Not to the same extent. I am a great believer in balance. It incentivises all parties to act well in and out of power. Balance is currently lacking and it will be as long as the GOP can gamble on holding the Senate for extended periods with a permenant minority of votes.
Looking at the insanity of the Left-Right divide in the democracies: If you are a Conservative. your position is morally indefensible, given there is no actual shortage of resources that would preclude above-poverty participation by all, in a modern economy. Explanation: Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to need". Conservatives say " from each according to his ability, to each according to his ability. [That's why 100 people in the Conservative US have a combined wealth of $1 trillion, while 60 million people in the US have negative wealth (av. minus $8000] Marx made one mistake in not recognizing reward for individual effort above basic need. Conservatives make two mistakes: the first is assuming all have an equal chance to participate (which is the "from each" part) - wrong, because unemployment, under-employment, and hidden unemployment (due to participation rate issues) are the realities in modern "invisible hand" free markets with global supply chains; and the second is the opposite to Marx's mistake mentioned above, ie, conservatives don't recognize basic need at all (hence entrenched homelessness and poverty). So there you have it. We are all motivated by self-interested, competitive, survival instincts, but the Right in particular with its appeals to individual freedom, resists developing an awareness of that instinctive motivation which requires seeing it through a lens of 'justice', or fair access to basic resources, because in history the development of resources has been subject to scarcity and competition. That scarcity no longer applies in the AI and IT enabled economies. Just to understand the ferocity of the partisanship in the electorate.
To be anything but conservative is morally indefensible. To take from those who you don’t know for your own good, is morally bankrupt. To be on the side calling everyone nazis over false narratives like white privilege is morally indefensible. to be progressive in today’s time is actually regressive. It’s astounding the lengths the left goes through to misrepresent the right. yiur entire post is blatant misrepresentation and simply not true. Fake news has warped the minds of so many they no longer even know what the right actually believe anymore lol. what you perceive as need, is want. Significant difference
Thanks for the debate, I will of course outline your errors. Well, you omitted the key point of my argument, as I explain here: "To take from those who you don't know for your own good" omits the participation part in the economy, ie the "from each according to his ability" part, which is of course all that any of us can offer to society. Your statement there jumps straight into the reward/allocation side in the economy. The moral stance requires that BOTH sides (worker input and worker reward) of the economy are considered, as I outlined in my post. Nazism and "white privelege" are merely failed systems that attempt to deal with methods of participation on the one hand, and reward on the other hand; both systems are morally indefensible. Well, your argument started out on the wrong foot, as I explained above. You must address the "according to ability" part, if you want to defend your proposition of Conservative morality. My post presents ideas; you are free to expose the elements of "blatant misrepresentations" if you want to. Possibly, but again, that fails to deal with my explanation of the inherent injustice of the Conservative stance, which is what we are debating here. Finally, a debating point. Need is fresh food, clothing, housing, access to transport and certain utilities (eg internet) all of which are necessary for participation - at a socially acceptable norm - in the community's economic and social life, PLUS participating in provision for those needs. Wants are everything beyond those needs. Care to have another go at refuting post #2302?
I had no errors, you simply are in the wrong here. The MORAL STANCE is that you dont take from me for something that doesn't benefit us both. Taxes for things like police, benefit everyone. To pretend otherwise, is immoral. My arguemnt started out on the correct foot, I "must" not do anything simply becasue you demand it. Your post presents nothing but your misguided opinion and conveniently misrepresented what it is the right believes. YOu know you did. There is no inherent injustice in the conservative stance, there is however inherent injustice in the progressive stance. Socially acceptable norm is whatever anyone wants too call it. Its a nonsense debate point you are tryign to make.
Funny that. When I don't respond to an offer letter, am I refusing to look at the offer? Is that the same as saying no? To me, it is. There is no constitutional requirement that they have a fake set of hearings so they can say no. They said no. Constitutional requirement met.
Thank you for that gracious concession speech, Cy. Yes, we do need to put our differences aside and move forward together,
It doesn't really mean very much when you win, calling for unity. tbh. Especially after making it so clear yall would'nt be civil until you had power.
Touche Oh I see; you have identified a bit a mad policy originating on the Left, and decided that bit of mad policy is the standard by which you will judge progressivism. But you don't understand WHY certain people have decided the only way to deal with some cops behaving badly is to defund all of them. Obviously a mad policy, I agree with you. I'm not demanding anything of you. I'm explaining why your omission of a consideration of peoples' capacity to participate in the economy needs to be taken into account, in any MORAL consideration re the economy ( "from each according to his ability"). See the paragraph above. Mere repeated assertion without an offer of explanation, as opposed to the points I put forward in post #2302. Socially acceptable is what you would accept if someone sat next to you on a bus, or what an employer would accept as a basis for an interview (regardless of skill requirements)
It is the standard by which progressivism stands for, and it is ridiculous. I understand exactly why, they have been convinced by false narratives that the statistical anomaly of police brutality is the status quo. Its statistically an anomaly and its absurd to pretend otherwise. No are explaining a nonsensical position, based on false assumptions. You aren't putting forth anypoints that aren't self defeating as I have shown. Yes, it is. Socially acceptable is literall;y whatever we say it is. Its as subjective as it gets. Whats socially acceptable to one, is not to another. Its whatever we want to call it.
I think Trump will look for something that demands a recount somewhere. I know he won't concede. Trump thought he was going to win. Trump will have to accept that Biden won and that's all there is to it.
Blah, blah, and... BLAH. Enjoy your victory (I certainly enjoyed mine when Trump beat Hillary in '16), but understand that now we must put all this 'catty' bullshit aside and start -- somehow -- to actually cooperate with each other and work together if we are going to make it in a healthy and solvent way through about June of next year. I suppose that after next June, you on the Left can resume your non-stop howling and whining about Trump if that's somehow still amusing to you... but we've got one HELL of a bad winter and spring to get through between now and then. At least Trump got the ball rolling in a huge way toward pulling together all the resources necessary for a vaccine... let's just hope that it works when they roll it out in a few more months, and that the U. S. doesn't go further into political civil war in the meantime....
If someone has access to the same resources as the next guy but didn't earn it, then all fairness is lost for that next guy - who had to work for the same access. And if it's mandated by law, it's forced unfairness and injustice. Working stiffs should know that they're not working to support some slacker who thinks they're entitled to relax on the State's dime. They should know that their tax dollars are going to people who will use them for their intended purpose. Almost all of us want to help those who will help themselves. We care about those whose circumstances are beyond their control, and who need a little help to get back on their own two feet.
If you're for real, you will want to see those things provided (short term, obviously .. not for life) not cash. I guarantee that people living hand to mouth in slums around the World, would LOVE the opportunity to have those things provided. Only the non-genuine would demand money instead, or think they're entitled to be choosy about the nature of the housing/clothing/food etc.
Good to know you would have said the same thing had Trump won What's that? You wouldn't have said the same thing? Well gosh, don't say you have like, some kinda double standards .. say it ain't so
But the ability to access the same* resources varies among individuals. (Note: the word '"same " there is suspect, resources must be allocated, obviously we can not eat the same loaf of bread). "Working stiffs"? You mean people working two jobs to make ends meet, while others shuffle money in the financial casino industry, with NO benefit for the real economy, and pay themselves millions, and call it 'working'....
I'm for real: in fact, personally if I was in charge, I would run a totally planned economy - without money at all - that organized production according to ability of all citizens with a guarantee/requirement of participation, and reward based on need plus special effort (say an extra flash car as reward for valuable technological invention, as judged by a committee to examine such things). Just to show I see no value in sitting around admiring a stash of cash, if above- poverty participation is guaranteed.
You've basically described communism. It hasn't worked anywhere, except ant and bee colonies, perhaps. I'm not interested in being a member of The Borg.
Cannot help yourself from being CONSISTENTLY wrong all the time? Sad! FTR I accepted that Bush jr was the LEGITIMATE winner in 2004. YOUR biggest LOSER*-in-Chief was INCAPABLE of winning on BOTH occasions but you NEVER allow FACTS to prevent you from spouting nonsense.
I replied to crank to indicate I'm not obsessed by money; she seems to think my requirement for government-guaranteed universal above-poverty participation somehow offends HER monetary concerns. I don't actually envision a non-money economy, because the amount of data required would be astronomical; but more importantly, would remove the useful element of competition and incentive that drives innovation. But there are alternatives to the present neoliberal mess funded by private banksters which sees inequality soaring to levels which will undermine social stability...as noted by Biden today, with his appeal for "fairness". One way to achieve an economy that works for all (leaving aside politics) is "socialism with Chinese characteristics" which if it progresses in the next 2 decades as successfully as it has in the last 2 decades, will produce an economy double the size of the US, and also achieve the eradication of all poverty. Another way is to authorize government, via its reserve bank (the Fed in the US) to issue and spend its own currency into the economy, alongside money creation in the private sector, as required to fully and sustainably utilize all available resources including labour (see MMT).
