TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The conservative mindset
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The conservative mindset

For years I could never understand the mindset of someone like US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or President Bush, but the answer was in front of my eyes as plain as day for all these years.

I believe these to be the two main tenets, the pillars if you will, of conservatism.

The main and most important pillar is the first:

Fear

This fear is far-reaching. It's fear of blacks, Arab, hispanics, and Asian peoples. Fear of the Red man who has had his land and women raped throughout the centuries. Fear of homosexuals. Fear of religious minorities. Fear of people who come bearing bad news. Fear of reaching out to the global community. Fear of losing vast accumulated wealth. Fear of losing the beloved assault weapons to the gov. in case the feared minority comes to break in. Fear of..._______. Fear of too many things to list. Fear of change.


The second pillar is:

Greed

Greed that causes people to cut down the last 3% of the giant redwood trees (the oldest living things on Earth) to turn them into patio decks. Greed that causes the loss of domestic jobs to foreign countries with abusive civil rights records. Greed that would allow more lead and murcury in the rivers and lakes, and more pollutants in the air.



I believe the Iraqi war to be the perfect summation of these tenets.
You need only look beneath the skin of these half truths spouted by the Bush Administration to realize these are the two driving principles behind why brothers, sisters, cousins (including my own), mothers, and fathers were ordered to place themselves in this shooting gallery hell for the benefit of...










Of what? Of whom?



The American people?


The American people aren't any better off because of this war in Iraq.
In fact they are worse off! Their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers are dying almost every single day to terrorist attacks. They are asked to foot the bill for the mistake of a small group of powerful people after those same people have given billions in tax breaks to those who can most afford to pay taxes. Iraq was not an imminent threat to us across the Atlantic. Meanwhile those same soldiers' veterans benefits were cut by the same administration that has asked them to take a bullet in the name of "the war on terror."
Saddam was contained, though it's true his people were also contained in misery.

(More later...I'm too tired. Get the flames a goin')

The conservative mindset is also based on original values. Most conservatives do not like change, hence they fear ethnic groups working alongside them. They want to restore the government back to how it was when this country was started, where the rich were plantation owners, lawyers, etc. and the minorities worked under them. I'm not saying conservatives want to enslave people again (although same may want that), but the basis of fear for conservatives is that we now live in a society where you can be working alongside women and minorities. It is the fear of change.

very astute obervations Dave, although one might argue that your two "pillars" dialectically reinforce each other and are thus not mutually exclusive.

In a broader and more Hobbesian sense, your two pillars undergird what's wrong with not only American conservatism, but with the human condition writ large.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate and the minorities worked under them.

just a note...in the very early days of the American colonies, white indenturred servants were more common that black ones. Hispanics were unheard of in the colonies.
But, I agree with your statement. Conservatives are afraid of fear because, I believe, they think it will undermine the political structure of the country.

Ahem,

I consider myself to be a conservative and I don't particularly think that any of the points in your argument accurately describe any of the philosophical/political/economic views of my country and the world at large. You're making terrible generalizations the same way I tend to make generalizations about frigging liberals.

I would tread very lightly in attempting to stereotype an entire political ideaology Dave. Perhaps some examples of extreme conservatism can subscribe to those principles, but by and large, conservativism cannot be defined by the actions of the few examples of conservativism you have seen (Rush Limbaugh, Bush, etc.). Conservativism runs the gamut on pretty much all issues in as much as liberalism does.

If you are going to characterize conservativism by its extremes, then I suppose I could label liberalism as being those who think that a society can just tax and spend its way into prosperity while ignoring the primary motivating factor of individuals: consequences and responsibility. Without those factors in a society, there's no fear that if you're too lazy at work, you might get fired and have to live in the streets because the liberal social safety net will take care of you. Liberalism condones a society without consequence with a mantra of: Do what feels right for you, and that's good enough. However, I know that it is overly simplistic to characterize liberalism as such since there are varying shades and degrees of liberalism. In the same regard it is overly simplistic to label conservativism as being motivated by fear and greed. One could quite easily make similar parrallels of fear and greed within liberalism (it's not greedy to want to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who may not deserve it?).

