Why are most forums so overwhelmingly liberal?

[DurrRuhRurr]

I haven't been here long enough to know whether or not this is true of this forum, but at just about every forum I've ever been on so far, the overwhelming majority of participants are left-leaning. Why is this true when only about 50% of the general American public is on the left?

[darynthe]

Are you quite sure only 50% are liberal? I feel it is so much more. People are more left leaning becaues the media is liberal and people are heavily influenced by TV and media in general.

I haven't felt any political affiliaton in this forum. Maybe because I haven't been to the politics thread at all.

[Lycurgus]

Only 50% of the voters are left of center, by your definition.

Younger people tend to be more computer literate, and more liberal.

[Storm]

First, you need to define "left-leaning" as it's a rather ambiguous term.

Second, not all English speakers are Americans. There is a large number of non-Americans on the internet. America is a rather conservative country compared to many other countries.

You might also be putting more weight on those that disagree with you.

[RBM]

First, you need to define "left-leaning" as it's a rather ambiguous term.

Second, not all English speakers are Americans. There is a large number of non-Americans on the internet. America is a rather conservative country compared to many other countries.

You might also be putting more weight on those that disagree with you.

Shucks, I'd like to see 'liberal' defined !!

I have used 3 categories in the past to achieve clarity:
1 social
2 political
3 economic

I get the distinct impression Americans don't realize how politically conservative US politics are. I've actually read online arguments denying that fact.

[Deadgod]

And if they are overwhelmingly liberal? (What is the purpose of this thread?)

[DurrRuhRurr]

Just curious about other peoples' takes on this, that's all. I neither like nor dislike the fact that this is true of most forums.

[Storm]

We do have a political compass quiz thread. Check it out.

[Pika]

You are just not looking at the right forums if you think most of them are left-leaning. I think that there is a pretty good balance between left- and right-leaning wackos on the internet. Google "frugal squirrel" if you feel lonely and unappreciated amongst all of us parlor pinks.

[Night Runner]

“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Stephen Colbert

[firebee]

Well, to start off -- everyone wants to call themselves "at the center". This is not entirely untrue, as you are at the center of your own little world... but if everybody you encounter is "left of center" then your center is not the center of the universe.

As to why Internet forums in particular might appear to be more left than the world at large -- part of it might be a bias toward the young and computer-literate (the internet is a series of tubes?) but also you have to consider that any given forum will have its own character. Gun and knife forums, obviously, tend to go rightish... MMA forums tend to attract drooling morons... and this forum attracts people who consider that a psychological test is even worth taking, and who then score near INTJ on said test. Which, no doubt, introduces its own biases.

I'd venture to say that if you think Internet forums are left-leaning, you're a) looking at the wrong forums and/or b) your center point is off.

[uncon]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Most INTJ's are non-authoritarian left.

[thod]

If you are far right conservative, then the world will seem to be full of liberals, and vice versa. All your post tells me is your political position.

[Storm]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Most INTJ's are non-authoritarian left.

Correction, of the 25 people who voted in the poll, the majority where libertarian left.

[RBM]

Well, to start off -- everyone wants to call themselves "at the center". This is not entirely untrue, as you are at the center of your own little world... but if everybody you encounter is "left of center" then your center is not the center of the universe.

As to why Internet forums in particular might appear to be more left than the world at large -- part of it might be a bias toward the young and computer-literate (the internet is a series of tubes?) but also you have to consider that any given forum will have its own character. Gun and knife forums, obviously, tend to go rightish... MMA forums tend to attract drooling morons... and this forum attracts people who consider that a psychological test is even worth taking, and who then score near INTJ on said test. Which, no doubt, introduces its own biases.

I'd venture to say that if you think Internet forums are left-leaning, you're a) looking at the wrong forums and/or b) your center point is off.

I'd venture to say your right.

Just before the US presidential election I went to a site that catered to US Marines. They were all hot under the collar about the Dem nominee. I mean reallllllllly hot !

You just got to look harder.

[uncon]

Correction, of the 25 people who voted in the poll, the majority where libertarian left.

No, I think most are libertarian left and the poll supports (but doesn't prove) that trend. The next highest group would be libertarian right (which corresponds to political Libertarianism).

[DurrRuhRurr]

If you are far right conservative, then the world will seem to be full of liberals, and vice versa. All your post tells me is your political position.

Actually I tested on the libertarian left on the political compass thread.

I always thought of myself as closer to the center, which means that I'm conservative to liberals and liberal to conservatives. I don't identify myself as a leftist because I don't do the knee-jerk spin thing on issues that too many of them do.

[nacht]

As others have said: Depending on how you define "liberal," I would suspect that the variance can be largely explained by age and education. It is also possibly not true, but is simply a generalization that may not be valid.

No, I think most are libertarian left and the poll supports (but doesn't prove) that trend. The next highest group would be libertarian right (which corresponds to political Libertarianism).

Hasty generalizations from web polls make baby Gauss cry.

[Nikita]

Because most conservatives have jobs? :cheesy: Only kidding. I can't speak to the actual political division, but from what I've seen, liberals tend to seek out others of similar viewpoints to garner support for their causes, which seem to require more change to the status quo.

[nacht]

Why is this true when only about 50% of the general American public is on the left?

Depending on how we define "on the left"... the number is quite possibly higher than that.

In August 2008 a poll indicated that 51% of registered voters lean Democrat, and 38% lean republican. From a republican's perspective, it could reasonably be argued that from 50% to over 60% of the nation is "on the left." Depending on how representative one views registered voters.

This isn't even taking into account world politics, of course, since as others have pointed out it is more than the US on the internet.

[Rudy]

One observation is that INTJs are overrepresented among libertarians, relative to the general population. (There was a thread that showed the political percentages divided among types, if anyone knows where it is.) INTJs, I would hazard to guess, tend to resent government interference more than other types, on average.

[Prunesquallor]

For the same reason large cities, especially coastal or near rivers, tend to be more liberal. If you're exposed to a lot of different viewpoints, it tends to push you left.

[zibber]

I haven't been here long enough to know whether or not this is true of this forum, but at just about every forum I've ever been on so far, the overwhelming majority of participants are left-leaning. Why is this true when only about 50% of the general American public is on the left?

Nader got 50% of the popular vote?

I did NOT know that.

(Seriously, though. I know what you're getting at, but "liberal" and "left-leaning" are not to be muddled together. Please. See: "libertarianism".)

[MaleVolentworld]

Most of the culture is left wing that is why. The main reason being education, nothing else has so much power of the minds of people.

I'm a capitalist...known in educational establishments as a person who has a lot of wealth and exploits others, starts wars and is the cause of everything bad in the world.

[Kisai]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Most INTJ's are non-authoritarian left.

Meritocratic dictatorship now!

[Synamon]

This forum seems very right wing to me, but then I'm not American and am slightly left of Gandhi. As others have said, it comes down to your own relative location on the spectrum. Also the people in the middle tend to be way less vocal than those at the extremes.

[Storm]

Most of the culture is left wing that is why. The main reason being education, nothing else has so much power of the minds of people.

I'm a capitalist...known in educational establishments as a person who has a lot of wealth and exploits others, starts wars and is the cause of everything bad in the world.

Depends what department you're in. Try the business and economic departments, not many non-capitalist in there.

Oh, and Political Affiliation By Type (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[pocohauntus]

People are more left leaning becaues the media is liberal and people are heavily influenced by TV and media in general.
Are you kidding? The media is full of right-wing bastards. Don't get me started on the god-damned media.

[MaleVolentworld]

Depends what department you're in. Try the business and economic departments, not many non-capitalist in there.

Oh, and Political Affiliation By Type (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

But you're in Texas right? ahhh what I'd give to live there...you can have my left leg in exchange.

I agree about business departments though.

[TheLastMohican]

Are you kidding? The media is full of right-wing bastards. Don't get me started on the god-damned media.

The media in the U.S. is more liberal than the general population. It varies from company to company, but the average is rather obviously shifted to the left.

[pocohauntus]

The media in the U.S. is more liberal than the general population. It varies from company to company, but the average is rather obviously shifted to the left.
Basically you're saying liberals are liars?

[TheLastMohican]

Basically you're saying liberals are liars?

No ... how does that follow?

[MaleVolentworld]

He's saying that liberals eat dead babies.

[TheLastMohican]

He's saying that liberals eat dead babies.
Only Dan Rather.

[MaleVolentworld]

I thought he was the one that tried his hand at forgery?

[pocohauntus]

No ... how does that follow?
You said the media is more liberal than the general population. THE MEDIA LIES. Now, tell me, when you say "more liberal than" do you actually mean more liberal or is this one of those INT language tricks that I haven't learned to understand yet.

[Lycurgus]

You said the media is more liberal than the general population. THE MEDIA LIES. Now, tell me, when you say "more liberal than" do you actually mean more liberal or is this one of those INT language tricks that I haven't learned to understand yet.Simply because one doesn't share views with the public, does not make them liars.

[Hanfgeist]

I haven't been here long enough to know whether or not this is true of this forum, but at just about every forum I've ever been on so far, the overwhelming majority of participants are left-leaning. Why is this true when only about 50% of the general American public is on the left?

Not everyone who uses this forum is American and If you are looking for irrational right wing loony extremists, join some high IQ societies and use their forums, most of them seem to be dominated by these highly opinionated and highly vocal snarkytypes.

Are INTJs in general more open to new ideas and likely to be more liberal than the rest of the population? Maybe so, I don't think a lot of right wing types can make the jump from 'what is' to 'what if' or 'what could be' and tend to be misoneist in outlook......

[TheLastMohican]

You said the media is more liberal than the general population. THE MEDIA LIES.

What does the media lie about, and why is that relevant?

Now, tell me, when you say "more liberal than" do you actually mean more liberal or is this one of those INT language tricks that I haven't learned to understand yet.

I mean that the ratio of liberals to conservatives is higher among media members than in the general population. There's nothing tricky about the language here.

[pocohauntus]

Simply because one doesn't share views with the public, does not make them liars.
Excuse me but to a very large extent the public is informed about their world through the media. Sharing views with the public is not the job of the media. Giving truthful non-biased accurate information about current events on the planet is their job. You know, there are people who believe what they're being told by the media every day. Really, it's enough to make me actually sick if I listen to them (media) long enough.

[Lycurgus]

Excuse me but to a very large extent the public is informed about their world through the media. Yes.

Sharing views with the public is not the job of the media. No, it's not. Running a business and turning a profit is the job of the individual media corporations.

Giving truthful non-biased accurate information about current events on the planet is their job. No, it's not. Turning a profit for their shareholders is their job.

You know, there are people who believe what they're being told by the media every day. What's your point? That people believe what they're told? That's not the responsibility of the networks. Freedom of Speech, you know?

Really, it's enough to make me actually sick if I listen to them (media) long enough.Then take your viewership to the 'fair and balanced' (lol) news network, Fox News Network.


Personally, I think the news is, for the most part, unbiased. They do sensationalize the news, which plays to "MADD," "Gun Control," etc. While, on those issues, the media tends to lean left, it is not, in general, overly liberal.



If you're really ambitious, start your own network, buy a network, or get a job in the administrative division of a network. You'll then be able to influence the news in a way that you think would be beneficial. It's what Rupert Murdoch did with Fox news.

[TheLastMohican]

Excuse me but to a very large extent the public is informed about their world through the media. Sharing views with the public is not the job of the media. Giving truthful non-biased accurate information about current events on the planet is their job. You know, there are people who believe what they're being told by the media every day. Really, it's enough to make me actually sick if I listen to them (media) long enough.

Do you believe that a person who is politically affiliated is necessarily incapable of unbiased reporting on politics?

[Storm]

You said the media is more liberal than the general population. THE MEDIA LIES. Now, tell me, when you say "more liberal than" do you actually mean more liberal or is this one of those INT language tricks that I haven't learned to understand yet.

A media network could be unbiased in the report of materials, but only choose pieces which a liberal audience would be interested in. If you consider that lying, that'a a different story.
The news is also full of what are plainly editorials and opinion pieces. A factual report could be unbiased, but then most of the commentary could be liberal. That's not lying either since commentary is not marketed as being part of the facts.


Also, Poco, please don't take this the wrong way. But you have mentioned before that you are have trouble understanding Ns, and have only recently "turned into" an INTJ. I have no idea why you'd want to turn into an INTJ. It's really not better than being any other type.

[Pandemonium]

How many of you guys actually get your information from creditable sources?

I would hardly identify main stream media networks as creditable. My generally consensus based on my personal belief system is that the main stream media networks are right wing conservatives due to the fact they use xenophobia to sell their product. Subsequently it manifests itself to the bias of conservation of the current system. Hence, the media is conservative. They are quite liberal in the area of misconstruing information and truth until it is utterly perverted. They are right-winged in the realms of supporting right-winged natured policy.

The only media channel that actually reports the 'truth' or pure facts is C-span. Unless you watch the damn channel or something similar 24/7 for your information needs, your opinions on events/ongoings are going to be pre-perverted before you deduce your own perverted views. Lets face it, no one watches C-span other than myself. Such a source still only display what they want to display.

[Lucid]

Because most conservatives have jobs? :cheesy: Only kidding.

Yeah... you know I'm really tired of 'conservatives' pulling bullshit like that, 'only kidding' or no. I used the term 'conservatives' in quotes here because I know many conservatives who would be ashamed to be associated with someone who threw such terms around. Likewise, I know many liberals who have more of a work ethic and who have, by themselves and without aid, overcome the kind of adversity that would make you feel ashamed yourself for tossing that crap around.

I can't speak to the actual political division, but from what I've seen, liberals tend to seek out others of similar viewpoints to garner support for their causes, which seem to require more change to the status quo.

Really? I think most conservatives tend to insulate themselves from people who actually work for a living doing things like cleaning their toilets or answering their phones. I think it leads to these "liberals don't really work!" ideas. Ok, that's mostly trying to make a point, but joking aside, people tend to gravitate toward others who agree with them. As Nikita's post so handily illustrated for us, this can be both a good thing and a bad thing.

