Cultural Differences - Liberal vs Conservative
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,454
Location: Long Island, New York
07 Oct 2021, 5:12 pm
Mr Reynholm wrote:
I'm not sure the term "Liberal" even applies anymore. Progressive are by no means liberal.
Liberals back in the day meant people like Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, and Tip O’Neil. They were for more freedom of expression, they wanted to help the working and middle class thus very pro union. In other words they did not view them as deplorables to be mocked. They were working towered colorblindness and for integration.
Republicans successfully made the term “liberal” toxic so “progressive” was brought back from the early 20th century as a replacement. Today “progressive” is a catch all term ranging from the liberals of old to woke revolutionaries.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
08 Oct 2021, 6:44 am
Nades wrote:
Forced labour is also a good thing within reason. I think it makes perfect sense to force perfectly able people into employment. Why should those perfectly capable of working sponge off the ones that do work?
Because in principle, I believe that True Liberty is also the freedom to say no to work. That doesn't mean I'm lazy.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
Nades wrote:
Judging by your previous threads dating back years I also have my doubts as to your degree of disability. You are utterly obsessed with being given significant amounts of free money to the poor via taking it in the form of excessive taxation or outright stealing it from those with any degree of wealth.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
Personal attack. Reported.
08 Oct 2021, 7:08 am
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Nades wrote:
Forced labour is also a good thing within reason. I think it makes perfect sense to force perfectly able people into employment. Why should those perfectly capable of working sponge off the ones that do work?
Because in principle, I believe that True Liberty is also the freedom to say no to work. That doesn't mean I'm lazy.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
Nades wrote:
Judging by your previous threads dating back years I also have my doubts as to your degree of disability. You are utterly obsessed with being given significant amounts of free money to the poor via taking it in the form of excessive taxation or outright stealing it from those with any degree of wealth.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
Personal attack. Reported.
If I think you're lifestyle is skewing your outlook on life to the point where your opinions appear to impact on the rights of others, why can't I call you out?
You mentioned private property could be seized by the state, business owners should have their companies taken off them and business owners who don't comply should be put in trial and you also said money should be given to the lazy who don't want to work via heavily taxing those that do and banning conservative views
I'm not much of a human rights lawyer.....but I think you might be breaking a lot of laws with these policies and slightly (severely) mistreating others if they're implemented.
08 Oct 2021, 7:12 am
Nades wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Nades wrote:
Forced labour is also a good thing within reason. I think it makes perfect sense to force perfectly able people into employment. Why should those perfectly capable of working sponge off the ones that do work?
Because in principle, I believe that True Liberty is also the freedom to say no to work. That doesn't mean I'm lazy.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
Nades wrote:
Judging by your previous threads dating back years I also have my doubts as to your degree of disability. You are utterly obsessed with being given significant amounts of free money to the poor via taking it in the form of excessive taxation or outright stealing it from those with any degree of wealth.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
Personal attack. Reported.
If I think you're lifestyle is skewing your outlook on life to the point where your opinions appear to impact on the rights of others, why can't I call you out?
You mentioned private property could be seized by the state, business owners should have their companies taken off them and business owners who don't comply should be put in trial and you also said money should be given to the lazy who don't want to work via heavily taxing those that do and banning conservative views
I'm not much of a human rights lawyer.....but I think you might be breaking a lot of laws with these policies and slightly (severely) mistreating others if they're implemented.
Who are making the laws? Answer: The state.
If the state decides a level of taxation - ANY level - it is legal.
If the state decides to put people on trial, any trial for any reason - it is legal.
If the state decides to seize property by law, it is legal.
The state itself can be bound by laws, which the state has imposed on itself.
Thus, only by breaking these laws can the state be sued/tried legally.
However, so long as the process of law-making and legislations are legal according to the state's law/constitution, it is perfectly legal and does not break any laws.
Last edited by thinkinginpictures on 08 Oct 2021, 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
08 Oct 2021, 7:13 am
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Because in principle, I believe that True Liberty is also the freedom to say no to work. That doesn't mean I'm lazy.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
I think you need to understand that such a level of "true liberty" simply is not possible. We don't live in a magic world where things can arrive in front of us without people doing work. Every element of survival requires that someone put forth effort. Thus, we all have an obligation to contribute to our shared survival. That obligation comes with the human experience. We can, of course, debate how far that obligation goes, and how different needs and priorities should be balanced.
