One mans opinion of Left v. Right

[waste gate]

"While the right wants to reward beneficial choices and discourage destructive directions, the left seeks to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disadvantages that result from bad decisions. In place of the conservative emphasis on accountability, the left proffers a gospel of indiscriminate compassion".



http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/03/21/the_essence_of_liberalism_embracing_lifes_losers

[Tchocky]

Waaay more heat than light

[Letum]

I think it is important to discriminate between the social and the economic left and right.
You can be socialy right wing, yet economicaly left wing or vice-versa.

this text does not make that discresion.

[Tchocky]

How can militant feminists applaud the anti-American rhetoric of Islamist crazies who want to keep all women in burkas as the property of their husbands, and how can gay activists identify with jihadi killers who endorse the execution of homosexuals?
dangit, I started laughing

[waste gate]

I think it is important to discriminate between the social and the economic left and right.
You can be socialy right wing, yet economicaly left wing or vice-versa.

this text does not make that discresion.

Ya know Letum I used to make the same distinction between social and economic.
I then started to research the social activision which I thought was morally correct and didn't affect me economically. What I found was that huge economic insitutions have grown around the social morals which I found important. Much of the good I thought was being done was wasted upon extravagance and waste. The Red Cross, after 9/11, and how it used the contributions is but one example.

I have been been convinced, by my research, that social and economic ideals cannot be seperated. Although I am often saddened by the plight of the unfortunate, I cannot in good conscience condem those who are in a better position both socially and economically.

[Letum]

I think it is important to discriminate between the social and the economic left and right.
You can be socialy right wing, yet economicaly left wing or vice-versa.

this text does not make that discresion.
I have been been convinced, by my research, that social and economic ideals cannot be seperated.

How about Stalin and Hitler?

Both where socialy authoritarian (on the right), however whilst Stalin was on the economic left, Hitler was mainly on the economic right wing.

[waste gate]

I think it is important to discriminate between the social and the economic left and right.
You can be socialy right wing, yet economicaly left wing or vice-versa.

this text does not make that discresion.
I have been been convinced, by my research, that social and economic ideals cannot be seperated.

How about Stalin and Hitler?

Both where socialy authoritarian (on the right), however whilst Stalin was on the economic left, Hitler was mainly on the economic right wing.

Both were dictatorial. I will not base any difference between conservative or liberal based upon either of those regimes. I hope you are of the same mind.

[Tchocky]

Both were dictatorial. I will not base any difference between conservative or liberal based upon either of those regimes. I hope you are of the same mind.
Yeah, it's usually a good idea to keep Joe & Adolf out of political arguments.

But, to show the difference between economic theory and social policy, they're not bad. Both, as you said, dictatorial. An authoritarian social model, where all power is in one man. Yet regarding economics, Stalin was a lot further along to the left than Hitler.

Thinking of present day politics, observe the difference between social liberalism and economic liberalism.

most of this is semantics anyway, country-specific semantics. a blasphemy/heresy hobbyhorse for the century. bleh.

[Letum]

Both were dictatorial. I will not base any difference between conservative or liberal based upon either of those regimes. I hope you are of the same mind.
Oh sure they where both socially right wing and dictatorial, but whilst Stalin had a broadly pro-centralisation, anti-capital, economically left wing ideals; Hitler had a broadly anti-centralisation, anti-tax, pro-business economically right wing ideals.

In this way their social and economic left/right tendencies where separate.

I use Hitler and Stalin as they are extreme examples that make the point stark and clear.

[August]

BOh sure they where both socially right wing and dictatorial, but whilst Stalin had a broadly pro-centralisation, anti-capital, economically left wing ideals; Hitler had a broadly anti-centralisation, anti-tax, pro-business economically right wing ideals.

He's right, they are bad examples. They only used those economic systems because they were the prevailing ones in the nations they meant to rule at the time. I seriously doubt either truely believed in them.

[Letum]

BOh sure they where both socially right wing and dictatorial, but whilst Stalin had a broadly pro-centralisation, anti-capital, economically left wing ideals; Hitler had a broadly anti-centralisation, anti-tax, pro-business economically right wing ideals.
He's right, they are bad examples. They only used those economic systems because they were the prevailing ones in the nations they meant to rule at the time. I seriously doubt either truely believed in them.

Prahaps they where not the best examples, but it is hard to think of clear cut, yet not obscure examples.

BTW....I doubt any leading polotician belives in any economic system that is not the prevailing one! ;)

[waste gate]

[QUOTE]Oh sure they where both socially right wing and dictatorial, but whilst Stalin had a broadly pro-centralisation, anti-capital, economically left wing ideals; Hitler had a broadly anti-centralisation, anti-tax, pro-business economically right wing ideals.

Both were socially leftwing and dicatorial. Much like Fidel Castro's government of today.

[Letum]

Both were socially leftwing and dicatorial. Much like Fidel Castro's government of today.
Are you nuts?
Hitler belived in:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.All of these are highly right wing traits!

[waste gate]

Both were socially leftwing and dicatorial. Much like Fidel Castro's government of today.
Are you nuts?
Hitler belived in:

Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.All of these are highly right wing traits!

Tomorrow you will be bolding the other side because it suits you politically. Either way socialism/communism doesn't work.

[Tchocky]

Tomorrow you will be bolding the other side because it suits you politically.

Wow.

[waste gate]

If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter,
for always there will be
greater and lesser persons than yourself.

[Letum]

Tomorrow you will be bolding the other side because it suits you politically.
Wow.
Just what I was going to say (after the silence of disbelief).

[CCIP]

Sigh, can you please be a little less mean?