Either way, I don't think it's that most forums are one or the other, I think it's that most forums the OP has been to had an overwhelming number of people who posted about politics who happened to be liberalish. Others may have an overwhelming number of people who post about politics who are conservativeish.
Because the OP is admittedly a bit left of center, it's possible that he's been attracted to forums on topics that attracted a lot of other left of center people. I think think there are plenty of forums with topics like yachting, white supremacy, holding up "Thank god for dead soldiers" signs at the funerals of dead soldiers, taking money from poor people to spend on yachting, religious nuttery in general... you get the idea.
Just kidding! :laugh:

:rolleyes:

[eternaltriangle]

I disagree that the media is ideologically biased, but its basic incentives mean that it is not, precisely neutral. Firstly, all reporters need access to the powers that be. When an incumbent is popular, say Obama today, that incumbent has a great deal of leverage over the media. He/she doesn't NEED the media to get his message out, and so can get away with having a tightly controlled message. Politico had an interesting story a few weeks back about how the folks write puff pieces on members of new administrations (Democrat or Republican), because they want to get in the good graces of the people that control access to the president.

On the other hand, it is also true that certain audiences are more likely to provide ad revenue for news agencies than others. Generally the audience for news is more highly educated and wealthier (such an audience provides bigger ad revenues too). The first favours the Democrats somewhat, the second strongly favours the Republicans (in other countries than the US that may not hold). That needn't require some sort of conspiracy, as folks like Chomsky suggest, but it does mean that writers and reporters are being selected on the basis of their ability to write stories for a target audience that is well-off and well-educated.

So what are some regularities we get?
-Popular presidents get good media coverage (think of the way the media didn't ask questions during the early stages of the war in Iraq, or now with Obama in charge).
-The general media slant is socially more liberal, and fiscally more conservative than the nation as a whole, reflecting the overrepresentation of well-off, well-educated people in the target audience of the media.

Conclusion: the media is NOT unbiased, but the tendencies in its bias are ill-explained by simplistic conspiracy theory type explanations.

[OmegaPsi]

How many of you guys actually get your information from creditable sources?

I would hardly identify main stream media networks as creditable. My generally consensus based on my personal belief system is that the main stream media networks are right wing conservatives due to the fact they use xenophobia to sell their product. Subsequently it manifests itself to the bias of conservation of the current system. Hence, the media is conservative. They are quite liberal in the area of misconstruing information and truth until it is utterly perverted. They are right-winged in the realms of supporting right-winged natured policy.

The only media channel that actually reports the 'truth' or pure facts is C-span. Unless you watch the damn channel or something similar 24/7 for your information needs, your opinions on events/ongoings are going to be pre-perverted before you deduce your own perverted views. Lets face it, no one watches C-span other than myself. Such a source still only display what they want to display.

Correction: You and I only watch C-SPAN. I once dedicated an entire week of tv of nothing but C-SPAN. That was a fun week.

[dogwoodlover]

Actually, I was just examining a thread earlier on another personality forum in which there was ranting about how ragingly conservative INTJ Forum is.

Personally, from "my perspective", Democrats and "the Media" are all miserably conservative (in reference to change). Distinctions of the "right" and the "left" in America focus on stupid issues such as abortion, welfare, legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, etc.

The economic structure and political system of our country is, in my opinion, of far greater significance than whether my gay neighbors are getting married.

[Plane Stress]

Simple: Right-leaning conservatives are stuck in a swamp somewhere with no electricity praising Jesus and eating roadkill and fried insects. Well, aside from the ones that figured out mass media.

Seriously, though, I think that they are just simply outnumbered in younger generations. Seriously (gah seriously twice looks weird), they get so much attention, but where exactly are all these conservatives? Especially the religious sort? I just think that it's just not their game anymore, and those that do identify as "conservative" really aren't anymore if you talk to them about things like gay rights or economic policy-they are much more open than their parents.

[Prunesquallor]

This forum seems very right wing to me, but then I'm not American and am slightly left of Gandhi. As others have said, it comes down to your own relative location on the spectrum. Also the people in the middle tend to be way less vocal than those at the extremes.

Yeah, same here, really. I'm not used to hearing all of these conservative viewpoints, except from people who are mocking them. It's interesting...

[INTJRyan]

Yeah, same here, really. I'm not used to hearing all of these conservative viewpoints, except from people who are mocking them. It's interesting...

Yes. Plus, there seems to be an over representation of anarchists, Ron Paultards, objectivists wanting to "go Galt" and live some sort of Mad Max wet dream, and other tin foil capped denizens of teh intertubes here. I expected INTJs to be much more liberal.

[Rudy]

I found the thread I was referencing earlier, which includes the link to the study. It says INTJ are 19% Dem, 40% Rep, 41% "Independent," which is well above average on both of the latter two groups.

As has been said, however, "democrat," is not the same thing as "left," so what we can conclude from this study is very limited. The "Independent" portion, for example, likely includes those who consider themselves members of the Green party, as well as those who consider themselves Libertarians.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[pocohauntus]

As has been said, however, "democrat," is not the same thing as "left," so what we can conclude from this study is very limited.
What? You mean the intellectual elite formula isn't flawless?

[Rudy]

What? You mean the intellectual elite formula isn't flawless?
Yes. Yes, that's what I mean. *slightly puzzled*

[NZPixie]

Sites with a large number of american posters appear to me to be very very conservative. You actually have to be a bit careful what you say. It appears that socialism is equal to communisim in many american minds. I come from a liberal and fairly socialist country. Therefore my veiw of even liberal americans is that they appear conservative to me.

[eternaltriangle]

I don't think conservative-liberal (in the American sense) is all that meaningful a distinction, particularly nowadays, where conservatives appear to appeal to the populist values of the working class, while educated upper middle class northeasterners are a core part of the liberal base. I mean Obama won among voters earning >200,000/year. Nonetheless, based on that flawed device I would say these forums are maybe slightly more conservative than the average one I am used to (I am Canadian).

I would expect INTJ's to be less partisan than most others because we are cynical and critical, and nobody's platform ever stands up to scrutiny. We are much more likely to be contrarian I would guess. That is partly projecting from myself, however, as I tend to adopt the least popular side of arguments, and have since junior high (when I was pro-nuclear power and pro-cuts to education, positions my teachers found abhorrent).

I would expect INTJ's to be more fiscally conservative than most others because we are less likely to have empathy, or to be motivated by the bleeding heart sort of arguments about poor Mrs. Jones from Tennessee.

However, I would also expect INTJ's to be more socially liberal. I don't think many of us here are religious, and suspect that the social aspects of religion. Social Conservatism derives a lot of its persuasiveness from social sanctioning and stigmatizing of behavior.

[Matrix]

Ridiculous as it sounds in the US anything left of conservatism is classified as communism. This is due in large part to the system of education via media.

[maxpot46]

Conclusion: the media is NOT unbiased, but the tendencies in its bias are ill-explained by simplistic conspiracy theory type explanations.As neither liberal or conservative, it seems to me that the media is heavily liberal, on social issues in particular (obviously this varies from outlet to outlet) but there are plenty of champions for the current stimulus as well, for example (which I consider a liberal undertaking). More importantly, in my view, the media is strongly biased towards the state and gives far less airtime to those with anti-state views (though Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are starting to make a small dent).





maxpot46 added to this post, 7 minutes and 18 seconds later...

Ridiculous as it sounds in the US anything left of conservatism is classified as communism. This is due in large part to the system of education via media.Heh, some might say that in the US anything right of communism or pure socialism is considered capitalism, for the same reasons :)

[Tenacious B]

It appears that socialism is equal to communisim in many american minds.
Socialism was originally intended as a midway point between capitalism and communism. In reality the name of a particular system is irrelevant as it changes nothing in how that system works. Looking at history shows that collectivist systems, of whatever flavor, generally lead towards the same ends. F.A. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom is a good place to start reading.

[Lycurgus]

Socialism was originally intended as a midway point between capitalism and communism. In reality the name of a particular system is irrelevant as it changes nothing in how that system works. Looking at history shows that collectivist systems, of whatever flavor, generally lead towards the same ends. F.A. Hayek's book The Road to Serfdom is a good place to start reading.The Road to Serfdom was discredited years ago, IIRC.

Actually, I don't need an IIRC. He was just plain wrong.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Britain never became a dictatorship, he was wrong.


Which isn't to say I think you're wrong, but if you're going to use books to back up your argument, at least use ones who don't have a list of complaints and inaccuracies longer than the book itself.

[NZPixie]

Well, from the outside looking in, I would much rather be in my country or another equally socialist country (And I am sure there are many countries more socialist than mine) than live in America. I have no desire AT ALL to ever travel to america. I want to travel pretty much the rest of the whole world though. Everything is on a continuum though, either towards being very capitalist or very socialist. A happy medium I suppose is desireable. However, from an external veiwpoint, I think many countries veiw the US as being a bit silly and backward in their political and religious views. They are of course generalizing. But generalizations are usually based on a majority.

[Storm]

^Rather a dismissive attitude.No problem with you thinking the government isn't the most optimal, but to not even want to travel to a place based on preconceived notions? I don't really understand. I could understand if America was facing an epidemic, or was war torn or something else where visiting could endanger your person, but it's not. You might learn that you can't dismiss a country of 300 million+ people with a few stereotypes.

Aw, well. No loss, we'll just give the apple pie we were going to give you when you came to someone else.

[eternaltriangle]

The Road to Serfdom was discredited years ago, IIRC.
Actually, I don't need an IIRC. He was just plain wrong.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Britain never became a dictatorship, he was wrong.
Which isn't to say I think you're wrong, but if you're going to use books to back up your argument, at least use ones who don't have a list of complaints and inaccuracies longer than the book itself.

A few things -firstly the government in Britain never really controlled the commanding heights of the economy, beyond a brief period of time. British socialism collapsed under its own weight before we could really see whether the bluntest interpretation of Hayek's thesis came true. It certainly is the case that British people in the 1970's faced an incredibly intrusive government that regulated almost every aspect of their lives - which is precisely why they threw it out the window.

Actual socialism requires control of the means of production by the workers (represented by the state). It is not a "middle position" between communism and capitalism as some have suggested. It is simply the economic dimension of communism. Remember that Marx only supported dictatorship temporarily, believing that eventually the state would wither away and become unnecessary.

[Indy]

The Road to Servedom is a classical sliding-slope argument. It is easy to apply to argue against any active government policies, but it doesn't help to get any pragmatic solutions to dire problems. Let's say, you can't nationalize banks in this financial crisis, because, my god, we surely will end up living in a totalitarian dictorship shortly.

But his arguments of informational difficulties arising from central planning are worthwhile and, more generally, the nature of the establishment of the Nazis and Soviets is something to be mindful about.

[eternaltriangle]

However, from an external veiwpoint, I think many countries veiw the US as being a bit silly and backward in their political and religious views. They are of course generalizing. But generalizations are usually based on a majority.

Normally I wouldn't slander a nation (and certainly not as nice and pleasant a nation as New Zealand), but your ill-informed position is surely worthy of a response.

1. New Zealand has among the most restrictive abortion laws in the western world, requiring women to show that their health is in danger, etc. in order to obtain an abortion.

2. Americans are among the fattest people in the world. New Zealanders do little better, however, and rank 7th in the OECD. Moreover, New Zealand has more obesity-related deaths (must be SOME healthcare system).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

3. Americans are much more innovative per capita than New Zealanders, according to Porter's innovation index. US ranks first, New Zealand ranks 22nd, just ahead of that other technological powerhouse... Portugal. Per person, the US produces 3 times as many patents as New Zealand.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

4. Related to the above, even though New Zealand innovates almost nothing on its own, and has the benefit of using American technology, New Zealanders are much poorer than Americans. US GDP per capita (2005) was about 41,500. New Zealand's was about $25000.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

5. Americans are substantially more likely to have attended institutions of tertiary (university/college) education than New Zealanders, and have the second-highest proportion of college grads in the world (behind Canada).
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

6. America certainly has issues of racial inequality, but those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Maori life expectancy is 8 years less than that of the general population. It has remained largely unchanged since 1979, even as non-Maori life expectancy increased.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As poor as New Zealanders are, the Maori are even poorer.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

7. Of course white New Zealanders aren't just racist towards the Maori. An openly racist political party, New Zealand First has attempted to paint immigrants as criminals. It was able to win seats. Since then they lost their seats, as those voters turned to the National Party (the party of New Zealand's prime minister).

America (I am not American by the way) gets a lot of criticism because, being number one, everybody is watching. America is not perfect - it has a lot of problems - but so do a lot of countries. Shine that same light of scrutiny on your own country before being so smug.

[Tragic Hero]

(I guess there are only so many times you can invent new ways to hump sheep).


So, to counteract stupidity and foolishness, you decide to act stupid yourself. What purpose does that serve?

[Rudy]

Well, from the outside looking in, I would much rather be in my country or another equally socialist country (And I am sure there are many countries more socialist than mine) than live in America. I have no desire AT ALL to ever travel to america.

This makes no sense at all. I hate socialism, and have no desire to live in Europe for this reason. Why would this stop me from wanting to visit there?

[eternaltriangle]

So, to counteract stupidity and foolishness, you decide to act stupid yourself. What purpose does that serve?

Satire. I thought that was obvious when I prefaced my argument by calling New Zealand a nice place in brackets (generally when I break the third wall I use brackets).

It is also a place I know almost nothing about, beyond the one time I met some people from there, the Lord of the Rings, some stuff I have read about their electoral system (and Rogernomics), and Flight of the Conchords (and I guess I associate the country with sheep and rugby). Plus I cherry-picked some random statistics about it and made a hit job. My point was that any country can look bad, so we shouldn't make reflexive judgments.

[Pika]

Well, from the outside looking in, I would much rather be in my country or another equally socialist country (And I am sure there are many countries more socialist than mine) than live in America. I have no desire AT ALL to ever travel to america. I want to travel pretty much the rest of the whole world though. Everything is on a continuum though, either towards being very capitalist or very socialist. A happy medium I suppose is desireable. However, from an external veiwpoint, I think many countries veiw the US as being a bit silly and backward in their political and religious views. They are of course generalizing. But generalizations are usually based on a majority.
You appear to be living proof that ignorance is no barrier to opinion. Have you ever been in America? If not, you are not really entitled to criticize. I have been in both New Zealand and the U.S. Most Kiwi's are great people but a lot of them that I met wanted to go to the U.S. If I had to choose, I would take the U.S. every time.

[Hanfgeist]

A few things -firstly the government in Britain never really controlled the commanding heights of the economy, beyond a brief period of time. British socialism collapsed under its own weight before we could really see whether the bluntest interpretation of Hayek's thesis came true. It certainly is the case that British people in the 1970's faced an incredibly intrusive government that regulated almost every aspect of their lives - which is precisely why they threw it out the window.

Never a truer word spoken, the socialist government brought Britain to its knees in 1979 and unfortunately those that do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it and they got elected again in 1997 and once more have brought the country to its knees. The nations finances are now in a state which is so bad that we may never recover......

