Why are there so many left-wingers on NSG?

[Nordengrund]

I don't understand that concept, Nord.

How does one disagree with contrary positions, acknowledge ignorance of contrary positions, and yet maintain respect for those positions?

We Christians can have personal convictions about things, but we are supposed to respect others beliefs.

[Distruzio]

I don't understand that concept, Nord.

How does one disagree with contrary positions, acknowledge ignorance of contrary positions, and yet maintain respect for those positions?

We Christians can have personal convictions about things, but we are supposed to respect others beliefs.

Yeah, that's what I'm asking about. How is the "respect" manifested?

[Viet Trung]

.

[North Calaveras]

I studied leftism several times but I honestly cannot see how anyone in the right mind be liberal. I still do my best to respect it though.

Because some people like to help the world, rather than watch it burn.

Take your Tau Greater Good somewhere else


but seriously helping the world is by no means exclusive to liberals

[Nordengrund]

Yes, but I oppose abortion and homosexual marriage.

And porn, apparently.

But you're missing the point. Jesus associated with the whores and the publicans. He said to be selfless, to eschew materialism, to empathize with the forlorn, and to sacrifice yourself for the good of others. He tolerated others, he kept himself from committing their sins, but he tolerated them committing their sins. Indeed, he categorically refused to judge them. That was the line in the sand, so to speak, that he drew.

What you preach, is the exact opposite. Your politics are anti-Christ.

Tell me, what is necessary to be an actual Christian and to go to Heaven?

[Uirokeilendh]

The majority of right wingers support the status quo (the status quo is right wing). They therefore do not want change, and thus are less likely to want to play a nation simulator. (What fun is there in replicating what exists?)
Therefore left wingers out number the right wingers, and why the right wingers who are here are at the extreme end.

...I don't know, just an idea.

[Distruzio]

And porn, apparently.

But you're missing the point. Jesus associated with the whores and the publicans. He said to be selfless, to eschew materialism, to empathize with the forlorn, and to sacrifice yourself for the good of others. He tolerated others, he kept himself from committing their sins, but he tolerated them committing their sins. Indeed, he categorically refused to judge them. That was the line in the sand, so to speak, that he drew.

What you preach, is the exact opposite. Your politics are anti-Christ.

Tell me, what is necessary to be an actual Christian and to go to Heaven?

That doesn't address his comment at all.

[Nordengrund]

Tell me, what is necessary to be an actual Christian and to go to Heaven?

That doesn't address his comment at all.

You'll see where I am going with this.

[North Calaveras]

The majority of right wingers support the status quo (the status quo is right wing). They therefore do not want change, and thus are less likely to want to play a nation simulator. (What fun is there in replicating what exists?)
Therefore left wingers out number the right wingers, and why the right wingers who are here are at the extreme end.

...I don't know, just an idea.

I'ts possible I suppose, I was going to make a joke about leftists and communism and politcal sims but im to tired

[PapaJacky]

Some people want to stimulate a fascist state to their content, others just want to stimulate themselves, literally and metaphorically.

[The Reasonable]

Let's face it. We non lefties are seen as outcasts on this site. The lefties dominate this site, so it is an incredibly biased site.

I do agree with Ausible that Liberals are jerks, but I still respect their opinions. They tear me apart for what I believe in, but I do not go around tearing them apart no matter how many times they do it to me.

And your like would see me as an outcast too...this site can get pretty nasty sometimes on both sides.

There's no point training for jobs that don't exist. And no, I didn't say most people would be 'in a state of leisure' - I said they'd be unemployed.

...and since you support giving carte-blanche handouts to those people, they'd be spending their days in leisure...but the service sector will be mostly unaffected. If machines can take over almost ALL jobs then...I might start agreeing. But even then, large scales of unemployment can be prevented by decreasing birth rates and population.

15 years ago I worked on a call-center. The job I did then, is done by machine now. What took hundreds of us working phone banks in the 90's, takes a couple of people to catch a few calls that can't be otherwise filtered by the system.

Automation is moving in leaps and bounds. Automating manufacture was obvious - but it's surprising how many fields automation has crept into - like the call-centers.

...Again, the structural unemployment that I've talked about. How about more researchers to improve the machines? How about more people required to maintain them? How about more scientists required?

An automated industrial sector, yes. And all that industry, with all it's machinery - STILL won't hire as many actual people.

...Which means that the decrease in fertility rate in developed countries is good and rightful.

Indeed? Have you worked out how we're going to deal with this, then? Because you keep talking about an 'increased demand for leisure', but you haven't explained how that market happens. If they have no income, what are they going to spend on leisure?

They get jobs from the service sector. Basically, they both provide and consume leisure.