There are socialists around here too you know, and we don't appreciate being called two-faced loser-lovers :roll:

Take it easy, will you? I can say lots of things about the right. For one, I believe the fundamental problem with the right is the issue of motivation. You call it material incentive, I call it greed. For me, a world based on greed and impulses rather than reason and sustainability is at risk of eating itself. Which socialists broadly believe it's doing; the Marxists dream of helping it along a little with some revolutionizing, the non-Marxists (myself included) just take a seat and offer alternatives to the inevitable (in our humble view) downfall of capitalism (and, we hope, not the human race along with it, though it's unfortunately a real possibility).

Socialism doesn't have to be dogmatic and strictly theory-based, though theorizing comes naturally. I personally have trouble with Marxism for that specific reason (it's too pervaded by near-dogmatic theory for any real progress).

Likewise, for me socialism is not the domination of society over individual; in fact I would like socialism to look more at the individual - but I see a rational socialist "system" being aimed at an egalitarian, sustainable society where the primary motivations are not greed but - if nothing else - survival, reasonable quality of life and sustainability for all. The second reason (after greed) that I can't accept the right is that it inherently assumes that people have right to be superior to others, which devolves into creepy resemblance of social darwinism. To me that's an insult both to society and individualism, and it's scary to think that someone who emphasizes rights of the individual believes in 'losers' and the rationalization of mass human suffering for the sake of a 'better' person's rights.

I always put my belief this way - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - but only in that order". If your rights to liberty and doing what you want infringe on another person's life, then you don't deserve these rights (clarification: I am not talking about fundamental human rights here). If your happiness and luxury infringe on another person's freedom, then you don't deserve that luxury. It's not a matter of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's a matter of observing fundamental humanist principles. A society which accepts material excuses for violating these is immoral. I may not believe in morals as such, but I think it even goes beyond that; I think a society that accepts material excuses for violating these is doomed to self-degradation and self-destruction. And I think I have a vested interest in the well-being of homo sapiens, beyond merely the specimen I inhabit.

[Letum]

Sigh, can you please be a little less mean?

There are socialists around here too you know, and we don't appreciate being called two-faced loser-lovers :roll:

Take it easy, will you? I can say lots of things about the right. For one, I believe the fundamental problem with the right is the issue of motivation. You call it material incentive, I call it greed. For me, a world based on greed and impulses rather than reason and sustainability is at risk of eating itself. Which socialists broadly believe it's doing; the Marxists dream of helping it along a little with some revolutionizing, the non-Marxists (myself included) just take a seat and offer alternatives to the inevitable (in our humble view) downfall of capitalism (and, we hope, not the human race along with it, though it's unfortunately a real possibility).

Socialism doesn't have to be dogmatic and strictly theory-based, though theorizing comes naturally. I personally have trouble with Marxism for that specific reason (it's too pervaded by near-dogmatic theory for any real progress).

Likewise, for me socialism is not the domination of society over individual; in fact I would like socialism to look more at the individual - but I see a rational socialist "system" being aimed at an egalitarian, sustainable society where the primary motivations are not greed but - if nothing else - survival, reasonable quality of life and sustainability for all. The second reason (after greed) that I can't accept the right is that it inherently assumes that people have right to be superior to others, which devolves into creepy resemblance of social darwinism. To me that's an insult both to society and individualism, and it's scary to think that someone who emphasizes rights of the individual believes in 'losers' and the rationalization of mass human suffering for the sake of a 'better' person's rights.
I'm with you 100% here.

[waste gate]

Sigh, can you please be a little less mean?

There are socialists around here too you know, and we don't appreciate being called two-faced loser-lovers :roll:

Take it easy, will you? I can say lots of things about the right. For one, I believe the fundamental problem with the right is the issue of motivation. You call it material incentive, I call it greed. For me, a world based on greed and impulses rather than reason and sustainability is at risk of eating itself. Which socialists broadly believe it's doing; the Marxists dream of helping it along a little with some revolutionizing, the non-Marxists (myself included) just take a seat and offer alternatives to the inevitable (in our humble view) downfall of capitalism (and, we hope, not the human race along with it, though it's unfortunately a real possibility).

Socialism doesn't have to be dogmatic and strictly theory-based, though theorizing comes naturally. I personally have trouble with Marxism for that specific reason (it's too pervaded by near-dogmatic theory for any real progress).

Likewise, for me socialism is not the domination of society over individual; in fact I would like socialism to look more at the individual - but I see a rational socialist "system" being aimed at an egalitarian, sustainable society where the primary motivations are not greed but - if nothing else - survival, reasonable quality of life and sustainability for all. The second reason (after greed) that I can't accept the right is that it inherently assumes that people have right to be superior to others, which devolves into creepy resemblance of social darwinism. To me that's an insult both to society and individualism, and it's scary to think that someone who emphasizes rights of the individual believes in 'losers' and the rationalization of mass human suffering for the sake of a 'better' person's rights.

I always put my belief this way - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - but only in that order". If your rights to liberty and doing what you want infringe on another person's life, then you don't deserve these rights (clarification: I am not talking about fundamental rights here, but more minor liberties and priveleges). If your happiness and luxury infringe on another person's freedom, then you don't deserve that luxury. It's not a matter of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's a matter of observing fundamental humanist principles. A society which accepts material excuses for violating these is immoral. I may not believe in morals as such, but I think it even goes beyond that; I think a society that accepts material excuses for violating these is doomed to self-degradation and self-destruction. And I think I have a vested interest in the well-being of homo sapiens, beyond merely the specimen I inhabit.

This post devolves on a number of issues, most of which are related to changing human nature from the will to succeed into the will to fail. Or worse the allowance of one group to suppress, for lack of a better word, others. Democracy and capitalism is and has been the most effective and egalitarian system mankind has ever known. I welcome you to point me to another set of systems that have been more successful and given people more opportunity.

I see many knash teeth over how terirble is the plight of the so called 'dis-advantaged', yet other than lip service and being modern day Robin Hoods I don't see much sacrafice out of them. Talk is cheap and spending someone else's hard earned money is easy.

[Skybird]

Hitler? Leftwing?