Actual socialism requires control of the means of production by the workers (represented by the state). It is not a "middle position" between communism and capitalism as some have suggested. It is simply the economic dimension of communism. Remember that Marx only supported dictatorship temporarily, believing that eventually the state would wither away and become unnecessary.

The problem with communism is that you need a brain to think up and improve the means of production and it always fails because those with brains are shot or put into a gulag.......

[Tenacious B]

Britain never became a dictatorship, he was wrong.

You speak of Britain is if it no longer exists, which is more accurate than I imagine you intended.

The modern application of collectivism is relatively new in historical terms, so to say Hayek was wrong about Britain is premature. Britain may prove him right yet.

This particularly important in the case of the US since the nation is still rather young.

[Mericrat]

i'm actually pretty surprised in the amount of libertarians that are on this forum and i'm not at the same time. most libertarians i have spoken to would consider Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand huge influences. It almost seems like it was a political philosophy devised by and for INTJs.

however i do have a question, when you say "right libertarian" and "left Libertarian" are you talking about minor differences in philosophy on american libertarianism, or when you say "left Libertarianism" do mean like Noam Chomsky?

[Synamon]

however i do have a question, when you say "right libertarian" and "left Libertarian" are you talking about minor differences in philosophy on american libertarianism, or when you say "left Libertarianism" do mean like Noam Chomsky?
There is a Political Compass (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) test here on the forum that people are referencing. It splits the political and social spectrum into quadrants.

[nacht]

however i do have a question, when you say "right libertarian" and "left Libertarian" are you talking about minor differences in philosophy on american libertarianism, or when you say "left Libertarianism" do mean like Noam Chomsky?

To add to what Syn said, when I use it I refer to the Major Schools of Libertarianism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which includes the philosophy of left-libertarianism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[Qweevox]

I have a difficult time with “labels” when it comes to political ideology. When I was young I called myself a “conservative”, but that label never really fit well. Today I call myself a classical liberal. That definition fits best I suppose. As to the two dominant political parties in United States, I’ve lost any ability to see a difference on the really important issues.

People tend to think Democrats are liberal, but that isn’t true. They might be “Modern” liberals, but their adherence to the idea of big government and a their tendency towards “collectivism” and “Parental” government flies in the face of the definition of what true “liberalism” is. The Republicans aren’t much better. They espouse a party platform based on the idea of smaller less intrusive government but in practice do the opposite. Under Republican leadership the size of government has grown and the alliance with “social” conservatives who seem bent on imposing their moral views on others is….well not my cup of tea.

So what am I? I am a classical liberal, and an individualist. From history, I suppose I would more closely relate to the ideas expressed by Thomas Jefferson. As to government, I believe it should be as small and powerless as possible. I joked with a friend that I desire just enough government to barely prevent total anarchy. I believe the rights outlined in the Constitution of the United States where not granted by that document, they where recognized as being natural human rights. If anything the US Constitution is a government limiting document, a document designed to protect the rights of the individual from mob rule. When politicians talk of economic justice, fairness, or socialistic programs I cringe. In fiction I suppose I would most admire Ayn Rand’s character John Galt. I hate “political correctness” In the words of Galt “A is A”. Most problems created by government occur because politicians try to pretend that A is none-A and create programs and legislation in an effort to deny reality.

There are several political groups with which I can at least partially identify with, the Republican Liberty Caucus, Libertarian Party, and Constitution Party. I guess I am not much of a socialist. I do not trust politicians who promise to “care” for us. I do not want a parental government to save me, either from the circumstances of reality, or my own actions. Therefore it is hard for me to reconcile my views with that of the Democrat Party, or mainstream Republicans for that matter.

[aranae]

I fail to see how knowing how to operate a computer correlates to making a person more likely to believe in socialism or communism. Furthermore, PC means "personal" computer, which means your computer is private property, which is totally a capitalistic concept.

hackers just want you to share your information- we shouldn't hate them, we should praise them for bringing the idea of socialism to personal computing.





aranae added to this post, 19 minutes and 47 seconds later...


Really? I think most conservatives tend to insulate themselves from people who actually work for a living doing things like cleaning their toilets or answering their phones. I think it leads to these "liberals don't really work!" ideas.


The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives know that just because someone is cleaning toilets one day doesn't mean they aren't going to be a millionaire the next day. Capitalism and free market economy make it all possible in our wonderful country. Conservatives know that having a business and employing people makes the economy work. Trent Reznor cleaned toilets, and look at where he is today! He wouldn't be where he is without capitalism.

Liberals see the people cleaning toilets and answering phones as victims and say vote for me I'll make sure the government takes care of you and I''ll make that evil employer of yours pay!
This keeps people who are cleaning toilets- cleaning more toilets, not encouraging them to start their own business or go to college.

[firebee]

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives know that just because someone is cleaning toilets one day doesn't mean they aren't going to be a millionaire the next day.

So basically the difference between liberals and conservatives is one tiny shred of common sense?

[INTJRyan]

So basically the difference between liberals and conservatives is one tiny shred of common sense?

Indeed! Toilet cleaners should vote republican, even though it is not in their own best interest, because one day they could wake up and be a millionaire and then the libs will tax them too much.

[Tocsin]

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives know that just because someone is cleaning toilets one day doesn't mean they aren't going to be a millionaire the next day. Capitalism and free market economy make it all possible in our wonderful country.

Wow! Really?

There has been a great disparity of income growth between 1979 and 2004 in the United States. The real, after-tax income of the top 1% earners has grown by 176% percent during that time, compared to a 69% rise for the top 20%, and an increase of 9% for the lowest 20%...

While there is some economic mobility between generations in the United States, it is still difficult to move up one or more quintiles in regard to one’s income. 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile. Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%.

According to one study, the income of a person's parents is a great deal more predictive of their own income in the United States than other countries. France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway, and Denmark all have more relative mobility than the US, while only the United Kingdom is shown to have less mobility. According to this study done by Miles Corak, The United States ratio of relative mobility is 1, whereas the other countries mentioned with more mobility have a range of 1.25 (France) to over 3 (Denmark). However, at least one other recent study has concluded that relative mobility is about the same in the US.

Economic mobility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Oops! Damn... another bubble burst.

The main difference I see between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives whole-heartedly drink the koolaid of extolling the virtues of greed as a good thing.

Or, as someone else put it:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

[TheLastMohican]

Capitalism and free market economy make it all possible in our wonderful country.
It should be noted that many of the social restrictions that conservatives endorse translate to economic restrictions and inefficiencies (e.g. the illegality of prostitution and certain drugs). Don't confuse conservatives with right libertarians.


The main difference I see between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives whole-heartedly drink the koolaid of extolling the virtues of greed as a good thing.

We often find greed distasteful as a personal trait, but we have to recognize that we all possess it, and no government is capable of purging it from our attitudes.

[Tristan]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith
Galbraith was engaged in man's oldest excercise in moral philosophy: convincing some other slob to cough it up. So great for him.

F@#!ing keynesian.


I don't think conservative-liberal (in the American sense) is all that meaningful a distinction, particularly nowadays, where conservatives appear to appeal to the populist values of the working class, while educated upper middle class northeasterners are a core part of the liberal base. I mean Obama won among voters earning >200,000/year. Nonetheless, based on that flawed device I would say these forums are maybe slightly more conservative than the average one I am used to (I am Canadian).

I would expect INTJ's to be less partisan than most others because we are cynical and critical, and nobody's platform ever stands up to scrutiny. We are much more likely to be contrarian I would guess. That is partly projecting from myself, however, as I tend to adopt the least popular side of arguments, and have since junior high (when I was pro-nuclear power and pro-cuts to education, positions my teachers found abhorrent).

I would expect INTJ's to be more fiscally conservative than most others because we are less likely to have empathy, or to be motivated by the bleeding heart sort of arguments about poor Mrs. Jones from Tennessee.

However, I would also expect INTJ's to be more socially liberal. I don't think many of us here are religious, and suspect that the social aspects of religion. Social Conservatism derives a lot of its persuasiveness from social sanctioning and stigmatizing of behavior.
Listen to this man. INTJs make good ideologues because they fixate on ideas as others fixate on people. I don't like the way the term "ideologue" is an insult; it should be a badge of honor worn by thinkers against feelers. The party affiliations are just pure camaraderie; I agree with eternaltriangle that INTJs tend to be "lone warriors;" their individualistic views tending to hamper their chances at fitting comfortably into parties.

The most undeservedly reviled term is authoritarian, though. World War II irreversibly tainted authoritarian to connote columns of soldiers marching down the street in lockstep under flags bearing the symbol of the new order. No one wants that. That is not really what authority is about, right now. Most people in forums like this one espouse ideas that assume a certain trust in authority. The various political compass tests floating around fail to capture it because of the old bias against World War II. To say nothing of the positively ancient bias against religious symbols. The tests' social axis is completely fucked up and designed to make people feel good about their ideas, like they are somehow *fresh.* As if, just because they feel repelled by the organized religions, nationalism, and powerful governments of previous generations, they have not sought out modern replacements for those institutions.

EDIT:
In short, everyone is a closet authoritarian, with the "anti-authoritarian" quarter being quite possibly the most rigid of the lot. The tests fail--posssibly on purpose--to capture the essence of the problem, because people want to feel good about themselves and spam their test results everywhere.

[Tocsin]

everyone is a closet authoritarian...

And the justification for this assertion is... what? You're own authority, perhaps?

Talk about baseless overgeneralizations. It sounds as stupid to me as saying that everyone is a closet homosexual.

[eternaltriangle]

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

The modern liberal is engaged in one of man's other oldest exercises in moral philosophy: proclaiming the existence of the free lunch.

It is true that the incomes of the poorest quintile have grown very slowly in the past three decades. It is less clear that the cause of that is "less government" or banking deregulation. Firstly there have been technological changes that put a premium on education - something members of the poorest quintile don't have. Secondly, that measure only tells you how the worst off are - it doesn't tell you about movement between the quintiles. New people have entered the workforce as others have left - it isn't clear to me that the same poor people are still in the bottom quintile. It would make more sense to look at lifetime incomes.

[Tristan]

And the justification for this assertion is... what? You're own authority, perhaps?

Talk about baseless overgeneralizations. It sounds as stupid to me as saying that everyone is a closet homosexual.

My assertion was justified in the post. I agree that it certainly sounds stupid if taken out of context.

[Lucid]

I fail to see how knowing how to operate a computer correlates to making a person more likely to believe in socialism or communism. Furthermore, PC means "personal" computer, which means your computer is private property, which is totally a capitalistic concept.

hackers just want you to share your information- we shouldn't hate them, we should praise them for bringing the idea of socialism to personal computing.

So... liberal = communist? I don't think you actually understand the terms you're using. Here's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a handy link to the wiki article on communism. Here's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) one to the article on socialism. I hope you'll bother to inform yourself before you post in the future. Polarizing language and misused terms aside, I think it's important to point out that while there are some socialists and communists in the US, there are very, VERY few. They are a minority even among the fringe.


The difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives know that just because someone is cleaning toilets one day doesn't mean they aren't going to be a millionaire the next day. Capitalism and free market economy make it all possible in our wonderful country. Conservatives know that having a business and employing people makes the economy work. Trent Reznor cleaned toilets, and look at where he is today! He wouldn't be where he is without capitalism.

Nobody's been arguing against capitalism. It's nice to have you with us. Please try and keep up. And yes, that's why Abba, a Swedish band, had no success at all. Because Sweden is a socialist country. And Him. They're from Finland. Another socialist country. That guy must not be a successful millionaire.

Liberals see the people cleaning toilets and answering phones as victims and say vote for me I'll make sure the government takes care of you and I''ll make that evil employer of yours pay!

Do you know any liberals?

This keeps people who are cleaning toilets- cleaning more toilets, not encouraging them to start their own business or go to college.

Yeah... I mean look at all those socialist countries in Europe where everyone just lies around doing nothing. And not going to college. You'd have a lot of trouble finding a European with a college education or who owns a business. Damn socialism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Seriously, not only do you clearly lack understanding of the terms you're using, but you obviously don't understand the conversation going on in this thread. Please inform yourself and try again when you're no longer foaming at the mouth.

Like I said before, nobody's been arguing against capitalism. In light of that fact, your post is both hilarious and nutty.

EDIT:

You know, at first I thought you just didn't get sarcasm when I read what you quoted. Then I referred back to that post and saw how far you had to go to pull what I said out of context.
Really? I think most conservatives tend to insulate themselves from people who actually work for a living doing things like cleaning their toilets or answering their phones. I think it leads to these "liberals don't really work!" ideas. Ok, that's mostly trying to make a point, but joking aside, people tend to gravitate toward others who agree with them. As Nikita's post so handily illustrated for us, this can be both a good thing and a bad thing.

Either you don't even know what you're responding to, or you have absolutely no qualms about distorting the other person's views. I hope you are not a representative sample of the mindset among conservative Texans.

[aranae]

oh, my bubble isn't burst in the least. see, I find it interesting that one person calls working for a living and receiving wages something you have to do to eat, have shelter, etc and another calls it greed.

Capitalism is about the FREEDOM to create your own business or product. If it's good enough, you can make a profit. If it's not, you will fail, but you have the freedom to start over again as many times as you want. what you do with that profit is your choice. You can expand your business and hire workers, or you can hoard whatever money you make.

People in third world countries like Cuba are scrambling to get to America, not because they are greedy gold diggers, but because they have dreams of being able just to be paid a decent wage which will allow them to survive and save a little money for their children to be able to attend college or open their own business.

I don't see any refugee boats headed to Cuba or China from the U.S. ...wonder why that is?




Wow! Really?

Economic mobility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Oops! Damn... another bubble burst.

The main difference I see between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives whole-heartedly drink the koolaid of extolling the virtues of greed as a good thing.

Or, as someone else put it:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith





aranae added to this post, 5 minutes and 3 seconds later...

thank you for the good laugh... a minority...

Wow! Really?



Economic mobility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Oops! Damn... another bubble burst.

The main difference I see between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives whole-heartedly drink the koolaid of extolling the virtues of greed as a good thing.

Or, as someone else put it:

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
--John Kenneth Galbraith

So... liberal = communist? I don't think you actually understand the terms you're using. Here's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a handy link to the wiki article on communism. Here's (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) one to the article on socialism. I hope you'll bother to inform yourself before you post in the future. Polarizing language and misused terms aside, I think it's important to point out that while there are some socialists and communists in the US, there are very, VERY few. They are a minority even among the fringe.




