A challenge for the lefties

Even the most neutral right is opposed to a state-based welfare system. This to me seems an abandonment of the morality that made the West the center of intellectualism and philosophical thought. A lot of people who are on the welfare system have themselves to blame, this is true. But caring for the sick and poor has always been the pillar of a good, morally strong society. That is what separates Europe and the U.S. from the third world! In my country of Lebanon, laissez-faire capitalism is the law of the land. The private sector dwarfs the public one. Now ask yourself, would you rather live in a staunchly socialist country such as Finland or Norway, or Lebanon? I think the answer is pretty clear.

The social conservatives in great Britain was among the driving forces between the welfare system, together with the social liberals. The US works somewhat different though.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
There are, as you might know, people who do see the accumulation of money as something more than simply a tool.

I dont deny that. But just like the Gramscian Marxists their numbers are somewhat small-ish. Painting the entire right hand side of the political spectrum into that corner is simply wrong.

Even the most neutral right is opposed to a state-based welfare system. This to me seems an abandonment of the morality that made the West the center of intellectualism and philosophical thought.

Incidentally this guy built one of the first European Welfare states.

The existance of a welfare state is not a binary question either. One can argue for different levels of safety net. I believe even dte acknowledges publicly funded primary schools as a good thing.

If you define "right" as anything to the right of the median you'll certainly find advocates of different levels of welfare statism.

The left-right axis is at any rate pretty inadequate to describe the political spectrum. If we assume that conservatives and classical (i e not the modern US definition) both are on the right we'll find two very different views on the role of the state. Moralist conservatives often dont mind a paternalist state looking after the population. You could even see this in the last US election, where Huckabee certainly was a "bigger government" candidate compared to the other Republican alternatives.

But caring for the sick and poor has always been the pillar of a good, morally strong society. That is what separates Europe and the U.S. from the third world! In my country of Lebanon, laissez-faire capitalism is the law of the land. The private sector dwarfs the public one. Now ask yourself, would you rather live in a staunchly socialist country such as Finland or Norway, or Lebanon? I think the answer is pretty clear.

I sort of agree with this. The entire western world (included the US derided by many leftists) has a lot more in common with Norway than with Lebanon. But that means that it doesnt make sense for us (as in westerners:)) to use a political scale that is so wide that it doesnt catch the nuances within the west.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
I dont deny that. But just like the Gramscian Marxists their numbers are somewhat small-ish. Painting the entire right hand side of the political spectrum into that corner is simply wrong.

I paint everyone who unquestioningly see a relationship between owning much and having done hard work with the same brush.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
I paint everyone who unquestioningly see a relationship between owning much and having done hard work with the same brush.

As hoarders of WOW-gold? :D Well I'd say that one would have to be an idiot to deny that there is a relationship. What kind of relationship is certainly a big part of our political positions:)

Whether that is a reasonable view depends on your definition of relationship (which I assume isnt the broad definition used in mathematics:p).

If you mean people who believe that wealth always is a well deserved result of hard work, then you pretty much hit the pre-democratic conservative position. The nobles are nobles and the serfs are serf because they deserve it. This is luckily not terribly relevant today, but from your wording I assume this is what you meant.

If you mean that anyone who thinks that taxing the wealthy can hurt those who work hard (and thus that wealth can be the result of hard work or that it is desirable for hard work to allow people to build up wealth), then I'll just shake my head and ignore further analysis along that line. And I believe this second viewpoint is a lot more mainstream within the modern right than the first. The center-left also buys this position as it is the basis of market economy.

Claiming that the relationship is that the wealthy are wealthy due to exploitation of those who work hard OTOH makes you a marxist.

And finally denying any relationship whatever puts you off the spectrum, maybe as a romantic 70s hippie or proto-green…
 
Joined
Nov 4, 2006
Messages
2,013
BK, don't attempt to throw crap at me with the use of logic terminology; I taught the subject for years and know my way around an Ad Hominen better than you ever will!! As Dte said, correcting error is not AH>
The claim that you know something better then I ever will is a totally unfounded statement since you know nothing about me.

