Overcomplicating, because we can

Liberalism vs conservatism vs the power of dumb people in large quantities

This is a short response to an ongoing argument in the world of the new media, about tue merits of liberalism, classical or not, or the fact that conservatism might not be the answer, stoic or not.

I feel like everyone overcomplicated this whole argument quite a lot, mostly because they can...

Doesn't it come to factors like intelligence and strength of character? At least mainly on those metrics?

For instance - liberalism didn't fail, but it did and it will fail again, because there are dumb and malicious people, there are also people with a combination of various weaknesses of character and disorders, which will push it to where it fails.

We can suggest a balance is needed, and we would probably be right

Conservatism, isn't "the same but the opposite" thing,as liberalism, - but it can also denegrade for the same reason as I've listed it above, weak people of weak character and/or intellect will ruin things no matter what.

One can argue that conservatism with a healthy dose of stoicism provides better incentives for individuals to be their better selves... In general at least.

But general doesn't cover the weak and the unwilling, or malicious, however such a society would control thier sociopaths and psychopaths better.

I can't defend liberalism in the same way at this moment of my mind, feel free to argue your versions...

I just can't, at this moment, see it as anything less than indulgence,which went way too far.

Thanks,

M