Originally posted by Partygirl
Originally posted by mastahunta
I am not sure what you mean when you say "they seem rooted in an artificial
understanding of human nature".
One example is the leftist tendency to believe everyone is equally deserving. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." Why?
Why should a hard-working risk-taker support a layabout?
Ever heard of X - Y theory of management???
You subscribe to the X theory, X theory is based upon the premise that men (workers)
are inherently lazy, that the majority will avoid work at all costs as well as a myriad of
other beliefs... This is probably why you have an aversion to "leftist" ideals.
I subscribe to Y theory which tends to think that men are naturally incline to desire
achievement, progress and the fulfillment which work provides. I think there are for
more hard working people then there are layabouts, exponentially more in fact. The
freeways here that are moving at 2 miles an hour at 6:30 in the morning, I think that
validates my hypothesis, but you are the keeper of your ideas.
I know I tend to think the best of people and I am rarely disappointed,
how about you?
Read about these management styles, it will broaden your horizons.
So based upon this...
It sounds like you equate poverty with, laziness. However in many parts of the
world, people have to walk ten miles to get a bucket of water, they are not layabouts,
yet they might very well be starving. The problem with your assessment of the world is
that you are assigning a very narrow equation, to a very diverse world. I have known
plenty of people who work from dark to dark who are still very poor. By your very equation,
if they are hungry, they are layabouts who are waiting to infringe on the "hard working"
people who are not hungry.
I am not sure how you will ever find a better philosophy if you start out at the base line of
a current philosophy and own it like you do.
That's not only against human nature...its against what every plant and animal on earth does.
Human nature is to survive, to kill things, to dominate and reproduce... Are you talking
about social standards or nature? As far as plants and animals,
- they do not own things,
they do not plan,strategically, they do not build great marvels... I am not sure why, out of all
the differences that can be found between humans and plants, you have chosen to adhere
to the most basic survival instincts as a manner to establish the common thread.
Leftism has very ambitious goals of re-shaping society, re-modeling human nature..."social engineering" like using the media to get people to change
their attitudes on this or that..but who makes the decisions on what is desirable, what constitutes "progress"?
The forces of progress are always at work, you do realize that the Earth was flat, that people
were burned on sticks for everyones viewing pleasure? It was progress and social engineering
that flushed out those traditions. Slavery is another thing that used to be accepted at mass
in many parts of the world, is progress always finely tuned???
no, but it has flushed out many bad things that you will never know thanks to it.
Who decides what's the baby and what's the bathwater when tossing out the old? And...there are
unforseen knock-on effects to such changes. Leftism is not "backwards compatible"...it demands
radical change but doesn't understand the implications of such change.
Society decides whats the baby and whats the bath water, like it always has... If leftism is not
backwards compatible, does that mean that rightism is not forward compatible? Society works
out the details, that is the true effect of nature. I think it is the only reasonable and incorruptible
market system there is... popular sentiment. If people do not like changes, they will change
those changes until the balance is struck, free market social order theory, if you will.
How can you get beyond materialism, when your first notion in your response was to
defend the function of materialism?
edit on 12-11-2011 by mastahunta because: (no reason given)