NationStates Jolt Archive

What does "The Right" mean to you?


To me:

I define "the right" as the antithesis of "the left".

It's really that simple.


So, what does "the left" mean,.. to me?


"The left" are people more concerned with finding wrongs (and attempting to correct them) than promoting prosperity.

Now, given that "very simplistic" definition of "the left" (and by contrast, "the right"), why would I choose to call myself a far FAR rightist?


Simply because I grant that the left has a purpose, and a very VERY valuable one at that, as does the right, and the purpose of the right is to "rule" (be in charge of the running of those systems we might call "productive social machinery"), while the left's purpose is to notice and complain about the "malfunctions" of that "social-machinery", but NOT to rule it in any way.

In other words, only the right should be allowed to "rule" (govern) a society (which is always the case through history), and the left should be allowed (encouraged and assisted) to do their job of complaining and giving warning of severe societal malfunction.


My basic contention is that only "the right" is capable of governance, and has only ever been the governing force behind any system of governance.

The "fantasy" that "the left" has ever governed any society (or will ever) is simply that,.. a fantasy.

ANY form of government is inherently rightist, and will always evolve further in the direction of "the right".

ANY person who attempts to govern by leftist principles will degenerate into "censorship and frustration" (as complainers are LOATHE to hear complaints from their "inferiors"), and eventually into slavery (as the "more equal" supress the "less equal"), and then ultimate takeover (preferably from within) by the sensible forces of "the right".

Thus,.. I am a rightist, as I value "good governance" over "good complaining", which is only a personal choice. And I'm proud of both rightists and leftists who know what their respective jobs are in the service of their nation (or appropriate organization), and do them well by listening and acting correctly on the others advice.



Your thoughts?

[SIZE="5"]Your thoughts?

My thoughts? You're funny.

Rather thick, but funny none the less.

Althought I guess this is why all of scandenavia is decending into slavery right now....

Unlike the words conservative or liberal: which can be simply misused or exaggerated, The definition of "rightist" or "leftist" really is a transistory definition that changes to benifit whatever perspective its legions need of it at the moment.

It depends: I generally associate 'left' with social liberalism and nationalisation, and the right with social conservativism with economic liberalism.

Uhm... If you say so?

I honestly don't follow your train of thought. I mean, I understand what you're implying, but I really... can't say I agree with (or even truly understand) any of your reasoning.

That's an interesting analysis.

I suppose you could argue that authoritarians tend to circle around the state, and exert their influence over it, and history would back that up quite a lot. I personally do not like to confuse the terms Left and Right and so I use them clearly to mean a scale of how much the state should tax and spend, for the scale of how much the state should exert influence, I use a scale of authoritarian and liberal.

I suppose the weakness of your interpretation would be that you are viewing politics rather like a zebra. A zebra? you ask. A zebra, I reverberate. See, from where you are standing you see a Black (authoritarian) horse with white (liberal) stripes, the white stripes represent brief interregnums between the natural blackness. But, another person could have an equally valid view of a white horse with black stripes, of a society that is naturally liberal if left to its own devices that is occassionally (or usually, as the case may be) overrun by authoritarian rulers.

I suppose the best viewpoint exists somewhere in between.

(As an aside, I notice that the very first reply features an ad hominem attack on the OP without proper consideration of the argument... how very cohesive to good debate...)

that's an oversimplification, but I would agree that those in power never actually do anything about what's not working in a society, and that those who are fixing things are usually not in power. I'd say it's more because those in power have a vested interest in keeping things malfunctioning, but whatever. it'd be nice if everything was as simple and functional as what you seem to be assuming, but you're not *extremely* far off....just a bit overly idealistic.

I'd also like to point out that this only works if by "the right" you're including basicly everyone in public office, big business, or any kind of power at all - which makes the fake political spectrum of Democrats vs. Republicans a bit of a moot point. democrats don't in the last bit fit the bill of "the left" in this model, and I hope you didn't think they did, but other than that I suppose this theory could be redeemed, somewhat.

"The left" are people more concerned with finding wrongs (and attempting to correct them) than promoting prosperity.

and how exactly would attempts to correct wrongs do something other than promote prosperity? does prosperity require the promotion of wrongs?

]What does "The Right" mean to you?

Apparently, it means never having to say you're sorry.

does prosperity require the promotion of wrongs?

Kinda. At least in the short term. It's quite possible to be quite successful (as a state or individual) without doing a good deed in your life.

and how exactly would attempts to correct wrongs do something other than promote prosperity? does prosperity require the promotion of wrongs?

yes, at least monetary prosperity.

Kinda. At least in the short term. It's quite possible to be quite successful (as a state or individual) without doing a good deed in your life.

it's not only possible - it's by far the best way to be "successful". the richest and most powerful are ruthless, cruel, and borderline evil. fiscally speaking, nice guys always finish last...at least as long as there's a single ruthless guy hanging around...which there always will be. sharing, generousity, forgiveness, mercy, and cooperation are not good at promoting financial prosperity. holding people to their debts, charging interest, enforcing contracts, and competition are all excellent ways to be "prosperous" by the standard definition...none of them are virtues, either.

Kinda. At least in the short term. It's quite possible to be quite successful (as a state or individual) without doing a good deed in your life.

of course it's possible to attain prosperity through the active use of wrongs, but is it required? and if so, would that not make prosperity itself a wrong?

of course it's possible to attain prosperity through the active use of wrongs, but is it required?

if it isn't, I've yet to see a prosperous nation that hasn't gotten that way by wronging others.

and if so, would that not make prosperity itself a wrong?

"it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" - most moral teachers have acknowledged that wealth is antithetical to virtue.

The guys who are wrong.

of course it's possible to attain prosperity through the active use of wrongs, but is it required? and if so, would that not make prosperity itself a wrong?

No, its not required, it is equally possible that one could attain prosperity whilst still maintaining an ethical code, the Bodyshop chick and the Google lads for example (well... before they sold out). However, I would say it is impossible to attain prosperity by being totally good and unselfish.

You could say prosperity is ethically wrong, but it would be very silly thing to say. Some prosperity is needed, otherwise we'd all be eating sand and getting nothing done.

You could say prosperity is ethically wrong, but it would be very silly thing to say. Some prosperity is needed, otherwise we'd all be eating sand and getting nothing done.

getting nothing done? like what? some of the wealthiest people in the world do absolutely nothing of value. the average fuedal serf and the average hunter-gatherer had more leisure time than the average american. native americans didn't "get alot done" but it's arguable that they had better lives - if you measure it in terms of leisure time, stable families...I think there's a definate case that both those societies (though I'm mostly thinking of native americans and similar cultures) had a much smaller instance of agnosticism and religious/philosophical dysphoria...so I think we could also argue there was a much higher rate of people with meaning and spiritual fulfillment there too. seriously, what's so important about what we're "getting done"?

if it isn't, I've yet to see a prosperous nation that hasn't gotten that way by wronging others.

maybe, though that may just say things about the state as an entity, rather than about prosperity as a concept. certainly prosperity exists on levels other than nation-states.

"it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" - most moral teachers have acknowledged that wealth is antithetical to virtue.

i don't know, it seems a whole bunch of them have held that a certain level of prosperity is required. i'm thinking particularly of aristotle, since you mentioned virtue.

However, I would say it is impossible to attain prosperity by being totally good

so being good rules out prosperity?

All I can say is Govneauvia sounds like a minor stomach/digestive disorder.

getting nothing done? like what? some of the wealthiest people in the world do absolutely nothing of value. the average fuedal serf and the average hunter-gatherer had more leisure time than the average american. native americans didn't "get alot done" but it's arguable that they had better lives - if you measure it in terms of leisure time, stable families...I think there's a definate case that both those societies (though I'm mostly thinking of native americans and similar cultures) had a much smaller instance of agnosticism and religious/philosophical dysphoria...so I think we could also argue there was a much higher rate of people with meaning and spiritual fulfillment there too. seriously, what's so important about what we're "getting done"?

Sigh... Karl Marx, why did you have to be so good at spreading your terrible economic theories... The wealthiest do plenty of value. Most importantly, they buy things, without rich people to sell to nothing innovative would ever be built, as there is a sizeable wealthy population at the moment we notice that hundreds of thousands of innovations are made and sold. Furthermore, with this capital they are able to invest in what they believe will make other people rich. The wealthy do not simply hoard gold in giant vaults Scrooge McDuck-stylee, they are constantly spreading it around of their own accord without the need of the mob stripping them of their assets.

If everyone was poor then we would only ever be able to buy basic, economic things. Industry would cease innovating and there would be no progression of any kind.

And what are we getting done? Well, everything. You kind of have to accept that this is an all or nothing situation, you don't get to have a situation without extremes of wealth AND civilisation. It doesn't work that way.

so being good rules out prosperity?

Let's just say I can't imagine Mother Teresa ever making it onto the Forbes list.

i'm thinking particularly of aristotle, since you mentioned virtue.

*chuckles* possibly my least favorite classical philosopher. Diogenes is by far the coolest greek philosopher, and aristotle by far the most boring (in my opinion) - the cynics and pythagoreans and all that lot were much more concerned with actual moral systems, weren't they? I confess I've never actually read aristotle, as he always bored me to tears - but even then, we have the Jains, who give up all property and ritually starve to death, the majority of christianity had monastic orders in which personal property was gone entirely - hindu asceticism...every major belief system that developed in societies where private property existed had a goodly minority (usually considered the most dedicated to virtue) of ascetics that gave it up. other belief systems don't address it mostly because they never had large scale property-oriented cultures to begin with.

Right indicates a positive acceleration due to a net force.

Let's just say I can't imagine Mother Teresa ever making it onto the Forbes list.

the problem is that it seems to me that your statement means that either we ought not be prosperous, or we ought not be good. which just strikes me as weird.

Sigh... Karl Marx, why did you have to be so good at spreading your terrible economic theories...

I've never read marx. I do not consider myself a marxist. a Tolstoyan if anything, though I first came to believe what I do while reading the sermon on the mount...if you want to call christ a marxist, fine, but I don't subscribe to marxism...though I suppose I do resemble it. (for the record, I'm not a christian, either)

The wealthiest do plenty of value. Most importantly, they buy things, without rich people to sell to nothing innovative would ever be built, as there is a sizeable wealthy population at the moment we notice that hundreds of thousands of innovations are made and sold.

innovations, like what? have we improved upon love? taught peopel to crave any less (considered a virtue in at least 3 of the major world religions)? for every beneficial innovation there are a dozen negative ones. I mean, I see your point. it's not like ancient romans were building friendships, living into their 80s, falling in love, eating healthy food, living with indoor plumbing, central heating, and luxuries from around the world. their society was far from perfect, but technologically, they had as much capability to live happy, fulfilled lives as we do. it was their arbitrary social structure that prevented that for the average person - and it was the rich, even back then, preventing the poor from living well. consumer-based technological innovation hasn't made us any more capable of happiness or fulfillment now than we were millenia ago.

Furthermore, with this capital they are able to invest in what they believe will make other people rich. The wealthy do not simply hoard gold in giant vaults Scrooge McDuck-stylee, they are constantly spreading it around of their own accord without the need of the mob stripping them of their assets.

If everyone was poor then we would only ever be able to buy basic, economic things. Industry would cease innovating and there would be no progression of any kind.

progression? what's progressed? people had the same joys and fears 4000 years ago - and not alot more of either one.

I call to mind the prophet who shouted "I am but earth and ash!" and once again I looked to the tombs with attention, and saw the bones therein bereft of flesh. and I said, "truly, who is the king and who the soldier? who the wealthy, and who the needy? who the righteous, and who the sinner?"

And what are we getting done? Well, everything. You kind of have to accept that this is an all or nothing situation, you don't get to have a situation without extremes of wealth AND civilisation. It doesn't work that way.

what? I don't get to have a situation at all? huh? what are you trying to communicate here?

What does "The Right" mean to you?


To me:

I define "the right" as the antithesis of "the left".

It's really that simple.


So, what does "the left" mean,.. to me?


"The left" are people more concerned with finding wrongs (and attempting to correct them) than promoting prosperity.

Now, given that "very simplistic" definition of "the left" (and by contrast, "the right"), why would I choose to call myself a far FAR rightist?


Simply because I grant that the left has a purpose, and a very VERY valuable one at that, as does the right, and the purpose of the right is to "rule" (be in charge of the running of those systems we might call "productive social machinery"), while the left's purpose is to notice and complain about the "malfunctions" of that "social-machinery", but NOT to rule it in any way.

In other words, only the right should be allowed to "rule" (govern) a society (which is always the case through history), and the left should be allowed (encouraged and assisted) to do their job of complaining and giving warning of severe societal malfunction.


My basic contention is that only "the right" is capable of governance, and has only ever been the governing force behind any system of governance.

The "fantasy" that "the left" has ever governed any society (or will ever) is simply that,.. a fantasy.

ANY form of government is inherently rightist, and will always evolve further in the direction of "the right".

Up to here, you are right in a roundabout way. The "right" is the political orientation of conservatives and tradionalists. Leftists throughout history have come to power, but immediately upon achieving rule, those leftists naturally become conservatives and traditionalists. Therefore, you are correct, by the very nature of rule, rulers will be oriented upon the right.

Therefore, we should kill all rulers.

ANY person who attempts to govern by leftist principles will degenerate into "censorship and frustration" (as complainers are LOATHE to hear complaints from their "inferiors"), and eventually into slavery (as the "more equal" supress the "less equal"), and then ultimate takeover (preferably from within) by the sensible forces of "the right".

This is all bullshit.

"Complainers [leftists] are LOATHE to hear complaints from their 'inferiors'"?

You are completely making this up, and what is worse, the right has long been the greater practitioners of "censorship of frustration" throughout history, as those are patently conservative tactics.

Thus,.. I am a rightist, as I value "good governance" over "good complaining", which is only a personal choice. And I'm proud of both rightists and leftists who know what their respective jobs are in the service of their nation (or appropriate organization), and do them well by listening and acting correctly on the others advice.

"Good governance" is an irreconcilable phrase.

the problem is that it seems to me that your statement means that either we ought not be prosperous, or we ought not be good. which just strikes me as weird.

or perhaps that we should redefine propsperity? scented candles and plastic house-plants and the like are fine, but the fact that producing, buying, and selling useless shit like this contributes to our definition of "prosperity" is innane. you can be both good and prosperous in terms of quality of life, but not in terms of capitalist "success".

yes, at least monetary prosperity.

Give me one iota of evidence for this.

I think in terms of intelligent political discussion, the terms "left" and "right" are absolutely meaningless.

Give me one iota of evidence for this.

charging interest was considered a sin for centuries, and now it's the basis of our economy. you don't *charge* someone you love for anything. the modern definition of prosperity (production, accumulated wealth, etc) is based off of competition. it's near antithetical to cooperation. you *cannot* become wealthy without engaging extensively in charging interest. most people do it by investing in unethical corperations, likely part of the military industrial complex - and others by mass producing consumer products designed to wear out or be "obseleted" as soon as possible to perserve a market for similar products and keep you making even *more* money.

