The Left's Attempted Monopoly on "good"

[WIP]

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.

It's not as bad as the situation in the U.S.......yet -- but 30 years ago, college and university tuition (and textbook) costs were a fraction of what they are now. In Ontario, many high school graduates are having to settle for community college rather than university, because they and their families do not have the resources to finance a university education.

[Bonam]

It's not as bad as the situation in the U.S.......yet -- but 30 years ago, college and university tuition (and textbook) costs were a fraction of what they are now. In Ontario, many high school graduates are having to settle for community college rather than university, because they and their families do not have the resources to finance a university education.

No, you are completely wrong. People who choose not to go to university in Canada because of financial issues are seriously misinformed about the options available to them. You do not need a penny of personal or family resources to finance a university education. In fact it is actually easier for students from low income families to qualify for all kinds of financial aid.

[benny]

No, you are completely wrong. People who choose not to go to university in Canada because of financial issues are seriously misinformed about the options available to them. You do not need a penny of personal or family resources to finance a university education. In fact it is actually easier for students from low income families to qualify for all kinds of financial aid.

Public or publically subsidized schools exist to equalize life opportunities. If they are not achieving this goal, they should close their doors.

Edited July 2, 2009 by benny

[Pliny]

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).

Market efficiency is about the division of labour. No one person can do everything. It takes a broad spectrum of people from the top and bottom of society to provide all of us with the standard of living we enjoy. We are all rewarded by each others contribution. Certainly some contribute more than others and have advantages. but as the left likes to point out no one gets rich by themselves. The left uses this to create a guilt complex and take more from companies and corporations that already provide work and wealth to the communities where they exist. The actual truth of the matter is that there is mutual benefit in the cooperative and continuous interaction of all of us and there is no need to feel guilty so that even more can be exacted from those that already contribute to the standard of living we all create as a society.

The ones with the precious internal natural resources (genes) know that they are not islands unto themselves. it makes no sense for them to be left with (external) natural resources that they may not have any interest in.

We are all different we all have different interests and talents. The division of labour creates our societies standard of living.

Who are you reading? From your posts it seems pretty ideological. I like a little more practicality.

[Bonam]

Who are you reading? From your posts it seems pretty ideological. I like a little more practicality.

Benny reads Zizek, some crazy dude who calls himself a philosopher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavoj_%C5%BDi%C5%BEek

[Pliny]

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.

I appreciate your input to bring things to perhaps a more "sophisticated" level but

they obviously aren't settled.

The real problem with socialism is it isn't stagnant and a benefit given by government to one special interest is never ceded, and one special interest receiving benefit is reason for other special interests to demand benefit.

It is a process of centralizing power and authority that is accomplished over time and generally goes unnoticed over time until it becomes a tyranny. Liberties and freedoms are eroded and the erosion ignored in lieu of benefit, privilege and largesse from the public coffers which eventually and inevitably chokes the economy. The result is despotic governments attempting to maintain order. It also leaves the door of opportunity open to hard line dictators to seize power.

What is the purpose of people working to build a culture and a society and a decent standard of living when it is thrown out the window by government and government arrogates the engineering of society to itself. What is left for people to do but demand government provide for them since it increasingly extorts so much from the production of society. It makes no sense for the people to build a society themselves but to let government provide that for them.

One thing that the government should never be in control of is the economy through the monopolization of the money supply and the control of interest rates, and fractional reserve banking should be made illegal or minimumly the public should be made aware of the inherent risks of fractional reserve banking.

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.

Socialism is slow and insidious. We haven't emerged with a hybrid system. We are in the middle of an evolutionary process that is dangerously approaching it's end.

The first half of the twentieth century finds the introduction of socialism to western society. It was popular even in America, where Hoover and FDR introduced many socialist concepts into the American fabric.

The interest in socialism in the west waned somewhat because of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and WW II. The American dream, somewhat tarnished, was polished up for the war effort to fight evil and tyrannical totalitarian governments.

