Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
so to provide equal opportunity, should we provide universal health care for minor dependents? It's not their fault their parents suck, and legally they can't do anything about it.

I think all kids should be provided with health care....and there are programs in place to ensure that this is the case.

The health care debate is not about insurance for children, it is about insurance for those who have the tools to provide for themselves.

We cover children because they are dependent.
We cover the elderly because they are dependent.
We cover those with disabilities because they are dependent.

Why do we NEED to cover anyone else?

by your argument, the elderly have had their entire lives to pay for their end of life expenses. If they aren't prepared, why should they need to be covered? After all, you are just guaranteeing equality of outcome in the case of the elderly, not equality of opportunity.

If its necessary to cover people who have had their entire lives to prepare, why shouldn't those who have not had their entire lives to prepare be covered?

You pay into the system. Have you ever looked at your paycheck?

so whats the difference between paying into a nationalized health care plan for old people/young people/veterans instead of a nationalized health care plan for everyone?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Yes, the differences are irreconcilable. If the wealthy refuse to free the masses and to share the wealth created by the masses in the act of production, then eventually the masses will reconcile the conflicting differences in a flood of blood.

So if rich people don't give you some free shit you're going to peel some caps back?

Historically speaking, that is how it tends to work.

Consider welfare, for example. The right call it theft, the left call it charity, when it is neither. In reality, it is BRIBERY. One of the functions of govt is to protect property rights. Part of that protection involves the use of violent force (the cost of which the right never complain about), and another part involves the use of bribery to encourage those without property not to steal from those who do.

 

[CPA]

yes and there is no solution. There are too many kinds of different people to ever reconcile. And that is a good thing. humankind would have major problems if everyone thought the same all of the time.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CPA
yes and there is no solution. There are too many kinds of different people to ever reconcile. And that is a good thing. humankind would have major problems if everyone thought the same all of the time.

In a universe without conflict, humans would create it. Oh wait, we already did

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: dammitgibs
Left wants equality, right wants equal opportunity, pretty big difference I'd say.

BS. The left wants equal opportunity no matter your roots. The right wants opportunity based on class and heritage.

No no no. The left wants everyone to be equal. Just look at all of the social programs designed to create "equality".

Now the right wants to give ACCESS to the same opportunities and those who take advantage of those opportunities are successful.

Just look at education as an example. You have people who drop out of high school and then complain that they don't have health care.

The person who graduated high school and has a job took advantage of the opportunity and can now buy health care.

What do you think Obama means when he says "spread the wealth"...that doesn't create opportunity only equality.

Wrong, access to health care is an equal opportunity issue. If you're healthy, its easier to study and to work. If you're not so healthy, you have a harder time learning and a harder time at your job. Poor health will disqualify you from owning your own business or working at a small business since preexisting conditions bar you from everything but large group insurance (work for a corporation) or Medicaid (poverty).

The left wants everyone to have access to quality health care so their personal health doesn't have to be a limiting factor in how far they can go in life. Each person has to take responsibility for their health, but money shouldn't be a factor for the individual.

Often, your health is an accident of birth. If you have well to do parents, you'll probably have access to good health care. If your parents are scraping by, probably not. That's not right to me, but it creates yet another set of opportunities based on class and heritage.

And I'm sure it burns you guys when someone like me who definitely "gots mine" but doesn't say "screw you" to those who had less opportunity then me.

 

[seemingly random]

"Why can't we all just get along?", said rodney.

---

Funny how this subject was never broached by repuggies five years ago. Now that they're out of power, they'll try anything.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: dammitgibs
Left wants equality, right wants equal opportunity, pretty big difference I'd say.

BS. The left wants equal opportunity no matter your roots. The right wants opportunity based on class and heritage.

No no no. The left wants everyone to be equal. Just look at all of the social programs designed to create "equality".

Now the right wants to give ACCESS to the same opportunities and those who take advantage of those opportunities are successful.

Just look at education as an example. You have people who drop out of high school and then complain that they don't have health care.

The person who graduated high school and has a job took advantage of the opportunity and can now buy health care.

What do you think Obama means when he says "spread the wealth"...that doesn't create opportunity only equality.

I can name three areas where equality is desired and required to create a more efficient market.

Price taking behavior - the market should be diverse and large enough that no single powerful agent can affect the entirety of the market. This would suggest that we don't want any single agent to have enough capital that they can shift markets.

Information symmetry - we want an equal amount of information to exist among all players so that the most efficient outcome can be reached.

No barriers to entry - a more competitive market should have no barriers to entry. Having an already established competitor with large capital reserves can be a huge barrier. We'd want some degree of equality so more players have an opportunity.

These are just three economic areas off the top of my head.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: VicConsider welfare, for example. The right call it theft, the left call it charity, when it is neither. In reality, it is BRIBERY. One of the functions of govt is to protect property rights. Part of that protection involves the use of violent force (the cost of which the right never complain about), and another part involves the use of bribery to encourage those without property not to steal from those who do.

This is an excellent point. By allowing the third world mass of poor too at least subsist, their lives and their small amount of freedom have some value to them, which means that imprisonment is a deterrent to some extent. In contrast, if their lives had no value, then why not become burglars and insurgents? If you get imprisoned or shot or executed, what have you lost? A life of suffering, desperation, and impoverishment? Big deal. You might as well die slaughtering your blood enemies.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Republicans are going through a rough patch because they are dying.

If only this were true. Unfortunately, they're merely recuperating, waiting for the Democrats to fumble the ball, which they will and perhaps sooner than we think.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: xj0hnxSo all those rich bastards are using foreign labor to keep American workers wages low?

Yes. It's called Global Labor Arbitrage. The idea is to merge the labor market of a first world nation with that of a third world, overpopulated nation(s) where people will work for very low wages and with fewer government regulations. The end result is that the owners of capital can keep a larger percentage of a worker's contribution to the act of production. In the meantime, the middle class in the first world nation will suffer a decrease in their standard of living.

It's all an evil plot by the evil rich people? :rollseyes:

I'm not convinced that it was planned or that it was a conspiracy. It just worked out that way when third world nations and the U.S. opened themselves up to free trade.

You should be looking to our government to stop them, and to stop illegal immigration, and/or reward companies that use American labor and not outsourcing, maybe bigger tax breaks?

I'm all for tariffs, a zero-dollar trade deficit policy, and an end to illegal immigration and either a huge decrease in legal immigration or an outright moratorium on immigration. I'm not necessarily opposed to corporate tax breaks if they are structured such that they keep middle class jobs in the United States.

No can't have that, gotta take as much as you can from the evil rich people. They are using a resource, one that partly isn't illegal, (immigrant workers with visas, and outsourcing).

It might be necessary to use some sort of a tax on assets on the wealthy to recover some of the money that was transferred from the lower classes to the upper classes.

You should be all for kicking out, and keeping out the illegals then.

Oh! I am.

I think they're entitled to the money they can make using legal means, they made the money, you could make the money too.

I don't have anything against the illegal aliens personally. Can't blame them for pursuing their own rational selfish interest. The jobs the illegals are doing could in fact go to America's poor and with a lower supply of labor, the wages might start to rise (the illegals depressed the wages).

Why do you think YOU are entitled to something you someone else worked for? Because someone else made it using less than scupulous means? Because you don't approve of how they did it? Not good enough.

I don't think I'm entitled to the products of another man's labor. Where did you get that idea? If anything, I advocate a morality of rational selfishness as Ayn Rand did. I just happen to think that a great many aspects of socialism are in people's rational selfish interest.

Now, in the case of Global Labor Arbitrage, the business owners are indirectly initiating physical force by merging the American labor market with third world labor markets--markets where huge masses of people are impoverished as a result of decades of socialism and/or communism. Thus, it's like bringing the ravages of socialism and communism over to the American people by proxy--by merging Americans' standard of living with those of the billions of impoverished people in the third world.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
no, just an irreconcilable amount of stupidity on both sides. Fix the stupidity, and things should get better.

If you would stop posting in this forum we'd be well on our way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: VicConsider welfare, for example. The right call it theft, the left call it charity, when it is neither. In reality, it is BRIBERY. One of the functions of govt is to protect property rights. Part of that protection involves the use of violent force (the cost of which the right never complain about), and another part involves the use of bribery to encourage those without property not to steal from those who do.

This is an excellent point. By allowing the third world mass of poor too at least subsist, their lives and their small amount of freedom have some value to them, which means that imprisonment is a deterrent to some extent. In contrast, if their lives had no value, then why not become burglars and insurgents? If you get imprisoned or shot or executed, what have you lost? A life of suffering, desperation, and impoverishment? Big deal. You might as well die slaughtering your blood enemies.

So people who are on welfare who won't work are blackmailers who we pay off in the form of protection money?

Here's how to fix this.

Every able bodied person who is on welfare takes a broom, shovel, whatever and works. If they have children then they are given daycare.

While they are on the dole, the women either use a depo shot for BC or an IUD. No more multigenerational welfare recipients.

While they are collecting money, they must get remedial education if needed- after work.

If these conditions are not to their liking they are off. I will not be blackmailed.

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
"Why can't we all just get along?", said rodney.

---

Funny how this subject was never broached by repuggies five years ago. Now that they're out of power, they'll try anything.

Funny how the democRATS were all about ending the tyranny of the majority 5 years ago, and are now content abusing it!


Fun game. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: VicConsider welfare, for example. The right call it theft, the left call it charity, when it is neither. In reality, it is BRIBERY. One of the functions of govt is to protect property rights. Part of that protection involves the use of violent force (the cost of which the right never complain about), and another part involves the use of bribery to encourage those without property not to steal from those who do.

This is an excellent point. By allowing the third world mass of poor too at least subsist, their lives and their small amount of freedom have some value to them, which means that imprisonment is a deterrent to some extent. In contrast, if their lives had no value, then why not become burglars and insurgents? If you get imprisoned or shot or executed, what have you lost? A life of suffering, desperation, and impoverishment? Big deal. You might as well die slaughtering your blood enemies.

So people who are on welfare who won't work are blackmailers who we pay off in the form of protection money?

Here's how to fix this.

Every able bodied person who is on welfare takes a broom, shovel, whatever and works. If they have children then they are given daycare.

While they are on the dole, the women either use a depo shot for BC or an IUD. No more multigenerational welfare recipients.

While they are collecting money, they must get remedial education if needed- after work.

If these conditions are not to their liking they are off. I will not be blackmailed.

"That's heartless." etc.

...

I suggested something like this a while back and got shot at from every direction. Good luck.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: DukeN
There are no irreconciliable differences, just political posturing and greed.

How are you going to reconcile abortion?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DukeN
There are no irreconciliable differences, just political posturing and greed.

How are you going to reconcile abortion?

Don't like it, don't have one. Problem solved.

Anyway, it would take a big govt to enforce a ban on abortion. Just like it already takes a big govt to enforce the war on drugs, and the war on terror, etc. Or the war on poverty for that matter. The irony of the whole left vs right debate is that both sides are each trying to achieve the exact same goal, which is to ruthlessly enforce their morals on others. The only argument is over what defines good morals. That their shared goal is immoral of itself is something both sides chose to ignore.

 

[Patranus]

Left = No you can't
Right = Yes you can

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Left = No you can't
Right = Yes you can

Can what? Troll idiotic generalizations? :roll:

 

[Stuxnet]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: DukeN
There are no irreconciliable differences, just political posturing and greed.

How are you going to reconcile abortion?

Don't like it, don't have one. Problem solved.

Anyway, it would take a big govt to enforce a ban on abortion. Just like it already takes a big govt to enforce the war on drugs, and the war on terror, etc. Or the war on poverty for that matter. The irony of the whole left vs right debate is that both sides are each trying to achieve the exact same goal, which is to ruthlessly enforce their morals on others. The only argument is over what defines good morals. That their shared goal is immoral of itself is something both sides chose to ignore.

Yup.

 

[idiotekniQues]

how bout the south just secede?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Patranus
Left = No you can't
Right = Yes you can

Can what? Troll idiotic generalizations? :roll:

The general philosophy of the left is 'no you can't'. Listen to the words they use. Oh, you don't have to worry about taxes, it will only tax those people making over 250k or whatever the number is this week.

Instead of making it sound like you don't have to worry about these taxes because you don't make that much money, they should be saying yes you can make that much money, go out, and try your hardest instead of making it sound like something that will never happen.

Just one example but the left is full of them.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Patranus
Left = No you can't
Right = Yes you can

Can what? Troll idiotic generalizations? :roll:

The general philosophy of the left is 'no you can't'. Listen to the words they use. Oh, you don't have to worry about taxes, it will only tax those people making over 250k or whatever the number is this week.

Instead of making it sound like you don't have to worry about these taxes because you don't make that much money, they should be saying yes you can make that much money, go out, and try your hardest instead of making it sound like something that will never happen.

Just one example but the left is full of them.

No, it's because if you're making 250k, you're doing quite well and shouldn't be bitching about taxes. Liberals have no problem with making big money, and paying big taxes, see Hollywood. Liberals want govt services, and are willing to pay for it.

I know a guy,former coworker, retired Navy, lifelong Republican, and I really admired him because he never bitched about taxes. It's the cost of living in a free society. He told me his goal in life was to pay a million dollars in taxes-because then he would be making millions. He never wasted any time or energy worrying about taxes, he just concentrated on his job and his investments. He was a shrewd investor in the market and in real estate, and I am sure he is comfortably retired today. I learned a lot about investing from this guy.

I don't understand people's obsession with taxes. You can't really effect any change, so quit wasting your energy in unproductive ways. Try to maximize your income instead.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Do the left and the right have irreconcilable differences?
If so, what is the solution?

If you are referring exclusively to the North American political environment, I think it is absurd to use the term left: you don't have a left-wing party.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
Topic Title: Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Absolutely

Only answer is war and bloodshed

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I realized that I can't even reconcile several of MY OWN ideas... how the hell can it be possible for our government or society to make any inroads whatsoever.

this.