What does being Right Wing Mean?

Cork

Charlie McCreevy halved capital gains tax a few years ago & in doing so raised the amount it raised.

Pat Rabbitte was on the radio today talking about raising it. This is crazy as by drooping it to 20% more is being raised.

Socialists have the reputation of being tax & spend. When they don't want to tax they borrow.

Socialists need to begin to talk about reform the public services in this country.

They shy away from ideas like this. They should be talking about property tax - but they don't - for political reasons.

I was talking to a socialist recently who wants to nationise Irish banks. This will never happen.

Some socialists have not moved out of the 1960s and others are in the middle ground - clearly afraid of giving the electorate an alternative set of policies for fear of loosing the middle class vote.

Éomer of Rohan

There's a third option: perhaps they recognize that capitalism has its flaws but still think it's better than any other available system.

But it simply isn't the best available system; have we created a society so stagnant that people are no longer willing to entertain the idea of political change? Oh wait, yes we have. Like Pericles said, "we do not say that a man who is not interested in politics is just not interested in the common business, we say he has no business here at all" - and the point needs to be made that unless everyone takes an immediate interest in politics and is compulsorily educated from an unbiased standpoint, left or right in politics, then (and I accept the possibility that my firmly held ideas are wrong) capitalism will always be 'the best available system' when in fact we could be striving towards a better system rather than convinced of our self righteousness. From my p.o.v. that system is socialism, for other people there are other systems.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
No I disagree that these are seperate issues. There is no such thing as an unaligned electorate - except for those people who don't vote. People vote left, right or centrist - and by their vote they are aligned, or do you disagree? I was discussing the effect that presentation of the issues has on all groups which is fundamental to the success of the right wing.

I would entirely disagree. Political and voting trends in the liberal democracies have been moving towards a more pragmatic centrist viewpoint. Concepts of left and right, as we have known them are breaking down, as right-wing parties adopt softer and more caring policies, while left-wing parties adopt the principles of market reform.

Your average voter, working in a job five days a week, is not terribly interested in either Socialism or Capitalism, or “making the World a better place”Ô. Their demands are that they may increase their rights and disposable income, then have the right to spend it as they see fit.

The reality is that the politics of the left or right have failed in modern Society. Added to this is the almost fanatical inability for one side to accept merit or to learn from the other. Biffa’s troll of the left being left behind by history is essentially correct, however so is the right, and not necessarily Fascism or Nazism, but even traditional Conservatism.

Ask your average man on the street of how they see your average Socialist, and they’ll suggest someone who has nothing and wants to share it with the World (which for the most part is true), or a Fascist as a racist looking for an ideology to justify his own feelings of paranoia (which for the most part is also regrettably true).

For either left or right to be taken seriously, they must attempt to break from the stereotypes they have created and held on to for themselves, rooted in the politics of the nineteenth century, and realize that they’re in the twenty-first.

And the first of these illusionary stereotypes is that their ideologies are even relevant today.

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The idea that an incentive needs to be monetary has to be removed; for doctors, the incentive is to save human lives, for teachers, it is to pass on the knowledge they have accumulated to the future, for computer technicians, it is the prestige of your name being known across the world for coming up with the new OS and so on - human betterment is the key to incentive - people simply need to move away from the idea of 'me, me, me' which is fundamentally what we gave birth to when we invented consumerist societies.

well Éomer, you indeed will have your work cut out for you on that score, I don't envy your task at all...
But, the overtime cheques for the Brain surgeons, carrying out, transplants on most of western society to make it happen, will at least make you popular with them in the short term:D
Thats untill of course, they have done enough, that their new Socialist bosses, tell them that after transplant number X, they are doing the next one for the good of society:p
mm

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
The idea that an incentive needs to be monetary has to be removed; for doctors, the incentive is to save human lives, for teachers, it is to pass on the knowledge they have accumulated to the future, for computer technicians, it is the prestige of your name being known across the world for coming up with the new OS and so on

That could work quite well if I'm in one of those prestigious professions you mention. In fact, professions such as acting and writing already depend on non-monetary incentives such as you describe -- most actors barely scrape a living, but it's still a popular career choice.

The problem arises when you have important jobs which are dirty, inconvenient, unglamorous and which don't offer job satisfaction. What non-monetary incentive do I have if I'm a binman, a sewage worker or a janitor? Why would I get out of bed every morning to go into work and clean toilets all day, if I'm not getting paid for it?