To you, son, 'right' is never the antithesis of 'wrong'?!? It is always the anthithesis of 'left'? You are broken my friend, seek help

charging interest was considered a sin for centuries, and now it's the basis of our economy. you don't *charge* someone you love for anything.

Well, economics is not based on love, otherwise being ugly and unpopular would be the chief cause of poverty.

the modern definition of prosperity (production, accumulated wealth, etc) is based off of competition. it's near antithetical to cooperation.

And yet you can't compete without cooperating.

or perhaps that we should redefine propsperity? scented candles and plastic house-plants and the like are fine, but the fact that producing, buying, and selling useless shit like this contributes to our definition of "prosperity" is innane. you can be both good and prosperous in terms of quality of life, but not in terms of capitalist "success".

You need to redefine what is a "wrong". While unselfishness may be good, selfishness is not a wrong.

It is certainly possible for prosperity to be brought about by granting benefit to another. It is not just possible, it is imperative.

selfishness is not a wrong.

certainly not - if you include the entire world in your definition of "self" - but most people don't. as far as the vast majority of ethical systems are concerned, selfishness *is* a wrong.

if you'll permit me, you can burn Marx in effigy while I do the same with Ayn Rand.

selfishness is not a wrong.

Yes, it is.

Self-love is not - selfishness (since there is an exclusivity to it) is.

It is certainly possible for prosperity to be brought about by granting benefit to another. It is not just possible, it is imperative.

Helping another so that you can make a profit is not a morally commendable act.

Well, economics is not based on love, otherwise being ugly and unpopular would be the chief cause of poverty.

obviously this culture has a twisted idea of love. it has nothing to do with *liking* someone. I don't mean *romantic* love or even friendly love - I mean compassion, which has absolutely nothing to do with popularity.

And yet you can't compete without cooperating.

cooperating almost accidentally. even if you cooperate somewhat through competition, deliberately setting out to cooperate 100% results in more cooperation...obviously.

Well, economics is not based on love, otherwise being ugly and unpopular would be the chief cause of poverty.

You are completely missing the point.

The person who truly loves her neighbors as herself will never be rich. This is true regardless of the quantity of people who in fact meet that description.

charging interest was considered a sin for centuries, and now it's the basis of our economy. you don't *charge* someone you love for anything. the modern definition of prosperity (production, accumulated wealth, etc) is based off of competition. it's near antithetical to cooperation. you *cannot* become wealthy without engaging extensively in charging interest. most people do it by investing in unethical corperations, likely part of the military industrial complex - and others by mass producing consumer products designed to wear out or be "obseleted" as soon as possible to perserve a market for similar products and keep you making even *more* money.

I think you briefly on just about every modern liberal inconsistency and inaccuracy there is.

Interest is not a "charge", it is accounting for time in finding fair value.

If you actually respect someone, you will not borrow money from them without offering interest in return, as otherwise you would be a mooch or a thief, depending on how you look at it.

Also, modern production and accumulation of wealth is based on cooperation in that it minimizes overhead costs. Competition is actually the basis for limiting production and accumulated wealth to a level proportional to the amount invested into the economy.

You can become wealthy without interest, it is through specialisation of labor and free exchange, how most people actually do it.

The military industrial complex is unethical and wealthy because of the forced redistribution of funds to their owners through government taxation, not through private investment.

The consumer is not so stupid as to repeatedly by cheap products that wear out rapidly. There is intense market pressure to provide quality products.

obviously this culture has a twisted idea of love. it has nothing to do with *liking* someone. I don't mean *romantic* love or even friendly love - I mean compassion, which has absolutely nothing to do with popularity.

So you believe economic systems should be based on compassion?


cooperating almost accidentally. even if you cooperate somewhat through competition, deliberately setting out to cooperate 100% results in more cooperation...obviously.

I see nothing inherently evil or good about either competition or cooperation, so I don't care if it's just "almost accidentally" cooperating. From your point of view where competition is evil, you should be glad to have "accidental goods" rather than none at all... more to the point you earlier stated there WERE none.

You are completely missing the point.

The person who truly loves her neighbors as herself will never be rich. This is true regardless of the quantity of people who in fact meet that description.

Wait, why won't she ever be rich? Because she's too busy loving? Surely she could go to the store and buy a lottery ticket. Or you know, show love to her neighbors in another way besides giving them everything she has. Or is materialism the only way to show True Love? ;)

certainly not - if you include the entire world in your definition of "self" - but most people don't. as far as the vast majority of ethical systems are concerned, selfishness *is* a wrong.

In otherwords, you don't have a particular reason, other than vaguely held beliefs in "sharing."

if you'll permit me, you can burn Marx in effigy while I do the same with Ayn Rand.[/QUOTE]

I vastly prefer Marx over Rand. Rand is a hack, while Marx provided a very strong dialetical analysis of economic history. He was too bold in his projections, but he is nonetheless valuable.

Yes, it is.

Self-love is not - selfishness (since there is an exclusivity to it) is.

No it isn't. (I have actually taken a liking to BAAWA's gainsaying)

Helping another so that you can make a profit is not a morally commendable act.

I never said it was. I just said that it was possible and that it wasn't a wrong.

Wait, why won't she ever be rich? Because she's too busy loving?

No, because getting rich always requires treating other people in a selfish manner.

If you genuinely acknowledge other people as of equal moral worth to you, you will not try to maximize your wealth at their expense, and you will give generously to those worse off than you, even if it does not make you a profit. Both of those traits are incompatible with a great deal of relative wealth.

Surely she could go to the store and buy a lottery ticket.

And if she wins, she will not keep her winnings.

Or you know, show love to her neighbors in another way besides giving them everything she has.

She will do that as well.

I think you briefly on just about every modern liberal inconsistency and inaccuracy there is.

Interest is not a "charge", it is accounting for time in finding fair value.

time does not equal money. the very concept is disgusting. if my family and friends insisted everything be "fair" I'd come into the world owing my parents massive ammounts of money - I'd offer a money back garentee if my friends ever spent time with me and were bored...life is not about being fair.

If you actually respect someone, you will not borrow money from them without offering interest in return, as otherwise you would be a mooch or a thief, depending on how you look at it.

and I'm sure you charge your family interest, right? those theiving grandchildren! my dog is an incredible, shameless mooch - and she also has the most unimpeachable good charactor of anyone I know.

The military industrial complex is unethical and wealthy because of the forced redistribution of funds to their owners through government taxation, not through private investment.

what? deliberately starting conflicts to turn a profit is wrong, and it's also big business. maybe I'm ignorant here, but that's what I was trying to say. I don't see how taxation makes producing weapons and deliberately creating a market for violence any more evil than it allready was.

The consumer is not so stupid as to repeatedly by cheap products that wear out rapidly. There is intense market pressure to provide quality products.

aren't they? modern homes have pathetic lifespans compared to homes 100 years ago. and most of it isn't about the product wearing out, it's about an artifical fad making the product undesirable and useless. most cars don't get replaced when they stop running, they get replaced when a cooler one comes out. some people buy new ones every year - it's rediculous. I said they were designed to become obselete, not just to physically wear out.

So you believe economic systems should be based on compassion?

I believe everything should be based on compassion. of course, this will never happen, so whatever works, but please don't bullshit me and try to tell me the current system is morally laudable.

No it isn't. (I have actually taken a liking to BAAWA's gainsaying)

How useless.

I never said it was. I just said that it was possible and that it wasn't a wrong.

Making helping others conditional on receiving a profit is an immoral attitude; it denies the dignity and worth of others by asserting that they are only worthy of aid when it helps you.

No, because getting rich always requires treating other people in a selfish manner.

Bullshit.

If you genuinely acknowledge other people as of equal moral worth to you, you will not try to maximize your wealth at their expense

Right, so you wouldn't steal.

Except of course, your point is that commerce is the same thing as stealing.

Sigh. Hopeless anticapitalists.

, and you will give generously to those worse off than you, even if it does not make you a profit.

Heh, so rich people never give generously either? Damn, those evil rich people - every last one of them is selfish, views other people as moral subhumanoids, and never ever gives to charity. Demons, every one of them!


And if she wins, she will not keep her winnings.

Because she's stupid and doesn't love herself as much as anyone else? Even though she does, according to the definition of the hypothesis?


She will do that as well.

But yeah, primarily she'll go flat broke. Because love = money, and if you don't give money to other people, you are selfish. I see.

Heh, so rich people never give generously either? Damn, those evil rich people - every last one of them is selfish, views other people as moral subhumanoids, and never ever gives to charity. Demons, every one of them!

as far as percentages and actual sacrifice goes, no, they don't. bill gates gives prolifically to charity, but there's a point (maybe 1% of his actual income, at most) after which he will never know want. anything he gives past that point has hardly any affect on him at all.

Because she's stupid and doesn't love herself as much as anyone else? Even though she does, according to the definition of the hypothesis?

yes, mother teresa is stupid. and has self esteem issues. her life definately would've had more meaning had she been a venture capitalist.

But yeah, primarily she'll go flat broke. Because love = money, and if you don't give money to other people, you are selfish. I see.

are you deliberately ignoring what he's actually saying?

as far as percentages and actual sacrifice goes, no, they don't. bill gates gives generously to charity, but there's a point (maybe 1% of his actual income, at most) after which you will enver know want. he's not actually sacrificing anything to "give".

So it's not that you give to charity that counts, but how much?

Jeez, that's heartless.

"One dollar."

"Thanks for your contribution, God bless you."

"A quarter."

"Thanks for your contribution, God bless you."

"Ten billion dollars."

"Thanks for your - HEY WAIT! You're HOLDING OUT on me, bitch! You selfish piece of shit!"


yes, mother teresa is stupid. and has self esteem issues. her life definately would've had more meaning had she been a venture capitalist.

Nice strawman. I said nothing of meaning. If you want to love your neighbor, and you think making yourself poor by giving them every last cent you have is the way to do that, go ahead - but don't complain if that *gasp* doesn't make you wealthy.

Personally, I don't think money = compassion, do you?

Right, so you wouldn't steal.

Except of course, your point is that commerce is the same thing as stealing.

Sigh. Hopeless anticapitalists.

The difference between stealing to maximize personal wealth and commerce to maximize personal wealth is merely the legality. The moral quality is identical - in both cases the aim of the actor is to benefit herself, whatever the consequences to others.

Heh, so rich people never give generously either?

Usually, they give "generously" a small portion of the wealth they should never have amassed in the first place. That is not sufficient, because others would be helped far more by most of the wealth they retain than they themselves will be helped by retaining it.

Damn, those evil rich people - every last one of them is selfish, views other people as moral subhumanoids, and never ever gives to charity. Demons, every one of them!

This is a straw man.

Because she's stupid and doesn't love herself as much as anyone else? Even though she does, according to the definition of the hypothesis?

Of course she loves herself. In fact, she loves herself so much that she cannot bear to see people who are akin to her - her fellow human beings - suffer when she can act to prevent it, because she knows how she would feel were she in such a position.

But yeah, primarily she'll go flat broke.

No, self-love is still a factor. I never said she had to be a martyr.

The difference between stealing to maximize personal wealth and commerce to maximize personal wealth is merely the legality. The moral quality is identical - in both cases the aim of the actor is to benefit herself, whatever the consequences to others.

So even if the "consequences to others" are beneficial and unharmful, you still think it's morally wrong. Even if those "Others" are willing actors in their own "non maximization," you think it's morally wrong. So basically you think it's morally wrong if anyone breathes the air, because doing so deprives another of a few oxygen molecules...

Bah. If your basic premise is "capitalism is theft" there's really no point in debating your conclusions. I will anyway, pointlessness being my middle name.


Usually, they give "generously" a small portion of the wealth they should never have amassed in the first place. That is not sufficient, because others would be helped far more by most of the wealth they retain than they themselves will be helped by retaining it.

The first point, that they "should never" amassed wealth, is silly.

The second, that the economy is not helped by those who create wealth or the actual process of creating wealth, is idiotic.

Of course she loves herself. In fact, she loves herself so much that she cannot bear to see people who are akin to her - her fellow human beings - suffer when she can act to prevent it, because she knows how she would feel were she in such a position.

Apparently her neighbors are all cancer-ridden children who are dying of starvation, too - since only enough of her wealth to make her poor will suffice to relieve her compassion? And we know from Vegan Warrior that she is also, Mother Theresa. What an interesting and realistic hypothetical situation has been chosen to highlight the evils of capitalism. Thank you for showing me the light!

No, self-love is still a factor. I never said she had to be a martyr.

Well, according to you two, it's only charitable if it consistued X% of one's total wealth, otherwise it doesn't count. Hence effectively, financial martyrdom is requisite.

No, because getting rich always requires treating other people in a selfish manner. If you genuinely acknowledge other people as of equal moral worth to you, you will not try to maximize your wealth at their expense, and you will give generously to those worse off than you, even if it does not make you a profit.

Treating everyone as moral equals necessitates that you allow the poor to work for their wealth, as you assume the rich man worked for his. You cannot just heap rewards upon those who do not deserve them; you cannot just pay an employee more than the system of supply and demand for labor dictates that the worker be paid. Doing so would undermine the general precepts of the capitalist system, whose underlying infrastructure allowed you to amass your wealth. By strictly adhering to the precepts of the free market, you will allow those who work assiduously to succeed while those who are indolent shall fail. Acting in a "selfish" manner, in that you maximize marginal benefits while minimizing marginal costs, is an integral and inalienable part of our economic system. While donating money certainly isn't bad, it might be better to instead invest that money to power the engine of economic growth.

what does 'the right' mean to me? dunno, but i think the word 'sinistre' got misplaced.

time does not equal money. the very concept is disgusting.

Then you are going to have to get a taste for it, because it is true. Time is risk, time is preference deferment: Time is money.

if my family and friends insisted everything be "fair" I'd come into the world owing my parents massive ammounts of money - I'd offer a money back garentee if my friends ever spent time with me and were bored...life is not about being fair.

So you don't treat friends and family fairly?

and I'm sure you charge your family interest, right? those theiving grandchildren!

No, but I am charitable to family, I do things without expectation of repayment all of the time.

I said that, for the interest of being fair, one should offer to pay interest to friends and family.

my dog is an incredible, shameless mooch - and she also has the most unimpeachable good charactor of anyone I know.

That is a stupid comment.

what? deliberately starting conflicts to turn a profit is wrong, and it's also big business. maybe I'm ignorant here, but that's what I was trying to say. I don't see how taxation makes producing weapons and deliberately creating a market for violence any more evil than it allready was.