Nobody's been arguing against capitalism. It's nice to have you with us. Please try and keep up. And yes, that's why Abba, a Swedish band, had no success at all. Because Sweden is a socialist country. And Him. They're from Finland. Another socialist country. That guy must not be a successful millionaire.



Do you know any liberals?



Yeah... I mean look at all those socialist countries in Europe where everyone just lies around doing nothing. And not going to college. You'd have a lot of trouble finding a European with a college education or who owns a business. Damn socialism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Seriously, not only do you clearly lack understanding of the terms you're using, but you obviously don't understand the conversation going on in this thread. Please inform yourself and try again when you're no longer foaming at the mouth.

Like I said before, nobody's been arguing against capitalism. In light of that fact, your post is both hilarious and nutty.

EDIT:

You know, at first I thought you just didn't get sarcasm when I read what you quoted. Then I referred back to that post and saw how far you had to go to pull what I said out of context.


Either you don't even know what you're responding to, or you have absolutely no qualms about distorting the other person's views. I hope you are not a representative sample of the mindset among conservative Texans.

[void]

People in third world countries like Cuba are scrambling to get to America, not because they are greedy gold diggers, but because they have dreams of being able just to be paid a decent wage which will allow them to survive and save a little money for their children to be able to attend college or open their own business.

I don't see any refugee boats headed to Cuba or China from the U.S. ...wonder why that is?


Yes, clearly that's the only reason why there is a net influx of immigrants from these countries. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with their atrocious civil rights and non-existent political freedom. Or a political system inextricably linked to mass bribery and corruption.

I don't deny that many immigrants are in search of economic freedom, but it is disingenuous to claim that all or even an overwhelming majority of them do so for this reason alone. Also, higher education is heavily subsidized in most socialist countries. One could argue that Cuban universities are not in the same league as those of USA's, but China has a lot of heavy-hitters.

[nacht]

oh, my bubble isn't burst in the least. see, I find it interesting that one person calls working for a living and receiving wages something you have to do to eat, have shelter, etc and another calls it greed.


One moment while I warm myself by the burning strawman (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).


Capitalism is about the FREEDOM to create your own business or product. If it's good enough, you can make a profit. If it's not, you will fail, but you have the freedom to start over again as many times as you want. what you do with that profit is your choice. You can expand your business and hire workers, or you can hoard whatever money you make.


No one here is arguing against Capitalism, a point you seem to miss.


People in third world countries like Cuba are scrambling to get to America, not because they are greedy gold diggers, but because they have dreams of being able just to be paid a decent wage which will allow them to survive and save a little money for their children to be able to attend college or open their own business.

I don't see any refugee boats headed to Cuba or China from the U.S. ...wonder why that is?


You seem to have a talent for false analogies and bad comparisons.

I don't see people in Sweden, Finnland, and Norway taking rafts to the US either. They do the same thing we do when we want to go to China or Cuba (with some indirection, in Cuba's case): they buy a plane ticket.

This has to do with them being Core countries, not with what political economy they run on.

But then, what does this have to do with forums being more left-leaning again?

Liberal != Socialist != Communist, and you seem to be attempting to claim that people are saying "capitalism is bad!" when they aren't.

[firebee]

Capitalism is about the FREEDOM to create your own business or product. If it's good enough, you can make a profit. If it's not, you will fail, but you have the freedom to start over again as many times as you want. what you do with that profit is your choice. You can expand your business and hire workers, or you can hoard whatever money you make.


And the sun shines, the birds sing, and rainbows fly out my ass. Yay!

Tell me, have you ever actually tried such a venture? Or been around people who have? Because somehow I think if you had very much experience at all with small business, you wouldn't be recommending it as the most likely path to a stable living for the average janitor.

I think your view is terribly simplistic. It's entirely possible to support both a broad degree of freedom to innovate while simultaneously advocating regulations or social safety nets for either ideological or pragmatic reasons.


thank you for the good laugh... a minority...

Well, the conservative Texans I've known do generally refrain from misrepresenting other peoples' positions to their face.

[Tocsin]

I don't see any refugee boats headed to Cuba or China from the U.S. ...wonder why that is?

Well, offhand, I'd say the main reason you don't see refugee boats - or even any boats - leaving the U.S. is because where you live is something like 500 miles from any U.S. coastline.

Beyond that obvious fact, the reason you don't see people leaving the U.S. is because the media doesn't say much about it.

People who have a good education and useful skills leave the United States all the time. Most go to pursue specific employment opportunities abroad. Most keep their U.S. citizenship even if they are going to be living abroad for extended periods of time. Many only live in other countries as foreign nationals. If for some reason they do choose to become naturalized citizens of another country, they may choose to remain U.S. citizens as well, if it is not prohibited.

As for people without education or skills (or money), they not only probably lack the means to exit the United States, they lack a destination as well. The only countries they can reach on foot (or by pick-up truck) would be Canada or Mexico, providing they could even get to or infiltrate either of them.

While capable people who are not happy with the U.S. can usually find employers in other countries who would be more than happy to make use of their services, the ignorant, incompetent, and talentless inhabitants of the U.S. have no one else to take them in if they are disgruntled and discontent. Chances are, if they are ignorant, they will have swallowed the corporate propaganda that "we're #1," and truly believe that people in the United States "have it better than everyone else in the world." What happens to those people is a form of internal emigration. They drop off the radar, stop paying taxes, work "under the table" (if they work at all), move to some remote enclave, join militias, hoard weapons, start secessionist websites, and generally rant and foam at the mouth about how liberals, democrats, city-folk, commies, fags, tree-huggers, and atheists have all ruined this country... and sit around drinking beer and cleaning their assault rifles while praying for Armageddon to begin.

But don't ask me to provide you with any foundations for that assertion as well. The Republican party needs the support of those people, and the corporations in control of mass media need the Republicans, so you aren't likely to find anyone "telling it like it is" (especially since Bill Hicks is dead) about the kind of rural redneck rebels Sarah Palin would praise as "Real Americans." And (fortunately for me), just as you can't see refugee boats from the middle of Texas, I live close to Los Angeles... far, far away from the trailer parks of "Real America" (though not far enough, as far as I'm concerned... Orange County is less than fifty miles away!). ;D

[Hatsumomo1]

oh, my bubble isn't burst in the least. see, I find it interesting that one person calls working for a living and receiving wages something you have to do to eat, have shelter, etc and another calls it greed.

Capitalism is about the FREEDOM to create your own business or product. If it's good enough, you can make a profit. If it's not, you will fail, but you have the freedom to start over again as many times as you want. what you do with that profit is your choice. You can expand your business and hire workers, or you can hoard whatever money you make.

People in third world countries like Cuba are scrambling to get to America, not because they are greedy gold diggers, but because they have dreams of being able just to be paid a decent wage which will allow them to survive and save a little money for their children to be able to attend college or open their own business.

I don't see any refugee boats headed to Cuba or China from the U.S. ...wonder why that is?










aranae added to this post, 5 minutes and 3 seconds later...

thank you for the good laugh... a minority...

I think you'd benefit from this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) article.

[Imposcillator]

Yeah... I mean look at all those socialist countries in Europe where everyone just lies around doing nothing. And not going to college. You'd have a lot of trouble finding a European with a college education or who owns a business. Damn socialism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Clearly measures need to be taken. Someone needs to save Sweden from its socialist nightmare (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Tsukasa]

I don't think it really matters. As long as you get a mix of opinons and everyone isn't saying the same thing then it's good enough. Maybe you have just had vocal liberals on your previous forum visits?

[Mikko]

U.S. debate seems to always polarize things based on the cold war era: conservative = capitalism, liberal = socialism?

It has always bugged me why NT's seem to be more conservative in the U.S. The basic essence behind conservative ideas was initially about conserving the existing - more of an SJ domain, IMHO. Before socialism, the binary polarization was about conserving things versus liberty of the individual.

The human brain is a simple knife-edge-discriminating pattern-maker that can only deal with (two) opposites and has little capacity to deal with complex issues with patience. Especially us J's? BUT - the NT personality is usually described to value change, creativity, independence, even anti-authority. SJ's are about rules, law, religion, patriotism - the cornerstones of the conservative ideologies around the world? If someone really prioritizes the values like home, religion and fatherland, then that person ought to take the MBTI test again. Maybe it turns ISTJ after all. Or IxTJ.

Wikipedia:
Historically, in the 18th and 19th centuries, conservatism comprised a set of principles based on concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. This form of classical conservatism is often considered to be exemplified by the writings of Edmund Burke and, in more robust form, Joseph de Maistre and the post-Enlightenment Popes. Contemporaneous liberalism - now called classical liberalism - advocated both political freedom for individuals and a free market in the economic sphere. Ideas of this sort were promulgated by Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill.


So, I guess that makes me a classical liberalist. I believe in individuality, free market, less regulation. But, I do accept other views. It is fine with me that others have different values. I expect the same courtesy from them - I absolutely HATE IT when people try to feed me (or other individuals) their values: I do not like people pushing their religion to me (in school or otherwise), I choose to be less patriotic, I do accept same sex marriage and abortion even as a father of a family.
So, some of my values are OK with the conservative ideas, but some collide big time. Sounds to me as if the conservative ideas are more of our fellow xSTJ's ideas - that I can not completely back up. And the socialist liberalists are OK with some of their views, but their view of the world seems to be that of the NF-types - idealistic. Sometimes the left-wing tends to go towards regulating things rigidly - kind of S(F)J ideas again?

There's a lot of cultural differences here - Europe is certainly totally different from the U.S.

There seems to be no suitable political movement for my INTJ values currently.
Maybe it's because we are a small group (NT in general) - and the political parties serve the masses? I was tested very libertarian + centered (left/right) on the political compass. If the values are normed according to the U.S data, then being European, I suppose I am slightly on the right + very liberal.

It seems odd to me, that an INfp would complain about too liberal writings on the forums. What is the opposite of liberal free speech? Conforming and restricted?
If you mean too idealistic, then I understand your point. :-)

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

[Zsych]

I think that even if you're conservative. It's not easy to express conservative views in the presence of liberals without appearing mean and intolerant.

Let's say you disapprove of gay people internally. But if you say they should for example not be allowed to marry, it feels like you want to hurt them, and you don't want to acknowledge that you want to do something hurtful, and so you won't say it :P

I think the whole liberal side is more emotion driven. More a 'this feels right, this feels nicer', viewpoint.

I don't think that's necessarily wise... for example, people who are over-protective of their children. I thoroughly disapprove of taking away your childrens' chances for growth... it's something you need to be careful about, and just because a kid shows signs of emotional discomfort doesn't mean that you need to be doing something. If I ever have children, I'd want them to be able to make mountains crumble by staring them down (an exagerration, but you get the idea)

btw, one minor issue, that I recall having mentioned elsewhere on the forum, is that we with our more individualistic views, don't necessarily match the stereotypes of liberals or conservatives, even if we are Americans.

[Mikko]

btw, one minor issue, that I recall having mentioned elsewhere on the forum, is that we with our more individualistic views, don't necessarily match the stereotypes of liberals or conservatives, even if we are Americans.

True - that was my point, too. Conservatives sound too SJ and liberals too NF sometimes.
My view would be individualistic. I don't care, what people think, as long as they do not try to change me. In that sense, liberal ideas to me equal freedom of the individuals as was the case in classical liberalism.

[Prunesquallor]

I think the whole liberal side is more emotion driven. More a 'this feels right, this feels nicer', viewpoint.

Often it is. Sometimes, though, it's more about 'since when does being rich entitle you to special treatment? Someone without money still has rights too.' type of rationale. Or about protecting minorities from the prejudice and bigotry of the majority. Which isn't necessarily touchy-feely, just anti-majoritarianism. It claims a few more slash different things as rights. And it also talks more about responsibility - especially the government's responsibility, their job. What they owe their citizens is more than just not bothering them. And so on.

Really most of the disagreements involve arguing about totally different things, since people see and divide reality differently. I've given a few examples of rationalisations people use - there are lots more, of course. There are as many ways of believing in or supporting a position as there are personalities. To associate liberalism with emotion is not even overimplifying, it's just far too generalist to be right. There is that push for some people - there's the push to agree with the people around you, which depends where you are, also emotion driven - there's sf, which believes in tradition, which can be, but isn't always, a conservative push. I've seen self-interest pushed as rational, as opposed to caring about other people - this is clearly silly, since there are perfectly rational ways of caring about other people as well as emotional ways of believing in self-interest. A particular worldview may disagree, but that's only one worldview and it's a bit narrow.

[Zsych]

*Acknowledges oversimplification* That statement was based in explaining why its sometimes hard to oppose some of the more commonly expressed liberal views.

Hmm... I think the rich may be somewhat passing the 'What works' test... if they reach their wealth themselves and don't inherit it.

[Prunesquallor]

I think that even if you're conservative. It's not easy to express conservative views in the presence of liberals without appearing mean and intolerant.

Let's say you disapprove of gay people internally. But if you say they should for example not be allowed to marry, it feels like you want to hurt them, and you don't want to acknowledge that you want to do something hurtful, and so you won't say it :P


Taking away someone's rights isn't hurtful? Of course it is. You want to do something hurtful, that you believe in - if you believe in it, then why would you be ashamed to admit it, to defend it? If you have reasons, then you have reasons. I don't quite understand this example. It sounds like I'm attacking you - but really, I honestly don't get it. You want people to judge you positively...but not by what you genuinely think?

I understand that anyone who brings emotion to the table is very hard to deal with. But I wouldn't accuse liberals of doing it more often than conservatives.

[Zsych]

The difference IMO, is one of individuals vs society. Some actions are potentially beneficial to society and future generations. If they require sacrifices, then it becomes a matter of what you consider a lesser evil.

Let's say a government in a small country has a certain amount of money, and most children are uneducated. It has the resources for one of two choices:
a. Provide basic education to everyone.
b. Provide advanced education to a small population, create research facilities and factories, and hope that in the future these people will be able to contribute to the next generation of everybody.

Hmmm... which do you choose? Option b is the better option with respect to the long term, but in a way it hurts a lot of people, who will never have the opportunity that they as opposed to someone else could've theoretically had. You could alternatively educate everyone a little bit, and hope to god that somehow it's going to work out, and just raising the level of the whole populace will create some opportunities...

There is a point to maintaining a system that is known to work, over risking a new system that is unproven and may well not work.

[Prunesquallor]

The difference IMO, is one of individuals vs society. Some actions are potentially beneficial to society and future generations. If they require sacrifices, then it becomes a matter of what you consider a lesser evil.

