Selfish Left-wingers

[Caligastia]

What definition?

[Clear Skies]

How do you tell who is 'deserving' and who isn't?

And also, if you believe that only those who are deserving should be given help, should only those who are deserving be allowed to have wealth?

[Provost Harrison]

I saw the title of the thread and didn't even have to look at who composed it. Stew on the troll again. I must say though Stew, this is hardly imaginitive, very run-of-the-mill. A meagre 1/10 for this display.

[chequita guevara]

You're being rather generous, Provost.

[Provost Harrison]

He got 0.999 of that for perseverence

[Boris Godunov]

Libertarianism is the most inherently selfish of the idealogies. The reason Libertarians haven't been able to put together a cohesive party in the U.S. is because there is no consensus among them of how far to take it, and since they're all approaching it from a selfish perspective, their political are so contradictory that they can't hope to see eye-to-eye and form a political force.

Just look at your own Web site, Ozzy. Serious issues are glossed over in one-sentence, banal comments, while an entire paper is written on the drinking age. Go ahead and admit that you guys want the laws changed just so you can party hearty, and don't give us the pedantic B.S. that it's some sort of moral crusade.

Likewise, Libertarians hate taxes not because they think they're morally wrong (that's their convenient side-reason), they hate them because they don't like paying taxes. Yet they still drive on federal highways, enjoy government services such as police, fire, sewage, water, the military, etc. They just don't want to pay for it. Why? Selfishness.

They want to end immigration not out of any concern for the nation, but out of selfishness (and borderline racism).

So give the Selfishness Award to the Libertarians!

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Libertarianism is the most inherently selfish of the idealogies. The reason Libertarians haven't been able to put together a cohesive party in the U.S. is because there is no consensus among them of how far to take it, and since they're all approaching it from a selfish perspective, their political are so contradictory that they can't hope to see eye-to-eye and form a political force.

Just look at your own Web site, Ozzy. Serious issues are glossed over in one-sentence, banal comments, while an entire paper is written on the drinking age. Go ahead and admit that you guys want the laws changed just so you can party hearty, and don't give us the pedantic B.S. that it's some sort of moral crusade.

Likewise, Libertarians hate taxes not because they think they're morally wrong (that's their convenient side-reason), they hate them because they don't like paying taxes. Yet they still drive on federal highways, enjoy government services such as police, fire, sewage, water, the military, etc. They just don't want to pay for it. Why? Selfishness.

They want to end immigration not out of any concern for the nation, but out of selfishness (and borderline racism).

So give the Selfishness Award to the Libertarians!

I thought libertarians could be either left or right wing. Do you mean classical liberals? I would say I'm left libertarian/ social democratic.

[chequita guevara]

The left is hardly selfish. Selishness implies keeping things for yourself. We don't keep stuff for ourselves. We distribute it. That's the opposite of selfishness, generousity.

OzzyKP, while it is true that the Right generally makes a great fuss about voluntary charity, the truth is they generally fail to follow though. As governmental "charity" has declined, so has corporate charity. We are living in extremely stingy times.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by red_jon
I would say I'm left libertarian/ social democratic.

You cannot be both for and against statism at the same time. Either you are a left-libertarian, i.e., an anarchist or you are a social democrat, i.e., nanny-statist.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You cannot be both for and against statism at the same time. Either you are a left-libertarian, i.e., an anarchist or you are a social democrat, i.e., nanny-statist.

I thought left-libertarians and social democrats were the same thing (i.e both at the lower-left of the political compass).

[Thucydides]

I think the right wing should stop *****ing and learn all the loop holes on how to evade taxes if they hate them so much. After all, which situation is more beneficial, one in which nobody pays taxes, or one in which everyone else pays taxes except for you. I for example, I'm paying no federal taxes what so ever since I'm in a war zone. Anyway, they're always around the system if people stopped gripping and instead looked towards a personal solution.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by red_jon


I thought libertarians could be either left or right wing. Do you mean classical liberals? I would say I'm left libertarian/ social democratic.

Yes, but I was just trying to demonstrate how easy it is to assume the intentions of someone you don't agree with are selfishly-motivated. I don't think all libertarians are selfish, but it sure is easy to paint them that way. Just as its easy to paint anyone anyway you choose, given the right wording.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Yes, but I was just trying to demonstrate how easy it is to assume the intentions of someone you don't agree with are selfishly-motivated. I don't think all libertarians are selfish, but it sure is easy to paint them that way. Just as its easy to paint anyone anyway you choose, given the right wording.

I thought you were libertarian - for improving the civl rights of individuals (and the opposite of authoritarian)?

[Sava]

Re: Selfish Left-wingers

Originally posted by Boddington's
They want to steal your money in order to pay for their next fancy idea, like paying teenagers to have children or allowing illegal migrants to break into our country; but if a right-winger states that he should be allowed to keep the fruits of his labour, that is greedy?

The fruits of the labor that you describe, wealth, is acquired through greedy and unfair business practices. Inflating prices for profits beyond a reasonable level, not compensating workers, paying outrageous salaries to executives and CEO's. Many corporations don't even pay taxes in the first place.

As a left winger, I am against allowing illegal immigrants in, or offering any kind of amnesty to them. My mom and her parents came to the US the legal way, started fresh and succeeded. If they did it the legal way, everyone should.

Face it Boddington.... capitalism is an evil system. The driving force is the acquisition of wealth. Greed. And it doesn't matter who you step on in your journey to the top. Society needs to be structured so that one cannot accumulate extraordinary amounts of wealth at the expense of others. But I don't believe in supporting lazy people.

At the minimum, there should be:
free education
free health care
free utilities
free transportation
free food (basic, nothing extravagant)

Beyond that, there should be fair and honest wages for jobs done, and rewards for innovation and excellence.

Communism wasn't the answer, neither is complete capitalism. There needs to be a balance in between the two.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Clear Skies
How do you tell who is 'deserving' and who isn't?

As I said, those who are willing to help themselves.

And also, if you believe that only those who are deserving should be given help, should only those who are deserving be allowed to have wealth?

Only those who earn their money should have any.