Why do you support the right?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Asher

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

I didn't know there was such a thing as pro-corporate. I think that people have a right to form corporations and as long as they abide by the laws set forth by the government there shouldn't be any problems.

Ok, I was mistakened about you.

Here are some of my general opinions:

Corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily enact regulations that would protect the environment.

Corporations will exploit workers beyond reason without government legislation and regulations. (but what about government officials who pig out on corporate fundings/bribes??)

There are many more corporations that take away from society, than there are that contribute some of their wealth back to society. Did I say that there are NO charitable corporations?? No, I did not say that.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun
Corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily enact regulations that would protect the environment.

Unless, of course, it was an environmental corporation.

Corporations will exploit workers beyond reason without government legislation and regulations. (but what about government officials who pig out on corporate fundings/bribes??)

Not all corporations will. Actually, many large corporations give employees very ample pay and profit sharing.

There are many more corporations that take away from society, than there are that contribute some of their wealth back to society. Did I say that there are NO charitable corporations?? No, I did not say that.

There are also more people who take away from society than contribute to it.

The problem with all of this anti-corporation rhetoric, is someone could replace "corporation" with "people" and it'd be the same argument. Not all corporations are corrupt, not all people are murderers. Not all corporations are greedy bastards, not all people are greedy bastards.

Corporations are simply groups of people who make a product/service and get money for it, they're not inherently evil or anti-environmental. And I wish the lefties would stop mistaking that.

[Ned]

red_jon, the problem of the government using businesses as providers of welfare should be inherently obvious. Such a system would cripple businesses in the country that imposed it, rendering the whole country impoverished because its goods and services simply could not compete with businesses from countries where businesses were free.

Welfare, job training and tax breaks for moving expenses, etc., can be provided by the government directly. It is job 1 of any government to see that its own businesses have the tools and the freedom to compete on the world stage. To the extent that a government fails in this duty, it is cheating its citizens and robbing them of a better standard of living.

[monolith94]

I always support what's right………

[Dinner]

Originally posted by red_jon
What if there are no jobs offered in the area? How could you apply for a position that doesn't exist?

The anwser is simple. If you are a master widget maker and they are not hiring widget makers in your town then you move to another town where they are. You can't just sit on your butt and wait for someone to bring the perfect job to you; if you can't find what you're looking for where you are then you settle for something else or you look some where else.

[Giancarlo]

Redjon, if no jobs are offered in that area that person better find a different field. I am sorry but you cannot interfere with the basics of capitalism. That will cause utter destruction and will ruin everything like what has occured in Argentina.

Argentina has over 500,000 state workers that don't do anything and a 25% unemployment rate, along with 50% of the population living below the poverty line. That is socialism at work.

[Sprayber]

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -1.95

hmmm

[Dry]

I didn't read all the posts here, but I read some of them and there is something that surprised me.
One argument of right-wingers is the individual freedom!?!?
I would have say the opposite. For me, individual freedom is an argument for being left-winger.
And it seems that the graphic of red_jon gives me right.
If you look at it, you will noticed more left-libertarians than right-libertarians. And if there are only 3 left-authoritarians, there are 6 right-authoritarians.
And the difference is even bigger, if you look at the ratio lib/aut among leftists and rightists.
When a rightist talk about individual freedom, I don't say bushlit, but I am very sceptical.

[Giancarlo]

There are right-libertarians, right authoritarians, left authoritarians and left libertarians. Neither side can take all of the credit for saying they want freedom. Rather it is 50/50. I usually find that leftists want to steal economic freedoms, whereas a rightist (such as me) wants to put restrictions on personal freedoms.

[Ned]

Dry, I somewhat agree with your post. Economic rightists also tend to be law and order types. Social liberals, aka, anarchists, also tend to be leftists. The "individualism" of the right is a code word for economic freedom, particularly the right for every many to make it big, if he can.

Did you notice how far to the right and how fascist Blair was? I am surprised he is the head of Britains Labor party.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Fez


No, infact that would lead to an eventual downfall to the economy.