Let's say a government in a small country has a certain amount of money, and most children are uneducated. It has the resources for one of two choices:
a. Provide basic education to everyone.
b. Provide advanced education to a small population, create research facilities and factories, and hope that in the future these people will be able to contribute to the next generation of everybody.

Hmmm... which do you choose? Option b is the better option, but in a way it hurts a lot of people, who will never have the opportunity that they as opposed to someone else could've theoretically had.

How does this relate to the gay marriage example? I mean, it costs nothing to give them their rights.

I agree, however, that this is a fundamental difference, and I would pick a - not because it is "nicer," but because education is a right and the government doesn't get to deny it to people - they haven't that right. That, and the elite you create has no reason to give back - they'll probably be selfish.
It's a particular characterisation which leads to this conclusion and I understand why others think differently. How you define "better" is extremely different depending upon your values which are, inevitably, at some level subjective.

Perhaps what you meant originally was that the tendency to demonise conservatives takes the "intolerant bigot" characterisation? Of course, the opposite way, liberals are emotional, naive, unrealistic, and with no understanding of "reality" isn't much better.
I don't know that either side has an advantage, exactly, but I acknowledge the difference in stereotypes. ...well, maybe it is a little better to be called stupid than to be called a jerk. But not by much.

[Zsych]

The gay marriage example wasn't really meant to be a specific example.

It's a matter of understanding the underlying principles... Why is a fireman who loses his life to protect others doing something good, as opposed to something horrible to himself? Humans exist as part of a society, as part of a species. We are not gods. Sex does not exist to give us pleasure, it exists to make people who might otherwise not make that choice, act towards procreation... that is the underlying principle that it serves.

Anyway with option b, potentially the country may come to create things by which the children of the entire country will benefit. Those who lack education and have lacked it for generations, can afford to not have it for a few more.. their lives are not worse for it. By choosing option a, you commit a huge crime against the coming generations, by improperly utilizing the resources that should have benefited them.

--

As far as the issue of gay marriage goes. A simple view of the situation might be that gay people don't cause any more visible harm to society than other people. Letting them marry seems to cause no immediate harm.

[Prunesquallor]

The gay marriage example wasn't really meant to be a specific example.

It's a matter of understanding the underlying principles... Why is a fireman who loses his life to protect others doing something good, as opposed to something horrible to himself? Humans exist as part of a society, as part of a species. We are not gods. Sex does not exist to give us pleasure, it exists to make people who might otherwise not make that choice, act towards procreation... that is the underlying principle that it serves.

Anyway with option b, potentially the country may come to create things by which the children of the entire country will benefit. Those who lack education and have lacked it for generations, can afford to not have it for a few more.. their lives are not worse for it. By choosing option a, you commit a huge crime against the coming generations, by improperly utilizing the resources that should have benefited them.

--

As far as the issue of gay marriage goes. A simple view of the situation might be that gay people don't cause any more visible harm to society than other people. Letting them marry seems to cause no immediate harm.

That would presume that these benefits would actually go to the entire country, instead of the privileged elite you create by giving only a small number education, and better jobs, and better salaries, and better health care, and better....
I mean, it's really in their best interest to keep the population stupid, isn't it? Look at history - that's what they do over and over and over....
I guess more of a lefty point of view is that people are selfish little bastards and there will be no equality without some legislation to help it out. And that this is the government's job. Benefiting a small group of people and giving them power and resources does not necessarily turn them into charitable, giving people who want to help their country. Heck, in a lot of cases like this, most educated people move, to get a better life - the 'brain drain' effect. There are so many potential problems, claiming one side is fundamentally right is a little short-sighted.

I'm not really interested in arguing why leftist views are "better," though - I'm vastly outnumbered in this forum anyway and I don't expect either of us will convince the other, and it will just go on and on and on... I'm just trying to understand what you said, why it's so hard for conservatives to say their views.
Would that stereotype/demonisation thing have been your point? As for the gay marriage example - there are still questions you have not answered. Why would you not want to defend it? And why is that someone else's fault? Again, demonisation of the other side (which every side does) takes a particular character you dislike? Is this it?

[TheLastMohican]

I think the whole liberal side is more emotion driven. More a 'this feels right, this feels nicer', viewpoint.
Most people's political views are primarily emotion-driven. To generalize most inexcusably: conservatives are driven by fear, and liberals are driven by entitlement.

[Prunesquallor]

Most people's political views are primarily emotion-driven. To generalize most inexcusably: conservatives are driven by fear, and liberals are driven by entitlement.

That's kind of funny - most people I know say conservatives have the entitlement complex.
(just generalisation obv don't kill me etc.)

[Zsych]

@Prune: Honestly, I would consider the existence of one human to be worth more than that of a million ants... and honestly in the example case I created... one: some basic good will is assumed, and two: the expansion of a middle class is valuable and I think many people understand that.
... I'd rather not work off of a "people are evil" assumption.

On the gay rights issue... Compared to the past they have vastly more rights now. Beyond that, the question of gay marriage. I suppose if I opposed it, it would be based in the fact that society is complex. Additions that do not cause any real benefit and may have unknown side-effects are best not added without some level of testing. Like let's say... allowing gay marriage in a few states, and then seeing a hundred years down the line, if not two hundred, what the consequences of that choice were.

You see, I personally have no emotional objection to it. My only problem is with change that serves no useful purpose and whose consequences are not known. In that respect, a lot has changed in the past several decades, with no real long term thought put into much of anything. Ultimately you need to have a meaningful purpose, and you need to be able to measure success or failure. That is what bothers me personally. I value thought and intelligent action over emotions.

[Prunesquallor]

@Prune: Honestly, I would consider the existence of one human to be worth more than that of a million ants... and honestly in the example case I created... one: some basic good will is assumed, and two: the expansion of a middle class is valuable and I think many people understand that.
... I'd rather not work off of a "people are evil" assumption.

On the gay rights issue... Compared to the past they have vastly more rights now. Beyond that, the question of gay marriage. I suppose if I opposed it, it would be based in the fact that society is complex. Additions that do not cause any real benefit and may have unknown side-effects are best not added without some level of testing. Like let's say... allowing gay marriage in a few states, and then seeing a hundred years down the line, if not two hundred, what the consequences of that choice were.

You see, I personally have no emotional objection to it. My only problem is with change that serves no useful purpose and whose consequences are not known. In that respect, a lot has changed in the past several decades, with no real long term thought put into much of anything. Ultimately you need to have a meaningful purpose, and you need to be able to measure success or failure. That is what bothers me personally. I value thought and intelligent action over emotions.

Recognising people's rights isn't a useful purpose to you? Odd. It's just "emotional"? A belief in human rights is just emotional instead of based on thought and intelligent actions. Hm. Haven't heard that one before... And a fear of consequences? Look at the other countries which have legalised it. No one's legalised sex with animals yet ;) Seriously, though, dismissing the argument of anyone who disagrees with you (or the hypothetical you) as "emotional" will make you no friends.

I'd rather not work off of the 'people are evil' assumption either, but it seems to be more realistic than the 'rich people will do what's best for the poor' one.

You still are not addressing my questions. I think at this point I'll just assume what I've interpreted your meaning to be is right, since you don't care to explain it.

[TheLastMohican]

That's kind of funny - most people I know say conservatives have the entitlement complex.
(just generalisation obv don't kill me etc.)
Conservatives fear the entitlement of others, which might look like a form of entitlement in and of itself.

My comment was based mainly on my impressions of republican and democratic campaigning styles. Republicans tend to stress defense ("We need a bigger army so we can boss around the world!") and social restrictions ("Protect marriage from the evil gay agenda!"), while Democrats tend to stress feel-good utopian visions ("Everybody deserves [insert desirable item here]!") and corporate restrictions ("The big bad CEOs are making too much money! Give it to us!").
When you ask a dirt-poor conservative about welfare, shis first reaction is to clutch shis money jar, fearing you are going to snatch it from shim to distribute the money to others. When you ask a dirt-poor liberal, se will demand to know why se is not getting enough of it.


This is an interesting study:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Zsych]

@Prune: The stereotype/demonization - yes. People don't want to be considered evil. They don't want to consider themselves that way (most of the time)

On to the other issue... I suppose the basic question would be 'how do you define people's rights?' Didn't I say earlier that we aren't gods, giving value to ourselves by ourselves? People have no true universal rights. If someone stops you from being able to breathe, the universe will not intervene to stop you from having stolen something that was rightfully yours.

Humans vary, but there are underlying meanings in those actions. The difference between 'what should have been' and 'what is'. A serial killer for example, is a defective human being... doesn't mean he doesn't feel that what he's doing is right. Heck a fat man, is destroying himself by over eating... Making decisions about the future of the human race, based on emotions is risky business. All of those people who are yet to be born - those who will be born, also deserve respect.

(Speaking simplistically) It would be sensible for example, to outlaw people being allowed to be fat.. heck even they themselves would be happier :)



I choose to hope that the people who will come to be in the future will be superior to us. Not our equals.

[Lucid]

But your operating under a false premise. In fact, the same argument can be made against conservatives. They don't want their money to go towards something that will improve an entire society. They feel it's unfair that they be asked to help pay for basic education for everyone, despite the fact that a more educated society is better to live in for everyone, including them.

You're saying that it's better for everyone if only a few are educated and worse for everyone if most people have opportunities that come with higher levels of education. How, exactly does that work? What's worse for everyone is really better for everyone? It's mean because you're denying them opportunities but it's better for society as a whole if most of its members are kept in poverty?? That seems to be your argument. And it doesn't make much sense.

There are both emotional and logical arguments for liberalism. Just as there are both emotional and logical arguments for conservatism. Proclaiming that the people who disagree with you do so because they are thinking with their emotions and you are thinking with your reason - on an issue as complicated as partisan politics - is such a ridiculous statement as to be worthless. It shows only your basic lack of understanding of the issues involved and why people make the political choices that they do. Thank you, please drive through.

[Prunesquallor]

Conservatives fear the entitlement of others, which might look like a form of entitlement in and of itself.

My comment was based mainly on my impressions of republican and democratic campaigning styles. Republicans tend to stress defense ("We need a bigger army so we can boss around the world!") and social restrictions ("Protect marriage from the evil gay agenda!"), while Democrats tend to stress feel-good utopian visions ("Everybody deserves [insert desirable item here]!") and corporate restrictions ("The big bad CEOs are making too much money! Give it to us!").
When you ask a dirt-poor conservative about welfare, shis first reaction is to clutch shis money jar, fearing you are going to snatch it from shim to distribute the money to others. When you ask a dirt-poor liberal, se will demand to know why se is not getting enough of it.


This is an interesting study:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can see how some liberalism looks like entitlement, but I notice it generally being framed more in terms of responsibilities (usually the government's) than rights. Maybe that's a Canadian thing, though - I imagine it's much different in the States, which is pretty right-wing anyway, even the "left." Or maybe it's something else. I do take your point, though.

A lot of times I see liberal defenses being like "no we're not saying we deserve the money, we're saying corrupt rich corporations don't." And the money should then go to social programs, blah blah blah, but the original point is that rich people don't get rich on their own, so they need pay back something. It's essentially the same thing, but the different way of characterising it makes a difference to people.

@Prune: The stereotype/demonization - yes. People don't want to be considered evil. They don't want to consider themselves that way (most of the time)

On to the other issue... I suppose the basic question would be 'how do you define people's rights?' Didn't I say earlier that we aren't gods, giving value to ourselves by ourselves? People have no true universal rights. If someone stops you from being able to breathe, the universe will not intervene to stop you from having stolen something that was rightfully yours.

Humans vary, but there are underlying meanings in those actions. The difference between 'what should have been' and 'what is'. A serial killer for example, is a defective human being... doesn't mean he doesn't feel that what he's doing is right. Heck a fat man, is destroying himself by over eating... Making decisions about the future of the human race, based on emotions is risky business. All of those people who are yet to be born - those who will be born, also deserve respect.

(Speaking simplistically) It would be sensible for example, to outlaw people being allowed to be fat.. heck even they themselves would be happier :)


I choose to hope that the people who will come to be in the future will be superior to us. Not our equals.

Indeed, how one defines rights is important. And that's down to fundamental values, Fi, emotionally-based, etc. on both sides. Since there is no objective way to determine rights, since, as you said, we make them up, emotion and history and such play a role. Honestly, it looks like you're implying that anyone who disagrees with you must be using emotion, since rationality leads to your conclusion, inevitably. I hope that's not the case, since that's revoltingly narrow-minded and ignores the fact that all values are based in emotion, but you really are giving off that impression. Possibly it's just in the phrasing - if so, be careful of that.

[TheLastMohican]

I can see how some liberalism looks like entitlement, but I notice it generally being framed more in terms of responsibilities (usually the government's) than rights.

Different packaging, but the message is the same. "You have a responsibility to give me your money" is the essentially the same as "I have a right to your money." Liberals also tend to see social responsibilities ("We all need to take care of each other," which is a friendlier approach than "You need to take care of me"), but my comments on the emotions were mainly focused on the negative aspects, and the often unpleasant human trait of an exaggerated sense of entitlement is most apparent in liberal attitudes.

[Prunesquallor]

Different packaging, but the message is the same. "You have a responsibility to give me your money" is the essentially the same as "I have a right to your money." Liberals also tend to see social responsibilities ("We all need to take care of each other," which is a friendlier approach than "You need to take care of me"), but my comments on the emotions were mainly focused on the negative aspects, and the often unpleasant human trait of an exaggerated sense of entitlement is most apparent in liberal attitudes.

No, not most apparent in liberal attitudes. But otherwise I understand you. I did say it was essentially the same, but that isn't always what matters to people. I mean, social responsibility can be - and often is - argued for people who are paying the taxes, not just those that benefit without contributing. That's not nec. entitlement, it's about a different definition of what constitutes rights that need to be protected and one's expectations of the government. The what's mine is mine is mine and clearly I live in a vacuum so I owe no one anything and mine is mine sort of attitude also reeks of entitlement. It depends on one's perspective.

[phej]

Let's say a government in a small country has a certain amount of money, and most children are uneducated. It has the resources for one of two choices:
a. Provide basic education to everyone.
b. Provide advanced education to a small population, create research facilities and factories, and hope that in the future these people will be able to contribute to the next generation of everybody.

Hmmm... which do you choose? Option b is the better option with respect to the long term, but in a way it hurts a lot of people, who will never have the opportunity that they as opposed to someone else could've theoretically had. You could alternatively educate everyone a little bit, and hope to god that somehow it's going to work out, and just raising the level of the whole populace will create some opportunities...

