What exactly does the "Left" want?

Buller?

This isn't some kind of trap post. I honestly want to know what the left want. Curiosity, nothing else.

For starters, how long must we wait before some serious money gets invested in our deplorable infrastructure? Seems when a bridge collapses or a levy breaks, there's a whole lotta noise about how outrageous it is to allow that to happen. For a while. Then silence once again becomes the norm.

Most other major industrial nations seek to adequately maintain its roads, bridges, transportation systems, clean water systems, untold miles of underground sewer systems. A scary History Channel documentary needs to be re-aired called "The Crumbling of America" which is a huge wakeup call that the next big spending proposal needs to be for our shared infrastructure. But that continues to be seen as strictly a "liberal" want, pooh-poohed as being not a priority by conservatives. On the contrary, the American Civil Engineers latest report on infrastructure is pretty scary.

Docudharma:: Infrastructure Report Card -- and the Crumbling of America
 
What I got was you describing what makes you support the left in emotional terms....You can't un-type it.

People making their decisions on the caprice emotional responses, rather than reason, simply have no ethical compass.
Therefore, your opinion of what's best for the country, let alone yourself, is suspect at best. Moreover, if your you can't explain what's in it for someone else to go along with you, other than their particular emotional response, then it's safe to say that you care little to nothing for the reasoned opinions of others.

Absolute nonsense. Even if I disagree with him, ethics is not based solely on reason and logic. Some of the greatest crimes against humanity were based on reason and logic.

FFS, there are so many examples of emotion from the right its hard to know where to start. People don't support the death penalty because of reason and logic. They support the death penalty because of emotional responses. People aren't opposed to gay marriage because of reason and logic. They oppose it because of emotional responses. People aren't Christians because of reason and logic. They are Christians because of emotions.
It's not nonsense...He described his belief in terms of an emotional response and that's all there is to it. Moreover, I don't trust Christian fundies any more than I do socialists. In fact, the two have more in common than not.

Meanwhile, if you're going to sit around claiming the moral superiority of using force upon others --the kind of force that can hurt people-- do do your bidding, based upon nothing more than your subjective emotional responses, it's safe to say that you're not in possession of any kind of rational moral code.
 
This is the problem... the left is all about wants... AKA what they want from the government or at the expense of others...

It's not about equal treatment by government.. it is about equal treatment when it benefits them and their voter base, and unequal treatment for others when it benefits them and their voter base...

So there won't be any Republicans who will benefit from health care reform? No Republicans who are happy that credit card companies are no longer allowed to gouge the consumer? Not a single Republican earning less than $250K per year is happy he/she gets to keep their tax cuts?

Uh huh...whatever you say. :eusa_whistle:
 
What I got was you describing what makes you support the left in emotional terms....You can't un-type it.

People making their decisions on the caprice emotional responses, rather than reason, simply have no ethical compass. Therefore, your opinion of what's best for the country, let alone yourself, is suspect at best. Moreover, if your you can't explain what's in it for someone else to go along with you, other than their particular emotional response, then it's safe to say that you care little to nothing for the reasoned opinions of others.

So you want me to explain my rationale for each topic to you? LOL, feel free to look up my rationale in any of the other threads on this site if you so desperately need to know what drives my opinions.

The fact is you have no leg to stand on and have resorted to senseless rambling. You have already proven that your best explanation for my viewpoints is absurd and poorly thought out and now you're actually asking for proof of my own viewpoints. Talk about desperation mode. Ha!!! Then you proceeded to tell us about your selfish views and the fact that what's best for you is more important than whats best for the nation.

So I've already shown that you don't understand who a liberal is and at the same time showing what kind of conservative you truly are. Care to ramble on any further and dig your hole deeper?
I understand your kind of socialistic liberalism just fine...I'm a reformed Humphreyite democrat.

Your opinion of what's best for the nation is just that...Your opinion. That you can't tell me what's in it for me, or anyone else for that matter, is the best evidence anyone needs to show that you put the desires, opinions and *ahem* feelings of everyone else in a subordinate position to your own.

A more self-centered attitude cannot be found.
 
It's not nonsense...He described his belief in terms of an emotional response and that's all there is to it. Moreover, I don't trust Christian fundies any more than I do socialists. In fact, the two have more in common than not.

Concepts of justice are rooted in emotional responses. People want to see those who break the law punished for punishment's sake. They want to see criminals pay. There is much more emotion in sentencing criminals than there is reason. Emotions are deeply rooted in ethics.

Meanwhile, if you're going to sit around claiming the moral superiority of using force upon others --the kind of force that can hurt people-- do do your bidding, based upon nothing more than your subjective emotional responses, it's safe to say that you're not in possession of any kind of rational moral code.

Well, that's your interpretation of a rational moral code. Others believe capitalism is an exploitive and violent system, and freedom is freedom from hunger, homlessness and worry about where your medical care will come from. Last time I checked, all questions of philosophy had not been settled.
 
I think the question is more geared to "end game." From that perspective you have to see what "the left" sees as the worlds primary issues, and thier responses to said issues. Please before you repsond (I DONT BELEIVE THAT) remember I am going with the proto-typical viewpoints of someone who would be considered "leftist"

To a leftist the world is a place of inequalities, economic, social, power, etc. To correct these inequalities one needs a structure such as the goverment to force those at the high end of the these inequalties to stop doing what perpetuates the inequalities. So the wealthy need to share it, People with restrictive moral beliefs need to give them up, and people with excessive power need to be brought down to "the rest of us." The specific issues that can be seen as "leftist" can be boiled down to this basic premise.

For example, a leftist as described above would see a rich person as someone who benefits from economic inequality. In their opinion, the excess of wealth is probably undeserved, and should be shared with the general public for the greater good. As this person is believed by the leftist to be selfish, they need to be forced to spread thier wealth around to the public (i.e taxation)

There are other examples, but it all ends up with inequalities, and using goverment to fix them.

But the creeping disparity between the wealthy and the less affluent has never been so obvious. It would be one thing if the wealthy actually DID invest in America either by trickle-down or charitable methods to the point that it really put a dent in the other end of the wealth spectrum--the truly poor, and of course helping the unfortunate unemployed hanging by a thread by investing in business expansion. So when all statistics show that since 1979 the top 1% has increased their earnings by 281%, which is as much wealth as the lower 90%, the "left" certainly has cause to wonder exactly what the wealthy ARE spending on. Since that of course leads to speculation, the demand is therefore going to be that they should at least be paying higher taxes. Nobody is asking the wealthy to give up half.
 
It's not nonsense...He described his belief in terms of an emotional response and that's all there is to it. Moreover, I don't trust Christian fundies any more than I do socialists. In fact, the two have more in common than not.

Concepts of justice are rooted in emotional responses. People want to see those who break the law punished for punishment's sake. They want to see criminals pay. There is much more emotion in sentencing criminals than there is reason. Emotions are deeply rooted in ethics.
There's nothing emotional about seeing proactive aggression against another peaceful person, as an aberration and affront to a consistent moral code of a peaceful culture.

Conversely, using the collectivized coercive force of big gubmint to force your social moral code upon other peaceful people, with no other criteria other than "well we held a vote on it", is about as malevolently aggressive as you can get.

Meanwhile, if you're going to sit around claiming the moral superiority of using force upon others --the kind of force that can hurt people-- do do your bidding, based upon nothing more than your subjective emotional responses, it's safe to say that you're not in possession of any kind of rational moral code.

Well, that's your interpretation of a rational moral code. Others believe capitalism is an exploitive and violent system, and freedom is freedom from hunger, homlessness and worry about where your medical care will come from. Last time I checked, all questions of philosophy had not been settled.
That people believe free exchange between consenting adults -AKA capitalism-- is exploitative and violent is their problem and hallucination. Only people can be exploitative and violent, the system itself in neutral.
The only legitimate "freedom from" in a truly free society is the freedom from the aggressive acts of anti social people...Especially if those miscreants are members of the very system which was set up to provide redress for those transgressions.
 
Don't you fools realize that a stable, prosperous citizenry supports a stable, prosperous economy? WHY don't you get that??? We know you guys are ok with this country sliding into a third world oligarchy ruled by megacorporations, but we just don't understand why. Do you really think it is healthy for a nation's top 5% to control 95% of the wealth? That is where we are headed.

It's classic class warfare, and their class is winning. But who will be left smart enough and/or healthy enough to turn the wheels to keep the business running to provide more profit for the bossman?
 
