A question for Apolyton's righties

[chequita guevara]

Fez said he's never coming back.

[Traianvs]

aha, I missed something here? what's up with him ?

[Arrian]

I just used him as a harmless example (all the more harmless if he's gone for good, eh?).

-Arrian

[JCG]

Even if A doesn't sound bad in theory, the options are obviously biased, so neither.

[Japher]

Errr, matey, don't you have any idea that there are poor people that don't have any money, not because they're lazy, but because they don't get the chances that others have, or simply because of bad luck (or various other reasons).

I read in the paper that many American programmers etc have to go to charity organisations in order to get a bowl of soup and some other food... Now they're not really to blame actually, many ppl look hard for a job, but sometimes they just can't find it...

Also is it so fair then that some people earn huge amounts of money just by doing nothing, or nearly nothing, and others have to do hard labour and still get a meager amount of money?

Que?

When did I attack anyone? All I gave was a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical answer. I attacked no one, nor did I make any gross generalization. All I stated is that I want to be rewarded for MY hard work and recognized for ME overcoming my difficulties, bad luck, and stents at the soup line. Is that so bad? Is it soooo bad that I can't have what I want in a hypothetical world, or even this one for that matter? I didn't say that I would get there by stepping on toes, being the source of others ill will, or by firing some poor sod.

You may fancy yourself some caring, feeling, giving humaitarian because you WANT to help others succeed and better themselves, and maybe you are. Yet I have a hard truth to share; life is not fair, and it never will be.

So while everyone continues to whine and cry about not having (money, opportunities, and handouts) I will be out there earning and making my own money, creating my own opportunities, and handing out my own handouts. So that one day I will be actually BE ABLE to help some people out of their dilemas and into a life full of success and other amenities that come with living the American Dream, instead of still being a whinner and consoler of failures.

[DuncanK]

Re: Re: A question for Apolyton's righties

Originally posted by Ned


I absolutely am convinced that much of the world's leftism is caused by a reaction to Hitler, Tojo and Mussulini.

What?!

Leftism is the result of an inadequate capitalist system. There are always more leftists in a country where the capitalist system is doing very poorly.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Edan


Well, my comment was meant to be a joke, but I'd say the non-wealthy right-wingers who vote to get tax cuts (particularily since, as far as I can tell, thats the one single issue that tends to be pretty consistent amoung all republicans).

I don't think many poor rural white voters who vote Republican do so because of the tax issue. See the gun issue there. Then there's also the religious right vote, which is also largely out of self-interest.

Arrian--I didn't say left wingers always vote out of selflessness. I just believe being right-wing inherently involves adopting a more selfish ideology. That's not necessarily making a value judgment on that ideology (although I'd be glad to do that, too! )

[JohnT]

"I read in the paper that many American programmers etc have to go to charity organisations in order to get a bowl of soup and some other food... "

Cite?

[cavebear]

Both scenario's are skewed, having each one positive and one selfish choice. The more difficult choice is between the idealized version of each. Keeping in mind that one elevates the individual and self-rule (assuming that government will eventually become unneeded), and the other elevates a permanent beneficent but all-powerful) government that will organize services to the highest benefit of the state for the benefit of all citizens:

Scenario A: A worldwide communist worker's world where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, but material luxuries are not emphasized

Scenario B: A worldwide nationalist world where security and order are the law of the land and everyone is materially well off, but individual rights are not emphasized.



We'll presume that one can't have both guaranteed individual security AND a high degree of individual rights.

I'd rather see a discussion over difficult choices than an opportunity for sloganeering. Which probably means no one will respond.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Trajanus


Haha, Slowwhand, as always, has to be insulting and a hell of a ***** again, when I'm just asking you a question, and I even added a smiley as a sign of my goodwill!

Well I'll answer it for you, I think you're an arrogant rightwing bush-worshipper that doesn't even listen to arguments coming from the left side, you just try to avoid them by replying with this kind of ****... you're not moderate man, not in my opinion, maybe you think you're moderate, but not in my eyes... So you think you got that now? yes? good boy! Now maybe you can reply to that in an orderly way, and deny that, giving a good argument, and then I might be persuaded to think otherwise... that is a tactic you have never thought of I suppose!