There is a point to maintaining a system that is known to work, over risking a new system that is unproven and may well not work.

I don't understand the dichotomy between (a) and (b). Assuming that (b) is a better choice, how do you identify the members of the "small population" that will make the next generation better? It seems as though the prerequisite to (b) is (a).

[TheLastMohican]

No, not most apparent in liberal attitudes.
I meant that it is apparent in liberal attitudes more than in conservative ones, not that it is the main factor of the former.

[phej]

A lot of times I see liberal defenses being like "no we're not saying we deserve the money, we're saying corrupt rich corporations don't." And the money should then go to social programs, blah blah blah, but the original point is that rich people don't get rich on their own, so they need pay back something. It's essentially the same thing, but the different way of characterising it makes a difference to people.

I always interpreted these liberals as being elitists. "I know better how to manage capital than these corrupt corporations. Give me your money."

I always thought that the rich became rich because they didn't spend as much as they earned. As such, why should somebody else decide how to spend their wealth?

[Prunesquallor]

I meant that it is apparent in liberal attitudes more than in conservative ones, not that it is the main factor of the former.

No. Maybe that's the stereotype where you're from, but no. It isn't.

For example - naivete, and irresponsible emotionalism is the stereotype for liberals here. Entitlement is the right-wing guys.



Prunesquallor added to this post, 5 minutes and 55 seconds later...

I always interpreted these liberals as being elitists. "I know better how to manage capital than these corrupt corporations. Give me your money."

I always thought that the rich became rich because they didn't spend as much as they earned. As such, why should somebody else decide how to spend their wealth?

It's rather more about - let's have the people who have the citizen's interests in mind (theoretically the government) legislate on their behalf occasionally. Not about being "better" just about actually having an interest in the citizens when the corporations do not.

[TheLastMohican]

No. Maybe that's the stereotype where you're from, but no. It isn't.

Conservatives feel they are entitled to their own possessions, so they do have a sense of entitlement. What makes the liberals' exaggerated is the sense of entitlement to others' possessions in addition to their own. Nobody says and believes "What's mine is yours." We all believe "What's mine is mine," and some additionally believe "What's yours is mine." The latter is obviously a more extreme sense of entitlement.

[Prunesquallor]

Conservatives feel they are entitled to their own possessions, so they do have a sense of entitlement. What makes the liberals' exaggerated is the sense of entitlement to others' possessions in addition to their own. Nobody says and believes "What's mine is yours." We all believe "What's mine is mine," and some additionally believe "What's yours is mine." The latter is obviously a more extreme sense of entitlement.

Nope.
"What's 'yours' is not really yours since you got it with a hell of a lot of help which you might consider acknowledging" is not the same as "What's yours is mine."
Plenty of people believe "what's mine is yours" and act accordingly. It's rarely normal, but it's not impossible or even necessarily rare. There are people who believe in paying taxes, believe it or not.
It's less about taking away someone's property than about questioning how much of what they have actually is theirs, is what they're entitled to, what they deserve. To say one is more entitled than the other is to presume your definition of property is right. You can argue your side, but it is not "obviously" right.

It's a different way of seeing what people possess and how much they've earnt, and how much of that was to them and how much was to the society which helped them. It draws the lines of property rights differently. If you're on one side, the other looks like entitlement. Neither side is better.

[phej]

It's rather more about - let's have the people who have the citizen's interests in mind (theoretically the government) legislate on their behalf occasionally. Not about being "better" just about actually having an interest in the citizens when the corporations do not.

I though that's what conservatives did? (e.g. no abortion, no gay marriage, etc)

But then again, I believe that "conservatives" and "liberals" in America do that: they believe that their way of thinking ought to be law. They're both basically authoritarian in nature.

[TheLastMohican]

"What's 'yours' is not really yours since you got it with a hell of a lot of help which you might consider acknowledging" is not the same as "What's yours is mine."

What kind of help are you referring to? Corporations get their money from profitable exchanges, so are you saying that the customers deserve something simply for paying for the goods or services? Wouldn't that be more efficiently evened out by just lowering the prices?


Plenty of people believe "what's mine is yours" and act accordingly. It's rarely normal, but it's not impossible or even necessarily rare. There are people who believe in paying taxes, believe it or not.


I know some do, but this is about making gross generalizations. Also, most of those who "believe in paying taxes" are keeping in mind that they benefit from the taxes they pay. Very few people would willingly pay taxes to a government that offered them no services in return.

It's a different way of seeing what people possess and how much they've earnt, and how much of that was to them and how much was to the society which helped them. It draws the lines of property rights differently. If you're on one side, the other looks like entitlement. Neither side is better.

Again, I don't understand what "help" society deserves credit for. Those who are successful in society are still members of society themselves.

[Prunesquallor]

I though that's what conservatives did? (e.g. no abortion, no gay marriage, etc)

But then again, I believe that "conservatives" and "liberals" in America do that: they believe that their way of thinking ought to be law. They're both basically authoritarian in nature.

Well yes, there's an annoyingly paternalistic element to most philosophies. But some leave people alone more than others.





Prunesquallor added to this post, 2 minutes and 57 seconds later...

...Again, I don't understand what "help" society deserves credit for. Those who are successful in society are still members of society themselves.

And?

You don't have to understand it - I'm just saying your point isn't fundamentally "obviously" right - your values determine what you believe and why you think liberals are 'taking away people's rightful property' and others don't see it that way. And how far they can go with that, and so on.

Basically, that "what's yours is mine" does not equate to "who says it was yours to begin with?"

[TheLastMohican]

You don't have to understand it - I'm just saying your point isn't fundamentally "obviously" right - your values determine what you believe and why you think liberals are 'taking away people's rightful property' and others don't see it that way. And how far they can go with that, and so on.
What I said was "obvious" was that feeling entitled to others' possessions in addition to your own is a greater sense of entitlement than feeling entitled only to your own. What you are describing sounds like a more socialistic view, in which one sees shis own possessions as being partially owned by others, as well as others' possessions being partially owned shimself. While a dysfunctional worldview in my opinion, that is at least not blatant hypocrisy.

Do you understand what the "help" is supposed to be, and how it is valued?

[Prunesquallor]

What I said was "obvious" was that feeling entitled to others' possessions in addition to your own is a greater sense of entitlement than feeling entitled only to your own. What you are describing sounds like a more socialistic view, in which one sees shis own possessions as being partially owned by others, as well as others' possessions being partially owned shimself. While a dysfunctional worldview in my opinion, that is at least not blatant hypocrisy.

Do you understand what the "help" is supposed to be, and how it is valued?

That would be obvious - the definition of the property lines makes that not the case so it's not relevant. I am familiar with a more "socialistic" viewpoint, by American standards, so this is more what I can discuss. I'm sure there are raging hypocrites in all camps. I am less familiar with current American liberalism - perhaps they define property the same as conservatives but project more entitlement - but that is not the only way of believing this sort of thing, clearly.

Help = all the benefits one gets from being in a society - police, legislation, health care so you can continue running your business, education, protection of inheritance laws etc....it differs depending upon whom you argue with, as with the importance of each and how directly you should give back and a lot of other things. There are so many camps. Essentially, though, the idea that no one lives in a vacuum and most of your work would be worth shit without a society to value and protect it. It's not hardly the only factor either - this is a whole complicated mish-mash - but that's a rough idea.

[Lucid]

Conservatives feel they are entitled to their own possessions, so they do have a sense of entitlement. What makes the liberals' exaggerated is the sense of entitlement to others' possessions in addition to their own. Nobody says and believes "What's mine is yours." We all believe "What's mine is mine," and some additionally believe "What's yours is mine." The latter is obviously a more extreme sense of entitlement.

This is a false dichotomy. The reality is that our system works thusly: we all pay a certain amount into a system that we all benefit from. It's not "You give me your money for nothing because I'm entitled to it!" it's "we all want police officers, so I'll pay a little for them and you pay a little for them and they will work for all of us."

When the liberals come to your door, TLM, and demand your money so they can use it to buy fancy cars and new shoes, do let me know.

It's unhelpful to have discussions in which we all go about using a lot of polarizing language and exaggerating. It's much better if we speak realistically.

You can opt out of living in a society. This will make it so that you don't have to pay taxes that fund other peoples' education, health care, protection, etc. but it also involves living in a shack in the woods in Montana and going without power or indoor plumbing.

Society has benefits, it also has drawbacks.

[TheLastMohican]

Help = all the benefits one gets from being in a society - police, legislation, health care so you can continue running your business, education, protection of inheritance laws etc....it differs depending upon whom you argue with, as with the importance of each and how directly you should give back and a lot of other things. There are so many camps. Essentially, though, the idea that no one lives in a vacuum and most of your work would be worth shit without a society to value and protect it. It's not hardly the only factor either - this is a whole complicated mish-mash - but that's a rough idea.
The reality is that our system works thusly: we all pay a certain amount into a system that we all benefit from. It's not "You give me your money for nothing because I'm entitled to it!" it's "we all want police officers, so I'll pay a little for them and you pay a little for them and they will work for all of us."



This doesn't sound like a distinctly liberal viewpoint. Taxes are commonly accepted. The difference in approach between liberals and conservatives is that the former usually believe that those who earn the most should pay the most, regardless of what they gain from the system, while the latter usually believe that the amounts (or at least the percentages) should be consistent.

[Lucid]

This doesn't sound like a distinctly liberal viewpoint. Taxes are commonly accepted. The difference in approach between liberals and conservatives is that the former usually believe that those who earn the most should pay the most, regardless of what they gain from the system, while the latter usually believe that the amounts (or at least the percentages) should be consistent.

This is a vast oversimplification. 20% isn't the same for everyone. If someone makes $22,000 a year, 20% is a much greater chunk of wealth to me than it is to someone who makes $220,000 a year. The percentage itself may be the same, but in terms of how it will affect one's life is vastly different. Liberals think that the people that earn more should pay as much as the people who earn less, they just measure that differently than conservatives do.

It's not that what I'm talking about isn't a liberal viewpoint - it's that it appears that you misunderstand the liberal viewpoint.

This is the case with most political issues honestly. People use the same logic and reasoning, but arrive at different places because of it.

[LaoTzu]

I'm more liberal than Jesus... and I don't want anything from you TLM...

The basic difference between Liberal and Conservatives lies in concepts on morality.

Conservatives think of humans as inherently evil. Humans need to be 'coerced' into goodness via respect for authority, punishments and rewards for good behavior, adherence to 'doctrine' (which could be religious, law, political, moral....). Humanity needs to be controlled, otherwise society will degenerate.

Liberals see humans as inherently good. People, given access to 'the basics' will generally be productive and good-natured. Access means---the ability to provide for themselves (nobody, but NOBODY says that people should get something for nothing...and if you really believe that, i feel sorry for you.) Basically, give a person a job, and some sense of security; and they will live peaceful and happy lives. Humanity needs to be nurtured, in order to achieve greater heights of progress and to avoid a tyranny by a minority.

[TheLastMohican]

This is a vast oversimplification. 20% isn't the same for everyone. If someone makes $22,000 a year, 20% is a much greater chunk of wealth to me than it is to someone who makes $220,000 a year. The percentage itself may be the same, but in terms of how it will affect one's life is vastly different. Liberals think that the people that earn more should pay as much as the people who earn less, they just measure that differently than conservatives do.

When I say "most," I am speaking numerically, not trying to guess what arbitrary value a liberal might attach to a percentage. What you see as a "vast oversimplification" is just the objective measurement, as opposed to a hopelessly convoluted definition.

There has been a lot of discussion about the generalization of liberals; I wonder if any conservatives here will take issue with their part of the comparison?

[Lucid]

When I say "most," I am speaking numerically, not trying to guess what arbitrary value a liberal might attach to a percentage. What you see as a "vast oversimplification" is just the objective measurement, as opposed to a hopelessly convoluted definition.

There has been a lot of discussion about the generalization of liberals; I wonder if any conservatives here will take issue with their part of the comparison?

No, I'm not taking issue with your use of the term "most." What I mean is that you appear to be misunderstanding the reasoning behind the liberal idea that those who make more should pay more in taxes. What I'm trying to explain is that liberals agree with conservatives that everyone should pay roughly the same in taxes, but they measure that amount using a ratio that's more related to cost of living and disposable income than a hard percentage rate.

Saying that liberals hold the views they do because of a sense of entitlement is trying to guess at what arbitrary value a liberal would attach to a percentage.

In addition, saying that conservatives are motivated by fear is something of an oversimplification as well. I think fear, as well as entitlement, can be applied equally to both liberals and conservatives.

The biggest difference I see is a perception about the roll of government: Which spheres of one's life or of society government should control.To oversimplify a bit myself, liberals tend to believe that government should regulate business and finance (banking, credit, just to name a few). Conservatives tend to believe that government should regulate civil and personal issues (gay marriage, religion and abortion, just to name a few).

[TheLastMohican]

What I'm trying to explain is that liberals agree with conservatives that everyone should pay roughly the same in taxes, but they measure that amount using a ratio that's more related to cost of living and disposable income than a hard percentage rate.

I understand that difference, and that some liberals might have no sense of special entitlement if they use their own definition of what is equal taxation. I have not seen it reasoned out in that way before, however. In my experience, liberals speak in terms of the rich having too much money (by some moral or ethical standard). It's rather like the abortion issue with conservatives: a few oppose it based on their ideas of consistent human rights protection, but most just say that abortion should be illegal because God doesn't like it, or they try to come up with human characteristics in embryos for more emotional punch. This line of discussion started with statements about how emotion drives politics, so I'm not talking about the sophisticated few in my generalizations.


I think fear, as well as entitlement, can be applied equally to both liberals and conservatives.


How so?

[Prunesquallor]

I understand that difference, and that some liberals might have no sense of special entitlement if they use their own definition of what is equal taxation. I have not seen it reasoned out in that way before, however. In my experience, liberals speak in terms of the rich having too much money (by some moral or ethical standard). It's rather like the abortion issue with conservatives: a few oppose it based on their ideas of consistent human rights protection, but most just say that abortion should be illegal because God doesn't like it, or they try to come up with human characteristics in embryos for more emotional punch. This line of discussion started with statements about how emotion drives politics, so I'm not talking about the sophisticated few in my generalizations.

How so?

Never heard that. I've heard stuff about how letting people become obscenely rich at the expense of others points to a flaw in the system, stuff about trying to lessen the gap between the rich and the poor, but not as a rationale the way you mean, not at all. Is that an American thing or are you not quite understanding? Because that really just sounds like the other side's oversimplification.
From what I've seen, a lot of the American "left" has a sort of confused, almost schizo approach to defending their points, since so much leftist ideology has been demonised. They seem to be defending "leftish" points of view but having to use a very conservative rhetoric to justify it instead of using a rationale that would do it justice. It's odd and mildly confusing. But of course, I'm no expert on the American 'left' - I don't believe I've ever met anyone that right-wing in real life, I just read about it.

[aku chi]

A lot of times I see liberal defenses being like "no we're not saying we deserve the money, we're saying corrupt rich corporations don't." And the money should then go to social programs, blah blah blah, but the original point is that rich people don't get rich on their own, so they need pay back something.
In my experience, liberals speak in terms of the rich having too much money (by some moral or ethical standard).
Never heard that. I've heard stuff about how letting people become obscenely rich at the expense of others points to a flaw in the system, stuff about trying to lessen the gap between the rich and the poor, but not as a rationale the way you mean, not at all.
:suspicious:
Am I missing something, Prunesquallor? Isn't a liberal view that the rich have too much money (at least relative to the poor) consistent with with your above post about rich people not deserving their riches? Personally, I don't see a meaningful difference unless you interpretted TheLastMohican's liberal characterisation to not contain an implicit 'in comparison to the poor' sentiment.

And yes, TheLastMohican's liberal characterisation is common in the USA. Former Senator John Edwards is notorious for suggesting that America was a divided nation of 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The liberal philosophy demands that the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' should be reduced. Practically, this results in (amoung other things) transfer taxes from the 'haves' to the 'have-nots'. This is, perhaps, the sentiment of liberal ideology that I resist the most. Like all people, I would like the poor in our world to be better off. Unlike many liberals, I would prefer to focus our institutions on increasing the size of the pie instead of sharing the pie more equally (another broad generalization).

(BTW, sorry for butting in TLM)

[phej]

Very stupid question: What is a "Liberal" and what is a "Conservative"? It seems as though there is no agreement on what those terms mean.

[Prunesquallor]

:suspicious:
Am I missing something, Prunesquallor? Isn't a liberal view that the rich have too much money (at least relative to the poor) consistent with with your above post about rich people not deserving their riches? Personally, I don't see a meaningful difference unless you interpretted TheLastMohican's liberal characterisation to not contain an implicit 'in comparison to the poor' sentiment.

And yes, TheLastMohican's liberal characterisation is common in the USA. Former Senator John Edwards is notorious for suggesting that America was a divided nation of 'haves' and 'have-nots'. The liberal philosophy demands that the gap between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' should be reduced. Practically, this results in (amoung other things) transfer taxes from the 'haves' to the 'have-nots'. This is, perhaps, the sentiment of liberal ideology that I resist the most. Like all people, I would like the poor in our world to be better off. Unlike many liberals, I would prefer to focus our institutions on increasing the size of the pie instead of sharing the pie more equally (another broad generalization).

(BTW, sorry for butting in TLM)

Yes, you are missing something.

Inequality is bad is not he same as x much money is bad. The 'implicit comparison' was not clear, and had nothing to do with my original point you quoted, either...

Also, to dumb it down to the idea of money transfer is a complete mischaracterisation. The money goes to social programs and such that are for everyone. These programs need a certain amount of cash to run, so one takes it from the people who benefit - ie everyone. Since participation/benefit is not entirely voluntary - you can refuse to take advantage of free health care, but the police are making your neighbourhood safer whether you like it or not - then it's not entirely fair to take more than a person can afford for them. One attempts to calculate it such that whatever one takes from each individual is not a significant burden to them, grading etc.

It's not just rich giving money to poor. That is a bizarre and inane mischaracterisation. It's rich paying more to what benefits everyone since the money is needed and it's not a burden to them to do so.

And the majority, decides, by their vote, what these social programs are. If the majority believes in welfare, then that happens, and it's not victimising or stealing from rich people. They each have votes - and can pay lobbyists and buy off politicians and basically have a lot more resources to get what they want than everyone else.

[LaoTzu]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's only a recent invention that the rich are being asked to pay higher taxes... in fact, they had almost always paid higher taxes.

To offer a different perspective on why the rich need to pay higher taxes (besides the already valid reasons provided above): The concentration of wealth in the hands of only a few is dangerous for democracy. In fact, it's easy to see that the world's most powerful government is run by a corporate elite... and The will of the people isn't really being served by that government. (No matter who's in power)


I couldn't care if they burned all the money taxed from those making too much... Yes, there is such a thing as too much... There should really be a salary cap ....

[phej]

To offer a different perspective on why the rich need to pay higher taxes (besides the already valid reasons provided above): The concentration of wealth in the hands of only a few is dangerous for democracy. In fact, it's easy to see that the world's most powerful government is run by a corporate elite... and The will of the people isn't really being served by that government. (No matter who's in power)

I couldn't care if they burned all the money taxed from those making too much... Yes, there is such a thing as too much... There should really be a salary cap ....

Yes, a plutocracy is probably a bad thing, but wealth inequality is not necessarily a bad thing. If the distribution of income or wealth is skewed such that a supermajority is well above the poverty line, who cares that there are individuals who earn 1000x the median income? From an absolute sense, this seems like a better society than one in which incomes are capped which will move the distribution towards poverty. People are unhappy about their wealth or income status because they compare themselves against their neighbors or the super rich. They'd be much happier if they compared themselves to previous generations.

Before the Industrial Revolution, the average individual didn't live a good life: it was probably back-breaking farming. I certainly do not want to return to subsistence living.

[aku chi]

I couldn't care if they burned all the money taxed from those making too much... Yes, there is such a thing as too much... There should really be a salary cap ....
There you go, Prunesquallor. LaoTzu thinks that the rich have too much money. This sentiment is the one that I understand the least and despise the most. There is enough conflict when we share the same goals (increasing the welfare of the poor). When people actually desire to decrease the wealth of the rich for its own sake; that I cannot understand.

Prunesquallor, I think that the very word rich has a relativistic implication. People who were considered rich in 1000 AD would not be rich by our standards. It follows that 'the rich having too much money' is equivalent to saying 'the rich have too much money relative to the poor' and 'income inequality is too large'.

[Prunesquallor]

There you go, Prunesquallor. LaoTzu thinks that the rich have too much money. This sentiment is the one that I understand the least and despise the most. There is enough conflict when we share the same goals (increasing the welfare of the poor). When people actually desire to decrease the wealth of the rich for its own sake; that I cannot understand.

Prunesquallor, I think that the very word rich has a relativistic implication. People who were considered rich in 1000 AD would not be rich by our standards. It follows that 'the rich having too much money' is equivalent to saying 'the rich have too much money relative to the poor' and 'income inequality is too large'.

It doesn't entirely follow, no, though they are related. The second one makes sense, the first sounds a bit crazy. So if you want to make the 'liberal' side look bad, you pick the first wording, which tends to ignore the reasons. It's an unadmirable rhetorial trick.

I believe things like there's too much money in certain people's pockets not because having that kind of luxury is bad, but because so many people are starving and dying of things that their pocket change could cure. The problem is that people are poor, not that some are rich. The latter is a problem only because people are poor and dying and not being helped. And there are people who get salaries that are disproportionate to the work they do, which also bothers me, etc. The point about the salary cap is a bit questionable to me, and I had not ever heard, and it's interesting, but the first - about protecting democracy: this is extremely significant. Also, saying the creation of an elite and serious income equality can be a danger to democracy is a little different from 'there's something morally/ethically wrong with being rich' or whatever was said earlier.

I'm just saying, you can characterise something your own way, according to your values - but if you're attempting to describe someone else's position, you should take into account their values and their characterisation. It sounded a lot more like over-projecting your values onto an opposing explanation, which is weird and not that useful a way to understand anyone else.

[Lucid]

How so?

Conservative fear: "the liberals will take your money, the muslims will bomb you, you are not safe."
Liberal fear: "The conservatives will strip you of your first amendment rights, they will make it legal for people to work under conditions found now in the 3rd world or here at the turn of the century and make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage."

Conservative entitlement: "This is a Christian nation, I can tell you who you can and can't marry, I won't pay into the system but I'll reap the benefits of it when I need to."
Liberal entitlement: Actually I think it's been covered.

I have not seen it reasoned out in that way before, however. In my experience, liberals speak in terms of the rich having too much money (by some moral or ethical standard)
And I have to ask, have you heard liberals say this, or have you heard from conservatives that liberals say this? If the former, why do you think it's an accurate representation of the majority?

When people actually desire to decrease the wealth of the rich for its own sake; that I cannot understand.

I think you are misunderstanding the liberal position.

[TheLastMohican]

Conservative fear: "the liberals will take your money, the muslims will bomb you, you are not safe."
Liberal fear: "The conservatives will strip you of your first amendment rights, they will make it legal for people to work under conditions found now in the 3rd world or here at the turn of the century and make it illegal to have sex outside of marriage."

Conservative entitlement: "This is a Christian nation, I can tell you who you can and can't marry, I won't pay into the system but I'll reap the benefits of it when I need to."
Liberal entitlement: Actually I think it's been covered.

Fair enough; consider the generalizations muddled. I still see differences consistent with my original comment (the liberals' fears seem more related to their entitlements, and the conservatives' entitlements seem more related to their fears), but psychologically speaking, the instincts are hard to separate.


And I have to ask, have you heard liberals say this, or have you heard from conservatives that liberals say this?
I've heard stuff about how letting people become obscenely rich at the expense of others points to a flaw in the system, stuff about trying to lessen the gap between the rich and the poor, but not as a rationale the way you mean, not at all. Is that an American thing or are you not quite understanding? Because that really just sounds like the other side's oversimplification.

I have heard that explanation, oversimplification though it may be, from both liberals and conservatives. The funny thing is that they regard the same principle with opposite emotional reactions. Liberals tend to see the rich as evil oppressors (excepting, interestingly, those who get rich in the entertainment industry), and conservatives tend to see the rich as worthy of admiration, and sometimes as victims of the poor.

Prunesquallor, what kinds of political positions and arguments do you encounter in your area? Do you have something similar to the American right-to-left spectrum?

[Prunesquallor]

Prunesquallor, what kinds of political positions and arguments do you encounter in your area? Do you have something similar to the American right-to-left spectrum?

Well, our right-most party is a little left of your Democrats, socialism isn't a dirty word, and government is much less demonised. Most of the arguments are about the government's responsibilities rather than the people's rights, from what I see. There is also lots of bullshit; the conservatives especially like character assassination...yada yada.

It's like the same spectrum, only shifted over a lot to the left, with different expectations of the government and a bit more trust. We expect them to be a bit bumbling or incompetent, rather than out to steal our rights.

Our liberals are not much the way you've described - some of the arguments you ascribe to liberals sound crazy or like an opponent's dumbed-down version, which your interpretation still sounds like, and a lot of the government's responsibilities your country might disagree with are taken for granted so the arguments are different, and the oversimplifications and misinterpretations different. They're also in bed with the corporations a lot, since they've been in power so long. Basically, a bastion of compromise - but still far left to the States.

..also the spectrum is, as ever, an oversimplified yes stupidly divisive way of characterising things, same as in every place that uses it.

[Tristan]

liberals speak in terms of the rich having too much money (by some moral or ethical standard)
And I have to ask, have you heard liberals say this, or have you heard from conservatives that liberals say this? If the former, why do you think it's an accurate representation of the majority?

Four posts above yours, when LaoTzu said, "I couldn't care if they burned all the money taxed from those making too much... Yes, there is such a thing as too much... There should really be a salary cap ...."

-> I took it that he was not acting the part of a "conservative straw man," but speaking his mind.

Now that you mention it, though, I am certain the premises of a majority of liberals are that the poor need more money (as opposed to the rich needing limits). While there is a difference in origin, the results of these two paths of thought are still similar.

[Zsych]

@Lucid and Prune: You're not exactly getting the point of what I've been saying.

First, you can in fact define parameters by which the quality of a society can be judged. Let's say economic output, occurence of major crimes (showing the mental state of the people making up the society) etc.

And Second, I'm saying that ultimately, what matters is the benefit of the people, emotions exist as part of the system that makes up humans, they exist for the benefit of the human race, and that is actually what matters.. benefit to the human race. In the absence of information on which choices are really good in the long term, what is needed is testing. Thus change the laws in some states, and wait and see what the effects are over time. Considering that you're looking at effects on society though, the time frame for that test would have to be decades long, if not longer so you can properly see what happens, and how different choices compare...

(You see, the real options are: trust in god to know what is right, test things yourself to determine what is right, or just do whatever you want with no thought to the consequences)

Honestly, we do not deserve to be making across the board choices, when countless generations of humans are in front of us and our choices affect them all.

Not that it matters really... people will make emotional choices, and civilization will evolve chaotically as usual. And perhaps like countless civilizations in the past... fall.


@phej:


Let's say a government in a small country has a certain amount of money, and most children are uneducated. It has the resources for one of two choices:
a. Provide basic education to everyone.
b. Provide advanced education to a small population, create research facilities and factories, and hope that in the future these people will be able to contribute to the next generation of everybody.

Hmmm... which do you choose? Option b is the better option with respect to the long term, but in a way it hurts a lot of people, who will never have the opportunity that they as opposed to someone else could've theoretically had. You could alternatively educate everyone a little bit, and hope to god that somehow it's going to work out, and just raising the level of the whole populace will create some opportunities...

There is a point to maintaining a system that is known to work, over risking a new system that is unproven and may well not work.


I don't understand the dichotomy between (a) and (b). Assuming that (b) is a better choice, how do you identify the members of the "small population" that will make the next generation better? It seems as though the prerequisite to (b) is (a).


Where one could conceivably do testing to find better candidates and that may be a better way to do things, that isn't the point.
Just focusing resources on one city, vs. a hundred, would give you more resources with which to raise the level of that one city. Universities in one city, vs. low level schooling everywhere. Even if those that go to the universities aren't the best and the brightest, there will be a fair number who will achieve a much higher level than is allowable by everyone having limited education... and those more advanced people have the potential to create something more worthwhile than the countless primitives would've had. With what these people create, there would be a chance for the whole country to prosper in the generations to come (although not today).

Its a long term approach that will potentially bring benefit, vs. an approach that would have no significant effect on the lives of anyone... Of course, it does require that you trust your brethren to not be evil. Its a route where a lot of people sacrifice something for the common long term good.

[Prunesquallor]

I do get your point. I just disagree with it. And it has nothing to do with "emotion." It is entirely possible for a person to disagree with you without being emotional. Do please try to understand that.

