Left-Wing Folk

[JJJA]

There are many barriers to women entering politics and they obviously face discrimination in the workplace. If they didn't they would already have equal pay for equal value. The argument that some women succeed and therefore no women face discrimination is again just simple reductionism. The argument is not made because you can point to a handful of successful women and say "Look at the that, discrimination doesn't exist" and therefore nothing needs to be done to correct it. What we talking about is creating equal of opportunity where it didn't exist before

Of course left wingers are going to ignore Maggies so called accomplishments. They aren't worthy of praise just because she was a woman. I don't admire anyone who appeals to jingoism for political ends, who tears down and sells off public assets in the name of ideology instead of common sense, who gives financial deregulation to give the investment bankers a free hand, who doubles the child poverty rate, I could go on, but I think this quote summarizes it well:

"It is easy to summarize the foulness of the Thatcher years: the combination of Malthus and Ayn Rand that went to make up her social philosophy; the police mentality that she evinced when faced with dissent; the awful toadying to Reagan and now Bush; the indulgence shown to apartheid; the coarse, racist betrayal of Hong Kong; the destruction of local democracy and autonomous popular institutions."

- Christopher Hitchens "Lessons Maggie Taught Me" December 17, 1990 edition of The Nation

*Points to the British Conservative cabinet*

- Look! All of them were appointed on merit and they're made up of both men and women. I rest my case.

I think Hitchens would absolutely abhor the decisions made by Justin and his trendy cabinet. I also agree with him on Ayn Rand, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the overt discrimination in Canadian politics which I previously pointed out.

Also....Hitchens supported the Iraq war. lolol

 

[brightmoon]

*Points to the British Conservative cabinet*

- Look! All of them were appointed on merit and they're made up of both men and women. I rest my case.

I think Hitchens would absolutely abhor the decisions made by Justin and his trendy cabinet. I also agree with him on Ayn Rand, but I'm not sure how that is relevant to the overt discrimination in Canadian politics which I previously pointed out.

Also....Hitchens supported the Iraq war. lolol

Cabinet appointment are not made on merit alone! Political favoritism. cronyism inevitability is a part of the process, a process that favours established power, which is dominated by old white males. This is what Justin is trying to break up.

As for what Hitchens would or would not support, we'll never know now. The man was a great debater and polemist with a command over the language that was second to none. Unfortunately he was one not the to admit that he was wrong, and rarely if ever, retracted an opinion publicly. That was an unfortunate character flaw.

 

[Eventhorizon]

[MENTION=13855]JJJA[/MENTION] First of all, I'm glad you don't care about my country. If you did care about Canada I'd be concerned. Again this is not a quota. Its about building a cabinet that truly represents the people. The cabinet is chosen to represent the regions, for example, so why not gender? As La Sagna has ably pointed out, women's perspectives and their voices deserve to heard and to reduce their being to their sexual organ is quite frankly degrading to say the least.
[MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION] You asked me why I thought libertarianism is unworkable. One of the reasons I know its unworkable is because it is a political philosophy which has never existed outside the theoretical realm. I would challenge you to refute this statement.

I wouldn't refute the statement. But just because something has never been tried does not mean it will not work. Liberalism means a good bit more than what you have stated. In short for me it's abou allowing people to live their lives as they choose so long as they are not hurting anyone else. Its freedom. I recognize the fact that to survive in this world people must come together to build a United nation so that they can protect themselves from those who would change that or steal from that. However the government should not have any say past that.
Now in the real world some amount of regulation will always be necessary to protect a nation. Food, resource management etc. Anyone who says differently is not thinking clearly.

 

[brightmoon]

I recognize the fact that to survive in this world people must come together to build a United nation so that they can protect themselves from those who would change that or steal from that. However the government should not have any say past that.
Now in the real world some amount of regulation will always be necessary to protect a nation. Food, resource management etc. Anyone who says differently is not thinking clearly

We need to be much more concerned about crony capitalism and the concentration of wealth in the hands of an increasingly small number of individuals. Conservatives are too concerned with the power of government. The question we need to ask is who controls the government and to what end? These philosopies like "trickle down economics" are based on the naive assumption that the marketplace will handle all of our needs. Consider this quote from Pope Francis which is dead on:

"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."