There is no one unilaterially correct political position that benefits every person equally in the practical world. Capitalism shafts the lazy and the disabled, Communism shafts the hardworking and the motivated, etc. Since everyone is a different person and has different needs, it makes sense for individuals to have differing viewpoints.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate The conservative mindset is also based on original values. Most conservatives do not like change, hence they fear ethnic groups working alongside them. They want to restore the government back to how it was when this country was started, where the rich were plantation owners, lawyers, etc. and the minorities worked under them. I'm not saying conservatives want to enslave people again (although same may want that), but the basis of fear for conservatives is that we now live in a society where you can be working alongside women and minorities. It is the fear of change.

Ummmm I disagree with your line of reasoning. If you're going to base your criticisms of conservativism as being a desire to return to "slavery" one could just as easily make similar erroneous criticisms by claiming that conservatives desire a return to the caveman days or any misery prone days in past. Conservativism in no way embodies ANY specific political/social/anything ideaology at all. It merely implies a desire to maintain the status quo or a cautionary almost grounded approach towards new issues/ideas. For example, an individual would be prudent to be conservative when handling his money. One would be conservative about changing the constitution. Is this bad???

Now in your argument, you seemed to implicate conservativism as a proponent of racial inequality (as opposed to social inequality). I'm somewhat amused since the best example I can think of, of race based discrimination tolerated in our time comes from extremist liberalism. Two words:






Affirmative Action

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I would tread very lightly in attempting to stereotype an entire political ideaology Dave. Perhaps some examples of extreme conservatism can subscribe to those principles, but by and large, conservativism cannot be defined by the actions of the few examples of conservativism you have seen (Rush Limbaugh, Bush, etc.). Conservativism runs the gamut on pretty much all issues in as much as liberalism does. If you are going to characterize conservativism by its extremes, then I suppose I could label liberalism as being those who think that a society can just tax and spend its way into prosperity while ignoring the primary motivating factor of individuals: consequences and responsibility. Without those factors in a society, there's no fear that if you're too lazy at work, you might get fired and have to live in the streets because the liberal social safety net will take care of you. Liberalism condones a society without consequence with a mantra of: Do what feels right for you, and that's good enough. However, I know that it is overly simplistic to characterize liberalism as such since there are varying shades and degrees of liberalism. In the same regard it is overly simplistic to label conservativism as being motivated by fear and greed. One could quite easily make similar parrallels of fear and greed within liberalism (it's not greedy to want to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who may not deserve it?). There is no one unilaterially correct political position that benefits every person equally in the practical world. Capitalism shafts the lazy and the disabled, Communism shafts the hardworking and the motivated, etc. Since everyone is a different person and has different needs, it makes sense for individuals to have differing viewpoints.

Very well said.

I was hoping someone would take me to the cleaners (so to speak) on my comments because that's how one learns new ways of thinking. Ultimately I decided to write down my thoughs for the purpose of obtaining feedback from people with different belief systems, and also I admit it was partly out of anger.

You're correct that I am stereotyping an entire group of people and grouping all of the more centrist people in with the extreme right. This is perhaps not a very fair thing to do on my part.
I have also said before that in my opinion extreme liberalism can also be just as dangerous as extreme conservatism.

However I still stand by my assertion that the right wing is gripped by a deap seated fear of many different things (the greatest of which is a fear of change). You have shown me that the extreme left is also gripped by a kind of greed that is both like and unlike that which grips the extreme right. This further supports my theory that greed is secondary to fear in this eqation.

It would be great if people on both sides of the aisle would try and explain why they adhere to their respective belief systems in this thread. In fact I invite the people who read this thread to please do so.

On another note, the guy who was renting my sig has been kicked out by me (the almighty landlord).

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz However I still stand by my assertion that the right wing is gripped by a deap seated fear of many different things (the greatest of which is a fear of change). You have shown me that the extreme left is also gripped by a kind of greed that is both like and unlike that which grips the extreme right. This further supports my theory that greed is secondary to fear in this eqation.

Fear of change for the worse ... not necessarily fear of change in general. As if liberals aren't prone to fear and paranoia as well? (How many conspiracy theories have we seen on these boards? What of liberal paranoia against WTO, IMF, etc.? What of the actions of elf or other eco-terrorists? How many comparisons do we see of the US barreling down the path of Nazi Germany?)

I must admit, it is funny to see each side try to differentiate themselves from the other as if their human nature were intrinsically different. Please, the position of your political beliefs along the conservative/liberal scale define your character or your human nature???

The reason why I refuse to define myself as either conservative or liberal (or put myself in a political party and vote along those lines) is because I believe that ideology, of any kind, is the enemy, along with group association. As soon as you are part of a "we", ANY "we", you have stopped paying attention to the world.

Amen to that, Occrider! I try to use a common sense approach, personally. Groups are dangerous, indeed.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The reason why I refuse to define myself as either conservative or liberal (or put myself in a political party and vote along those lines) is because I believe that ideology, of any kind, is the enemy, along with group association. As soon as you are part of a "we", ANY "we", you have stopped paying attention to the world.

Or you could be severely confused and have no idea which way to turn. And while you just want to appease to both sides, deep inside you're a confused individual on the edge of going berzerk for sitting on the fence oh so long. Kinda like Pac Man stuck in a Galaga game - I don't know how to shoot the bastards, should I just eat them instead? How will that look like to the player who put his quarter in the game? Da hell's he gonna expect? Da hell he's gonna want from me now?!?!?

I knew I had you pinned.

I hate Mondays.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Or you could be severely confused and have no idea which way to turn. And while you just want to appease to both sides, deep inside you're a confused individual on the edge of going berzerk for sitting on the fence oh so long. Kinda like Pac Man stuck in a Galaga game - I don't know how to shoot the bastards, should I just eat them instead? How will that look like to the player who put his quarter in the game? Da hell's he gonna expect? Da hell he's gonna want from me now?!?!? I knew I had you pinned. I hate Mondays.

No you forget ... it's all a deception to hide my true identity

/runs off to buy more halliburton stock.

Re: The conservative mindset

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz The American people aren't any better off because of this war in Iraq. In fact they are worse off! Their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers are dying almost every single day to terrorist attacks. They are asked to foot the bill for the mistake of a small group of powerful people after those same people have given billions in tax breaks to those who can most afford to pay taxes. Iraq was not an imminent threat to us across the Atlantic. Meanwhile those same soldiers' veterans benefits were cut by the same administration that has asked them to take a bullet in the name of "the war on terror." Saddam was contained, though it's true his people were also contained in misery. (More later...I'm too tired. Get the flames a goin')

I am in total agreement with you. Few knew what was coming on that day that George W. Bush was sworn in as president. I supported this man ( and I use the term lightly ) when he spoke of Iraq prior to war but the events that are unfolding has left me with a Sucker S over my head, I feel that this man must go to restore America to its rightful direction in this world. What vision, strategy, direction does this administration have for America, not any positive ones that is for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider If you are going to characterize conservativism by its extremes, then I suppose I could label liberalism as being those who think that a society can just tax and spend its way into prosperity while ignoring the primary motivating factor of individuals: consequences and responsibility. Without those factors in a society, there's no fear that if you're too lazy at work, you might get fired and have to live in the streets because the liberal social safety net will take care of you. Liberalism condones a society without consequence with a mantra of: Do what feels right for you, and that's good enough. However, I know that it is overly simplistic to characterize liberalism as such since there are varying shades and degrees of liberalism. In the same regard it is overly simplistic to label conservativism as being motivated by fear and greed. One could quite easily make similar parrallels of fear and greed within liberalism (it's not greedy to want to take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who may not deserve it?). There is no one unilaterially correct political position that benefits every person equally in the practical world. Capitalism shafts the lazy and the disabled, Communism shafts the hardworking and the motivated, etc. Since everyone is a different person and has different needs, it makes sense for individuals to have differing viewpoints.

I feel the point you are attempting to make is a fallacy as it relies on the incorrect assumption that profit motive is the only thing in human nature that presses people to work and produce. I know regardless of whether or not I would get anything more then anyone else for it I would still go to university (as I am now doing), I would still get a job, and I would still do the same thing. I know that this is not a reasonable basis for an argument as it relies on only my case, but I think the point I am making is clear. I ask all of you, would you just sit around your houses and do nothing for eternity if you had the option to? It is human nature to want to create, produce, contribute and participate.

More to the point however I feel your understanding of the social democratic, and socialist instituion is lacking. Their are no places in the world where one can do no work and maintain a reasonable standard of living. The idea behind socialism is that everyone should prosper in an equal way, which is easily possible. It is not true that in countries where people live in a more socialist way that a larger number of people are unemployed and simply living of the state. I will point to what is usually considered the most far reaching social democratic country, Sweden. Their unemployment rate is 4% compared to the United States 6.1%. There is clearly enough wealth in the world for everyone to live a very nice life, but instead the wealth is horded by a few while the rest suffer.

You say that it is greed to take money from the deserving and give it to the not deserving. What is it that separates the two? In a very large way it's a history which created rich families from explotation. Is the rich white buisness man any more deserving then the poor black women who works as a social worker? the argument that you are making is in a very large way racist and sexist considering who in this (western) society is in the "deserving"
position.

I also have a problem with you saying that Capitalism shafts the lazy and disabled. Capitalism reenforces age old race and gender barriers. Capitalism also punishes the poor. One can easily right that off saying that in a capitalist society anyone is free to make their fortune, this however rests on the assumption that their is a level playing field to start with which is clearly not true. If you were to look at who is now rich and who is poor in America you would see that their hasnt been a lot of change over the past many years.

I also don't think it's reasonable to say that communism shafts the hard working and the motivated. Can you reasonably say that someone who works at a womens shelter helping abused women isnt hard working and motivated? or someone who works at a homeless shelter?

Its true that conservatism is based on the basis that one should be careful not to make turns for the worst. However as far as conservatism is concerned the worst only deals with the rich elite losing their money.

sorry for the way this post is written, Im really tired and need to get to bed. Ill come back tomorrow and change it so the grammar isnt so weak and its not so all over the place.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio I feel the point you are attempting to make is a fallacy as it relies on the incorrect assumption that profit motive is the only thing in human nature that presses people to work and produce. I know regardless of whether or not I would get anything more then anyone else for it I would still go to university (as I am now doing), I would still get a job, and I would still do the same thing. I know that this is not a reasonable basis for an argument as it relies on only my case, but I think the point I am making is clear. I ask all of you, would you just sit around your houses and do nothing for eternity if you had the option to? It is human nature to want to create, produce, contribute and participate.

Well of course profit is not the sole reason that presses people to work and produce. If you read my entire argument I wasn't criticizign liberalism as such. I was merely stating the point that one can make similar extremist and untrue criticisms of liberalism as one can make of conservativism. Liberals are as "lazy" as conservatives are "greedy". They are the same stereotypes.

quote:

More to the point however I feel your understanding of the social democratic, and socialist instituion is lacking. Their are no places in the world where one can do no work and maintain a reasonable standard of living. The idea behind socialism is that everyone should prosper in an equal way, which is easily possible. It is not true that in countries where people live in a more socialist way that a larger number of people are unemployed and simply living of the state. I will point to what is usually considered the most far reaching social democratic country, Sweden. Their unemployment rate is 4% compared to the United States 6.1%. There is clearly enough wealth in the world for everyone to live a very nice life, but instead the wealth is horded by a few while the rest suffer.

I think my understanding of social democracy and socialist institutions is quite thorough (what's there not to understand?). Certainly there are going to be a few extenuating circumstances as a result of a number of reasons inherent to the makeup of each country but, why not look at the Eurozone as a whole? The Eurozone unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. In the two biggest economies of the EU, france had an unemployment rate 9.6% and Germany was at 10.4%. Is this any indicator that socialist economies are bad? Of course not, it is merely an indicator that there is no magical solution at the end of the rainbow so to speak.

quote:

You say that it is greed to take money from the deserving and give it to the not deserving. What is it that separates the two? In a very large way it's a history which created rich families from explotation. Is the rich white buisness man any more deserving then the poor black women who works as a social worker? the argument that you are making is in a very large way racist and sexist considering who in this (western) society is in the "deserving" position.

Racist and sexist??? You seem to be subscribing to EXTREMIST beliefs when you choose to interpret my statements. Did I ever say that it was wrong to provide aid to the poor and needy??? Your argument is so propogandized that I feel the need to to examine it on a word by word basis.

"Is the rich (propoganda based upon social welfare) white (propoganda based upon race) buisness man (propoganda based upon job) any more deserving then the poor (propoganda based upon social welfare) black (propoganda based upon race) women who works as a social worker (propoganda based upon sex AND job)"?

HONEST Answer: YES if the RICH, WHITE, BUSINESS MAN works hard to EARN his income than he is more deserving than the POOR, BLACK, WOMAN, who is a SOCIAL WORKER that does not necesarily EARN their income.

Now just so to make things clear, are you establishing a liberalism vs. Consvativism argument? If so make a new thread (and a long one it would be). To me this thread is merely a discussion on the conservative mindset

quote:

I also have a problem with you saying that Capitalism shafts the lazy and disabled. Capitalism reenforces age old race and gender barriers. Capitalism also punishes the poor. One can easily right that off saying that in a capitalist society anyone is free to make their fortune, this however rests on the assumption that their is a level playing field to start with which is clearly not true. If you were to look at who is now rich and who is poor in America you would see that their hasnt been a lot of change over the past many years. I also don't think it's reasonable to say that communism shafts the hard working and the motivated. Can you reasonably say that someone who works at a womens shelter helping abused women isnt hard working and motivated? or someone who works at a homeless shelter?

You are correct with respects to my capitalistic representation. I was merely attempting to achieve a diametrical representation. However, capitalism is not only unfair to the disadvantaged but is also disadvantaged to the poor. Obviously the poor are not subject to the same opportunities the rich have. In contrast however, the rich capatilatists are subject to the very same forces and advantages of the opportunistic communists. There will alwasy be an upper crest of society that benefits.

Communism most certainly shafts the most productive component of society. By its very nature it MUST!

quote:

Its true that conservatism is based on the basis that one should be careful not to make turns for the worst. However as far as conservatism is concerned the worst only deals with the rich elite losing their money.

Sorry but that's a stereotype! If this was the case than the number of conservatives would be only 3% of the population.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio I feel the point you are attempting to make is a fallacy as it relies on the incorrect assumption that profit motive is the only thing in human nature that presses people to work and produce. I know regardless of whether or not I would get anything more then anyone else for it I would still go to university (as I am now doing), I would still get a job, and I would still do the same thing. I know that this is not a reasonable basis for an argument as it relies on only my case, but I think the point I am making is clear. I ask all of you, would you just sit around your houses and do nothing for eternity if you had the option to? It is human nature to want to create, produce, contribute and participate. More to the point however I feel your understanding of the social democratic, and socialist instituion is lacking. Their are no places in the world where one can do no work and maintain a reasonable standard of living. The idea behind socialism is that everyone should prosper in an equal way, which is easily possible. It is not true that in countries where people live in a more socialist way that a larger number of people are unemployed and simply living of the state. I will point to what is usually considered the most far reaching social democratic country, Sweden. Their unemployment rate is 4% compared to the United States 6.1%. There is clearly enough wealth in the world for everyone to live a very nice life, but instead the wealth is horded by a few while the rest suffer. You say that it is greed to take money from the deserving and give it to the not deserving. What is it that separates the two? In a very large way it's a history which created rich families from explotation. Is the rich white buisness man any more deserving then the poor black women who works as a social worker? the argument that you are making is in a very large way racist and sexist considering who in this (western) society is in the "deserving" position.

I'm not going to respond to every point because you basically lost me after the third paragraph. Very telling that you're in school--you have a lot to learn about the world before you can be stripped of your liberal shackles.

With regards to Socialism---Nobody 'prospers' in a socialist society. With regards to the motivation to produce regardless of reward--as you claim you would do if there were no reward--sure, you might produce for yourself, but you would never produce, or for that matter, give your best, to a society that enslaved you and paid you based on your need. The result of that scenario is a society in which every man tries to claim he is needier than his other fellow man. I could sit down and write an 8 page diatribe on this if you like--and I may--but I feel that it might be wasted on some of the less independent thinking minds that read this board.

The path to Atlantis is not accessible to those who support the looting of another man's creation.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well of course profit is not the sole reason that presses people to work and produce. If you read my entire argument I wasn't criticizign liberalism as such. I was merely stating the point that one can make similar extremist and untrue criticisms of liberalism as one can make of conservativism. Liberals are as "lazy" as conservatives are "greedy". They are the same stereotypes. I think my understanding of social democracy and socialist institutions is quite thorough (what's there not to understand?). Certainly there are going to be a few extenuating circumstances as a result of a number of reasons inherent to the makeup of each country but, why not look at the Eurozone as a whole? The Eurozone unemployment rate was 8.9 percent. In the two biggest economies of the EU, france had an unemployment rate 9.6% and Germany was at 10.4%. Is this any indicator that socialist economies are bad? Of course not, it is merely an indicator that there is no magical solution at the end of the rainbow so to speak. Racist and sexist??? You seem to be subscribing to EXTREMIST beliefs when you choose to interpret my statements. Did I ever say that it was wrong to provide aid to the poor and needy??? Your argument is so propogandized that I feel the need to to examine it on a word by word basis. "Is the rich (propoganda based upon social welfare) white (propoganda based upon race) buisness man (propoganda based upon job) any more deserving then the poor (propoganda based upon social welfare) black (propoganda based upon race) women who works as a social worker (propoganda based upon sex AND job)"? HONEST Answer: YES if the RICH, WHITE, BUSINESS MAN works hard to EARN his income than he is more deserving than the POOR, BLACK, WOMAN, who is a SOCIAL WORKER that does not necesarily EARN their income. Now just so to make things clear, are you establishing a liberalism vs. Consvativism argument? If so make a new thread (and a long one it would be). To me this thread is merely a discussion on the conservative mindset You are correct with respects to my capitalistic representation. I was merely attempting to achieve a diametrical representation. However, capitalism is not only unfair to the disadvantaged but is also disadvantaged to the poor. Obviously the poor are not subject to the same opportunities the rich have. In contrast however, the rich capatilatists are subject to the very same forces and advantages of the opportunistic communists. There will alwasy be an upper crest of society that benefits. Communism most certainly shafts the most productive component of society. By its very nature it MUST! Sorry but that's a stereotype! If this was the case than the number of conservatives would be only 3% of the population.

Im sorry that I took what you were saying as opinion and not as you simply saying it comparitivelly to the original point. I was really tired and that went over my head.

now moving on. I disagree that it is simply a stereotype that conservatism is based apon greed. I think the essence of conservatism, and more specifically capitalism, which is different, but at this is explicitly linked to it, is greed. The traditional proponents of conservatism are the upper class, as it perserves their piece of the pie. Clearly more then just them the upper class supports the notion of conservatism as the repulicans in the U.S. and the Progressive Conservaties in Canada both get a lot more votes then their are rich people.

I was using Sweden as an example as they are usually considered to be the farthest leaning example of a social democracy. It's true that unemployment is high in the EU, but if you examine all the factors causing this I think you will quite clearly see that it is not simply that people would rather not work.

I don't feel that I am subscribing to extremist beliefs. It is very evident and well documented that in the United States, which I am using as my example since this thread started with them, that the people who are rich are rich white males. This is not to say that no one else is rich, but a very disporportionate amount of the wealth is held by them. It seems quite unreasonable to me that you are labelling this as a stereotype as it is very well documented. I also feel you missed my point, which was that rich white male buisnessman make more then poor black female social workers, regardless of how hard either of them work. In this example I think it's a large stretch to say that the buisnessman is more deserving, but yet he gets more regardless.

I guess in a way I am starting a liberalism vs. conservatism debate, but I was doing so only to respond to what you said which is why Im still posting it in this thread.

I also dont feel it is correct to say that communism "shafts" anyone. I don't consider it being shafted when you are getting as much as everyone else. And remember communism is not based on the principle that everyone gets the same regardless. Its based on the principle that if a true communist society were established everyone would contribute according to his or her ability. In a more realistic current way of looking at it, it means that hourly wages would be the same, but I would still make more then you if I worked more.

I believe my last comment is also correct. Conservatism seeks to keep the status quo, the status quo is rich get almost everything poor get almost nothing.

What is the motivation to do good work in a Communist society??? The quality of goods that came out of Communist Russia were shit. The people learned that they could shirk their work and only do the minimum to get by, all the while drinking vodka till they were numb in the face.

And you're trodding into "entitlement mentality" areas when you talk about anyone deserving anything. A person with an entitlement mentality is a person who is no good and deserves nothing.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm not going to respond to every point because you basically lost me after the third paragraph. Very telling that you're in school--you have a lot to learn about the world before you can be stripped of your liberal shackles. With regards to Socialism---Nobody 'prospers' in a socialist society. With regards to the motivation to produce regardless of reward--as you claim you would do if there were no reward--sure, you might produce for yourself, but you would never produce, or for that matter, give your best, to a society that enslaved you and paid you based on your need. The result of that scenario is a society in which every man tries to claim he is needier than his other fellow man. I could sit down and write an 8 page diatribe on this if you like--and I may--but I feel that it might be wasted on some of the less independent thinking minds that read this board. The path to Atlantis is not accessible to those who support the looting of another man's creation.

Im not sure if your in school or not, but if your not then you should be, so that you can be stripped of your conservative shackles.

It is not in any way true that nobody prospers in a socialist society. To show this I will point to the equals of Chile, Nicaragua and Cuba. In the 3 years Allende was in power in Chile standards of living went through the roof, no capitalist economy can claim a change as large as theirs. In Nicaragua the Sandinistas were in power for 5 years before their country was so destroyed by a CIA organized Contra war that their government collapsed. Afterwards when capitalism was reinstated standards of living dropped dramaticly. In Cuba prior to the revolution standards of living were awful. Now they can boast one of the best health care and education systems in the world. And they can do this despite a devestating U.S. trade embargo.

Using the U.S.S.R. as an example is the last bastion of someone who is desperate to try and disprove socialism. It was only by a very far stretch of the imagination close to being communist. It is in a valid example of commuism the same way Sweden in a valid example of capitalism.

If you can somehow prove to me that no one would be productive and everyone would misuse the system then please do, because throught history no one has so far. Hell you could probably make millions of selling books if you could prove that. So please do.

I'm sorry, but I'm way past school and the bubble lifestyles of liberal acadamia. I live in what people call reality.

Simple explanation for what you say was a demise that occured after "capitalism was reinstated": You have a society where people are conditioned to think that they only need to do the minimum to get by and if they don't pull their own weight and produce for themselves, there's someone else to do it for them--well it's not hard to see that you end up with a society of unmotivated people who can't make decisions for themselves...result when you put such a society within a capitalist framework is that nobody has the wherewhithall to produce for their own prosperity because they've been taught that it's better to be a slave to society than to be the kind of man that makes forward progress. I'd be thrilled if all of the looters and second handers went to Chile, Cuba, and Nicaragua while the real movers and motivated producers stayed where they were and continued to work for themselves.

I'll wait for you to graduate, if you graduate, and live in the real world for 5 years before you start making claims that you can't back up.

Like I said earlier, I could really go on a diatribe and post some great passages, but I will have to wait until I get home to do so.

Out of curiousity, what are your plans, post-graduation?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I'm sorry, but I'm way past school and the bubble lifestyles of liberal acadamia. I live in what people call reality. Simple explanation for what you say was a demise that occured after "capitalism was reinstated": You have a society where people are conditioned to think that they only need to do the minimum to get by and if they don't pull their own weight and produce for themselves, there's someone else to do it for them--well it's not hard to see that you end up with a society of unmotivated people who can't make decisions for themselves...result when you put such a society within a capitalist framework is that nobody has the wherewhithall to produce for their own prosperity because they've been taught that it's better to be a slave to society than to be the kind of man that makes forward progress. I'd be thrilled if all of the looters and second handers went to Chile, Cuba, and Nicaragua while the real movers and motivated producers stayed where they were and continued to work for themselves. I'll wait for you to graduate, if you graduate, and live in the real world for 5 years before you start making claims that you can't back up. Like I said earlier, I could really go on a diatribe and post some great passages, but I will have to wait until I get home to do so. Out of curiousity, what are your plans, post-graduation?

I dont see what you percieve as "reality" to have any consequence here. Personal observation is not a reasonable tool to assess things because your working on such a small scale. I trust academia above anything you can say that living in "reality" has taught you.

You say the simple explanation for how people prospered during the communist societies and failed in the capitalist is because they lost their motivation. But to produce things to a level during the communist or socialist eras in those countries would of taken an equivacol amount of work. People also prospered a lot more during the socialist times then before them, when capitalism in place. How do you explain that?

I honestly dont see why I have to live in what you call the "real world" before I make claims that I have clearly backed up.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Do as you wish, learn the hard way. I find it extremely comical that you trust acadamia more than you trust reality.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

you can try to win an argument with simple metaphors, but it does not good.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that you trust what you yourself, one individual have seen with your own eyes more then research done on thousands of people by someone who is a professional at doing that type of research?

There are several problems with living like that. First of all you only see things through your bias, whether it be that you are a french-african-women or a British-Indian-man or a Canadian-Caucasian-male. The other big problem is that you are so subjective in what you see, and so limited in your scope that it nullifies anything you see as invalid as there is no logical way it is representative of a greater entity.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio Im sorry that I took what you were saying as opinion and not as you simply saying it comparitivelly to the original point. I was really tired and that went over my head. now moving on. I disagree that it is simply a stereotype that conservatism is based apon greed. I think the essence of conservatism, and more specifically capitalism, which is different, but at this is explicitly linked to it, is greed. The traditional proponents of conservatism are the upper class, as it perserves their piece of the pie. Clearly more then just them the upper class supports the notion of conservatism as the repulicans in the U.S. and the Progressive Conservaties in Canada both get a lot more votes then their are rich people.

