The Myth of the Benevolent Left

a reply to: greencmp

Have you read Bastiat, the man I quoted in the OP? Look into his "The Law" and his "Economic Sophisms" for some good reads that I think would be to your liking.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: greencmp

Have you read Bastiat, the man I quoted in the OP? Look into his "The Law" and his "Economic Sophisms" for some good reads that I think would be to your liking.

I'm a big fan of Fred.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

No, I do know rich people. There are two types.

Those that got there on their own, and those that inherited it.

Those that inherited it don't live, or haven't ever lived in the same reality that the poor do.

The second -- the ones who got there themselves? They had to crack a lot of skulls, slit throats, and walk on a lot of backs to climb to where they are. They had to take advantage of people and be ruthless in pursuit of their fortunes. That's the way of the world. It's not a nice world, and there is a lot of competition. You don't become independently wealthy by being "nice" -- you get there by being a driven sociopath.

I don't hate them. It is what it is, but the fact remains that the system is run by the very people it is designed to help the most.

I don't want to be rich. I just want to be happy and have my needs met.

It's lonely at the top too. More money, more problems. Boston College did a study, and people worth over 25 million are pretty miserable.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

People over $25mil miserable /quote

I find this incomprehensible & always have. Most humans could live more than comfortably for multiple lifetimes off of $5mil much less 20+. How hard is it to not be miserable? You can live anywhere you want at that point, quit everything travel idk. Maybe you don't have someone or family to share the experience of never working again with & so they get trapped. That applies to poor & rich people though, so still doesn't explain why the richest of the rich don't just quit all responsibility & live out their days.
That's why I'm so thankful to be a nihilist. To me everything about modern life is already a pointless waste, & there's nothing to truly live for. I don't need to become a millionaire to realize it.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

LesMis... are you trying to tell us in so many words youre becoming a humanist or are but... because people have their heads so far up an idologies ass it is the very thing that makes you misanthorpic? why im shocked... but not amazed. its a difficult thing and well bubble up wen you need respite as it is one of the most draining yet rewarding endeavors one can attend to in life... as even if no one ever sees any fruition? it will not have been in vain nor in the willful ignorance and those hapless in following such extremes of methodology thinking such amounts to better as bias cannot perfom such a mathematical function of balance leading to a harmonoius one.

Obviously voting left does not make one compassionate. But left wing policies which favor taxes going towards the poor instead of fighting wars is more compassionate as a policy.

Trying to get everyone covered with healthcare for the same cost as you pay to private is more compassionate than just fighting the idea because you don't like "socialism".

It's ironic that some of you brought up the " give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime ". Bernie Sanders is trying to make public universities paid for by taxes so everyone can learn to fish, it doesn't matter if you're poor and don't have parents to pay for you.

You can't be daft enough to not realize that.

I do find it strange, that the rightists feel the need for another attack on the left. Sometimes it's quite easy to see them as benevolent, when compared to their right wing counterparts, especially in the USA with your war mongering neo cons or in the uk with the rights support of the banking and corporate lobbyists. Hell bent on destroying public services that have helped the poor for generations. That have only been won by generations of struggle. Not given. The right seem to be happy with a small powerful elite in control of their political system and owning the majority of the media too. That controls the message and dictates the narrative in behalf of that rich elite. Government, merely provide the smoke and mirrors for the rich to get on with their selfish deeds, ensuring they maintain their powerful
position in society.

But I'm sure this is all in my imagination and really it's the decades long communist instigators who since the Cold War have been trying to install Marxism in the shadows. Clearly I have been brain washed by, the cultural Marxists to question the rich and their ability to gain such power over the masses I know I should really believe both Obama and Bernie are hard core Stalinists set on the destruction of freedom liberty and apple pie.

So are the true tight wingers, the bundy ranchers? Anything to the left and your a freedom hating Stalinist hell bent on the destruction of all that is good and filthy athiests to boot. i suggest the right stops using words like bleeding heart liberals as it somehow implies conservative hearts don't get emotional over certain unjustice. Which I know is not true, yet you throw the words round like an insult.
I really thought conservatives were all about taking responsibility. Yet on ATS they spend their time blaming others for any misfortune they encounter. Immigrants, gays, transgendered, millennials. Everyone, but themselves not much personal responsibility going on there. Anyway. I think we can all see where this thread is heading, so I'll leave you to it. The myth of conservative personal responsibility

Anything wrong. Just blame the left. What an easy way to conduct your online debate has the blame Obama narrative got boring and lost its impact?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There's a lot there, if I gave my thoughts on each point, I'd be here all day- and I have more to do than sit and write a three page long article!
But some that jump to the forefront of mind-

"poverty is never glorified or ennobled, but demonized, made to seem like a disease, with which the poor are obviously infected. "

What a curious thing to write! I can only guess you must come from a very Protestant environment. A large part of the world still carries Catholic based ethics and values- in which the rich are demonized and the poor are righteous and blessed- where power and wealth can only corrupt.