 

[PintoBean]

I have sometimes heard people joke that America is dominated by two distinct political parties: one conservative, the other liberal, and both right-wing. Well, actually, I don't think those people were really joking.

I am not sure both sides of things are "right-wing." In fact, I am pretty sure not. I believe this perception may have to do with the fact that only the loudest voices are heard. We do have an essentially two party system (which is currently in the process of disintegrating IMO), but I believe most people would really love a more moderate path.

 

[JJJA]

Cabinet appointment are not made on merit alone! Political favoritism. cronyism inevitability is a part of the process, a process that favours established power, which is dominated by old white males. This is what Justin is trying to break up.

As for what Hitchens would or would not support, we'll never know now. The man was a great debater and polemist with a command over the language that was second to none. Unfortunately he was one not the to admit that he was wrong, and rarely if ever, retracted an opinion publicly. That was an unfortunate character flaw.

Cabinet appointments are made on merit. Political 'cronyism' is just another word people use because they don't particularly like who is in power. Suck it up. The majority voted for them. That's democracy.

"Old white males" - This doesn't even dignify a response.

We do know what Hitchens supported because he spent his entire life writing books, essays, articles and debating people over these issues. He did support the Iraq war; a simple Google search will merit that claim. When was Hitchens wrong about something to which he didn't admit to? Or are you simply clutching at more straws, as was your 'white males' comment.

 

[brightmoon]

Cabinet appoint are not made solely on merit. The people who are doing the appointments admit this. What if all the most qualified candidates came from Wales and Scotland? Would the UK parliament be comprised of MPs exclusively from Wales and Scotland and none from England? Are you trying to tell me that friendships and alliances play no part in the process? This stretches credibility.

I guess you don't like phrase "old white males". Maybe you can find another more agreeable way to describe them. Why not try "older men of European ethnicity"?
|
As for Hitchens, yes do know what he thought on certain events that were current when he was alive. We can speculate on his position on events that have occurred since his death. I would ask you the same question: "When was Hitchens wrong about something to which he didn't admit to?" Maybe Trotskyism or Marxism in general. I don't know, I never heard him actually disavow those views, but perhaps he did.

 

[Eventhorizon]

We need to be much more concerned about crony capitalism and the concentration of wealth in the hands of an increasingly small number of individuals. Conservatives are too concerned with the power of government. The question we need to ask is who controls the government and to what end? These philosopies like "trickle down economics" are based on the naive assumption that the marketplace will handle all of our needs. Consider this quote from Pope Francis which is dead on:

"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."

I will agree that "crony" capitalism needs to go wherever it exists. Loopholes need to go away etc. However most of the nation has no conception as to whats fair and realistic to tax companies. Its more about getting free stuff. Capitalism works but just like everything its been corrupted. Institute a Soclaist government and do you believe it would not either start corrupt or become that way in short order?
I think everyone agrees that change needs to happen. But define that change. Who will define it? The general population? If so we will remain lost. Proof? Look at todays world.

 

[JJJA]

Cabinet appoint are not made solely on merit. The people who are doing the appointments admit this. What if all the most qualified candidates came from Wales and Scotland? Would the UK parliament be comprised of MPs exclusively from Wales and Scotland and none from England? Are you trying to tell me that friendships and alliances play no part in the process? This stretches credibility.

I guess you don't like phrase "old white males". Maybe you can find another more agreeable way to describe them. Why not try "older men of European ethnicity"?
|
As for Hitchens, yes do know what he thought on certain events that were current when he was alive. We can speculate on his position on events that have occurred since his death. I would ask you the same question: "When was Hitchens wrong about something to which he didn't admit to?" Maybe Trotskyism or Marxism in general. I don't know, I never heard him actually disavow those views, but perhaps he did.

Why does it matter what ethnicity they are? Whether they be from Wales or Scotland, they are still British and work for the British government.

