The Left's Attempted Monopoly on "good"

[tango]

Sorry but you are exploiting them by telling them they are disadvantaged. They have poor genes and their environment is bad well what a way to stick it to them. Put a label on them so they can remain forever stigmatized, denigrated and marginalized. It is too bad everyone is not equal and can't contribute equally, saying they are equal does not make it so. They can at least feel some sense of self worth by doing what they can to contribute to society. It is only that way that they will gain any self-respect. It doesn't matter that they will never be rich or achieve greatness or even mediocrity. It matters that they contributed something.

Assist or exploit?

No. you may need assistance but you can have some sense of self worth if people aren't continually pointing out your victim status. We are all victims in some sense but most of us don't wallow in it.

Sometimes it is injustice sometimes the left can convince us we are victims and it isn't our fault so we must remain victims. We are all victims and it's never our fault is the left's refrain.

Sometimes it is injustice to ignore them and let them die in the streets, but that is what some call 'justice'.

I'm exploiting people to agree to pay taxes so the disabled can eat? Ya right

If the 'left' is doing such a bad job, what is the 'right's' plan?

I've never seen one, frankly. I'm curious how it should be done 'right'.

And why hasn't it been done? Why does the right leave it to the left?

Who's going to hire them? The 'right'? ya right!

Show me ...

[benny]

Sometimes it is injustice to ignore them and let them die in the streets, but that is what some call 'justice'.

I'm exploiting people to agree to pay taxes so the disabled can eat? Ya right

If the 'left' is doing such a bad job, what is the 'right's' plan?

I've never seen one, frankly. I'm curious how it should be done 'right'.

And why hasn't it been done? Why does the right leave it to the left?

Who's going to hire them? The 'right'? ya right!

Show me ...

Take workfare.

[eyeball]

Why can't everyone just get along and do unto others as they'd have others do unto them? Its a pretty simple prescription for how to live with others. As for the environment and its ecosystems...basically act the same way towards everything else around you too, how big of a stretch is that?

The fallacy of misplaced concreteness sure comes to mind in the context of the OP point about language and control. There can be little doubt there is an enormous amount of concretized thought in the world. The real fallacy in my opinion stems from how little self control people believe they can excercize when putting meanings to words and context to meaning. One of my favourite books The Feeling of What Happens by Antonio Damasio and this passage from a review of it comes to mind...

Theory of mind is the mechanism that enables us to interpret the mental states of other people - their dispositions, intentions and motivations. In other words, it seems that Damasio’s work stands at the very heart of our attempts to understand what it is to be distinctively human, and to be a human among other humans. His books lay the basis for an agenda for future research which could hardly be more exciting or important.

Review

The book also lays a good foundation for a self exploration of what it is to be you and how you put yourself together as much as how you may have been put together.

When you consider how easy it is for individuals to set certain feelings and thoughts in stone thereby often implicitly imparting a reality to them that may or may not be appropriate its reasonable to conclude that much of this inappropriateness percolates up into society. Consider the orgins of the terms left and right wing. Who knows what sorts of mental spooks swirled through the minds of the near mideaval people and subsequent generations that originally defined and concretized these notions. Given the connection to leftwardness and the supernatural especially of the evil sort its a wonder they didn't call the left wing the wrong wing. Is the right hand called the right hand because its the right hand to use? The nun's used to hit my wife's left hand when she used it and tie it behind her back and tell her it was the wrong hand to use and I suspect people have been putting these sorts of notions into people's heads for centuries. I certainly can't quantify how much influence this sort of inappropriate nonsense has had on society but I certainly can't discount the possibility that it might be a lot. I really can't help but wonder how much symbolism has inappropriately been concretely embedded to at least some extent in many people's ideas.

By the way is it just me or do nun's seem like really conservative people?