There is a ton of background conversation here I haven't read, so maybe I'm off base.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Last edited by DW_a_mom on 08 Oct 2021, 7:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
08 Oct 2021, 7:15 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Because in principle, I believe that True Liberty is also the freedom to say no to work. That doesn't mean I'm lazy.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
I think you need to understand that such a level of "true liberty" simply is not possible. We don't live in a magic world where things can arrive in front of us without people doing work. Every element of survival requires that someone put forth effort. We all have an obligation to contribute to our shared survival. That obligation comes with the human experience. We can, of course, debate how far that obligation goes, and how different needs and priorities should be balanced.
There is a ton of background conversation I haven't read, so maybe I'm off base.
If it can work in Finland, it can work EVERYWHERE in EVERY country!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ell-being/
08 Oct 2021, 7:19 am
thinkinginpictures wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Because in principle, I believe that True Liberty is also the freedom to say no to work. That doesn't mean I'm lazy.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
I think you need to understand that such a level of "true liberty" simply is not possible. We don't live in a magic world where things can arrive in front of us without people doing work. Every element of survival requires that someone put forth effort. We all have an obligation to contribute to our shared survival. That obligation comes with the human experience. We can, of course, debate how far that obligation goes, and how different needs and priorities should be balanced.
There is a ton of background conversation I haven't read, so maybe I'm off base.
If it can work in Finland, it can work EVERYWHERE in EVERY country!
https://www.newscientist.com/article/22 ... ell-being/
The concept of universal basic income isn't about the freedom to never work; its about covering enough basic needs to support the economy and allow people to make healthy informed choices, instead of fretting over survival every minute of every day. By removing an element of stress from people's lives, you make them more productive. It is designed as a creative way to help an economy actually grow; it has little to do with ideological freedom. It does seem to work, which is what makes it such an intriguing concept.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
Last edited by DW_a_mom on 08 Oct 2021, 7:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
08 Oct 2021, 7:24 am
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Yet, the concept is based upon the principle of having the ACTUAL and FREE choice to say NO to work.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
What would you do with your days if you didn't have to worry about your most basic needs?
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
08 Oct 2021, 7:25 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Yet, the concept is based upon the principle of having the ACTUAL and FREE choice to say NO to work.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
What would you do with your days if you didn't have to worry about your most basic needs?
Choose an occupation, such as voluntary work.
I'm not against work.
I'm against being forced to do it.
That Coca-Cola tastes so much better, when it's not being forced down your throat, right?
If a cola was forced down my throat, I'd do everything I could to ban Coca Cola and Pepsi and every other cola.
08 Oct 2021, 7:31 am
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Nades wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Nades wrote:
Forced labour is also a good thing within reason. I think it makes perfect sense to force perfectly able people into employment. Why should those perfectly capable of working sponge off the ones that do work?
Because in principle, I believe that True Liberty is also the freedom to say no to work. That doesn't mean I'm lazy.
It just means my opinion differs from yours.
Nades wrote:
Judging by your previous threads dating back years I also have my doubts as to your degree of disability. You are utterly obsessed with being given significant amounts of free money to the poor via taking it in the form of excessive taxation or outright stealing it from those with any degree of wealth.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
...
I personally think you're just an extremely lazy and self entitled individual who is willing to stoop to anything to plunder the labour of others.
Personal attack. Reported.
If I think you're lifestyle is skewing your outlook on life to the point where your opinions appear to impact on the rights of others, why can't I call you out?
You mentioned private property could be seized by the state, business owners should have their companies taken off them and business owners who don't comply should be put in trial and you also said money should be given to the lazy who don't want to work via heavily taxing those that do and banning conservative views
I'm not much of a human rights lawyer.....but I think you might be breaking a lot of laws with these policies and slightly (severely) mistreating others if they're implemented.
Who are making the laws? Answer: The state.
If the state decides a level of taxation - ANY level - it is legal.
If the state decides to put people on trial, any trial for any reason - it is legal.
If the state decides to seize property by law, it is legal.
The state itself can be bound by laws, which the state has imposed on itself.
Thus, only by breaking these laws can the state be sued/tried legally.
However, so long as the process of law-making and legislations are legal according to the state's law/constitution, it is perfectly legal and does not break any laws.
Wrong. There are two types of law. Legislative law and common law. A state can make whatever laws it likes but a jury or judge can repeal them when it so desires for any reason. Do you think a state will get very far if they decide to make being gay a capital offence in this day and age?
There is no judge or jury on earth that will allow such far reaching immorality, law or not.
You seem to wrongly assume legislation can override basic human instinct of fair treatment. It can't and laws aside, you propose a two tier nation where one group desires to sponge off another group. The latter group being more powerful and in control of all the resources.........how on earth can that work?
