Post: #1

Bryan Magee, one of my favorite writers is known for his books dedicated to popularizing philosophy for the general public. In one of his books, Confessions of a Philosopher he covers politics at some point and in one chapter he talked about his encounters and debates with the 'radical right', which to me seems like the British version of the US libertarian politics. While he ultimately is not convinced to go along with their programs, he gained much respect for it and decided that it represented the strongest alternative to his classical liberal stance. He gives the reasons for why he believes and I believe it spells out why people outside of college activists, hipsters, and academic intellectual types seem to be suspicious of leftists:

"Three things added especially to its power as far as I was concerned. One was the intellectual honestly of it, the down-to-earth common sense which contrasted so refreshingly with the ideology and bogus moralizing of the left.

The second, following on this, from it's genuine populism, its closeness to the views, values, feelings, and aspirations of the so-called ordinary people, which is something that socialists had always hungered for, and often deceived themselves into believing they had, but never had. Many of them were utterly astounded when the dockers of London's East End marched in support of Enoch Powell, Britain's leading radical-right politician at the time - thereby exhibiting their total incomprehension of the actual views of such people.)

The third was its ability to point to living examples of what it was proposing, namely in the United States - a country that I loved, admired and felt at home in. Ever since my hear in Yale I had believed that if a grown-up human being were to arrive on Planet Earth without ties, and had to decide where to live, the obvious choice would be the United States - which does indeed seem to be the first preference of more international emigres than any other country."

Post: #2

A party such as UKIP (Britain's libertarian-lite party) does represent the best interest of the common (working class) man, but whereas previously the working classes were a fearsome political power capable of grinding the country to a halt with protests, marches and civil disobedience, they are now too fat, too lazy and too distracted to ever make a serious deviation from the status-quo.

As such, elections in Western countries are largely decided by women (household opinion makers, who can overrule their weak men) or the wealthy (national opinion makers - owners of media and business). This is the perfect environment for the materialistic leftism of the present-day.

Post: #3

(09-15-2013 01:00 PM)Starke Wrote:  A party such as UKIP (Britain's libertarian-lite party) does represent the best interest of the common (working class) man, but whereas previously the working classes were a fearsome political power capable of grinding the country to a halt with protests, marches and civil disobedience, they are now too fat, too lazy and too distracted to ever make a serious deviation from the status-quo.

As such, elections in Western countries are largely decided by women (household opinion makers, who can overrule their weak men) or the wealthy (national opinion makers - owners of media and business). This is the perfect environment for the materialistic leftism of the present-day.

Yep. Women were 54% of the voters in 2012. Obama had a terrible first 4 years, maybe the worst in US history. But he had the media on his side. And he said women need more and more. He made up a fake bullshit lie about their being a "war on women". He then appealed to the low information voters saying some invisible boogie man was responsible for the still bad economy but he was fighting the good fight.

The men saw through it and voted him out. The women loved it and re-elected him.

Leftism = govt. for women. It steals from men (financially and power within the family) and it gives it to the women. It creates more and more broken families so that women don't have to be good wives and can still get money from the govt. to raise their kids (and money from the govt. means taking money from men by force of the IRS and giving it to women).

Both parties continue to move to the left in the USA to appease the majority women vote and it is bankrupting our country.

Post: #4

Leftism has no solutions, just a bunch of culprits they like to blame. But no actual policy other than take money from person A and give it to person B. that's gonna fix things

If you're not part of the victim class, then there's really no appeal to left-wing thought.

Post: #5

(09-15-2013 06:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Leftism has no solutions, just a bunch of culprits they like to blame. But no actual policy other than take money from person A and give it to person B. that's gonna fix things

If you're not part of the victim class, then there's really no appeal to left-wing thought.

This sounds exactly like the contemporary conservative moevement. The only difference is that the left blames the wealthy and white males, while the right blames the poor and brown people. It's all a big shell game. The best thing that anyone can do for themselves is to break out of the right-left mentality and instead start thinking in terms of authoritarian systems vs systems that allow for individual choice.

Post: #6

(09-15-2013 07:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 06:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Leftism has no solutions, just a bunch of culprits they like to blame. But no actual policy other than take money from person A and give it to person B. that's gonna fix things :rolleyes:

If you're not part of the victim class, then there's really no appeal to left-wing thought.

This sounds exactly like the contemporary conservative moevement. The only difference is that the left blames the wealthy and white males, while the right blames the poor and brown people. It's all a big shell game. The best thing that anyone can do for themselves is to break out of the right-left mentality and instead start thinking in terms of authoritarian systems vs systems that allow for individual choice.

Exactly. Left wing, right wing makes no difference. The corporations own the political system in the US. Get money.

Post: #7

(09-15-2013 07:42 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 07:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 06:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Leftism has no solutions, just a bunch of culprits they like to blame. But no actual policy other than take money from person A and give it to person B. that's gonna fix things

If you're not part of the victim class, then there's really no appeal to left-wing thought.

This sounds exactly like the contemporary conservative moevement. The only difference is that the left blames the wealthy and white males, while the right blames the poor and brown people. It's all a big shell game. The best thing that anyone can do for themselves is to break out of the right-left mentality and instead start thinking in terms of authoritarian systems vs systems that allow for individual choice.

Exactly. Left wing, right wing makes no difference. The corporations own the political system in the US. Get money.

I think that there are probably more corporations on the Republican side..

Post: #8

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
Benito Mussolini

Post: #9

(09-15-2013 07:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 06:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Leftism has no solutions, just a bunch of culprits they like to blame. But no actual policy other than take money from person A and give it to person B. that's gonna fix things

If you're not part of the victim class, then there's really no appeal to left-wing thought.

This sounds exactly like the contemporary conservative moevement. The only difference is that the left blames the wealthy and white males, while the right blames the poor and brown people. It's all a big shell game. The best thing that anyone can do for themselves is to break out of the right-left mentality and instead start thinking in terms of authoritarian systems vs systems that allow for individual choice.

That's not true. Right-wing is about conservatism and preserving the traditions American was founded on.

- Christ
- Family
- Marriage
- Hard work
- Community service and patriotic duty

The reason right-wingers don't like immigrants/minorities is because they undermine many of these American traditions.

- Broken families
- Leeching off welfare
- Children out of wedlock
- Opposing religions like Islam
- Ignoring neighbors in favor of sending cash back to their families in other countries

The right actually stands for principles, unlike the amorphous left.

Furthermore, you're equating right-wing with Republicans and left-wing with Democrats. That's not true and a vast oversimplification.

My grandfather, who is extremely right wing, voted for Kennedy. Now, he would never vote for a Democrat. Likewise, my father, who voted for Reagan, wouldn't vote for a Republican today.

There really isn't a party for the American right anymore, the Republican party is a bunch of pussy sellouts with no charisma or direction.

Post: #10

(09-15-2013 09:03 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 07:42 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 07:34 PM)j r Wrote:  

(09-15-2013 06:38 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Leftism has no solutions, just a bunch of culprits they like to blame. But no actual policy other than take money from person A and give it to person B. that's gonna fix things

If you're not part of the victim class, then there's really no appeal to left-wing thought.

This sounds exactly like the contemporary conservative moevement. The only difference is that the left blames the wealthy and white males, while the right blames the poor and brown people. It's all a big shell game. The best thing that anyone can do for themselves is to break out of the right-left mentality and instead start thinking in terms of authoritarian systems vs systems that allow for individual choice.

Exactly. Left wing, right wing makes no difference. The corporations own the political system in the US. Get money.

I think that there are probably more corporations on the Republican side..

While legally speaking corporations are people, they are not allowed to make political contributions. What usually happens is board/family members fund both sides of the election so that they win no matter who gets into office.

Post: #11

Comparing nations is silly. There are only two nations left on earth. The rich and the poor. Who cares if America is the best country in the world.

Would you rather be poor and live in the greatest nation in the world?

Or rich and live in Switzerland?

Post: #12

Religion.

I'd bet that lower class "common man" people or whatever you want to call it are more religious.

The right/conservative/corporate interests have co-opted the power of religion, or have taken advantage of the naivety of a lot of religious people; if someone can be convinced that there is a god without evidence, they can probably be persuaded more easily then skeptics.

It's like women who go on the feelings instead of logic. If it feels right to them, it is right, even if it's not.

Post: #13

(09-16-2013 12:40 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Comparing nations is silly. There are only two nations left on earth. The rich and the poor. Who cares if America is the best country in the world.