:lol:

The unfortunate truth is that whatever a community beyond a certain scale and size tries to implement in the social field, must have a fundament in economical income. If that income is not generated, you're left in the social field with well-meaning intentions only - or the option to ever increase financial debts you make to bolster social ambitions that are more expensive than what you can afford.

This does not mean that there is only one way of economical strategy possible. Or that it cannot itself raise a problem independant from the social sector: when selfishness of the few overrules the interests of the community (which today is the case almost everywhere).

"Wem genug nicht reicht, der hat nie genug."

[dean_acheson]

How about Stalin and Hitler?

Both where socialy authoritarian (on the right), however whilst Stalin was on the economic left, Hitler was mainly on the economic right wing.

Whoa, where did you read this? Is something about the concept of National Socialist Workers Party confusing?

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

I'm sorry, but if you ain't talking the politics of Fredrick von Hayek, your economics ain't 'right' or 'conservative.'

There is very very little difference between Hitler and Stalin, except Hitler hated Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Communists and democrats, while Stalin hated everybody except, it seems, Hitler himself. So please, leave this misnomer to the World Civ. II classroom, where Marxist Professors like to tout it to wide-eyed freshmen.

[Letum]

How about Stalin and Hitler?

Both where socialy authoritarian (on the right), however whilst Stalin was on the economic left, Hitler was mainly on the economic right wing.
Whoa, where did you read this? Is something about the concept of National Socialist Workers Party confusing?

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

I'm sorry, but if you ain't talking the politics of Fredrick von Hayek, your economics ain't 'right' or 'conservative.'

There is very very little difference between Hitler and Stalin, except Hitler hated Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, Communists and democrats, while Stalin hated everybody except, it seems, Hitler himself. So please, leave this misnomer to the World Civ. II classroom, where Marxist Professors like to tout it to wide-eyed freshmen.

I disagree. You do not have to be as extreme as Hayek to be economically right of center.
There are many differences between Hitler and Stalin. To say that there are not is to take a rediciously simplistic view of the two regimes.

[RedMenace]

Is anyone else sick of waste gate's way to naievely criticize anything with his lack of any idea of how things work, why they work, or how they could work? No, waste gate, all your arguments go back to "Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve every penny."

Youre an economic genius, waste gate, an economic genius.

[Skybird]

Is anyone else sick of waste gate's way to naievely criticize anything with his lack of any idea of how things work, why they work, or how they could work? No, waste gate, all your arguments go back to "Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve every penny."

Youre an economic genius, waste gate, an economic genius.

Well, things in this forum tend to repeat themselves, RM. Some more months and you'll get used to it. :lol:

AL and me attacking Islam, Iceman ripplebombing us with bible-quotes, Steed complaing about PC, Brad colliding with some conservatives, Subman and Happy Times complaining of everything getting worse, Bill Nichols strictly limiting himself to naval-related issues, Neal occasionally letting go a one-liner doomed to become a famous quote - and Waste Gate attacking liberals and lefties.

In other words: just the ordinary routine!

[Torpedo Fodder]

True socialism only works if Anne Frank was right when she opined that "people are basically good". Of course, she wasn't right. People are not innately good, in their natural state humans are violent, hateful, greedy, and jealous (Lord of the Flies illustrates this perfectly). Humans may have the capacity for compassion and empathy, but that is far from their natural state. Such values can only be externally imposed through years of upbringing not top mention centuries of sociteltal evolution, and dire enough circumstances can swiftly strip away this thin veneer away revealing the true, base nature of humanity (witness the reactions of populations en masse during severe natural disasters).

Capitalism can be cruel to those on the bottom, but it works because it appeals to humans' base instincts. CCIP's model of Socialism requires altrism by the society at large to work, which is not a natural human trait like greed, and thus why it will never triumph over capitalism.

In nature, the Weak fall before the Strong: That's simply a harsh reality, and the same applies to human society: We're nothing more than smart animals, and can be just as savage. Get over it.

[Letum]

Is anyone else sick of waste gate's way to naievely criticize anything with his lack of any idea of how things work, why they work, or how they could work? No, waste gate, all your arguments go back to "Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve every penny."

Youre an economic genius, waste gate, an economic genius.
Well, things in this forum tend to repeat themselves, RM. Some more months and you'll get used to it. :lol:

AL and me attacking Islam, Iceman ripplebombing us with bible-quotes, Steed complaing about PC, Brad colliding with some conservatives, Subman and Happy Times complaining of everything getting worse, Bill Nichols strictly limiting himself to naval-related issues, Neal occasionally letting go a one-liner doomed to become a famous quote - and Waste Gate attacking liberals and lefties.

In other words: just the ordinary routine!


Don't I get to be stereotyped to?

please? ;)

[SUBMAN1]

Both were socially leftwing and dicatorial. Much like Fidel Castro's government of today.
Are you nuts?
Hitler belived in:
Individualism over collectivism.
Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
Merit over equality.
Competition over cooperation.
Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
Capitalism over Marxism.
Realism over idealism.
Nationalism over internationalism.
Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
Gun ownership over gun control
Common sense over theory or science.
Pragmatism over principle.
Religion over secularism.All of these are highly right wing traits!

Wow! Really? Hitler wasn't all lunatic I see - he had some good views in there amongst some of the bad.

-S

[Skybird]

Insert:
"Letum sometimes missing the harbour when trying to sail straight by steering left."
(but he has founded a great and famous fan club, so he is excused :D)

[waste gate]

Is anyone else sick of waste gate's way to naievely criticize anything with his lack of any idea of how things work, why they work, or how they could work? No, waste gate, all your arguments go back to "Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve every penny."

Youre an economic genius, waste gate, an economic genius.

I can always tell when someone's argument has been defeated. The personal attack follows.

[Tchocky]

Is anyone else sick of waste gate's way to naievely criticize anything with his lack of any idea of how things work, why they work, or how they could work? No, waste gate, all your arguments go back to "Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve every penny."