Last time I checked, Lockheed doesn't have the authority to declare war.

aren't they? modern homes have pathetic lifespans compared to homes 100 years ago. and most of it isn't about the product wearing out, it's about an artifical fad making the product undesirable and useless. most cars don't get replaced when they stop running, they get replaced when a cooler one comes out. some people buy new ones every year - it's rediculous. I said they were designed to become obselete, not just to physically wear out.

You are no different than the christian berating the sinner.

I believe everything should be based on compassion. of course, this will never happen, so whatever works, but please don't bullshit me and try to tell me the current system is morally laudable.

OK

How useless.

Exactly.

I would like to think that it points out that the comment I was responding to was utterly insignificant.

Making helping others conditional on receiving a profit is an immoral attitude; it denies the dignity and worth of others by asserting that they are only worthy of aid when it helps you.

No, it maintains one's own dignity while acknowledging the dignity of others.

Neither is subservient.

Oh my, this thread should prove a few good laughs. The derision of Interest so far is the first good one. :) Yes, it's theft, not money taken for risk-accounting and possible market-changes. Pure, evil theft.

What does a grizzled Dutchman in big rubber boots know about capitalism anyway?

So even if the "consequences to others" are beneficial and unharmful, you still think it's morally wrong. Even if those "Others" are willing actors in their own "non maximization," you think it's morally wrong.

Absolutely, because to the actor, none of that is relevant.

The only thing that matters to her is her own benefit - so whether she is making a profit off slaves dying in droves in coal mines or off well-paid, well-treated workers in jobs they enjoy just doesn't matter to her.

Her actions may indeed help, but that is incidental, and thus not relevant to their moral quality.

It is relevant to whether or not society should intervene to stop her, but that is a different question entirely.

So basically you think it's morally wrong if anyone breathes the air, because doing so deprives another of a few oxygen molecules...

No, because they are not scarce. In meeting my necessities, I do not deprive anybody else of their capability to meet theirs.

Bah. If your basic premise is "capitalism is theft" there's really no point in debating your conclusions.

That's not what I said. The moral quality of someone seeking to maximize her wealth in a socialist society would be exactly the same.

The first point, that they "should never" amassed wealth, is silly.

Only I've explained why, several times.

The second, that the economy is not helped by those who create wealth or the actual process of creating wealth, is idiotic.

I didn't say that. Do not make up positions I have not taken.

Apparently her neighbors are all cancer-ridden children who are dying of starvation, too - since only enough of her wealth to make her poor will suffice to relieve her compassion?

When there are no more people, children or otherwise, dying of starvation, you might have a point.

Well, according to you two, it's only charitable if it consistued X% of one's total wealth, otherwise it doesn't count.

Again, do not make up positions I have never taken.

So it's not that you give to charity that counts, but how much?

Jeez, that's heartless.

"One dollar."

"Thanks for your contribution, God bless you."

"A quarter."

"Thanks for your contribution, God bless you."

"Ten billion dollars."

"Thanks for your - HEY WAIT! You're HOLDING OUT on me, bitch! You selfish piece of shit!"

if you replaced that with percentages of actual disposable income, your point would disappear.

Nice strawman. I said nothing of meaning. If you want to love your neighbor, and you think making yourself poor by giving them every last cent you have is the way to do that, go ahead - but don't complain if that *gasp* doesn't make you wealthy.

Personally, I don't think money = compassion, do you?

I never said anything of the kind. I said that compassion is incompatable with profiteering. I'm saying that when one person has an excess and another has a need, it is wrong for the one to hold back his excess - and that this system is built with this truth completely ignored.

Treating everyone as moral equals necessitates that you allow the poor to work for their wealth, as you assume the rich man worked for his.

in that case, we should just give it to them - most rich people are born that way.

You cannot just heap rewards upon those who do not deserve them;

I'm not talking about heaping rewards, I'm talking about basic necessities like clean water and medical care. if you think there's a living being alive that doesn't deserve those, this argument is entirely pointless.

Treating everyone as moral equals necessitates that you allow the poor to work for their wealth, as you assume the rich man worked for his.

When did I assume anything of the sort?

You cannot just heap rewards upon those who do not deserve them; you cannot just pay an employee more than the system of supply and demand for labor dictates that the worker be paid.

The two are not equivalent.

Doing so would undermine the general precepts of the capitalist system, whose underlying infrastructure allowed you to amass your wealth. By strictly adhering to the precepts of the free market, you will allow those who work assiduously to succeed while those who are indolent shall fail.

Equality of opportunity does not exist and, most likely, cannot exist.

Acting in a "selfish" manner, in that you maximize marginal benefits while minimizing marginal costs, is an integral and inalienable part of our economic system.

A good reason to get rid of it.

While donating money certainly isn't bad, it might be better to instead invest that money to power the engine of economic growth.

But not to keep the profits for herself.

right is free market.
left is controlled.
but people now a days use right to mean conservative. left to be liberal.

what does 'the right' mean to me? dunno, but i think the word 'sinistre' got misplaced.

way to post in the middle of a 'spark' fest eh?!

Go Nuts Vegan! Thinking allowed!

Oh my, this thread should prove a few good laughs. The derision of Interest so far is the first good one. :) Yes, it's theft, not money taken for risk-accounting and possible market-changes. Pure, evil theft.

I never said it was theft. I said a compassionate person does not expect to make a profit by giving to another person. even if they fully expect to *loose* by giving to another person, they do it anyway. my point is that it is not morally laudable. I never called it theft.

Exactly.

I would like to think that it points out that the comment I was responding to was utterly insignificant.

It does not. It only demonstrates that you have no productive response.

No, it maintains one's own dignity while acknowledging the dignity of others.

It does not "acknowledge" the dignity of others. It outright denies it by asserting that they only possess moral worth when they help me.

Neither is subservient.

If so, it is only so by luck, not by the character of the action or the attitude behind it.

I never said it was theft. I said a compassionate person does not expect to make a profit by giving to another person. even if they fully expect to *loose* by giving to another person, they do it anyway. my point is that it is not morally laudable. I never called it theft.
No rational economic agent would ever do so though. Money depreciates over time (inflationary pressures, time in economics etc.), and there is the inherent risk in lending out. It is not a matter of greed -- it is a matter of economic sense.

Go Nuts Vegan! Thinking allowed!

I don't even know if you were encouraging me or mocking me...

When did I assume anything of the sort?

When you stated as a given that the rich amassed his wealth through exploitation. That would be false if the wealth was inherited rather than earned, so I assumed you were referring to those who somehow accrued money through work.

The two are not equivalent.

No, they are distinct components of our economic system. It is in the nature of capitalism to allocate money based on merit; while you can choose to give money based on some sense of altruism, it is unnecessary.

Equality of opportunity does not exist and, most likely, cannot exist.

Nonetheless, there is a complete freedom of choice which is intrinsic in the free market. If one applies oneself diligently, it would be easy for one to succeed. All that is required is hard work and a willingness to sacrifice temporary, short-term benefit for rewards in the long run. That is, if you save instead of consuming, you will become steadily richer.

A good reason to get rid of it.

Certainly not. A system that negates human nature can never adequately replace one which channels human nature as an economic force which leads to growth and efficiency.

But not to keep the profits for herself.

There is certainly no moral obligation not to donate, but rich people seldom stick money under their beds. They re-invest their earnings into the economy, which allows it to keep chugging along, to the ultimate benefit of everybody.

right is free market.
left is controlled.


except for all the "left" where this isn't true.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_%28economic_theory%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-Libertarianism

No rational economic agent would ever do so though. Money depreciates over time (inflationary pressures, time in economics etc.), and there is the inherent risk in lending out. It is not a matter of greed -- it is a matter of economic sense.

this is a good example of me defending one of those positions I'm not quite sure I was ever holding in the first place. *looks back at earlier part of the thread* - I was really just trying to use interest as an example of a shift in cultural attitudes towards profit and charity...

I'm not saying that within the system charging interest is wrong - I'm saying the system as a whole does not encourage or reward (and in fact penalizes) directly helping others when there is no direct benefit for yourself. the interest thing was an example, perhaps a bad one, of this.

and again, I'm not saying that people in general would actually act with compassion or give to others either in spite of risk, or without incentive. I'm just saying that the current system, built with self-interest in mind as a prime motivator - only encourages people to act ethically even less than they would if given an oppurtunity. nothing beats immorality for functionality.

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

I still fail to see how Agorism is left-libertarianism, whereas anarcho-capitalism is right-libertarianism. They seem near-identical, despite some differences, especially on propertarianism.

It does not "acknowledge" the dignity of others. It outright denies it by asserting that they only possess moral worth when they help me.

No, it acknowledges that someone's monetary worth can be measured by how much he "helps" you. Moral worth is completely tangent to any economic system; it is up to a social system to decide that. Also, everybody's dignity is respected by allowing them to decide their own future; the right to choose the best path for a particular individual is left up to only that person to decide, and nobody else. I consider self-determination and liberty to be the biggest components of dignity -- if you are allowed to do whatever you wish to do within a broad framework, your dignity is being acknowledged.

What does a grizzled Dutchman in big rubber boots know about capitalism anyway?

He knows he's happy to be called a grizzled Dutchman again.

It is in the nature of capitalism to allocate money based on merit

but not the sort of merit that people have simply for being alive. it excludes the intrinsic value of other beings from that "merit"...and this is the most important sort of merit that one can have.

I still fail to see how Agorism is left-libertarianism, whereas anarcho-capitalism is right-libertarianism. They seem near-identical, despite some differences, especially on propertarianism.

"By preferring the term 'free market' agorists are not bound by the implications of the term capitalism. While some anarcho-capitalists may believe in replacing all public property with private property, Agorists argue that non-state common property can be legitimate and should be respected. Like anarcho-capitalists, and unlike libertarian socialists, they believe that private property may extend beyond current possession. Private property, particularly in land would not continue infinitely, but must actually be used in some regular capacity to avoid being considered abandoned. Some anarcho-capitalists believe that all property should be private (neo-Lockean) property (hard propertarianism), whereas agorists believe that collective property may be permissible in some cases (soft propertarianism.)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

It is my experience that to acknowledge the concept of communal property is, to the "anarcho"-capitalist, tantamount to changing one's name to "Stalin."

and this is the most important sort of merit that one can have.

Nonetheless, that merit is outside the scope of an economic system to gauge.

No, it acknowledges that someone's monetary worth can be measured by how much he "helps" you. Moral worth is completely tangent to any economic system; it is up to a social system to decide that.

an economic system is, if not the largest, one of the largest components of a social system. they cannot be seperated. moral worth has to be recognized in the economic system if it's going to be recognized in the social system at large.

When you stated as a given that the rich amassed his wealth through exploitation.

I actually never stated that anywhere.

That would be false if the wealth was inherited rather than earned,

Because wealth that somebody else attained through exploitation is somehow cured of the taint?

so I assumed you were referring to those who somehow accrued money through work.

And you followed that logic to conclude that the poor should be forced to exploit others, too.

Got it. You make about as much sense as you usually do.

No, they are distinct components of our economic system. It is in the nature of capitalism to allocate money based on merit;

No, it isn't. It is in the nature of a competitive free market to allocate money based on economic value, which is a very different thing. And I question whether modern capitalism can ever have a truly free or competitive market, but that is another discussion.

while you can choose to give money based on some sense of altruism, it is unnecessary.

No, it is most certainly necessary. "Supply and demand" have very little to do with desert.

Nonetheless, there is a complete freedom of choice which is intrinsic in the free market.

No, there isn't, which is precisely why "economic freedom" is a misnomer.

If one applies oneself diligently, it would be easy for one to succeed. All that is required is hard work and a willingness to sacrifice temporary, short-term benefit for rewards in the long run. That is, if you save instead of consuming, you will become steadily richer.

The morally relevant factor here is not capability but equality.

Even chattel slaves were capable of running away, but that hardly justifies their situation.

Certainly not. A system that negates human nature can never adequately replace one which channels human nature as an economic force which leads to growth and efficiency.

Irrelevant.

There is certainly no moral obligation not to donate, but rich people seldom stick money under their beds. They re-invest their earnings into the economy, which allows it to keep chugging along, to the ultimate benefit of everybody.

Yes, and they also use it for their own benefit.

Indeed, that is the idea behind profit.

It does not. It only demonstrates that you have no productive response.

So you want me to respond and prove the negative?

You say selfishness is immoral, I say it isn't.

It does not "acknowledge" the dignity of others. It outright denies it by asserting that they only possess moral worth when they help me.

No, it acknowledges their dignity as free, sovereign individuals.

If so, it is only so by luck, not by the character of the action or the attitude behind it.

It is so by free action.

[i]

It is my experience that to acknowledge the concept of communal property is, to the "anarcho"-capitalist, tantamount to changing one's name to "Stalin."
I think in the end this is all trivial. In an anarcho-capitalist society, nothing will stop a group of like-minded individuals from banding together and collectively owning property. To be really honest, it seems like a looser form of anarchocapitalism -- pure free-market anarchism, if you will. The only concept in which it deviates, significantly, from anarchocapitalism is that where unused land is no longer considered owned.

they cannot be seperated. moral worth has to be recognized in the economic system if it's going to be recognized in the social system at large.

Moral worth is not at all relevant to how economic policy is decided. Such an abstract concept would be out of place when arrayed alongside more concrete concepts which are the constructs of an economic system. However, a basis for moral worth, namely the freedom to make whatever decisions one wishes, it expressed in free market theories. While an economic system does not take into account the "moral worth" of a person as a factor for making monetary decisions, it does lay the groundwork for a respect of one's "moral worth," if you wish to call it that.

No, it acknowledges that someone's monetary worth can be measured by how much he "helps" you.

That isn't true either. There are plenty of services that don't help me at all that nevertheless provide monetary value.

Moral worth is completely tangent to any economic system; it is up to a social system to decide that.

No, an economic system can, in its institutions, recognize the unconditional worth and dignity of people.

Admittedly, it is impossible to force economic agents to have that perspective.

Also, everybody's dignity is respected by allowing them to decide their own future; the right to choose the best path for a particular individual is left up to only that person to decide, and nobody else.

I agree. So?

I consider self-determination and liberty to be the biggest components of dignity -- if you are allowed to do whatever you wish to do within a broad framework, your dignity is being acknowledged.

You support slavery. Don't lie.

Unlike you I actually do support self-determination and liberty, and that is precisely why I am opposed to economic inequality, which impedes both.

So you want me to respond and prove the negative?

No, I want you to provide a reason to reject the countless arguments against it. Surely you are aware of a few.

I have, incidentally, explained repeatedly in this thread why I see it as immoral.

No, it acknowledges their dignity as free, sovereign individuals.

Only their welfare is conditional on their utility to me. That is a limitation on their freedom.

Officially, I permit them the same capability - but, of course, I don't, because their circumstances are not mine, and their opportunities are not equivalent to mine. They may have meaningful freedom and sovereignty; they may not. I will not pay attention, unless there is a profit to be made.

It is so by free action.

