Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If Liberals are so empathetic...

Page 8 of 22 [ 342 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 22  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

18 May 2012, 12:13 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
But maybe some people do believe the ends justify the means in some cases and you're failing to empathize with that. It's simply one of your morals clashing against one of theirs.


There are very few circumstances where I believe the ends justify the means, and I think the very idea is one of the most dangerous ones out there as it can so easily be used to justify nearly any action at all. I don't fail to empathize, I merely disagree; the people I'm talking about CANNOT see my position at all.

It might be that they don't believe the constitutional argument is sincere because it has been abused so often in the past. I know your position is sincere, but a lot of conservatives do not appear to actually value liberty or the spirit of the constitution despite their treating it as a kind of sacred object. It's hard to believe otherwise when conservative think tanks and politicians have supported mandates in the past and only jumped on the bandwagon against them recently when they saw how unpopular they were with the public.

In my personal view PPACA looks to be a bungled compromise. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional it should be repealed. My problem is there are a lot of people in this country are in desperate need of healthcare reform and it appears absolutely nothing will be done since one party will object to anything that entails "redistributing" in any way shape or form. This is despite the fact that "redistribution" already occurs since people and businesses who buy private insurance indirectly cover the hospital costs of the uninsured who are simply unable to pay yet cannot be denied treatment.


The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But the right don't see it that way. As long as no direct coercion takes place, all wealth attained is wealth earned. At least that's at least my simplistic understanding of their reasoning.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 May 2012, 12:17 am

marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
But maybe some people do believe the ends justify the means in some cases and you're failing to empathize with that. It's simply one of your morals clashing against one of theirs.


There are very few circumstances where I believe the ends justify the means, and I think the very idea is one of the most dangerous ones out there as it can so easily be used to justify nearly any action at all. I don't fail to empathize, I merely disagree; the people I'm talking about CANNOT see my position at all.

It might be that they don't believe the constitutional argument is sincere because it has been abused so often in the past. I know your position is sincere, but a lot of conservatives do not appear to actually value liberty or the spirit of the constitution despite their treating it as a kind of sacred object. It's hard to believe otherwise when conservative think tanks and politicians have supported mandates in the past and only jumped on the bandwagon against them recently when they saw how unpopular they were with the public.

In my personal view PPACA looks to be a bungled compromise. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional it should be repealed. My problem is there are a lot of people in this country are in desperate need of healthcare reform and it appears absolutely nothing will be done since one party will object to anything that entails "redistributing" in any way shape or form. This is despite the fact that "redistribution" already occurs since people and businesses who buy private insurance indirectly cover the hospital costs of the uninsured who are simply unable to pay yet cannot be denied treatment.


The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But the right don't see it that way. As long as no direct coercion takes place, all wealth attained is wealth earned. At least that's at least my simplistic understanding of their reasoning.


So, that's how they justify cutting social programs in order to compensate for the lost income due to the Goddamn tax cuts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

18 May 2012, 12:41 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
But maybe some people do believe the ends justify the means in some cases and you're failing to empathize with that. It's simply one of your morals clashing against one of theirs.


There are very few circumstances where I believe the ends justify the means, and I think the very idea is one of the most dangerous ones out there as it can so easily be used to justify nearly any action at all. I don't fail to empathize, I merely disagree; the people I'm talking about CANNOT see my position at all.

It might be that they don't believe the constitutional argument is sincere because it has been abused so often in the past. I know your position is sincere, but a lot of conservatives do not appear to actually value liberty or the spirit of the constitution despite their treating it as a kind of sacred object. It's hard to believe otherwise when conservative think tanks and politicians have supported mandates in the past and only jumped on the bandwagon against them recently when they saw how unpopular they were with the public.

In my personal view PPACA looks to be a bungled compromise. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional it should be repealed. My problem is there are a lot of people in this country are in desperate need of healthcare reform and it appears absolutely nothing will be done since one party will object to anything that entails "redistributing" in any way shape or form. This is despite the fact that "redistribution" already occurs since people and businesses who buy private insurance indirectly cover the hospital costs of the uninsured who are simply unable to pay yet cannot be denied treatment.


The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But the right don't see it that way. As long as no direct coercion takes place, all wealth attained is wealth earned. At least that's at least my simplistic understanding of their reasoning.


So, that's how they justify cutting social programs in order to compensate for the lost income due to the Goddamn tax cuts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But those social programs are only due to the graces of the wealthy who pay the majority of federal income taxes. It's THEIR tax dollars and thus government charity cases have no right to whine about it being taken away. You want government to take away THEIR money that THEY EARNED by force. That's called STEALING. You should be ashamed of yourself.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 May 2012, 1:39 am

marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
marshall wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
marshall wrote:
But maybe some people do believe the ends justify the means in some cases and you're failing to empathize with that. It's simply one of your morals clashing against one of theirs.