Youre an economic genius, waste gate, an economic genius.
I can always tell when someone's argument has been defeated. The personal attack follows.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=455202&postcount=14

[Enigma]

Haha...Tchocky read my mind....

[SUBMAN1]

I can always tell when someone's argument has been defeated. The personal attack follows.

That idea holds true a lot of the time, except when someone is tired of arguing the same points over and over. I do agree that most times though, the personal attacks are a sign of defeat.

-S

[Heibges]

Socialism is not a political ideal, but a historical process.

Eventually, the human race will get to a point where we will deserve socialism.

As we have become less ignorant and superstitious over the last 3000 years, we have edged closer and closer to it.

600 years ago, the idea of democratic rule, captitalism, and a middle class, would have been the craziest ideas around.

[SUBMAN1]

Socialism is not a political ideal, but a historical process.

Eventually, the human race will get to a point where we will deserve socialism.

As we have become less ignorant and superstitious over the last 3000 years, we have edged closer and closer to it.

600 years ago, the idea of democratic rule, captitalism, and a middle class, would have been the craziest ideas around.
Quit watching Star Trek and come into the real world for once! :D The point is, if I work hard, I want to be rewarded. Socialism does not reward that. We will never go that way in this country at least. We are influencing the Communists among us - just look at China! They are moving faster towards a Capitalist mentallity than any of us can imagine. I just watched a TV program on how the Communists and Socialists are slowly losing their grip on power. It is happening as we speak.

[dean_acheson]

I disagree. You do not have to be as extreme as Hayek to be economically right of center.
There are many differences between Hitler and Stalin. To say that there are not is to take a rediciously simplistic view of the two regimes.

Well, that means you fail to take into account that I am a rediciously simplistic person! ;)

[Subnuts]

I disagree. You do not have to be as extreme as Hayek to be economically right of center.
There are many differences between Hitler and Stalin. To say that there are not is to take a rediciously simplistic view of the two regimes.
Well, that means you fail to take into account that I am a rediciously simplistic person! ;)

No you're not. You used a word with five syllables in it!

[dean_acheson]

lol @ subnuts!

[TteFAboB]

The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that one is a genius, the other's insane. They're Pinky, yes, Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain...

Narf!

[SUBMAN1]

The difference between Hitler and Stalin is that one is a genius, the other's insane. They're Pinky, yes, Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain...

Narf!


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[Heibges]

Socialism is not a political ideal, but a historical process.

Eventually, the human race will get to a point where we will deserve socialism.

As we have become less ignorant and superstitious over the last 3000 years, we have edged closer and closer to it.

600 years ago, the idea of democratic rule, captitalism, and a middle class, would have been the craziest ideas around.
Quit watching Star Trek and come into the real world for once! :D The point is, if I work hard, I want to be rewarded. Socialism does not reward that. We will never go that way in this country at least. We are influencing the Communists among us - just look at China! They are moving faster towards a Capitalist mentallity than any of us can imagine. I just watched a TV program on how the Communists and Socialists are slowly losing their grip on power. It is happening as we speak.

I would have to disagree that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, or any other country on this planet were examples of Communism.

The only person in any of those countries who maybe understood Communism was Nikita Krueschev, and the Politburo took him out of power as soon as they realized he understood it.

Krueschev realized that the so-called Communists in Russia had basically only replaced the power structure of the Tzar. He surmised quite correctly that everyone has to be treated the same for communism to work. The flaw in every government that is supposedly communist is that the leaders get all the benefits.

The Bolsheviks replaced the Boyars. The Chicoms replaced the Mandarins. Castro replaced the plantation owners.

Give it a few hundered more years, and maybe we will be ready.

It's funny that the traditional Christian idea of Heaven on Earth after the final battle, is very close to the idea that socialists have of a perfect world.

[Skybird]

It's funny that the traditional Christian idea of Heaven on Earth after the final battle, is very close to the idea that socialists have of a perfect world.
:lol: Touché!

[SUBMAN1]

It's funny that the traditional Christian idea of Heaven on Earth after the final battle, is very close to the idea that socialists have of a perfect world.

Hardly. I can't imagine a bigger hell.

-S

[RedMenace]

Is anyone else sick of waste gate's way to naievely criticize anything with his lack of any idea of how things work, why they work, or how they could work? No, waste gate, all your arguments go back to "Poor people deserve to be poor, rich people deserve every penny."

Youre an economic genius, waste gate, an economic genius.
I can always tell when someone's argument has been defeated. The personal attack follows.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=455202&postcount=14

I love it when hypocrisy is put out into the open so well, thank you, you made my day. ^_^

[waste gate]

Perhaps if you leave your head in the sand you will never have to listen to another opinion which doesn't agree with your own.

BTW I don't think that is a personal attack. I never brought your 'genius' or anything personal into question. I only pointed out that you will change your position when it suits you.

[RedMenace]

Perhaps if you leave your head in the sand you will never have to listen to another opinion which doesn't agree with your own.

Yes, that is one solution, I guess, but for one, how will I breathe? What about eating? If I lift my head up to eat something, I risk being told an undesirable idea, and then what will I do? What if I starve to death? You need to reconsider this plan, waste gate, it works in theory, but you need to work on making sure it'll work in the real world, I'm afraid.:up:

[waste gate]

Perhaps if you leave your head in the sand you will never have to listen to another opinion which doesn't agree with your own.

Yes, that is one solution, I guess, but for one, how will I breathe? What about eating? If I lift my head up to eat something, I risk being told an undesirable idea, and then what will I do? What if I starve to death? You need to reconsider this plan, waste gate, it works in theory, but you need to work on making sure it'll work in the real world, I'm afraid.:up:

If figures of speach escape you, then..............

[RedMenace]

Figures of "speach" have always escaped my iron tyrannical grasp. Damn counter-revoultionary bastards.:x

[waste gate]

Figures of "speach" have always escaped my iron tyrannical grasp. Damn counter-revoultionary bastards.:x

Sorry.