Would you rather be poor and live in the greatest nation in the world?

Or rich and live in Switzerland?

Depends what you want out of your life, and if you are talking about what was once a great country (the USA) or what the USA is becoming (a socialist hellhole).

If you could have a more capitalist USA, the likes of 20 years ago and before, I personally would rather be poor in the USA with a chance of greatness rather than rich in Switzerland.

Post: #14

Politics is more about power then ideology.

Not surprisingly, RT (Russia today) is also influenced by the Russian powers.

Post: #15

He's kind of right with that the appeal is the intuitiveness of the ideas of the right hit this common-sense notion, but that doesn't mean they are correct. For instance, I know a lot of people more on the right than the left believe that America will turn into greece and go bankrupt, which makes no sense for a country that controls it's own currency.

Post: #16

(09-16-2013 03:09 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  He's kind of right with that the appeal is the intuitiveness of the ideas of the right hit this common-sense notion, but that doesn't mean they are correct. For instance, I know a lot of people more on the right than the left believe that America will turn into greece and go bankrupt, which makes no sense for a country that controls it's own currency.

The USA doesn't control its own currency, the Federal Reserve does. Which is a private ownership bank, run by the elites and wealthy.

We have more flexibility than Greece, but it isn't like we can just borrow money forever and ever and got hundreds of trillion into debt.

To print more currency we have to sell bonds on the open market. Our bond rating has already been down graded once. And things are only looking worse year by year. It will not be long until no one buys our bonds without the similar stipulations that Greece has.

Yes, austerity will hit the USA one day as well, unless magically the govt. starts to control its wasteful spending.

Post: #17

(09-16-2013 03:09 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  He's kind of right with that the appeal is the intuitiveness of the ideas of the right hit this common-sense notion, but that doesn't mean they are correct. For instance, I know a lot of people more on the right than the left believe that America will turn into greece and go bankrupt, which makes no sense for a country that controls it's own currency.

Russia controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

Mexcio controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

100's other other examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so...n_defaults

Post: #18

(09-16-2013 03:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Russia controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

Mexcio controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

100's other other examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so...n_defaults

Of course, a country can go bankrupt if they choose not to pay. Just like a person can starve to death in an empty room if they refuse to open the door and leave.

When I state it's own currency, I'm also talking about debt issued in that currency. Once a country has debt in foreign denominations it's off because they cannot control that currency.

However, I understand politically why it's being invoked, because it's a good justification if you want to substantially reduce or eliminate welfare programs.

Post: #19

(09-16-2013 03:55 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 03:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Russia controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

Mexcio controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

100's other other examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so...n_defaults

Of course, a country can go bankrupt if they choose not to pay. Just like a person can starve to death in an empty room if they refuse to open the door and leave.

When I state it's own currency, I'm also talking about debt issued in that currency. Once a country has debt in foreign denominations it's off because they cannot control that currency.

However, I understand politically why it's being invoked, because it's a good justification if you want to substantially reduce or eliminate welfare programs.

What happened in Greece was they simply had borrowed so much that the creditors lost faith in them being sincere in paying it back. So eventually the powers that be gave them stipulations of austerity measures if they were to buy anymore of their bonds.

While the USA has a little more control than Greece, in the end we are still reliant on the same people. Soon enough, if we don't control our spending, the same will happen in the USA.

Post: #20

(09-16-2013 03:55 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 03:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Russia controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

Mexcio controlled it's own currency, went bankrupt

100's other other examples

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_so...n_defaults

Of course, a country can go bankrupt if they choose not to pay. Just like a person can starve to death in an empty room if they refuse to open the door and leave.

When I state it's own currency, I'm also talking about debt issued in that currency. Once a country has debt in foreign denominations it's off because they cannot control that currency.

However, I understand politically why it's being invoked, because it's a good justification if you want to substantially reduce or eliminate welfare programs.

I'm afraid you don't know how bond markets work. Governments do not choose whether or not they pay. They always pay if they can, and if they cannot because they are broke, then they go bankrupt.

What usually happens is the government devalues their currency so they can pay off old bills.

A 20 trillion bill is easy to pay when you devalue your dollar by 50% or more.