Do you really think thousands of basement dwelling manchilds who have no jobs can get one over on millionaire business owners, farmers, teachers, lawyers, soldiers and industrial workers who are probably far more intelligent and taken more seriously?
08 Oct 2021, 7:35 am
Nades wrote:
Wrong. There are two types of law. Legislative law and common law. A state can make whatever laws it likes but a jury or judge can repeal them when it so desires for any reason. Do you think a state will get very far if they decide to make being gay a capital offence in this day and age?
There is no judge or jury on earth that will allow such far reaching immorality, law or not.
You seem to wrongly assume legislation can override basic human instinct of fair treatment. It can't and laws aside, you propose a two tier nation where one group desires to sponge off another group. The latter group being more powerful and in control of all the resources.........how on earth can that work?
Do you really think thousands of basement dwelling manchilds who have no jobs can get one over on millionaire business owners, farmers, teachers, lawyers, soldiers and industrial workers who are probably far more intelligent and taken more seriously?
There is no judge or jury on earth that will allow such far reaching immorality, law or not.
You seem to wrongly assume legislation can override basic human instinct of fair treatment. It can't and laws aside, you propose a two tier nation where one group desires to sponge off another group. The latter group being more powerful and in control of all the resources.........how on earth can that work?
Do you really think thousands of basement dwelling manchilds who have no jobs can get one over on millionaire business owners, farmers, teachers, lawyers, soldiers and industrial workers who are probably far more intelligent and taken more seriously?
You completely ignore the SCIENTIFIC results of UBI in Finland.
It's conclusion is clear: UBI works and there's no side-effects.
So stop your personal attacks, and take SCIENCE serious.
08 Oct 2021, 7:35 am
thinkinginpictures wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Yet, the concept is based upon the principle of having the ACTUAL and FREE choice to say NO to work.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
What would you do with your days if you didn't have to worry about your most basic needs?
Choose an occupation, such as voluntary work.
I'm not against work/labor.
I'm against being forced to do it.
That Coca-Cola tastes so much better, when it's not being forced down your throat, right?
I think it would help your position if you choose to talk about it differently. More in the way I framed it, as a way of removing stress and actually making people more productive. No one wants to hear about the freedom to not work. It comes across as self-centered and lazy, for the reasons I described in my earlier post: we have an obligation to contribute to the shared survival of our species. There really is no escaping that; someone has to do the work. And, honestly, work gives purpose and structure to daily life. But, sure, ideally we should be able to choose work that best suits our talents and priorities, instead of fretting over how much it pays (or doesn't pay) and if that will be enough for us to eat that week.
I personally haven't decided if universal basic income could work here or if I favor it, but it is an intriguing idea and not completely without merit.
_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).
08 Oct 2021, 7:35 am
Nades wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
I've never advocated lazyness.
Yes you have.
No. Only when it comes to whether war is being prevented by having everyone lazy.
And that's true: If every human on Earth was lazy there'd be no wars.
That's the only time I've ever advocated lazyness. But never in terms of "against work of any kind".
08 Oct 2021, 7:40 am
DW_a_mom wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
thinkinginpictures wrote:
Yet, the concept is based upon the principle of having the ACTUAL and FREE choice to say NO to work.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
- And yet, people don't just go unemployed for eternity.
This is liberty. This is what I'm talking about. I've never advocated lazyness. I'm advocating liberty and free choice.
What would you do with your days if you didn't have to worry about your most basic needs?
Choose an occupation, such as voluntary work.
I'm not against work/labor.
I'm against being forced to do it.
That Coca-Cola tastes so much better, when it's not being forced down your throat, right?
I think it would help your position if you choose to talk about it differently. More in the way I framed it, as a way of removing stress and actually making people more productive. No one wants to hear about the freedom to not work. It comes across as self-centered and lazy, for the reasons I described in my earlier post: we have an obligation to contribute to the shared survival of our species. There really is no escaping that; someone has to do the work. And, honestly, work gives purpose and structure to daily life. But, sure, ideally we should be able to choose work that best suits our talents and priorities, instead of fretting over how much it pays (or doesn't pay) and if that will be enough for us to eat that week.
I personally haven't decided if universal basic income could work here or if I favor it, but it is an intriguing idea and not completely without merit.
I agree with your conclusion, but I honestly cannot see the difference in how to talk about it.
To me, it's one and the same thing - I WANT to contribute to society. But I can't if I'm being forced to do it, and certainly not in ways that will only cause more stress and psychological/mental damage.