[benny]

When you consider how easy it is for individuals to set certain feelings and thoughts in stone thereby often implicitly imparting a reality to them that may or may not be appropriate its reasonable to conclude that much of this inappropriateness percolates up into society. Consider the orgins of the terms left and right wing. Who knows what sorts of mental spooks swirled through the minds of the near mideaval people and subsequent generations that originally defined and concretized these notions. Given the connection to leftwardness and the supernatural especially of the evil sort its a wonder they didn't call the left wing the wrong wing. Is the right hand called the right hand because its the right hand to use? The nun's used to hit my wife's left hand when she used it and tie it behind her back and tell her it was the wrong hand to use and I suspect people have been putting these sorts of notions into people's heads for centuries. I certainly can't quantify how much influence this sort of inappropriate nonsense has had on society but I certainly can't discount the possibility that it might be a lot. I really can't help but wonder how much symbolism has inappropriately been concretely embedded to at least some extent in many people's ideas.

By the way is it just me or do nun's seem like really conservative people?

But the left hand is connected to the right side of the brain and vice versa!

[Pliny]

Like always, this view omits the main point: the Left is targeting first and foremost polluters.

Is that you? Everyone but Al Gore apparently.

[Pliny]

Having some specific genes is an objective fact, it is not a stigma at all.

What ever happened to everyone doing their level best? No one is "equal". We can see that some people have challenges that others don't. Attempting to rise above our challenges is all that can be asked of anyone. Granting anyone a feeling of entitlement so they don't have to face any challenges is cruel and inhumane and should be punishable by law.

[Bonam]

Excellent posts Pliny, you seem to explain these things more eloquently than I can.

[tango]

What ever happened to everyone doing their level best? No one is "equal". We can see that some people have challenges that others don't. Attempting to rise above our challenges is all that can be asked of anyone. Granting anyone a feeling of entitlement so they don't have to face any challenges is cruel and inhumane and should be punishable by law.

There are some challenges that people face that it is simply not possible for them to rise above.

Your ignorance combined with attitude of superiority is quite frightening.

You really have no clue.

Learning disabilities:

* Heredity - Learning disabilities often run in the family.

* Problems during pregnancy and birth - Learning disabilities can result from anomalies in the developing brain, illness or injury, fetal exposure to alcohol or drugs, low birth weight, oxygen deprivation, or by premature or prolonged labor.

* Accidents after birth - Learning disabilities can also be caused by head injuries, malnutrition, or by toxic exposure (such as heavy metals or pesticides).

* Behavioral Factors

* Social environment factors

* Cognitive Factors

About 10% of the population has a learning disability, and many of them either cannot, or have great difficulty holding a job, and they are often among the chronically unemployed.

Genetic disabilities: Most common

22q11.2 deletion syndrome D 22q

Angelman syndrome DCP 15

Canavan disease 17p

Celiac disease

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

Color blindness P X

Cri du chat D 5

Cystic fibrosis P 7q

Down syndrome C 21

Duchenne muscular dystrophy D Xp

Haemophilia P X

Klinefelter syndrome C X

Neurofibromatosis 17q/22q/?

Phenylketonuria P 12q

Prader-Willi syndrome DC 15

Sickle-cell disease P 11p

Tay-Sachs disease P 15

Turner syndrome C X

Psychopathology:

* F00-F09 Organic, including symptomatic, mental disorders

* F10-F19 Mental and behavioural disorders due to psychoactive substance use

* F20-F29 Schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders

* F30-F39 Mood [affective] disorders

* F40-F48 Neurotic, stress-related and somatoform disorders

* F50-F59 Behavioural syndromes associated with physiological disturbances and physical factors

* F60-F69 Disorders of adult personality and behaviour

* F70-F79 Mental retardation

* F80-F89 Disorders of psychological development

* F90-F98 Behavioural and emotional disorders with onset usually occurring in childhood and adolescence

* F99 Unspecified mental disorder

Physical disabilities...

[People] with a physical disability may not be able to...

control spontaneous limb movement•

control speed of movement•

move quickly or have coordination•

perform manual tasks such as gripping and turning a handle, keys or knobs, • holding a pen, and typing

move arms or legs fully (e.g., negotiate stairs)•

move around independently (e.g., walking any distance, standing for extended • periods of time, getting in and out of a vehicle easily)

reach, pull, push, manipulate•

perform tasks that require endurance and strength

The vast majority of these disabilities, you cannot 'see' by looking at the person, or even by talking to them.

Multiple sclerosis, for another example, may not be noticeable at all if the person is not under stress. However, their condition may deteriorate rapidly and permanently in the stress of a working environment.

This is just a small sample of the invisible challenges some people face.