Who would have thought the Democrats in the US would be nationalizing industries and increasing corporate taxes (cap and trade) prohibitively? The US may have been ready for a black President but they weren't ready for European style social democracies. Obama, instead of realizin his dream will, I think, act more like a clarion call for America to wake up and take back their government. It too, although at a much slower and resistive pace, has been suffering from creeping socialism. Obama is attempting to accelerate the process but some Americans are rubbing the sleep out of their eyes.

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

We haven't found the system. We are nearing the uncomfortable point in it's evolution.

Some other points:

Pliny:

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.

I did qualify the term "emotions" with "mushy". What the left does is pretend that government should epitomize a mushy caring-sharing entity of society. Government is about laws; their enforcement, and justice. It cannot be expected to deliver justice and take pity or sympathize or grant privilege or entitlement to any faction or special interest in society. If it does it cannot deliver justice. If you want to know why police are taking justice into their own hands more and more you will find they believe that no one else is doing it. The public's perception of justice is that it seems to be skewed with seemingly oddball inconsistencies in it's delivery. It isn't hard to see that laws are made for other interests than keeping the peace. some are blatantly made to fill the coffers of government with fines such as exist in traffic laws. If my license and thus my livelihood are at stake then the laws better be not be perceived in the slightest to be about lining the pockets of government.

GhostHacked:

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.

The bogeyman is big government and it is the same one on the left and the right. If government is too big both the left and the right have too much power.

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.

Basically, government is getting bigger. Declining tax rates for the wealthiest doesn't seem to be on Obama's horizon.

Over the long haul taxes have increased by quite a bit. They have indeed fallen somewhat lately especially when countries are competing for businesses to locate in their country. The OECD chastizes nations that do this. The tax rates, in order for there to be a "level playing field", must be comparative from country to country.

Taxes always start off small.

Pliny:

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.

These socialist doctrines that have been adopted by both the conservatives and the liberals is, as I have said, a progression, an evolutionary process. It doesn't stop with provision for general welfare. That provision is the precedent for further benefits and entitlements that people will vote themselves and already won bnefits will not be relinquished.

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.

If government attempts that it creates trouble. If society develops in that direction of common values fine.

[benny]

Market efficiency is about the division of labour. No one person can do everything. It takes a broad spectrum of people from the top and bottom of society to provide all of us with the standard of living we enjoy.

There is no guarantee labour will be needed from people at the bottom since our standard of living depends first and foremost on human-labour-replacing (i.e. automated) technologies.

Edited July 2, 2009 by benny

[bush_cheney2004]

...The first half of the twentieth century finds the introduction of socialism to western society. It was popular even in America, where Hoover and FDR introduced many socialist concepts into the American fabric.

The interest in socialism in the west waned somewhat because of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and WW II. The American dream, somewhat tarnished, was polished up for the war effort to fight evil and tyrannical totalitarian governments.

Socialism in America predates all of these things by many years, well into the 19th century.

[benny]

Socialism in America predates all of these things by many years, well into the 19th century.

When capitalism was scared about communism, it introduced socialism to make revolutions appears unnecessary.

[Smallc]

In Ontario, many high school graduates are having to settle for community college rather than university, because they and their families do not have the resources to finance a university education.

Ok, I was with you until here. Settle? I chose to leave university and I instead went to a community college. There was no settling involved.

[Pliny]

There is no guarantee labour will be needed from people at the bottom since our standard of living depends first and foremost on human-labour-replacing (i.e. automated) technologies.

There is no guarantee labour will be needed from people anywhere on the wage scale, not just at the bottom.

Some people, with obvious socialist leanings, have the idea that everyone should have a guaranteed wage. Nice but who will do the work.

Benny, if anything there will always be a demand for unskilled labour - people at the bottom. Someone always has to take out the garbage. Technology does replace jobs just like buggy whips went out of production. We find something else to do.

It's that simple. It may be unsettling and a challenge but we face them all the time. What you want is everyone sitting in a pasture chewing their cud - not a care in the world.

