Do Leftists eventually turn Right?

[geoffrey]

Contrary to most people, seeing homeless people choose to live in such undignifying ways makes me feel less generous, I have very little patience for those people that have all the ability in the world to be successful and chose instead to be a burden on my existance. Why support social programs that only help those that refuse to help themselves? Seeing poverty in Canada gives me little faith in welfare economics or socialist tendancies.

I'm sorry but I must reply to this. You are aware that on average, %66 of qualified homeless people have a history or can be diagnosed with mental illness. They have no other other place to go and cannot "function" in our "normal" society the same way you and I can. I certainly hope you are not basing your opinion of the "welfare state" on your own misguided ignorance. It's easier taking the road of ignorance but it certainly doesn't help anyone. I have very little patience with people who choose ignorance.

Now back you you scheduled programing....

I said able bodied homeless in there somewhere. Interesting how you cut that from the quote...

"What defines these ignorant yokels would obviously be different for BD and I, I have no problem with Hummer drivers, but I get the same feeling as him when I see an able bodied homeless person in Calgary"

Many mental illnesses do make people incapable of work, but many also are just easy ways out. There are tons of people with learning disabilities, slight mental retardation, szhiophrenia (spelling?) out there that can be successful in certain lines of work. We should employ these people in hard labour jobs or whatever they can do.

Politically incorrect, you betcha. Does it work? Absolutely. A move back to the workhouses for the homeless is a brilliant idea. Get's them off our streets, clean them up, give them skills, make them earn their welfare.

[lost&outofcontrol]

I said able bodied homeless in there somewhere. Interesting how you cut that from the quote...

Please accept my apologies, I saw the homelessness defence and jumped in without looking.

"What defines these ignorant yokels would obviously be different for BD and I, I have no problem with Hummer drivers, but I get the same feeling as him when I see an able bodied homeless person in Calgary"

Many mental illnesses do make people incapable of work, but many also are just easy ways out. There are tons of people with learning disabilities, slight mental retardation, szhiophrenia (spelling?) out there that can be successful in certain lines of work. We should employ these people in hard labour jobs or whatever they can do.

Don't you think that it's wrong to basically employ these people as slave labour just because they were born with "disabilities" (And that's another thing that pisses me off, we are great at stigmatizing people because they aren't "normal" but that's for another thread)?

[lost&outofcontrol]

I was a staunch libertarian CPC voter until a few years ago when my interest/curiosity in politics became greater and now you could qualify me as a true Marxist. So I went the other way; from right to left.

[ClearWest]

I was a staunch libertarian CPC voter until a few years ago when my interest/curiosity in politics became greater and now you could qualify me as a true Marxist. So I went the other way; from right to left.

Dang. How can you go from Libertarian to Marxist? What made you turn away from freedom to support despotism? I'd be interested in hearing your story...

[BubberMiley]

Which end of the political spectrum are the selfish pleasure-seeking hedonists? Wherever it is, I'm there.

[uOttawaMan]

Which end of the political spectrum are the selfish pleasure-seeking hedonists? Wherever it is, I'm there.

Hahah like i said, that's everyone, that is society in general.

[geoffrey]

"What defines these ignorant yokels would obviously be different for BD and I, I have no problem with Hummer drivers, but I get the same feeling as him when I see an able bodied homeless person in Calgary"

Many mental illnesses do make people incapable of work, but many also are just easy ways out. There are tons of people with learning disabilities, slight mental retardation, szhiophrenia (spelling?) out there that can be successful in certain lines of work. We should employ these people in hard labour jobs or whatever they can do.

Don't you think that it's wrong to basically employ these people as slave labour just because they were born with "disabilities" (And that's another thing that pisses me off, we are great at stigmatizing people because they aren't "normal" but that's for another thread)?

It's not slave labour if they are paid. If instead they just sit on the street or under a bridge, some gainful employment can't hurt. Put them up in nice buildings, full-furnished, with good food. Maybe even a TV!! And it can all be paid for by their labour. Doesn't have to be hard labour. Some can do data entry, some can do filing. Whatever they can do. I don't care. But why is someone entitled to more because of a disability. Utilitarianism argues against this concept. As does any moral absolutism if you want to argue it on those terms.

So instead of them being in undignified living conditons, where people laugh at them and taunt them and pay them to fight on camera, why not employ them in meager low paying, unskilled occupations, in order for them to have a place to sleep and eat without being a burden on anyone else?