No, it isn't. Exploiting the desperate does not lead to a "neither is subservient" position, and it is perfectly consistent with the maximization of personal wealth.

Moral worth is not at all relevant to how economic policy is decided. Such an abstract concept would be out of place when arrayed alongside more concrete concepts which are the constructs of an economic system. However, a basis for moral worth, namely the freedom to make whatever decisions one wishes, it expressed in free market theories. While an economic system does not take into account the "moral worth" of a person as a factor for making monetary decisions, it does lay the groundwork for a respect of one's "moral worth," if you wish to call it that.

saying that starving people need food, sick people need medical care, homeless people need homes, and the freezing need blankets is not an abstract concept. the poor and needy do not *desire* to be poor and needy. the only thing abstract here is the complex system of justifications for *not* helping people who need it.

I actually never stated that anywhere.

You're right; I paraphrased. What you actually said was that the rich under the capitalist system "try to maximize your wealth at their expense." I considered this to be exploitation, regardless of your little semantics games. It's the same thing.

Because wealth that somebody else attained through exploitation is somehow cured of the taint?

The "ill-obtained" money is not free of that taint, yet the person who possesses that money is. You cannot be deemed guilty for a crime which you did not commit; you should not feel compelled to donate the money because your parents obtained it through unscrupulous means.

No, it isn't. It is in the nature of a competitive free market to allocate money based on economic value, which is a very different thing.

Yes, somebody's "worth" to society depends on how many people can adequately perform his job at a particular level. If someone is far surpasses the national average, then that person "merits" an increased salary. Similarly, someone who performs a menial job does not. Wages depend on the skill required to effectively perform a job.

No, it is most certainly necessary. "Supply and demand" have very little to do with desert.

You lost me here. Since when were we talking about desert?

No, there isn't, which is precisely why "economic freedom" is a misnomer.

Actually, it is extremely accurate terminology which describes a system where a consumer has all the power to choose whichever product he wishes, with no incentives to purchase a particular product based on the fancies of the government. No one may be coerced into buying anything through various policies.

Even chattel slaves were capable of running away, but that hardly justifies their situation.

That's because the chattel slaves were forced into their predicament; they were not offered a choice. You can hardly compare accepting a job offer to being sold into slavery.

Irrelevant.

It's relevant insofar as capitalism is the best system available, although it is not an endorsement for the virtues of capitalism. It does, however, show that selfishness is not necessarily a bad thing and any economic model which takes advantage of it and does not attempt to negate human nature will be more efficient than those that do not.

Yes, and they also use it for their own benefit. Indeed, that is the idea behind profit.

How do they use it for their own benefit without investing it? Do they fill a pool with it and start swimming? Do they roll around in it? No, they purchase various luxury items, thus re-investing the money.

That isn't true either. There are plenty of services that don't help me at all that nevertheless provide monetary value.

Who are you referring to as "me"? I thought you were talking about an employer. In that case, you would have no reason to hire somebody who doesn't directly or indirectly provide you with monetary value. Even janitors provide you with money by attracting customers.

No, an economic system can, in its institutions, recognize the unconditional worth and dignity of people.

And capitalism does that perfectly by giving everybody the right to choose what job to take, what clothes buy, etc. The only restrictions on the freedoms offered are those imposed by the individual himself and not the system.

Unlike you I actually do support self-determination and liberty, and that is precisely why I am opposed to economic inequality, which impedes both.

If you are advocating forcibly removing economic inequality, that would negate not only self-determination, but also liberty. Also, I advocate slavery as a compassionate alternative to a very hard life. I see an economic system as a means of increasing the communal quality of life, and slavery plays an integral part in my view. It is a trade-off between personal freedom and personal happiness. Since the former is usually employed to achieve the latter, I see no problem with "cutting out the middleman," so to speak.

I have, incidentally, explained repeatedly in this thread why I see it as immoral.

Actually, mostly it seems as if you have assumed some sort of moral good and shown why selfishness is counter to it, without actually showing that the basis is actually a moral good.

If you genuinely acknowledge other people as of equal moral worth to you, you will not try to maximize your wealth at their expense, and you will give generously to those worse off than you, even if it does not make you a profit. Both of those traits are incompatible with a great deal of relative wealth.

I somewhat agree with the bolded part, if you acknowledge someone as equal moral worth, you will not exploit them.

However, the acknowledgement of equal moral worth does not imply generosity, as someone who does not wish themselves to be the recipient of charity or believes themselves to be unworthy of charity, would have no issue with being selfish.

I, for example, feel a vague sort of guilt/shame when accepting charity.

Only their welfare is conditional on their utility to me. That is a limitation on their freedom.

How do you assume that without another's positive obligations one is less free?

Officially, I permit them the same capability - but, of course, I don't, because their circumstances are not mine, and their opportunities are not equivalent to mine. They may have meaningful freedom and sovereignty; they may not. I will not pay attention, unless there is a profit to be made.

Depending on your definition of freedom, I guess.

I hate to use loaded terms, but hopefully you won't allow them to muddy the waters: Is the leech less free when its host plucks him off?

Actually, mostly it seems as if you have assumed some sort of moral good and shown why selfishness is counter to it, without actually showing that the basis is actually a moral good.

That is true.

I somewhat agree with the bolded part, if you acknowledge someone as equal moral worth, you will not exploit them.

However, the acknowledgement of equal moral worth does not imply generosity, as someone who does not wish themselves to be the recipient of charity or believes themselves to be unworthy of charity, would have no issue with being selfish.

I, for example, feel a vague sort of guilt/shame when accepting charity.

This is one of the problems with class inequality. In order for something resembling justice to be achieved, there will have to be a transfer of goods from the rich to the poor, but in the process the poor are degraded.

Ideally, charity is implicitly reciprocal; I give unconditionally to those in need, but if I am later in need, they will give unconditionally to me. This is how it works between friends and among families, and how utopian communism is supposed to function. Class society, of course, destroys the reciprocal element, because there are people who are perpetually needy and people who are perpetually privileged.

Within the structure of capitalism, I think there are a few at least partial solutions to this problem. One is increased emphasis on the part you bolded, which in and of itself would solve a good deal of our problems. Generosity in exchange does not have the degrading quality of charity, expecially when it is something the person has truly earned, and realizes she has. Another is various voluntarily "collectivist" (I hate the term, but I'll use it for lack of a better one) arrangements where relative equality is maintained to the point that charity is no longer class-based, and instead takes upon a mutual, reciprocal character. I also think such an arrangement would be much closer to the ideal of respecting another's equal moral worth than class-based charity.

But to return to your point, I don't think it serves as a legitimate excuse, though it is a good reason to minimize the role of charity in meeting moral obligations. You might indeed feel "shame/guilt" as a recipient of charity, yet nevertheless you might also really need it, and be forced to utilize it despite such "shame/guilt." And you have no justification for forcing your preference to not receive charity upon others; if they are in need, they should be given the option.

How do you assume that without another's positive obligations one is less free?

The degree to which one's welfare is conditional is the degree to which one is not free.

The positive/negative distinction is really irrelevant to this question.

Depending on your definition of freedom, I guess.

I hate to use loaded terms, but hopefully you won't allow them to muddy the waters: Is the leech less free when its host plucks him off?

Well... that is an interesting question. I'd have to say that yes, the leach is indeed less free, because it is in the leech's nature to leech. Of course, it may be justified to remove the leech in respect of the freedom of the host.

With human "parasites" it is a more complex question. Even ignoring the question of the freedom of their victims, the argument could be effectively made that their own parasitism denies them freedom - it forces them to constantly maintain or seek out new "hosts." Because they are dependent on others they are not truly autonomous. Thus it may indeed benefit everyone's freedom to force human "leeches" to become more self-sufficient.

But I am thinking more in terms of equality. There may be plenty of good economic reasons, but there are no good moral reasons why an "illegal" immigrant from Mexico who has worked hard all her life should be making minimum wage (or less) while a talented CEO makes several hundred times that. And her economic situation most definitely does deny her meaningful freedom.

This is one of the problems with class inequality. In order for something resembling justice to be achieved, there will have to be a transfer of goods from the rich to the poor, but in the process the poor are degraded.

If it is forced redistribution then both the rich and the poor are degraded. One is coerced by the state, the other is dependent upon the state.

Ideally, charity is implicitly reciprocal; I give unconditionally to those in need, but if I am later in need, they will give unconditionally to me. This is how it works between friends and among families, and how utopian communism is supposed to function. Class society, of course, destroys the reciprocal element, because there are people who are perpetually needy and people who are perpetually privileged.

Your assessment of people being perpetually privileged or perpetually needy aside, I have no problem with reciprocal altruism. I even argued with AnarchyeL that we have an innate drive towards reciprocal altruism within our genetic makeup.

It can vary from intense self-sacrifice (mother-child) to simply mutual respect, depending on the phenotypic similarities between the individuals.

But for that same reason, I don't think that humanity will ever adopt a totally altruistic stance towards all other individuals, and a high prevalence of reciprocal charity on a culture-wide level would be based on a self-serving rationale (which AnarchyeL incorrectly assumed was the reciprocal altruism that I was speaking of, but correctly labeled as not being altruistic at all). Therefore, I think a free market that leads people to be self-sufficient will be much more likely to lead to the anarcho-communist society than any other, and if that society does arise naturally through the market, I fully support it.

Within the structure of capitalism, I think there are a few at least partial solutions to this problem. One is increased emphasis on the part you bolded, which in and of itself would solve a good deal of our problems. Generosity in exchange does not have the degrading quality of charity, expecially when it is something the person has truly earned, and realizes she has. Another is various voluntarily "collectivist" (I hate the term, but I'll use it for lack of a better one) arrangements where relative equality is maintained to the point that charity is no longer class-based, and instead takes upon a mutual, reciprocal character. I also think such an arrangement would be much closer to the ideal of respecting another's equal moral worth than class-based charity.

Agreed.

But to return to your point, I don't think it serves as a legitimate excuse, though it is a good reason to minimize the role of charity in meeting moral obligations. You might indeed feel "shame/guilt" as a recipient of charity, yet nevertheless you might also really need it, and be forced to utilize it despite such "shame/guilt." And you have no justification for forcing your preference to not receive charity upon others; if they are in need, they should be given the option.

I did not mean to imply that because I don't like charity (I don't mind giving it to those in need, I just don't like accepting it), that no one should accept charity.

I am just saying that just because you see someone as a moral equal, you are not required to treat them as an economic equal.

Would you say that I do not view all people as moral equals?

Well... that is an interesting question. I'd have to say that yes, the leach is indeed less free, because it is in the leech's nature to leech. Of course, it may be justified to remove the leech in respect of the freedom of the host.

Simply plucking the leech does not deny the leech its nature (it is not barred from attempting to leech again), it simply affirms the nature of the host.

With human "parasites" it is a more complex question. Even ignoring the question of the freedom of their victims, the argument could be effectively made that their own parasitism denies them freedom - it forces them to constantly maintain or seek out new "hosts." Because they are dependent on others they are not truly autonomous. Thus it may indeed benefit everyone's freedom to force human "leeches" to become more self-sufficient.

Very true.

But I am thinking more in terms of equality. There may be plenty of good economic reasons, but there are no good moral reasons why an "illegal" immigrant from Mexico who has worked hard all her life should be making minimum wage (or less) while a talented CEO makes several hundred times that. And her economic situation most definitely does deny her meaningful freedom.

I made a comment to Europa Maxima that while I support the free market, I do think that vast inequities of wealth would be symptomatic of a faulty system, since natural human inequity is not that large of a range.

Althought I guess this is why all of scandenavia is decending into slavery right now....
He actually has a point. He may not be right, but his contention that all government is inherently slanted to the right is worth thinking about. (although the last two paragraphs come across as retarded)

The fact that professionals like artists and journalists tend to be to the left of businessmen and politicians would support his theory.

You however, are wrong in thinking that leftists run Scandinavia (which is not one country, but four market economies).

What does "The Right" mean to you?


To me:

I define "the right" as the antithesis of "the left".

It's really that simple.


So, what does "the left" mean,.. to me?


"The left" are people more concerned with finding wrongs (and attempting to correct them) than promoting prosperity.

~snippage~


Your thoughts?

Its a good thing I'm on the left, because I'm really good at complaining.
And government does tend to pull to the right.

The natural progress of things
is for liberty to yield
and governments to gain ground.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

That's a good reason to keep an eye on the government.
I remember seeing a study that said conservatives tended to be happier than liberals. Liberals tend to worry a lot more. Explains Reagan's "Don't worry, be happy" philosophy.

If it is forced redistribution then both the rich and the poor are degraded. One is coerced by the state, the other is dependent upon the state.

The "coercion" of forced redistribution has never struck me as all that degrading, but I suppose I can see why it is objectionable.

But I was not talking about forced redistribution, I was talking about charity. Charity does not degrade the charity-giver, though it does have the negative effect of affirming the legitimacy of the class system. (Welfare programs do the same thing. They mitigate rather than solve, and alleviate both the guilt of the rich and the anger of the poor, keeping the system in place.)

But for that same reason, I don't think that humanity will ever adopt a totally altruistic stance towards all other individuals,

Absolutely not. I don't either. Indeed, for a very long time I argued that the ideal society would make altruism, beyond private relations, unnecessary.

No longer believing any such thing to be even remotely possible, I have come to think that small, decentralized communities, where the altruism of "private relations" in and of itself may be sufficient to solve public injustices, may be a better idea than I thought they were. Combine it with strong privacy and free association rights (because I'm aware of the pitfalls as well as the benefits), and make economic security essentially unconditional, and it would be interesting to see the results.

and a high prevalence of reciprocal charity on a culture-wide level would be based on a self-serving rationale (which AnarchyeL incorrectly assumed was the reciprocal altruism that I was speaking of, but correctly labeled as not being altruistic at all). Therefore, I think a free market that leads people to be self-sufficient will be much more likely to lead to the anarcho-communist society than any other, and if that society does arise naturally through the market, I fully support it.

One that "leads people to be self-sufficient" might be, but it seems to me that a market, free or not, will always lead to intensified dependence.

Dependence beyond its natural manifestations (among children, the sick, and the old) will tend to lead to a kind of attempted mutual extortion that, successful or not, I cannot see as ever leading to a culture of altruism.

I did not mean to imply that because I don't like charity (I don't mind giving it to those in need, I just don't like accepting it), that no one should accept charity.

I am just saying that just because you see someone as a moral equal, you are not required to treat them as an economic equal.

But I don't see how that follows from the point you made.

Would you say that I do not view all people as moral equals?

Undoubtedly you do not. Most of us don't, myself included.

Not knowing the details of your morality, I don't really know whether you think that people ought to be seen as moral equals.

Simply plucking the leech does not deny the leech its nature (it is not barred from attempting to leech again), it simply affirms the nature of the host.

True, but it limits the leech's options.

I made a comment to Europa Maxima that while I support the free market, I do think that vast inequities of wealth would be symptomatic of a faulty system, since natural human inequity is not that large of a range.