Put some motion in your concept of things, Benny. We don't just roll up in a ball and die when we lose a job or when we are faced with adversity of any kind - some do I suppose and some will do waht we are taught to do today - start the chant "the government oughta do something about that".

[Pliny]

It's not as bad as the situation in the U.S.......yet -- but 30 years ago, college and university tuition (and textbook) costs were a fraction of what they are now. In Ontario, many high school graduates are having to settle for community college rather than university, because they and their families do not have the resources to finance a university education.

The fact that there are people who are going to university who don't really care to be there is a bigger tragedy.

A University education used to be very valuable. It isn't worth as much today but it sure costs a lot more. Just a demonstration of how much our "money " has been devalued - although we are paying more we are getting less.

[Bonam]

The fact that there are people who are going to university who don't really care to be there is a bigger tragedy.

A University education used to be very valuable. It isn't worth as much today but it sure costs a lot more. Just a demonstration of how much our "money " has been devalued - although we are paying more we are getting less.

I'm not sure I'd say it's less valuable. It's just less rare. More and more jobs these days require or at least preference a university education. Having a degree still opens up many opportunities that are otherwise unavailable. The actual knowledge and facilities that universities make available to students has also not declined but rather continued to increase.

[benny]

Benny, if anything there will always be a demand for unskilled labour - people at the bottom. Someone always has to take out the garbage.

This post is garbage since it depends on garbage.

[Bonam]

This post is garbage since it depends on garbage.

Lol nice, that one actually made me smile.

[benny]

Lol nice, that one actually made me smile.

Don't you feel a bit sad for the long way Pliny has to go!?

[Pliny]

I'm not sure I'd say it's less valuable. It's just less rare. More and more jobs these days require or at least preference a university education. Having a degree still opens up many opportunities that are otherwise unavailable. The actual knowledge and facilities that universities make available to students has also not declined but rather continued to increase.

I don't dispute what you say. The question is, is the University degree an education or an entitlement to opportunity today? It used to be a guarantee of a bright future because it was a representation of a standard the person holding it had achieved. That standard is gone today and there is no guarantee to an employer that the degree defines the person holding it.

There are certain faculties, such as engineering and the physical sciences, that are necessary for employment because they impart information necessary to the practical application of a profession. Is that an education though?

What would you expect of University if everyone could attend? Are we eventually going to see, as in our schools, special needs students sitting in the corner with a Professor's aide and allow everyone to pass so we don't hurt their self esteem? Of what value is that degree? Is that an education?

As you say, anyone who wants to go to University is not barred by financing. As is usual, the left complains about money and costs, it is their favorite past-time. You would think they would learn how to make money instead of promoting everybody live off everybody else. As Bastiat said “The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

So where are our leaders today? Are they embodied in the likes of Trudeau or Obama or any of today's statesmen who paternalize their citizens and tell them that everything will be done for them. Are they really thinkers or are they power mongers centralizing authority and setting themselves up on a pedestal to gaze upon the lesser beings and engineer their sorry lives for their own good and the good of all. Of which this thread asks the question - does the left attempt a monopoly on good.

[Pliny]

This post is garbage since it depends on garbage.

Yes. It does.

It seems that whenever that question, "who will take out the garbage?" is asked of the socialist it goes unanswered.

[bush_cheney2004]

Ok, I was with you until here. Settle? I chose to leave university and I instead went to a community college. There was no settling involved.

Right....not settling at all. But apparently the post-secondary education option in Canada is a bit of a caste system

with a firewall between trade schools, colleges, and "university". I was astonished to learn that advanced graduate degrees are usually not available outside of a university in Canada (hope I am wrong about that). Worse yet, getting admitted to university is even more of a crap shoot.

[benny]

who will take out the garbage?

The producer.

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny

I appreciate your input to bring things to perhaps a more "sophisticated" level but

they obviously aren't settled.