Personally, having lived in great poverty, I think it is absurd to even suggest that anyone embrace poverty as noble. Have you ever gone hungry? Had to go to bed at night without having eaten that day, either as a child, or as a parent, listening to the whimpering of your hungry child??

I guarantee that if you have, you will find it impossible to look upon the poor as noble, or admirable. I don't think that is dehumanizing- on the contrary, humans have needs. To ignore that fact is to dehumanize!

No, I don't feel an equal amount of compassion for a rich person- who is not hungry, is not cold. Kanye can kiss my arse.
Studies reveal to us that in primates and in humans, the lower one is on the social hierarchy, the more stress they live with, and the more health problems as a result. A shorter life expectancy, and various handicaps result; long term stress actually affects memory and thought, making one "stupid" or less able to perform intellectually- and what? You want to tell me that everyone has the same opportunities in America? It was a neat idea, an inspiring ideal, but like some of the ideals in Communism, turned out to be unrealistic in practice.

The problem with the idea "if you want to help the poor, just do it yourself" is that the money needs to be earned, then the aid distributed and the people supported. One person cannot do all that. It has to be group effort, with some that earn the money, some that work distributing the aid and goods. We have a limited amount of time in each day!

But the question of rights- there is no inherent rights, there is simply the rights that each society has decided its members shall be guaranteed. It's like promising benefits to members, and potential members, in exchange for their membership and cooperation in it.

So if the USA doesn't want to offer certain rights to it's members, fine. What bothers me is that members are not allowed to exit and pull out of paying into it!
I have to pay double tax, to France and America. I wanted to renounce my citizenship and nationality, but it costs about two thousand dollars, is a long and difficult procedure and I still have to pay taxes for the next ten years anyway!!!!

What the hell are YOU paying taxes for? What do you get for that price?
Perhaps ypou can say, a military that projects it's might all over the world, and that is exactly what you want. I don't. I don't want to pay for that, and I don't get anything else.
IF I could feel that at least my money was going to helping people in need, that would calm me a little. But that isn't the case.

Over here, my husband and I pay 1300 euros EACH MONTH in income taxes. (This is the minimum wage amount, and is only our french taxes). It is heavy for us. BUT- we once were young parents, and he wanted to stop working, and go to medical school. The state helped us be able to do that. My son was hit by a car as a child, our kids have had a few accidents, I have had operations and of course, labor and deliveries... I have been temporarily handicapped and had the state pay for me to have a housekeeper/nanny at home. This sort of aid helped us get to where we are now- the bread winners, the producers, for others. We WANT to have the circle continue and help others get to where we are, so that the cycle of growth continues.

But if we did the actual work of getting this aid to specific people, we would not be able to work the long hours we do. I'd rather pay someone else to distribute what I am giving (creating a job at the same time too).
The thing is, besides having gotten lots in the past, I get some now too- my kid is in his third year of university, I am being treated for asthma, my daughter gets her childcare partly paid, (and public school will start when her child is two or three years old).

I get my money back daily, I see the fruit of my payments around me, and helping my family and friends. My US taxes? Well, I hear about them on the news, in military actions in far away countries.

I would normally say to my family members in the US who are leftist in leaning to simply move to another country that fits more what they want to have in return for their participation (that has the kinds of rights they want). But now, it doesn't matter- even if you leave, you have to keep participating. You are prisoners now, or slaves- can't get out of paying that government, and apparently most of the American public think that doesn't make you an investor with any say about what they should be doing with your money.

a reply to: Metallicus

So giving hungry children food is bad

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Myth of the Benevolent Left - Oh dear, I certainly hope there is no subtle implication that by inference the 'Right is Benevolent' here?

Lets hope that whatever of that there is its accidental.

originally posted by: Looselungjones
a reply to: Metallicus

So giving hungry children food is bad

It starts with giving hungry children food, ends in a Stalinist tyranny gulag. That's the left for you. Give em an inch

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well that was certainly an eloquent and well delivered polemic. I particularly enjoyed the incorporation of Gerhard Engels! What's a political rant in the Internet age without comparing the object of your criticism to a Nazi?

I consider myself a progressive liberal and therefore part of "the Left" and I find very little of what you said to be particularly true about me or those among my friends who I'd consider to be lefties.

This is the common theme among critics of income inequality, wealth and poverty, and capitalism in general: Notice that some people have more and some people have less; criticize those who have more while infantilizing those who have less; and then do nothing in the vain hope that someone else will do something for you, and call that compassion.

As I intimated earlier, caring, benevolence, charity and compassion are not the domain of the government nor of any particular ideology, but of individuals. The myth of the benevolent left remains a myth until proven otherwise.

Income inequality isn't inherently bad, it's simply a measure like blood pressure. What concerns us isn't income inequality — it's the rise in income inequality, what's driving it and how it will change over time. If you think the inarticulate ramblings of Bernie Sanders accurately reflect the state of Leftist intellectual thought, you're sorely mistaken. Would you apply the same standards to "classical liberals, conservatives and libertarians" and judge them by the rhetoric of Donald Trump?