But it simply isn't the best available system

You've missed my point; which was that there is a viable third alternative under which someone can be 1) well-informed and 2) support our current economic system.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
have we created a society so stagnant that people are no longer willing to entertain the idea of political change?

But the problem is that it is the Left and Right that have not changed. It is Communism, Socialism, Fascism and Nazism that have remained stagnant and rooted in the past. The rest of Society has moved on.

Éomer of Rohan

I would prefer not to post everything you said Corinthian but it is that which I address.

I agree with you that today, most people are concerned about their disposable income and so on - but I would suggest that that supercedes politics and that people still vote right and left. As for the failure of right and left politics, I would say that the Left has failed in so far as capitalism still exists due to the Cold War for a start (leftist ideology was portrayed as being anti-country of origin and so forth) and due to voter apathy for a second.

As to the policies of each side being related to C19, I disagree - I think the welfare of the people is even more important today since the bars of the cage in which they are kept, become ever more gilt edged - ie the transfer from mainly working class populace to a middle class populace (in the West) and the shift of exploitation to overseas - eg the Australasian archipelago, Sub-Saharan Africa and so on. Power still rests with an elite few - and the centre of power has transfered from a semi-accountable government to multinational corporations which transcend national boundaries with ease and therefore render the power of an individual national government ineffective.

I disagree with your stereotypes regarding the left; I am middle class - my mother is a Bank Manager and my father is a senior police officer and the same goes for many of the comrades I know in Socialist Youth - they have simply realised that globalisation and capitalism are causing untold harms and so we oppose them. As a Youth Councillor I see poverty almost everyday and I feel the desire to help the people who are poor - in many cases they are abandoned by the system - not democracy but the capitalism that controls our democracy.

I think ultimately the key is education - which we will never get I think because it would be disastrous to allow people to make up their own minds rather than grow up with a status quo.

Éomer of Rohan

The problem arises when you have important jobs which are dirty, inconvenient, unglamorous and which don't offer job satisfaction. What non-monetary incentive do I have if I'm a binman, a sewage worker or a janitor? Why would I get out of bed every morning to go into work and clean toilets all day, if I'm not getting paid for it?

Why do sewage worker and janitors etc take up their jobs as it is given that they are not the best payed in existence - as opposed to another job?

You've missed my point; which was that there is a viable third alternative under which someone can be 1) well-informed and 2) support our current economic system

I would disagree that anyone who supports the current economic system is that well informed - given that there are conclusive links between the poverty of many nations and the Free Market Policies - see the effect of the NAFTA agreement on Mexico.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan

No I disagree that these are seperate issues. There is no such thing as an unaligned electorate - except for those people who don't vote. People vote left, right or centrist - and by their vote they are aligned, or do you disagree? I was discussing the effect that presentation of the issues has on all groups which is fundamental to the success of the right wing.

OK...but you were not mentioning the presentation of issues, but rather the understanding of the issues by the voters.

Now...if I am advocating that someone votes right, it is reasonable to assume that I too will vote right. Therefore, by your assumption, I must not understand the issues either.

So its not just the groups who have the issues presented to them that you seem to have referred to, but those presenting them as well.

If you want to hold this belief for the reasons that you present (which I'll come to in a second), then thats your perogative. However, such a belief is intrinsically contradictory to the concept of intelligent or informed debate, as you must enter it on the mindset of "you are right wing, ergo you are ill informed and/or do not understand what you have been told". (I'm leaving out the "or you are stupid" because you've clarified that this is not what you meant".

Now how is this conducive to debate? How can compromise be reached when your basic position is "if you only knew what you were talking about, you'd agree with me"? And yet you bill this as being "intelligent debate"??? Surely its no different to what you accuse the Right of - fighting the battle on your terms, in your way. If so, then surely all this boils down to is that their chosen method of avoiding meaningful debate is more succcessful than your chosen method of avoiding meaningful debate. Hardly a damning factor of Right-Wings, that one.

why would right wingers vote for a system that is hurting millions. Either then they are heartless scum, which I do not believe, or they do not fully understand what they vote for

Or they have seen options that you have not seen, or they have spotted flaws in your argument that you have not seen or are unwilling to accept, or, or, or.

There are a countless number of reasons for why someone may support the current systems. There are an equally countless number of reasons why someone may favour a change in the system, but not towards a Left Wing ideal.

I favour a capitalistic system. Its one you claim doesnt exist, although I havent seen any followup from you after I asked why the classification I provided doesnt apply to Switzerland.