The real problem with socialism is it isn't stagnant and a benefit given by government to one special interest is never ceded, and one special interest receiving benefit is reason for other special interests to demand benefit.

That's just not true. Benefits are constantly being adjusted, scaled back and restructured in Canada and elsewhere.

The 'baby bonus' is one example. Scaling back of EI is another. Scaling back and restructuring of welfare is another again.

It is a process of centralizing power and authority that is accomplished over time and generally goes unnoticed over time until it becomes a tyranny. Liberties and freedoms are eroded and the erosion ignored in lieu of benefit, privilege and largesse from the public coffers which eventually and inevitably chokes the economy. The result is despotic governments attempting to maintain order. It also leaves the door of opportunity open to hard line dictators to seize power.

Where ? In Canada ? Do you really think that our social programs will lead to a dictatorship ? That appears to me to be a fringe opinion.

What is the purpose of people working to build a culture and a society and a decent standard of living when it is thrown out the window by government and government arrogates the engineering of society to itself. What is left for people to do but demand government provide for them since it increasingly extorts so much from the production of society. It makes no sense for the people to build a society themselves but to let government provide that for them.

The government is supposed to proceed from the national will. A well-designed and well-administered social program will be helpful and will improve the general welfare of society. Welfare is an example of that. If it weren't necessary, then why hasn't any mainstream party advocated for its removal ?

One thing that the government should never be in control of is the economy through the monopolization of the money supply and the control of interest rates, and fractional reserve banking should be made illegal or minimumly the public should be made aware of the inherent risks of fractional reserve banking.

I don't know enough about banking to follow you far into this argument, but it seems to me that FDR implemented the reserve system due to the failure of banks and loss of faith in the money system.

Socialism is slow and insidious. We haven't emerged with a hybrid system. We are in the middle of an evolutionary process that is dangerously approaching it's end.

The first half of the twentieth century finds the introduction of socialism to western society. It was popular even in America, where Hoover and FDR introduced many socialist concepts into the American fabric.

The interest in socialism in the west waned somewhat because of Stalin, Mao, Hitler and WW II. The American dream, somewhat tarnished, was polished up for the war effort to fight evil and tyrannical totalitarian governments.

Who would have thought the Democrats in the US would be nationalizing industries and increasing corporate taxes (cap and trade) prohibitively? The US may have been ready for a black President but they weren't ready for European style social democracies. Obama, instead of realizin his dream will, I think, act more like a clarion call for America to wake up and take back their government. It too, although at a much slower and resistive pace, has been suffering from creeping socialism. Obama is attempting to accelerate the process but some Americans are rubbing the sleep out of their eyes.

GW Bush was in office for the beginning of the nationalization, and I think its disingenuous to think that this has been the plan all along. If it weren't for the collapse of big financial companies, there wouldn't have been nationalization IMO.

I did qualify the term "emotions" with "mushy". What the left does is pretend that government should epitomize a mushy caring-sharing entity of society. Government is about laws; their enforcement, and justice. It cannot be expected to deliver justice and take pity or sympathize or grant privilege or entitlement to any faction or special interest in society. If it does it cannot deliver justice. If you want to know why police are taking justice into their own hands more and more you will find they believe that no one else is doing it. The public's perception of justice is that it seems to be skewed with seemingly oddball inconsistencies in it's delivery. It isn't hard to see that laws are made for other interests than keeping the peace. some are blatantly made to fill the coffers of government with fines such as exist in traffic laws. If my license and thus my livelihood are at stake then the laws better be not be perceived in the slightest to be about lining the pockets of government.

Government doesn't "take pity", it enacts legislation that makes the area of jurisdiction a better place to live.

I guess your point is that "mushy" emotions are bad and anger is good. If that's your point, then you're clearly elucidating your own values and not presenting any kind of logical argument.

Basically, government is getting bigger. Declining tax rates for the wealthiest doesn't seem to be on Obama's horizon.

