View Poll Results: Who's the biggest asshole in the thread?

Voters
1. You may not vote on this poll
  • Your mom

    0 0%
  • Grumpy Old Man (Because it's my thread, dammit!)

    1 100.00%
Page 249 of 251 FirstFirst ... 149199239247248249250251 LastLast
Results 2,481 to 2,490 of 2505

Thread: Political Ideology

  1. #2481
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,420
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    They seem to be ignoring me too. Would you be willing to take a crack at the last message I posted to Maxx and M?
    If M is me ... what did I overlook?

    M

  2. #2482
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,374
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Manalysis View Post
    If M is me ... what did I overlook?

    M
    It was actually a post replying to one of Maxx's recently. But it was basically asking where the difference was between "Left" and "Right" in the thread that you and Maxx have going. It's a couple of posts back-- the one with the ship picture.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  3. #2483
    Senior Member Maxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,623
    Blog Entries
    33
    Rep Power
    89
    Sorry Mr E. Not ignoring you. Just slow to reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Just for my own edification, where is the line of demarcation? Because at the heart of it, all governments-- or at least most that I can think of-- are some form of a collective or another. Requiring (or forcing) people to contribute to "public works" projects which are decreed from "on high" in some sense. So when do these projects become "Left" or "Right"? We build roads and bridges because it helps everybody get around better and contributes to the overall ability of the community / country to engage in more meaningful commerce, facilitates the movement of citizens to get to work / travel / etc., and makes it easier to mobilize resources to address situations-- fire, flood, natural disaster, or military readiness. Similarly, the nation generally raises and maintains an army. The community raises and maintains a police force, a fire-fighting force, perhaps a medical force to attend and respond to emergencies in their respective jurisdictions. They probably also raise funds to build sewers and waste treatment plants. And probably to lay electrical wires to run street lights and traffic signals.
    I'd argue the right vs left conversation start with the regards to the 'helps everybody' part. When things help SOME while others pay for it. That is where he conversation starts.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    And eventually gets down to social programs-- such as welfare, social security, health care and so forth.

    What makes one program "Left" and the other "Right"?
    For me, it comes down to what the role of the government is supposed to be.

    Is the government supposed to DRIVE 'moral' and 'social' advancement and progress? This is the remit of the social engineers and progressives and feminists.

    Or is it just supposed to get the fuck out of people's way? This is small government conservative angle I come at it from.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    The possibility of fraud exists with every human endeavor. I don't see it as a good reason to be "for" or "against" anything-- it seems to me to be an obstructionist tactic. There may be other good reasons to be "for" or "against" something of course. But when you say "There could be fraud", you're really saying that you aren't "against" something but are concerned that there are not enough process controls in place to properly regulate whatever it is. Which is a reasonable concern, and one that may well need to be addressed prior to implementation-- but it isn't an argument in and of itself "against" anything particularly.
    It is a good reason to be against something if the approach being advocated for basically insures fraud is inevitable.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    That's where those process controls come into play.
    As I already explained in my reply to Manalysis...you need process controls on the process controls.

    And process controls on the process controls on the process controls.

    And process controls on the process controls on the process controls.

    Very quickly the government has become a big ugly monster of a thing.

    All the things those process controls are supposed to control against become increasingly likely the more processes controls there are. The more layers. The more unelected government suits trying to justify their inflated salaries.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    So when did you have the opportunity to object to the building of the roads and bridges, schools, police or fire headquarters, etc.? And if those decisions were made by people who came before you? Do you / should you get to continually reassess your buy-in? And who pays for that overhead? What happens if you stop agreeing to pay? Do we skip your house if there's a fire or a break-in? What about the risk to your neighbor-- when your house is burning, because you didn't want to pay and now his house is at risk? Or vice versa?
    The whole thing with all this left stuff is that you can justify funding it via taxation for as long the majority of people being forced to pay can understand and support the benefits.

    The breaking point comes when they can't. When single moms get all kinds of welfare and benefits but ordinary working families struggle to make ends meet and the middle class folds on it's ass and collapses.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    It seems reasonable that there has to be a limit to the "public works" at some point. You can't go on funding public projects forever if for no other reason than sooner or later people are going to run out of money and/or productivity to support it. Much less inclination to support it.

    So is this the line of demarcation-- what separates "Left" from "Right" ???
    You have to limit it things that are reasonable and fair as far as the majority are concerned. In a place like Sweden the majority clearly think a lot more 'stuff' falls under the remit of 'reasonable and fair' than the average American would.

    A big part of that is do with the wealth of the nation. The majority of Swedes are fucking rich by compassion. So they can afford to support a bunch of their tax money being spent on all kinds of state sponsored nonsense.

    In a country where you are squeezing the shit out of an already struggling middle class to fund an underclass of leeches or worse still fund a wave of mass immigration...you are sowing the seeds for a dramatic shift in the direction of small government among the voting public.
    Last edited by Maxx; 03-27-2017 at 06:19 PM.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

  4. #2484
    Senior Member Maxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,623
    Blog Entries
    33
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    So should you give them a sandwich or not?
    That's not the question. The question is, should you have the individual right to make that choice for yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    What if the harmful thing turns out to be the government's own corporate policy? It's hands-off approach to Capitalism which permits the ones at the top to take advantage of all of the others-- to the detriment of almost everybody?
    Most of the shit the progressive lobby advocates to tackle big business actually has the opposite effect, it disadvantages and obstructs small businesses in ways that ultimately benefit big biz.

    Most big biz is in bed with big government. Sadly entirely too many ideological leftists fail to grasp this obvious reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Why is it you (any you) can be concerned about giving the old wino a sandwich but not equally concerned about the reason he can't get a job or build his own business-- or maybe he had one and was unfairly competed out of operation...
    The problem is that excessive state regulation of the business sector DOESN'T adversely impact LARGE businesses it adversely impacts SMALL businesses. It doesn't do what it says on the tin.

    The bigger the business the less big government regulation is positioned to hold it to account.

    The fucking over of small businesses doesn't happen in opposition to big government overreach and excessive state regulation it happens in tandem with it.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

  5. #2485
    Senior Member Maxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,623
    Blog Entries
    33
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    I agree with your sentiment, but I'm just not sure where the correct point of intervention is. What makes one project worthier than another? And who gets to decide. And how do they know? And what happens when they don't know, even though it is every bit in their interest and bailiwick to have an input / say on funding and where the capital is coming from? What do you do with people who just don't want to pay under any circumstances because they're stingy and miserly. Should they get to participate and receive the benefits of community works / projects such as roads and bridges? What about access to police and fire services? Or medical care? There are all sorts of issues on both sides of all of these items.
    I would say you look at it this way. You have to be able to JUSTIFY each thing you add to the state ledger.

    People have to be able to see where their money is going. The benefits you claim have to be self evident.

    People's concerns have to be heard and acknowledged. Evidence supporting their concerns has to be heard and acknowledged not suppressed and ignored.

    Look at Europe. Leftist regimes have spent decades implementing various leftist policies that adversely impacted ordinary people's lives and the left has constantly called people racist and bigoted and assholes for protesting about how their governments have been spending their money and on what.

    And now you have nationalist small government de-centralization anti-EU parties and movements rising to prominence in Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Italy etc. All the places where people's voices have been ignored by left of center policy makers.
    "Being a cunt doesn't make you wrong." ComradePrescott

  6. #2486
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I would say you look at it this way. You have to be able to JUSTIFY each thing you add to the state ledger.

    People have to be able to see where their money is going. The benefits you claim have to be self evident.

    People's concerns have to be heard and acknowledged. Evidence supporting their concerns has to be heard and acknowledged not suppressed and ignored.

    Look at Europe. Leftist regimes have spent decades implementing various leftist policies that adversely impacted ordinary people's lives and the left has constantly called people racist and bigoted and assholes for protesting about how their governments have been spending their money and on what.

    And now you have nationalist small government de-centralization anti-EU parties and movements rising to prominence in Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Italy etc. All the places where people's voices have been ignored by left of center policy makers.
    This is a good point Maxx. But without particularly talking about the countries I don't know much about, there are other causes of dissatisfaction.

    The wars caused by Bush and Blair's intervention in Iraq, the interventions in the Arab Spring, particularly Libya and the outcomes of those have left a deep dissatisfaction with government decisions, and also distrust for oil companies and arms manufacturers who are felt to be benefiting. Afghanistan is suspected as being more about oil pipelines and mineral extraction. That negativity and suspicion hasn't gone away, just been pushed under surface by the terrorism and migrant / refugee crisis.

    Add to this you have the 2008 banking crisis, and the solutions being banking and corporate welfare. Even if people weren't sympathetic to a left wing rise in Greece, many were sympathetic to plight of the Greek people and the message made by an effective overruling of their democratic will.

    The core of most of these events has been, rightly or wrong assigned to the right wing politicians and by extension to the right wing mindset. I don't agree with it being extended to the right wing mindset, nor do I like the left wing tactic of calling ring wing mindset racist to exclude them. But when it comes to economic decisions, which have inflated and bubbled the housing market, and inflated the equity market then I do think, economically right wing politicians inc those like Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Barack Obama (etc wearing left wing cloaks) are to blame rather than left wing politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbin.

    The Left movement has latched on to these dissatisfactions and used left wing social and morality policy concessions made by all political fronts, corporations and institutions, esp pandering to feminists, to launch an all out offensive or power grab over economic, democratic and justice policy.

    The assault is predicated on blaming the right wing mindset, that brings in right wing politicians. You can point to the rise of hard right and even far right politicians in countries impacted, but it's rising at a time when left wing sentiment hasn't actually started to recede. I've lived through right and left cycles before, things are bit different now because internet makes things faster, and the argument descends quicker since we don't have anything resembling either a non partisan media or an honest set of opposing media. This is resulting in a lot of friction and melee, and that is resulting in a far more rapid rise of hardened and even extreme views.

