I find it very interesting that you indicate that the liberal approach to fixing a problem is not to fix it, but to plead to other people to fix it for them. How far do you see that extrapolating? It is certainly the case that the data suggests that liberals are more likely to outsource work to other people even for simple daily tasks like food preparation, and in popular culture the "liberal-educated elite" are surely portrayed as seeing many jobs as being beneath them.
Which, perhaps, leads us into the topic of elite overproduction. There is a strong case to be made that the US suffers from it, and what you describe very well could be a manifestation of it. Everyone wants to be the boss, but nobody wants to do the manual labor. When one is certain they should be the manager, so to speak, but fails to achieve that position, I can see how that would turn one towards unhappiness. It can be a bit demoralizing to realize that you aren't as great/able/etc. as you thought you were.
There are a multitude of issues that can only be solved systemically, like abortion rights, or the housing crisis, or homelessness, or wage theft, or "delay, deny, defend", school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence, etc. Like, believe it or not, but there are many issues that are not fixable by just fixing it like it's a squeaky door hinge or a neighbour's overgrown lawn. And even with issues like homelessness, if you wanted to do your bit by providing food, you can get arrested and fined for that, depending on the jurisdiction.
Like, yes, liberals tend to have certain amount of defeatism where they wont attempt to help anyone if they can't help everyone. And yes, there are issues with "liberal" intellectualism, particularly within the middle class. But some of the charges you make are misattributed: there is literally a meme ("Who Wants Change? Who Wants To Change?") which my game-dev community has a version of ("Who wants to make a game? Who wants to code that game?"). You could make a similar one about story-ideas and actual authors. This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals. It's just kind of human nature. But I feel like this accusation, for many, comes from a Fox-and-the-Grapes style resentment towards the middle class, which tends to lean more liberal. And like... this is just bog-standard class warfare, not actual ideological difference.
What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work building homes? The cost of a house is mostly labor. The only meaningful way to get the cost down is to reduce the cost of labor. By the properties of supply and demand, the only realistic way to reduce the cost of labor, aside from giving up on the idea of having a home, is to see more people doing it. Which also solves the challenge of those who are in the business currently being booked up for years in advance, making it impossible to build even when cost isn't an issue. Jump right in. The construction industry will be very happy to see the new warm bodies. They are sorely needed.
> homelessness
What is the system going to do other than agree that people need to get to work offering therapy/support, opening their homes to negate the homeless part, and maybe also open their wallets to give those in that situation a start to rebuild? I'll grant you it is questionable how effective that is — homelessness tends to stem from deep issues that may even be impossible to fix — but certainly the system isn't magic. It can only do what people can do. The so-called system is just people, after all. But, none of that requires the system. The people can step up and do it on their own.
> wage theft
What is the system going to do other than place workers in a de facto union that leverages its power for certain baseline advantages? That is all it has ever given labor in the past. That doesn't require the system either, of course. The people can join their own independent union on their own accord to extend their demands. History has well and truly proven that.
> "delay, deny, defend"
The Amish have shown that you don't need insurance if you have strong community. Do the liberals have no way to find it in their hearts to actually become a community? If not, it would be funny as it is always the conservatives who are said to be heartless and selfish. But if it is the liberals who are, in fact, the heartless, selfish ones you can still formalize it in what is known as mutual insurance. The system already offers the solution for this one. People just need to step up and put in the manual labor to see it happen.
> abortion rights
Now you are getting into much greater complexity, but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement. The liberals can choose to not enforce that which surrounds the issue. We've been here before with things like cannabis, so it is not unprecedented. Technically illegal in the US, but nobody is going to put in the effort to stop you as they don't actually believe in it. If there is enough care to maintain enforcement with respect to abortions, perhaps the desire to see change isn't actually there? A society doesn't function well on the whims of an individual (as the people of the US are starting to learn from a certain orange individual). One does need to be careful to not get caught up in their own personal desires.