It requires trust in rich people - sorry, I have none.
It requires sacrifice - unless the poor people are happy to remain poor while a bunch of rich people get richer and get better opportunities, then this is inadequate - you cannot force people to sacrifice all of their opportunities for the benefit of other people, unwillingly. This is a genuine sacrifice, not just a little tax or something. If they agree - if the majority votes for that - this is different. I wouldn't personally, even if I were the one to benefit. It's this funny idea that democracy is good and that poor people probably don't want to suffer just so the rich can get richer.

Frankly, I would not be impressed if the government told me I couldn't get opportunities so that a very few other people could get great ones, make the country better for their children - and maybe my grandchildren, if the rich elite really felt like it down the road (fat chance), but my children wouldn't get the benefits of education to improve things themselves; they'd just still be stuck without much help from their own government in their own country. I'd just have to trust that rich people would eventually help my family long after I die. Seriously, screw that.

Edit - I was stressing the "it's not just emotion" point because you seem to dismiss all liberal opinions as having a basis in emotion - where, I suppose, you think your side is logical and therefore superior blah blah. Basically, what Lucid said is right - there's a basis in emotion for all opinions. Liberal opinions, however, are no more emotion-based than conservative ones - that's a complete fallacy so stop saying it.

[Lucid]

Zsych,

Your points are rather arbitrary and seem to be mostly based on your untested opinions. It is impossible to empirically test a social science such as you're suggesting because there's no way to allow for controls and because there are myriad outside influences that will interfere with your test.

Also, what you're missing about my point is that there are both emotional and logical reasons for any political ideology. The system we have now is not as you have described it, the options you have laid out are, for the most part, not actually viable or logical or reasonable and those "options" are not the only ones available to society in any case.

[firebee]

I'm saying that ultimately, what matters is the benefit of the people, emotions exist as part of the system that makes up humans, they exist for the benefit of the human race, and that is actually what matters.. benefit to the human race.



Also, what you're missing about my point is that there are both emotional and logical reasons for any political ideology.


Basically, what Lucid said is right - there's a basis in emotion for all opinions. Liberal opinions, however, are no more emotion-based than conservative ones - that's a complete fallacy so stop saying it.

See, if you would shuffle this way a little bit, and you shuffle that way a bit, and you come forward a bit, we can get on to the "violent agreement" phase and then the orgy. I could make guacamole, and I have the other Official Ingredients of a redneck party, provided that you don't mind cloves in the T component.


In the absence of information on which choices are really good in the long term, what is needed is testing. Thus change the laws in some states, and wait and see what the effects are over time. Considering that you're looking at effects on society though, the time frame for that test would have to be decades long, if not longer so you can properly see what happens, and how different choices compare...

(You see, the real options are: trust in god to know what is right, test things yourself to determine what is right, or just do whatever you want with no thought to the consequences)


It's comforting to think that we have the ability to operate society wholly based on rational analysis and experimentation. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any evidence that this is anything more than a plot device in Starship Troopers. We do, essentially, test things to determine what is right. Then we argue about what the results actually are, what the results actually mean, and what results we actually want. When you add those factors in to this Platonic concept of pure reason, what you get is pretty much the world we have.

Consensus and certainty are a vain dream. Yet we still have to make decisions in the face of imperfect knowledge.


Honestly, we do not deserve to be making across the board choices, when countless generations of humans are in front of us and our choices affect them all.


True. Particularly across-the-board choices about attempting to reduce everything to a series of rational studies in hopes of finding the One True Solution.


Of course, it does require that you trust your brethren to not be evil.

Or dumb. Neither is a particularly good bet to make.

I do get your point. I just disagree with it. And it has nothing to do with "emotion." It is entirely possible for a person to disagree with you without being emotional. Do please try to understand that.


It's possible to do so, but in this case you're talking entirely of values rather than facts. Which is perfectly fine. The error that "the other guy" makes is that there is some sort of problem with disagreeing on the basis of emotion, and that for that matter they are not doing so. Because, after all, vein-popping table-pounding temper tantrums are the wholly rational response to encountering different values.


It's this funny idea that democracy is good and that poor people probably don't want to suffer just so the rich can get richer.


What component of this is not emotional? The assignment of the value "good" to the governmental system of "democracy"? The implication that the poor not wanting to experience suffering has any significance? The implication that the "rich getting richer" is of no value or of negative value?


Edit - I was stressing the "it's not just emotion" point because you seem to dismiss all liberal opinions as having a basis in emotion - where, I suppose, you think your side is logical and therefore superior blah blah.


Zsych's side is, essentially, the side of monotonous grinding logic. If I understand it right, of course. Why put all of this language about "dismiss all liberal opinions" and "therefore superior" around it?

The problem is not all this hullabaloo about whether liberals are being unjustly characterized as "emotional" -- the problem is that the concept of finding values from logic is a contradiction in terms, and that the idea of constructing strict and formal trials of every given concept is essentially a proposal to break a stable system in order to satisfy an emotional attachment to the completeness of data.

Not that I don't have an emotional attachment to complete data, mind -- just that I accept that as a limited human there's always going to be a little corner of that attachment that remains unsatisfied.

[Prunesquallor]

Values are just the first principles. You can still rationalise them, and develop a logical structure based on them. Logic is then a central component in this.
That emotions are used as data points doesn't mean that the decision is emotional. Not that would necessarily be bad, but a values-based decision/opinion does not qualify as emotional simply because emotion is a basic aspect of it, or has some small relevance to it.

[Zsych]

Ahh... we're in the middle of a very iffy topic now :P

@Prune: We have a difference of opinion here. I believe it's the better choice to have faith in others typically. That strong societies require good will... and that we are just links in a chain of generations of humans, extending back and forward thousands of generations. Not everyone agrees with that viewpoint.

As far as emotional conservatives and liberals go - yes, there are emotional people and emotional decisions on both sides. Emotions are not precisely separated from logic. They have logic of sorts underneath them. Usually though, its not very developed logic. A guy who commits suicide because his girlfriend dumped him has majorly over-reacted to the situation. Its not that it wasn't a problem, or that he shouldn't have tried to resolve it...

Anyway, looking at it from a non-emotional perspective.. yes, if your countrymen(who btw, are assumed to start off at the same level as you) aren't trustworthy, then the idea isn't worth as much... in which case you're probably better off thinking of a better option than options a or b.

btw, as far as my liberal or conservative classification goes. I share views with both.. and some that neither would agree with :P

@Lucid: I agree that the situation is fuzzy. Setting up controls isn't easy, differentiating the consequences of different acting variables wouldn't be easy. But let there be some thought behind actions, some attempt at structure.. and some security. What bothers me primarily is the lack of backups, for if we make bad decisions and they come to fruit in future generations.

The current economic crisis for example, has a long background. Its not that no one could foresee this happening... Choices were made without fully appreciating long term effects, and thus we're in trouble. The whole world is in trouble.

Also, I think its not that there can't be a way to model human societies, only that we haven't developed one yet.

Also, what you're missing about my point is that there are both emotional and logical reasons for any political ideology.

I think its emotional views and incomplete logic, although I do agree with your point and won't say that a complete view can be developed easily.

The system we have now is not as you have described it, the options you have laid out are, for the most part, not actually viable or logical or reasonable and those "options" are not the only ones available to society in any case.


God was the old solution(in how society should be run and what need concern people). Trying to come up with models for long term analysis, is a possibility... very hard. Validating them similarly hard.
Besides those... what do we have to say that our choices are valid? We say that the old system is wrong, but how do you prove that the proposed system is better when we're talking about a complex system that none of us fully understand? The bigger problem in general being that there is no attempt to prove anything. No way to measure effects. People are trying to do what they believe is right but right as proven by what?
'Feels right' 'Feels wrong'... Not to say that there is never any reasoning, or that reasoning might not be correct. It's just the lack of a more long term view.

In the past, I don't think civilizations changed very fast.. a lot remained the same. Lately, a lot is changing. It could be well enough for things to continue as they are going, but like with the economic crisis, I expect more trouble in the future in more ways.

@firebee: Not quite what I'm saying. Although one final solution would be nice. It might even exist.
Hmm... I'm actually inclined to say that a certain level of certainty might actually be reachable, as in science - if we can create and prove our theories... coolness.


The problem is not all this hullabaloo about whether liberals are being unjustly characterized as "emotional" -- the problem is that the concept of finding values from logic is a contradiction in terms, and that the idea of constructing strict and formal trials of every given concept is essentially a proposal to break a stable system in order to satisfy an emotional attachment to the completeness of data.


My problem actually is that by my estimate, we have changed a possibly uncool but nevertheless somewhat stable system, and we're changing it further so that it's not the same from one decade to the next... and the system is still unproven. What's worse is the globalization going on where everyone is slowly picking up similar values.

The USSR thought it was based on good ideas. It flunked. Right now we're not exactly doing too well either, and what will be in the generations to come...

Humans are different from most animals in that our intelligence allows us to go beyond just emotion based decisions. But really most humans can't even make decisions that deal with years forward in their own future. What is really needed for the human race (as opposed to humans) is some kind of yet higher intelligence that can understand not just a month or year from now, but decades and centuries as effect vast numbers of people. (Governments as they are, being a primitive version of something that could actually be stable and beneficial consistently)

@Prune: You think after 8 years of Bush, that democracy and government as you know it, is a good idea?

... Democracy by it's nature, by the fact that the government has to please the populace now or get kicked out... is IMO, a government style with a short term view of things. It's not like the people are demanding wisdom.


... and yes, I know I'm wasting my time saying this.

[Prunesquallor]

@Prune: You think after 8 years of Bush, that democracy and government as you know it, is a good idea?

... Democracy by it's nature, by the fact that the government has to please the populace now or get kicked out... is IMO, a government style with a short term view of things. It's not like the people are demanding wisdom.

... and yes, I know I'm wasting my time saying this.

I'm not American. My world is not your country and most certainly not 'government as I know it' - there are plenty of others places where it works better. And I've been saying for years that the States isn't a real democracy. Though I'm hoping the new guy, much as I disagree with a lot of things he says, will start to rebuild the shambles of your sorry excuse of a 'democracy' while he's in power.
No offense. I mean it in the "your government betrayed you" sort of way.

Yes, democracy is a bad system in some ways. Morons and the ignorant and the prejudiced get a vote. And places where the media is in bed with corrupt politicians, feeding soundbite sized bullshit to the apathetic...that affects things. But it's the best system we've found, so far. There just need to be systems to protect it - avoid privileging an elite too much (*ahem*), freedom of the press, etc... There are ways to make it better than what you have. Much better.

[Zsych]

... ah yes. The "the other person is not in the US" blunder is usually somewhat embarassing.

I'm not even sure democracy can be considered the best we've found. Its just currently the most popular. A bunch of the democracies in the rest of the world haven't exactly been doing a good job either of late. Who knows what they'd be up to if they had more power.

I think ultimately though, there needs to be developed a very transparent system of merit by which worthwhile leaders are developed and allowed to come to power... after an agreement on the primary principles they represent :)

[Prunesquallor]

What do you think is better than democracy, of what has been tried?

[DurrRuhRurr]

Wow, for a post I admittedly didn't think through very carefully it sure generated a lot of discussion.

For the record, I consider myself to be neither conservative nor liberal. Politics seems to be such a spin game to me.

[larkin]

Hah, I'm coming in late, so take things with a grain of salt.

I will say my experience with conservatives is that they tend to believe we all have the same value set, and I think Prune rightfully points out we do not. For example: I'm from North Carolina and was an economics major. I had a pretty Milton-Friedman-style conservative viewpoint up until college. Where I met a guy from Holland, also an economics major, and had a whole host of debates on which economic system was better, the U.S. or the E.U.?

Arguing for the U.S., I had marshalled my data. GDP. Production rate. Median income. Hell, even average income. (This was pre-recession.) And he blew it all to hell: "what's the point of all of that? 12% of your country lives below the poverty line. 2% of mine does."

My point is not now his point; plenty of people can take issue with that statement. I'm no bleeding heart, I would describe myself first and foremost as a utilitarian. My point is only that I never even considered that he would be seeking to maximize different resources than the ones I was always told were right and true and good.

That may or may not be true of all conservatives, but in my experience more so than liberals, and at least in part reflected by the horror seen here on the concept of trying to minimize income inequality.

[lookit]

The media in the U.S. is more liberal than the general population. It varies from company to company, but the average is rather obviously shifted to the left.

How did you get this impression that the media is more liberal? How is it obvious?

[BryyM]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. The link does describe a little what social democrats want in a health care system, our biggest problems is health ques, in our system as i see it. I do think that social democrats are the best. And that striving to utopia is the way to go, we sure as hell won't get there without trying to go there. I cannot see any country reaching it in 500years to 1000years of time, but maybe in 2000-3000years. Politicians do seem to be to short sighted by my point of view. I am not going to say much more in the discussion as i don't see anyone saying anything to undo that view.

[Synapse]

Hah, I'm coming in late, so take things with a grain of salt.

I will say my experience with conservatives is that they tend to believe we all have the same value set, and I think Prune rightfully points out we do not. For example: I'm from North Carolina and was an economics major. I had a pretty Milton-Friedman-style conservative viewpoint up until college. Where I met a guy from Holland, also an economics major, and had a whole host of debates on which economic system was better, the U.S. or the E.U.?

Arguing for the U.S., I had marshalled my data. GDP. Production rate. Median income. Hell, even average income. (This was pre-recession.) And he blew it all to hell: "what's the point of all of that? 12% of your country lives below the poverty line. 2% of mine does."

My point is not now his point; plenty of people can take issue with that statement. I'm no bleeding heart, I would describe myself first and foremost as a utilitarian. My point is only that I never even considered that he would be seeking to maximize different resources than the ones I was always told were right and true and good.

That may or may not be true of all conservatives, but in my experience more so than liberals, and at least in part reflected by the horror seen here on the concept of trying to minimize income inequality.

Yes, I agree with you here. Liberals tend to have a more "economic leveling" idea, while conservatives believe in giving people more money to compensate for our rampant poverty.

Also, the stereotypes of conservatives being much more traditional holds true as well in my opinion. Never have I heard such a staunch supporter of something that never worked from a conservative, and that's practically the only viewpoint they'll ever see. The example of this is income tax, which should be raised higher, especially the millionaire tax, but conservatives are completely against this as all they want to do is just give more money to themselves.

And yes, that was completely subjective, I understand. I'm a relatively newcomer to this kind of political "liberal vs. conservative" forum argument.