Don't you fools realize that a stable, prosperous citizenry supports a stable, prosperous economy? WHY don't you get that???
Huh??...If Big Daddy Big Gubmint's authoritarian meddling in economies actually worked, the USSR, Cuba, North Korea et al would've been the most prosperous nations of all time....But it doesn't so they weren't

Only brainwashed Birchers think the USA has become or will become even closely resembling Socialism, let alone Communism.
 
Don't you fools realize that a stable, prosperous citizenry supports a stable, prosperous economy? WHY don't you get that??? We know you guys are ok with this country sliding into a third world oligarchy ruled by megacorporations, but we just don't understand why. Do you really think it is healthy for a nation's top 5% to control 95% of the wealth? That is where we are headed.

So it is much better that all control is placed in the hands of a goverment, that if you go with a leftist model, controls production, ownership and the means of force?

At least with megacorporations they are fighting each other as much as they are fighting those who are against them.

The reason they become "megacorporations" is because of takeovers and mergers, where similar smaller corporations get out-competed because of the power and monied investments of the bigger ones. There are now only about five food producers in the U.S. having control over food production from seed to market shelves. Over time, small farmers and ranchers have either been swallowed up into them or put out of business.
 
This is the problem... the left is all about wants... AKA what they want from the government or at the expense of others...

It's not about equal treatment by government.. it is about equal treatment when it benefits them and their voter base, and unequal treatment for others when it benefits them and their voter base...

I agree, I think it better to say, what does the Right want from the FEDERAL government, (notice, leaves lots of leeway for states):

Me, I want the government to:

Listen and respond, (doesn't mean agree, though should in vast majority of issues), to the will of the people.
Control the borders.
Define our foreign interests.
Define, list, and defend our allies.
Settle/regulate issues that cross state boundaries.
Related to last point, 'general welfare', meaning issues too big to be contained by a state; FCC, FAA, interstate highways, great lakes, oceans, etc.
Conduct, meaning 'declare' wars. Stop with police actions and war by executive fiat.
 
"Liberals demand that the social order should in principle be capable of explaining itself at the tribunal of each person's understanding." Jeremy Waldron


"In his book Political Liberalism, John Rawls offers a general description of a liberal political outlook. He intends the description to cover views ranging from the classical liberalism of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, arguably in the tradition of Locke and Adam Smith, to the more egalitarian liberalism of his own Theory of Justice. Rawls writes, "the content of a liberal political conception of justice is given by three main features:

1. a specification of basic rights, liberties and opportunities (of a kind familiar from constitutional democratic regimes);

2. an assignment of special priority to those rights, liberties and opportunities, especially with respect of claims of the general good and perfectionist values; and

3. measures assuring to all citizens adequate all-purpose means to make effective use of their liberties and opportunities.

These [three] elements can be understood in different ways, so that there are many variant liberalisms."

Boston Review — Always at the After Party

Darn, it pisses me off that books like Waldron's are so darn expensive, I bought long ago, but look at Google books if you have time.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Rights-Collected-1981-1991-Philosophy/dp/0521436176/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1285023876&sr=1-5]Amazon.com: Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981-1991 (Cambridge Studies in Philosophy and Public Policy) (9780521436175): Jeremy Waldron: Books[/ame]
 
Ok, let me propose a hypothetical situation -

Let's say I am, white, male, employed making 100k+/year, fully insured and pays taxes. Why would I support all of these "leftist" issues if almost none of them were directly benefiting me? As in, I am part of the population that does pay taxes, I don't need "free" healthcare, I am not looking to marry a man, etc...

Please, logically explain why I would support a "leftist agenda" if I fit the description of the person above.

Because you're a rational person who also recognizes that class disparity has a moral component as well?
 
Ok, let me propose a hypothetical situation -

Let's say I am, white, male, employed making 100k+/year, fully insured and pays taxes. Why would I support all of these "leftist" issues if almost none of them were directly benefiting me? As in, I am part of the population that does pay taxes, I don't need "free" healthcare, I am not looking to marry a man, etc...

Please, logically explain why I would support a "leftist agenda" if I fit the description of the person above.

There is no logical explanation. But, my gut would be... the need to be seen as "caring". Typical emotive mumbo-jumbo.

Well said

So emotions are a thing of the past. No wonder I don't get the new right's though process. And you call US "robots." I wouldn't be you if I were paid a million a year, tax free.
 

Forum List

Back
Top