Errr, matey, don't you have any idea that there are poor people that don't have any money, not because they're lazy, but because they don't get the chances that others have, or simply because of bad luck (or various other reasons).

I read in the paper that many American programmers etc have to go to charity organisations in order to get a bowl of soup and some other food... Now they're not really to blame actually, many ppl look hard for a job, but sometimes they just can't find it...

Also is it so fair then that some people earn huge amounts of money just by doing nothing, or nearly nothing, and others have to do hard labour and still get a meager amount of money?

You make the assumption that I give a rat's ass what you think about me.
Let me clear up your misconception. I don't care at all.
I've had worse on my eyeball, and been called much worse by much better people than you.
What's clear is you don't have the foggiest notion of me, my personal situation, or my views.
If you did, you wouldn't make such dumbass observations.

[Arrian]

Cavebear:

Scenario A: A worldwide communist worker's world where peace and brotherhood are the law of the land and everyone is happy, but material luxuries are not emphasized

That's still a skewed question. Have a look at the part I bolded. If everyone is happy, this is clearly the winner. Of course, everyone being happy, even under the most uptopian of systems, is a pipe dream.

-Arrian

[Japher]

I just believe being right-wing inherently involves adopting a more selfish ideology.

I think that I could see how you would BELIEVE that.

Yet, I your statement is based on short-sightedness and represents a view that is not only prejudice, but void of any true reason.

If you were to say that being right-wing appears selfish, that would be fine.

Perhaps you can go more into what you believe that ideology is, because I just don't get were this comes from. (To contradict my first sentence)

[Ned]

Monkspider, let me ask you a question. Would scenario B be any more repugnant to you if the dictator was Stalin rather than Hitler?

As to scenario A: There are actually many Star Trek (original series) shows that promulgated a hypothetical civilization not unlike scenario A. Star Trek's typical hypothetical civilization was run by a well-meaning computer that took care of the needs of society but denied citizens any true freedom. Inevitably, Captain Kirk liberated the people by destroying the machine and then enjoined the people to begin living real lives.

I also believe that the premise of total equality as essentially denying true freedom was explored in Brave New World. It was also explored in the movie Matrix.

In all such circumstances, is quite clear that a society that is fully equal, fully peaceful and totally "happy" is a society that denies one the opportunity of exercising freewill. Such a life is slavery.

On the other, life in a dictatorship is also not free as one must live his life totally on edge. At any moment you can be denounced as a traitor. You may think you have a good life now; but tomorrow you may be thrown into a concentration camp simply because somebody in a position of power got mad at you.

Scenario A is unrealistic because it totally denies human nature. People like Liberty. They will resist, violently, being forced into a situation of slavery as envisioned by scenario A.

Scenario B, on the other hand, is quite real. We've had to many examples of dictatorships throughout history. They existed ancient times. They exist in modern times. They destroy lives, create injustices and menace peace.

Since scenario A. will never happen due to human nature. It is meaningless to discuss it as a realistic to alternative. But since scenario B does exist.

Dictatorships are to be fought and resisted by every free man on earth so long as he continues to breathe. This is why I find it hard to believe that the left continues to take the side of dictator's such a find in Iraq and North Korea against liberal democracies such as we find in the United States and the UK. Why is this?

[Arrian]

People expect more of the liberal democracies, Ned, and get very pissed off when those democracies fail to reach expectations.

-Arrian

[cavebear]

Originally posted by Arrian
Cavebear:

That's still a skewed question. Have a look at the part I bolded. If everyone is happy, this is clearly the winner. Of course, everyone being happy, even under the most uptopian of systems, is a pipe dream.

-Arrian

I put it that way because many people do prefer material comforts over "happiness". I do understand your point, though. Perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate word than "happiness". It's not quite "freedom", and "liberty" is too vague. And I had to avoid words that described material enjoyment...