I find that in terms of outcomes, the Right and the Left are generally in agreement on the issue of poverty — with few exceptions, both want there to be less people who cannot provide for themselves and both want to provide for those who absolutely cannot. The same could be said of healthcare — generally we want the most people to receive the best care possible and to provide for the health care needs of those who are absolutely incapable of doing so themselves.

The differences largely lie in opinions about how to go about achieving these common goals, the proper place for government in these endeavors and how they should be paid for. You condescendingly paint people on the Left as being uncommitted, lazy and unpragmatic. Poor poor delusional people on the Left! You just want to help people as long as you don't have to ladle soup at the soup kitchen and scrub the sores of the lepers!

You attack support for social welfare programs on the grounds that people on the Left are somehow unique in their approach to providing for people who cannot provide for themselves when there's little actual difference. Those on the Right often claim charity should fill this place in society. People on the Left are more likely to believe that a government run program (with proper oversight) will deliver a better outcome. How is giving money to a charity that is likely far less efficiently putting that money to use somehow the better alternative? Take for example, feeding the hungry.

What are the administrative costs of the average charity to feed the poor? What are the administrative costs for a program like SNAP? Which approach yields the best results for the same price?

Similarly, you scoff at universal health coverage without explaining why a private insurance system is better — let alone one where choices and price are most often dictated by employment — instead, you rely on the specter of the evil government with no real regard for results.

Consider how insurance fundamentally works. Money is collected in premiums. From that money claims are paid operating expenses deducted and the rest is profit. Except for the profit, what is fundamentally different? The typical capitalist will tell you that competition for those premiums will necessarily drive the price down but I find that most "pure free market" capitalists also ignore the very real evolution of markets which without fail results in consolidation to typically three dominate competitors. This even has a name, the "Rule of Three." The most common argument being that it's government imposed regulation's corrupting influence that leads to this — an empty truism with no empirical support. The also ignore the fact that with so little competition in any market, what is often happening is there are three competitors who are balancing delivering the lowest quality product possible without deviating from the competition to an extent that they lose market share.

I don't want more people on Welfare rolls anymore than you do. I don't believe that there is such a thing as a "right to healthcare" or "free education" either but I do believe that they're essentials and that we should provide for them as a society by whatever means will yield the most favorable results.

originally posted by: Looselungjones
a reply to: Metallicus

So giving hungry children food is bad

Yes. You see, if you do that, then they will not learn, on their own, to innovate ways to steal food .
They will be denied the opportunity of learning to skip school to go on expeditions for food, learning to lie if they are caught, and elaborate schemes to gain money.
These skills are what will make them successful in our society later on....

"The myth of the INTELLIGENT Left"...

Another thread title for another day.

a reply to: Bluesma

It's important to realize that poor people, being herd animals with no real capacity for things like pride or dignity, are as happy as the proverbial pig in slop to live in squalor in their hovels as the government lobs shovel loads of food and "Obama phones" at them.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr

originally posted by: Looselungjones
a reply to: Metallicus

So giving hungry children food is bad

It starts with giving hungry children food, ends in a Stalinist tyranny gulag. That's the left for you. Give em an inch

Leftists are so obsessed and concerned with 'changing the system'....until there's no system LEFT.

originally posted by: WhateverYouSay
Obviously voting left does not make one compassionate. But left wing policies which favor taxes going towards the poor instead of fighting wars is more compassionate as a policy.

Trying to get everyone covered with healthcare for the same cost as you pay to private is more compassionate than just fighting the idea because you don't like "socialism".

It's ironic that some of you brought up the " give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime ". Bernie Sanders is trying to make public universities paid for by taxes so everyone can learn to fish, it doesn't matter if you're poor and don't have parents to pay for you.

You can't be daft enough to not realize that.

1) Republicans are the only war mongers = fallacy

2) The money goes 'toward the poor'....fallacy again

3) Public healthcare being the 'same cost'...fallacy again...proven with Obamacare and INCREASING rates over private levels...for many

4)

Bernie Sanders is trying to make public universities paid for by taxes so everyone can learn to fish, it doesn't matter if you're poor and don't have parents to pay for you.

Oh goodness

This thread and many of the replies would be comedy gold if the people posting were not deadly serious.
It's terrifying how cold and cruel some folks are and how they view the poor, vulnerable and less fortunate.
Yes don't have any kind of safety net and then people will adapt and be tough.
Don't tax anyone to help pay for things because it's not fair on the rich people who need to make more and more money and why should they have any duty or responsibility to contribute financially the the society in which they live and operate?
Why shouldn't they avoid tax and have all manner of loopholes and work-arounds etc?

They're rich, they deserve it - and the poor are poor because they deserve it and are lazy.


This is what the rich do.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.cnbc.com...

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The left is made of dysfunctional desperados.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Then you don't know very many rich people.

I know some of the third type.