It's not asking much for someone to do a day's unskilled labour for room and board and maybe a few bucks in spending cash. It's not slavery either l&ooc. It's liberation from the undignified conditions they live in now.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Dang. How can you go from Libertarian to Marxist? What made you turn away from freedom to support despotism? I'd be interested in hearing your story...

The short answer is that there is a difference between what most people think of Marxism and what Marxism really is.

[margrace]

The problem with putting people in boxes is that a lot don't fit. Take Charlotte for instance, a beautiful young girl so excited because she and her boy friend were going to the Prom dance. She loved to help out in the salon and that was the last time I saw here.

The next time she was walking with a sideways gait, the beautiful hair was still there but the exuberant young Charlotte was gone. What happened, a horrendous car crash on the night of the dance and yes Charlotte is still alive to all intents and purposes but not the happy young girl.

The girl that is left can look after herself evidently but people don't like her around, she is loud and abrasive, and to her credit the owner of the salon still trys to give her work but the patrons complain.

So before you judge these people you need to walk in their shoes. She is just an examle of many cases. It isn't the she won't work, its that people won't put up with her. Her sense of propriety, according to us, is gone.

I can give you many examples in our small village so I would imagine that in a large city there are far too many people falling between the cracks.

Kick em and get em out of the way, why should I care. I wonder?

[geoffrey]

I feel sorry for her, but there are lots of jobs that don't require customer service ability. Change professions into something she can do.

There are lots of jobs that I would love to do, but realise I could never do them. People need to adapt their skills to relevant employment. Someone that is abrasive, such as the girl you mentioned in our example, obviously can't be working in a customer oriented situation. So you move on to other things.

We all have things in our lives that discourage us from a career path. I know people that were in the land management field for oil and gas, having the time of their life, making six figures. But when the kids came along, they had to change careers, as the travel just wasn't working with the family life.

Mind you, the situation you suggest is considerably more tradgic, but not unlike my example either. Changes come, and you need to realise it and change with them.

[Black Dog]

I said able bodied homeless in there somewhere. Interesting how you cut that from the quote...

"What defines these ignorant yokels would obviously be different for BD and I, I have no problem with Hummer drivers, but I get the same feeling as him when I see an able bodied homeless person in Calgary"

Many mental illnesses do make people incapable of work, but many also are just easy ways out. There are tons of people with learning disabilities, slight mental retardation, szhiophrenia (spelling?) out there that can be successful in certain lines of work. We should employ these people in hard labour jobs or whatever they can do.

A lot of people with mental illness haven't developed the skills to work. They've been in and out of institutions and jail. Government cutbacks in the '90s turned many of these people out into the streets and stagnating social sassitance means many can't afford basic necessities, let alone treatment. Some people, geofery, get dealt bum hands; sermonizing about initiative or speculating about someone's ability to work based on their apperance (you did say "able-bodie" which is not the same thing as "able to work") doesn't help.

Also: soemless people are actually employed, but due to therising cost of living, can't afford shelter. Anyway, my point is that "lazy welfare bums" probably only make up a small percentage of the homeless population: despite how often the homeless or working poor are characterized as lazy cheats, I've not seen much hard evidence to support such a conclusion.

On the other hand, I don't need any more hard evidence but my eyes to support the conclusion that anyone driving a Hummer is a pathetic, status-obsessed douchebag (ever notice how these rugged off road vehicles are always polished to a shine?)

[geoffrey]

Any abled bodied person is able to work. Find them a ridiculous physical task, like shoveling dirty between piles or something. It's work.

You need to fulfill your responsibility to work before you have the right to a comfortable lifestyle.

The working poor isn't what I'm talking about. I struggle to understand their problems as well, but at least they are doing something for society so they deserve at least a second thought. Labour wages in Alberta increased 10+% last quarter, yet inflation was only around 1.5% annually adjusted. People are doing way better now then ever before.

Now if we are talking about those living in depressed economies, like in Atlantic Canada, where wages are stagnant and inflation is increasing, the that is their fault. You've got to move to where the money is. You can still find a basic crap 1 bedroom apartment in Calgary for $400 a month. A basement suite for $300-400. Would be an awful place to live in a dirty, run down apartment? Yup. But at least they arent a burden.

People that are actually unable to work... which I'm struggling to find examples of past quadrapelegic mental vegetables, need our help! But nearly everyone else can do SOMETHING, even if it will never pay much past a squalid apartment and a basic amount of food.

Niether I or my family drives an SUV. I could actually make use of one myself, but I've chosen a smaller, more fuel-efficient vehical in the short run. I'd take a nice Audi or BMW over a big SUV anyday.