> school shootings and other rampant forms of gun violence
You've got me on this one. I have no understanding of how this has become a problem. A few generations ago the kids used to literally take guns on the bus to use in the school's rifle range and no human was ever shot in the process. Now gun are banned, but humans in those schools are getting shot at a frightening, and seemingly increasing, rate. It is so counterintuitive and bizarre. What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here?
> This is in no way something exclusive to liberals or even predominant to liberals.
Right, but the idea posited by the original comment is that conservatives are generally accepting of their own laziness. They won't do it either, but are sympathetic when nobody else will in kind. Is that a fair distinction? I'm not sure, but one to take up with the original comment.
> It's just kind of human nature.
To some degree, but we also have a lot of lingering evidence in the historic farming communities of people stepping up and fixing their problems. Where I grew up, the supply company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The telephone (now internet[1]) company was established and continues to be owned by the customers. The insurance company, going back to your earlier point, was established and continues to be owned by the customers. I could go on and on. They didn't wait around for some nebulous system of outsiders to fix their problems, they just did it. This "someone else should do it" idea, to the extent that it has become, is rather modern. So what has changed in that regard?
[1] Another good modern issue, meaning access to quality high speed internet, that many believe can only be solved systemically despite plenty of contrary scenarios where people have just stepped up and fixed it on their own.
There are a multitude of things that could be done: public housing; rent caps; better zoning; ignoring nimby-ism; subisiding new and denser construction; subsidising first-time buyers; etc.
> [homelessness] What is the system going to do other than agree that people need...
Pass laws preventing (and undoing) hostile architecture; repeal vagrancy laws; open facilities for the safe consumption of drugs; more shelters; allow them to register a place (eg: a post office) as a permanent address to receive mail; subsidise places that open their toilets/showers to the homeless; repeal laws criminalising feeding the homeless; etc.
> [wage theft] What is the system going to do other than...
Make wage theft a crime instead of a civil wrong? And yes, one of the best ways is to join a union, so while we're here: repeal all union-busting laws; laws that prevent unions from striking; and laws that let employers retaliate against union action; laws that let employers hire temporary replacement staff during a strike; etc.
> ["delay, deny, defend"] The Amish...
It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward. Like, yes, the Amish generally have day-to-day better health outcomes due to the manual labour and better diet... but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period.
> [abortion rights] but at the end of the day rights are only as meaningful as the enforcement...
It's kind of odd that you bring up cannabis here since this is in large part a liberal success of getting governments to listen to them and pass state-legislation to legalise cannabis. This is also an exceptionally odd take with regard to abortions: you are effectively saying that hospitals and medical professionals will be willing to risk their careers, licences, fines, and jail time, if not execution, if enough people want them to? What? Do you happen to be an anarchist?
> [school shootings...] What is the systemic (or otherwise) solution here?
This is tricky because solutions that have worked in other countries likely wouldn't in the US because of its obsession with guns. Some people say that it's not a gun crisis but a mental-health crisis... okay then, then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy? Ultimately, the best way to reduce gun crime is to reduce the amount of guns in circulation. That could mean gun buybacks; banning bump-stocks; making gun companies liable for crimes committed with their guns; force guns to require insurance; background checks; reverse the Supreme Court decision to separate federal gun rights from well-regulated militias; etc.
---
There's a pattern here in your responses where you question the existence of systemic solutions to societal problems, and I have to ask: do you consider other countries at all? Obviously, like I've already mentioned, it's not always possible to simply adopt another country's policies 1:1 and have them work. But different countries have different rates of these issues: do you think that countries with less just have a more charitable populous or something? I mean, there may be some truth to that, but all your responses here are essentially rejecting the notion of systemic solutions at all in favour of just being charitable.
Liberals are more likely to think in terms of systems, and I may concede that many liberals are stuck in systemic thinking. But all this is ultimately missing this point of my original comment: we're quibbling here over how to solve societal problems... conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.
Not without people. You already can't get a house built now unless you're willing to wait years. But what good is a house years in the future if you need shelter now? That's not to say stop building, but it remains that more people are needed to have any hope of catching up to what is actually needed.
