Originally posted by WajomaI was asked what my ideology is. And I am leftist. I didn't mention wealth redistribution though, so I don't know why you're having a go at me for it.
That is the leftie ideology, wealth redistribution to those that have not earned it.
If you have a right to your freedom then you must recognise that same right in others.
Freedom is the right to live free from force, threats of force and fraud.
I am not wealthy by todays average standards but compared to the average standard 50 - 100 years ago, ver ...[text shortened]... of islands is, but I think you'll find the few privately owned islands are far from 'barren'.
HOWEVER...
Since you care to bring it up:
Yes. I am all for wealth redistribution. In fact, I'll go as far as to suggest that I think the problem should be solved before the money's distributed in the first place!
You see, Socialism (that's leftist ideology) is: He who produces something reaps the rewards from that product and has an equal say in its distribution.
Sasquatch, perhaps I should clarify a little.
Originally posted by sasquatch672
Anyway, my liberal view:
A world where physical violence of any sort, militaristic or civilian, is not present. Nice to wish for, but utopian and unrealistic.
But Utopian? Why the but, is utopian necessarily bad? Unrealistic in the current world; yes, certainly.
Where all people of all colours, creeds and nationalities, live without fear of violence, oppression, derision or exploitation and where unique cultures are celebrated rather than used as safety shields or barriers to keep others out.Sure, that's fine, but the whole point of culture is that you make teams to kick the other team's ass.
I'm saddened that you see culture as an actively offensive concept.
Where religion is a personal agenda which is practiced privately for those who hold it, but it has no place in influencing government.Most of the founders held deeply religious beliefs. The intent of the First Amendment was to avoid the establishment of a state religion, but not to keep all religion out of public life. But I do recognize your point.
I think you're under the mistaken assumption that I am American, sorry if I gave that idea, I am actually English. I hold the seperationof church and state even further apart than the first ammendment does.
Where government is transparent and fully democratic.The framers opposed democracy. They thought democracy was a short path to "tyranny of the majority", and intended our government to be a representative republic.
Ignoring the nationality thing for a minute, I'm in favour of a representative democracy over a republic because we choose our representatives based on our interests at each level of government and the are "supposed" to act upon those interests once in power. A republic carries no such insurance and it is theoretically possible to have a president who has no political accumen at all. Though, obviously, neither system is perfect.
Where the media does not shape people's ideologies, but the reverse.I assume that you're going both ways here - there are both liberal and conservative slants on the media.
It was more a comment on the forming of opinons than what those opinons are.
Where people are more concerned with improving their minds, than getting rich, or having more control, status or posessions.This will never, ever, ever happen. As long as there is a group of people, there will be a part of that group that wants to be at the top of it.
I didn't say I thought it likely, just that I would like it to happen 🙂
Where sexual and emotional relationships are two seperate things.This was thrown in here, kind of random - missing the "free love"days?
I didn't realise we were being purely political here, this is a liberal social view and one that I believe would benefit the stability of social life. It is not a free-love view, I hate hippies. I will be happy to enlarge this statement elsewhere if you aare interested.
Where there is no death penalty and the emphasis of law is not to incarcerate, but to reform.Yeah but sometimes you just have to lock people up, both as a warning and for society's protection from that individual.
Some people do have to be locked away forever, but the emphasis should be on the reformation of people, not their incarceration. Better processes of reformation would ensure less repeat crime.
Where the pursuit of art, music and literature are more of a driving force for economies than sales, advertising, pharmaceuticals, insurance and banks etc.Again - this is pretty utopian, and may exist on a commune somewhere, but this is not a sustainable model.
I disagree, just because it is fairly opposed to our current states of world economy does not make it either impossible or utopian. On what grounds do you think it is not sustainable?
Where people realise a suit and tie is in no way a suggestion of depth of character or credentials for positions of power.OK, I'll listen to anybody's ideas, but if you can't even wash your ass, I can't trust you with the nuclear football.
Uniform, be it military or civilian (suits and ties) used to be an indicator of trustfulness, competency or reliability. I do not believe this is true these days, there is far too much talking the talk, but not walking the walk.