If someone choses to drive a hummer, who cares, its their choice to drive what they want? It doesn't hurt you at all, they pay more in taxes and gas. It's funny how your libertarian views end at when someone has something nicer eh? People should respect these people more as they are the contributors to society and aren't likely the ones that just sit around all day begging the rest of us for big handouts.

What they drive is really of no consequence to either you or I.

[newbie]

Any abled bodied person is able to work. Find them a ridiculous physical task, like shoveling dirty between piles or something. It's work.

Who makes that determination? We have people on this forum denying that alcoholism is a disability. These "able bodied people" need to be properly assessed by the medical community and placed by rehabilitation and vocational counsellors. BD is right. How many folks came totally unprepared out of Mitchner Centre only to walk the streets of Red Deer or end up in sheltered workshops with severe behaviour problems. Work for work's sake is not enough. What is required is appropriate life and work skills training, coupled with supported employment options and/or expedient placement.

[geoffrey]

Any abled bodied person is able to work. Find them a ridiculous physical task, like shoveling dirty between piles or something. It's work.

Who makes that determination? We have people on this forum denying that alcoholism is a disability. These "able bodied people" need to be properly assessed by the medical community and placed by rehabilitation and vocational counsellors. BD is right. How many folks came totally unprepared out of Mitchner Centre only to walk the streets of Red Deer or end up in sheltered workshops with severe behaviour problems. Work for work's sake is not enough. What is required is appropriate life and work skills training, coupled with supported employment options and/or expedient placement.

So who's training do we pay for?

Only those with disabilities? Why isn't my 'training' paid for? How about low income people, do we pay for everything for them too?

No reason why they can't work and train at the same time. Work 40 hours a week and hit the training centres in the evenings or what not.

Free riders that are capable of physical labour cannot expect society to just hand out everything to them.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Any abled bodied person is able to work. Find them a ridiculous physical task, like shoveling dirty between piles or something. It's work.

You need to fulfill your responsibility to work before you have the right to a comfortable lifestyle.

The working poor isn't what I'm talking about. I struggle to understand their problems as well, but at least they are doing something for society so they deserve at least a second thought. Labour wages in Alberta increased 10+% last quarter, yet inflation was only around 1.5% annually adjusted. People are doing way better now then ever before.

And yet real wages are at the same level they've been since 1948 and thats without taking into account all the new taxes.

If someone choses to drive a hummer, who cares, its their choice to drive what they want?

When someone buys a hummer, he ends up buying more gas driving the price up for the rest of us.

It doesn't hurt you at all, they pay more in taxes and gas. It's funny how your libertarian views end at when someone has something nicer eh? People should respect these people more as they are the contributors to society and aren't likely the ones that just sit around all day begging the rest of us for big handouts.

What they drive is really of no consequence to either you or I.

Funny how your libertarian views end when someone has it nicer eh?

And I quote from the Six Nations thread:

Canadian taxpayers shouldn't tolerate it. It's time to end any programs for the Indians and force them into our society. No exceptions. I'm sick of being a second class citizen, when will we stand up for our rights?

[geoffrey]

My libertarian views don't end at that point. We should all have equal rights regardless of race, gender, whatever. The fact that one race in Canada has more rights in clearly in violation of every libertarian or liberalist view of the world.

Real wages should not increase besides minor increases for adaptation of new technology. Even then, reduced labour demand after the adaptation should bring wages back into line. The long-term aggregate supply of labour is rather constant, its just the short-term flucuations that raise/lower real wages over the short term. There is a natural wage for unskilled labour. Why should the same unskilled worker ever make more? You have to earn more money, not just get it for the sake of getting it.

He pays the same gas prices too. And a massive amount more in gas taxes, which goes to paying for everyone's health care and things like that. Could I personally drive a hummer? Not likely, I'd feel like I was just being ridiculously wasteful. I could drive a truck, as I could really use some more off-road ability at times when I'm in the mountains and I'd love to be able to bring a quad myself. It's not about how much gas it uses, but how ridiculous it is for some people to use them. Some of those hummers haven't left the city, now that is silly. But its also their choice to be silly and wasteful with their money.

They do pay for the externalities through higher taxes, higher fuel costs and higher insurance.

[newbie]

Any abled bodied person is able to work. Find them a ridiculous physical task, like shoveling dirty between piles or something. It's work.