Over the long haul taxes have increased by quite a bit. They have indeed fallen somewhat lately especially when countries are competing for businesses to locate in their country. The OECD chastizes nations that do this. The tax rates, in order for there to be a "level playing field", must be comparative from country to country.

Taxes always start off small.

The top tax rates under Ike were sky high compared to today. Obama is rolling back tax cuts to post-Reagan levels, from what I understand - to Clinton era levels.

These socialist doctrines that have been adopted by both the conservatives and the liberals is, as I have said, a progression, an evolutionary process. It doesn't stop with provision for general welfare. That provision is the precedent for further benefits and entitlements that people will vote themselves and already won bnefits will not be relinquished.

So, you're saying that conservatives and liberals have bought into this socialist doctrine ? If you say that GW Bush, Stephen Harper and the like are subscribing to socialist doctrine, then I have a soft spot for you that I save for all fringe dwellers.

Calling your opinions 'fringe' isn't a criticism, though, just a description. Those who thought that the financial crisis was coming were labeled 'chicken little' types too.

[Pliny]

Pliny

That's just not true. Benefits are constantly being adjusted, scaled back and restructured in Canada and elsewhere.

The 'baby bonus' is one example. Scaling back of EI is another. Scaling back and restructuring of welfare is another again.

You mean tinkering. The benefits are constantly being tinkered with. That there is some downward motion is a credit to Harper and the Conservatives but that will rile the progressives and they will take two steps next time.

what has been ceded health care and education are entitlements.

Where ? In Canada ? Do you really think that our social programs will lead to a dictatorship ? That appears to me to be a fringe opinion.

As George Carlin said, North America harbours the "smiley face fascist" We are the warm cuddly fascists.

Although the progressives will call the right Fascists or if they see any attempt to turn back progressive socialist concepts they mobilize against it like true fascists.

Liberalism is progressive socialism. It can only get to a certain point before the rubber hits the road and either the economy is choked or a new "Leader" will save the society. He will have to be dictatorial, I am afraid, as their will be no points of concession given from the taxed and beneficiaries of government largesse.

It is indeed a fringe opinion because people haven't thought out the progression. It has to end in a socialist utopia that is unachievable.

The government is supposed to proceed from the national will. A well-designed and well-administered social program will be helpful and will improve the general welfare of society. Welfare is an example of that. If it weren't necessary, then why hasn't any mainstream party advocated for its removal ?

It will proceed form the national will. It can't be denied that every election is like Christmas. All the parties bring out their wish list of promises for you to consider. All social programs are promoted to be helpful and improve the general welfare of society. The Government however is more interested in building the Bureaucratic empires necessary to deliver them than the service to the public. It is evident in health care and Women's affairs. These bureaucratic institutions are more important than the people they serve. It is an inefficient and wasteful allocation of resources. Society has to look after it's poor and needy, no denying it but why should government do this. It has to come out of the surplus of the economy and as long as government is not actively oppressing the economy then the production of the people will produce the necessary surplus.

Arguing that people are greedy and need to be taxed and thus "forced" to support the less fortunate or the down and out is a sad statement about how one feels regarding his fellow citizens and the society in general. Most people are compassionate and caring, look at all the liberals there are, after all, and if the economy can support everyone, it will.

We can argue that economies go through a cycle of boom and bust and government is necessary in times of economic downturns but the cycle of boom and bust is created by government and it's banking and monetary interventionist policies.

I don't know enough about banking to follow you far into this argument, but it seems to me that FDR implemented the reserve system due to the failure of banks and loss of faith in the money system.

FDR didn't implement the reserve system it was implemented in 1913. And you are correct in your statement it was implemented due to the failure of banks and loss of faith in the money system. Basically, it was supposed to solve that problem but didn't address the actual cause which is so typical of Government. The bankers wanted to continue to have their cake and eat it too. They didn't want to change their banking practices because they were too lucrative but there was always a danger of bank runs. The central banking system was designed to end bank runs by having a central bank cover the deposits of it's customers if a run occurred. Banks would have to follow the rules set by the central bank to be granted a charter. But that's another thread.