Hitchens was a classical Marxist until his death.

 

[brightmoon]

Too bad about Hitchens. The world is a poorer place without him around!

As a disease, cancer has taken far too many people I know and admire too quickly.

 

[Matt3737]

Its more about getting free stuff.

Are you insane!? Water is free. The air you breathe is free. It is not about 'free stuff' if stuff is supposed to refer to luxury goods. It's about protecting what should be necessary or essential to the common good.

Edit: Water isn't entirely or always free even, but then we can still have things like the Flint lead poisoning incident because people are more concerned about money.

"The human right to water entitles everyone to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic uses", UN CESC - General Comment 15, para.2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water

 

[Eventhorizon]

Are you insane!? Water is free. The air you breathe is free. It is not about 'free stuff' if stuff is supposed to refer to luxury goods. It's about protecting what should be necessary or essential to the common good.

Edit: Water isn't entirely or always free even, but then we can still have things like the Flint lead poisoning incident because people are more concerned about money.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_water

Why do you feel as if you have a right to anything just for being born and alive?

 

[Matt3737]

Why do you feel as if you have a right to anything just for being born and alive?

By the same right you have to question it.

 

[Eventhorizon]

By the same right you have to question it.

The food you eat. Who makes it? Without people to process the food you eat you would be responsible for doing it yourself. Why do they process your food for you? Are they slaves to you. Is that their life purpose? To process your food?

 

[Matt3737]

The food you eat. Who makes it? Without people to process the food you eat you would be responsible for doing it yourself. Why do they process your food for you? Are they slaves to you. Is that their life purpose? To process your food?

We're not talking about food processing in the same way that we're not talking about luxury goods and services. That's a straw-man argument. As I already said, "free stuff" isn't referring to luxury goods. People have a right to not starve, but that doesn't entitle them to anything and everything.

The argument is not about people's wants. It is about people's needs.

 

[Eventhorizon]

We're not talking about food processing in the same way that we're not talking about luxury goods and services. That's a straw-man argument. As I already said, "free stuff" isn't referring to luxury goods. People have a right to not starve, but that doesn't entitle them to anything and everything.

The argument is not about people's wants. It is about people's needs.

People have a right not to stave? Really? Who has given them that "right"? Or lets talk about water since its easier. So who has "given" that right? The UN? How exactly will the UN make that happen for desert dwelling societies? "Well you have a right... you just havd to move closer to a clean source." Do illegal aliens coming across the border have a right to water in such a way that its legal for them to break into houses to get it if necessary?
Rights are what humans dictate them to be. You are lucky if those making rights actually have it in their ability to provide what they are giving rights to. Otherwise making and giving rights is easy. Ill make one now, everyone has a right to healthy food. See there, worlds problem solved.

You are not born with a right to live when you are born.

 

[Matt3737]

People have a right not to stave? Really? Who has given them that "right"? Or lets talk about water since its easier. So who has "given" that right? The UN? How exactly will the UN make that happen for desert dwelling societies? "Well you have a right... you just havd to move closer to a clean source." Do illegal aliens coming across the border have a right to water in such a way that its legal for them to break into houses to get it if necessary?
Rights are what humans dictate them to be. You are lucky if those making rights actually have it in their ability to provide what they are giving rights to. Otherwise making and giving rights is easy. Ill make one now, everyone has a right to healthy food. See there, worlds problem solved.

You are not born with a right to live when you are born.

Wow. Brilliant argument. Conflating legal rights with physical laws. That's so brilliant that I don't even know how to respond to it. Yes. We mean to imply that they should be considered physical laws like the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm done talking to you. There's really no point anymore.

 

[the]

Rights are an illusion

 

[JJJA]

Rights are an illusion

Explain.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Wow. Brilliant argument. Conflating legal rights with physical laws. That's so brilliant that I don't even know how to respond to it. Yes. We mean to imply that they should be considered physical laws like the laws of thermodynamics.

I'm done talking to you. There's really no point anymore.

Ha ha ha! Ok.