Who makes that determination? We have people on this forum denying that alcoholism is a disability. These "able bodied people" need to be properly assessed by the medical community and placed by rehabilitation and vocational counsellors. BD is right. How many folks came totally unprepared out of Mitchner Centre only to walk the streets of Red Deer or end up in sheltered workshops with severe behaviour problems. Work for work's sake is not enough. What is required is appropriate life and work skills training, coupled with supported employment options and/or expedient placement.

So who's training do we pay for?

Only those with disabilities? Why isn't my 'training' paid for? How about low income people, do we pay for everything for them too?

No reason why they can't work and train at the same time. Work 40 hours a week and hit the training centres in the evenings or what not.

Free riders that are capable of physical labour cannot expect society to just hand out everything to them.

The training IMV would be for a)welfare recepients that are physically/mentally able to sustain employment, b)persons on disability that are given the okay by the medical field, c)first nations individuals that require further life and daily living skills, d)parolees, and e) low income earners that require further education to compete. Training dollars can come from a combination of industry and government. It might be difficult to understand but having appropriate employment placement can mean the difference to being successful in the work field. As far as training on the job, that is covered under the mandate of supported employment.

The whole idea is to make the playing field even.

[Black Dog]

People that are actually unable to work... which I'm struggling to find examples of past quadrapelegic mental vegetables, need our help! But nearly everyone else can do SOMETHING, even if it will never pay much past a squalid apartment and a basic amount of food.

Wow, you managed to ignore virtually every point I made. To sum up, I said not everyone who is physically capable of work is actually capable of working. To which you replied, in a nutshell, "yes they are". Okay, then.

If someone choses to drive a hummer, who cares, its their choice to drive what they want? It doesn't hurt you at all, they pay more in taxes and gas.

You know what? That douchebag in the Hummer probably affetcs me more than the odd welfare cheat, be it through the environmental degredation they cause or the increased physical danger of people driving those beasts around.

It's funny how your libertarian views end at when someone has something nicer eh?...

People should respect these people more as they are the contributors to society and aren't likely the ones that just sit around all day begging the rest of us for big handouts.

What they drive is really of no consequence to either you or I.

"Nicer" is debatable. "Obscenely expensive, esthetically bankrupt trinkets" is closer to it. But I pick on Hummer drivers beause they are living testaments to a status-obsessed mentality that has us locked in a cycle of reckless, conspicuous consumption and dead-end urban planning which leads, IMV, to social conservativism and all the evils that entails. Trust me: it makes sense to me. Oh and if you think people in, say, the oil industry, aren't dependant on government handouts, you'r eliving in a fantasy world.

But at the end of the day, I'm not suggessting the government do anythingabout them. Thus my libertarian credentials, such as they are, remain intact.

[ClearWest]

Which end of the political spectrum are the selfish pleasure-seeking hedonists? Wherever it is, I'm there.

They could be anywhere in the spectrum. It seems that you're stereotyping righties. Just to let you know, I am not one of those selfish pleasure-seeking hedonists. In fact I abstain from tobacco, alcohol, pornography, and other degrading media and substances. You might say that those are some of the more hedonist things to seek out in life, I don't live that way. The difference between me and a populist is that I don't think my lifestyle should be forced on other people. As soon as a governing body begins to be delegated with problems to solve, it often uses means of force to accomplish its goals. All I want is for us to use voluntary means to solve our problems.

For example, if I think drugs are a problem for our society (which I do), I will first of all choose not to use the drugs myself. Secondly I will teach my children to abstain from drugs (but I will not force them). And thirdly, I will always be there to help people whose lives have been damaged by drugs. I can do this by donating to a Rehabilitation clinic, a drug awareness organization, and groups which put on activities for youth to keep them out of trouble.

If the government operated in this way rather than through taxation, then I would probably be much more at peace with them. But no, April 30th--Collection Day.

[BHS]

I wish I'd gotten into this thread earlier. My apologies for jumping in.

I was a self-described socialist in my teens and early twenties. I protested in Toronto against George Sr.'s Iraq War Oil Imperialism.

It was around that time that I started questioning my political and philosophical positions. I realized that I didn't care for the protest crowd, which seemed to consist largely of people who wanted to twist the purity of my intent ("NO WAR FOR OIL!!!") into any number of other unrelated causes. I'm sure that people currently involved in protests are familiar with my dilemma. I wasn't for International Socialism or Lesbian Feminism or any of the other causes that tended to supercede what I felt was really the issue at hand. You know, the nominal issue for the prostest. Plus, the Trotsky guys all have a lazy eye that's kind of creepy - am I wrong?

