Left-Wing Discussion Thread

[Arkolon]

I'm a Washington Consensus/textbook economics neoliberal. I am one because I think the free market is the most efficient and just means of resource distribution (within the status quo) and that economic growth is the only surefire method of poverty reduction in the modern world. I used to be a libertarian, till I found a gaping issue with it, but I retain most of the philosophy's moral underpinnings.

I notice you specified "within the status quo." Do you think there's a more efficient system outside the status quo?

Hard to say, since economics outside of known distributive means through history is like performing physics in unknown dimensions: it's very theoretical, and hard to prove by practice. I'll play my cards safe and say 'post-scarcity', which can be argued is a consequence of ages of industrial capitalism anyway, and it seems to be, at least in theory, the most efficient way of distributing resources.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

heritage.org

Do people still take that institution seriously?

Why shouldn't they?

Because the Heritage Foundation is a tank of neocon bullshit?

[Unnamed island state]

Why shouldn't they?

Because the Heritage Foundation is a tank of neocon bullshit?

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

[Morr]

Because the Heritage Foundation is a tank of neocon bullshit?

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

Would you trust a think-thank funded by a cigarette company to give you good information on links between tobacco and cancer?

[Unnamed island state]

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

Would you trust a think-thank funded by a cigarette company to give you good information on links between tobacco and cancer?

No.

And not to be ad hominem or anything, but you've done just that in the past.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Because the Heritage Foundation is a tank of neocon bullshit?

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

But the Heritage Foundation is extremely biased and untrustworthy. They aren't a valid source.

[Morr]

Would you trust a think-thank funded by a cigarette company to give you good information on links between tobacco and cancer?

No.

And not to be ad hominem or anything, but you've done just that in the past.

Not on an issue that couldn't be equally validated by other sources.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Would you trust a think-thank funded by a cigarette company to give you good information on links between tobacco and cancer?

No.

And not to be ad hominem or anything, but you've done just that in the past.

If you don't want to commit ad hominem, attack the argument, not the person. Do you know how that fallacy works? It's like you just said "I don't want to build a strawman, but *refutes argument no one made*."

[Unnamed island state]

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

But the Heritage Foundation is extremely biased and untrustworthy. They aren't a valid source.

I've seen them say things that are true, and sometimes the opposite.

[Shan Yue]

Because the Heritage Foundation is a tank of neocon bullshit?

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

Theres no such thing as an objective think tank. So what you do is find two that represent the poles of an issue, and then shop and compare for what is ultimately going to be an emotionally generated opinion on the matter despite any technicalities displayed by the tanks.

[Geilinor]

The Pirates in Iceland seem mostly to be almost exclusively Social Libertarians and Populists (both aspects of right and left wing populism). There's little to nothing I see in their platform that indicates they are Socialists (even nominally), or even Social Democrats for that matter. That being said, I definitely get a small Social Democratic vibe from them, but definitely more of a libertarian and liberal vibe than anything else.

Needless to say, I would say there is little to nothing appealing about this party, and I don't understand their popularity, but I'll respect whatever the Icelandic people choose.

Yeah, I mean, I reckon the socdems and greens in Iceland could probably make a comeback if they tried harder to appeal. Clearly there is discontent with the way things are done, they could steal the thunder from a group so ill-defined and untried.

Unlike in other Nordic countries, historically two of the three major parties in Iceland are centrist to center-right. Euroskepticism is also the mainstream in Iceland and people don't want the EU.

[Arkolon]

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

Would you trust a think-thank funded by a cigarette company to give you good information on links between tobacco and cancer?

If a think-tank funded by a cigarette company told me that smoking was disastrous for my health, then I'd know it's even worse than that. We can use biased sources so long as we know they are biased: The Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index is a capitalist's take on the capitalist economies of the world. It's skewed, yes (France and Thailand shouldn't be that close together in those rankings if you ask me), but it gives us a good idea of countries through their capitalist, pro-business, sometimes neoconservative, perspective. Note that TLT was using Heritage's EFI and not Heritage as a whole.

[Morr]

But the Heritage Foundation is extremely biased and untrustworthy. They aren't a valid source.

I've seen them say things that are true, and sometimes the opposite.

I think we're talking about the validity of its studies.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Would you trust a think-thank funded by a cigarette company to give you good information on links between tobacco and cancer?