I hope this helps you understand less able people just a little bit more, and count yourself very lucky if you are not among them.

Edited July 1, 2009 by tango

[Pliny]

There are some challenges that people face that it is simply not possible for them to rise above.

Your ignorance combined with attitude of superiority is quite frightening.

You really have no clue.

There you go with the labels. What do they entitle their bearers to?

I said we are not all "equal". All that can be expected is to try and rise above our challenges. If you can't then you can't but you should realize that you can still make a contribution. Your self-respect depends upon it. Using a condition or situation or claimed impairment to gain entitlement does absolutely nothing for you as a person. It may get you some sympathy but that has no longevity and engendering sympathy for personal gain becomes the subject's prime occupation - a very degrading experience. Most who do use their "label" as a crutch to engender sympathy look upon their sympathizers as useful idiots. It's their way of feeling "superior".

Some people cannot rise above anything, that is true. they are the ones that need compassionate care. They are very few. And I am certain there are enough caring compassionate liberals, who can appeal to charitable conservatives, that would die to be able to look after them. Government need not be concerned.

The criminally insane? Yeah! They need to be locked up until they gain some self-respect. They can only do that if they feel they are in control of themselves and they need, as distasteful as it may seem to them, to atone for their crimes and maybe actually help someone. They may never be able to atone for their crimes, the debt may be too steep. But even they don't deserve a life of sympathy - no one does.

Ignorance combined with an attitude of superiority is frightening?

Is this statement a means to gain superiority? Now that's frightening!

I expect a socialist to not discriminate regarding my ignorance but I know they don't like attitudes of superiority. Is it just attitudes of superiority or out and out superiority that they dislike? Anyway, I am sure you will find something on your list that will describe my particular challenge in life. Some of us can't rise above those challenges as you say. Poor me. Can I apply for disability?

Edited July 1, 2009 by Pliny

[tango]

I said we are not all "equal". All that can be expected is to try and rise above our challenges. If you can't then you can't but you should realize that you can still make a contribution.

They do make a contribution.

But you mean hold down a job, right? That's doubtful. Most of them really can't compete.

Some of us can't rise above those challenges as you say. Poor me. Can I apply for disability?

You can apply ... but you won't get it.

[Pliny]

Why can't everyone just get along and do unto others as they'd have others do unto them? Its a pretty simple prescription for how to live with others. As for the environment and its ecosystems...basically act the same way towards everything else around you too, how big of a stretch is that?

Because some people (Socialists) like to use others (Politicians) to extort property from other people fo rtheir own purposes.

By the way is it just me or do nun's seem like really conservative people?

It is just you - Nuns are apolitical. They are charged with "conserving" the faith though.

[Pliny]

They do make a contribution.

But you mean hold down a job, right? That's doubtful. Most of them really can't compete.

No. I don't mean hold down a "job". If they make a contribution they should feel fulfilled. That's all I mean. If they are below holding down a job they need to work out what they can do. Enforced Basketweaving I don't consider a contribution.

You can apply (for disability) ... but you won't get it.

That's nice to know. I'm heartened by that. Thank you.

[Pliny]

Excellent posts Pliny, you seem to explain these things more eloquently than I can.

You do a fine job if it yourself. I enjoy your posts.

[Bonam]

Learning disabilities:

* Heredity - Learning disabilities often run in the family.

* Problems during pregnancy and birth - Learning disabilities can result from anomalies in the developing brain, illness or injury, fetal exposure to alcohol or drugs, low birth weight, oxygen deprivation, or by premature or prolonged labor.

* Accidents after birth - Learning disabilities can also be caused by head injuries, malnutrition, or by toxic exposure (such as heavy metals or pesticides).

* Behavioral Factors

* Social environment factors

* Cognitive Factors

I know two people with two different learning disabilities. One is a mechanical engineer and the other is a marine biologist. They rose above their disabilities just fine, and both enjoyed a variety of accommodations that helped them get where they are. Even if one has a more severe learning disability, it rarely eliminates their ability to contribute in some less intellectually demanding way, and many do. A learning disability is not a reason to be poor or a victim, it is just an extra challenge that one must overcome in life.

