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: 3364

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


If you are going to make arguments up for her she didn't herself offer up, at least have the common decency making it short. 

The gist of her argument was that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth ("Really, how exactly"). Then a rant about how awful the rich are, then a sub-conclusion that they owe society ("We live in a SOCIETY where we have responsibilities to one another"), but are screwing the poor ("further enrich at the expense of the poor"), then yet another sub-conclusion of how awful the rich are ("shows the wealthy up for what they largely are"). Ending up in an statement centering on an utter misunderstanding of the word "trickle", as opposed to stream or flow.

Give me a break.  You complain that I don't expand, then complain when I do.  for the record, the post was only ten percent longer than one of your previous posts in the exchange (approximately the length of a twitter tweet).  

I am not making up anything on her behalf.  I have not stated that she holds any of these views, but rather offered up possibilities that don't align with your inference. I've stated two things explicitly:

i) There are more possibilities than an expectation of either a personal or collective wealth return.
ii) Neither of us know what the poster actually advocates, or, in broader terms what 'leftist hippies' advocate on an individual basis.

I didn't complain that you didn't expand, I complained that you ignored my argument and then dismissed it.

i)If the premise is that the wealthy don't deserve their wealth, you really believe the follow up argument is that they should be allowed to keep it? That doesn't make sense. Seeing as the wealthy can hardly be expected to hand their wealth over on a say-so, it would have to be forcibly collectivized, which happens to be a fairly well know leftist argument.

ii)Of course one cannot know what the individual believes unless that person specifically states that. However, I'm pigeonholing her opinion it into a fairly boilerplate leftist program which can be found here, specifically because there is a lot of overlap in arguments. 

I had to expand to address my point of contention as you would not accept my brief statement that there are numerous alternative possibilities to your inference.  My primary issue is the entirely unnecessary pigeonholing.  

If you want to speak in generalities, I can understand that, but why on earth would you point to a specific example that only works if you have to fill in large gaps with some socialist website that bears no direct relation and only surface similarities?

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? 

edit: I screwed up my own words (for shame)

I did not say 'most', but I did say 'millions upon millions'.  In the context of the Democrats vs. Republicans debates, my basis for the claim is the substantial number of supporters for Obama in the middle and upper wealth brackets.  In this context, Obama most closely represents the 'leftist hippie' option.

The amount that wealthy people contribute to social programs in taxes would have to be compared to the harm caused by the wealth disparities that enable that wealth, or alternately, to the amount of tax revenues that would be generated and required for social programs with a more egalitarian wealth distribution.

I don't have a good model for that on hand, which is why I do not personally hold a strong opinion on how things should be different in order to be better or optimal.  

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..?

"You said neither,"

True, I amended the post as you were typing that.

"And how, exactly, does wealth disparity create harm?"

A gross disparity in wealth all but equals a similar disparity in power.  If members of the highest wealth classes near universally limited their behaviour to buying fancy things and to competing fairly in the market place when they conduct business, I really wouldn't have all that much concern.  Politically, that's not really the case here, (though I am not the sort to try for the 'corporate oligarchy' melodrama).


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. 


Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service