NationStates

As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged. I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

So, I'd just like to see what the general reasoning for leftist beliefs are.

Well, I do believe it is the moral choice; but also having visited more right-leaning nations, I prefer our economic and social systems.

So, the Left. Or, well, depending on future circumstances, the far-Right. Who knows.

toke jopic

Bezombia wrote:toke jopic

Erm. No?

Maeserati wrote:As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged. I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

So, I'd just like to see what the general reasoning for leftist beliefs are.

I think it's the logical conclusion for a population of predominantly right handed individuals to walk and drive on the left, why would their economic considerations differ?

Prehaps you could explain who you mean when you say "the privileged" and how are they being robbed?

I find that the left is more accepting, more tolerant of others and is better regarding civil rights.
As a Socialist, I find that socialism is the best, as it could, implemented correctly, create a world without poverty or any such woes, one where everyone is valued as an important member of society, from the repairman, to the factory worker, to the doctor, to the teacher. Everyone is valued and important.

Even though I consider myself a communist (as opposed to a capitalist), I don't find myself a leftist anymore. To me, the left seems to promote subordination and the suppression of universal egotism (which is, by the way, the only feasible way for a truly humane and equal society to function, through its practical coherence) which is unhumanly and barbaric, whilst the right promotes and seeks to reward antisocial and egotistically narrow (recognizing only one self) point of views, and hinders change when it is most needed, as well as suppresses empathy and reason.

Because the left is just correct in certain things.

Both radical extremist sides are outright bad though.

Relying on the altruism of the wealthy is not a very definite thing. Also, that still doesn't really help the underlying problem of income inequality in the nation. As a self-identified liberal, I mainly am on the side I am because I believe that everyone should be taken care of (I'm not saying that the upper class would have to go away, but regulating the top 1% would help A LOT. You might think I'm just being unoriginal and they've had enough beating over the head, but the top 1% control over 35% of the nation's wealth [US here] and half of the nation's stocks. I'm still very supportive of America being a land of opportunity, but I believe it can't really be such unless everyone is taken care of).

The American right rejects collective responsibility except when it absolves them of their problems. It's all very Randian. Moral grounds, without a doubt.

Maeserati wrote:As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged. I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

So, I'd just like to see what the general reasoning for leftist beliefs are.

How do you figure that the privileged own their privilege?

I'll clarify my views with an example of US politics.

Personally, I believe that the US political system is broken. I'm not ignorant enough to say its a two party dictatorship. However, I believe the Democrats are right on nearly every social issue. However, I find the Republicans correct on fiscal issues.

I am fervently anti-government welfare, however, I believe public universities should be subsidized and offer free education to anyone that gains admissions.

I think the objects that provide opportunity (education, civil rights, equality regardless of sex, sexuality, color, creed, etc.) should be available to all, but the economy by entirely unregulated. With NO MEANS TESTED WELFARE

Well I consider myself a Liberal Progressive and I guess what motivates me is a desire to see everyone have a chance to succeed. I support capitalism but regulated. Laissez-faire countries often end up with some rate of exploitation. The privileged should not be robbed they can stay privileged but the less fortunate have to have a chance to be somewhat privileged.

Maeserati wrote:As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged. I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

So, I'd just like to see what the general reasoning for leftist beliefs are.

Are we talking economic left or political left?

Can a truly just society exist where the boon afforded individuals by economic prosperity is available only to those of the best means?

Distruzio wrote:

Maeserati wrote:As a radical-rightest, I've always wondered what motivates leftists.

I believe most people justify it using a moral standpoint. However, I find it immoral that the privileged be robbed simply because they are privileged. I assure you, the vast majority of the wealthy are rather altruistic. (However, the Waltons are a joke.)

So, I'd just like to see what the general reasoning for leftist beliefs are.

Are we talking economic left or political left?

Can a truly just society exist where the boon afforded individuals by economic prosperity is available only to those of the best means?

Sure it can. Feudalism. It won't last forever, but yet again, what does.

Maeserati wrote:I'll clarify my views with an example of US politics.

Personally, I believe that the US political system is broken. I'm not ignorant enough to say its a two party dictatorship. However, I believe the Democrats are right on nearly every social issue. However, I find the Republicans correct on fiscal issues.

I am fervently anti-government welfare, however, I believe public universities should be subsidized and offer free education to anyone that gains admissions.

I think the objects that provide opportunity (education, civil rights, equality regardless of sex, sexuality, color, creed, etc.) should be available to all, but the economy by entirely unregulated. With NO MEANS TESTED WELFARE

What do you think should be done with the products of people's labor? Should anyone own it? If so, who? Why?

Olerand wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Are we talking economic left or political left?

Can a truly just society exist where the boon afforded individuals by economic prosperity is available only to those of the best means?

Sure it can. Feudalism. It won't last forever, but yet again, what does.

Feudalism is dead, is it not?

Distruzio wrote:

Olerand wrote:Sure it can. Feudalism. It won't last forever, but yet again, what does.

Feudalism is dead, is it not?

For now. There was once a time when democracy was also dead.

Remove all constraints on the rich and powerful, or corporations, as some misguided souls, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world wish to do, and you'll see it come back.

Ideas are rarely ever "dead".

Left is right, but right is wrong
so left is wrong
and right is wrong

Olerand wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Feudalism is dead, is it not?

For now. There was once a time when democracy was also dead.

Remove all constraints on the rich and powerful, or corporations, as some misguided souls, especially in the Anglo-Saxon world wish to do, and you'll see it come back.

Ideas are rarely ever "dead".

Ah. The problem with Capitalism, we agree, is not that there are too many capitalists but, rather, that there are too few. Feudalism indeed.

I think that left is right on a financial aspect, whereas right is right on philosophy. Just saying.

Distruzio wrote:Ah. The problem with Capitalism, we agree, is not that there are too many capitalists but, rather, that there are too few. Feudalism indeed.

Why do you say that? What, or who, is a capitalist? Do you believe that an overabundance of capitalists will make the return of feudalism impossible?

Olerand wrote:

Distruzio wrote:Ah. The problem with Capitalism, we agree, is not that there are too many capitalists but, rather, that there are too few. Feudalism indeed.

Why do you say that? What, or who, is a capitalist? Do you believe that an overabundance of capitalists will make the return of feudalism impossible?

Less likely. Not inevitable.

Distruzio wrote:

Olerand wrote:Why do you say that? What, or who, is a capitalist? Do you believe that an overabundance of capitalists will make the return of feudalism impossible?

Less likely. Not inevitable.

Why?