If a think-tank funded by a cigarette company told me that smoking was disastrous for my health, then I'd know it's even worse than that. We can use biased sources so long as we know they are biased: The Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index is a capitalist's take on the capitalist economies of the world. It's skewed, yes (France and Thailand shouldn't be that close together in those rankings if you ask me), but it gives us a good idea of countries through their capitalist, pro-business, sometimes neoconservative, perspective. Note that TLT was using Heritage's EFI and not Heritage as a whole.

Exactly my point.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I've seen them say things that are true, and sometimes the opposite.

I think we're talking about the validity of its studies.

Werp's just fond of disagreeing with people for the hell of it, whether he knows what he's talking about or not. Kind of a devil's advocate, just not a very good one.

[Unnamed island state]

No.

And not to be ad hominem or anything, but you've done just that in the past.

If you don't want to commit ad hominem, attack the argument, not the person. Do you know how that fallacy works? It's like you just said "I don't want to build a strawman, but *refutes argument no one made*."

It was intended more as a question to Morr than an addition to my argument.

Having a bias towards a certain ideology doesn't necessarily make a think tank or any other kind of foundation or group, uncredible.

Theres no such thing as an objective think tank. So what you do is find two that represent the poles of an issue, and then shop and compare for what is ultimately going to be an emotionally generated opinion on the matter despite any technicalities displayed by the tanks.

Yes.

[Conscentia]

I notice you specified "within the status quo." Do you think there's a more efficient system outside the status quo?

Hard to say, since economics outside of known distributive means through history is like performing physics in unknown dimensions: it's very theoretical, and hard to prove by practice. I'll play my cards safe and say 'post-scarcity', which can be argued is a consequence of ages of industrial capitalism anyway, and it seems to be, at least in theory, the most efficient way of distributing resources.

Post-scarcity as a consequence of the ages of industrial capitalism? Well now you're sounding like Marx. He predicted that very same thing.
Communism, or more specifically the "higher stage of communism", was Marx's description of the post-scarcity society he predicted would follow capitalism, or more accurately it would follow the "lower stage of communism" which would be a consequence of "late capitalism".

[The Liberated Territories]

Everything Fox News says is a lie. Even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies.

>> <<

[Conscentia]

Everything Fox News says is a lie. Even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies.

My life has been a lie! God is dead! The government's lame! Thanksgiving is about killing Indians! Jesus wasn't born on Christmas! They moved the date, it was a pagan holiday! - Morty Jr. (Rick and Morty, s01e07)

[The Liberated Territories]

Everything Fox News says is a lie. Even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies.

My life has been a lie! God is dead! The government's lame! Thanksgiving is about killing Indians! Jesus wasn't born on Christmas! They moved the date, it was a pagan holiday! - Morty Jr. (Rick and Morty, s01e07)

A witty saying proves nothing!

Oh shit, I just invoked it, didn't I? >>

[Prussia-Steinbach]

My life has been a lie! God is dead! The government's lame! Thanksgiving is about killing Indians! Jesus wasn't born on Christmas! They moved the date, it was a pagan holiday! - Morty Jr. (Rick and Morty, s01e07)

A witty saying proves nothing!

Oh shit, I just invoked it, didn't I? >>

Voltaire, you paradoxical, ironic bastard.

[Unnamed island state]

I've seen them say things that are true, and sometimes the opposite.

I think we're talking about the validity of its studies.

It's hard to believe they deliberately lie about their findings, they might ignore certain things and twist others in order to make a desired point in certain cases. But that doesn't merit becoming completely untrustworthy, which was the only thing I'm trying to say if that wasn't so clear before.

No.

And not to be ad hominem or anything, but you've done just that in the past.

Not on an issue that couldn't be equally validated by other sources.

Yes, but in the case to which I'm referring, it appeared as if you were doubtlessly trusting a single source, which was pretty obviously biased.

[Morr]

Yes, but in the case to which I'm referring to, it appeared as if you were doubtlessly trusting a single source, which was pretty obviously biased.[/spoiler]

I'm not going to start arguing with you over what I think or believe or feel.

[Asterbania]

Anybody here has good texts and sources for guevarism and focus theory?

[Calimera II]

Why shouldn't they?

Because the Heritage Foundation is a tank of neocon bullshit?

Thank you Pruss.