    Sharing all the world

    All you can do is imagine it because you will never see it in practice. It is leftist religion that is spread by false prophets. Primitives are people and they are different from us in only one way: their lives are “poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

    • notamobster says:

      I agree completely. The thought dawned on me (while reading Jim’s post on force & persuasion), that the correlation between their worldview and the ‘use of force’ are one and the same. I guess I had previously seen force as symptomatic of their worldview, where I now see that it is absolutely required to sustain their world view.

      Force is what makes the world as they see it. It’s what sustains their view. It’s what allows them to justify their chosen means to the same repetitive end.

      It is and always will be a pox on humanity and there is nothing we can do to change it. Many just haven’t explored their worldview properly, and thus haven’t seen the light, but many will not, nay can not, be swayed in their view because that’s just how their brain works.

      Force dictates all of their actions, from speech, to governance, relationships, to recreation, to reflection, etc… It’s why they don’t/can’t clearly think things through. We pound our heads against the wall trying to figure out why it is that they can’t understand what is so glaringly obvious to us. It’s because there minds are incapable deconstructing an idea. They must have an idea imposed upon them which fits their worldview, however incorrect. Anything which doesn’t fit the mold, is applied a label (blanket) and immediately discarded.

  4. rj says:

    damn and i thought they were just selfsh assholes who thought the rules didn’t apply to them

  5. TN-Cat says:

    What a great world this would be if the rabble were lobotomized at birth.

  6. Bman says:

    And when you can’t shape people into the way they “should” be, medicate them. Ritalin, prozac, wellbutrin, you name it!

  7. messup says:

    The Old Left (60′s & 70′s), morphing into today’s Progressive activist New Left, has perfected a “message vs. messenger” line of reasoning. As pointed out in this article…everytime any subject matter dealing indepth with anyone of their cherised and dearly held mantras (Global Warming, New World Order, Decimating USA’s Constitution by altering or just eliminating its 2nd Amendment a la Piers Morgan et al, etc.)immediately an attack line is already formulated to damage or destroy the messenger and never “honestly” debate the “message.” Latest example are the magazine clip shown on TV by a National broadcast company in the USA, interviewing Wayne LaPierre and CNN’s Piers Morgan with Alex Jones’ interview.

    Pick any one of Mitt Romney’s statements, TV ads during the 2012 Presidential Election cycle…it’s there for anyone to see.

    Is there a solution? Yes, go toe-to-toe with each and every attempt at ch aracter assassination promoted by attempted by today’s Progressive New Left activists…mano-a-mano. Pray. Amen. Alex Jones set the new paradigm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *