Two ideologies; both wrong

Discussion in 'Politics' started by loosecannon, Mar 3, 2010.

  1. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    IMO.

    The first ideology holds as it's core tenant that the ruling principle is survival of and prosperity for the fittest.

    The second ideology holds that society exists as a means to serve all equally.

    Applied across a topic that profoundly shapes our world, economics, the first group of idealogues believes that it is best to have a stratified society with no limits on the ability to acquire wealth or no limits to the width and depth of poverty.

    The other group of idealogues believes that the economy EXISTS to provide jobs and basic requirements for all.

    Personally I think both ideologies are crap. Try as I have for decades, I can not accept or support either.

    Keep in mind that society, government etc are explicit social contracts committed to the stated purpose of providing equality for all, which surely includes basics like economic equality and justice. A goal decidedly at odds with the notion of unlimited wealth disparity, or disparity of privilege and power.

    And more specifically at odds with the survival of the fittest meme that underlies conservatism at it's absolute core.

    On the other hand the founding fathers in no way shape or form envisioned or supported a social contract in which government itself was expected to provide health care, a retirement pension, economic babysitting from cradle to grave. Absolutely not a welfare state or a quota system like affirmative action.

    But the question that most intrigues me about these ideologies and the way they collide is the question of whether the economy exists to provide jobs or to protect the rights of unlimited wealth accumulation(property rights)/screw the poor.

    This question focuses on the point at which these two ideologies contrast most deeply with one another. And the point wherein they are both most seriously tested.

    So I urge you to discuss your ideology within this frame work, examine and express why you believe in one pov or the other and what principles support your ideology.

    Property rights or employment rights.
    _________________________
    Parties divide; movements unite.
     
  2. Diuretic
    Offline

    Diuretic Permanently confused

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    12,653
    Thanks Received:
    1,397
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    South Australia est 1836
    Ratings:
    +1,397
    Can I suggest that another question might be, "what should be the purpose of an economy?"?
     
  3. loosecannon
    Offline

    loosecannon Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,888
    Thanks Received:
    263
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +264
    That is a great question, Diuretic.

    But when you ask it that way you strip it of it's ideological context.

    It is my belief that the two dominant ideologies spring from organic instinctive drivers. I am asking people to examine and discuss their own internal moral drivers. And then discuss how their core values or instincts are applied to their pov.
     
  4. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,617
    It's far easier to be a cluelss liberal if you're well off than if you're busting your ass to make it.

    That said it's also far easier to be a cluelss conservative if you're well off than if you're busting your ass trying to make it too.

    My conclusion?

    Affluence begats stupidity (well actually the word is hubris, but I didn't want to sound like a pointy headed intellectual)
     

Share This Page