Where people have access to help when they need it, not afterwards by way of compensation.Hmm. ???
A generalistic statement, partly referring to health services and criminal compensation etc.
Where revenge and jealousy are words nobody remembers or understands.This doesn't have to do with politics, I think this is an endorsement for communism.
You are right, it is a social view, I was not attempting to be political, my liberalism is based both on thought and deed, both of which encompass political and, or social matters. I was not endorsing communism. Do you agree that on a social level this view is a worthwhile one?
Originally posted by StarrmanI'm with you, Starrman.
.....Do you agree that on a social level this view is a worthwhile one? (okay, slightly abridged version)😀
Unfortunately, I'm also kinda of the opinion that it's a hopeless cause, as society (as a whole, not as a collection of individuals, if you get my drift) doesn't believe in it enough. People might talk like they do, but when push comes to shove, the old capitalism wins through every time...
Great dream, though...
Originally posted by tojoOld capitalism is 200 years old.
I'm with you, Starrman.
Unfortunately, I'm also kinda of the opinion that it's a hopeless cause, as society (as a whole, not as a collection of individuals, if you get my drift) doesn't believe in it enough. People might talk like they do, but when push comes to shove, the old capitalism wins through every time...
Great dream, though...
So, it's not that bloody old.
The only reason it's so rampant is because the media and the politicians shove it down our throats day after bloody day.
Ask most Europeans if they think the following should be free on the point of delivery:
- Health
- Education
- Electricity
- Water
- Gas
And most will agree. We should ALL pay society and society should pay for these items.
Ask most people if privitisation is good, and most will have serious doubts.
Ask people if it's right if water and land can be owned...most will say "yes". Ask them if the air we breathe should be owned and everyone will say "no".
So what creates this little anomoly then? Once you've answered that, you'll know why we're still stuck with capitalism.
Originally posted by shavixmirNo need to get all tubthumpy!😉I sense you have some serious issues...
Old capitalism is 200 years old.
So, it's not that bloody old.
The only reason it's so rampant is because the media and the politicians shove it down our throats day after bloody day.
Ask most Europeans if they think the following should be free on the point of delivery:
- Health
- Education
- Electricity
- Water
- Gas
And most will ag ...[text shortened]... e anomoly then? Once you've answered that, you'll know why we're still stuck with capitalism.
I'm afraid capitalism cannot be solely blamed on the media and politicians. Sure, they love it. It keeps them in power and wealth, and that's the crunch. Wealth. It if was only the media and politicians, and the people didn't want it, do you really think it would be spreading like it is? The desire for money/power/standing is driving capitalism. The clue's in the name...
Ask most Europeans if they think your list should be free at the point of delivery, the answers yes.
Ask most Europeans if they live in a capitalist society, the answers generally yes.
Ask most Europeans if capitalism works, the answers generally yes.
Serious question, not a dig or anything. If the air we breathe should be free, why not the water we drink???
Originally posted by CanadaguyI dunno if I'm a left-winger or a liberal. But I believe these terms are overused, primarily by the purveyors and buyers of the cartoon ideology called "conservatism" one finds blaring all over the radio and TV nowadays.
I'm interested in knowing what you left wingers actually believe in. All my life all I've ever heard is snide comments and conservative bashing from you guys. Never have I heard what you actually want from this world and what you believe to be true and right. Here is your chance to sell me on your beliefs.
For these people, anyone who thinks that Limbaugh, Liddy, Hannity, Coulter (and the rest of the choir) are moronic buffoons is by definition a "Liberal" or a "Leftist.
I guess when it comes to snide comments (regardless of whether one is actually a leftist or a liberal) it's a matter of supreme distaste for blatant stupidity. One wonders what is worse: whether they are unaware of how shallow their rhetoric is or completely oblivious!
But when it comes to the ditto-heads and the eager audience, it's just extreme distaste for vulgarity.
These people are unaware, for instance, that the whole mind frame is a variant of historical liberalism... that we are all in some sense "Liberals"...and that the accusation of being a Liberal is in most respects extremely vacuous.
They are also in the grip of a religious faith ..even when they aren't right-wing "Christians"... It's a metaphysical, utterly faith based dogma that the only thing that really really exists is "individuals" and that the operation of sheer greed and desire will end up making some heaven on earth via an Invisible Hand Job! And usually the "christian", "traditional values" schtick is just that... a veneer one glazes on top of this naked idiocy like some pitiful figleaf!
Well, I could say more. But basically the snideness comes from impatience with blatant moronism parading under the guise of intellectual respectibility on the one hand....and -gasp- "mainstream values" on the other!
Meanwhile we have to watch an endless, dorky effort to prop up so called Republican/Conservative intellectuals, who all openly despise the hillarious fact that if the vote were restricted to Nobel Prize winners, people with IQs over 130, and significant artists...no Republican would have a chance in hell of being elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
"Arguments against
..
conservative - social spending has undesirable effects on behavior, fostering dependency and reducing incentives to work
...
individualist - social spending reduces the freedom of wealthy or successful individuals by transferring some of their wealth to others (this argument is important also for libertarians and conservatives)
...
The figures below show, first, welfare expenditure as a percentage of GDP for OECD member states, and second, GDP per capita (PPP US$)in 2001:
Denmark 29.2 | $29000
Sweden 28.9 | $24180
France 28.5 | $23990
Germany 27.4 | $25350
Belgium 27.2 | $25520
Switzerland 26.4 | $28100
Austria 26.0 | $26730
Finland 24.8 | $24430
Italy 24.4 | $24670
Greece 24.3 | $17440
Norway 23.9 | $29620
Poland 23.0 | $9450
United Kingdom 21.8 | $24160
Netherlands 21.8 | $27190
Portugal 21.1 | $18150
Luxembourg 20.8 | $53780
Czech Republic 20.1 | $14720
Hungary 20.1 | $12340
Iceland 19.8 | $29990
Spain 19.6 | $20150
New Zealand 18.5 | $19160
Australia 18.0 | $25370
Slovak Republic 17.9 | $11960
Canada 17.8 | $27130
Japan 16.9 | $25130
United States 14.8 | $34320
Ireland 13.8 | $32410
Mexico 11.8 | $8430
South Korea 6.1 | $15090
Figures from the OECD for 2001 [2] and UNDP Human Development Report 2003 [3]
Note: China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia, and Pakistan have been left off because the OECD did not have welfare figures for them. However Russia GDP Per capita is $7100 and is a former Communist state, the ultimate "Welfare State". China is still considered mostly Communist and its per capita income is $2840.
"
Originally posted by CanadaguyMy perfect world looks like this:
I'm interested in knowing what you left wingers actually believe in. All my life all I've ever heard is snide comments and conservative bashing from you guys. Never have I heard what you actually want from this world and what you believe to be true and right. Here is your chance to sell me on your beliefs.
-There is no money and individual property.
-There are no borders/countries.
-Everyone speaks the same language.
-There is no government.(needed)
-People treat each other as equals.
-People help each other instead of themselves. (because they understand the bigger picture and see how futile their individual lifes are)
-Science and education have the highest priority. (to unravel the mysteries of nature)
I am confident that the world will look like this in maybe 1000 years.
Originally posted by CanadaguyI don't believe in liberals and conservatives, as I don't think the political system that is widely used today is any good. Think about Bush and Blair. They got back in because the people they were up against were worse than them. People shouldn't start off in a position of power due to negativity.
I'm interested in knowing what you left wingers actually believe in. All my life all I've ever heard is snide comments and conservative bashing from you guys. Never have I heard what you actually want from this world and what you believe to be true and right. Here is your chance to sell me on your beliefs.
Anyway, my ideal state:
1) Equality for all. Every person is entitled to an EQUAL education, health care, and basic human rights, whether they were born into a billionaire family or whether they were born in the gutter.
2) Not run by corporations. Too many policies today are set by corporations bribing governments. This is a nightmare scenario seeing as corporations are only interested in 1 thing: profit to the detriment of people and the environment.
3) The government should accept that we are part of the natural environment, and that the environment isn't ours to rape and pillage as we want.
4) No exploitation of people. Whether they are within your borders or not.
Probably more, but that's all I can think of for now.
D
Originally posted by Ragnorak1) So two hard working parents manage to save a few dollars and decide to send their kid Spencer for some extra tution after hours, they want him to learn to play the piano.
Anyway, my ideal state:
1) Equality for all. Every person is entitled to an EQUAL education, health care, and basic human rights, whether they were born into a billionaire family or whether they were born in the gutter.
2) Not run by corporations. Too many policies today are set by corporations bribing governments. This is a nightmare scenario seeing ...[text shortened]... y are within your borders or not.
Probably more, but that's all I can think of for now.
D
uh oh parents, look out, here comes Ragnorak.
Ragnorak: "I'm afraid you two will have to work and save a little harder first, you see there are 5 693 211 other kids who's parents say they can't afford piano lessons and we can't have wee Spencer having an unfair advantage, if they can't have piano lessons Spencer can't either, don't try getting any piano lessons on the black market, we're coming down hard on parents who try to get that little bit extra for their kids, it's all leveled out now."
Wilma and Wilson have had a good life they've managed to aquire assets to the value of nearly half a million, they're well into their 70's now and enjoying retirement but they've had some bad news, Wilson has cancer and needs urgent treatment but the waiting lists are horrendous on the public health so they cash up some assets and decide to go private.
Uh oh Wilma and Wilson look out, here comes, Ragnorak:
Ragnorak "I'm sorry you two we're going to take that money from you and divvy it up on the 8693 people on the waiting list, look on the bright side, funerals are pretty cheap these days.
2) On this point we agree business and government must be seperated and the best way to do this is to limit guvamint to its core responsibilities police, justice and defence.
Originally posted by WajomaWhether somebody can play the piano or not won't affect their chances for a decent life in the future. Trivialising the debate does nobody any good.
1) So two hard working parents manage to save a few dollars and decide to send their kid Spencer for some extra tution after hours, they want him to learn to play the piano.
uh oh parents, look out, here comes Ragnorak.
Ragnorak: "I'm afraid you two will have to work and save a little harder first, you see there are 5 693 211 other kids who's parents ...[text shortened]... st way to do this is to limit guvamint to its core responsibilities police, justice and defence.
In a society which taxes rich people as much (percentage wise) as middle class people, there should be no horrendous waiting lists. Look at Sweden as a prime example of this. Hell, even Cuba has a top medical system DESPITE the u.s.' embargo on them.
As for your point on limiting government... you seem to miss the point. If a corporation wants government to pass a law, then it'll bribe government to do so. How does limiting government to police, justice and defence achieve this?
D
2) On this point we agree business and government must be seperated and the best way to do this is to limit guvamint to its core responsibilities police, justice and defence.[/b]I couldn't agree less.
The government needs to look after the health, education defence and the environment.
If you have a healthy well educated society the rest of the issues will look after themselves.
The judiciary needs to be totally independent.
Originally posted by RagnorakIt needn't be piano, that was just one example the same could be applied to maths, computer skills anything. Some parents work a little harder to provide a little more for their number one achievement, another human life, their child but noooooo under Ragnoraks system everyone has to be equal, if the other kids can't get it no-one can.
Whether somebody can play the piano or not won't affect their chances for a decent life in the future. Trivialising the debate does nobody any good.
In a society which taxes rich people as much (percentage wise) as middle class people, there should be no horrendous waiting lists. Look at Sweden as a prime example of this. Hell, even Cuba has a top me ...[text shortened]... rnment to do so. How does limiting government to police, justice and defence achieve this?
D
New Zealand has a public health system, both my parents who have paid tax all their life and myself have had bad waiting list experiences, so I speak from personal experience. Go to a doctor with a stomach complaint, his first question is "Do you have insurance?"
"Yes" "OK we'll get you in for an (camera tube thing down in the stomach)
"No" "OK we'll just wait awhile and see what develops"
If guvamint is limited to the three core responsibilities what have they got to sell, what can they be bribed for? Give an example of a law that business might bribe gummint to pass.