The Myth of the Benevolent Left

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: xuenchen

Right wing governments are hard to establish because nobody wants em.

Yet all Left Wing governments fail and go broke.

Every one.

High poverty

High crime

High unemployment

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

And I felt I should do more long before the self-aggrandising OP came along.

But ultimately we do what we can when we can.

Doesn't seem to matter to many because my benevolence is a "myth" according to all the back patters.

That's bull#.
Putting it politely.

Your benevolence? I don't know you. How can I say whether you are or are not benevolent if I've never met you? I will give you the benefit of the doubt. CharlieSpeirs is benevolent; very polite as well.

My only point is, your political affiliation proves nothing of the sort. It would be a lie to say you are benevolent because you promote a certain political view. You have to prove it with your actions. Wouldn't you agree?

But if you wish to research the views on charity according to each political ideology, be my guest, and furnish us with your results.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not here to win a popularity-contest, obviously. I'm here to ask some serious questions, I'm waiting to be answered accurately by those who have a particular stance. On either the left or the right side of what I call: A loosing-game by being unable to come up with answers and using a strategy of ignoring my questions.

a reply to: Willingly

I'm not here to win a popularity-contest, obviously. I'm here to ask some serious questions, I'm waiting to be answered accurately by those who have a particular stance. On either the left or the right side of what I call: A loosing-game by being unable to come up with answers and using a strategy of ignoring my questions.

If someone is stopping you, you should call them out on it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I thought I did that already.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Would it be ethical for a mother to commit infanticide or abandon her own children if she so choose to as it is not her duty to feed, house and/or care for her children?

Caring for children is a natural fact. But so is weening.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not here to win a popularity-contest, obviously. I'm here to ask some serious questions, I'm waiting to be answered accurately by those who have a particular stance. On either the left or the right side of what I call: A loosing-game by being unable to come up with answers and using a strategy of ignoring my questions.

I didn't ignore your question, you refused to even consider my solution.

You sound like an international Marxist, a communist. Eventually, ideally, according to Marx himself, that would eventually lead to an anarchy wherein everybody is cooperative without oversight. So, by summarily dismissing the notion that government might not be necessary is incompatible with the economic philosophy that you espouse.

As you can see, we can have a conversation about the necessity of government without agreeing fundamentally about political systems.

a reply to: greencmp

IF I sound like a communist or a marxist to you, that's your perception of what I try to communicate only. I just ask some questions and have a stance also, but not a stance as being a leftist or right-wing supporter. I think I made that very clear by now.

It's very difficult to come to a conclusion on how I stand on the OP.

On one hand you have many assumptions and logical fallacies, but on the other you have personal "belief" mixed with a middle finger to everyone that disagrees.

While the OP does attempt to use a higher level of vocabulary to convey it's assertion, it seems to be equal in substance to a very beautiful girl that lectures us on how beautiful she is, yet cannot define "beautiful".

If I had to make a judgement on this OP as of now, I would say that it lacks any substance whatsoever, as it is more of a rant of personal opinion than anything else and plays on the emotions of the average person that would agree with such statements, through their inability to understand what the hell the OP actually said.

a reply to: greencmp

Annnddd...I'm not talking politics, if that is not properly understood by now. I talk about the justification of some ecconomical system, called capitalism, by Karl Marx. And that is where I would want to start the discussion. First things first.

How is property, any property, justified and by whom can that be done and by what means? That's what I'm dealing in.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Caring for children is a natural fact. But so is weening.

True, although some care givers are worse than others. E.g child neglect,care giver suffers from mental illness and neurological disorders making them unfit parents. However this doesn't quite answer my question.

Per your logic in regards to what I quoted from you,is it unethical?

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: greencmp

IF I sound like a communist or a marxist to you, that's your perception of what I try to communicate only. I just ask some questions and have a stance also, but not a stance as being a leftist or right-wing supporter. I think I made that very clear by now.

Here is the post that provided me with the confidence to make that assumption:

originally posted by: Willingly

In my perspective it is not a matter of left or right-wing policies anymore. The whole left-wing/right-wing debate is futile because...and now listen closely, please:

We all live in captalism-land, which is just this: An unlawfull and un-scientifically justified ecconomical system that is defended and sustained by both partys, left AND right.

How and by what reasonable and just law can private ownership of property, any property, be justified?