Genetic disabilities: Most common

22q11.2 deletion syndrome D 22q

Angelman syndrome DCP 15

Canavan disease 17p

Celiac disease

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

Color blindness P X

Cri du chat D 5

Cystic fibrosis P 7q

Down syndrome C 21

Duchenne muscular dystrophy D Xp

Haemophilia P X

Klinefelter syndrome C X

Neurofibromatosis 17q/22q/?

Phenylketonuria P 12q

Prader-Willi syndrome DC 15

Sickle-cell disease P 11p

Tay-Sachs disease P 15

Turner syndrome C X

What is the point of this list? Just a random list of genetic diseases? Some of these are fatal in almost every case, like Tay-Sachs.

Psychopathology:

People with mental disorders that can be controlled can and do find employment and can contribute meaningfully. People with disorders that cause them to be erratic or dangerous, or people who are completely debilitated by their mental disorders, can and should be kept in institutions which take care of them and also protect society from them.

Physical disabilities...

There are plenty of options in life which don't involve any of the activities you mentioned, or where technological substitutes can be used to replace these activities. I know a man who has been in a wheelchair his entire life and now runs his own business and has a beautiful wife. His disability didn't stop him.

So anyway, what is your point with this list of disorders and disabilities? Should no one be able to enjoy a better quality of life than a quadriplegic with Down's syndrome? If someone is smart and healthy, we have to make them sacrifice everything they have until they have no better prospects in life than someone about to die from Tay-Sachs? There can be no such equality, and it is sickening to think that someone would try to rob the joy from the lives of all just because there are people who suffer from unfortunate conditions.

Edited July 1, 2009 by Bonam

[WIP]

I was reading this excellent article and it occured to me (although not directly related to the topic in the article) that the left has somehow, through it's control over language and the media, managed to win in the battle of implied intent.

You've got your nerve, complaining that leftwingers are misusing language as propaganda, when the masters of the art of propaganda are all on your side of the political spectrum.

In the U.S., conservative foundations with more than 2 billion dollars in assets, finance conservative media, and conservative "think tanks" like the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and the American Enterprize Institute. Their people are constantly on TV, radio, and writing books. Books by approved conservative authors are instant best-sellers because the conservative foundations buy up large quantities to be given away as gifts for memberships

Take a look at where the money comes from that finances your favourite conservative writers, TV and radio personalities:

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Repub...ganda1sep04.htm

As for misusing language for propaganda purposes, here are a few on my list:

"Pro Life" has been taken over by anti-abortion crusaders who demand an end to women having access to abortion and artificial means of birth control.

"Death Tax" -- keep all of the money in the family, and keep building the dynasty by attacking the principle of estate taxes. Feudalism, here we come!

"Defense of Marriage Act" -- deny gays equal rights under family law.

"Junk Science" -- evidence for global warming and environmental degradation.

"Small Government" -- weaken political and legal institutions to the point where they can no longer challenge corporate interests.

"School Choice" -- gut public education, and leave what's left of it to the religious fanatics.....it worked for Pakistan.

And I'm sure there are lots of other examples of right wingers co-opting populist language to benefit the narrow interests of the rich and powerful.

[benny]

What ever happened to everyone doing their level best? No one is "equal". We can see that some people have challenges that others don't. Attempting to rise above our challenges is all that can be asked of anyone. Granting anyone a feeling of entitlement so they don't have to face any challenges is cruel and inhumane and should be punishable by law.

Market efficiency depends entirely on leaving (external) natural resources to the most talented/gifted workers that is, the ones with the most precious internal natural resources (genes).

Edited July 1, 2009 by benny

[Michael Hardner]

I concur with Bonam, and am enjoying the discussion by Pliny and tango here.

But - even Pliny must admit that we need some kind of social safety net. These discussions we have are enjoyable, but frequently are at a donut-shop level of sophistication - arguing 'socialism' versus 'capitalism' when those arguments were settled by the mid-20th century.

We emerged from that century with a hybrid system that helps those who fall down, but expects them to be reasonably responsible for their own well-being. If you doubt me, then take a look at the differences between the Conservatives and NDP.

Are the Conservatives planning a wholesale reduction in the social safety net ? Are the NDP planning to nationalize industries and increase corporate taxes prohibitively ? No.

We've FOUND the system, and although these philosophical discussions are interesting, they're really just parlor games aren't they ?