The statement "Propaganda has obviously overwhelmed rational thought in your case. " is an Ad Hominem statement plain and simple, it is not "correcting an error".

If I was was to replay with an Ad Hominem statement I would say: If you don't see that, your years of practice were wasted.



You could have said instead to Cloaked Figure:
I don't agree to a single statement you make, but I welcome you to the forums.

By the way I posted like I did because I don't like it, when people posting here for the first few times are greeted like in your post.
 
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
1,794
As hoarders of WOW-gold? :D Well I'd say that one would have to be an idiot to deny that there is a relationship. What kind of relationship is certainly a big part of our political positions:)

Hoarding WoW gold doesn't necessary take hard work, but effective optimized methods in doing so. Those who do not go in for hoarding the gold tend to play the game more as intended, which usually means more work.

If you mean people who believe that wealth always is a well deserved result of hard work, then you pretty much hit the pre-democratic conservative position. The nobles are nobles and the serfs are serf because they deserve it. This is luckily not terribly relevant today, but from your wording I assume this is what you meant.

Blood heritage used to play a great role in old europe. Today rifts are created in places where resources is necessary to get resources. One example of this is what it takes to get a decent education. If the system is such that the best education cost money that only a rich family can afford, then the outcome is the same as nobility. Those who seek to diminish the public school system, or do not support a strong public school system, are promoters of this kind of nobilty.

Another question is whether a decent living standard can be earned by someone who is medically inferior.

If you mean that anyone who thinks that taxing the wealthy can hurt those who work hard (and thus that wealth can be the result of hard work or that it is desirable for hard work to allow people to build up wealth), then I'll just shake my head and ignore further analysis along that line. And I believe this second viewpoint is a lot more mainstream within the modern right than the first. The center-left also buys this position as it is the basis of market economy.

Personally I do not care much about what people own, distribution of wealth etc, but whether a decent social living standard is acessible to all citizens, including all relevant factors.

Claiming that the relationship is that the wealthy are wealthy due to exploitation of those who work hard OTOH makes you a marxist.

Nah. Marxist theory as far as I know, concerns with whether or not a worker own the tools for and the product of his labour, or if he/she is simply borrows the tools from someone who also keep what he/she produced. When this is the case, owning the tool is enough to earn money, without doing any actual work yourself.

It also deals with alienation, the feeling of meaninglessness if you cannot see the purpose of what you do. There's an old quote by Adam Smith that a baker do not bake bread because his love for people (meaning, the baker bake bread to earn money and support his family). In truth, one do not become a baker to earn money. There's usually more in a job than the paybill, you represent a role and if you receive appreciation from other people in fulfilling that role, it's worth more than the money itself.

And finally denying any relationship whatever puts you off the spectrum, maybe as a romantic 70s hippie or proto-green…

I see that jobs pay out depending on how money they can generate, not based on value. A public-school teacher, or a nurse, might be one of the most valuable jobs a society may have, but this is not reflected by the wealth, nor is it influenced by their amount of hard work. In earlier societies, being the teacher or the medicine man, made you into among the most valuable members of your society, because you were valued in your worth, not by how much money you earn. There is a complaint that money have changed what is deemed valuable.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
The existance of a welfare state is not a binary question either. One can argue for different levels of safety net. I believe even dte acknowledges publicly funded primary schools as a good thing.
"Even dte", eh? ;)

Yes, I'm in favor of public education. I'm also in favor of short-term unemployment and welfare/poverty support. PJ and I actually came to a rough agreement that a safety net that reduces to nearly nothing over time is A Good Thing. Write it down--I think you crazy Euros got something right. :p It gives people some help in bad times without creating a reliance on public assistance. That said, I don't think it's unfair to have some accountability in exchange. Schools should teach (and the culture needs to value learning). People shouldn't expect a handout for nothing.

