The Left's Attempted Monopoly on "good"

[Smallc]

I like the post above.

[benny]

I like the post above.

It doesn't even say something about pollution!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Maybe, but you are only describing individual circumstances. When looking at the big picture, the right tends to be more, " The world is a crappy place and always will be, "

This is complete bunk. If you look at left wing rhetoric, it's completely designed around the idea that people are getting screwed by "the man" and that the world is melting.

Unions, which by the way enjoy some of the best working conditions and compensation for what they do on earth, supportive of left wing politics constantly complain about how shitty their jobs, working conditions, foliday schedules, compensation, pensions and health care packages are.

Environmentalists (left wing) constantly whine about the earth overheating, the destruciton of the planet and the awful state of our forests, waters, etc.

The other thing lefties always claim is that people can only prosper by screwing others and keeping "the people" down.

That's left wing "optimism"?

Whereas right wing people acknowledge the greatness of the world, the promise, the OPTIMISM.

That North America is more forested than it was 20 years ago.

That our waters are cleaner than they were 20 years ago.

That the left's positnio that the economy is a limited sized "pie" that must be cut up more equally is a fallacy - that IN FACT economics is more complex than that - that everyone can bake their own pie, that the "pie" can get bigger, and that everyone's piece can too.

One of the biggest (and most pessimistic) errors on the left is this:

"I AM RICH BECAUSE HE IS POOR"

Think about it. That's how the left views economics, and it's entirely incorrect, not to mention pessimistic.

Left to our own devices, we can all get richer, happier, healthier, cleaner, and more free. That is right wing thinking.

[Smallc]

This is complete bunk. If you look at left wing rhetoric, it's completely designed around the idea that people are getting screwed by "the man" and that the world is melting.

And many on the right often say that they are getting screwed by government. Different targets, that's all.

Unions, which by the way enjoy some of the best working conditions and compensation for what they do on earth, supportive of left wing politics constantly complain about how shitty their jobs, working conditions, foliday schedules, compensation, pensions and health care packages are.

Lots of people complain about their jobs. Because unions have such a large voice though, there is a media focus on them. You are right though. They, like so many that complain, actually have it quite good.

Environmentalists (left wing) constantly whine about the earth overheating, the destruciton of the planet and the awful state of our forests, waters, etc.

Environmentalism isn't strictly a left wing movement. That said, the social right places less faith in science, and so they are much more likely to disregard anything that they don't have faith in. The fiscal right often acknowledges environmental problems, but they are not that enthusiastic to spend money on them. I often find myself agreeing with the fiscal right on such issues.

The other thing lefties always claim is that people can only prosper by screwing others and keeping "the people" down.

Who said this, and when?

That's left wing "optimism"?

There is pessimism and optimism on both sides. What we see depends on our ideology in this matter. Where a right wing person may see optimism from a new business venture, a left wing person may see optimism in a new social program. Now, how do you feel about the social program?

Whereas right wing people acknowledge the greatness of the world, the promise, the OPTIMISM.

Again, very selective vision on your part.

That North America is more forested than it was 20 years ago.

The world is bigger than North America, and statistical references would be helpful here.

That our waters are cleaner than they were 20 years ago.

Some places yes. Some places no.

That the left's positnio that the economy is a limited sized "pie" that must be cut up more equally is a fallacy - that IN FACT economics is more complex than that - that everyone can bake their own pie, that the "pie" can get bigger, and that everyone's piece can too.

You're right, the first view is too simplistic (and isn't argued to be right by most). Unfortunately for you, your view is also too simplistic.

One of the biggest (and most pessimistic) errors on the left is this:

"I AM RICH BECAUSE HE IS POOR"

It may be true at times. It's probably not at other times. One of the biggest errors that the right makes can be communicated as:

I can do whatever I want and it will have no negative affects on anyone.

That position is just as false as the error that you pointed out.

Think about it. That's how the left views economics, and it's entirely incorrect, not to mention pessimistic.

The left is a large and diverse group. You're generalizing, and generalizations are almost always wrong...and usually prove to be false.

Left to our own devices, we can all get richer, happier, healthier, cleaner, and more free. That is right wing thinking.

It may be your thinking, but I doubt that everyone on the right thinks that. I would hope not anyway, because it's wrong. All of us can never be lumped into one group in this way. It's part of being human.

[Bonam]

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.

Are you still stuck on the phase where you have an allergic reaction to any mention of a generalized notion? Of course there is much more than just "left" and "right", there is a wide range of different ideas out there when it comes to politics and society. Intelligent people realize that when speaking about certain topics, one can use certain words to denote a wide range of ideas compactly. Hence the terms left and right when it comes to ideas on what people perceive as "morality" or "goodness" and their views on social policy, as in this thread. One cay write, for example, "left-wing social policy" and readers will have a general idea of what is meant, and through connotation, even what the writer thinks of such ideas, without the writer having to write pages and pages of elaboration.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The left is a large and diverse group. You're generalizing, and generalizations are almost always wrong...and usually prove to be false.

.....It may be your thinking, but I doubt that everyone on the right thinks that. I would hope not anyway, because it's wrong. All of us can never be lumped into one group in this way. It's part of being human.

Except for the entire city of Calgary it would seem.

[Smallc]

The entire city is not conservative, but a very large percentage of the population. I was generalizing and I was wrong to do so.

[JB Globe]

Of course there is much more than just "left" and "right", there is a wide range of different ideas out there when it comes to politics and society.

Than why are people in this post dumbing things down so much?

Why not just go all the way and re-name the post: "The Problem with people who don't think like me is that they are evil"

[Bonam]

Than why are people in this post dumbing things down so much?

Why not just go all the way and re-name the post: "The Problem with people who don't think like me is that they are evil"

Feel free to read the rest of the post you quoted.

[benny]

Feel free to read the rest of the post you quoted.

For a lot of posters, this forum is not about reading but about laughing.

[Remiel]

This is complete bunk. If you look at left wing rhetoric, it's completely designed around the idea that people are getting screwed by "the man" and that the world is melting.

Actually, no. I was making a poor assumption that when I said, " big picture, " people would understand that I was referring to International Relations Theories.

[benny]

Actually, no. I was making a poor assumption that when I said, " big picture, " people would understand that I was referring to International Relations Theories.

To facilitate communications, theories wear different names. Left and right are also names to allow communications.

[Michael Hardner]

Pliny,

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.

Ok, I'll accept the term tinkering, as long as we agree that your assertion that "a benefit given by government to one special interest is never ceded" is false.

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.

This is more N American/soft/PC thinking... that what we're seeing today is fascism. We're only able to make jokes like that because fascism was defeated.

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.

Sorry, but you're just sloganeering here. As I pointed out, nationalization was never a policy of mainstream parties until the recent troubles and the declining tax rate is more proof of your scare bating.

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.

Again, these are just more slogans. People also have voted (over and over again actually) for politicians who have lowered taxes. Healthcare has been neglected, even by people who claim to defend it such as McGuinty.

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.

Who argues that people are greedy ? I don't remember that being argued, even here on MLW.

Most people are compassionate and caring, but volunteer-only social programs didn't work in the 19th century and don't work today.

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.

Well, all right then.

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.

...negating the point that programs are never ceded, and so forth...

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.

He's not even raising them to Reagan era levels, though is he ?

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.

Again - baby bonus is gone, EI is cut back... face the facts. You even said it yourself - we're "tinkering", that is fine-tuning, that is not adding programs... but cutting back somewhat...

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.

Big government and big business too - which conservatives were initially against in the US. The bigness creates economies of scale though. The USSR knew it, they just couldn't manage it properly.

I do think that as the economy gets better and better, we'll end up with enough surplus to go back to your way of doing things, ie less taxes, more charity. And I don't doubt that you believe your plan is the best for all.

Cheers, Pliny

[kuzadd]

The left are a bit sinister and don't know it..most imagine themselves to be do-gooders - a rightist will not snatch a child from a family because they respect personal singular atonomy and the family in general - a left thinker will take a child in eccense kidnap that child though their legal processes because - they feel they know better and have all the answers for everybody...The left can be dangerous because - when they commit immoral acts they actually believe they are doing the right thing ----where as a rightist knows when he is in error.

First off, a disclaimer, I DO NOT buy into the left vs right crap.

Cause it is just that, crap.

But I will point this out to you oleg, the people on this forum who must willingly associate themselves with the "right" are the people that have one of the strangest forms of humanitariasm I have ever layed eyes on.

They actually believe in war, as a humanitarian cause.

They actually believe that the maiming and slaughter of swathes of humanity, the decimation of the environment is for the 'good' of someone? I am not quite sure who, but they belive it is good and right.

That it is beneficial to mankind.

It is strange, why those who CHOOSE to associate themselves with the right see war as a humanitarian cause.

This is about the strangest version of "do-gooders" I have ever seen.

Do you find that immoral?

Cause I do.

These same people swallow up every lie, promote genocide of other peoples and they actually believe this is all very humanitarian??

What a disconnect!

[benny]

First off, a disclaimer, I DO NOT buy into the left vs right crap.

Cause it is just that, crap.

But I will point this out to you oleg, the people on this forum who must willingly associate themselves with the "right" are the people that have one of the strangest forms of humanitariasm I have ever layed eyes on.

They actually believe in war, as a humanitarian cause.

They actually believe that the maiming and slaughter of swathes of humanity, the decimation of the environment is for the 'good' of someone? I am not quite sure who, but they belive it is good and right.

That it is beneficial to mankind.

It is strange, why those who CHOOSE to associate themselves with the right see war as a humanitarian cause.

This is about the strangest version of "do-gooders" I have ever seen.

Do you find that immoral?

Cause I do.

These same people swallow up every lie, promote genocide of other peoples and they actually believe this is all very humanitarian??

What a disconnect!

I think Bach was also disconnected from this forum for one month!

[Bonam]

First off, a disclaimer, I DO NOT buy into the left vs right crap.

Cause it is just that, crap.

But I will point this out to you oleg, the people on this forum who must willingly associate themselves with the "right" are the people that have one of the strangest forms of humanitariasm I have ever layed eyes on.

They actually believe in war, as a humanitarian cause.

They actually believe that the maiming and slaughter of swathes of humanity, the decimation of the environment is for the 'good' of someone? I am not quite sure who, but they belive it is good and right.

That it is beneficial to mankind.

It is strange, why those who CHOOSE to associate themselves with the right see war as a humanitarian cause.

This is about the strangest version of "do-gooders" I have ever seen.

Do you find that immoral?

Cause I do.

These same people swallow up every lie, promote genocide of other peoples and they actually believe this is all very humanitarian??

What a disconnect!

I dunno where you got such ideas, but war has nothing to do with humanitarianism. War is to ensure your national interest and security. Trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements in a society after you have toppled its regime and replaced it with a presumably "freer" one is a method to try to sell the idea to left-leaning people.

[Pliny]

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.

Well, I suppose nothing more be said. The centrist speaks. The world would be a utopia if everyone just thought like you.

There are two sides to this argument and it is often confused as left and right as this thread demonstrates. The actual dichotomy is not left and right but big government and limited government. I am not arguing for no government but I am arguing for limited government.

Before you think the argument is stupid, and I really resented that remark as you can probably tell, then consider why we are having this debate at all. Basically one side wants one thing from government and the other side wants something else. I suggest we not ask anything of government but to provide us with a measure of security from the initiation of force from others so that we may pursue our aims in a peaceful fashion. That the left is anathema to my argument makes them a bigger opponent to me than the right. It may appear I am right wing because I am for limited government as are some right wing conservatives. There is no indication from the left of how much government there should be - they place no limits on it's social intervention and demand government be the agency to engineer all of society - abrogating any personal responsibility to society whatsoever. To me, they have given up as individuals and require the State to determine how they shall behave and enforce that behavior in others. This is the utopia you wish to avoid - where we are of unifrom thought on all things. there should be some uniformity of thought on very few things. the few things that all men can agree upon. One is the peaceful pursuit of one's happiness without threat to the sanctity of his person or property. Government should not be that threat by seizing property from the individual for the expressed purpose of benefitting someone else but should be the guardian against that threat. So how do we pay for it? It really isn't that expensive when it tends to that limited mandate and can finance itself quite easily.

How much of our social turmoil is actually caused by a government's interventions and policies that favour one person over another or one group over another within it's boundaries. It should favour it's citizens, I believe, but not divide them as has been done with this left and right false dichotomy aqnd costs vast amounts of wasted time in arguments and wasted unproductive discourses in parliament. The real argument is how much government we should have, where the line is that govenrment starts to infringe upon our freedoms and liberties and how much we have to suck up in life to get by while keeping those freedoms intact. The question is not left and right. It is the nanny state or a just and bipartisan government. I keep repeating the same statement in the hope it will eventually sink in that it can't be both because government must vicitimize someone in order to provide benefit to another. So it cannot be a social engineer, redistributing wealth out if it's whimsically determined morality AND do it justly. When it grants favours to anyone over someone else or any group over another group it abandons justice. That's what wealth redistribution is and when government engages in doing that, justice must take it's blindfold off and when it does so, the society starts to deteriorate. Unjust elements start to find favour in government itself and people begin to wonder what is happening with justice.

So basically we are of uniform thought. This ruse of an argument of left and right is just that - a ruse. But what frame of reference do you suggest we use? You never made reference to one. you never offered to resolve the argument. You only condemned the concepts but that won't end the argument because the argument is whether we live in a nanny state with big government directing our affairs for us or we direct our own affairs to the best of our ability and government's role is providing the landscape that we be free to do so without threat to our person and property from others initiating force against us for their benefit or the benefit of someone else over our loss of benefiting from the fruits of our labour.

I don't know that seems simple enough to me. Although the left can lobby government to be our nanny and fight for the collective good they seem to miss that there is any price to pay. Money is no object to them in the pursuit of the common good and should not be a consideration but when some one else has it it is the most important element to combat evil and greed. All else seems to be forgotten except for the vilification of the rich. Their welfare is not important in the least and they who have money are painted as criminals. Now that's the loony left of course, the extremists. I think most realize that somehow benefits have to be financed and we do it through taxation and there is limited resources in the economy. My warning is to realize government cannot resolve social ills and cannot provide social justice as defined by the left with politically correct sentiments. To do so is to abandon justice. It must be equal in it's treatment of it's citizens but it must not attempt to make it's citizens equal. It can only ruin society in the attempt because it must abandon justice, punishing the productive and resultingly viewing and painting him as the villain for not providing enough to the rest of society.

Edited July 7, 2009 by Pliny

[kuzadd]

I dunno where you got such ideas, but war has nothing to do with humanitarianism. War is to ensure your national interest and security. Trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements in a society after you have toppled its regime and replaced it with a presumably "freer" one is a method to try to sell the idea to left-leaning people.

you dunno where I got such ideas?

I get them right from people like you.

"trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements"

what a load of bunkum.

recall the Iraq war, what was said by the bush regime and regurgitated by it's supporters, "freeing the Iraqi people" and "bringing them democracy" lol.

War is waged for gain, pure and simple.

The spin is to get the dupes on board. From where I sit, I see the self-identified rightists mouthing this mantra.

Humanitarian warfare, waging war and slaughter for freedom and democracy.

[Pliny]

I dunno where you got such ideas, but war has nothing to do with humanitarianism. War is to ensure your national interest and security. Trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements in a society after you have toppled its regime and replaced it with a presumably "freer" one is a method to try to sell the idea to left-leaning people.

Good answer.

There would be a lot less wars if people realized they were paying for them. Right now they are "free" just like Michael Moore, and some others, would like us to believe health care is "free".

Government borrows vast amounts to go to war. Sometimes it may be necessary to go to war but financing should be a restraint to governments to engage in anything but defensive struggles when the very existence of the nation is threatened and the citizenry is in general agreement and will unarguably fight.

[benny]

you dunno where I got such ideas?

I get them right from people like you.

"trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements"

what a load of bunkum.

Indeed, Bonam wrote there a self-defeating line.

Edited July 7, 2009 by benny

[Bonam]

I get them right from people like you.

"trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements"

what a load of bunkum.

Ok so you get it by deliberately misinterpreting what other people write. Got it.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Sometimes it may be necessary to go to war but financing should be a restraint to governments to engage in anything but defensive struggles when the very existence of the nation is threatened and the citizenry is in general agreement and will unarguably fight.

That's doesn't work for the USA...see American Revolutionary War.

[benny]

Ok so you get it by deliberately misinterpreting what other people write. Got it.

Kuzadd may have got it simply by reading my posts on biopolitics.

[kuzadd]

Ok so you get it by deliberately misinterpreting what other people write. Got it.

No, I read what you said and I will quote you again if you like.

But, apparently you cannot or chose not to read how I pointed out the Bush regime sold the attack on Iraq as a humanitarian intervention.

And the posters on this forum who as I stated willingly associate themselves with the right, cheered this sheer nonsense on.

For goodness sakes the operation was dubbed Operation Iraqi freedom!

What the hell does that say?

Slaughter, blood shed and destruction for humanitarion reasons.

LOL

" Trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements in a society after you have toppled its regime and replaced it with a presumably "freer" one"

No one who is aware of the reality of why wars are waged would even say that in any serious way, knowing full well it is pure bullshit.

Like I said, war for humanitarian reasons, seems to be swallowed up by those willingly on the right and is about the strangest form of intervention I have ever seen.

[benny]

No, I read what you said and I will quote you again if you like.

" Trumpeting the humanitarian aspects of potential improvements in a society after you have toppled its regime and replaced it with a presumably "freer" one"

But Bonam wrote this quote after you wrote your initial post on humanitarian war!