A great way to attract more people is to pay more, of course, but guess what that does? It increases the cost of housing even more! The only way out of this is to see people start voluntarily (possibly with a token payment, but certainly not the market rate) offering their services to build houses.
> rent caps
The formal definition of storage is: A situation where an external mechanism, such as government intervention, prevents price from rising. Do you think introducing a housing shortage is the best idea here? In any other world a shortage is considered a crisis in its own right.
> subisiding new and denser construction
You can open your wallet instead of volunteering, I suppose, as that's ultimately the same thing at the end of the day. But you don't need the system to open your wallet for you. Just do it!
> It's a little odd that you comparing liberals to a religious group that reject basically any technology from the industrial revolution and onward.
That's a bit of a strange characterization. They reject any technology that they fear will impact the family unit (which is why you see strange things in certain churches like brand new tractors with metal wheels; with the thinking being that rubber tires would make it easy to leave the family behind), but healthcare is definitely not that. Health is essential to maintaining the family unit!
> but once you get cancer or need an x-ray or a blood transfusion or bone-marrow transplant or birth complications? The way to fix all this is universal healthcare, period.
Yes, exactly. Insurance isn't limited to healthcare, but in the case of healthcare that's exactly what the Amish in the USA have: Universal healthcare (where universal is with respect to those within their community). Were you under the impression that they reject healthcare or something? They don't, actually. Their system is self-administered, operated by the people of the Amish community. As before, it is recognized you need to have a community to make that work, but they prove you don't need the nebulous system to provide it. Just do it! If a community of liberals want this, there is nothing to stop it but themselves.
> then let's fund mental health programmes like crazy?
By funding, you mean pay people to do work? Why not just step up do the work yourself? Or, failing that, pony up and pay someone else to do the work? You don't need the system here, just do it!
Look, I fully understand the appeal of hoping someone else will do it. I don't want to do any of these things either. But if I'm not going to do, why would anyone else? Why would I expect it of someone else? That is strangely irrational.
> do you consider other countries at all?
Certainly my own. Last time I checked I live in a country that is not the one in subject. But the topic has been about one particular country since the onset, so one cannot detour too far into what goes on in other countries without straying beyond what the discussion is about. For the sake of good faith participation, it is best to stay on-topic as much as possible.
> conservatives don't do this, they just accept these issues as facts of life and don't spend time worrying about them at all.
Right, the idea given at the onset was that conservatives recognize that if they're too lazy to do something, everyone else will be too. In contrast, liberals seem to think that everyone but themselves sit around bored all day just waiting for instructions, then act surprised when that isn't the case. I asked earlier if you felt that was an unfair characterization, but I didn't pick up on your answer (if you gave it).
[1] "Hav[ing] been shown to work" meaning measurably solving the issue, not necessarily utter eradication of the issue. We needn't let the perfect get in the way of the good.
I suppose it to the eye of the beholder, but I, at least, consider myself a liberal, so that sounds reasonable. Of course a liberal is going to be as defeatist as a liberal.
> why even have a government if it can't do anything for the public good?
Isn't it obvious? The role of government is to clean up the outliers who act out against the wishes of the people, not to "do good". You know, like, say, you start volunteering to build houses to help solve the housing crisis as anyone who cares naturally would, but then a thief comes along and steals all your materials. The government's job would be to deal with that thief and to do what it can to ensure that no thievery happens again. It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses, even though the need is apparent and doing so would be to the greater good.
The democratic state exists to represent, protect, and promote the welfare of the people. The idea that governments exist to "clean up the outliers" (side-stepping the worrying phrasing of that) is a 'small-c' conservative mindset, not a liberal one. No, the democratic government exists to do what the people elect it to do. The reason why ostensibly democratic governments so often disregard or even act against the wishes of their constituents is because that democracy is not really as democratic as it would like us to believe (eg: gerrymandering). Also corruption, which is arguably included in the previous point but best to make it explicit anyway.