One cannot claim that conservativism is grounded solely on greed as there is much MORE to that political ideaology than simply making more money. There is a natural tendency to be cautious in preserving one's well being. We're all cautious when it comes to matters money and issues that are of great importance in our lives. Does this mean that being conservative necessarily equates with being greedy? No, that definition is far too simplistic.

quote:

I was using Sweden as an example as they are usually considered to be the farthest leaning example of a social democracy. It's true that unemployment is high in the EU, but if you examine all the factors causing this I think you will quite clearly see that it is not simply that people would rather not work.

Perhaps one fo the farthest leaning successful examples of a social democracy. And for each example of a successful social democracy there are plenty of examples of NOT so successful social democracies. And I never stated the reasons why many countries in the EU were suffering from high unemployment. I was merely stating that extremist liberalism could be easily said to engender laziness and inefficiency and that it would be erroneous to label all liberalism as such in as much as it would be erroneous to depicting conservativism as being based upon greed. At any rate, I have my own theories for why the EU has high unemployment but that discussion enters the realm of economics.

quote:

I don't feel that I am subscribing to extremist beliefs. It is very evident and well documented that in the United States, which I am using as my example since this thread started with them, that the people who are rich are rich white males. This is not to say that no one else is rich, but a very disporportionate amount of the wealth is held by them. It seems quite unreasonable to me that you are labelling this as a stereotype as it is very well documented. I also feel you missed my point, which was that rich white male buisnessman make more then poor black female social workers, regardless of how hard either of them work. In this example I think it's a large stretch to say that the buisnessman is more deserving, but yet he gets more regardless. I guess in a way I am starting a liberalism vs. conservatism debate, but I was doing so only to respond to what you said which is why Im still posting it in this thread.

And you missed the intent of my original posting. I stated that liberalism in the form of redistributing wealth from those who have earned their income to those who may not deserve their income could constitute as greed. You immediately attempt to straw man my argument by stating that I was obviously referring to a "rich, white, lazy business man" as a person who earned their income and that a person who didn't deserve it was a "hard working, black, poor social worker." Why don't you just make it even more loaded and say the white guy was hitler and the poor black woman was mother theresa?

quote:

I also dont feel it is correct to say that communism "shafts" anyone. I don't consider it being shafted when you are getting as much as everyone else. And remember communism is not based on the principle that everyone gets the same regardless. Its based on the principle that if a true communist society were established everyone would contribute according to his or her ability. In a more realistic current way of looking at it, it means that hourly wages would be the same, but I would still make more then you if I worked more.

And it shafts all those people who not only work more, but work better. I won't even go into the market inefficiencies yielded by communism but I will if you want to start up another thread. I could go on for days on the economics of communism.

quote:

I believe my last comment is also correct. Conservatism seeks to keep the status quo, the status quo is rich get almost everything poor get almost nothing.

Conservatism doesn't imply a mindset that NOTHING should change. There are plenty of problems in society that need to be fixed. Does being conservative mean that conservatives WANT the murder rate to remain high? Do conservatives LIKE the relative high unemployment that the US has? Of course not, conservatism is a political philosophy advocating the preservation of the best of the established order in society and opposing radical change.

quote:

Originally posted by dj adagnitio you can try to win an argument with simple metaphors, but it does not good. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you trust what you yourself, one individual have seen with your own eyes more then research done on thousands of people by someone who is a professional at doing that type of research? There are several problems with living like that. First of all you only see things through your bias, whether it be that you are a french-african-women or a British-Indian-man or a Canadian-Caucasian-male. The other big problem is that you are so subjective in what you see, and so limited in your scope that it nullifies anything you see as invalid as there is no logical way it is representative of a greater entity.

Firstly, I'm not trying to win anything. I have nothing to gain by outdebating you. You're obviously not interested in what I'm saying so I am not going to continue to waste my breath.

Reference Occrider's comments above regarding inefficiencies in communism, as well as the lack of motivation to do anything better in a communist system and you may start to see the tip of the iceberg of one of the fundamental flaws of socialist based systems and the cons of being a slave to society.

I am not disputing any scientific evidence that thousands of people have proven with empirical evidence. That's not even relavent, IMO, as I'm not referring to anything scientific. I'm referring to living for the self vs. living for other men (i.e. a slave to society).

This is like talking to a fencepost.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.