Well, in terms of "natural human inequity" current societal inequities are rather arbitrary; the talents that are useful to a hunter-gatherer are not the same as the ones useful in our societies. It may well be that despite natural differences in talent being relatively minor, their manifestations in a modern free market would be vast.

you can be both good and prosperous in terms of quality of life, but not in terms of capitalist "success".

yeah, the rich are clearly beyond prosperous and on to obscene.

"The Right" are the people who don't share the views of those who consider themselves to be "The Left"

And vice versa.

this directon

-->

this directon

-->

**turns monitor upside-down**

Ha!

[SIZE="5"]


Your thoughts?

Your a puppet of MTAE. If not, you are just as diluted.

The "coercion" of forced redistribution has never struck me as all that degrading, but I suppose I can see why it is objectionable.

It is certainly degrading to be mugged in the street, is it not?

But I was not talking about forced redistribution, I was talking about charity. Charity does not degrade the charity-giver, though it does have the negative effect of affirming the legitimacy of the class system. (Welfare programs do the same thing. They mitigate rather than solve, and alleviate both the guilt of the rich and the anger of the poor, keeping the system in place.)

Yes, charity is not degrading to the giver, it is actually the opposite. Like you said, it reaffirms both the lower status of the taker and the higher status of the giver.

I completely agree with you concerning welfare, and I would extend it to minimum wage and other industrial regulations.

Absolutely not. I don't either. Indeed, for a very long time I argued that the ideal society would make altruism, beyond private relations, unnecessary.

No longer believing any such thing to be even remotely possible, I have come to think that small, decentralized communities, where the altruism of "private relations" in and of itself may be sufficient to solve public injustices, may be a better idea than I thought they were. Combine it with strong privacy and free association rights (because I'm aware of the pitfalls as well as the benefits), and make economic security essentially unconditional, and it would be interesting to see the results.

I am a bit of a syndicalist for this reason. My experiences as a worker have given me first hand knowledge of the sense of community that comes from the workplace. I think that a free market will force self-interested collectivism, and there is no better locale for a sense of community to arise than in the factory.

One that "leads people to be self-sufficient" might be, but it seems to me that a market, free or not, will always lead to intensified dependence.

Dependence beyond its natural manifestations (among children, the sick, and the old) will tend to lead to a kind of attempted mutual extortion that, successful or not, I cannot see as ever leading to a culture of altruism.

And that is what I am saying. I couldn't imagine any cultural system based entirely on true altruism, so I say that we make altruism unnecessary.

I support mutual dependency. It may not provide true independence, but it is what I consider to be the best hope for autonomous freedom.

But I don't see how that follows from the point you made.

Moral equality only states that you treat others as you morally define yourself, and therefore, if one considers themselves unworthy of charity, they will thereby consider all others to be unworthy of charity.

That means that moral equality doesn't imply economic equality, it only implies consistency. (which is a very noble trait, mind you)

True, but it limits the leech's options.

And the fox's options are limited when the hare escapes into the brush.

I would not consider the hare to be infringing on the fox's freedom, though.

Well, in terms of "natural human inequity" current societal inequities are rather arbitrary; the talents that are useful to a hunter-gatherer are not the same as the ones useful in our societies. It may well be that despite natural differences in talent being relatively minor, their manifestations in a modern free market would be vast.

It is a matter of demand, so it is not so much how much talent you have but how few others possess your talent.

So while there may be inequities in the market, and there may be someone who possesses ultimate talent, but his extra skill over the possessor of penultimate talent is so small in amount, that the next in line is a worth substitute. Because of this power of substitution, and the extremely small differences in ability, I don't think that the market will provide an exaggerated value of the individual.

Your a puppet of MTAE. If not, you are just as diluted.

Diluted? Is that the recipe for a troll these days? Add a pinch of inanity, sprinkle in some ridicule, top it off with some flame-baiting, and dilute with lots of water? I believe the word you are looking for is "deluded." Also, I have no puppets.

It depends: I generally associate 'left' with social liberalism and nationalisation...

Why is nationalisation often associated with the Left when it's one of the pillars of capitalism?

That's an interesting analysis.

I suppose you could argue that authoritarians tend to circle around the state, and exert their influence over it, and history would back that up quite a lot. I personally do not like to confuse the terms Left and Right and so I use them clearly to mean a scale of how much the state should tax and spend, for the scale of how much the state should exert influence, I use a scale of authoritarian and liberal.

I suppose the weakness of your interpretation would be that you are viewing politics rather like a zebra. A zebra? you ask. A zebra, I reverberate. See, from where you are standing you see a Black (authoritarian) horse with white (liberal) stripes, the white stripes represent brief interregnums between the natural blackness. But, another person could have an equally valid view of a white horse with black stripes, of a society that is naturally liberal if left to its own devices that is occassionally (or usually, as the case may be) overrun by authoritarian rulers.

I suppose the best viewpoint exists somewhere in between.

(As an aside, I notice that the very first reply features an ad hominem attack on the OP without proper consideration of the argument... how very cohesive to good debate...)

There may be a "continuum" (spectrum) with "authoritarian" on one pole and "liberal" on another pole, but my "left/right" continuum does not use those characteristics.

I'm merely, and some (many) would say "stupidly" and/or "ludicrously", saying that MY left/right continuum has "those concerned with prosperity as THE guiding principle" on one pole, and "those concerned with righting wrongs as THE guiding principle" on the other pole.

My contention is that ALL governance systems are, inherently, rightist if they are functional for more than a very short time,.. with the corollary REQUIREMENT that ALL governance systems MUST HAVE and MUST PROMOTE those who notice, publicize, and strive for the rectification of societal "screwups" (malfunctions).

BUT,.. those who make the FINAL decisions as to what to do (as a society) MUST be those whose goal is the spreading of prosperity,.. as to give final decision making power to the "complainers" would lead to never being able to surmount the "hard parts" of societal progress.

The natural counter-force to badly-acting rightists who behave as badly-acting leftists, by NOT allowing the correctly-acting leftists to help the society by taking notice of their (correctly-acting leftists) complaints and acing to correct the malfunctions, is for some correctly-acting rightists (who may be the correctly-acting leftists themselves who take on the role of correctly-acting rightists) to "overthrow" the badly-acting rightists.

In other words, when the ruling rightists become ruling leftists, which is an abnormal and deleterious situation, then it is incumbent for the leftists, and the correctly-acting rightists, to become more active correctly-acting rightists, and seize power from the ruling leftists,.. as "ruling leftists" is by definition a statement of a "disease" condition.

Its a good thing I'm on the left, because I'm really good at complaining.
And government does tend to pull to the right.

The natural progress of things
is for liberty to yield
and governments to gain ground.

THOMAS JEFFERSON

That's a good reason to keep an eye on the government.
I remember seeing a study that said conservatives tended to be happier than liberals. Liberals tend to worry a lot more. Explains Reagan's "Don't worry, be happy" philosophy.

And I applaud you no end, BK..!

We NEED the leftist whining,.. we really do. There is much to complain and whine about.

But it is the rightists who need to implement the suggestions and diagnoses of the left, and not allow leftists the capacity to actually rule.

If a person is a leftist, and has diagnosed some societal ill that they'd like to see corrected, then it is necessary for them to take off their "leftists hat" (motivation by correction-of-ills) and put on their "rightist hat" (motivation by promotion-of-prosperity) if they want to implement a solution to their diagnosed societal ill.

Unless they do this, they will be promoting "punishment" of some portion of the society over doing what is best FOR society.

that's an oversimplification, but I would agree that those in power never actually do anything about what's not working in a society, and that those who are fixing things are usually not in power. I'd say it's more because those in power have a vested interest in keeping things malfunctioning, but whatever. it'd be nice if everything was as simple and functional as what you seem to be assuming, but you're not *extremely* far off....just a bit overly idealistic.

Of course I'm (SEVERELY) overly simplistic. :)

This is my way of discerning those policies I choose to support, which are those of correctly-acting leftists (legitimate complaint and diagnosis) and correctly-acting rightists (legitimate laws and enforcement).

If some policy is that of a badly-acting rightist, ie a law that doesn't promote prosperity within the constraints of a well functioning society, or some policy of a badly-acting leftist, ie any law that is in actuality a "complaint" that doesn't promote prosperity (within the above constraints), then I'm against it.


I'd also like to point out that this only works if by "the right" you're including basicly everyone in public office, big business, or any kind of power at all - which makes the fake political spectrum of Democrats vs. Republicans a bit of a moot point. democrats don't in the last bit fit the bill of "the left" in this model, and I hope you didn't think they did, but other than that I suppose this theory could be redeemed, somewhat.

You're right! Only people "on the right" (as they BEHAVE at a particular time) are capable of "ruling", via making and enforcing laws.

The problem comes when those in power ("ruling") don't take the advice of those WHOSE JOB IT IS to "complain" in such a way that those whose job it is to complain are FORCED (or otherwise feel compelled) to try to take power and rule.

If the left takes power, justifiably, due to the right not doing their job, and then they (the left) tries to rule using the principles of the left, then misery ensues.

Once people "take power" they need to immediately realize and work under the principle that they are now rightists, by definition.

They are no longer in the position of "giving advice" to the "rulers",.. they ARE the rulers, and have lost the needed perspective to sensibly "give advice" to "rulers" any longer.

They, at that point, need to implement those diagnosed solutions that they came up with when they had their "leftist hats" on, but they need to do so AS RIGHTISTS, meaning they need to implement solutions based on increasing societal prosperity, and not "punitively" as a leftist would.

Their are still plenty of correctly-acting leftists in society to help them by complaining about things.

Now that they're in "power" they need to shift rightward, or create massive societal goofiness as if the airline stewardess/steward was given the stick in mid-flight, or the janitor was given the scapel.

Republicans,.. Democrats,.. they're all righists if they have any power, and they're all leftists if they're complainers.


Thus,.. Rush Limbaugh is a FLAMING LEFTIST, and correctly so,.. but is such that he advocates that rightists do THEIR job, and leftist do THEIR job..!

If he came to power (!) he'd be a great and true rightist, because he knows the reason rightists are rightists, and leftists are leftists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
"The left" are people more concerned with finding wrongs (and attempting to correct them) than promoting prosperity.

and how exactly would attempts to correct wrongs do something other than promote prosperity? does prosperity require the promotion of wrongs?

It DOES promote prosperity, but only if the suggested "correction" is implemented by someone whose primary goal is the promotion of prosperity.

If the "correction" is implemented by someone whose primary goal is "correction of wrongs", then the "correction" becomes a punishment of a wrong-doer, and not (necessarily) the promotion of societal prosperity.


And no,.. the "promotion of wrongs" would be the promotion of something that is bad, and that doesn't help increase prosperity.

Prosperity means the implementation of better systems such that "enjoyment of living" is increased within a society.

Sometimes the implementation of a "better system" is painful and difficult, and entails the "DECREASE enjoyment of living" for a time. There is a need to "get over the pain-hump" (as it were) to get to the "next level" of prosperity.

Only those who are focusing on the long term benefit (the "next level" of prosperity) are capable of leading society through these "pain-humps".

And those people must be resolute, and NOT give in to every little complaint of the left.


(( The left is STILL correct in complaining, of course, as that is their job! They are NOT "unpatriotic" in doing so.

The only way they would be "unpatriotic" would be to actively work to not allow the "pain-hump" to be climbed.

When they do THAT, they are being badly-acting rightists, as they are actively "ruling" to NOT promote prosperity. ))

The Right means profit.

And that is good.

...

"it is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle" - most moral teachers have acknowledged that wealth is antithetical to virtue.

By "rich man" was meant "someone who accumulates without giving".

The CREATION AND USING OF wealth is not only NOT antithetical to virtue, but is an absolute requirment of virtue, even if the created wealth is nothing more than "having love and kindness for others".

Your limited definition of wealth is the problem.

Virtue is that which is good that others, or yourself, appreciate in you.

Keeping people alive and enjoying life, which is what the creation and correct using of wealth is all about, is a supreme virtue.

If you have no wealth to give, you can not give it, and no one can receive what you cannot give.



Wealth is created by a simple smile.

How is having that wealth to give away not a virtue?

getting nothing done? like what? some of the wealthiest people in the world do absolutely nothing of value. the average fuedal serf and the average hunter-gatherer had more leisure time than the average american. native americans didn't "get alot done" but it's arguable that they had better lives - if you measure it in terms of leisure time, stable families...I think there's a definate case that both those societies (though I'm mostly thinking of native americans and similar cultures) had a much smaller instance of agnosticism and religious/philosophical dysphoria...so I think we could also argue there was a much higher rate of people with meaning and spiritual fulfillment there too. seriously, what's so important about what we're "getting done"?

Do you take advantage of any of the things that have "gotten done" in the society in which you live?

Such as your computer, perhaps?


If you want to go have a lovely "not getting anything done" life, like the one you paint of paleo-americans et al, why don't you go for it?

Why do you live one way, and believe you should be living another way?

All I can say is Govneauvia sounds like a minor stomach/digestive disorder.

:)

It sort of IS, actually,.. except a bit further down the GI tract.

(Russian spelled French: Govneau-via (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/govno), Land of Govneau. Look it up.)

Apparently, it means never having to say you're sorry.

I thought you were married? ;)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
What does "The Right" mean to you?


To me:

I define "the right" as the antithesis of "the left".

It's really that simple.


So, what does "the left" mean,.. to me?


"The left" are people more concerned with finding wrongs (and attempting to correct them) than promoting prosperity.

Now, given that "very simplistic" definition of "the left" (and by contrast, "the right"), why would I choose to call myself a far FAR rightist?


Simply because I grant that the left has a purpose, and a very VERY valuable one at that, as does the right, and the purpose of the right is to "rule" (be in charge of the running of those systems we might call "productive social machinery"), while the left's purpose is to notice and complain about the "malfunctions" of that "social-machinery", but NOT to rule it in any way.

In other words, only the right should be allowed to "rule" (govern) a society (which is always the case through history), and the left should be allowed (encouraged and assisted) to do their job of complaining and giving warning of severe societal malfunction.


My basic contention is that only "the right" is capable of governance, and has only ever been the governing force behind any system of governance.

The "fantasy" that "the left" has ever governed any society (or will ever) is simply that,.. a fantasy.

ANY form of government is inherently rightist, and will always evolve further in the direction of "the right".


Up to here, you are right in a roundabout way. The "right" is the political orientation of conservatives and tradionalists. Leftists throughout history have come to power, but immediately upon achieving rule, those leftists naturally become conservatives and traditionalists. Therefore, you are correct, by the very nature of rule, rulers will be oriented upon the right.

Therefore, we should kill all rulers.

:) ..and nothing would ever get done.

But then,.. that might suit you quite well perhaps?