[RedMenace]

Seriously though, waste gate, what do you have against your fellow man? Why are you so inclined to have the poor poorer and the rich richer?

[waste gate]

Seriously though, waste gate, what do you have against your fellow man? Why are you so inclined to have the poor poorer and the rich richer?

I have nothing against my fellow man. I give 10% of my income to my church ( I watch what they do with that money very closely) and take one vacation week a year to do non-church related (call it secular) volunteer work. I have an issue with those who would take from those who worked hard for their life and give it someone who didn't. No one is given any guarantees in life. Why is it that those who will not work to better themselves should be given a free ride?

Let us say, hypothetically, we distribute all the wealth in the world evenly amongst the population one time. What would be the benefit? The same people who are poor today would be poor tomorrow. Poverty, as bad as it is, cannot be swept away by the stroke of a pen. I very much resent those that use the disadvantaged as pawns for political advantage.

[SUBMAN1]

Seriously though, waste gate, what do you have against your fellow man? Why are you so inclined to have the poor poorer and the rich richer?
I have nothing against my fellow man. I give 10% of my income to my church ( I watch what they do with that money very closely) and take one vacation week a year to do non-church related (call it secular) volunteer work. I have an issue with those who would take from those who worked hard for their life and give it someone who didn't. No one is given any guarantees in life. Why is it that those who will not work to better themselves should be given a free ride?

Let us say, hypothetically, we distribute all the wealth in the world evenly amongst the population one time. What would be the benefit? The same people who are poor today would be poor tomorrow. Poverty, as bad as it is, cannot be swept away by the stroke of a pen. I very much resent those that use the disadvantaged as pawns for political advantage.

You know? This Socialism thing is starting to sound pretty good. You guys are turning me slowly. I mean, I could quit my job since its gaining me nothing anyway, and I could get paid to lounge around all day. Why are you fighting it Waste Gate? I could deal with this - sit around playing SHIV all day long!!! This could be good!

-S

[Sea Demon]

Why are you fighting it Waste Gate? I could deal with this - sit around playing SHIV all day long!!! This could be good!

-S

Without Capitalism, there would be no SHIV. ;)

[SUBMAN1]

Why are you fighting it Waste Gate? I could deal with this - sit around playing SHIV all day long!!! This could be good!

-S
Without Capitalism, there would be no SHIV. ;)
Ouch! Not even state sponsered? I mean, they had art and theatre in the Soviet Union, so isn't that along the same lines?

-S

[waste gate]

Seriously though, waste gate, what do you have against your fellow man? Why are you so inclined to have the poor poorer and the rich richer?
I have nothing against my fellow man. I give 10% of my income to my church ( I watch what they do with that money very closely) and take one vacation week a year to do non-church related (call it secular) volunteer work. I have an issue with those who would take from those who worked hard for their life and give it someone who didn't. No one is given any guarantees in life. Why is it that those who will not work to better themselves should be given a free ride?

Let us say, hypothetically, we distribute all the wealth in the world evenly amongst the population one time. What would be the benefit? The same people who are poor today would be poor tomorrow. Poverty, as bad as it is, cannot be swept away by the stroke of a pen. I very much resent those that use the disadvantaged as pawns for political advantage.

You know? This Socialism thing is starting to sound pretty good. You guys are turning me slowly. I mean, I could quit my job since its gaining me nothing anyway, and I could get paid to lounge around all day. Why are you fighting it Waste Gate? I could deal with this - sit around playing SHIV all day long!!! This could be good!

-S

Your right Subman. I should just bend over.

[ASWnut101]

Nevermind....too graphic.

[waste gate]

Nevermind....too graphic.

You caught my meaning.

[SUBMAN1]

Nevermind....too graphic.
You caught my meaning.

You should also insert some sarcasm into my above statements. I personally think its the worst idea ever. Who would want to work hard all day long for $30 a month anyway?

-S

[waste gate]

Nevermind....too graphic.
You caught my meaning.

You should also insert some sarcasm into my above statements. I personally think its the worst idea ever. Who would want to work hard all day long for $30 a month anyway?

-S

Ther in lies the rub. No incentive. $30.00 isn't even an issue. Try nothing for your work and of course no work. Abortion then is a viable option. What are we living for?

[RedMenace]

Seriously though, waste gate, what do you have against your fellow man? Why are you so inclined to have the poor poorer and the rich richer?


Let us say, hypothetically, we distribute all the wealth in the world evenly amongst the population one time. What would be the benefit? The same people who are poor today would be poor tomorrow.

Uh, no? If you gave redistributed wealth, you wouldn't have poverty. Actually, the idea of poverty would cease to exist. So no, you're wrong.

[RedMenace]

Nevermind....too graphic.
You caught my meaning.
You should also insert some sarcasm into my above statements. I personally think its the worst idea ever. Who would want to work hard all day long for $30 a month anyway?

-S
Ther in lies the rub. No incentive. $30.00 isn't even an issue. Try nothing for your work and of course no work. Abortion then is a viable option. What are we living for?

Who gives a crap about money when everyone's needs are provided for? You work becuase A. you are provided for, and B. you like to give back to a community that, under communism, and even socialism, would have given you so much

[RedMenace]

Seriously though, waste gate, what do you have against your fellow man? Why are you so inclined to have the poor poorer and the rich richer?
I have an issue with those who would take from those who worked hard for their life and give it someone who didn't.


Yes, because hours in the office is much much harder work than, for example, laying bricks and paving roads. I'll say, all this sitting on my ass at work, and typing up useless quotas and yearly stock amounts sure as hell gave me a sore back and cramped wrists. Oooh boy, does that guy breaking his back over roofing tiles have it easy or what?