That is THE philosphical question regarding the capitalistic ecconomical system, that is not answered properly yet by any of both partys, without using mere propaganda to justify its existence.

If you haven't read Karl Marx, then it is a complete coincidence that you reject the idea of private property and consider socialism a "scientific" economic system.

No conclusions were jumped to in the making of this post.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

True, although some care givers are worse than others. E.g child neglect,care giver suffers from mental illness and neurological disorders making them unfit parents. However this doesn't quite answer my question.

Per your logic in regards to what I quoted from you,is it unethical?

It is ethical to take care of children, yes. I would also argue it is also ethical to take care of the injured, handicapped, and the sick and dying.

a reply to: introvert

It's very difficult to come to a conclusion on how I stand on the OP.

Seems pretty easy to me. Refute everything by refuting nothing is the easiest course of action.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It is ethical to take care of children, yes. I would also argue it is also ethical to take care of the injured, handicapped, and the sick and dying.

Alright,thank you for the clarification.

a reply to: greencmp


You're not getting my point, because, I assume, your agenda does not allow to get what I'm driving at.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
Someone asked on here which right wing policies are not supported by evidence.

Typically progressivism prevents the natural remedies that a normal economy would produce. I am not a Republican, Republicans are "Progressive Light".

Trickle down economics.

The saving and investment by all, including the rich, gets stolen by taxes, inflation, and regulations, which also handicap the activity of new businesses and industries.

30% of the GNP is in government now. During the Industrial Revolution that money was in the economy, 30% more in every workers paycheck.

"Trickle down" is from the right wing of the progressive party. It ignores the fractional reserve banking inflation, which the progressives and neocons need.

Virtually every single environmental policy.

Hurting people and property is against the law. Polluters are criminals and should be made to pay like any other criminals. Every single environmental policy is a brazen theft of authority by the nanny state, and a chance for a polluter to capture the regulators.

Cutting taxes on the job creators to stimulate the economy and create jobs. Really no evidence for it.

Job creation requires money, like for paychecks and equipment. Taxes remove that money.

Fighting against any real wage increases that account for inflation and also vast increase in worker productivity. Wages should be much higher as a share of the economic production. Economists agree...

Inflation is caused by progressivism. Fiat money is required to pay for bigger government, invisibly.

Universal health care or single payer. This one is one the Democrats too failed on.

Something for nothing is impossible. Like all consumer goods, healthcare is less expensive and better when subject to competition. There is nothing about inserting a bureaucracy into the healthcare industry that will make the same care cheaper.

Most right wing American foreign policy. Completely immoral and even war crime levels. (Iraq War, torture). The Democrats also fail on this. But the Democrats are NOT "left," they are center or center right.

The American foreign policy comes from the early progressive, Woodrow Wilson. "Making the World Safe for Democracy" is progressive. The Republicans are the right wing of the progressive party.

The right wing consistently ignores the massive pile of research across virtually every single field regarding the causes and solutions to poverty. Literally not one single field agrees with them.... Instead they say it is about meritocracy and hard work (the first of which has been thoroughly debunked by again leading experts from sociology to economics).

Poverty is reduced by invention and production. Electricity, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, appendectomies, etc... are riches beyond the Emperor of the world before capitalism.

Poverty has gone up since those studies were used in lieu of rational thought. Progressives ignore rational thought.

Social conservatives base their views on tradition and religion, and usually nothing to do again with relevant social science research. So again, policy not based on anything objective. For example, gay marriage has zero evidence showing it is negative, but yet conservatives claim it is, with appeals to religion, tradition, and authority.

Society evolves best and progresses fastest when folks can do what they want to. Laws should be based on habit and not on speculation.

The worst thing about progressivism is the centralization. Progressivism includes those that don't want or need it. Local government should be able to enact and enforce any laws the community or region think necessary. Anyone should be able to move to government that serves them better.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Alright,thank you for the clarification.

Should extend the ethics we would show a child, or the sick, the handicapped, to those who are not?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
This would be a good post, if the 'benevolent left' were a myth and this were a treatise submitted to a magazine in 1850.

originally posted by: Willingly
a reply to: greencmp


You're not getting my point, because, I assume, your agenda does not allow to get what I'm driving at.

You're right, I don't get it. My agenda doesn't allow me to.