You make an unconvincing argument for increases in job positions in many fields - but you base it on nothing. Indeed, looking down your list, about the only sector that has a real assurance of increasing faster than the population is programmers.

Unless you've come up with a solution to how we're going to reshape our paradigm, the hotels, bars and restaurants are going to hire LESS people, not more - because people without income don't buy things.

...Who said people won't have income, if there still are those service jobs? That being said- population should be decreased- too many people could also cause high unemployment.

No, by making sure that every American is fed, rather than embracing the current vogue of Randian 'I'm alright, I got mine' mentality, you priotritize the good of Americans.

Personally, I find libertarians un-American. When this nation was founded, people worked together to succeed.... sometimes, just to survive. we've lost that. Too many people grabbed the 'wealth' aspiration bit, and forsook everything else that made America an appealing prospect.

...And this is why I posted the OP in the first place...

Personally, I find it insulting that you even consider me a libertarian. I got rid of that stupid ideology not too long ago, actually- just read what I have to say about issues like welfare, universal healthcare, etc. You should also read my recent posts addressed to Zaras- it'll give you a rationale as to why I've never been a believer in dependence.

Just as the GOP/Libertarians in America think everything that isn't their ideology is socialist/communist, some people around here seem to think that every ideology that isn't theirs is somehow conservative, libertarian, right-wing, or even downright reactionary.

Ok, so your management class then...they control all the resources and so can take power...this reeks of plutocracy.

That doesn't matter. I'm not saying it's what I want, I'm saying it's what is likely to happen.

And perhaps you need to take a closer look at the harsh realities of American politics - we HAVE plutocracy, now.

You really don't think I realize that? You really don't think that I don't know that the top 1% control almost 40% of the wealth? Do you really think that I haven't taken that closer look at the harsh realities of American politics? But how are you going to solve the problem? The future will even contain even more plutocracy, if you're right- which you may very well be...but what do you want to do to take care of it?

What is your ideology anyways? What do you support anyways?

[North Calaveras]

Some people want to stimulate a fascist state to their content, others just want to stimulate themselves, literally and metaphorically.

This as well, I personally run my nation how I would run it, so it reflects my beliefs

[PapaJacky]

Same here lol, guess I'm a hippy at heart.

[Nordengrund]

Some people want to stimulate a fascist state to their content, others just want to stimulate themselves, literally and metaphorically.

This as well, I personally run my nation how I would run it, so it reflects my beliefs

Same here, though I am getting kind of bored playing as a German nation.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Some people want to stimulate a fascist state to their content, others just want to stimulate themselves, literally and metaphorically.

This as well, I personally run my nation how I would run it, so it reflects my beliefs

Ditto. Some of the effects are quasi-potentially realistic, like the time it told me social order had broken down in a civil war between biker gangs and corporate mercenaries, lol.
Of course it's annoying when I say no to monopolies, and then it gives me some Marxist s*** outlawing corporations...

[North Calaveras]

This as well, I personally run my nation how I would run it, so it reflects my beliefs

Ditto. Some of the effects are quasi-potentially realistic, like the time it told me social order had broken down in a civil war between biker gangs and corporate mercenaries, lol.
Of course it's annoying when I say no to monopolies, and then it gives me some Marxist s*** outlawing corporations...

Yeah it can really radically change things

[Norsklow]

Vote carefully. Consider the intentions you did not want but where implicit in the stance of the proposer.

I usually dismiss issues.

[Nordengrund]

Ditto. Some of the effects are quasi-potentially realistic, like the time it told me social order had broken down in a civil war between biker gangs and corporate mercenaries, lol.
Of course it's annoying when I say no to monopolies, and then it gives me some Marxist s*** outlawing corporations...

Yeah it can really radically change things

Right. I am conservative, so many people see me as a fascist theocrat, but I am really classify myself as a Ron Paul person whom I consider a Libertarian Republican. My politics appear extreme, but I am really actually laid back.

[North Calaveras]

Yeah it can really radically change things

Right. I am conservative, so many people see me as a fascist theocrat, but I am really classify myself as a Ron Paul person whom I consider a Libertarian Republican. My politics appear extreme, but I am really actually laid back.

funny enough people on NS think of some kind of rascist xenophobe

even though all my ideas are quite the contrary, my politcal policy is probably a bit authoritarian though.

It's what happens when people don't actually read into what you believe but go baaa baaa like sheep.

