Understanding Leftist Mentality

[Socialdemokraterne]

People are generally good. Charity is proof of that. There's just not enough charity. There never has been. I don't want to see people die so billionaires can look at all the digits on their income statement.

I accept this as true, and I know full well just how strained private charity efforts really are. That's why I'm a social democrat rather than a left libertarian (though there are left-libertarians who allow for the existence of a welfare system). Even still, Svobodu might have a plan to minimize freedom's social costs and bring these costs lower than the costs associated with collective action through the state. I'd sooner not write someone off until I'm sure their plan won't work.

What have you got, Svobodu?

[Socialdemokraterne]

Great post, I totally agree!

...anything to add other than "ditto, OP"? Because that's not a good opening post. It makes absolutely no effort to analyze the various rationales of the left wing. Yes, as it turns out there's more than one portion of the left wing, and they're in no way a united movement. Enhedslisten and Socialdemokraterne are separate parties for a reason.

[Svobodu]

People are generally good. Charity is proof of that. There's just not enough charity. There never has been. I don't want to see people die so billionaires can look at all the digits on their income statement.

I accept this as true, and I know full well just how strained private charity efforts really are. That's why I'm a social democrat rather than a left libertarian (though there are left-libertarians who allow for the existence of a welfare system). Even still, Svobodu might have a plan to minimize freedom's social costs and bring these costs lower than the costs associated with collective action through the state. I'd sooner not write someone off until I'm sure their plan won't work.

What have you got, Svobodu?

Of course I don't want to see people die and suffer. Thank you for reserving your lashings!

In a free country, a free man only acts voluntarily. If you force him to do anything, he is not free. But there is a way to be free and for people to help others. The only answer is charity. You must ask yourself, where is there too little charity? Capitalism creates the greatest profits to give charity, right? It is when people care about others, that they will give voluntarily. Especially if they know government isn't. I don't give as much to charity because my tax dollars are already being used for medicare, social security, and food stamps, so I feel I have given a fair amount to others (albeit forcefully). If I were able to keep my income taxes, I could give DIRECTLY to starving people of my choice instead of giving it to some bureaucrat to dispense incredibly inefficiently.

And don't say corporations don't give charity. They are among the most charitable organizations out there. They give millions of dollars to UNICEF, United Way, and Red Cross because they are profitable and can afford to. Taxes only hurt their ability to give more.

Does that sound any more empathetic?

[Miasto Lodz]

People are generally good. Charity is proof of that. There's just not enough charity.

I'm curious what stops you from earning more and being more charitable.

[Kazomal]

I believe most liberals (not politicians) have good intentions. But you know the old saying, "the pathway to hell was paved with good intentions." I think at the core of their political beliefs, is that equality trumps all, even freedom. They are empathetic to others and want to help others, but this is where they usually fail to see the consequences of their goal of equality. They will take from others to give the the needy, like Robin Hood, right?! Sadly, they usually don't see the wrong in forcefully taking from others in order to achieve their goal of moving towards equality.

They have put freedom on the shelf and focused on equality. They will usually say "people have the freedom not to starve" to construe the meaning of freedom to their benefit. What that really means is "people don't have the freedom to their own property if others are starving." Then they will say "government doesn't have to take it from you, they can make the food then distribute to the poor." Again they don't realize that for government to operate they have to take money from the citizens. They fail to see that side of the argument a lot of the time.

Freedom doesn't mean freedom on paper, it means freedom in practice. This is what conservatives often miss.

[Kazomal]

People are generally good. Charity is proof of that. There's just not enough charity.

I'm curious what stops you from earning more and being more charitable.

In America, it's our lack of social mobility, which is caused partially by the wealth gap, deregulation, and laws which disadvantage the poor.

It's a fact that "socialist" Europe has more upward mobility than the US does.

Like I said, freedom in practice, not just on paper.

[Grave_n_idle]

I accept this as true, and I know full well just how strained private charity efforts really are. That's why I'm a social democrat rather than a left libertarian (though there are left-libertarians who allow for the existence of a welfare system). Even still, Svobodu might have a plan to minimize freedom's social costs and bring these costs lower than the costs associated with collective action through the state. I'd sooner not write someone off until I'm sure their plan won't work.

What have you got, Svobodu?

Of course I don't want to see people die and suffer. Thank you for reserving your lashings!

In a free country, a free man only acts voluntarily. If you force him to do anything, he is not free. But there is a way to be free and for people to help others. The only answer is charity. You must ask yourself, where is there too little charity? Capitalism creates the greatest profits to give charity, right? It is when people care about others, that they will give voluntarily. Especially if they know government isn't. I don't give as much to charity because my tax dollars are already being used for medicare, social security, and food stamps, so I feel I have given a fair amount to others (albeit forcefully). If I were able to keep my income taxes, I could give DIRECTLY to starving people of my choice instead of giving it to some bureaucrat to dispense incredibly inefficiently.

And don't say corporations don't give charity. They are among the most charitable organizations out there. They give millions of dollars to UNICEF, United Way, and Red Cross because they are profitable and can afford to. Taxes only hurt their ability to give more.

Does that sound any more empathetic?

Not really?

You deliberately give less to charity just because you've paid taxes. Not because it bankrupts you, or there's no need - just a political rationale for why you ignore people that need help.

[Khadgar]

Hm, that's a defensible position:

Following the 1981 income-tax rate cut that went into effect in 1982, rather than declining because charitable deductions were less valuable on an after-tax basis, charitable contributions actually increased 24.3% (in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars) over the next four years before dropping about 5% with the stock market crash in 1987 (see accompanying graph).
A similar pattern was seen following the 1987 and 1988 tax rate cuts with another stock market decline in 1990 putting the brakes on the increase in giving.
Even though deductions were more valuable after the 1993 tax rate increase, giving dipped 0.42% in 1994 and inched up only 1.51% in 1995.
Giving spiked 10.2% following the capital gains rate cut in 1997.
In the two years after the rate cuts in 2003, average inflation-adjusted salaries for the top 1% of earners rose 18.8% and 22.5%, respectively.2Inflation-adjusted charitable giving during this period, as measured by charitable deductions claimed on high-income tax returns, grew 23.1% and 21.3%.3

http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/reso ... ble-giving

[Laerod]

People are generally good. Charity is proof of that. There's just not enough charity.

I'm curious what stops you from earning more and being more charitable.

The free market, duh.

[Khadgar]

People are generally good. Charity is proof of that. There's just not enough charity.

I'm curious what stops you from earning more and being more charitable.

How many quintillions of dollars would I have to earn annually to charity up the whole damn world?

[United Dependencies]

Poe's Law

[You-Gi-Owe]

But you so amuse me. You're easier than a nymphomaniac to rouse.

Says the guy with both hands on my jimmies.

I'm just as partisan as the leftists that disagree with the OP. The OP suggested that by understanding the liberal mind-set that it would be easier to negotiate with liberals. I strongly disagree with that notion.

The leftists who disagreed with the OP have been quite cordial, given what he has accused them of, and have had cordial discussions with right-wingers who disagreed with the OP. You, on the other hand, have chosen to double-down on what the OP.

Whether or not liberals wind up destroying civilization conciously, subconsciously or unconsciously, they do seem to be doing it as implacably as a top-of-the-food-chain predator.

So, please don't be a hypersensitive yahoo, and stop making shit up, as I haven't mentioned the "D" party in this topic.

You didn't have to. You have a long record here as a partisan operative.

So what comes next? The liquidation of those predators? Huh? You've made it pretty clear that you think we can't be reasoned with. Sounds to me like you want a final solution to the liberal question.

Had to look up "jimmies' in the online urban dictionary. My hands aren't anywhere near your donut sprinkles or condoms. So quit with the African-American jail "saggin" fashion, 'cuz I ain't interested.

You know, most folk might have gotten a kick out of being compared to a top-of-the-food-chain wild predator, or even laughed at the zombie reference. A staunch liberal is a firm believer in the justness of their cause and the eventual success of their belief system. You look seem to look at such comparisons as if I'd called you a child molester. Really, it ain't that dirty unless you have a guilty conscience.

