Question on Political Stances of Those here

drew

My view is that a right wing political stance can bring about ideas that I believe could have a detrimental effect on democracy.

Your argument seems to be that wouldn’t but it wasn’t relevant because the US ‘is anything but democratic’ claiming that compared with….

And that’s were we are – you claim the US isn’t democratic compared with some other ancient state sometime “before Christ”

In fact as we’ve seen the Athenian and Roman models were inferior democratically to the present US model.

So you don’t seem to have a comparison, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about you might as well say ‘since before the Elves ruled the world’ or ‘since Atlantis sank into the sea’.

I think that in widely accepted terms the US is a democracy, even if it is a flawed democracy and I fear that some right wing ideas (like weakening democratic government) could have a detrimental effect on that democracy.

Have you any arguments to counter this view that are not based in fantasy and myth?

 

yes.




Since Atlantis sunk into the ocean.



Do you know why Atlantis sunk into the ocean?


Because they were corrupted by their greed and lust for power, they developed a technology (sentient crystals) which ultimately destroyed them.


One of those crystals is now at the bottom of the Bermuda Triangle.

Another is on Mars.

 

Libertarian.

 

Shadow

But your views seem to be all right wing or based in right wing philosophy, and you seem to think that even rather mild left leaning views are communism or near enough to be condemned as such.

So why don’t you think you’re a right winger?

 

Bringing in libertarianism
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=151086&f=346

 

because u say that the right wing philosophy is small government as they occasionally claim. (btw ive already answered this question at some point i think) in reality that is not the truth. just look at things like the no child left behind act and the patriot act. they are clearly not small government ideals as they increased the size of the government dramatically. also my ideals are freedom. not a standpoint on an issue. i will go to the side of an issue that offers the people the most freedom. here is an example. typically right wing people do not support abortion. i do as it gives people the freedom to end an abortion. nobody is forcing the people to take an action they may not want. this happens to coincide with liberal ideas but it is not a liberal viewpoint. the reason is different but the outcome is the same therefore it is not a right or left wing ideal.

 

Taxation should be on a sliding fee scale. The more you can afford, the more you pay.

Sure, but you can not have big business and industry without regulations of some kind, because there are too many unscrupulous people running things.

Some type of welfare provisions are necessary because there are always going to be people who need help for one reason or another, but they do not help people get out of poverty.

Why? How about that sliding fee? Same as taxes.

We don't even know what would have happened if things would have been set up differently. Perhaps a more natural balance would have established itself and things would be running smoothly. Maybe even more smoothly than they do. But there is no way to know that and it's all just speculation. Supposition. Does anyone see any of these theories actually coming to pass?

 

These are the fruits of Neo-conservatism, which is HARDLY a far-right ideology.

 

balbus probably wont respond to my post any time soon because he is probably making something up that counters what im saying just to counter it regardless of its truth or validity.

 

Shadow

What? This seems a bit confusing.

So ‘typically’ right wing people do not support abortion, but some right wing people do.

So in what way does your support of abortion mean you are not a right winger?

The thing is that while there are those that are totally and utterly against all abortion whatsoever and in all circumstance, there are a lot of other viewpoints.

I’m against abortion, that is I think women should have the right to choose it (properly regulated) but would try and do my best to bring about a society where it wasn’t needed. So I’d want to know why it was happening and see if I could stop the situation that lead to an abortion.

As I’ve mentioned earlier I meet libertarians who didn’t seem to care there view was that it was the woman’s right and they really didn’t care about it beyond that. Oh except to argue that it shouldn’t be done at tax payer’s expense.

I repeat - your views seem to be all right wing or based in right wing philosophy, and you seem to think that even rather mild left leaning views are communism or near enough to be condemned as such.

So why don’t you think you’re a right winger?

 

Earthmother

The problem is the same contradictions come up that you refuse to address.

But you’ve said you believe that people shouldn’t have to pay for anything that they don’t get direct benefit of and you’ve cheered on the idea of low taxation. How do you have progressive taxation when people can basically choose what they want to pay?

So sure you want few regulation but you want regulations ‘of some kind’? Isn’t this having your cake and eating it too?

So people shouldn’t have to pay for anything that they don’t get direct benefit from but somehow you are going to have welfare provision?

Can you back up your claim that welfare provision does not help people get out of poverty?

Having to pay for healthcare, education or training would also give the richer an advantage.

So people shouldn’t have to pay any tax for anything that they don’t get direct benefit from, so if someone is paying for private healthcare they don’t have to pay into the communal chest for state provision and if someone is paying for private education they don’t have to pay into the communal chest for state provision.
You’d basically have an underfunded system for the majority of the people, a system in which the rich have an advantage?

And repeal of all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and the abolition of employment laws would all seem to put the poorer at a disadvantage.

Set up differently, how? I mean have you read any history? Things have been set up differently and the stronger screwed the weaker.

You seem to be pushing a system that would do the same.

 

well at this point theres no point in explaining that question to u because it doesnt matter what i say ur going to pretend that its still right wing.

instead im gong to ask u the same question. u claim to be a left wing but ur views are very socialistic to the point they might be considered communist. why do u think ur a left winger not a communist.

as far as my view on abortion it is just as u said. a woman (or couple's) choice. i dont see why taxes need to be involved at all. a woman or couple pay a doctor to perform the abortion and thats the end of it. the government isnt involved at all.