Quote:
ANY person who attempts to govern by leftist principles will degenerate into "censorship and frustration" (as complainers are LOATHE to hear complaints from their "inferiors"), and eventually into slavery (as the "more equal" supress the "less equal"), and then ultimate takeover (preferably from within) by the sensible forces of "the right".


This is all bullshit.

"Complainers [leftists] are LOATHE to hear complaints from their 'inferiors'"?

You are completely making this up, and what is worse, the right has long been the greater practitioners of "censorship of frustration" throughout history, as those are patently conservative tactics.

Of course I "made it up"..!! :)

But it IS what I think.

Censorship is a tactic of slavers (those who enslave people).

Correctly-acting rightists (ie those who say they are rightists and who actually act as rightists) are interested only in promoting societal prosperity because that is the only way to ensure a smoothly working "societal machine".

If a rightist censors, which is the act of squelching a possibly helpful perspective on the workings of the "societal machine", then they have betrayed their fundamental principle ("smooth running machine" via prosperity) and can't be called a correctly-acting rightists any longer.

They are at that point acting as a complainer (leftist) of what someone said (the censorship), and can now only be described as a badly-acting leftist (a complainer who tries to "rule" over others), or as a badly-acting rightist (a "ruler" whose prime interest is NOT with the promotion of prosperity).

My point is that once EITHER badly-acting rightists or badly-acting leftists become "rulers" of their societies, those societies are doomed to some seriously bad times.

Only when correctly-acting rightists (rulers) AND correctly-acting leftists (commentators/critics) are doing their respective jobs FOR and WITHIN a society is a society "healthy".


Quote:
Thus,.. I am a rightist, as I value "good governance" over "good complaining", which is only a personal choice. And I'm proud of both rightists and leftists who know what their respective jobs are in the service of their nation (or appropriate organization), and do them well by listening and acting correctly on the others advice.


"Good governance" is an irreconcilable phrase.

So is "good coffee".

So what's your point? :)

charging interest was considered a sin for centuries, and now it's the basis of our economy.

Usery (not equivalent to charging interest) is "evil" because it is taking advantage of the misfortune of others, and is NOT the basis os our economy.

"Charging interest" is the acceptable PAYMENT for the service of your lender parting with and losing control of his money.

In other words, it is the payment for a risk.

The reason even "charging interest" was deprecated was due to the temptation to abuse the system it engendered, and the societal "bad feelings" that that produced, which was a VERY bad thing in the tight and close societies of the time.

[/quote]
you don't *charge* someone you love for anything.

Rubish!

When you give them something, you expect them to reciprocate, as best they can, and as appropriately as possible.

If they don't, then you lose "love" for them.

To NOT expect anything of them would not teach them a valuable lesson.

[quote]
the modern definition of prosperity (production, accumulated wealth, etc) is based off of competition. it's near antithetical to cooperation.

If you see competition as antithetical to cooperation, then your "competitions" will never be productive, and your "cooperations" will always be parasitic.


you *cannot* become wealthy without engaging extensively in charging interest.

And you can't hold any wealth by being userious, as it will cost you either your freedom or your life.


most people do it by investing in unethical corperations, likely part of the military industrial complex - and others by mass producing consumer products designed to wear out or be "obseleted" as soon as possible to perserve a market for similar products and keep you making even *more* money.

The commerial world does not need you.

Make your way as best you can outside of it.

When you give them something, you expect them to reciprocate, as best they can, and as appropriately as possible.

If they don't, then you lose "love" for them.

To NOT expect anything of them would not teach them a valuable lesson.

I don't know about you, but when I give something to my girlfriend it is because of my feelings for her, and those feelings make me satisfied to give for the sake of giving, not for a return in kind.

I do not "lose my love" for her if she does not repay a GIFT, that is the nature of a gift.

Moreover i am perhaps not quite as egotistical as you are to assume it is my job or place to teach my mid 20s girlfriend phd candidate with a master's degree girlfriend "valuable lessons" on life.

You are completely missing the point.

The person who truly loves her neighbors as herself will never be rich. This is true regardless of the quantity of people who in fact meet that description.

I respectfully disagree.

I think we have different meanings for the word "rich" in this instance.

The person who truly loves her neighbors will always be rich, regardless of monetary wealth.

And the person who truly loves her neighbors will always be monetarily rich (wealthy) because the means of promoting life and enjoyment will always flow to her so as to flow from her.

Based on this thesis, it would seem that whoever is in power MUST be deemed the right, while whoever is not in power is automatically of the left.

After all, using US politics as an example, conventional wisdom places the Democrats to the left of the Republicans.

Yet by your definition, for the period that the Democrats held power given that they were taking care of the economic prosperity, foreign policy, and legal requirements of governing, and the Republicans were cast in the role of the complainers jealously whining about Billy's blow Jobs.

Therfore, given your stated impossibility for the left to rule, it would seem that for 8 years the Democrats were the party of the right, and the Republicans the party of the left. Since that time, they have simply reversed labels.


I can't help but think that your theory as posited in such statements of absolutes does nothing besides render meaninless the very labels you are trying to define.

I respectfully disagree.

I think we have different meanings for the word "rich" in this instance.

The person who truly loves her neighbors will always be rich, regardless of monetary wealth.

And the person who truly loves her neighbors will always be monetarily rich (wealthy) because the means of promoting life and enjoyment will always flow to her so as to flow from her.

You can "win" any argument by altering the definitions. The night sky is yellow, if you redefine yellow to mean "the color of the night sky".

However the tactics of arguing your right because you subscribe to a different definition of a word than what it actaully means is a way to by all rational means lose the argument.

Therefore I do not take seriously any claim you make the minute you attempt to back your arguments by changing what words mean.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittos the City Sacker
I think you briefly on just about every modern liberal inconsistency and inaccuracy there is.

Interest is not a "charge", it is accounting for time in finding fair value.


time does not equal money. the very concept is disgusting. if my family and friends insisted everything be "fair" I'd come into the world owing my parents massive ammounts of money - I'd offer a money back garentee if my friends ever spent time with me and were bored...life is not about being fair.

True enough. Life isn't about being fair.

But is it or is it not a good idea to "in some way" reciprocate when someone does something for you?

A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice,.. and gives your answer to the question of whether "payment for services rendered" is good or bad, respectively.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittos the City Sacker
If you actually respect someone, you will not borrow money from them without offering interest in return, as otherwise you would be a mooch or a thief, depending on how you look at it.


and I'm sure you charge your family interest, right? those theiving grandchildren! my dog is an incredible, shameless mooch - and she also has the most unimpeachable good charactor of anyone I know.

What does a member of your family give you when you do something for them?

Does it have to be "money"?

What does your dog give you for the love you show him or her?

What money does your dog have to give you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittos the City Sacker
The military industrial complex is unethical and wealthy because of the forced redistribution of funds to their owners through government taxation, not through private investment.


what? deliberately starting conflicts to turn a profit is wrong, and it's also big business. maybe I'm ignorant here, but that's what I was trying to say. I don't see how taxation makes producing weapons and deliberately creating a market for violence any more evil than it allready was.

Other than "show me a conflict deliberately started to turn a profit?", and other worthless questions which you'd run with screaming ito the hills of "leftist propoganda", I must agree that doing that would be evil.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vittos the City Sacker
The consumer is not so stupid as to repeatedly by cheap products that wear out rapidly. There is intense market pressure to provide quality products.


aren't they? modern homes have pathetic lifespans compared to homes 100 years ago. and most of it isn't about the product wearing out, it's about an artifical fad making the product undesirable and useless. most cars don't get replaced when they stop running, they get replaced when a cooler one comes out. some people buy new ones every year - it's rediculous. I said they were designed to become obselete, not just to physically wear out.

If you don't want "new stuff" then don't worry about "new stuff",.. but don't be annoyed and militant about other people having "new stuff", unless your contention is that they shouldn't be allowed to have new stuff.

If that is your contention, what makes you any better than a dictatorial slave master who tries to control humanity?

(( And this is the very reason that a leftist cannot be allowed to "rule"!

They ALWAYS turn into dictatorial slave masters, because "they know better" than all others! ))


Quote:
Originally Posted by Greater Trostia
So you believe economic systems should be based on compassion?


I believe everything should be based on compassion. of course, this will never happen, so whatever works, but please don't bullshit me and try to tell me the current system is morally laudable.

I contend that capitalism is based on compassion.

The compassion to allow people to interact freely, and do and trade as they like within the constraints of "free uncoerced trade".

Any other form of society (person to preson interaction) is slavery, and by definition un-compassionate.

...

Making helping others conditional on receiving a profit is an immoral attitude; it denies the dignity and worth of others by asserting that they are only worthy of aid when it helps you.

When there is an agreement that helping will be rendered for a profit, then it's not HELPING,.. it's "service rendering".

If you wish to help someone,.. help someone.

If you wish to be paid for a service,.. make an agreement to be paid for your service.


If you help someone, and don't get paid (as if you'd helped a rock), then you are paid by receiving a lesson that "rocks will pay you back like that",.. and you're free to decide if you wish to do that again in the future.

If you received payment with a "thank you", or a smile, then that may be enough.

If you agree for payment for a rendered service, and you're not paid, then you call the cops.

Any other questions?

Oh my, this thread should prove a few good laughs. The derision of Interest so far is the first good one. :) Yes, it's theft, not money taken for risk-accounting and possible market-changes. Pure, evil theft.

Euro,.. do you rent anything? Or charge anything?

Why?

If you do then you have actively assumed the role of helping out, by paying, someone you consider an evil doer.

Why would you do this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
[size="5"]


Your thoughts?

Your a puppet of MTAE. If not, you are just as diluted.

What's an MTAE?

What does it mean to be "diluted"?

What is your point? :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
When you give them something, you expect them to reciprocate, as best they can, and as appropriately as possible.

If they don't, then you lose "love" for them.

To NOT expect anything of them would not teach them a valuable lesson.


I don't know about you, but when I give something to my girlfriend it is because of my feelings for her, and those feelings make me satisfied to give for the sake of giving, not for a return in kind.

What are your feelings for her?

They are that you GET SOMETHING from being with her, among other things.

YOU are reciprocating what she's already given YOU.

You are rightly satisfied in giving her a great gift of your presence, because whe's given you the great gift of your presence.


I do not "lose my love" for her if she does not repay a GIFT, that is the nature of a gift.

Let's try a little thought experiment here...

If she responded to you as if she were a rock, literally, as if she were a statue of herself, when you gifted her with your presence and other nice things, what, eventually would be your response?

You most likely would start to consider that she wasn't the person that you'd come to love, and your love for this "other thing which seems to be her" would diminish.

The point is not that every gift that you give must be perfectly repaid, but that if the reciprocal relationship of "giving" disappears, the "love" will disappear.


Moreover i am perhaps not quite as egotistical as you are to assume it is my job or place to teach my mid 20s girlfriend phd candidate with a master's degree girlfriend "valuable lessons" on life.

We all teach about life's little "mysteries" whenever we breathe and whenever we have any interaction with any other human being.

It is your job, whether you realize it or not, and you can't help but teach by your example, always.

I'm sure both you and your girlfriend are brilliant,.. but perhaps a slightly more expansive understanding of what the world is about would do both of you some good? :)

Keep learning, beautiful children. And keep teaching!

Based on this thesis, it would seem that whoever is in power MUST be deemed the right, while whoever is not in power is automatically of the left.

After all, using US politics as an example, conventional wisdom places the Democrats to the left of the Republicans.

Yet by your definition, for the period that the Democrats held power given that they were taking care of the economic prosperity, foreign policy, and legal requirements of governing, and the Republicans were cast in the role of the complainers jealously whining about Billy's blow Jobs.

If you are a member of the government, in this case a representative, senator, or executive (or functionary thereof) you SHOULD be a correctly-acting rightist.

Whether your "party" is in majority power is irrelevant.

The poblem is what happens when badly-acting rightists and/or badly-acting leftists, or ANY leftist, are "rulers".


Therfore, given your stated impossibility for the left to rule, it would seem that for 8 years the Democrats were the party of the right, and the Republicans the party of the left. Since that time, they have simply reversed labels.

They were both "in power", although one was "more in power" than the other.

But they were both occupying the FUNCTION of rightists.

The Dems "probably" called themselves "leftists" (relative to the Reps), but were in my opinion more like badly-acting rightists (law-makers who use the principles of the left to punish),.. and the Reps were also like badly-acting rightists (in this case, law-makers who did NOT use the promotion of prosperity as their motivation).

They were both righists, because they made or enforced laws, but they each used the wrong principle to govern (to set/create law).


I can't help but think that your theory as posited in such statements of absolutes does nothing besides render meaninless the very labels you are trying to define.

I don't classify dems or reps as anything other than "party members".

I wold warn you against trying to overcompliate my meanderings.



A leftist to me is one whose principle concern is the uncovering and punishment of wrongdoing.

A rightist to me is one whose principle concern is the promotion of prosperity in society.

That's it.

Any other implication of those two statements is entirely up to interpretation.



The REASON that I have chosen to classify people (policies of people, actually) by this "razor" is as a tool to decide which policies I find "good" and which I find "bad".

Armed with this tool, I decide how to vote.

Therefore,.. this classification, and implication, system has meaning and utility to me.

I share it with you to see if it might have any meaning for you, or spark some idea that might be interesting or of use to you.

If not,... that's cool. :)


I just like to share. It makes me "feel good".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
I respectfully disagree.

I think we have different meanings for the word "rich" in this instance.

The person who truly loves her neighbors will always be rich, regardless of monetary wealth.

And the person who truly loves her neighbors will always be monetarily rich (wealthy) because the means of promoting life and enjoyment will always flow to her so as to flow from her.


You can "win" any argument by altering the definitions. The night sky is yellow, if you redefine yellow to mean "the color of the night sky".

However the tactics of arguing your right because you subscribe to a different definition of a word than what it actaully means is a way to by all rational means lose the argument.

Therefore I do not take seriously any claim you make the minute you attempt to back your arguments by changing what words mean.

I'm not trying to win anything, so I don't have to worry about that.

Take what you will from what I said, and have a great day..! :D

I know Hitler is a big "nono" in debates, but... wasn't he far right wing and yet complained A LOT?

Take what you will from what I said, and have a great day..! :D

You have blathered on without point, contribued absolutely nothing of benefit, twisted and dodged whenever someone's tried to pin you down to your actual point, spoken in some of the most incomprehensible drivel I've ever come across, and have left a general impression that perhaps you are suffering from some form of brain damage.

Thus I take from what you have said exactly what you have given.

Nothing.

In other words, only the right should be allowed to "rule" (govern) a society (which is always the case through history), and the left should be allowed (encouraged and assisted) to do their job of complaining and giving warning of severe societal malfunction.


The "fantasy" that "the left" has ever governed any society (or will ever) is simply that,.. a fantasy.

