Any Other Leftists on T-Nation?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]entheogens wrote:
No, sir. The complexity is that the solution to this problem cannot be reduced to simplified dogma…wheter that be from libertarians or statists. Do you really think that the world would be a better place (for everybody) if we just dismantled governments and let the market decide everything? Is it that simple?
[/quote]
I don’t care about everybody. I care about me and mine. I care about the community I live in. I care about that which interests me.

If everyone simply took responsibility for themselves the world would be a better place. This does not mean one need be a cold, heartless individual. I assure you I am not; however, I do not like being told what I am supposed to care about by politicians; nor do I trust the judgment of bureaucracy with my money.

I can pretty much assure you, you do not care about everybody either; you certainly don’t care about the rich businessman; you certainly don’t care about the privileged white male. You only care about the weak and helpless and what other people’s produce can do to help them.

Morality is the responsibility of every individual but government does not have the right to coerce it from us.

82

[quote]Standndeliver wrote:
I’m new here and already I see why people attack you.
[/quote]

That is why I come here.

83

I’m left on most issues.
I’d never subscribe to a “club” where money and corporate interests supersede human concerns.

84

[quote]Love2Lift wrote:
I’m left on most issues.
I’d never subscribe to a “club” where money and corporate interests supersede human concerns. [/quote]

That’s a misconception about the right that the left likes to push. It’s not that a conservative doesn’t care about human concerns, it’s that he doesn’t think that they are best addressed by the government. Sure, there are assholes on the right, but no more or less than there are on the left, or in the middle or anywhere else.

85

[quote]Love2Lift wrote:
I’m left on most issues.
I’d never subscribe to a “club” where money and corporate interests supersede human concerns. [/quote]

You realize corporations are made up of people don’t you?

86

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Love2Lift wrote:
I’m left on most issues.
I’d never subscribe to a “club” where money and corporate interests supersede human concerns.

You realize corporations are made up of people don’t you? [/quote]

And that money is a human concern?

87

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
“Life is not fair”
–John F. Kennedy, Leftist

It’s not fair. Who said it was supposed to be?

I don’t think the difference is that leftists think it is not fair, and conservatives do. The difference is that leftists think it’s government’s job to level the playing field, and conservatives see that this is not possible, and that all attempts to try and make it fair just make things worse for everyone.[/quote]

Hey now, that sounds like a totally fair and objective assessment of the difference between left and right in america. To a conservative, I mean.

88

Its almost impossible, IMO, for an American to give a completely objective explanation of the difference between conservatives and liberals, since we generally lean one way or the other. But I’ll give it a shot:

The Yin-Yang is a Taoist symbol, characterizing what some believe to be the two forces balancing the universe: yin and yang. Yin is seen as the feminine, submissive, cooler force, while Yang is the masculine, dominating, warmer force. The symbol shows how one moves into the other, but also contains aspects of its opposite.

The left seems to be more yin, while the right is more yang. The left being more concerned with compassion, fairness, cooperation, and equality, while the right concerns itself with individuality, strength, competition, and self reliance. Leftists tend to be secular (some to the point of being anti-religion) and rightists tend to derive their beliefs from their religion (some to the point of fundamentalism); most commonly Christianity.

Across the table, the left is accused of being overly idealistic, and weak; oversensitive whistle blowers too reliant on the government to solve every problem they see (or create). Conversely, the right is accused of being insensitive, greedy, selfish, and bigoted; malicious opprotunists who heartlessly take advantage of those less fortunate with “Hey, life’s not fair” attitude.

Its fairly hard to argue that most are self motivated in their stances. The more a person dominant cultures a person is a part of, the more likely they are to be conservative, the more submissive cultures, the more liberal. For example, a rich white heterosexual male is far more likely to be right leaning while a poor black lesbian woman is likely to be a liberal.

89

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
That’s a misconception about the right that the left likes to push. It’s not that a conservative doesn’t care about human concerns, it’s that he doesn’t think that they are best addressed by the government. Sure, there are assholes on the right, but no more or less than there are on the left, or in the middle or anywhere else.[/quote]

Well, Uncle Gabby, you are probably correct that this is a misconception about the Right that the some on the Left like to push.
However, let me say that this idea that the Left is ALWAYS about big government is a misconception that the Right likes to push.