 

if u really think that any of those help anyone u are ignorant balbus. rasing minmum wage has never helped as companies raise their prices as well.

lets say the government then controls prices. the small business are going to be the ones that will probably fail because they can not pay the new labor cost without raising their prices. u are left with big business and now u have ur rich people who can buy out the governent. what is their incentive to buy the government? Answer: the government has full control over the economy. now the rich people can coerce the politicians to set prices at will to keep out the small businesses.

rents. ur housing market will suffer because they will set it too low and make no incentive for people to actually rent out space because there will be little money involved. this will cause appartment to not be built.

control profits? ok so lets say a company can make a yearly (we will use january through december) profit of 1 billion dollars. they end up making that profit by october as they have had a good year. what happens next? they just have to shut down becasue they cant make any more money until after december? looks like the unemployment is going to suddenly increase.

production? so a company can only produce so much stuff in a years time? what is the incentive to do well knowing u can only sell so many products in a year?

abolishing employment laws-yes this would help people. especially the poor. lets talk about pay by hour type of income. if ur a laborer and u get paid by the hour u can only work so many hours. if ur poor and u want to work and get more money, why do u want someone telling u that u cant work. if it is the company that is the problem, go find another company to work for. lets say u are on salaried income. it doesnt matter how much u work in a year u get paid the same. most salaries are not getting extra if they work more than 8 hours a day. my dad is an example of this as he often works 10 hour days.

by the way most of these are communist view as it looks like the government would be controlling every aspect of the economy.

 

Shadow

LOL I go on what you say, you can go on what I say – the problem is that to you anything to the left of your right wing stance is in your mind communist or near as damn it.

Not the philosophical definition of communism but the rather quaint cold war way some Americans have of throwing out ‘communist’ as an insult about anything left wing.

It doesn’t matter if the views being expressed are not communism to them they were because they are not right wing.

This is a tendency of the indoctrinated, the unthinking, and of the unquestioning.

(PS if you wish to discuss the libertarian ideas please discuss them in the thread linked to)

 

apparently u dont know what right wing and libertarian are. ur almost acting like a troll at this point. really u are. so it doesnt matter what i say im apperently right wing and not libertarian even though my views dont actually match that of the right wing but do match that of the libertarian. u havent actually given any reasons why ur views arent communism u just say they arent. i have actually given reasons that to the average person would be undeniable.

 

You pick me apart, I pick you apart, let's play the pick apart game...

Because if there are people homeless and hungry, they are gonna STEAL to survive. If people are fed and clothed and sheltered, they are happier, and so we are ALL happier and life is easier. The "choice" should come in where we right at the moment are paying well over half our taxes to the MILITARY. We should have some choice as to how much we really wish to support the military. Then we would be happier too, and happiness is ultimately what should be strived for.

No. It's REALISTIC. And not something that needs to be gone into in detail. Totally understandable to anyone with a brain.

Already answered that.

Yea. It's simply the truth. I used to get welfare myself. AND foodstamps. I KNOW how much a family gets in aid. It is FAR, FAR from taking anyone out of poverty. Now, I will say that if you know how to work the "give-away" system, you CAN eat better than your neighbors who work for a living... But I can do that by growing a garden.

It's already that way.

Because this is how it works. We are STILL animals, and we STILL practice survival of the fittest. It's just that the amount of money one has tends to dictate who is the "fittest" in a capitalistic society.

Maybe this is why you don't get anything I say. I'm not "pushing" anything. Just stating the obvious.

 

He won't either. He never answers questions, only places unwanted labels on people. He'll tell you all about how people use the word "communist" as an insult, but close his ears totally when reminded that the word "right-winger" is also used as an insult. Hell, I even put up a link to the definition of "right-winger" in which it stated PLAINLY that many people in the US find the term to be DEROGATORY. But he ignored it. Just like everything else that does not fit in with his agenda.

 

this is the only thing i kinda disagree with. people are always going to steal whether there is welfare or not. u can just look at history to see that. you dont have to be lower class to steal. there are many middle class people as well as upper class people that will steal just because it may help them in some way.

 

Earthmother
The thing is that all you reply seems to point out is that your political stance is right wing.
You wish to cut taxes which would benefit the wealthiest people.
Because you believe that people shouldn’t have to pay for anything that they don’t directly benefit from so if someone is paying for private healthcare they don’t have to pay into the communal chest for state provision and if someone is paying for private education they don’t have to pay into the communal chest for state provision.
You’d basically have an underfunded system for the majority of the people, a system in which the rich have an advantage?
You say that is the system now, but it clearly isn’t, oh I agree that bad now but what you would bring in would make the situation a lot worse.
*

Now this always seem to come up when someone’s thinking of cutting benefits hint that people are milking the system, welfare queens and benefit kings, the lazy living the high life off the backs of those that work. I’ve heard many a right wing politician say basically the same thing.
*
The thing about benefits is that if they’re low or don’t exist then people eat into the resources they have, their savings, their goods, their bodies. They get poorer and more easily exploited. So it gets harder to get out of the poverty trap.
*
You claim you want people to have a happier life but I’m not going on what you claim, I’m going on what you suggest, what you push as being so obviously.
And the problem is that what you suggest would only seem to benefit the few and the wealthy.
*

 

Which question have I not answered?

I don’t find being called a communist an insult, I find it amusing, and I find it even more amusing that some people use it as if it was an insult.

If you don’t want to be called a right winger then stop having right wing views.

I’ve pointed out time and again why I think your views are right wing, you haven’t refuted those arguments, you’ve just got huffy and shouted that I’m wrong, however those argument still remain unaddressed.

Once again if you think your political stance is not right wing then address all the things that seem to indicate you are, instead of evading those questions in favour of huffy remarks about how horrible I am.