For example, to cut costs, many public parks in the US closed to visitors. Couldn't afford people to watch the gates and keep the place clean and so forth. Why in the hell didn't we make it a requirement to work 1 day a week at a park to collect your unemployment check? That money comes out of the public coffers either way, so why not expect some value for it? Doesn't displace existing workers, doesn't increase costs, doesn't keep the unemployed from seeking work, produces a tangible benefit, might even be unpleasant enough to spur people to hunt for jobs a little harder... Instead we hand people a check for 99 weeks with practically no strings attached and no real incentive to get off the dole. Where I work, we tried to hire a couple folks recently and one candidate turned us down because the difference in income between working and sitting at home on unemployment wasn't enough to get him off the couch for the next 22 weeks that he had left on the dole. True story.

To my mind, that's another place where cuddly liberals have lost track of reality. You don't help people. You help people help themselves. There's a big difference. The former leads to nanny states. The latter leads the United States (at least, as it used to be).
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,545
Location
Illinois, USA
I have argued that much of the work that the state hires people to do, such as keeping roads clean, should be available to the unemployed.

There is another point in it, and it's to actually come out and do something. To meet others in the same situation. Being unemployed for a long time actually have harmful effects on the psyche and receiving paychecks through mail or automatic transfer into the bank account, is more like keeping someone artificially alive than actually helping them.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
6,027
The points raised are open to various interpretations due to the nature by which money is created today. That is, most of the total money supply worldwide isn't in the form of central bank notes, coins, or paper bills, but numbers in accounts created when mostly commercial banks issue credit. See the chart in this page for details:

http://www.greatcreditcontraction.com/

The largest amount is $800 trillion in unregulated derivatives, part of $1.6 quadrillion in derivatives worldwide.

The purpose of increasing credit is to support increasing production and consumption of goods and services, especially through the use of oil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w6gf3tSGTg

which is needed to fuel ever-increasing demand not only from a rising global population but also demand per capita.

It should not be surprising, then, that two things will result from this system: credit bubbles popping and a resource crunch.

We are now seeing the first of these problems appearing, i.e., fallout from subprime lending. This is part of increasing debt in the U.S. that was caused by government, households, and corporations, as the first sought increasing global power, the second a middle class lifestyle, and the third easy profits. We can expect more bubbles bursting when interest rates for prime lending start resetting, when "recovery" that is being sustained through stimulus packages can no longer go on as interest rates reach zero, and when increasing debt can no longer take place to support economic "growth," 70 pct of which is based on consumer spending, in an economy riddled by four decades of trade deficits.

And what is affecting the U.S. will affect other countries, too, as people begin to cash out and start spending and speculating, as seen in similar problems with regards to real estate in China and the drive for accumulating more debt in order to sustain spending.

The second problem, as seen in terms of peak oil, is already underway. Oil production has remained relatively flat since 2005, and while demand from OECD members has decreased (which is bad news because that means their economies are doing badly) demand is going up in BRIC (which is also bad, because that means demand may soon exceed supply). Renewable energy requires resources that are also affected by the same problem (from lithium to uranium), the EROEI for other sources of energy is not as good as that of oil, and much of the global economy is geared for using oil, around 30 billion barrels needed a year.

We have now received reports from the U.S. military, Lloyd's of London, and even a draft from the German military, warning of peak oil after 2012. At the moment, production is still dropping for Cantarell, and Saudi Arabia has been announcing that no new explorations will be made in order to preserve oil for future generations even as the country is constructing nuclear reactors.

Given such, there is no more need to "challenge" the "lefties" because internal flaws from global capitalism itself is already creating problems: increasing credit needed to finance increasing economic growth, leading to credit bubbles bursting, and increasing production and consumption of resources leading to a resource crunch.
 
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
43
Back
Top Bottom