Government intervention is a good thing when the market economy is failing. Disparities in supply and demand conditions.

Government interventtion is also important in maintaining controls over inflation, exchange rates, balance of payments etc..

Personally I see a government like a doctor - it should do nothing but make sure everything is in good working order. When things go wrong it should be there to correct the problem.

[Adam Smith]

Economics of Charity

Charity is a classic example economists call a "market failure", in this case known as a "public good". If you and I both want to do something for the poor, and I am willing to give money, then there is less reason for you to do so. Given this tendency to shirk, privately run charities will never provide the appropriate amount of help for the poor. The economy will be better off if government provides this service and compels all taxpayers to pay.



On a separate topic, if you wonder why many right-wingers distrust government, this recent editorial from the Washington Post provides an example.

Who Repays Ms. Orshansky?

Saturday, August 17, 2002; Page A16

THE SCALES of justice tipped in the direction of Mollie Orshansky this week when the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled that a Superior Court judge had abused her power by ignoring Ms. Orshansky's wishes and putting her under the care of court-appointed lawyers. But justice has come at a steep price, and it is the innocent Mollie Orshansky who is being made to pay.

Ms. Orshansky, an elderly woman now suffering from dementia, had made it plain before her illness that when she became too old or sick to care for herself, she wanted to live under the care of her New York relatives in a Manhattan condominium she had bought for that purpose. The evidence of that was there to see: a trust she created in the 1990s giving her sister authority to write checks and pay bills for her retirement, and reports from neighbors and relatives indicating she wanted to move to her New York condo a few floors from her sister when the time came. When Ms. Orshansky was found incoherent on the floor of her D.C. apartment, however, the city's Adult Protective Services had her placed in a D.C. hospital. Enter Judge Kaye Christian, whose contribution to the mess in the life of Mollie Orshansky became the focus of the appeals court ruling.

Learning that her aunt, Ms. Orshansky, was hospitalized, Jane Pollack took her out of the hospital to have her live in New York with full-time help. Ms. Orshansky could afford it with her $2 million estate. Judge Christian, however, would have none of it.

The judge called an emergency hearing and appointed a lawyer to bring Ms. Orshansky back to the District and to oversee her care and money. Over the past eight months, $44,000 of Ms. Orshansky's estate has been eaten up by lawyers' fees, and the lawyers could have claimed even more. Just about everything connected with the judge's rulings was wrong, said the appeals court. Besides the judge's ignoring or rejecting pieces of evidence, there was the fact that the court-appointed lawyer never met or spoke with Ms. Orshansky -- though the law requires that -- yet the lawyer waived her client's presence at a hearing, stipulated to her client's incapacity and presented no evidence of her client's wish to go to New York. Another court-appointed lawyer made snap decisions about what was best for Ms. Orshansky without evidence. The case was so badly handled by Judge Christian and the lawyers that the higher court overturned all of the judge's orders and rulings.

That represents justice for Mollie Orshansky. But only up to a point. Her estate is out $44,000 to lawyers who failed to represent her interests. Her family is out more than $60,000, spent on lawyers to defend Ms. Orshansky's wishes. And Mollie Orshansky, a retired economist famous for creating the federal poverty line more than 40 years ago, is, through no fault of her own, all the poorer. Where's the justice in that?

© 2002 The Washington Post Company

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


Government intervention is a good thing when the market economy is failing. Disparities in supply and demand conditions.

I take, then, you are in favor of farm subsidies.

This is the kind of government intervention that causes harm, IMHO.

[Dauphin]

How do you follow that logic?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dry
When a rightist talk about individual freedom, I don't say bushlit, but I am very sceptical.

Some rightists are authoritarian and still try to talk about freedom (see Fez), some rightists are libertarian and talk about freedom in both the economic and social senses.

That's what right wing liberals are all about. It's about having a choice in the marketplace, it's about having a choice in life -- it's truly about individual freedom.