Discussion in 'Attention Seekers' started by realRonnyboy, Jan 9, 2018.
your affiliation, your understanding of economics, your foreign policy beliefs, etc
Far left pragmatist. I don't debate moral values, I debate scientifically objective assessment of reality for any policy. Anyone debating morality with me can shove his belief up his ass.
I consider as a rule of thumb, on general basis, ring wing nut jobs are retarded.
I don't understand anything. I can't pretend to know the ins and outs of every deal or back deal.
I do know that Trudeau is a fucking idiot.
For the most part, I abhor politics and in particular, politicians. Life is short, and there are far too many things I actually find interesting and worth scrutiny than to be allocating much effort to politics. I suppose my ideology is moderate, leaning to the left. I had two semesters of economics as part of my computer science degree, and I found micro mildly interesting as an application of mathematics. As a citizen of the U.S., I feel we meddle far too much in foreign affairs, and our meddling has come back to bite us in the ass. I dislike Trump a great deal, but I think he panders brilliantly to his fanbase.
I like that, a lot. I feel the same. I dont like labels like "far left" or "far right", but I am all about pragmatic, proven solutions to problems that society faces; precedents of policies that work vs those that dont, and implementation of said policies, regardless of political affiliation or influence from big money interests.
This is why I loved ross perot for example, he argued for single payer health care back in 1992, which was unheard of especilly from a oil magnate conservative texan.
I believe in the most basic idea that a government exists to protect the rights of the people and that my idea of that beats out the state of nature for humans where anarchy rules in that society.
Real world pragmatism will put us leaning to the left, center-left for the majority of the population. I'm far left, because I advocate natural solution to poverty; forced appropriation.
A society is built upon the desire of participants to benefit from its formation as such that if any segment of the population are not receiving the minimum needs for survival (food, healthcare, shelter, internet etc.) there is no reason to adhere to any made up rules i.e. one should do everything he can to survive.
Bottom line is; for a society to function properly, people must take care of the weakest. I don't advocate pure egalitarianism since inequality is inherent in nature. What I advocate is forced redistribution of wealth (especially from the rich) to cater the minimum needs of everyone.
why do you think trudeau is an idiot? especially if you just admitted you dont understand anything...
how do you define moderate and left leaning?
Moderate as in not extreme, and left as in liberal rather than conservative.
I believe in global Free-Market with taxes and social programs such as welfare and chomage.
I think we need a strong moderately unified State to manage all that. With great leaders.
A storm is coming... I look forward to the day we roll out the guillotine and start cutting off the heads of the social elite and their puppet politicians.
laws written and enforced by the few that persecute the many, should be broken.
yes, that is the dictionary definition of it all, but how does moderate manifest itself for you? how do you define "liberal"?
a lot of people use these terms, but dont know how to explain what it actually means.
with the global free market, do you see strong regulations in place as well?
and when you say social programs such as welfare, do you mean subsidizing people and giving them a handout?
would you rather see people earn a livable wage and empower themselves than receive a government handout?
I'm at odd with other far left (Communists and Anarchists) in that I have no issue with capitalism. What I have issue is when capitalism serves no purpose for the benefit of society (the very natural reason why everyone participates) like US big pharma jacking up drug prices. It makes no sense from evolutionary biology standpoint (the natural instinct for survival) for anyone to allow themselve death sentence just because they have no money.
Well then you do have a problem with capitalism.
capitalism will be it's own destruction, as the fiduciary responsibility of any corporation is above all else, including the health of the society. in other words, constant growth regardless of it actually leading to a downfall, is what capitalism is responsible to do. It is it's own worst enemy, literally...
Now if we were to create a quasi-capitalist model that utlized elements of capitalism, but with ceilings and caps, that would save the system. Unfortunately, much like communism, it is destined to fail because of the human factor (greed).
I don't find that I agree with the vast majority of either left or right. I find myself towards the center. If it were a set of normally distributed data, I would be easily within one standard deviation of the mean. I define liberal as it is commonly defined, as doing otherwise wouldn't be productive. Surely, these commonly used concepts don't need to be spelled out here, right?
actually, they do... hence I asked.
and the reason they do is because "liberal" as defined by "progressive liberals", is as different as "conservative" when compared to "corporate liberal".
e.g. a "liberal" that supports bernie sanders vs a liberal that supports hillary clinton/barack obama, or any other neo-liberal corporate whore.
I don't support any politicians, at least none that I've ever seen in action. I do support ideas and programs such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, and racial/gender equality.
Here's the problem with your logic, it's perfectly logical!
I am distinct among the far left in that I do not prioritize logic above anything else. I prioritize empirical data as the supreme ruler. What I mean here is that you cannot understand human behavior using logical deduction because human beings are inherently irrational where decision-makings are made primarily subconsciously (I can link you to several peer reviewed studies about this). You can only understand human behaviors by way of compiling data and plotting them on statistical graph.
Logic itself is human product, a human attempt to decipher reality in absolute fashion but reality is never absolute and therefore can only be understood inductively via empiricism.
I'm venturing into the realm of philosophy at this point, but my point is: all the available data we have point out that capitalism can be managed (as opposed to logical deduction) and the Scandinavian model is the best example we have so far.
Separate names with a comma.