Thank you for glossing over your lie.

No, I don't want those predators eliminated. I don't even want liberals liquidated. My plans for you are even more horrible. I want you to live long enough to the point where you evolve into conservatives.

[Norstal]

You know, most folk might have gotten a kick out of being compared to a top-of-the-food-chain wild predator, or even laughed at the zombie reference. A staunch liberal is a firm believer in the justness of their cause and the eventual success of their belief system. You look seem to look at such comparisons as if I'd called you a child molester. Really, it ain't that dirty unless you have a guilty conscience.

Thank you for glossing over your lie.

No, I don't want those predators eliminated. I don't even want liberals liquidated. My plans for you are even more horrible. I want you to live long enough to the point where you evolve into conservatives.

You ever heard of context? Because, most of us have a sense of humor that prevents us from laughing when there's no context in it. I mean, it's not even a hyperbole. It's a direct comparison.

Like what you are doing right now is demonizing what you termed to be leftist. I know you're unaware and are probably ignoring my posts, but I really do find it ironic that in here:

All you can do with liberals conservatives is postpone them by defeating them in elections and praying that their own choices bite them in the backside, waking them to the real world.

Corrected.

I think he's in the event horizon already.

Thank you for illustrating why negotiation is useless between the left and right.
"Strike-Corrections" are so lame and unimginative.

Rick Rollin IS in the right if you clicked his post history. And I think that's just a bit sad.

[Farnhamia]

You know, most folk might have gotten a kick out of being compared to a top-of-the-food-chain wild predator, or even laughed at the zombie reference. A staunch liberal is a firm believer in the justness of their cause and the eventual success of their belief system. You look seem to look at such comparisons as if I'd called you a child molester. Really, it ain't that dirty unless you have a guilty conscience.

Thank you for glossing over your lie.

No, I don't want those predators eliminated. I don't even want liberals liquidated. My plans for you are even more horrible. I want you to live long enough to the point where you evolve into conservatives.

You ever heard of context? Because, most of us have a sense of humor that prevents us from laughing when there's no context in it. I mean, it's not even a hyperbole. It's a direct comparison.

I put it down to the lack of verbal filters that more and more conservatives seem to have. They'll say whatever pops into their head and then when you call them on it, they backpedal and say they're joking. After a while, this becomes their automatic reaction to being pushed back at.

[Shady]

I accept this as true, and I know full well just how strained private charity efforts really are. That's why I'm a social democrat rather than a left libertarian (though there are left-libertarians who allow for the existence of a welfare system). Even still, Svobodu might have a plan to minimize freedom's social costs and bring these costs lower than the costs associated with collective action through the state. I'd sooner not write someone off until I'm sure their plan won't work.

What have you got, Svobodu?

Of course I don't want to see people die and suffer. Thank you for reserving your lashings!

In a free country, a free man only acts voluntarily. If you force him to do anything, he is not free. But there is a way to be free and for people to help others. The only answer is charity. You must ask yourself, where is there too little charity? Capitalism creates the greatest profits to give charity, right? It is when people care about others, that they will give voluntarily. Especially if they know government isn't. I don't give as much to charity because my tax dollars are already being used for medicare, social security, and food stamps, so I feel I have given a fair amount to others (albeit forcefully). If I were able to keep my income taxes, I could give DIRECTLY to starving people of my choice instead of giving it to some bureaucrat to dispense incredibly inefficiently.

And don't say corporations don't give charity. They are among the most charitable organizations out there. They give millions of dollars to UNICEF, United Way, and Red Cross because they are profitable and can afford to. Taxes only hurt their ability to give more.

Does that sound any more empathetic?

Except that charity doesn't and never has done even close to enough. There has been charity throughout much of history, and there was way more poverty than there is now. The regulation of the economy over the last century or so has made things much better, and you can't deny that.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I want you to live long enough to the point where you evolve into conservatives.