There are very few circumstances where I believe the ends justify the means, and I think the very idea is one of the most dangerous ones out there as it can so easily be used to justify nearly any action at all. I don't fail to empathize, I merely disagree; the people I'm talking about CANNOT see my position at all.

It might be that they don't believe the constitutional argument is sincere because it has been abused so often in the past. I know your position is sincere, but a lot of conservatives do not appear to actually value liberty or the spirit of the constitution despite their treating it as a kind of sacred object. It's hard to believe otherwise when conservative think tanks and politicians have supported mandates in the past and only jumped on the bandwagon against them recently when they saw how unpopular they were with the public.

In my personal view PPACA looks to be a bungled compromise. If the individual mandate is unconstitutional it should be repealed. My problem is there are a lot of people in this country are in desperate need of healthcare reform and it appears absolutely nothing will be done since one party will object to anything that entails "redistributing" in any way shape or form. This is despite the fact that "redistribution" already occurs since people and businesses who buy private insurance indirectly cover the hospital costs of the uninsured who are simply unable to pay yet cannot be denied treatment.


The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But the right don't see it that way. As long as no direct coercion takes place, all wealth attained is wealth earned. At least that's at least my simplistic understanding of their reasoning.


So, that's how they justify cutting social programs in order to compensate for the lost income due to the Goddamn tax cuts.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


But those social programs are only due to the graces of the wealthy who pay the majority of federal income taxes. It's THEIR tax dollars and thus government charity cases have no right to whine about it being taken away. You want government to take away THEIR money that THEY EARNED by force. That's called STEALING. You should be ashamed of yourself.


I'm so ashamed of myself. :cry:

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

18 May 2012, 10:17 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No one is legally compelled to buy from a private firm. If redistribution (a bad use of the term) occurred it is the consequence of voluntary transactions in the market. Only the government can compel people to do "business" with them. Taxation. Which is legalized theft.

ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

18 May 2012, 11:53 am

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No one is legally compelled to buy from a private firm. If redistribution (a bad use of the term) occurred it is the consequence of voluntary transactions in the market. Only the government can compel people to do "business" with them. Taxation. Which is legalized theft.

ruveyn


A fundamental truth to any liberal is that if someone has more than others, they got it by exploiting people. Regardless of if they are engaging in a voluntary transaction of labor for salary, its exploitation unless the entire profit of the company is split amongst the workers, and even then they deserve more.

The fundamental difference is that, a capitalist views workers as something that it would be preferable to be able to do without. Whereas a "liberal" point of view is that the worker is the ultimate beacon of good.



HisDivineMajesty
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,364
Location: Planet Earth

18 May 2012, 12:22 pm

What I've found was that, while I'd probably agree with what Americans would call 'liberals' on most issues, they've always been noticeably less friendly to me. If I say something they disagree with, they absolutely love having an argument, usually ending that argument with personal insults or misuse of authority. I was temporarily banned from going to school once because I refused to listen to one of the teachers trying to guilt trip me. It went from 'the school is doing their best, and you're just as much to blame for not being informed about changed hours' to 'they are doing their best, and you are ungrateful' to 'you can't come to school until you've [menial task I've forgotten about]'.

This was said by a feminist (you should see that classroom - it doesn't stop at feminism, it has a poster saying men should do the laundry) voting for a green party.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

18 May 2012, 12:27 pm

TM wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No one is legally compelled to buy from a private firm. If redistribution (a bad use of the term) occurred it is the consequence of voluntary transactions in the market. Only the government can compel people to do "business" with them. Taxation. Which is legalized theft.

ruveyn


A fundamental truth to any liberal is that if someone has more than others, they got it by exploiting people. Regardless of if they are engaging in a voluntary transaction of labor for salary, its exploitation unless the entire profit of the company is split amongst the workers, and even then they deserve more.

The fundamental difference is that, a capitalist views workers as something that it would be preferable to be able to do without. Whereas a "liberal" point of view is that the worker is the ultimate beacon of good.


Well, capitalists are awfully short sighted if they think society can function indefinitely with the poor becoming increasingly poorer while the middle class joins them. Its an untenable structural problem in the long run. With a diminishing consumer base capitalists will eventually hit a glass ceiling. Who is really the "beacon of good" and what you think people deserve becomes irrelevant in that equation. If the system fails, everyone goes down together, including the capitalists themselves. They can't just rely on governments funding the welfare of their consumer base on public debt while refusing to pay workers or fund the governments who's infrastructure they rely on through taxation.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

18 May 2012, 1:01 pm

TM wrote:
A fundamental truth to any liberal is that if someone has more than others, they got it by exploiting people.

