loosecannon
Senior Member
- May 7, 2007
- 4,888
- 269
- 48
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.
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.