> you start volunteering to build houses [...] as anyone who cares naturally would
I love the naive frivolity of the idea that people can just volunteer to build houses as if there's no training, zoning, insurance, regulations, etc, involved. Sure, I could make the teas and coffees, but like, you seem to think this is something people can do to fix the housing crisis by themselves. So how will people do the plumbing, wiring, structural analysis? Ensure the foundations are correctly laid? That walls are not out of plumb? You just hope that this effort that people make in their spare time will have all the planning permission and trained professionals enough to get this done? Are you for real?
> It wouldn't be the government's job to force you to start building houses
Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses? Even in countries with public housing policies, who is being forced to build houses? The only thing I can think of that's remotely close to this is when development contracts include requirements for nearby affordable housing developments. I have no idea what you're talking about and I honestly think this argument is a complete strawman.
---
You are obviously an authority on yourself, but are you really a liberal? You certainly not making liberal arguments, and not in a "hurr durr, that's because I actually want to get things done!" way, but in a wholesale rejection of systemic solutions to societal problems, the dismissal of the idea that the state has any responsibility to promote the welfare of the people, and the notion that public programmes that would promote the welfare of the people would force people to labour against their will? These are conservative talking points through and through, and I think you should reflect on that.
But again, we are just bickering in a side discussion: the real discussion is about why liberals are less happy compared to conservatives. I've made my claim, you've seemingly agreed with that claim. We needn't continue this gratuitous back and forth about whether the state can and should attempt to benefit the people outside of "clean up the outliers".
But what else are you going to ask the government to do except clean up the outliers (or whatever phrasing you find more palatable, as if that somehow matters)? Anything that involves the population at large can just be done by the population at large on their own accord.
Since you wanted to talk about other countries, consider a mandate in my country: All new cars must be electric in 2030. What purpose does that serve? Think about it. If the people want to own electric cars within that timeframe (and we know they do, else why would they ask the government to deal with it?), they can just buy electric cars. You don't need someone else to tell you to do what you were already going to do anyway! That would be just plain stupid.
Of course, the real reason for the mandate is because some outliers will still try to buy ICE vehicles, contrary to wishes of the population at large. The government's job is to clean them up to ensure that everyone buys electric vehicles (or no vehicle, perhaps) by the time we get there. If every single person was on the same page, though, government really would be pointless. Of course, in reality, you'll never have a situation where everyone agrees. Hence the role of government to deal with those who are dissenters.
> Okay, literally who? Who is being forced to build houses?
What on earth are you talking about? When I said it wasn't the government's job, I meant it.
> You certainly not making liberal arguments
Well, I mean, it would be rather pointless to argue from the liberal point of view if I am a liberal, no? What are you going to learn by reiterating what you think you already know? Argument is only a useful device if you use it to explore different ideas that are not your own. Methinks you have not thought this through.
This is where I'm going to exit this discussion: this statement (which is the fundamental assumption of every argument you've presented) is so exasperatingly naive that it would require disproportionate effort on my part to rebut it, and we're already very deep into a thread that I've feebly attempted twice now to get back on-track to the happiness question. And I'm honestly not that willing to put that much effort into an internet discussion just to teach someone why a democratic government would do something for the public good and why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord". I don't have the patience, the expertise, the rhetoric, or the time. Have a nice day.
How conservative of you, being unwilling to teach yourself something new. Learning shouldn't come with that much difficulty, though. What is at the heart of your struggle?
> why individuals / communities may not be able to achieve it "on their own accord"
This "the government is made up of magical fairies" idea that you keep presenting simply doesn't work. Government is not of magical fairies at all, just people. If people can't do things on their own accord, government can't either, fundamentally. People and government are the exact same thing!
> liberals see the faults in society as things that can be fixed
The change in my opinion is that the faults in society is a perfect excuse for extreme rage and extreme anger.
Sometimes talking to some left-wing extremists really sounds like talking to somebody that's been brainwashed.