Liberalism is evil

Even if they're right, they're unspeakably cruel

Imagine you have a problem, any problem.

Now imagine an evil genie offers you a solution, and all you have to do to solve your problem is murder a child. Would you do it? Would you even contemplate such a horrific act?

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals aren’t troubled by this hypothetical at all - they’re quite happy murdering children or doing anything else “required” for their solutions.

And that, dear friends, is the epitome of evil, cruelty incarnate.

Let’s illustrate this more concretely. Imagine everything liberals say about climate change is true; if so, why would impoverishing humanity be an acceptable price to pay for the “solution”? I’m glad the weather will be better in 100 years or that oceanfront property won’t be under water, but I’m not willing to inflict horrible suffering on people to achieve those goals.

In stark contrast, liberals are EAGER to hurt people. Be honest, when have you ever heard a liberal say, “That’s not worth it”? Literally, it never matters who suffers or how much they suffer; it’s always got to be done.

Why can’t we have nuclear power? Or fusion? Or some other technological solution to climate change (assuming we need to solve the problem)? Doesn’t it seem like they’re not only indifferent to the suffering inflicted by their preferred solutions, but rather they actually prefer it? They act as if the suffering were the point, not the price to be paid.

And what do we call someone who ENJOYS human suffering? Who prefers a painful solution to a painless or less painful solution? We used to call such people evil; today, we should just call them progressives.

Let’s be honest: before we do anything that inflicts any harm on anyone, shouldn’t we exhaust the alternatives? Shouldn’t they, for example, have to proof that nuclear power or fusion or some other alternative won’t work BEFORE they get to try their solutions?

If the doctor told you the operation had to be performed without anesthesia, would you just shrug and bear the pain? Why do you accept suffering in any other context?

If we can’t demand the nonaggression principle, can’t we at least demand the minimal aggression principle? Those who wish to inflict suffering on humanity should have to prove not only that their solution will “work,” but also that there’s no less horrific solution, and they should have to compensate everyone they injure (if the benefits to society are insufficient to compensate those who lost, then we shouldn’t do it because the losses exceed the gains). If, for instance, you want to raise my electricity prices by 20%, then you can send me a check for the difference - why should I suffer? I’ll spend my money on something else (because you’ve made electricity expensive), but I shouldn’t lose out; you need to change my consumption, not my TOTAL consumption. The reason liberals favor the latter is that they enjoy inflicting pain on others.

Let’s be honest - there’s no evidence for any of this environmental nonsense, which is nothing more than Medieval sumptuary laws. The point is to make us suffer, the reasons for that suffering are arbitrary marketing.