GW Bush was in office for the beginning of the nationalization, and I think its disingenuous to think that this has been the plan all along. If it weren't for the collapse of big financial companies, there wouldn't have been nationalization IMO.

Yes and the monetary policies of the central bank and the policies of government, set the foundation for a bubble that burst.

Government doesn't "take pity", it enacts legislation that makes the area of jurisdiction a better place to live.

Better for some and more costly for others. There is no other way for government to provide anything. It is not a zero-sum economic activity. In other words, it cannot provide benefit that it does not take out of the economy first.

I guess your point is that "mushy" emotions are bad and anger is good. If that's your point, then you're clearly elucidating your own values and not presenting any kind of logical argument.

It's not my point those emotions are both destructive. The mushy ones are killers just as much as the angry ones. Ever see the movie "Misery" with Kathy Bates and James Caan? With the mushy ones you usually don't know what hit you.

The top tax rates under Ike were sky high compared to today. Obama is rolling back tax cuts to post-Reagan levels, from what I understand - to Clinton era levels.

Yes the top tax rates were onerous, under Esienhower. They were a remnant of WW II and the Korean War. They gradually came down over the decades.

Obama is once again raising the top tax rates. And if you think that cap and trade is a tax cut or nationalized healthcare is going to be free your in la la land.

So, you're saying that conservatives and liberals have bought into this socialist doctrine ? If you say that GW Bush, Stephen Harper and the like are subscribing to socialist doctrine, then I have a soft spot for you that I save for all fringe dwellers.

Socialism is woven into the fabric of both our national governments and society. They have to provide social programs because they must progress and progressives will ensure they do as well as conservatives, who will also not relinquish or cede any benefits or privilege they have one.

Calling your opinions 'fringe' isn't a criticism, though, just a description. Those who thought that the financial crisis was coming were labeled 'chicken little' types too.

They are fringe, I agree. This economic crisis is getting people looking at what is happening with the economy and that interest may take my opinions out of the fringe once people gain a little understanding of how the policies of government and central banks affect the overall economy.

People should learn about economics. Not just econometrics, that's boring and is mostly math, it is what most neo-economics is about. And it should be learned that totalitarianism is about big government. A central authority engineering society completely and progressive socialism is the road to totalitarianism. Eventually both the left and right will be acting like and calling each other fascists if they try and make changes but the left and right are both in their extremes about big government. We could have left wing and right wing people that understand that government should only be concerned with a certain designated mandate and should not go beyond that mandate. They would be centrists on the contemporary political scale but even a centrist will have to concede some benefit to someone else if the centrist himself has any benefit at all. Once anyone has benefit then others demand it and it is only fair they receive it. It is the proverbial snowball rolling down the hill.

We wouldn't be having this discussion if people knew that the progression of government is always in the direction of expansion, in it's mandate, it's size and it's cost, and that we need to limit it. It is like a fire, at best a reluctant servant and a tyrannical master at worst, ala George Washington.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Pliny

[Pliny]

The producer.

How naive. Members of the politburo won't have time for that. And if you are a right wing socialist then you know that the ruling party won't have time either. The producer will disappear and the garbage will just pile up as any example of socialism in history proves.

[benny]

How naive. Members of the politburo won't have time for that. And if you are a right wing socialist then you know that the ruling party won't have time either. The producer will disappear and the garbage will just pile up as any example of socialism in history proves.

Only the dead have no time left.

[JB Globe]

How old are you people?

By 22 I had already moved on beyond this juvenile notion of "there are only two sides to the world and my side is the right side!"

Some of you must be in your 40's or 50's. You've had plenty of time to grow up, there really is no excuse for you being this stupid at your age.

And to avoid someone predictably putting words in my mouth: this goes for ANYONE who thinks that all of the world's problems are a result of the "left or right" and the world would be a utopia if everyone would just think like them.