OpinionRight wingers will inevitably get their way because of the nature of their beliefs
      – Thelevellers, 2010-10-19 at 20:29:39   (32 comments)

On 2010-10-19 at 20:32:13, Thelevellers wrote...
I have thought this before, and was reading the paper earlier today, mentioning how the Democrats in America often seem to fail a bit, and brought it back up. Basically I figure this: Because the right wing often tends to like policies that are either hard to undo, or give short term benefits, they don;t have to worry so much about staying in power. this means they can be unpopular and push through what they like. Left wingers tend to want more lasting changes ,which means they have to stay in power for extended periods, leading them to either play nice, and not get as much done, or play hardball and be somewhat totalitarian.
On 2010-10-19 at 20:36:34, Thelevellers wrote...
That point of view is somewhat reliant on assuming that right wingers have ulterior motives in industry or from lobbyists that give them the short term financial incentive... I think it was reading the difference between the new Labour shadow chancellor who left school at 16 and was a postman, and the Tory chancellor who is a multi-millionaire. Seems the Tory has a lot less to loose if he gets kicked out next election...
On 2010-10-20 at 04:23:33, TheRevolutionary wrote...
Conservatism is largely based on the rejection of rapid progress and change, and often seeks to regress society to an imagined past ideal. Only two things are constant, change, and right wing fear of change. By definition, conservatives are bound to not get what they want. so long as progress continues anyway.
On 2010-10-20 at 15:47:02, Thelevellers wrote...
Fair point, but I think because the left wing want change, and many people (initially at least) fear change, it is easier to be popular as a conservative - which leads to it being easier for them to achieve many of their goals. Certainly those goals that REALLY get us leftie's goats!
On 2010-12-01 at 19:18:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. Conservatism is based on conserving one's individual liberty. That generally means less government and less regulation. Based on property law, it also means less taxes, not more. Why should I be forced to give up wealth that I have earned to a government that will just turn around and give it to someone that did nothing for it (plunder). Yes, we want change too, but the change we want is to roll back the progressive movement of the past 50 years that got us into the situation we are in now. Leftists, or liberals, are more than happy to give up portions of their individual liberty, or yours, to get the security of having someone else pay their way. Politicians love this because they can write laws that takeaway liberty in exchange for votes. And by the way, there is no such a thing as society.
On 2010-12-01 at 19:45:31, DigitalBoss wrote...
Democrats have failed in recent elections in the USA because the USA is a center-right country. When you have a president and a congress pushing very hard to the left, the people will revolt in the next election. More revolt to come.
On 2010-12-01 at 19:48:13, DigitalBoss wrote...
Right-wingers will inevitably get their way because people like to keep their individual liberty.
On 2010-12-04 at 10:19:31, Thelevellers wrote...
First off: Conservatism ≠ libertarianism. Conservatism is, strictly speaking, the conserving of the status quo (or, as it seems to be more and more, an attempt to return to the status quo of a few decades ago). However, I'll go along with libertarianism being often right wing (though there's no reason you can't be a left wing libertarian too). "Yes, we want change too" - no, your statement proves that's wrong, as you say you want to change back to where we were, and then STAY there - that's not change, that's regression. How does Barack Obama, running with a very (for the states, at least) left wing agenda, getting elected count as an election defeat? Yeah, so the midterms show he's not been perfect, but then that's part of my point. The changes he wants to make, and has tried to make are long term, people probably wont feel the benefit until Sarah fuckin Failin is repealing then in 2013. It's the difference between short-termism and long-termism.
On 2010-12-04 at 10:21:09, Thelevellers wrote...
That said, you're right, America does seem to be largely centre right. Which is why I'm always so amazed at how far right of centre it is. Barack Obama would count as a right winger in the UK and much of Europe - no joke. He's nowhere even in the same ball park as proper socialism. Yeah, there's aspects, and he is probably about as left wing as it's possible to be and get elected in the US, but it's a long way of 'true' left.
On 2010-12-11 at 17:04:46, DigitalBoss wrote...
Conserving what once was the status quo 60 years ago: individual freedom. Yes, there is a reason you cannot be leftist and libertarian. Being a Libertarian is all about retaining personal freedom, you can't do that while advocating that the government tell you how much to pay your employees. The American electorate was hoodwinked about Obama by the leftist media in this country. Most of the electorate has voter's remorse now. I love it that the left hates Sarah Palin so much. It makes me laugh. Yeah, like spending other people's money is long-termism. I would rather live and die on my own terms. Frontier freedom. I would rather die on the side of a wagon train headed for freedom from government than live 90 years dependant on the government.
On 2010-12-11 at 17:07:08, DigitalBoss wrote...
freedom ≠ government. The more government you have, the less freedom you have. The natural order of man is to be free. That is why "right-wingers" will tend to get their way. Only when citizens are duped into believing that government is the answer to their problems can the left succeed.
On 2010-12-11 at 17:28:10, DigitalBoss wrote...
I am a libertarian. I believe in pure founding-father's freedom. The government should have limited power. Very limited power. The government should not have enough power to tell me that I must buy a health insurance policy. The government should not have enough power to tell me the minimum or maximum wage that I can pay people that work for me. The government should not have enough power to invade my privacy and insist that I reveal to them every year where I work and how much money I earn. The government should not have enough power to confiscate funds from my paycheck. Right now, the Libertarian party in this country cannot win elections, so I tend to vote for Republicans. Luckily for Libertarians, the Tea Party movement in this country is pretty much a libertarian branch of the Republican party. We had success in 2010 elections simply because the electorate in the United States has realized that they don't want a government like the leftist Democrats have given us.
On 2010-12-11 at 21:29:03, Thelevellers wrote...
While we obviously disagree on a lot of things, I think you have just successfully argued my case for me :P Its from a very different angle to me, but you are basically saying that 'right wingers' will tend to get their way because of their beliefs. Eh, I think I'm gonna just ignore American politics as much as possible from now on - I never intend to live there, so who cares?! I think my statement still applies to the UK pretty well.
On 2010-12-31 at 18:07:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
You can't have individual liberty when the government tells you when to get up and when to get down. You can't have liberty when the government is paying your way. Being free is all about being just as free to fail as well as being free to succeed.
On 2010-12-31 at 18:15:42, DigitalBoss wrote...
Yes, most people who finally understand what liberty actually is, will tend to turn to the right. You are correct. When I was 20, I believed the same as you, I was indoctrinated by the public (government) schools and the left biased news. As you get older, you understand that it is not good to envy wealth, that it is good to make smart decisions instead of bad ones, to be smart and think about the future, to be independent and not dependent. The government wants you to be dependent, that gives them power over you, and helps them to take rights away from others.
On 2011-01-09 at 00:28:15, Thelevellers wrote...
I don't envy wealth. I have no interest in being wealthy. As long as I have enough money to keep my and my family sorted I'm happy. I am infuriated by wealthy people keeping themselves wealthy at the expense of other people. And I'm not even asking them to give it all away, just stop searching for more money at all costs once they've got over a billion! With freedom comes responsibility, and at the moment there is NO-ONE showing that. The rich fuck the poor, and some poor people don't help themselves. The difference is that the rich people have a real choice. Yeah, the poor can try to work their way up the ladder, but when you have everyone above you actively trying to keep you at the bottom, it's kinda understandable some people give up.
On 2011-01-10 at 21:24:22, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: What if the amount of money needed to keep your family "sorted" was considered to be too much, or too rich, by others? Who decides on how much is too much? You? Politicians? I decide. I decide how much is enough to keep my family "sorted", no one else. I am the one who earns it, it is my money, not yours, and not the government's. Fuck a bunch of idiots telling me how to run my life and my family.
On 2011-01-11 at 06:17:36, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: Have you ever been employed by a poor person?
On 2011-01-15 at 11:16:37, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: I think you could define 'sorted' in a way that everyone (in a first world country, at least, and I'm not thinking of a global dictatorship just yet :P ) could agree with. A place to live, food on the table, computer with internet access, TV, phone line, clothes on our backs, a car, bikes, bills paid. There's surely a few things I've forgotten, but nothing huge. There's certainly enough money floating around to get everyone that standard of living without people having to be poor. Some people may not be able to be billionaires, but I couldn't give a flying fuck if you can't buy yourself your own helicopter, that's not necessary for anyone outside of the emergency services or armed forces.
On 2011-01-15 at 11:18:30, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: Yes, I have. Numerous times. My wages weren't great, but I usually got a meal or two to make up for it, or a roof over my head for the time I was working. You see, I would agree that there's no need for a minimum wage. Provided that employers take a responsible view of wages. Which it has been shown over and again that without regulation large companies wont pay a living wage. Hell, I'd be happy to return to a barter system, but that doesn't really work very well in a globalised capitalist world.
On 2011-01-15 at 11:22:20, Thelevellers wrote...
My problem is with human nature - if given the chance a large proportion of people will be utter bastards to their fellow man. And THAT is why you need rules and regulations.
On 2011-01-16 at 04:02:04, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: If the government would butt-out, the market would determine the going rate for entry-level employees. Look, if you are an adult, and you only make a government determined minimum wage, you have serious problems. Excepting those with serious health issues, most people move up off of the minimum wage over a short period of time. I went back to a minimum wage when I had career correction at 40. I was not there long, I moved up. I could hire many more people if the government would let me pay them the going market rate. It is none of the government's business what I pay my employees. It is a private contract between the individual and myself. If it is not sufficient for the individual's needs they can vote with their feet and walk off. Let the market decide.
On 2011-01-16 at 04:09:52, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: If you "get everyone that standard of living without people having to be poor", what incentive would they have to be productive? We have no "real" poor people in this country. None that don't want to be poor; put it that way. What we do have is millions of people that are given everything that they could ever need, and they are content to do nothing with their lives. They don't try to get an education. They don't try to get a job and move up in life. They are very content to live off the taxpayer forever, dodging anything that would mess-up their check. They produce nothing. They provide no service. It is just wrong for humans to live that way. They are denied the dignity of improving their own lives for the sake of being dependent on the taxpayer.
On 2011-01-16 at 04:11:57, DigitalBoss wrote...
So you think that the minimum wage is a living wage?
On 2011-01-16 at 18:07:57, Thelevellers wrote...
@DigitalBoss: HA! No the minimum wage (over here) is definitely NOT a living wage, I have no idea about in the US, but I'm assuming it is the same or probably worse, knowing corporate power over there. What choice do you have to vote with your feet if you have no money and the only job going doesn't pay enough to feed and house yourself? Where's the power there? With the employer, and as the third world shows, employers don't care, so long as the work is done. I'm not against doing something about lazy fecklesss arses, but I have negative confidence in the ability of the free market to sort it without thousands/millions of children being forced into poverty, which has been proven time and again to seriously damage their ability to do well in later life.
On 2011-01-23 at 03:03:20, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: It is not up to the free-market to sort it out, and it is not up to your employer to sort it out, and it is not up to your government to sort it out, it is your life, you sort it out. That is what freedom is all about. The freedom to fail, as well as the freedom to succeed. It is your life, why do you keep wanting someone to take care of you? It is your life, it is only going to turn out they way that you make it turn out. Your employer has a business to run, not a child care center. You keep on depending on other people and you will get nowhere.
On 2011-01-23 at 03:19:54, DigitalBoss wrote...
@Thelevellers: By the way, that little company Thomas Edison started is now General Electric (GE).
On 2011-01-23 at 16:47:44, Thelevellers wrote...
I still don't understand where the freedom is in choosing between different forms of starvation, such as you always find with low level jobs? What freedom is there in choosing between starvation or slavery? It's very commendable to want everyone to make the best of their lives, but when the odds are so very stacked against some, it seems foolish to let them founder, when it's so easy to help. Although the minimum wage is by no means a living wage, it is a hell of a lot better than it would be if business was left to set it. And the minimum wage doesn't seriously affect any business that wasn't likely to fail anyway (otherwise there would have been no new businesses started for the past however many decades since it was introduced).
On 2011-01-23 at 16:55:10, Thelevellers wrote...
I think it's all about attitude. Some people a useless regardless of what system they are living in. I have relied upon the state numerous times to get me through rough patches - either housing benefit when at college/high school and unable to work full time without damaging my education, or while sorting myself out between ending university early and starting on my current apprenticeship. (I was also on the dole for a period in there, most of the time was spent waiting for work to get back to me, the job I ended up getting was one of the first I applied for, they were just so slow to sort it out I would have been homeless by the time I started work without help). I don't see how my life has been remotely adversely affected by any of it. For me, I consider myself to have failed if I ever end up on the dole again, but it's nice to know that I don't have to be homeless should my employer go bust, and leave me out of work for a period. So like I say, it's all about attitude.
On 2011-01-26 at 22:31:51, Baslisks wrote...
I don't see a problem with government help. It is in a countries best interest to get everyone working and producing useful labor. IF it means suckling some people till they can support themselves thats fine. It just needs to be looked at again.
On 2011-02-06 at 00:39:26, DigitalBoss wrote...
I am not completely against safety nets. In a highly competitive capitalist market, some people just can't keep up for one reason or another, sometimes through no fault of their own. What I do expect is that the help is short, to the point, and really makes a difference to help make the person independent and productive, not dependent. We have people here (in the US) who make it into a way of life. Millions of them.
On 2011-02-06 at 09:10:13, Thelevellers wrote...
We have the same problem here, we just have fewer people that say all benefit should be cut. There is a better understanding (it seems) that some is required, it's just how it is set-up that is problematic. I'm the first to admit it's not et-up right. It would have been a easy for me to abuse the system when I needed it, but I have morals, so didn't. This is where 'society' SHOULD come in. That is to say, there should be a huge social pressure not to take advantage, but there isn't. At least, not amongst the people that do it. Hmm, that reminds me... *makes new topic*