Now, your underlying argbument is that I must be wrong, ill-informed,cruel scum, or whatever else, because I fundamentally believe in the workability of this system.

At the same time, I see several massive potential problems with a true implementation of a socialist model which no-one has ever been able to allay my fears over - problems that I cannot see a solution for that doesn't ultimately boil down to a belief in the inherent and willing goodness of man which will make the system work - a utopian ideal which is so far removed from reality that it should be the last thing that any practical system is founded on.

And yet, according to you, if I vote for right-wing, I do not understand the issues or what I vote for - the aternate being that I'm scum (which neither of us wishes to believe).

Correct - because fundamental to this argument is the inherent fact and the belief of many that capitalism is a flawed system

There is no such thing as an unflawed political system.
Therefore, while you are correct in saying that it is factually correct capitalism is flawed, you are not being entirely honest, as any socialist implementation would also be flawed, as would any other implementation of any other political system.

Therefore, it is not the "being flawed" which is the issue at all, but rather the impacts of those flaws, and which flaws we choose to believe will ultimately be the least detrimental to society, which when coupled with the advantages of any given system will ultimately yield "the best balance".

Now, once you start discussing it along those lines, it quickly becomes evident that it is not a situation where choosing to vote for one side over another means you do not understand the issues, but rather that you have a different understanding of them, or that you classify them on a different set of priorities.

You opposed the US entering Iraq. Does this mean you supported the oppression of innocents by the Saddam regime? If not, then how can you honestly use the same logic against those who support right-wing policies. Like you, perhaps some of them are choosing what they see as the lesser of two evils.

At the end of the day, I just fail to see how you can claim to wish to engender intelligent debate whilst admitting to approaching any such debate with a basic underlying belief of "not only is the other guy wrong, but he doesnt know what he's talking about"....because thats how you classify people who vote Right according to you.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I would disagree that anyone who supports the current economic system is that well informed

Eomoer...you asserted that anyone who supports The Right is not well informed. If we want to reduce that to a more relevant term to this point, we might agree on "capitalism". However, I do not seem to recall at any point you clarifying that by these general terms you actually meant "capitalism in its current implementation".

Are you changing your stance now, or are you sticking to supporters of the right / capitalism in general being uninformed. If you are changing to something more specific, could we have the limits of that specificity?

I have previously put forward my case for a capitalism I can believe in. I recall challenging you to explain how the system I described is not the one in effect in Switzerland after you dismissed it as not existing. I also seem to recall you not taking up that challenge.

I'm just curious if you could tell me what the basic underlying problems with this system is (or why it doesnt exist if you want), because it is a form of capitalism. Given the wealth of Switzerland it has to be one of the most successful implementations at that. I fundamentally support this system. I believe it can do with improvement, but none of the improvements I forsee would require it to become in any way non-capitalistic.

By your logic, I must not understand the issues....so explain them to me. What is wrong with the system I support???

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
As a Youth Councillor I see poverty almost everyday and I feel the desire to help the people who are poor - in many cases they are abandoned by the system - not democracy but the capitalism that controls our democracy.

So these "abandoned" people you see every day -- do they get free healthcare? Are they paid dole, child benefit, family income support or disability payments? Do their children go to free schools? Do they live in council houses? If any of these is true, it's hardly accurate to say they've been "abandoned" by society.

Why do sewage worker and janitors etc take up their jobs as it is given that they are not the best payed in existence - as opposed to another job?

Because they don't have the experience/qualifications necessary for a better job. If they could get jobs that paid better or were less crappy, they would do so. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

I would disagree that anyone who supports the current economic system is that well informed - given that there are conclusive links between the poverty of many nations and the Free Market Policies - see the effect of the NAFTA agreement on Mexico.

Counterexample: the effect of EU membership (and the associated free trade) on this country.

Éomer of Rohan

At the end of the day, I just fail to see how you can claim to wish to engender intelligent debate whilst admitting to approaching any such debate with a basic underlying belief of "not only is the other guy wrong, but he doesnt know what he's talking about"....because thats how you classify people who vote Right according to you.

I see this as the bottom line of your argument and so this is what I will deal with.

I wish to engender intelligent discussion rather than debate I think since I do not believe that in real life, a debate can be won except by sound bites. I do hold the belief that the right do not completely have grasp of everything necessary to this argument otherwise, given the current status of the world, I would have a blood pressure problem and go mad from the belief that everyone who is a 'mover' in the capitalist system is evil. The point of rational and intelligent discussion is to educate - I have sat down on many occasions with an open mind, with someone of right wing ideologies (even with the underlying belief that they do not have the complete picture, which does not preclude that they know something you don't or something of value) and convinced them that the Left Wing view of an argument is the correct one - and I find that so long as there is no attempt at hard nosedness then this rarely fails - hence my firm belief that a comprehensive and fair education in world politics and political history would soon destroy the right wing.

Do you accept the possibility that intelligent discussion can have a right and a wrong and that the Left wing argument can be the right one? I am always open to information which would prove that the Right wing is right - though I am sure by now you believe that I have strict tunnel vision - it is just that my prevailing view stems from the fact that I have yet to see the Right Wing be right about anything - when I do, like any rational person, I shall take this into account.

Éomer of Rohan

Because they don't have the experience/qualifications necessary for a better job. If they could get jobs that paid better or were less crappy, they would do so. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here

I wasn't making a point - I wanted to see your answer before I made the point. You say that these people get such jobs because they do not have the correct experience or qualifications - why would this be any different under a Socialist government? Qualifications of wealth would be removed from education (eg private tutors except in cases of state verified special needs pupils) but the results of a persons education would be the results of their education and no career would be barred from then so long as they had the proven ability to do well in that career - but for example, if a random person got three U's at A level, then they could still become a janitor - two things would change however - the idea that janitors and such jobs are crappy jobs since it must be recognised that everyone makes a valuable contribution to society - from a janitor to an astronaut to research scientist and the second would be that the janitor would get everything that a doctor would get - the only variation would be in terms of children in a given family.

So these "abandoned" people you see every day -- do they get free healthcare? Are they paid dole, child benefit, family income support or disability payments? Do their children go to free schools? Do they live in council houses? If any of these is true, it's hardly accurate to say they've been "abandoned" by society

They get everything that the state gives to everyone else - but yet still they struggle to make ends meet - and they are abandoned because they live in various housing estates where the council can best forget about them. In such homes, due to the need for resources, education is often sidelined however - it is not as important as getting a job to help the family - and therein lies the proof that the government do not do enough because it is through education that people work their own way out of poverty.

Counterexample: the effect of EU membership (and the associated free trade) on this country.

Counter-counterexample...the effect on Brazil and Argentina of free trade, not to mention all nations in Sub-Saharan Africa with the exception of South Africa.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I agree with you that today, most people are concerned about their disposable income and so on - but I would suggest that that supercedes politics and that people still vote right and left.

Not really, I’ve seen the left-right divide in politics slowly become more irrelevant over the last twenty years. It’s been fascinating to watch.

As for the failure of right and left politics, I would say that the Left has failed in so far as capitalism still exists due to the Cold War for a start (leftist ideology was portrayed as being anti-country of origin and so forth) and due to voter apathy for a second.

To a degree it’s true what you’re saying about the stigma left by the Cold War for far left ideologies (as the Second World War left for far right ideologies), but remember that in both cases, these rather passionately held prejudices predated these conflicts.

The apathy you accuse the electorate of though is the problem, but not with the emphasis of being their apathy, but that neither the far left or right has managed to admit that said electorate’s apathy may be due to their own stagnant approach.

As to the policies of each side being related to C19, I disagree - I think the welfare of the people is even more important today since the bars of the cage in which they are kept, become ever more gilt edged - ie the transfer from mainly working class populace to a middle class populace (in the West) and the shift of exploitation to overseas - eg the Australasian archipelago, Sub-Saharan Africa and so on. Power still rests with an elite few - and the centre of power has transfered from a semi-accountable government to multinational corporations which transcend national boundaries with ease and therefore render the power of an individual national government ineffective.

You’re missing the point completely. I’m not denying that there may be the same or similar problems in society that we may have witnessed in the nineteenth century; only that the far left and right still approach them with the same tired slogans, tactics and solutions from the nineteenth century.

As a Youth Councillor I see poverty almost everyday and I feel the desire to help the people who are poor - in many cases they are abandoned by the system - not democracy but the capitalism that controls our democracy.

You’ve produced nothing, you contribute nothing, and you own nothing and you wish to share that with the World. And you also demand that those who have worked hard to produce and contribute, so that they may carve out a place for themselves and their families, should have to share too. That’s very convenient for you

I think ultimately the key is education - which we will never get I think because it would be disastrous to allow people to make up their own minds rather than grow up with a status quo.

Please elaborate - are you saying that it would be ultimately inadvisable to allow people to make up their minds or am I reading you wrong?

Éomer of Rohan

You’re missing the point completely. I’m not denying that there may be the same or similar problems in society that we may have witnessed in the nineteenth century; only that the far left and right still approach them with the same tired slogans, tactics and solutions from the nineteenth century

I am fascinated to know what you would suggest are the same slogans and tactics and so on...

You’ve produced nothing, you contribute nothing, and you own nothing and you wish to share that with the World. And you also demand that those who have worked hard to produce and contribute, so that they may carve out a place for themselves and their families, should have to share too. That’s very convenient for you

I have produced nothing yet - I am still in the midst of an education. As for contribution, you will have to be more specific - so you mean I do not work, because I do.

elaborate - are you saying that it would be ultimately inadvisable to allow people to make up their minds or am I reading you wrong?

No, forgive me the misunderstanding - when I say it would be disastrous to give an unprecedented education in politics and so forth to the young, I meant from the point of view of those interested in protecting capitalism - for me, if I where a religious man, I would be praying for it every night.

Éomer of Rohan

you asserted that anyone who supports The Right is not well informed. If we want to reduce that to a more relevant term to this point, we might agree on "capitalism"

I would have thought that right wing and pro-Free Market (with the exception of extreme nationalists who naturally favour trade tariffs) are synonymous for everyone no?

I have previously put forward my case for a capitalism I can believe in. I recall challenging you to explain how the system I described is not the one in effect in Switzerland after you dismissed it as not existing. I also seem to recall you not taking up that challenge

My apologies to you; I do not remeber this argument - as I am sure you are aware, I am not usually one to turn down the opportunity. I will go simply on the basis that you are promulgating Switzerland as a prime example of capitalism; I confess I know little about Switzerland but I would say this, it has a small population and it's biggest business to the best of my knowledge is banking - please enlighten me if this is incorrect - I am all ears - but I would ask who you intend to implement the Swiss model across the world when ultimately, to make a profit, someone will always have to lose - in Europe and America, we generally don't have to see people who lose since they are removed from us to various other nations.

A vague memory about a thread has come back to me - was it not Sparks that you challenged about Swiss direct democracy or something to that effect?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I wish to engender intelligent discussion rather than debate I think since I do not believe that in real life, a debate can be won except by sound bites.

OK - but isnt the first step towards that to stop using soundbites yourself and cease being involved in debate, rather than trying to imply some fault on the part of your chosen opposition for using the tactics you admit are teh most successful in that field?

I do hold the belief that the right do not completely have grasp of everything necessary to this argument
...

- I have sat down on many occasions with an open mind, with someone of right wing ideologies (even with the underlying belief that they do not have the complete picture, which does not preclude that they know something you don't or something of value

But doesnt this fly in the face of your belief that they vote right because they are not correctly informed? How could they possibly know something that you do not? Surely that would raise the possibility that it is you who is uninformed?

hence my firm belief that a comprehensive and fair education in world politics and political history would soon destroy the right wing.

Yes, but how should we interpret your definition of "comprehensive and fair"? Would you claim that your point of view is consistently objective? If not, how can you possibly present something that is "comprehensive and fair". How can anyone? Indeed, surely by even suggesting that you can do such a thing (and presumably that the Right can't) is immediately falling back to the jingoism of point-scoring debating?

Do you accept the possibility that intelligent discussion can have a right and a wrong and that the Left wing argument can be the right one?

I've never ruled it out. To do so would preclude the possibility of intelligent discussion. I am not the one coming to a discussion with preconceptions of the rightness or wrongness of a person's belief based on no more than their stated political ideals.

my prevailing view stems from the fact that I have yet to see the Right Wing be right about anything -

As a matter of interest, given that you admit that there has never been a socialist system correctly implemented....when have you ever seen the Left Wing be right about anything using the same standards of comparison?

Again, you appear to be applying the "their model is flawed, ergo mine is better" line of reasoning. Thats a debating tactic, not discussive. A discussive tactic would be to explain why your system is better.

And this is where my basic problem came in. Its not with what you believe, why you believe it, or anything like that.

What I took exception to is the insistence that you want intelligent debate and "they" dont...when the vast majority of what you seem to be posting in here is exactly the stuff you are criticising the Right for basing their arguments on - point-scoring, argument-winning, spin-doctored, one-sided views of the issues, carefully selected to support your argument.

Thats what my main point was, and is. Its nothing to do with left and right...its your insistence that they are wrong for doing exactly the same stuff as you appear to be doing in return, while insisting that a key difference is that they do this and you dont.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
for example, if a random person got three U's at A level, then they could still become a janitor - two things would change however - the idea that janitors and such jobs are crappy jobs since it must be recognised that everyone makes a valuable contribution to society - from a janitor to an astronaut to research scientist

It isn't an "idea" that janitoring is a crappy job. Sweeping floors and wiping up people's sh1t after them is objectively a crappy job, and no amount of advertising and public education programs will make it otherwise. In your society, why would I work as a janitor when I could sit on my arse and have society pay for everything for me?

In such homes, due to the need for resources, education is often sidelined however - it is not as important as getting a job to help the family - and therein lies the proof that the government do not do enough because it is through education that people work their own way out of poverty.

Well, the government already pays for education, school books, examination fees, school uniforms and university fees. What more would you have them do?

Counter-counterexample...the effect on Brazil and Argentina of free trade,

The Argentinian crisis wasn't caused by free trade -- the main cause was the idiotic decision of the Argentine government to tie the peso to the dollar.

not to mention all nations in Sub-Saharan Africa

Funny you should mention sub-Saharan Africa, because it's the very part of the world that has the least free trade.

Éomer of Rohan

Good grief, you're all laying it in quite heavily today!
Meh

Funny you should mention sub-Saharan Africa, because it's the very part of the world that has the least free trade.

Converse to that, the US has less free trade that most areas - because few nations ever retaliate against US trade tariffs for fear of a trade war - except the US and Japan - they occasionally do fight back (Prof. W. Johnson, "From GATT to WTO")

why would I work as a janitor when I could sit on my arse and have society pay for everything for me?

Because not doing anything is not an option - remember the phrase from each according to their ability to each according to their needs - if you had the ability to be a janitor and refused, then why should the state, which is in effect the people, look after you?

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Converse to that, the US has less free trade that most areas

NAFTA and WTO membership doesn't count as "free trade"?

Because not doing anything is not an option - remember the phrase from each according to their ability to each according to their needs - if you had the ability to be a janitor and refused, then why should the state, which is in effect the people, look after you?

So now you've changed your mind. You're now arguing that if you refuse to work, you shouldn't get paid -- in other words, that there should be monetary incentives to work after all.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
My apologies to you; I do not remeber this argument - as I am sure you are aware, I am not usually one to turn down the opportunity.

I believe the exact term I used was "socially-responsible democratic capitalism" which you denied existed.

I then followed up with this post which you didnt reply to. Not saying you avoided it....the thread did go off on another tangent...just that I've never had an answer for it.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=896501#post896501

Given that you've just admitted to not being too au fait with Switzerland, its fair to say that you wont be able to tell me what the flaws in the system I am proposing are.

I just mentioned it again here, because I found it interesting that you dismissed it so readily though, being a proponent of open and intelligent discussion rather than point-scoring debate tactics, especially when you're willing to admit it (Swiss social/capitalist structure) is an area you are not fully versed in

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Bonkey,

OK - but isnt the first step towards that to stop using soundbites yourself and cease being involved in debate, rather than trying to imply some fault on the part of your chosen opposition for using the tactics you admit are teh most successful in that field?

Surely you recognise that whether I abandon argument or not, others will try to engage in it, which still gives me the opportunity to say who I think is better informed or whatever?

But doesnt this fly in the face of your belief that they vote right because they are not correctly informed? How could they possibly know something that you do not? Surely that would raise the possibility that it is you who is uninformed?

I think you have (deliberately or otherwise) misinterpreted what I said. I am not saying that I or the left in general know everything - therefore it is entirely possible that I can acknowledge that they know something I don't while at the same time being right - point scoring is for politicians on chat shows.

Yes, but how should we interpret your definition of "comprehensive and fair"?

I know what comprehensive and fair is and I reckon you do as well - what I would say is that we both know when we are not being objective (I do anyway - comes from being a historian). Thus what my defintion would be is the examination of all the systems - even ones which haven't been tried - and the education in the history of these systems and so on and on - and then expect each individual to make their own choice as to which one they hold with. In my opinion, since I believe that my ideology is the correct one, as does everyone else, I would say that this is therefore the best way to prove that the left is right, no pun intended.

As a matter of interest, given that you admit that there has never been a socialist system correctly implemented....when have you ever seen the Left Wing be right about anything using the same standards of comparison?

Since you question my objectivity, why not give me the standards you wish and I shall apply them and give you your answer.

- point-scoring, argument-winning, spin-doctored, one-sided views of the issues

I would ask you to consider that I do concede when wrong, that I occasionally give counter points to my own ideas and that I do discuss readily with people of opposing viewpoints various issues - and that I have never spin-doctored anything, simply posting facts as I find them - and I think your attack on this score somewhat unfair. I would also say that all my other posts would have to be examined by you in order that you either concede or refute my issue here.

Éomer of Rohan

NAFTA and WTO membership doesn't count as "free trade"?

Apparently not when you are the USA and don't wish to trade freely.

So now you've changed your mind. You're now arguing that if you refuse to work, you shouldn't get paid -- in other words, that there should be monetary incentives to work after all

Please point out what I changed my argument from and to. I made the point that there should be no monetary incentive to work - but you are accepting to be a part of what you may call a collective which will support you to the best of it's ability and in turn you agree to support it to the best of your ability - and if the best of your ability is to be a janitor, then so be it, right?

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Please point out what I changed my argument from and to. I made the point that there should be no monetary incentive to work - but you are accepting to be a part of what you may call a collective which will support you to the best of it's ability and in turn you agree to support it to the best of your ability - and if the best of your ability is to be a janitor, then so be it, right?

From:

The idea that an incentive needs to be monetary has to be removed

To:

if you had the ability to be a janitor and refused, then why should the state, which is in effect the people, look after you?

From an economic point of view, it doesn't matter whether I get paid directly in cash, or indirectly in the form of food, healthcare or education for my children or some other benefit-in-kind. I'm still getting paid for my work, no matter how you look at it.

Éomer of Rohan

Bonkey,

I read over that link and I recall now why I didn't reply - because I wanted some hard facts with which to deal - all you suggested was a (forgive me for saying) somewhat mawkish account of how great Switzerland was without actually backing yourself up, no offence meant.

What proves that they have a great 'social conscience' for a start?
I would say that out of all the present democracies, the Swiss version is the best - and I have said so in the past - though at the same time I will say that my research is not great where Switzerland is concerned and so you may be wrong or you may be right - if anyone at this point wishes to add criticisms of Switzerland or whatever, I'd be grateful until I have the time to look the issue up.

Éomer of Rohan

From an economic point of view, it doesn't matter whether I get paid directly in cash, or indirectly in the form of food, healthcare or education for my children or some other benefit-in-kind. I'm still getting paid for my work, no matter how you look at it.

Of course it does because there is not the great profligacy as there is in a capitalist sytem and secondly, in this way there is no disparity in domestic incomes. I said the incentive should not be monetary and posited a humanitarian incentive to take its place since the ambition to have the most money will be removed - however the fact remains that the populace will be funding those less able than themselves. For example, one of the classic p.o.v. is that a bin man would earn the same as a doctor so why go through 5 years training to be a doctor when you get the same as a bin man - hence the revised scheme of incentive as opposed to offering a person the ability to flaunt how great they are by buying a new car for no reason.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Surely you recognise that whether I abandon argument or not, others will try to engage in it, which still gives me the opportunity to say who I think is better informed or whatever?

The point I was making is that you criticise the Right for engaging in these tactics, and yet engage in them yourself.

You make the claim that one major reason for their relative success in swaying the populace is their willingness - wish even - to engage in point-scoring, jingoistic, propagandist, choose-your-derogatory-term debating, rather than intelligcent dicusssion.

I am simply pointing out that it is a bit rich to criticise these tactics whilst engaging in them yourself, and indeed to somehow try and assert that it is the use of such tactics which is giving the other side the advantage.

I think you have (deliberately or otherwise) misinterpreted what I said. I am not saying that I or the left in general know everything - therefore it is entirely possible that I can acknowledge that they know something I don't while at the same time being right - point scoring is for politicians on chat shows.

Eomer...you stated a belief that people vote Right because they do not understand the issues. You have yet to come back and say that this was incorrect in some way, and until you do, I am following the conclusions of that statement.

You admit these people can know stuff you dont. I've no problem with this. Never did.

You admit that you cannot know everything. Again, no issue.

And yet you will still consider them to be wrong because they are not will-enough informed because they voted Right.

I cannot see how you can logically arrive at this conclusion.

Thus what my defintion would be is the examination of all the systems - even ones which haven't been tried - and the education in the history of these systems and so on and on - and then expect each individual to make their own choice as to which one they hold with.

Except that in order to educate, you must decide how to present the matieral. This will ultimately be coloured one way or another by those bringing the information together. As a result of any slight deviation from absolute objectivity, one side or another can rightly feel slighted that they do not get a fair representation. Indeed, they may choose to believe this as a result of their core belief values rather than any belief in objectivity.

So - what happens then? Either we forbid other works on the same subject (to prevent there being conflicting views expressed, thus giving us the closest we can get to "fair" without actually getting there), or we permit them (bringing us back to the current situation where its a case of who you choose to believe).

Indeed, what you are describing is no different to what is in existence today, except that today the onus is on the individual to educate themselves.

In my opinion, since I believe that my ideology is the correct one, as does everyone else, I would say that this is therefore the best way to prove that the left is right, no pun intended.

But I've done my reading, I've formed my opinion, and I believe that left is wrong. I also believe right is wrong.

Since you question my objectivity, why not give me the standards you wish and I shall apply them and give you your answer.

Oh - same standards you applied to concluding that the Right Wing is never right will do fine. Just some example of when and why the Left was right will do......and remember that they have to have opposed the Right on the issue, because otherwise you'd be saying that the Right was right as well, which would contradict where we started from

I would ask you to consider that I do concede when wrong,

Well, given that the Right has never been right about anything, that would be a pretty rare event (one might say non-existant) when discussing political ideology with someone who disagrees with you, yes?

and I think your attack on this score somewhat unfair.

OK - I was out of line with "the bast majority". Apologies.

However, the point still stands. You (and many other Leftist proponents) use these tactics, and yet you wish to criticise others (the Right) for using them in the same type of fora.

jc



hc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I am fascinated to know what you would suggest are the same slogans and tactics and so on...

The slogans and tactics of revolution and incitement to overthrow the existing order. Nostalgia for the slogans and tactics of revolutions that took place a century ago. An adoption of a social and economic policy that was authored over a century ago.

Slogans such as "Against monopoly socialism, for democratic socialism" that were used during the November 1918, failed German revolution, are still being bandied from time to time, generally by Trotskyite groups, for some bizarre reason.

Has the far left, and I don’t mean those members of the left that are often scorned for having sold out by adopting free market policies, come up with a new idea in a century? Really?

I have produced nothing yet - I am still in the midst of an education. As for contribution, you will have to be more specific - so you mean I do not work, because I do.

You have not contributed to society in any meaningful manner - between what you have received from your family and from Society, against what you have contributed back, by way of produce and tax, you’re running at a deficit.

You may work, or consider that you work, but that does not mean that your work contributes or benefits Society in any way - and, incidentally, furious political debate does not count as a contribution to society...

when I say it would be disastrous to give an unprecedented education in politics and so forth to the young, I meant from the point of view of those interested in protecting capitalism

Oh... educate only those who would agree with you...

...you don’t mean education, you mean indoctrination.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
For example, one of the classic p.o.v. is that a bin man would earn the same as a doctor so why go through 5 years training to be a doctor when you get the same as a bin man - hence the revised scheme of incentive as opposed to offering a person the ability to flaunt how great they are by buying a new car for no reason.

Let's look at a country facing a shortage of doctors. Under capitalism, the solution to this problem is simple and efficient -- just pay doctors more, and more people will choose to be doctors. If too many people become doctors, doctor's salaries will fall and fewer people will choose medicine as a career.

Under your system, if you want more people to become doctors, you have to somehow increase the social prestige associated with being a doctor -- a much more difficult and uncertain task than just giving them a payrise. It is also difficult for you to reduce that prestige when a few years down the road you have too many doctors.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
What proves that they have a great 'social conscience' for a start?

Nothing....but I was wondering how can you state that such a system doesnt exist without being aware of the details of anywhere it might exist.

If you had asked me to illustrate my point initially, I would have had no issues.

However, to be told that someone believes in a system, and where they live is the best (not ideal) example of that, and then to turn around and say "It doesnt exist as a system, but I dont know about the particulars of your government" is exactly what I was driving at here.

You dismissed it without full knowledge about it, admit to that, and yet insist in a seperate argument that I (as a supporter of capitalism) must be wrong supporting this form of capitalism because I am the one who is ill-informed or underinformed.

jc