[The Reasonable]

Zaras, I have a deep-seated fear of dependence and needing help primarily because of my personal experiences- whenever my mother used to ask someone to help support our struggling family she would always get taken advantage of. Whenever she partnered with someone in opening a business she would get taken advantage of. Whenever she got married to help support me the husband (my father was never really in my life) always ended up being there to mooch off of her (hence frequent divorces and living with a single mother). Whenever either of us would give help to others with the understanding that they would help us in return they would run off. Of course, this doesn't mean I've become a psychotic, selfish asshole, as some people have mistakenly believed previously when I talked about welfare in the same terms, but it made me very aware of the "human nature" that I've witnessed around me and so I can't subscribe to the idea that humans are inherently good.

Okay, I can see why you'd be skeptical of the idea that humans are inherently good. I myself am sort of trying to wean myself out of being a hermit and being better with people, so I'm more inclined to assume the best of people... perhaps even when not necessary.

The reason why I opened this and other threads about the left wing around here is because even though I think the left by far has more compassion than the right, their ideas sometimes are too susceptible to abuse and mooching in my opinion- and so when I try to express doubt or skepticism in the practicality of their plans, I get hammered and called uncaring and heartless. I have cognitive dissonance between all the information and arguments (especially the "human nature is inherently good" argument) I've been bombarded with from you guys and my own very different experience, and so that's why I've always tried to straddle a middle ground between having carte-blanche welfare and not having it at all, and that's why I am categorically against socialism (the real kind, not all the right-wing reactionary cries of "Obamunism" and "Obama the Socialist").

Emile Zola, someone you might be familiar with (the NSGer, not the author), made a good argument for welfare using the Australian model, when I asked about how to curb abuse and permanent dependence in my "What's the point of being conservative" thread:

How do welfare programs in European countries, Canada, Australia, NZ, etc prevent abuse? Do they even? I know they're effective but I'd like to know why.

In Australia social programs are monitored so if you were unemployed and got a job but kept receiving benefits then you would be fined the amount you are overpaid. They have access to your tax records so they know if you are earning an income. If you are unemployed you have to look for work and keep a record of the places you applied for. For the chronically unemployed there a mandatory courses to do and they get assigned a case manager who helps them get the necessary qualifications and work.

I think that's a reasonable compromise between the harsh realities of capitalist society and wanting to help those who have been left behind, and also taking a hard line against those who would mooch off of it.

I studied leftism several times but I honestly cannot see how anyone in the right mind be liberal. I still do my best to respect it though.

Well, I can't see how anyone in their right mind would find the right wing appealing, so there.

Being a former libertarian myself (I HIGHLY regret it now), I can see why. The right thinks they are for equality of opportunity and that unequal results, no matter how extreme, are fine. On principle, I actually agree with that- those who work harder, are more innovative, and the more productive to society you are, the more money you deserve. However, in practice, too great of inequality can impede social mobility and opportunity for those left out, and those are the qualities that I look for in a good society. I am highly against everyone being equal or even close to equal in income (so I'm no socialist or even social democrat)- in fact, since not everyone is born equal in abilities, this won't work and is counterproductive. However, if everyone is given the equal OPPORTUNITY to be better than what they were before, I am fine with that. This does involve some wealth distribution and some levels of welfare, but as I've said before, simply giving benefits is a bad idea since it doesn't do anything in bettering the situation of the disadvantaged in the long term. They need access to education, healthcare, etc. in addition to benefits (which shouldn't even be the main focus of welfare) and I do believe that left is willing to provide for those things (in response to your earlier assumptions about me). I'm just not as far left as most of you, because I've seen how being too compassionate to everyone can backfire. That's also why I don't quite believe the Marxist adage "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" because in a Marxist utopia there would be no government to prevent that abuse of the system by a few to take more for themselves.

[The Black Forrest]

How does one respect something they don't understand?

If you don't make an effort to understand another there is little chance of working together to make the world a better place.

I studied leftism several times but I honestly cannot see how anyone in the right mind be liberal. I still do my best to respect it though.

Studied leftism? Where exactly? Don't recall that course on the uni catalogs.

I hope you realize your statement of respect has a problem of truth to it.

[The Black Forrest]

I don't understand that concept, Nord.

How does one disagree with contrary positions, acknowledge ignorance of contrary positions, and yet maintain respect for those positions?

Indeed.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I don't understand that concept, Nord.

How does one disagree with contrary positions, acknowledge ignorance of contrary positions, and yet maintain respect for those positions?

Indeed.

I think its about respecting the people, regardless of the position they hold, to the best of your ability.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed.

I think its about respecting the people, regardless of the position they hold, to the best of your ability.

Some people talk about respecting people but when you break it down it's simply being polite.

[The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace]

I think its about respecting the people, regardless of the position they hold, to the best of your ability.

Some people talk about respecting people but when you break it down it's simply being polite.

Nah, some people do honestly try to be respectful, and are at least semi-polite

Others don't even give the effort, and use "politeness" to camouflage their douchery .