[Tchocky]

Ouch! Not even state sponsered? I mean, they had art and theatre in the Soviet Union, so isn't that along the same lines? They had some of the greatest theatre ever written, to my mind. DOnt ask me how such a system produced it, I have no idea. The revolutionary-era theatre of the Soviet Union is fascinating.

BTW I don't think that is a personal attack. I never brought your 'genius' or anything personal into question. I only pointed out that you will change your position when it suits you. It really was, waste gate. You offered a point, it was countered. Not refuted, but countered with examples and proper content.
In a choice between actually responding why you think what was said was correct/incorrect, and being sarcastic and insulting the posters motives, you chose the latter. What a friendly chap.

[RedMenace]

Why are you fighting it Waste Gate? I could deal with this - sit around playing SHIV all day long!!! This could be good!

-S
Without Capitalism, there would be no SHIV. ;)

With Capitalism, there would be no Tetris.:yep:

[ASWnut101]

Without Captialism, (and with communism), there would be no sucess. What is there to gain in life if everyone is equal?

[RedMenace]

An amazing time on Earth, my friend. An amazing time on Earth.:up:

[ASWnut101]

Amazing how? Amazed from being just like everyone else?

[RedMenace]

Amazing because you can do whatever the crap you want without ending up on the streets broke.

[Tchocky]

Without Captialism, (and with communism), there would be no sucess. What is there to gain in life if everyone is equal?
I wonder what this question looks like from the other side of the fence. I'm assuming that anyone with an Internet connection is on the better side of a global average.
Just a thought.
http://hungerproject.pbwiki.com/f/Hunger%20Pic%201.jpg

[August]

AL and me attacking Islam, Iceman ripplebombing us with bible-quotes, Steed complaing about PC, Brad colliding with some conservatives, Subman and Happy Times complaining of everything getting worse, Bill Nichols strictly limiting himself to naval-related issues, Neal occasionally letting go a one-liner doomed to become a famous quote - and Waste Gate attacking liberals and lefties.

In other words: just the ordinary routine!

I am crushed I was not mentioned... :cry:

[Torpedo Fodder]

Who gives a crap about money when everyone's needs are provided for? You work becuase A. you are provided for, and B. you like to give back to a community that, under communism, and even socialism, would have given you so much
Your naivte is staggering. Go back and read my previous post about human nature.

Yes, because hours in the office is much much harder work than, for example, laying bricks and paving roads.
Yes, because mindless jobs that anyone in good physical shape can do should pay as much as jobs that require months or years of training. An example here: One of my first jobs was in a warehouse, loading and unloading trucks. That was a hard backbreaking job, and it paid $8.50 an hour. When I obtain my auto mechanic's licence, I'll be working for at least double that, even though most auto mechanics's tasks are far less physically demanding. Explain why an auto mechanic (or other jobs that require skill and training) should only make as much as a menial labourer. Expalin why I would train to become a mechanic if it only paid as well as menial labour? Sure I enjoy working on cars, but I could still do that in my free time.

Amazing because you can do whatever the crap you want without ending up on the streets broke.
Which means I could sit at home like a lazy bum and my needs would still be met. Same story if I worked back-to-back double shifts for a week. Now why would I want to work hard, or even at all? People who don't work should only be alowd to live off the government if they are physically incapable of working. If they refuse to work when they are able to do so then they deserve to be thrown on the streets

[SUBMAN1]

An amazing time on Earth, my friend. An amazing time on Earth.:up:
To me this means nothing left to live for. Nothing left to die for. Nothing left to strive for. No meaning to life. No meaning to death. Just a bullet to the head.

Anything else is take a number - you mean nothing in the grand scheme of things. Meaning nothing, why live? Why do good? In the end, it all doesn't matter.

[SUBMAN1]

Without Captialism, (and with communism), there would be no sucess. What is there to gain in life if everyone is equal?
See the post above.

[Tchocky]

Capitalism stole my virginity

communism wants me to have everyone else's

bleh

[P_Funk]

I have an issue with those who would take from those who worked hard for their life and give it someone who didn't.
You know its funny because thats what I thought Capitalism was all about.

[Letum]

I have an issue with those who would take from those who worked hard for their life and give it someone who didn't. You know its funny because that's what I thought Capitalism was all about.

:o wastegate actually said that?!

Wastegate, you really should read Das Capital.

By distancing those that actually work hard from the means of production and by putting the means of production in the hands of those who do not need to work to maintain it, capitalism does just that which you describe; it gives those that do the hard work on the factory floor as little as it possibly can to maintain them and gives those that own the means of production, but do not need to work to maintain it, all that they can take from it.

[SUBMAN1]

You know its funny because thats what I thought Capitalism was all about.
Guess you had it wrong. Capitalism rewards those willing to take risks.

[ASWnut101]

All I'm saying is, with communism, everyone is equal, right? In that there lies no freedom. You cannot be what you want, you cannot belive what you want, you cannot listen/watch what you want, you have to be like everyone else. Sure it will help some starving people in Africa, but then what? That isn't very free to me.

[SUBMAN1]

All I'm saying is, with communism, everyone is equal, right? In that there lies no freedom. You cannot be what you want, you cannot belive what you want, you cannot listen/watch what you want, you have to be like everyone else. Sure it will help some starving people in Africa, but then what? That isn't very free to me.

Perfectly said. But I said something similar above, and I don't think they get it. I feel it is like this - they have lived in a jail cell for most of their lives, and when they are let out, they have no clue what to do. This is very similar to real prison inmates, they've been told what to do all their life and everything was structured for them all their life, they can't handle it on the outside where they can choose what to do for the rest of their life. This results for them longing to go back to jail, and they eventually violate their parole, or they commit a new crime so that they can go back to what they are comfortable with. The rest never really fit back into public life, and many commit suicide.

I've seen this with my parrot. He doesn't want to be out and left alone - he wants back in his cage where things are structured and he feels safe.