I also noticed that my older college friends, guys I respected who'd been in the "real" world for a while and come back to school, were all self-described conservatives. I argued with them, and they laughed at me, because I honestly hadn't given much thought to what I'd committed myself to, beyond basic superficial assumptions.

Let me point out here, that I respect the Left, even though I tend to make light of them and even slander them from time to time, as whimsy suits me. A bird can't fly on one wing, and democracy wouldn't be democratic for very long if the Left were permanently shut out of politics. I still learn a lot from my friends who maintain a socialist bent. I hope there's a similar sense of interdependence among those who may disagree with me.

Anyway, at this point in my life I'm a thirty-something neo-classicalist liberal, of the Jacksonian mindset. Read pretty much anything by Mark Steyn or Steven Den Best or Bill Whittle to see where I'm at.

[August1991]

Let me resurrect this thread.

Why do people change their opinions, if they do? To pick random examples, Margrace above (like Freud) suggested a traumatic experience provokes change. For BD, it seems it was a move to Edmonton.

Years ago, I had a close friend who was a candidate for the NDP in an Ontario election. At the time, I was writing a dissertation so I could easily quit "work" for a few weeks and move to Ontario. I became my friend's campaign manager, and I had one of the most fascinating experiences of my life. (If you are young and interested in politics, you should get deeply involved in at least one riding campaign in your life. I recall pulling out my Quebec carte soleil health card and explaining that Ontario needs such a system. My friend told me to stop doing that since the Quebec comparison didn't work well with Ontario voters!)

My mother was an intelligent woman, well informed but from an uneducated family. I can only suspect how she voted since she left us to decide for ourselves. My father was a Trudeau Liberal.

In short, I was a leftist when I was young. I believed that in a civilized society, government can solve our problems. (At the same time, I recall swearing to myself that I would never, older, do anything contrary to the lives of ordinary people.)

Then, I had the opportunity to work for Canada's federal government for about six years. It opened my eyes. I think Friedman wrote a foreword for Hayek's Road to Serfdom stating that the book was popular among returning soldiers who had experienced the US military during WW II. In a sense, compulsory military/government service is maybe a good idea because it inoculates ordinary people against socialism.

In addition, I lived in Russia (among other countries) and I saw the consequences of putting all one's eggs in one basket. I realized that it is foolish to trust government.

----

I have always been a social liberal because I feel comfortable with "live and let live". But I no longer believe that governments can easily solve social problems. So I guess I have moved right.

[duckman]

Someone said (Shaw, Clemenceau, Briand?) that if you are not a socialist in your twenties, you have no heart. But if you are still a socialist in your forties, you have no brain.

My query is different, and objective. Which way do people tend to move generally? And among movers in either direction, who is "worse" (who as a new arrival becomes more Catholic than the Pope)?

Ex-Leftists who grow up and convert to the Right? Or ex-capitalists who convert to an understanding of existence?

And why do people move? (Were you once a Leftist, or a Conservative? If so, what made you change your opinion?)

I don't see it as any coincidence that at the height of their health, virility and strength, people tend to be more socialist, or that those outside of that paradigm tend to be more conservative. Think of the helpless toddler whose self-awareness is just budding -> "Mine! Mine! Mine! & No!” or the common refrain of the old -> "I don't like the look of them teenagers over there...there oughta be a law!” Fear, sparked by a perception of a deficient self, invokes its inevitable hostile re-action.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I went right to left and back to right. In college I revolted against the large government spending of the 60's, then I gained (somewhat) of a social conscience; now I just think we rely too much on government (state supported day care as an example) and it's time to move the pendulum back. BTW, I'm a biz-con, not some guy who wants to throw gays in jail.

[August1991]

Bump.

I don't see it as any coincidence that at the height of their health, virility and strength, people tend to be more socialist, or that those outside of that paradigm tend to be more conservative.

On the contrary, I can see why the young would not want to share - as long as it's clear what's being shared.

Young people are, well, young. But they are also poor. I can understand why young people would want to share material wealth with others (socialism), but I can also understand why they would not want to share their youth.

[injusticebuster]

When I was young and healthy I was a conservative but now when I am sick and unable to work supported by my wife I know from my personal experience that when someone gets sick he or she gets automatically fired by fellow conservatives the right's opressive agenda that "ARBEIT MACHT FREI" means "WORK BRINGS FREEDOM" or those who do not work do not eat or if someone does not work does not sleep is inhuman and opressive.

http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/euthan.html

http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/data/articles/...hwitz_page1.htm