First of all, can we agree that the terms Right and Left are very broad and so generally these broad accusations pertain to some section of the Right or Left but not necessarily to all?

For example, we can probably agree that certain people on the extreme Right really don’t give a shit about man’s inhumanity toward man. Now I am not accusing any of you of this. However, we have known personally or through our history books of individuals who could care less about the welfare of the poor, etc. We can also say that some Leftists think that more government is the panacea for . My point is let’s not assume what applies to some portion pertains to the whole spectrum.

Likewise, all except perhaps the most extreme of Right Libertarians see some beneficial use for government and even this latter sees some use for government if for no other reason than to protect private property which they see as essential.

You might be interested to know that there is a Left Libertarian tradition (BTW, one of your people to hate, Noam Chomsky belongs to this tradition) who want nothing to do with government. In Chomsky’s case, this would be anarcho-syndicalism…there are also the autonomists.

I will end with that, but my point is that if we are on the Left, we should not NECESSARILY assume that someone who considers himself on the Right is inhumane or insouciant of the plight of the poor, etc. However, by the same token, it would be wrong for someone on the Right to assume that just because a person is on the Left that they want a large, kafkaesque government to take care of every human need.

90

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Love2Lift wrote:
I’m left on most issues.
I’d never subscribe to a “club” where money and corporate interests supersede human concerns.

You realize corporations are made up of people don’t you? [/quote]

Zap, yes, they are. Let me throw this back at you though. Governments are made of peoplem, too. However, the problem is that they both are bureaucracies, divorced from people and can take paths to promote their own power/affluence to the detriment of society. No?

91

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

I can pretty much assure you, you do not care about everybody either; you certainly don’t care about the rich businessman; you certainly don’t care about the privileged white male. You only care about the weak and helpless and what other people’s produce can do to help them.

Morality is the responsibility of every individual but government does not have the right to coerce it from us.

[/quote]

Lift, you are right. I don’t care about everybody. First of all, you assume that everybody who cares about the poor is a rich liberal. What about the poor themselves? What about the poor factory workers past and present (whichever country they happen to be in)? Are they supposed to just say to themselves “Well, life is unfair so I will just accept my lot.”

Look, you act as if capitalism with its particular set of classes has always existed. Before capitalism, there was feudalism. The bourgeoisie was politically weak in that system. Now, the leaders in the feudal system made arguments similar to yours. Basically, they said that the feudal system was ordained by God, was the “natural” way of the world. Now, if the nascent capital class had just agreed with them, they would have contented themselves with a minor role in society.

Having said that I agree with you to the extent that we probably will never arrive at a utopia. However, neither should we act as if the present conditions are static, incapable of being improved.

You are right that the government is not the solution to everything. It is a necessary evil. Do you believe that in a society of people with diverse interests that sometimes conflict that we can be rid of government?

I admire your defense of the individual but no man is an island unto himself. I am an individual among other individuals. I depend on them. How are we to function without some mechanism of governance?

92

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Love2Lift wrote:
I’m left on most issues.
I’d never subscribe to a “club” where money and corporate interests supersede human concerns.

You realize corporations are made up of people don’t you?

Zap, yes, they are. Let me throw this back at you though. Governments are made of peoplem, too. However, the problem is that they both are bureaucracies, divorced from people and can take paths to promote their own power/affluence to the detriment of society. No?

[/quote]

Corporations are dramatically different than government. They don’t have have the power to tax, pass laws etc. Corporations are people trying to earn a living on a larger scale. No more, no less.

93

Leave government out of the picture, and you end up with corporations wreaking havoc on everything. I’m fed up with every damned commercial on TV being some fucking pharmaceutical. And the right talks about a war on drugs?? How can we win the war on terrorism if we can’t even win the war on drugs? They’re both unwinnable battles that are perpetuated by profits on the street and in the accounts of corporations and their shareholders.

I don’t trust the corporation down the street to keep the water/air clean without government regulations, do you? If you do, I have some swampland in NJ that I’d like to sell you.