ANY person who attempts to govern by leftist principles will degenerate into "censorship and frustration" (as complainers are LOATHE to hear complaints from their "inferiors"), and eventually into slavery (as the "more equal" supress the "less equal"), and then ultimate takeover (preferably from within) by the sensible forces of "the right".


I can see your point, albeit a very naive and misunderstood point. It's rediculous to believe that every government is invariably rightist. Just beacause you censor someone doesn't mean you're automatically rightist. Stalin, by body count, was the second worst dictator ever (behind Mao). He formed a cult of personality, censored the media, and took away basic human rights. We are seeing this with the U.S. right now. This does not mean Stalin as was a right-winger. He was, undeniably, a Communist. Everyone had equal rights; they were are equally worthless. Women were considered equals, and their literacy and education rates shot up. He brought about communal land reform, at the cost of 5 million landowners (including several hundred of my blood relatives). These are not the beliefs of conservatives or fascists. You are only applying the leftist protestors to what you see in right-wing governed countries. Anyone, regardless of political affiliation will protest a government for any injustices, real or perceived. Look at Iran under Mossadegh. In his later years, he was abandoned by both the Tudeh (Communists) and Islamic fundamentalists. Leftists are perfectly capable of running government, and as we can see in several leftist European countries right now: their civil rights are unparalled, they're safer, and their quality of life is far better than anything in North America. You don't think they are protested by the church, or conservatives? Leftists aren't just for protesting. Unfortunately, most far leftists we have seen over the years are not leftists in the actual sense, just opportunists.

:) ..and nothing would ever get done.

But then,.. that might suit you quite well perhaps?

Anything worth doing can be done without leaders. The people will do it themselves.

Of course I "made it up"..!! :)

But it IS what I think.

Censorship is a tactic of slavers (those who enslave people).

Correctly-acting rightists (ie those who say they are rightists and who actually act as rightists) are interested only in promoting societal prosperity because that is the only way to ensure a smoothly working "societal machine".

If a rightist censors, which is the act of squelching a possibly helpful perspective on the workings of the "societal machine", then they have betrayed their fundamental principle ("smooth running machine" via prosperity) and can't be called a correctly-acting rightists any longer.

They are at that point acting as a complainer (leftist) of what someone said (the censorship), and can now only be described as a badly-acting leftist (a complainer who tries to "rule" over others), or as a badly-acting rightist (a "ruler" whose prime interest is NOT with the promotion of prosperity).

My point is that once EITHER badly-acting rightists or badly-acting leftists become "rulers" of their societies, those societies are doomed to some seriously bad times.

Only when correctly-acting rightists (rulers) AND correctly-acting leftists (commentators/critics) are doing their respective jobs FOR and WITHIN a society is a society "healthy".

no true scotsman

So is "good coffee".

So what's your point? :)

Do you drink coffee?

I know Hitler is a big "nono" in debates, but... wasn't he far right wing and yet complained A LOT?

That he did. But he offered "constructive" Final Solutions to the problems. Right Wingers, they Get Things Done!

Euro,.. do you rent anything? Or charge anything?

Why?

If you do then you have actively assumed the role of helping out, by paying, someone you consider an evil doer.

Why would you do this?
I was being sarcastic, if you couldn't tell. Just look at my sig to verify it.

The "Right" means small government involvement in the lives of the people and only providing those governmental services that are not taken care of by the free market.

A right winger is pretty much the same thing as a libertarian.

One of the problems with right wingers are that they tend to be rather isolationist and dovish which of course is a problem when you have a bunch of bad guys in the world that need taken out preemptively.

Also, they tend to be amoral. Not immoral as they are usually decent people themselves, but they do not think that morality has much of a role in public policy.

I know Hitler is a big "nono" in debates, but... wasn't he far right wing and yet complained A LOT?

Check this out. <Hitler ze Complainer (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/)>


Then there was Mussolini (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id8.html).


But what is your point?

Do you take advantage of any of the things that have "gotten done" in the society in which you live?

Such as your computer, perhaps?


If you want to go have a lovely "not getting anything done" life, like the one you paint of paleo-americans et al, why don't you go for it?

Why do you live one way, and believe you should be living another way?

to answer your question - I am a hypocrit. I have not made the leap required to act on all of my moral values. I live in comfort and deliberately ignore what I believe to be the ethically superior path, out of fear and self-importance.

I saw your other responses, I don't agree, and I may or may not get around to responding. cheers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Take what you will from what I said, and have a great day..!

You have blathered on without point, contribued absolutely nothing of benefit, twisted and dodged whenever someone's tried to pin you down to your actual point, spoken in some of the most incomprehensible drivel I've ever come across, and have left a general impression that perhaps you are suffering from some form of brain damage.

Thus I take from what you have said exactly what you have given.

Nothing.

So,.. you call me brain damaged, and can't understand a couple of rather simple statements as to my beliefs that I've come here to share with folks simply to give them something to think about.

Tell me,.. why do you choose to have to "pin me down" when I'm fully willing to give you any information about what I think freely and without coercion?

Why are you so hostile?

It's too bad that the young these days, and I see you as a "radical angry young leftist intellectual" intent on "WINNING!", are so incapable of understanding that sometimes simply discussing something to find mutual understanding if not actual agreement, and not WINNING an argument, is also a valuable task.

Poor baby. It rather hurts when you can't shout down your "opponent", doesn't it?


I'm not your "opponent". I'm an opportunity for you to hear a "weird" point of view, and interact with the "weirdo" that has that point of view.

And what do you choose to do? Fight!

This is why the left will always lead us into slavery if given actual power.

They MUST "fight" and "conquer", and enslave the "lower" humans into positions of non-disagreement, or at least subservience, to their "superior race".


I welcome your view on things,.. and you would have mine suppressed and shouted down.

The more we each talk, the more people understand where we're coming from.

Who wants each of us understood (by the audience) more? You or I?


He who censors has something to hide.

What have you to hide?


Have a great day, Arty..! :)

OH..! That other posting took..!!

Surprise..! :)

I'll leave them both, I suppose. They're not OVERLY redundant.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Take what you will from what I said, and have a great day..!

You have blathered on without point, contribued absolutely nothing of benefit, twisted and dodged whenever someone's tried to pin you down to your actual point, spoken in some of the most incomprehensible drivel I've ever come across, and have left a general impression that perhaps you are suffering from some form of brain damage.

Thus I take from what you have said exactly what you have given.

Nothing.

So,.. have a great day, Arty. :)

You think it justified to call me brain damaged. How nice of you.

You fail to understand a couple of very simple statements of belief that I have, and call me "incomprehensible".

You choose to "fight" with me (why else would you hav a need to "pin me down"), and call me a "dodger" for choosing to tell you what I think instead of fighting with you.

Thanks for having no further discussion with me, as you're not fit to have a discussion with anyone but a combative child.

Hope you're having fun with that.

So,.. have a great day, Arty!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
In other words, only the right should be allowed to "rule" (govern) a society (which is always the case through history), and the left should be allowed (encouraged and assisted) to do their job of complaining and giving warning of severe societal malfunction.


The "fantasy" that "the left" has ever governed any society (or will ever) is simply that,.. a fantasy.

ANY person who attempts to govern by leftist principles will degenerate into "censorship and frustration" (as complainers are LOATHE to hear complaints from their "inferiors"), and eventually into slavery (as the "more equal" supress the "less equal"), and then ultimate takeover (preferably from within) by the sensible forces of "the right".

I can see your point, albeit a very naive and misunderstood point. It's rediculous to believe that every government is invariably rightist. Just beacause you censor someone doesn't mean you're automatically rightist.

My contention is that LEFTISTS are the well known censors, and thereby, slavers of humanity IF they actually try to "rule" a society.

My conception of the "left-right" dimensionality really has very little to do with the conventional "left-right" thing.

The entire point to this thread is that I have a thoroughly different idea of what the "left-right" axis means, and the implications of that different axis to how I think about this subject.


Stalin, by body count, was the second worst dictator ever (behind Mao). He formed a cult of personality, censored the media, and took away basic human rights.

Stalin, to me, was a leftist, who "complained" about his rivals (and his people) to the point of suppressing them into abject slavery.


We are seeing this with the U.S. right now. This does not mean Stalin as was a right-winger.

Stalin was acting as a leftist in a rightist position. (MY OPINION!)

That is the whole point of my thesis here.

He is an example of why a leftist (complainer and punisher) should NEVER be allowed to "rule".

Only a rightist (promoter of prosperity and "pusher" of the people) should "rule" a society.


He was, undeniably, a Communist. Everyone had equal rights; they were are equally worthless.

This is not true!

The "elite" had a rather nice life,.. until the "higher elite" decided that they should die,.. which is the very essence of the governing principle of the left.


Women were considered equals, and their literacy and education rates shot up. He brought about communal land reform, at the cost of 5 million landowners (including several hundred of my blood relatives).

The reason that "education" (reading, writing, and arithmetic) shot up was that they needed slaves that could read, write and do math.

If they hadn't needed slaves who could do those things, education would have remained low.

And,.. women were not considered equals,.. they were considered good draught animals, just like the men-folk, which was the extent of their "equality".


These are not the beliefs of conservatives or fascists. You are only applying the leftist protestors to what you see in right-wing governed countries. Anyone, regardless of political affiliation will protest a government for any injustices, real or perceived. Look at Iran under Mossadegh. In his later years, he was abandoned by both the Tudeh (Communists) and Islamic fundamentalists.

Yes,.. anyone, EVERYONE, will protest against those things that affect them and they find "wrong",.. but that's not my point.

My point is that what I define as "rightist" are those people who are more concerned with the prosperity of their society than with the "ills" of their society, except in as much as those "ills" affect the prosperity of their society.

The "leftist" is more concerned with fighting the "ills" existing within their society than the prosperity of their society.

Those two simple statements are my belief. They are offered as something to think about.


Leftists are perfectly capable of running government, and as we can see in several leftist European countries right now:

Then they are not leftists that run those counties, if those countries are functioning properly (or at least smoothly), in my opinion.

People can CALL themselves leftists, rightists, centrists, bluists,.. whatever they like.

But to me, and ONLY to me, a leftist will always mangle a society if allowed to rule it, for the reasons I've enumerated.

A "ruler's" JOB is to BE a rightist (to promote the prosperity of society), and a "citizen-critic's" JOB is to be a leftist (to find and complain about the ills of society).


their civil rights are unparalled, they're safer, and their quality of life is far better than anything in North America. You don't think they are protested by the church, or conservatives? Leftists aren't just for protesting. Unfortunately, most far leftists we have seen over the years are not leftists in the actual sense, just opportunists.

Your definition of leftist and rightist differs from mine, and that is why you can't reconcile what I say to "reality", and I appear completely out of touch with reality, to you.

It requires some energy (effort) to understand what my definitions mean, even though I've stated them very explicitly.

The reason for that is that we use the same words to mean different things, and you can't quite get past your own definitions.

If you don't want to spend the energy trying to understand, that's fine. Don't worry about it.

I'm simply offering a "wacky" viewpoint for your consideration. You certainly don't NEED to understand it.

Thanks..!

Anything worth doing can be done without leaders. The people will do it themselves.

Yeah,.. right. :)

How old are you, again?


no true scotsman

"No true scotsman",... wears undies?


Do you drink coffee?

Yes. And "good governance" is very much like "good coffee".

Both are an aquired taste, bitterish, and only "good" if they do what they're supposed to do, which is to make you more productive.

Yeah,.. right. :)

How old are you, again?

24, how old are you?

"No true scotsman",... wears undies?

Exactly

Yes. And "good governance" is very much like "good coffee".

Both are an aquired taste, bitterish, and only "good" if they do what they're supposed to do, which is to make you more productive.

Ah, so you are changing it up on me and saying that there is good coffee if it fulfills these needs.

Since I don't see a need for government, furthermore since I believe any need that government attempts to fulfill is made worse, then no government fulfills your definition of "good".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haken Rider
I know Hitler is a big "nono" in debates, but... wasn't he far right wing and yet complained A LOT?


That he did. But he offered "constructive" Final Solutions to the problems. Right Wingers, they Get Things Done!

H i t l e r
z e
L e f t i s t (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/)


..a beautiful example of how a leftist enslaves his people and any who oppose him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Euro,.. do you rent anything? Or charge anything?

Why?

If you do then you have actively assumed the role of helping out, by paying, someone you consider an evil doer.

Why would you do this?

I was being sarcastic, if you couldn't tell. Just look at my sig to verify it.

D'Oh..!! :)

Silly me..!

May your sarcasm grow in potency and fertilize the world with wisdom..!

..a beautiful example of how a leftist enslaves his people and any who oppose him.
And a beautiful example of how terms such as ‘leftist’ or ‘rightist’ are useless unless used as a economic scale in conjunction with an authoritarian-libertarian axis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Do you take advantage of any of the things that have "gotten done" in the society in which you live?

Such as your computer, perhaps?


If you want to go have a lovely "not getting anything done" life, like the one you paint of paleo-americans et al, why don't you go for it?

Why do you live one way, and believe you should be living another way?

to answer your question - I am a hypocrit. I have not made the leap required to act on all of my moral values. I live in comfort and deliberately ignore what I believe to be the ethically superior path, out of fear and self-importance.

I saw your other responses, I don't agree, and I may or may not get around to responding. cheers.

Do not beat yourself up about living in comfort while "knowing" that you shouldn't.

There is a possibility that what is wrong, in your situation, is not that living in comfort is wrong, but that your belief that it IS wrong is wrong.

That would be my contention.

You will come to your own conclusions about this, and that will come through living in the world.

If you believe the world is a "bad" place, that we suffer through (for whatever reason), then you will come to one conclusion.

If you believe the world is a "good" place, that gives us what we need if we "listen" to it, then you will come to another conclusion.

Your conclusion will be unique, but it will be based on one or the other of these realisations.

Best to you..!

Aloha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
Yeah,.. right.

How old are you, again?

24, how old are you?

I have shoes older than you. :)

Of course I can't wear them, and they really should be thrown out, but I do have them.

I wasn't really concerned with your "chronological" age so much as to how you would respond to the question of "how old are you?"

You answered factually (I suppose), and with a query as to MY age!

Very good..! Very mature.

Your maturity is what I'm really after, of course, and you seem quite mature for being so young.

YES,..I consider 24 to be very young and, even if you're a mature 24, the age of juvenility encased in a fully "grown up" body.

But,.. you seem a sensible enough person, though you still hold that goofy belief that "groups" can be effective without "leaders".

Classic..!


Quote:
"No true scotsman",... wears undies?

Exactly

I love it..!

I don't "love" scotsman without undies,.. not that there's anything WRONG with that... <cough>


Quote:
Yes. And "good governance" is very much like "good coffee".

Both are an aquired taste, bitterish, and only "good" if they do what they're supposed to do, which is to make you more productive.

Ah, so you are changing it up on me and saying that there is good coffee if it fulfills these needs.