    Would you say firstly any political leadership is actually without blame? And secondly can this actually be laid down as failings of either left wing mindset, right wing mindset or any combination of both?
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  7. #2487
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,420
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    It was actually a post replying to one of Maxx's recently. But it was basically asking where the difference was between "Left" and "Right" in the thread that you and Maxx have going. It's a couple of posts back-- the one with the ship picture.
    I looked at that, and saw mainly questions specifically about Maxx' POV, and didn't think it was my place to speak for him.

    But if it is an open ended question ... where to begin?
    I'll try to stick to the "official left", and not explore the weird fringe.

    Down at the level of philosophy, there is a "leftist" epistemology, closely akin to pragmatism (learning by doing), which leads to a variant of standpoint theory: We hold things to be true that make sense from our perspective as doers.
    There is also a constructivist element, as no man lives in isolation, all things we learn and do are informed by interaction, i.e. man is by nature, wherever we find him, already part of a group; the individual alone is an abstraction.
    The Right view leans more towards philosophical and theoretical individualism.

    Hop up one level to political science: Society, is a two-part machine: the economy, and its administration - ownership, R&D, laws, government .... the whole, present "bourgeois society".
    It is characterized by a double system: politically, it is a democracy: one man, one vote. Economically, it is an oligarchy: one dollar, one vote. Millions of dollars = millions of votes.
    Day to day politics is rife with rivalries rooted in the conflict between these two systems: the economy wants to direct politics, the political side want to direct the economy.

    The left analyzes these social relations as a result of economic relations, i.e. economy is the driver of the reality we see.
    We can observe a division along property lines, and this division is both based on, and leads to, inequality which is institutionlized.
    The core of this argument is that the values that constitute our wealth and riches are in fact produced by the labour of the workers, yet they do not share in the wealth because our system of property allows some people to not distribute any, i.e. retain most of the surplus income generated by all the work and turn-over. The left criticizes unnecessary disparity as unfair, when some own and others are forced to serve the owners. Many of the left programs aim to rectify this, or at least ameliorate some of the worst effects of it. That is kind of the moral imperative of the left, and its "humanist face" - a wish to make life good for everybody.
    The Right view is usually anchored in concern for property rights, on various levels.

    As mentioned before, looking at society as one big machine, there are operating costs, like keeping the labour pool filled, i.e. producing workers. Modern insustry needs workers that are in good physical shape (health services, housing and food) and in good mental shape (education). Much political strife is due to the issue of who is to bear this cost (like in Obamacare etc.). On the left, the view is that if the Industry wants to "buy" workers, they need to pay the full price; while the opposite side would be happy to merely by the labour power (work time) and let the workers pay their own way. The same kind of arguments are raised when it comes to infrastructure, and environmental concerns. The focal point will be taxes: who pays the, and how much must they pay?
    The Right usually favours policies that are beneficial to Industry.

    Modern social democracies adhere to the US/UK, and now largely Western, political model of representative parliamentarism; to a free market, but to a free market with regulations and with the state as an active participant in the market.
    Some of the most successful, and all of those who have any success at all, run a scheme of negotiation between labour and employers that will safeguard the workers a decent wage and the employers a loyal and stable staff.
    Call it a publicly mandated distribution of wealth.

    Social democrat policies involve the state building up resources, through business or taxation, and running programs like health and education and infrastructure, etc., and income redistribution.
    The anti-politics to that include the night watchman state, fiscal conservatism (which includes monetary policy, I think), new public management, the citizen as customer, and similar policies that gained traction under Reagan, Thatcher, Blair etc.

    That ended up very general, I'm afraid, but I tried to make it as short as possible and to touch upon as many corners as I could.
    My presentation of the Right is of course sketchy in more than one sense, what is included here is only that which contrasts with what I say of the left, and of course there is more to be said than that.
    I assume you don't want the entire PoliSci lecture, but I hope you can pinpoint areas of special interest for further elaboration.

    And before there is any dogfight, folks: I belong the the weird left, and I don't support all of the above; it's just an attempt to answer the question, ok?

    M

  8. #2488
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,420
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    The whole thing with all this left stuff is that you can justify funding it via taxation for as long the majority of people being forced to pay can understand and support the benefits.
    The breaking point comes when they can't. ....You have to limit it things that are reasonable and fair as far as the majority are concerned.
    Just chiming in to agree on this.

    M

  9. #2489
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,374
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Sorry Mr E. Not ignoring you. Just slow to reply.
    No worries, I wasn't really complaining anyway.

    I want to reply more but I'm at work right now.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  10. #2490
    Couldn't have said it better myself...

    Ephesians 5 "Husbands, Love your wives like Christ loved the Church". (Wives, give your husbands something to love).
    "Wives, RESPECT your husbands". (Husbands, give your wives something to respect.)

    For a man does not truly feel loved unless his wife, mother, and children display respect to him.

    "From each MAN according to his abilty, to each WOMAN according to her need"... Allison Tienemann

    "Feminism is a HATE group... Feminists are HATEFUL people"... Mr. e

    "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."... Ronald Reagan


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •