Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
It's interesting that you bring this up, as I was just discussing this with my students a few days ago. I'm teaching an Operations Research course this semester and I was discussing Linear Programming. For those of you unfamiliar, in a nutshell, it's one way (of many) to mathematically model a problem in order to find an optimal solution. You basically define your variables, then constraints, then you define the objective which is subject to those constraints. When properly defined, you end up with an enclosed area bound by a line representing each constraint, and your objective "pushes" you to a vertex of this area, with the idea being that said vertex is your optimal solution.

One student had the idea of trying model best-outcomes for government policies. Realistically speaking, the notion is absurd, but it spawned some very interesting discussion, especially when people started considering the constraints that we would need to impose. It quickly became apparent that it would be impossible to define any constraints without creating an invalid model (one with no enclosed area caused by conflicting constraints).

Of course, our discussion was an awful simplification of one of humanity's most complex problems, made even more complex by differing values, agendas, and priorities. Regardless, it was fun to talk about. I continued reflecting on this for a couple days. Finally 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.

Political agreement is impossible, for many of us cannot even agree with ourselves. The notion that we can convince someone else of our position is downright hysterical, even if you remove the element of ego.

It wasn't always this bad. Once upon a time things were heated (they are always were), but one side understood that the other was trying to do good although in a way they disagreed with. Of course that's a generalization, but I think a fair one.

These days it's qualitatively different. The liberals assume that the conservatives are evil and vice versa. When one considers the opposition in that light, debate becomes war.

Regarding your thought experiment (which I find intriguing), you more or less tried to play Hari Seldon. Asimov had faith in a determinate universe, where mere processing power was all that was needed to account for human activities into some arbitrary future date. What he failed to consider was Gödel, who effectively described our situation. In effect we cannot account for future actions because we do not know the full range of actions we might take in response to any given situation. Although behavior isn't random it is chaotic, tending towards certain resolutions of problems, however precision is inherently impossible. There is no algorithm which can describe it, and therefore it's impossible to resolve.

One might say that in the future a machine intelligence may come about which is "above" our "set" of behaviors, but since whatever we develop is a byproduct of the universe of our possible actions, it would be linked to us. Therefore I think it fundamentally impossible to do what you attempted.

Thinking is fun!

 

[miketheidiot]

no, just an irreconcilable amount of stupidity on both sides. Fix the stupidity, and things should get better.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JS80

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

More gov't vs less gov't.
Solution = secession.

can i secede from my neighbor? he wants low taxes and i want good government services.

 

[miketheidiot]

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

the left wants equal opportunity, the right wants inequality. See I can do that do (and with greater empirical validity

Originally posted by: BoberFett

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

This. Other than the extremists on both sides I believe that most people want to improve the world around them. They just have a different view of how to improve the world. Any animosity between the sides is purely ego, trying to enforce the idea that there is only one right way and that is their way.

this part of your post was good.

Originally posted by: xj0hnx

Originally posted by: Phokus

Exactly, americans don't know shit about american history and the founding fathers.

Make some more ignorant blanket statements please.

fixed his post to reflect reality better. it could certainly be generalized further, such as:

people don't know shit

which in my experience is every bit as valid.

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?

if the 'workers' are stretched far enough and feel that the system is giving them the shaft so to speak, revolution is certainly possible.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

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

Secession

My state tried that once... federal soldiers came and burned the cities. I suggest against letting history repeat itself, stay in The Union and keep your senators / representatives.

 

[Druidx]

Originally posted by: Fern

Left Vs. Right - Do We Have Irreconcilable Differences?

Of course we do.

However, our Founding Fathers had a solution: Limited federal government and allowing the states to wield the power. In that way everyone, liberal or conservative, could basically go their own way. A"live and let live" thing. If you didn't like the way your state treated things, you could just move to another state more to your liking.

However, that model has been turned on it's head; the federal government has virtually all the power. There is very little 'experimentation' with government etc at the state level anymore. The SCOTUS has used the Interstate Commerce Clause to crush states' rights IMO.

Fern

:thumbsup:
So simple, to bad it will never be that way again.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

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

the left wants equal opportunity, the right wants inequality.

no, just an irreconcilable amount of stupidity on both sides. Fix the stupidity, and things should get better.

It would be more accurate to say that some on the right want inequality, while some on the left want government invading most every aspect of our lives because government wants what's best. While it's accurate, it's hardly representative.

In the real world the left and the right want to do good things, but there is a different philosophy and emphasis on priorities.

In this created fiction, one side wants everything good, and the other everything bad. I think the stupidity is irreconcilable.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

These days it's qualitatively different. The liberals assume that the conservatives are evil and vice versa. When one considers the opposition in that light, debate becomes war.

That's an interesting point, but at least in my case, I don't think liberals are evil. I think they are misguided and naive in many cases, but I do think that the rank and file among them really want to help people. I just disagree with many of their methods and especially their faith in government. Their leadership, however, is very similar to the Republican leadership -- greedy, hypocritical, and in it for themselves.

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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?

It might be more appropriate to say:

"If the upper classes continue to wage a war on the lower classes by purposely and systematically destroying the job market through global labor arbitrage (foreign outsourcing, work visas such as the H-1B and L-1, and mass immigration) as well as continuing to destroy the quality of life by supporting mass immigration and overpopulation, essentially converting the lower classes into slaves for the upper classes, then eventually the masses may reconcile their differences with the upper classes with a bloody revolution."

That's more accurate than saying, "So, if rich people don't give you some free shit, you're saying you're going to peel some caps back?"

What you're missing is the issue of whether or not the rich are really entitled to all they have or whether some of it was stolen from the lower classes. It's easy to assume that the rich really are morally entitled to the wealth they have as opposed to questioning it. Let's suppose, for example, that as a result of a horrific employment market that business owners could keep a larger percentage of the value of a worker's contribution to the act of production as profit for themselves. Might it be argued that the workers should actually have a larger percentage of the value of their contribution to the act of production since the upper classes manipulated the supply of labor to decrease wages (the price point)? When you start to ask questions like that, the dogma that everyone gets what they deserve and that all wealth is earned begins to look questionable, doesn't it?

Let us know if all of that went over your head.

Over my head? lol. Class envy is an ugly thing. So all those rich bastards are using foreign labor to keep American workers wages low? It's all an evil plot by the evil rich people? :rollseyes: 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? 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). You should be all for kicking out, and keeping out the illegals then. I think they're entitled to the money they can make using legal means, they made the money, you could make the money too. 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.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Blanghorst, that was too much of a blanket statement. Perhaps I should have said that there are enough people who act as I describe to screw any reconciliation. Rather than looking at an issue, they assume the "party line" which of course always paints themselves in the best possible light and deflects any weakness. It's foolishness. One doesn't need to agree at all, but there is a pervasive sense of "getting even" for past imagined or real wrongdoings. When revenge takes priority over thoughtful consideration the day is lost. At some point that may change, but I believe that would require the collapse of the two leading parties. Not very likely.

 

[SammyJr]

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

Real America can join Somalia and live in a Government free anarchy.
The rest of us will join Canada.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Blanghorst, that was too much of a blanket statement. Perhaps I should have said that there are enough people who act as I describe to screw any reconciliation. Rather than looking at an issue, they assume the "party line" which of course always paints themselves in the best possible light and deflects any weakness. It's foolishness. One doesn't need to agree at all, but there is a pervasive sense of "getting even" for past imagined or real wrongdoings. When revenge takes priority over thoughtful consideration the day is lost. At some point that may change, but I believe that would require the collapse of the two leading parties. Not very likely.

Yeah, I knew what you meant and I agree. Too many blind partisans who toe the party line regardless of the situation. Of course, maybe *I* am the one who is naive and misguided by thinking that the rank and file members of both parties really do want what is best for the country.

 

[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.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

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

Real America can join Somalia and live in a Government free anarchy.
The rest of us will join Canada.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

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

And here we have the type of person I was just discussing -- the person who toes the party line regardless of the truth.

 

[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.

 

[miketheidiot]

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.

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.

 

[Moonbeam]

Republicans are going through a rough patch because they are dying.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

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

It's the human condition.

 

[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?

 

[totalnoob]

Originally posted by: Patranus
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?

To guarantee yourself a lifelong voting bloc of course. When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

 

[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?

 

[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?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07
Absolutely. There are fundamental differences that cannot be reconciled otherwise there would be no left or right.

The only 'fundamental difference' between left and right is that of group affiliation.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JS80

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

More gov't vs less gov't.
Solution = secession.

The right does not believe in less govt any more than the left believes in more govt (or vice versa). The difference here is between where the 2 sides believe govt should and should not intervene in society.