The once-powerful middle class is shrinking due to shitty economics that have been in place since Reagan, corporations go overseas to find cheap labor (even Clinton pissed me off when he signed NAFTA), the list goes on.

The right bashed John Kerry, a WAR VETERAN who VOLUNTEERED to fight in a war that the right supported. Will you right wingers do the same in a few years when one of the Iraq War vets decides to run for office… AS A DEM?

I have no problem with REAL conservatism, but since Reagan (and especially Bush), this “borrow and spend” neo-con mentality is killing and bankrupting our once-great nation.

94

Do you even know what the word ‘neocon’ even means?

What in fuck’s name does John Kerry’s service record have to do with anything in this discussion?

What brand is your computer?

95

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Lift, you are right. I don’t care about everybody. First of all, you assume that everybody who cares about the poor is a rich liberal. What about the poor themselves? What about the poor factory workers past and present (whichever country they happen to be in)? Are they supposed to just say to themselves “Well, life is unfair so I will just accept my lot.”
[/quote]
I have never been well to do but I was taught never to expect that I would have an easy time. I had to work to get where I am today. Being a white male I did not get any free handouts. I joined the military just so I could afford to finish school. I still had to take out loans.

Capitalism has always existed. It is ownership of the means of production. Feudalism is a form of capitalism where the means of labor are also owned. Capitalism in a liberal society verses a feudal society has a higher regard for liberty. It was the ideas of liberalism that destroyed the feudal system. Liberty is a very new idea.

You are exactly right! We all require cooperation to survive otherwise we would be all be living on our own islands. It is thru social cooperation that exchanges between individuals operating in the division of labor and knowledge happen. There is no other way. This is what defines society. Government requires that same social cooperation to function but it assumes sovereignty over the individual. Government cannot define society – it is the many individuals cooperating to bring about desired changes that makes society. Government’s only means to achieve this is by force – which does not work.

This does not mean that we do not require rules to live by. There always has been and always will be societal conventions for behavior and etiquette just as there always has been and will be means to punish those that break those convention. Government is not necessary.

96

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
entheogens wrote:
Lift, you are right. I don’t care about everybody. First of all, you assume that everybody who cares about the poor is a rich liberal. What about the poor themselves? What about the poor factory workers past and present (whichever country they happen to be in)? Are they supposed to just say to themselves “Well, life is unfair so I will just accept my lot.”

I have never been well to do but I was taught never to expect that I would have an easy time. I had to work to get where I am today. Being a white male I did not get any free handouts. I joined the military just so I could afford to finish school. I still had to take out loans.

Look, you act as if capitalism with its particular set of classes has always existed. Before capitalism, there was feudalism. The bourgeoisie was politically weak in that system. Now, the leaders in the feudal system made arguments similar to yours. Basically, they said that the feudal system was ordained by God, was the “natural” way of the world. Now, if the nascent capital class had just agreed with them, they would have contented themselves with a minor role in society.

Capitalism has always existed. It is ownership of the means of production. Feudalism is a form of capitalism where the means of labor are also owned. Capitalism in a liberal society verses a feudal society has a higher regard for liberty. It was the ideas of liberalism that destroyed the feudal system. Liberty is a very new idea.

Having said that I agree with you to the extent that we probably will never arrive at a utopia. However, neither should we act as if the present conditions are static, incapable of being improved.

You are right that the government is not the solution to everything. It is a necessary evil. Do you believe that in a society of people with diverse interests that sometimes conflict that we can be rid of government?

I admire your defense of the individual but no man is an island unto himself. I am an individual among other individuals. I depend on them. How are we to function without some mechanism of governance?

You are exactly right! We all require cooperation to survive otherwise we would be all be living on our own islands. It is thru social cooperation that exchanges between individuals operating in the division of labor and knowledge happen. There is no other way. This is what defines society. Government requires that same social cooperation to function but it assumes sovereignty over the individual. Government cannot define society – it is the many individuals cooperating to bring about desired changes that makes society. Government’s only means to achieve this is by force – which does not work.