I'm not "changing up" anything! I'm simply drawing a nutty parallel between the concepts of "good coffee" and "good governance".


Since I don't see a need for government, furthermore since I believe any need that government attempts to fulfill is made worse, then no government fulfills your definition of "good".

Do you "govern" yourself?

If you do, then what form of "goverment" is it?

If you don't, then how did you survive to age 24?


In other words,.. "government" is always present in any society,.. even if it's "animal" society.

You CAN simply SAY, "You see no need for government!",.. but that doesn't make it so.

(( You're starting to droop a bit on the "maturity scale", you do realize? ))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
..a beautiful example of how a leftist enslaves his people and any who oppose him.

And a beautiful example of how terms such as ‘leftist’ or ‘rightist’ are useless unless used as a economic scale in conjunction with an authoritarian-libertarian axis.

BINGO...!!

We have a winner.

I don't agree with your characterization and quantation as to the use of the terms "left" and "right", but unless the words are mutually understood (the meaning is the same for everyone concerned) the discussion is simply an excercise in either "FINDING or FIGHTING FOR" meaning.

Those who try to FIND out what the other person MEANS, works for understanding and mutual enrichment.

Those who try to FIGHT for the supremacy of their interpretation, work to suppress and censor opposition.

That is my point as to the difference between the "right" and the "left", in a nutshell.


The "seekers for mutual understanding and enrichment" are "the right".

The "fighters for supremacy of interpretation" are "the left".



This has NOTHING to do with the "traditional" meanings of "right" and "left"..!

It also has NOTHING to do with PARTY affiliation.

It is simply a pointer to what I, personally, mean by those words in the context I used them.

I have shoes older than you. :)


I am, by no means, a very original thinker. I can assure you that my ideas are far older than your shoes.

Your maturity is what I'm really after, of course, and you seem quite mature for being so young.

YES,..I consider 24 to be very young and, even if you're a mature 24, the age of juvenility encased in a fully "grown up" body.

But,.. you seem a sensible enough person, though you still hold that goofy belief that "groups" can be effective without "leaders".

Maybe your extra years have caused you to form unnecessary habits in your thinking.;)

I love it..!

I don't "love" scotsman without undies,.. not that there's anything WRONG with that... <cough>

Just in case:

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

You are redefining "right" and "left" with arbitrary terms to suit your argument, that was the point I was making earlier.

I'm not "changing up" anything! I'm simply drawing a nutty parallel between the concepts of "good coffee" and "good governance".

Perhaps I should be less serious at times.

Do you "govern" yourself?

If you do, then what form of "goverment" is it?

If you don't, then how did you survive to age 24?


In other words,.. "government" is always present in any society,.. even if it's "animal" society.

You CAN simply SAY, "You see no need for government!",.. but that doesn't make it so.

(( You're starting to droop a bit on the "maturity scale", you do realize? ))

This is simply a problem of definitions. I do not oppose systems of governance, as I fully support any system that allows for individual sovereignty (self-governance). I would also say that society will always have some sort of culture that offers general moral rules that one is expected to follow.

The government I do not support is the state, as a violent entity that seeks to control your behavior for no other reason than the fact that you made your home within its arbitrary boundaries.

I am, by no means, a very original thinker. I can assure you that my ideas are far older than your shoes.


No doubt. :)


Maybe your extra years have caused you to form unnecessary habits in your thinking.;)

Perhaps!

We can talk about that.


Just in case:

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

I shall look that up later. <yikes!>


You are redefining "right" and "left" with arbitrary terms to suit your argument, that was the point I was making earlier.

That would be true.

And what do you think of the meaning behind my choices of definitions?


Perhaps I should be less serious at times.

Perhaps,.. but PLEASE don't change unless you WANT to change..!!

You've proved to be a valuable person to interact with. Thank you very much for being there for me.


This is simply a problem of definitions. I do not oppose systems of governance, as I fully support any system that allows for individual sovereignty (self-governance). I would also say that society will always have some sort of culture that offers general moral rules that one is expected to follow.

You're absolutely right!

By far, THE largest problem the world faces today (and possibly always) is the misunderstanding of definitions,.. fighting over definitions as opposed to working to understand (but not necessarily agree with) meanings of points of view.

And I know you REALLY can't be completely opposed to "governance", as you'd have to be utterly unthinking to believe so, and that just doesn't sound like you.


The government I do not support is the state, as a violent entity that seeks to control your behavior for no other reason than the fact that you made your home within its arbitrary boundaries.

And I would agree with that in as much as ANY entity that would do that should be opposed.

I DON'T agree that "the state" is that entity, or necessarily NEEDS to be an entity like that.

Thanks again..! :D

...

you sad, sad little man

H i t l e r
z e
L e f t i s t (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/)


..a beautiful example of how a leftist enslaves his people and any who oppose him.

initial leftist but he changed his more leftist views when he saw they didnt work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
...

you sad, sad little man

What do I have to be sad about? :)

What makes YOU sad about "me"..?

In other words,.. why do you say that?


Are you the typical leftist POS who makes statements, and initiates "discussion", then runs away when something "bothers" you?

What's botherin' you, boobie..?

Tell old uncle Shitovia,.. er,.. Govneauvia.

I don’t agree with your characterization and quantation as to the use of the terms “left” and “right”, but unless the words are mutually understood (the meaning is the same for everyone concerned) the discussion is simply an excercise in either “FINDING or FIGHTING FOR” meaning.

Those who try to FIND out what the other person MEANS, works for understanding and mutual enrichment.

Those who try to FIGHT for the supremacy of their interpretation, work to suppress and censor opposition.

That is my point as to the difference between the “right” and the “left”, in a nutshell.


The “seekers for mutual understanding and enrichment” are “the right”.

The “fighters for supremacy of interpretation” are “the left”.



This has NOTHING to do with the “traditional” meanings of “right” and “left”..!

It also has NOTHING to do with PARTY affiliation.

It is simply a pointer to what I, personally, mean by those words in the context I used them.
But you’re definitions of left and right make no sense.

Why call the “seekers for mutual understanding and enrichment” the ‘right’, or the “fighters for supremacy of interpretation” the ‘left’. It’s completely arbitrary, and only serves to flamebait those on what I'd call left-libertarian side.

You only confuse political discourse, and in the process unnecessarily piss off a load of people. The left-right, authoritarian-libertarian account actually means something, and your account of political discourse would mean a lot more if yo let go of ‘left’ and ‘right’.

If you’re abandoning the traditional meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’, and party affiliation, why bother sticking with the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ at all? Why not call seekers for mutual understanding and enrichment the ‘understanders’, or the fighters for supremacy of interpretation the ‘supremacists’, or some other titles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia

H i t l e r
z e
L e f t i s t (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/)

..a beautiful example of how a leftist enslaves his people and any who oppose him.

initial leftist but he changed his more leftist views when he saw they didnt work.

Did you read the material?

Even if you TOTALLY disagree with it, it's great "alternate history".

Have a fantabulous day..!

(( I'm going gay,.. apparently. Or maybe not. I just LOVE that word, though..!! ))

What do I have to be sad about?

a life so empty and meaningless that your only apparent joy is coming back to a message board on which you are delete on sight for years after the original banning?

But you’re definitions of left and right make no sense.

Why call the “seekers for mutual understanding and enrichment” the ‘right’, or the “fighters for supremacy of interpretation” the ‘left’. It’s completely arbitrary, and only serves to flamebait those on the traditional left-libertarian side.

How does the word "left" inherently mean what you seem to be talking about?

It doesn't. It's utterly arbitrary. And that's fine.

The question is what is MEANT when a particular person uses the word..!

If you're interested in what I might mean by "left", then you're free to try to figure it out, by asking me or by other means.

But what you seem to be saying is that no one should be allowed to use a word that you use to mean one thing in a way that doesn't correspond to your meaning of that word.

Are you interested in what is MEANT, or what is (arbitrarily) "correct"..?


You only confuse political discourse, and in the process unnecessarily piss off a load of people. The left-right, authoritarian-libertarian account actually means something, and your account of political discourse would mean a lot more if yo let go of ‘left’ and ‘right’.

If you choose to get pissed off, perhaps we can talk about that, as I'm not interested in either pissing peopel off or not pissing people off.

I'm only interested in putting a (probably) weird (to others) thought out there for people to think about (if they wish) and converse about.


If you’re abandoning the traditional meanings of ‘left’ and ‘right’, and party affiliation, why bother sticking with the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ at all? Why not call seekers for mutual understanding and enrichment the ‘understanders’, or the fighters for supremacy of interpretation the ‘supremacists’, or some other titles?

I chose the terms "left" and "right" because I (personally) find enough correspondence between my definitions and the "traditional" definitions to keep them.

I also keep them because of the "poetical" pun-like dynamic that they set up within the mind.

The "contrast and similarity" between what I mean and what is normally meant by the terms is a "fun" mental exercise.

Thanks for the feedback. :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
What do I have to be sad about?


a life so empty and meaningless that your only apparent joy is coming back to a message board on which you are delete on sight for years after the original banning?

Why would it be my ONLY joy..?

I do find it interesting here, as should be obvious by my continual return.

That is a compliment to the interesting people I find here.

What "SAD" reason do you continually come back to this interesting place?

I don't think you DO come here for "sad" reasons, and I don't think you REALLY think I come here for "sad" reasons.


The fact that you would FALSELY and with INTENT try to disuade me from speaking in these forums proves that you are a censor,.. and potential slave master.

You are an excellent example of a leftist fascist slave master who demands control of what others say and do.

<snip>
Well think of another example. If i choose to refer to those who abuse children sexually as ‘Christian’, and those who protect children from abuse as ‘Atheists’, I would be lambasted, no matter how much protest I put up, or how often I emphasised the terms’ arbitraryness. Especially when, like you, I pointed out a 'similarity' between my conceptions f the terms and the traditional ones. It would be simple trolling and flaimbaiting, much as what you are doing.

Well think of another example. If i choose to refer to those who abuse children sexually as ‘Christian’, and those who protect children from abuse as ‘Atheists’, I would be lambasted, no matter how much protest I put up, or how often I emphasised the terms’ arbitraryness.

Very good example..! And I would agree entirely.

Perhaps I am being "provocative". I'm SO ashamed. :)


Especially when, like you, I pointed out a 'similarity' between my conceptions f the terms and the traditional ones. It would be simple trolling and flaimbaiting, much as what you are doing.

Do you actually LIVE in these forums?

I say that only because the concepts of "trolling" and "flamebaiting" are rather exclusive to forums (fora?).

I understand your "objection" to my use of words, and reject it as the adolescent tendency of one more interested in social niceties than actual discussion.

The purpose of my admittedly provocative original posting was to posit a different way to look at the functions of governance and dissent.

If all you saw was an incitement to conflict (trolling to flamebait), then that is your own infantile, and unhelpful to the intellectual growth of all of us, conclusion.

Thanks for your magnificent views on the matter.

If you don't like the show,.. turn the channel.

What does "The Right" mean to you?


To me:

I define "the right" as the antithesis of "the left".

It's really that simple....
...Your thoughts?

If it's that simple, it's because you're a simpelton.

It's like saying, "what's east?" It's an entierly relative thing. If you're in Japan, then 'east' could mean Hawaii. To claim that the only definition of something is to say that it's the opposite of its opposite is like saying that it is itself. It provides no information.

As for your contention that the right's purpose is to rule...

No. "The Right" is spiritually unfit to rule. Only Centrists can rule. If anyone else does it, you get corruption and bloody revolution. The purpose of the right is to provide a structure in which to rule. The purpose of the left is to provide a purpose to which that rulership is to be directed. As soon as rulership becomes a purpose in itself, you get fascism. Not nazism, just aggressive heartless brutal pointless rulership whose only purpose is oppressing the masses. Because unless rulership is given a task, then the only thing left for it to do is to get people to stop doing things.

Well think of another example. If i choose to refer to those who abuse children sexually as ‘Christian’, and those who protect children from abuse as ‘Atheists’, I would be lambasted, no matter how much protest I put up, or how often I emphasised the terms’ arbitraryness. Especially when, like you, I pointed out a 'similarity' between my conceptions f the terms and the traditional ones. It would be simple trolling and flaimbaiting, much as what you are doing.

"It's getting to the point that you can't tell the protestant clergy from the Catholic priests."

You wouldn't be that far off in your chosen terms.

Right is, something one must fight to obtain, in order to promote merriment.

There are three young men from New York who have a much keener way of describing that.

There are three young men from New York who have a much keener way of describing that.
I believe there are three MC’s and one DJ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Govneauvia
What does "The Right" mean to you?


To me:

I define "the right" as the antithesis of "the left".

It's really that simple....
...Your thoughts?


If it's that simple, it's because you're a simpelton.

That is quite true.

..and it's really rather amazing how cogent (or at least "interesting") a simpleton such as myself can be given what simpletons are.

What's your excuse?


It's like saying, "what's east?" It's an entierly relative thing. If you're in Japan, then 'east' could mean Hawaii. To claim that the only definition of something is to say that it's the opposite of its opposite is like saying that it is itself. It provides no information.

Well,.. that was simply the "opening statement".

Do you always require each sentence in a piece of writing to be utterly explanatory and complete in itself, unrelated to it's place in the piece?

You might bone up on how to understand the written word, buckeroo.


As for your contention that the right's purpose is to rule...

No. "The Right" is spiritually unfit to rule.

Interesting statement..


Only Centrists can rule. If anyone else does it, you get corruption and bloody revolution.

Firstly, what is your definition of "the right", which was the question I asked in opening this thread?

Secondly, what is a centrist? I do not allow for centrists, in terms of decision makers of individual decisions, because a decision is always either this or that (binary) and precludes a "center" position.


The purpose of the right is to provide a structure in which to rule. The purpose of the left is to provide a purpose to which that rulership is to be directed.

Ah,.. now that's interesting!

I might actually agree with some of that. But we'd have to talk about many things before I could figure out which parts.

If you want to do that, that would be fun.


As soon as rulership becomes a purpose in itself, you get fascism.

Basically true! Fascism is essentially slavery, and the point of slavery is to make life easy for the slave-masters regardless of the effects of slavery (or anything else) on the society as a whole.


Not nazism, just aggressive heartless brutal pointless rulership whose only purpose is oppressing the masses. Because unless rulership is given a task, then the only thing left for it to do is to get people to stop doing things.

I absolutely agree!

The point of rulership is either the promotion of prosperity of society, or enslavement of society.

And since my "left" has nothing to do with "promotion of prosperity", other than advising my "right" about things that are malfunctioning within society, my "left" has no business "ruling" at all, unless they choose the other (singular) alternative, which is the promotion of the enslavement of society, which is to be avoided at all cost.

Thus, only my "right" is allowable to rule.


You'll notice I say "MY" right and left, because my definitions of right and left are not the standard ones, admittedly.



Just one simpleton's thinking! :)

Have fun with it, or don't. Simpleton's don't care which.