Somehow I doubt it.
TM wrote:
The fundamental difference is that, a capitalist views workers as something that it would be preferable to be able to do without. Whereas a "liberal" point of view is that the worker is the ultimate beacon of good.

Perhaps instead of liberal, you meant labor activist? Capitalist and liberal isn't even a dichotomy as a market economy with private property is generally considered to be a feature of liberalism. The so-called classical liberals tend to elevate private-property rights to the highest ideal of liberalism while social/modern liberals usually have different priorities.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

18 May 2012, 1:10 pm

marshall wrote:

Well, capitalists are awfully short sighted if they think society can function indefinitely with the poor becoming increasingly poorer while the middle class joins them. Its an untenable structural problem in the long run. With a diminishing consumer base capitalists will eventually hit a glass ceiling. Who is really the "beacon of good" and what you think people deserve becomes irrelevant in that equation. If the system fails, everyone goes down together, including the capitalists themselves. They can't just rely on governments funding the welfare of their consumer base on public debt while refusing to pay workers or fund the governments who's infrastructure they rely on through taxation.


To be quite honest, its up to each person to take care of their own interests. If you don't want to work for a low wage, nobody is holding a gun to your head, if you don't want to work under certain conditions, nobody's holding a gun to your head, if you want to form a labor union, nobody says that you aren't allowed to. The structural problem, is that people are easily replaceable, people who have rare skillsets and so on can charge a high premium, if turning beer into piss is your main ability, then you won't get paid much.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

18 May 2012, 1:12 pm

NeantHumain wrote:
TM wrote:
A fundamental truth to any liberal is that if someone has more than others, they got it by exploiting people.

Somehow I doubt it.
TM wrote:
The fundamental difference is that, a capitalist views workers as something that it would be preferable to be able to do without. Whereas a "liberal" point of view is that the worker is the ultimate beacon of good.

Perhaps instead of liberal, you meant labor activist? Capitalist and liberal isn't even a dichotomy as a market economy with private property is generally considered to be a feature of liberalism. The so-called classical liberals tend to elevate private-property rights to the highest ideal of liberalism while social/modern liberals usually have different priorities.


Well, if that isn't a fundamental truth, what is the justification for income redistribution?

B: Look at how "liberal" has been used in this thread, then realize that attacking a post using a completely different definition is a waste of my time.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 May 2012, 3:28 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
The right has no business to legitimately b***h about redistribution of wealth, as they are responsible for redistributing wealth upward.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


No one is legally compelled to buy from a private firm. If redistribution (a bad use of the term) occurred it is the consequence of voluntary transactions in the market. Only the government can compel people to do "business" with them. Taxation. Which is legalized theft.

ruveyn


I was actually referring to the Bush tax cuts, though you can add union busting, wage and benefit cutting, and the cutting of social programs to that as well, as they contribute to more money going to the pockets of the rich, and much less to those of the rest of us.
Sorry, I should have been more explanatory.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

18 May 2012, 3:58 pm

TM wrote:
marshall wrote:

Well, capitalists are awfully short sighted if they think society can function indefinitely with the poor becoming increasingly poorer while the middle class joins them. Its an untenable structural problem in the long run. With a diminishing consumer base capitalists will eventually hit a glass ceiling. Who is really the "beacon of good" and what you think people deserve becomes irrelevant in that equation. If the system fails, everyone goes down together, including the capitalists themselves. They can't just rely on governments funding the welfare of their consumer base on public debt while refusing to pay workers or fund the governments who's infrastructure they rely on through taxation.


To be quite honest, its up to each person to take care of their own interests. If you don't want to work for a low wage, nobody is holding a gun to your head, if you don't want to work under certain conditions, nobody's holding a gun to your head, if you want to form a labor union, nobody says that you aren't allowed to. The structural problem, is that people are easily replaceable, people who have rare skillsets and so on can charge a high premium, if turning beer into piss is your main ability, then you won't get paid much.


Way to totally not follow my point. :roll: The structural problem is that SOCIETY AS A WHOLE IS INTERCONNECTED.



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

18 May 2012, 7:26 pm

Liberals are more likely to be more open minded how ever conservatives are the ones always demonizing the left so it's the right that is not willing to work with liberals.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

18 May 2012, 7:33 pm

Joker wrote:
Liberals are more likely to be more open minded how ever conservatives are the ones always demonizing the left so it's the right that is not willing to work with liberals.


That's how I see things.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer



Joker
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

18 May 2012, 7:43 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
Joker wrote:
Liberals are more likely to be more open minded how ever conservatives are the ones always demonizing the left so it's the right that is not willing to work with liberals.


That's how I see things.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Me too I will always side with Liberals on social issues ect but I often but heads with them over Law and Authority.