This does not mean that we do not require rules to live by. There always has been and always will be societal conventions for behavior and etiquette just as there always has been and will be means to punish those that break those convention. Government is not necessary.[/quote]

Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private[1][2] owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy. It is usually considered to involve the right of individuals and groups of individuals acting as “legal persons” or corporations to trade capital goods, labor, land and money (see finance and credit).

Capitalist economic practices became institutionalized in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries, although some features of capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early forms of merchant capitalism flourished during the Middle Ages.[3][4] Capitalism has been dominant in the Western world since the end of feudalism[3]It gradually spread from Europe, across political and cultural frontiers. In the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism provided the main, but not exclusive, means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[5]

97

The Battle between the Left and Right is dead! Ever since Communism collapsed in the USSR, there is no doubt that a market oriented captislist system is the most effective and achieves the greatest efficency allowing people to live in a more prosperous world. Economic growth will benefit all in society but a differing rates.
I was a far Left thinker almost a marxist for a while but i could never quite manage to deal with the fact of the obvious allocative effiency’s and extra productivity that capitalism produces.This became clear to me through my study of economics.
The Right and Left are no longer terms that have any value with the battle of economical thought in politic’s having died, with market oriented captalism winning hands down.
Trying to give people more ‘Positive freedom’s’(the idea that you can not be free without certain equality’s like equal education and opportunities) without removing there ‘negative freedom’s’(your fundemental human rights to traditional classical freedom’s) is the real battle now

Oh and check out http://politicalcompass.org/test to find where u stand on the compass which takes in right and left and liberal and authoritarian

98

[quote]Love2Lift wrote:
Leave government out of the picture, and you end up with corporations wreaking havoc on everything. I’m fed up with every damned commercial on TV being some fucking pharmaceutical. And the right talks about a war on drugs?? How can we win the war on terrorism if we can’t even win the war on drugs? They’re both unwinnable battles that are perpetuated by profits on the street and in the accounts of corporations and their shareholders.

I don’t trust the corporation down the street to keep the water/air clean without government regulations, do you? If you do, I have some swampland in NJ that I’d like to sell you.

The once-powerful middle class is shrinking due to shitty economics that have been in place since Reagan, corporations go overseas to find cheap labor (even Clinton pissed me off when he signed NAFTA), the list goes on.

The right bashed John Kerry, a WAR VETERAN who VOLUNTEERED to fight in a war that the right supported. Will you right wingers do the same in a few years when one of the Iraq War vets decides to run for office… AS A DEM?

I have no problem with REAL conservatism, but since Reagan (and especially Bush), this “borrow and spend” neo-con mentality is killing and bankrupting our once-great nation.[/quote]

Right.

In Germany, it’s only corporations and upper class dudes who profit from globalization and a pretty good economy.
Try to explain that to the masses.
The middle class here is thinning out rapidly.
So even if it’s only to calm the people and avoid a revolution or to avert the rise of extremists, you have to impose regulations from above. (Problem is, we already do this in Europe quite fondly, so perhaps it’s the lobbys who are to blame?:))

So, if I’d been an American, I’d probably root for Hillary, then Obama in the big elections.
Still, I’d happily campaign and spend money for Ron Paul and for more and fairer media exposure of what he stands for.

99

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
…
So, if I’d been an American, I’d probably root for Hillary, then Obama in the big elections.
Still, I’d happily campaign and spend money for Ron Paul and for more and fairer media exposure of what he stands for.
[/quote]

Paul and Obama are polar opposites. I just don’t understand this viewpoint.

100

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
In Germany, it’s only corporations and upper class dudes who profit from globalization and a pretty good economy.
Try to explain that to the masses.
The middle class here is thinning out rapidly.
So even if it’s only to calm the people and avoid a revolution or to avert the rise of extremists, you have to impose regulations from above.
[/quote]
Corporations are protected by government regulation. We should not allow laws that give an unfair advantage to groups but rather have a respect for the natural rights of the individual. Theoretically, this is the only purpose of government but government is not a necessary institution to protect natural rights, in my opinion.

The naturally strong and capable will always profit greater than those that are less so. This ultimately benefits society as a whole. There is no way to make it “more fair” without taking the fruits of the naturally strong and capable and giving unfair advantages to the weak and less capable.