It's amazing to see this from people from ex communist countries and their longing to go back into their own cage.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

As you may have guessed, I am analyzing this whole conversation since I find it interesting that people like Socialism / Communism, and a thought just occured to me:

Maybe it is true that people want to be told what to do?

I don't personally fit into that catagory, but I am begining to think that the people who live in Communistic / Socialistic countries actually like it this way. They don't have to think and are perfectly happy with someone thinking for them! It is amazing I think to see this. Why don't people like thinking for themselves? I enjoy making my own destiny, and I am quite succesful at it, and I plan to be even more succesful in the future! I just can't understand the mentality of people who like to be told what to do. I guess, have fun if that is what you consider fun. You may like it, but I think it is a rather pathetic existence though. Just my 2 cents.

-S

[Letum]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but could you give some examples of things you might want do do, that you don't think you could do in a socialist, communal society?

[SUBMAN1]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but could you give some examples of things you might want do do, that you don't think you could do in a socialist, communal society?

Have you been reading the thread? It is full of them.

-S

[ASWnut101]

Get more money, own a better car than my neighbor, get a good education, have Success in life. Something not everyone can have in a commie/socialist government/economy.

[Enigma]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but could you give some examples of things you might want do do, that you don't think you could do in a socialist, communal society?


He said "do do". Tee hee.

[SUBMAN1]

Get more money, own a better car than my neighbor, get a good education, have Success in life. Something not everyone can have in a commie/socialist government/economy.
In my mind, even this is too narrow. My thoughts are to go through life feeling I accomplished something. The idea of being just another number is just that - nothing. You are wasting space, food, and adding to global warming just by existing if you choose a system where you are told what to do, and told to get back in your cage. Only the truely free can be free to accomplish the truely extrodinary.

I wrote above about how this mentality is affecting people who have lived under this system for so long. It is nothing more than a jail cell, and being outside that jail is an impossibility for some people. They can't handle it mentally.

-S

PS. Even the state has no capability to imagine what it is that is best for its people. Only the people can do that.

[Letum]

Get more money, own a better car than my neighbor, get a good education, have Success in life. Something not everyone can have in a commie/socialist government/economy.

Under capitalism you can get a better car than your neighbor if you sit on your arse all day and own a factory.
Your neighbor works hard 12 hours a day on a factory floor, but he still earns far less than you and his car is crap, even tho he actually works far more than you.

Under socialism the only way you can get a better car than your neighbor is if you actually chose to do harder work than he does.
Now everyone owns a percentage of the factory, so no one can earn money by just owning something that makes money for them by exploiting the workers. Instead of the factory exploiting the workers, the workers exploit the factory. The more hours work you do, and the harder the work, the bigger the percentage of the factory you own and so the more money you make.

[ASWnut101]

In my mind, even this is too narrow. My thoughts are to go through life feeling I accomplished something. The idea of being just another number is just that - nothing. You are wasting space, food, and adding to global warming just by existing if you choose a system where you are told what to do, and told to get back in your cage. Only the truely free can be free to accomplish the truely extrodinary.

I wrote above about how this mentality is affecting people who have lived under this system for so long. It is nothing more than a jail cell, and being outside that jail is an impossibility for some people. They can't handle it mentally.

-S

PS. Even the state has no capability to imagine what it is that is best for its people. Only the people can do that.


True, I just ran out of time. Had to post short.

[SUBMAN1]

Under capitalism you can get a better car than your neighbor if you sit on your arse all day and own a factory.
Your neighbor works hard 12 hours a day on a factory floor, but he still earns far less than you and his car is crap, even tho he actually works far more than you.

Under socialism the only way you can get a better car than your neighbor is if you actually chose to do harder work than he does.
Now everyone owns a percentage of the factory, so no one can earn money by just owning something that makes money for them by exploiting the workers. Instead of the factory exploiting the workers, the workers exploit the factory. The more hours work you do, and the harder the work, the bigger the percentage of the factory you own and so the more money you make.
I guess you still don't get it. The guy with the factory already risked his butt and all he had on a gamble of trying to make something. He can sit on his butt the rest of his life if he wants, but I have never known a person who created something like this to sit idle. They are out creating something new and wonderful. This one guy has created two things now, and will probably increase things exponentially until he has a major industrial base going for him. Back in the Socialistic / Communistic idea - all your guys still have only 1 factory to the 10+ that the capatalistic guy has.

This is the very reason the US outproduced its rival in every way shape and form. Russia could never hope to hold a candle to the economic might of a private system. There is no incentive.

-S

[Skybird]

If one sees the value of life only in goals defined by a purely materialistic philosophy, a debate like this necessarily must go like it does. The definition of "success" as given in this thread also is very poor and self-limiting, imo. It does justice to trained doves in experiments, maybe, but not to humans. It may be true that many humans live in so poor codntions that material needs rank highest for them, necessarily. This does not mean that man is not capable of wishes leading beyond this. This "beyond" is what makes man seperate from animals. so focussing on materialistic concepts exclusively only means to limit man to his animalistic origin in the past. No wonder then that it is often argued that business shouold mimic the survival of the fittest as being illustrated by preadator and prey in nature. But that is a poor vision of man. no, it is no vision at all. It just rules that it shall never be different.

It is sad if people are living a life i so great poverty that they cannot afford to think about the "beyond". But all hope truly is lost oif people live in wealth but refuse to think about it voluntarily, and even try to convince others that it is useless, although they have the option to do so.

But those doing this are the same who often complain about decreasing values and lack of moral. It is exactly the attitude of mind that makes the West so weak and vulnerable towards ideologies (like Islam and any form of fundamentalisjm in general) that are strong in morals, even if rigid morals, it is what has hollowed out the West and made him loosing the right to claim cultural and/or ethical superiority. Poverty corrupts morals when you need to rob or hide your pride to get together the food and money you need to keep your family alive. wealth also corrupts morals - when enough is never enough, and wealth is all that counts in life.

