Are there any non-lunatic, non-religious arguments against liberalism?

[leftofthedial]

I don't think there are. Liberalism is the only rational world view.

[ret5hd]

1. Personal profit?

[leftofthedial]

2. that might be a true reason, but

it's not an argument they use.

[TahitiNut]

7. That's a mirage.

Liberalism is the politics of "win-win" and conservatism is the politics of "win-lose" ... the politics of privilege. When everyone wins, those who win more win more. The illusion (mirage) of "win lose" is in the comparative wealth - a sociopathic pleasure taken in the privations of others supplements the meager 'winnings.'

Some of these people would seemingly aspire to another Dark Ages, where the bone-crushing suffering of the many served to heighten the pleasures (and tyrannies) of the comfortable, even though they'd be better off in an absolute sense in a liberal democratic economic system. There are some (I've known them) who take pleasure in driving one of their three special edition Porsches down the boulevard past the homeless and destitute. It's appalling.

[noamnety]

3. What kind of liberalism? Social? Economic? Classical?

"Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state." They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law." Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

seems the liberals don't like the liberals. :)

[leftofthedial]

5. whoa, dude

It's past 1:00 Sunday morning.

I mean small-L "liberal." Probably more social liberals, but also economic progressives. The whole poli-sci definitions of liberal-conservative and especially neo-liberal (which is actually what neoconservatives are, que no?) are chewier and less understood by the lay person.

I'd rather have another dirty martini before bed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. yet the qusetioon is valid

by the way, you could say the same thing about Conservatives... I mean neo cons have as much in common with Edmund Burke as you and I....

[TahitiNut]

8. That sounds like something written by a (so-called) Libertarian ...

... which is nothing but a re-labeled Ayn-Rand-style "objectivist." It's a distortion of "Classical Liberalism" that eschewed the form of corporatism that was only beginning to emerge.

[noamnety]

11. I am still struggling through some of the concepts

So I am laying that out there, openly, that I'm not claiming any level of expertise. I'm trying to understand it.

I was raised "as a liberal." I got walloped over the head about that last year by a good friend, who is definitely left of where I was, and most assuredly NOT a libertarian. When I was prodding him for an explanation, he broke it into Classic Liberalism (John Stuart Mill, Tom Jefferson), Vernacular (Ted Kennedy) and neoliberal (shorthand for debt-leverage imperialism). Actually, I guess I didn't get walloped, in fairness to him, it was more like he put some bowls of food out in front of me and tip-toed away, to see if I was hungry. But it felt like a wallop, all the same.

Like I said, I'm still trying to understand it. I have the vague sense that the problem with liberalism is partly that it assumes everyone comes from equal history (and thus has an equal chance to be successful in the world). One of the problems with that is that people DON'T have an equal chance to be successful, because they aren't starting from equal places. I think I read here recently an estimate that 80% of the wealth that people have is generated from seed money they got from their family (college tuition, inheritance, land, etc). Everyone doesn't have that. Another portion of wealth comes from privileges people get because of race and gender. So a resume from Yolanda with a Detroit area code needs to be substantially stronger, with a higher level of education and more work experience, than a resume from Jacob in Grosse Pointe, in order to get hired for the same position. Liberalism ignores that reality, or accepts it at least, because the right to free/fair market capitalism is more important than true equality.

In my muddled nonacademic way, what's in my head is that conservatives believe people deserve what they manage to earn. The rest can go to hell. Liberals believe people deserve what they manage to earn, and the government owes the other poor saps a safety net that still keeps them in poverty and accepts inequality as part of their lot in life, but as long as they aren't starving or have access to basic medical care, the system is fair. Meanwhile, wealth is still drifting to the people at the top, land ownership is still being consolidated into the hands of the few, though perhaps not as quickly as the conservatives would like.

And conservatives and liberals feel it is right and just to manipulate world markets through the WTO or the world bank, both feel that meddling in the politics of other countries is somehow our "right," both feel that withholding food from other countries to pressure their leaders is moral behavior.

[barbtries]

4. hmmm...

only the greedy zenophobic rants of the "entitled" - never mind. they're lunatics.

[papau]

9. The GOP would say small government and big military projection ability are

missing from the liberal agenda.

I'd agree - and I'd be glad that that was true.

[GreenZoneLT]

10. Depends on how you define liberalism

Some "liberals" think Hugo Chavez has the right idea. Some liberals think the government can prevent all crime by spending more money on early-childhood programs, and don't acknowledge that some people NEED to be locked up. Some liberals think homeless people should be encouraged to camp in public parks and beg for sustenance, because they consider homelessness a value-neutral lifestyle choice.

I'm not saying any of those are mainstream "liberalism," but you'll get people posting similar arguments here.

There are an infinite number of arguable positions about government policies that affect economics, freedom and security. It just depends on where you set your "liberal" scale as to how defensible you think any of those positions are.

[johnaries]

12. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ?

Oh, wait - it IS broke!
I guess that's an argument FOR liberalism.

[Fresh_Start]

13. "out of the frying pan, into the fire"

"Better the devil you know than the devil you don't."

Comfort in the familiar is ingrained. Essentially the argument against liberalism, is an argument for the familiar against the unknown. From the UCBerkeley/Stanford study on political conservatism, discomfort with uncertainty is one of the hallmarks of the conservative personality.

Just guessing here.

[Lester222]

14. "A conservative is a liberal who was mugged"

I am a liberal and always vote for a green guy but my thirteen year old cousin was just beat up by a bunch of turks today (I live in germany) and right now I'm pretty pissed and would like to see some major havok being wrecked on unimployed immigrants.

(some people view listening to their immidiate impulses to things as rational. i don't but that doesn't mean i don't have them)