Three Pillars of Leftdom

[The Brain]

The Left (at least here in Sweden) is based on three pillars. They are the foundations on which the lofty edifice of Socialism/Communism/Feminism/Environmentalism has been built. They are as follows.

Ignorance Of The Issues. The Lefty is clueless. He doesn't understand, at all, how things work. Science, technology, business, history, economy etc etc are all mysteries to him.

Someone Else Should Pay. Regardless of what's being considered, with the Lefty it is ALWAYS about how someone else should pay. The idea that you pay for stuff you yourself want hasn't crossed his mind.

What I Don't Like Should Be Banned. When the Lefty doesn't like something his response is that it should be banned. He cannot grasp the concept of people doing thing differently, let alone see any value in it.

Apaling.

[Tamas]

[alfred russel]

What I Don't Like Should Be Banned. When the Lefty doesn't like something his response is that it should be banned. He cannot grasp the concept of people doing thing differently, let alone see any value in it.

Is this prompted by recent man / beast laws in Sweden?

[Barrister]

Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.

[derspiess]

Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.

Maybe not the middle one.

[Tamas]

Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.

First and third point for sure applies to most people in general.

[DGuller]

Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.

I could write up a version that would make them sound much worse.

[Tamas]

That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.

They are a dying breed, I give you that much.

[Barrister]

That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.

They are a dying breed, I give you that much.

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

[Razgovory]

Brain, while I don't totally disagree with you, you could justas easily write up a very simplistic version about "rightdom" that would make us sound just as bad.

Maybe not the middle one.

Oh I think George W. Bush and Reagan proved that is in fact true.

[Razgovory]

That's why best are true (classical, if you will) liberals. They don't want your money and they don't want laws banning everything they don't like, plus not all of them are stupid.

They are a dying breed, I give you that much.

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

How far back to go till we find that everything is "Pretty damn good"?

[Malthus]

How far back to go till we find that everything is "Pretty damn good"?

It's the invention of writing that really screwed things up. 

[alfred russel]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

[Malthus]

To my mind, a lot of these issues are not binary, but rather matters of degree or emphasis.

I think of these things like the sliders in EU: at one end, no acceptance of innovations for any reason, and at the other, adopt every passing fad; "conservatives" think they have the 'sweet spot' of sanity along that scale, while "liberals" think they have it.

Same with such things as government intervention, public morality, etc.

[Barrister]

No, the best are the true (classical, if you will) conservatives.  They figure everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.

Doesn't it sort of discredit those sorts of conservatives that they really came to the forefront in an era that we now recognize as really sucking compared to current times?

"everything is pretty damn good as it is, so why go messing things up.", has been wrong for hundreds of years; sure that doesn't exactly prove it is wrong today, but a historical pattern has developed....

Not at all - the historical record ahs in fact vindicated the conservative point of view.

Look - it's not that a conservative says "nothing should ever change". but rather "our society has evolved this way for a reason, so let's be careful and cautious when we change things".

Look, I think we all agree that the modern social democratic welfare state is a place that 100 or 200 years ago would sound like a socialist paradise.  But every time that liberals tried to make the change all in one big jump it has failed miserably (French revolution, communism).  The "slow and steady" approach demonstrated by the west has been the winner.