Before everything else, he shall let go himself, for then he has let go everything. Forsooth, if a man would let go a kingdom or all world, but would keep himself, in reality he would not had let go anything. But if he lets go himself, whatever it is that he keeps then, may it be honour or wealth or whatever, he has letting go everything. […] We shall own as if we had nothing, but still having all things. The one does not have any possessions, who does not desire and does not want anything, neither for himself nor for all what is besides him. […] All suffering comes from love and affection. So, if I face suffering because of transitory things, then I still do have and my heart still has love and a tendency for transitory things, and I still do not love God with all my heart and I still do not love what God wants to know to be loved by me in Him. What wonder is it then when God allows that I suffer harm and sorrow, well-deserved? ” (Meister Eckehard)

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." - America and Europe have choosen for Money. That's why our community now fall victim to foreign Gods like Muhammad's Allah. Man wants more than just bread and gold. Western materilaism doe snot feed this most essential need. So people start looking elsewhere - even in totalitarism if only it promises them leadership on the ground of strong morals.

I find it ironic that some people cannot see that they may criticise Islam, but make it strong themsleves by hollowing out the rich ethical and philosophical heritage of the West - by reducing it to purely materialistic terms and capitalistic temrinology. However- ignorrance is no excuse and does not save you from penalty. Islam cannot be driven back by dollars and militaries.

We rot from within, and die of our own greed and lacking restraint, while still emitting a superficial shine. It's not the shine of a bright mind, but cold gold only.

[RedMenace]

Get more money, own a better car than my neighbor, get a good education, have Success in life.

You are officially the most materialistic person I know.

[RedMenace]

Under capitalism you can get a better car than your neighbor if you sit on your arse all day and own a factory.
Your neighbor works hard 12 hours a day on a factory floor, but he still earns far less than you and his car is crap, even tho he actually works far more than you.

Under socialism the only way you can get a better car than your neighbor is if you actually chose to do harder work than he does.
Now everyone owns a percentage of the factory, so no one can earn money by just owning something that makes money for them by exploiting the workers. Instead of the factory exploiting the workers, the workers exploit the factory. The more hours work you do, and the harder the work, the bigger the percentage of the factory you own and so the more money you make.
I guess you still don't get it. The guy with the factory already risked his butt and all he had on a gamble of trying to make something. He can sit on his butt the rest of his life if he wants, but I have never known a person who created something like this to sit idle. They are out creating something new and wonderful. This one guy has created two things now, and will probably increase things exponentially until he has a major industrial base going for him. Back in the Socialistic / Communistic idea - all your guys still have only 1 factory to the 10+ that the capatalistic guy has.



-S

What the hell? Whats with this idea that the more **** you own, the more people you exploit, and the fatter your wallet, the bigger success you are in life. It's despicable.

[ASWnut101]

True, I just ran out of time. Had to post short.


Please read all of the replies!:up:

[ASWnut101]

What the hell? Whats with this idea that the more **** you own, the more people you exploit, and the fatter your wallet, the bigger success you are in life. It's despicable.


Well, tell me what your idea of sucess is.

[RedMenace]

Pretty much everything OPPOSITE of what I mentioned. The more people you help, the more wealth you spread, the better person you are. I don't care how nice your car is, how big your house is, if I see someone driving a Ferrari around, I dont think "Wow what a success he must be." No, I think "Wow, what a jackass."

[Ishmael]

The problem, as I see it, is corporatism, not capitalism. Corporations are an artificial structure expressly designed to avoid individual or collective liability for corporate actions. I believe multi-national corporations actually prefer authoritarian governments because they provide labor peace through suppression of the labor force. Since they are, technically, citizens of the country of their incorporation, they are heir to all the rights of property available to such citizens. Simultaneously, because they are not real persons, they do not serve in the armed forces , but can obtain contracts from that government for profit. Their only alliegance is to their board & shareholders and their only motive to make the greatest amount of profit possible. When you have Jack Welch, former Chairman of GE, wishing in an interview that their factories could be built on barges so they could be towed to the part of the world where labor is cheapest and you have a race to the bottom. Now with those corporations hiring their own mercenary armies, they are becoming de facto states themselves.

The demographic fact is that overpopuation, resource exhaustion & the nature of corporate growth are leading to a two-tier society with the wealthy power elite living in their private reserves, deaf to the cries of human suffering from the vast majority living in grinding poverty and despair. At least with feudalism & the Divine Right of Kings, there was noblesse oblige. The nobility had a religious obligation to care for the poor & downtrodden, even though it was more honored in the breach.

Regarding communism, I believe it's failure is directly related to the absence of Zen thinking among communists. A Zen Communist, on taking power, would immediately give everything to the poor, send the government home, declare Communism achieved and resign his office. Thus the state would wither away.

[Skybird]

"Zen Communism"...? :lol:

[Ishmael]

"Zen Communism"...? :lol:

Hey, a Zen Nazi would have been a Zionist. Don't like the Jews? Send them where they want to go & they'll pay you for the privelege.

A Zen christian thanks god for this life.

A Zen Muslim would annoy the hell out of you on your doorstep like the Baptists, Pentacostals & Jehovah's witnesses do.

It's the Wei Wu Wei, the "doing without bothering".

[Skybird]

:lol:
That are without doubt the queerest explanations of wu wei and zionism i ever red anywhere! Good one!

[Wim Libaers]

If one sees the value of life only in goals defined by a purely materialistic philosophy, a debate like this necessarily must go like it does. The definition of "success" as given in this thread also is very poor and self-limiting, imo. It does justice to trained doves in experiments, maybe, but not to humans.

Of course, even if you expand te definition of success to academic or cultural achievements, there are still reasons to oppose socialist government, as they generally seem to require so many restrictions on personal freedom that those things, too, become harder. Of course, it would be unfair to attack socialism specifically for this, as it is but one of the systems that restrict too much. But it is one of them.