Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?

Views: 3390

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I pointed out a specific example of leftist claptrap to affirm a general point. I linked a leftist program which contained pretty much every point in the example provided to affirm that it was claptrap, and that it was of the leftist sort.

One point I haven't gotten to yet, your original statement of most leftist not feeling like the world owes them was followed by a statement that the world (as in the government) owes them a social welfare system. Why not call it what it is: A generous privilege to which most rich people contribute to more in a year than you or I will do in a lifetime? 

Here's a point gentlemen, that I haven't heard either of you address, and I'd really like to hear from each of you.

Extreme wealth, in the hands of the relatively few - at least under our (US) current political system - politically disenfranchises the remainder of society, in that that remainder has only the vote, and possibly the capability of forming protest groups, while the wealthy can afford to pay lobbyists and fund political campaigns to influence that laws are passed that benefit them over the less affluent remainder of society.

Comment, anyone?

You said neither, you said "millions upon millions", which is certainly a lot of people. And how, exactly, does wealth disparity create harm? By making a lot of people envious of the rich perhaps..?

@Arcus

Isn't a society with huge disparity in terms of wealth and advantage virtually set up to produce harm?

And why is a disparity in power harmful, what are the specific drivers which make it bad, and why would it be worse than i.e. Dahl's democratic dilemma?

As for Obama being leftist that certainly depends on the eyes that sees, he would be far fringe right in these parts. 

@Unseen: How exactly is it, and what are the drivers of this harm?

I do know that in a lot of countries with high Gini coefficients there are problems, but I don't see the former driving the latter, it's more that persistent social problems are causing a cleptocracy. 

@Arcus And why is a disparity in power harmful, what are the specific drivers which make it bad, and why would it be worse than i.e. Dahl's democratic dilemma?

Well, it would be pointless to answer that question without understanding what you count as a "driver." So, what sort of thing would you take as a driver that we might disagree about?

To me, it seems prima facie true that there is something undemocratic about people and corporations who already enjoy the advantages of wealth and power to use those resources to buy politicians and elections. And this is true even if the policies they foist on the public through this indirection are in fact good and/or true.

Something which drives the harm, much like how weapon type, bullet type, barrel design, ammo choice, distance, caliber, etc are the immediate driving forces behind the severity of a gunshot wound. It shouldn't be too hard to present one, seeing as it is, as you state, prima facie self evident, it's just better for a discussion to have some sort of launching point instead of a circular argument. 

DDD - that people form special interest groups which lobby for government programs and then turn around and vote against the funding of those programs - seems to be a substantially larger problem than the influence of the wealthy, seeing as they have only one vote too.

While mixing money in politics is not something I am in favor of, the deeper problem is that you, the voter, is allowing this without resorting to first (or second, for that matter) amendment rights. How did JFK put it again..?

Something which drives the harm, much like how weapon type, bullet type, barrel design, ammo choice, distance, caliber, etc are the immediate driving forces behind the severity of a gunshot wound. It shouldn't be too hard to present one, seeing as it is, as you state, prima facie self evident, it's just better for a discussion to have some sort of launching point instead of a circular argument.

Greed is a driver. Self-interest is natural and virtually instinctive, but greed goes beyond answering one's needs into a territory wherein one is acquisitive to a degree that mimics addiction. Another driver is similar to greed: the impulse to control others for the sake of controlling them and for the sake of feeding the greed. You don't think a need for dominion over others is dysfunctional?

DDD - that people form special interest groups which lobby for government programs and then turn around and vote against the funding of those programs - seems to be a substantially larger problem than the influence of the wealthy, seeing as they have only one vote too.

One vote? You're ignoring the ability of the wealthy and powerful to influence both the electorate and the policy makers through manipulating the flow of information (the electorate) as well as the flow of funds (the policy makers). They don't even need to vote. They can buy votes.

While mixing money in politics is not something I am in favor of, the deeper problem is that you, the voter, is allowing this without resorting to first (or second, for that matter) amendment rights. How did JFK put it again..?

I refer you to my answer to your second paragraph above.

Very freaking GOOD!

Thank you!

I will see if I can post this to my FB page.

I'm an atheist Libertarian instead... and right now a volunteer for the Democratic party! I'm soooo confused! :p

RE: "I'm soooo confused!"

John Travolta as "Vinnie Barbarino," in the 70's TV show, "Welcome Back Kotter," right? You had the accent down and everything!

RSS

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service