Isn't that adorable, the notion that only the youth are leftists and/or liberals. I'm 47, and I'm a proud leftist.

[Celephais]

Ain't you just a sweetheart?


Fuck the starving kids, keep the gubmint 'way from my monies!

I'll never understand people like you. It's like ethics and morality just skipped you.

Yeah, because being willing to give away other people's money is so much more ethical and moral, truly a much more demanding and unselfish position to take

I'll never 'get' leftists - your government has gone and spent loads of cash on pointless military adventures in the Middle East, and you still think that the government can be trusted with people's earnings more than they themselves can!

I guess is like Sobran said: "Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

[Norstal]

You ever heard of context? Because, most of us have a sense of humor that prevents us from laughing when there's no context in it. I mean, it's not even a hyperbole. It's a direct comparison.

I put it down to the lack of verbal filters that more and more conservatives seem to have. They'll say whatever pops into their head and then when you call them on it, they backpedal and say they're joking. After a while, this becomes their automatic reaction to being pushed back at.

Eh, I'd say the opposite is true for some liberals. But, whilst both sides do make horrible jokes, leftist/liberal jokes are not as offensive. Probably due to that PC thing conservatives tend to hate.

Or what they call PC, I call "societal conventions."

[You-Gi-Owe]

I want you to live long enough to the point where you evolve into conservatives.

Isn't that adorable, the notion that only the youth are leftists and/or liberals. I'm 47, and I'm a proud leftist.

Sometimes evolution needs an epiphany. Good Luck.

[The Black Forrest]

Ain't you just a sweetheart?


Fuck the starving kids, keep the gubmint 'way from my monies!

I'll never understand people like you. It's like ethics and morality just skipped you.

You speak of ethics and morality, when you would happily steal from others to give to whoever you deemed "needy?" Give me a fucking break. The hypocrisy is intolerable.

So starvation is acceptable?

[Norstal]

Poe's Law

This law is not applicable during summer seasons.

[Laerod]

Ain't you just a sweetheart?


Fuck the starving kids, keep the gubmint 'way from my monies!

I'll never understand people like you. It's like ethics and morality just skipped you.

Yeah, because being willing to give away other people's money is so much more ethical and moral, truly a much more demanding and unselfish position to take :roll:

It is, yes. If you think taking a fraction of someone's money is worse than letting people starve then you need to get your moral compass fixed.

I'll never 'get' leftists - your government has gone and spent loads of cash on pointless military adventures in the Middle East, and you still think that the government can be trusted with people's earnings more than they themselves can!

I daresay only one of my governments did this, and it was a conservative one.

I guess is like Sobran said: "Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer.

Resounding meh.

[Celephais]

h, I'd say the opposite is true for some liberals. But, whilst both sides do make horrible jokes, leftist/liberal jokes are not as offensive. Probably due to that PC thing conservatives tend to hate.

Eh, that can backfire into the phenomenon of the (as an example) extremely left wing reddit-type atheist who only harps on about 'acceptable' targets and thus leaves a lot of humour on the table. Any form of 'political correctness' (and the much weaker analogue among crazy Evangelical types and the like) has acceptable targets and unacceptable targets; it's never about being nice to everyone.

Or what they call PC, I call "societal conventions."

Oh no. Oh no. Not the same at all. I only wish local council type busybodies and student unions stuck to the conventions of society.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Isn't that adorable, the notion that only the youth are leftists and/or liberals. I'm 47, and I'm a proud leftist.

Sometimes evolution needs an epiphany. Good Luck.

Yes. In a bastion of right wing thought in a stagnant political genepool, an epiphany once again allows the left to rise. I'm glad you've seen it our way, You-Gi-Owe. Sometimes, all a person needs is a little encouragement.

[Nidaria]

You speak of ethics and morality, when you would happily steal from others to give to whoever you deemed "needy?" Give me a fucking break. The hypocrisy is intolerable.

So starvation is acceptable?

Starvation was never mentioned. Limited welfare systems could feed children and the elderly. Private charity could help the rest, as not everyone wants to give away money to people who watch television and eat hamburgers all day.