Some other points:

Jerry Seinfeld:

Because left wingers generally make decisions based upon what "feels good" at the time (rather than what makes sense), many left wingers "imply" or "impute" good intentions upon those who make crappy decisions or even downright racist statements.

Your argument fails here because of a gross generalization of the decision processes of left wingers. There's no evidence that left/right wingers are more/less rational and in fact MLW is evidence to the contrary.

You may recall your assertion - around the time you joined the board - that many truck drivers in India had degrees. I asked you to back that up and you turned tail, never to respond. Your posts have got somewhat better since then, but please don't mistake yourself for someone who wears the mortarboard.

Pliny:

They are about caring and sharing making everyone equal. Their slogans are all about compassion and saving the environment. They do very little thinking beyond the mushy emotional world of their slogans.

Fair enough. Even a lefty wouldn't deny that they're about 'caring and sharing' at least some of the time.

But anger is an emotion too, and where would Rush or O'Reilly be without anger ? I reject the idea that left/right is more/less emotional than the other side, but maybe accept that different groups tend to use use different emotions.

GhostHacked:

WTF is wrong with you right wingers getting offended by COMEDIANS??? If you want to start gagging Comedians, then you are in a world of hurt that has been created by no one other than yourself.

Quite true, GH. A lot of this donut-shop type discussion is about bogeymen on both sides of the political spectrum: the left-winger who hugs seals and plays folk guitar concerts for the homeless every night, and the right-winger who drives through those concerts in his SUV (with leopard skin seat covers of course) laughing while he gets his oil company profits read to him by his minimum-wage man servant.

Tango:

Oh what a simple world some live in. The "left" and the "right" ... as if that dichotomy defines all of us. I think its quite a bit more complicated than that, but some can't comprehend complexity so they rely on simplistic yes-no, good-bad responses, and consider themselves the holders of 'truth'.

More complicated, I agree. But humans are pretty simple underneath.

Bonam:

The "left" certainly does seem more adept at this style of warfare than the "right", as we can constantly observe society trending slowly but inexorably further and further towards socialism.

Society is becoming both more liberal and more conservative. Socially, I'd say the liberals are winning the big war, mostly thanks to the culture explosion and the liberal gift for the arts, which places a left-wing trojan horse in every living room and iPOD. Fiscally, the conservatives are winning big time, and you can look at declining tax rates for the wealthiest as proof of that.

Pliny:

Certainly, there is risk in living and all risk cannot be eliminated or it would not be life but merely an existence. People make choices and must be able to judge when they have made wrong choices. Constantly bailing them out without suffering any of the consequences or responsibilities of their bad choices is not conducive to them learning to make good choices.

As I said, Pliny, your posts are well put together but even the most conservative political philosophy in the Americas allows for government provision for general welfare. And even the most liberal philosophy doesn't attempt to eliminate all risk, or even to guarantee equality of outcomes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it's time for countries to start declaring a bill of common values, to compliment our bills of rights. In such a document, you could expect to find that common ground between left and right, since our common values include self-reliance as well as caring for our neighbours.

[benny]

I think it's time for countries to start declaring a bill of common values, to compliment our bills of rights. In such a document, you could expect to find that common ground between left and right, since our common values include self-reliance as well as caring for our neighbours.

These common values should be geared towards protecting our natural environment since it is futile to speak about self-reliance in the middle of a wasteland.

[Michael Hardner]

benny,

I was thinking that as well - something the lines of "improving our environment with every generation".

But that would likely be very contentious, when you think about it. Generally, most everyone agrees that the environment needs to be taken care of, but Canada is dependent on using our natural resources, which by definition deteriorates the environment.

[eyeball]

I think it's time for countries to start declaring a bill of common values, to compliment our bills of rights. In such a document, you could expect to find that common ground between left and right, since our common values include self-reliance as well as caring for our neighbours.

What's wrong with do unto others as you'd have them do unto you? Its not rocket science but like e=mc2, its simple, elegant and gets right to the point.

As I also pointed out the same prescription only needs a minor adjustment to encompass how we treat the environment.

[Bonam]

I concur with Bonam, and am enjoying the discussion by Pliny and tango here.

But - even Pliny must admit that we need some kind of social safety net. These discussions we have are enjoyable, but frequently are at a donut-shop level of sophistication - arguing 'socialism' versus 'capitalism' when those arguments were settled by the mid-20th century.

We emerged from that century with a hybrid system that helps those who fall down, but expects them to be reasonably responsible for their own well-being. If you doubt me, then take a look at the differences between the Conservatives and NDP.

I agree with that, people who fall on hard times temporarily should be given help to get back up and become productive again. But today's social institutions try to go far beyond that, they create a permanent "victim class", that we are supposed to support in perpetuity, rather than temporarily until they get back on their feet. This is what I am opposed to.

We've FOUND the system, and although these philosophical discussions are interesting, they're really just parlor games aren't they ?

We've found a system, which works reasonably well yes. But nonetheless, some people want to further expand the "social safety net", if you can still call it that at this point, and implement more and more wealth redistribution schemes. Others would like to see society reduce that and emphasize personal responsibility more. Personally, when I see examples like this:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....showtopic=14348

it makes me think we have shifted way too far to the left when it comes to social policy.

Bonam:

Society is becoming both more liberal and more conservative. Socially, I'd say the liberals are winning the big war, mostly thanks to the culture explosion and the liberal gift for the arts, which places a left-wing trojan horse in every living room and iPOD. Fiscally, the conservatives are winning big time, and you can look at declining tax rates for the wealthiest as proof of that.?

Heh, true perhaps, but it can't work that way for long. Liberals winning on the social side means more and more government spending for their social programs, while conservatives winning on the fiscal side means less and less tax revenues. Obviously that's unsustainable. To fund expanding social programs you need growing taxes, and to maintain a surplus with declining taxes you need to cut social (and perhaps other) programs.

[benny]

benny,

I was thinking that as well - something the lines of "improving our environment with every generation".

But that would likely be very contentious, when you think about it. Generally, most everyone agrees that the environment needs to be taken care of, but Canada is dependent on using our natural resources, which by definition deteriorates the environment.

There is a difference between using and abusing natural resources. Nature has some capacities to regenerate itself after a number of deteriorations.

[WIP]

I agree with that, people who fall on hard times temporarily should be given help to get back up and become productive again. But today's social institutions try to go far beyond that, they create a permanent "victim class", that we are supposed to support in perpetuity, rather than temporarily until they get back on their feet. This is what I am opposed to.

In game theory, they call it the Free Rider Problem -- how to stop non-contributors from using things that benefit the group. In a small community, it may be possible to stop free riders, but in a large, complex social democracy, there is no way to take out everyone who games the system, without hurting those who are in desperate need of government services.

What the conservatives are doing is taking advantage of this natural inclination to eliminate free riders, along with the base instinct towards selfishness -- kind of ironic that it is usually religious conservatives who provide the moral argument for greed and selfish behaviour!

[WIP]

.................This is just a small sample of the invisible challenges some people face.

I hope this helps you understand less able people just a little bit more, and count yourself very lucky if you are not among them.

I would add to the list of personal disabilities that might cause disadvantage.

1. The increasing costs of post-secondary education at a time when the loss of manufacturing is shrinking the middle class, is creating a permanent underclass of people who are stuck in Walmart and Tim Horton's jobs and will not likely be able to earn enough to improve their education later in life.

2. Inheritance. It should be a no-brainer that there is no real "level playing field" when some idiot like George Bush II was able to lead a charmed life of frittering away one business opportunity after another because he was born into a wealthy and well-connected family.

Conservatives are always claiming that the left is trying to equalize outcomes, while they are equalizing opportunities. They extrapolate this claim to justify allowing a few to become filthy rich and pay little or no taxes, while others are left in grinding poverty. It's a bogus argument to begin with since there is no way to ensure an equal start in life for all to begin with.

[Bonam]

I would add to the list of personal disabilities that might cause disadvantage.

1. The increasing costs of post-secondary education at a time when the loss of manufacturing is shrinking the middle class, is creating a permanent underclass of people who are stuck in Walmart and Tim Horton's jobs and will not likely be able to earn enough to improve their education later in life.

BS, anyone, ANYONE who wants a post-secondary education in Canada can get it payed for, whether through student loans, bursaries, scholarships, or other forms of financial aid.