How do you become more right wing?
Scroll to see replies
Start the morning by reading the Daily Mail. A good dose of hatred and bigotry should set you in good stead for a right-wing day.
Original post by whorace
Corbyn is a clown and you are completely sane for being against his antagonistic and dogmatic policies.
About Labour's tax policy, the point of collective services is that they are in the interests of all classes, it doesn't really make sense for the middle classes to be struggling after taxes IF those taxes are used to pay for government services like railways, schools and medicine. I mean, if everything is free (as you say) what are they bothered about?
About Labour's tax policy, the point of collective services is that they are in the interests of all classes, it doesn't really make sense for the middle classes to be struggling after taxes IF those taxes are used to pay for government services like railways, schools and medicine. I mean, if everything is free (as you say) what are they bothered about?
I earn quite a decent amount so I can't speak for those we're discussing but if myself and a husband say were working hard and not being particularly well paid, to be paying loads of tax in order to provide free services for those who are lazy would annoy me no end. One of the reasons I don't want to pay more tax so that everything is free for everyone is because I do earn well and, to be frank, I don't want to pay for those who don't work and do nothing. I can only imagine how much worse it must be to be working hard, not having much disposable income despite working hard, and then knowing there are people abusing the benefits system who sit around all day doing nothing, their lives being funded by the money these hard working people are paying for.
And whenever anyone says not all people on benefits are like that I have to laugh. My Labourite friends frequently spout this rhetoric when they have never set foot on a council estate. When I was little I was brought up in one of the worst council estates in London and my Mum was honestly one of the only people in that place who worked. I'm not saying all council estates are like this but it's easy to say 'not all people on benefits are like that' when you've never actually been around and lived with people who were on benefits.
Original post by whorace
Can't stand Labour and the current Marxist idiots in power but the financial crisis was caused by banks in the US and it was due to lack of regulation continued by Blair under the previous Major government (actually I think the economy would have been hit worse if it hadn't been for Blair's early bank policies which are completely consistent with Thatcherite principles). Brown nationalising the banks actually was a very competent decision, as was his plans for a public works programme.
The NHS was in a very good state under Blair and Brown in early years.
Conservatives are supposed to be financially literate, and yet they support decreasing national expenditure by cutting jobs unnecessarily at a time when that expenditure should be used to push for full employment and build widespread infrastructure.
The NHS was in a very good state under Blair and Brown in early years.
Conservatives are supposed to be financially literate, and yet they support decreasing national expenditure by cutting jobs unnecessarily at a time when that expenditure should be used to push for full employment and build widespread infrastructure.
Actually, the banking crisis was precipitated by Government-sponsored loans (mostly ramped up during the Clinton administration) being offered to under qualified or over extended borrowers through GSE's like Freddie Mac and Fannie May.
It's a fantastic example of pathological altruism.
Original post by whorace
This is very true, in socialism the government provides employment programmes which can take care of you, capitalism provides no safety net, this is not a strength of capitalism, it is an example of its predatory nature.
how is a lack of a safety net "predatory"? how is freedom to determine your own success/failure "predatory"? if you aren't responsible and you fail, how can you honestly say that the system was "predatory" when you were also free to set the terms of your contracts too?
Original post by sleepysnooze
how is a lack of a safety net "predatory"? how is freedom to determine your own success/failure "predatory"? if you aren't responsible and you fail, how can you honestly say that the system was "predatory" when you were also free to set the terms of your contracts too?
This freedom isn't even remotely close to existing in capitalism.
Original post by infairverona
I earn quite a decent amount so I can't speak for those we're discussing but if myself and a husband say were working hard and not being particularly well paid, to be paying loads of tax in order to provide free services for those who are lazy would annoy me no end. One of the reasons I don't want to pay more tax so that everything is free for everyone is because I do earn well and, to be frank, I don't want to pay for those who don't work and do nothing. I can only imagine how much worse it must be to be working hard, not having much disposable income despite working hard, and then knowing there are people abusing the benefits system who sit around all day doing nothing, their lives being funded by the money these hard working people are paying for.
And whenever anyone says not all people on benefits are like that I have to laugh. My Labourite friends frequently spout this rhetoric when they have never set foot on a council estate. When I was little I was brought up in one of the worst council estates in London and my Mum was honestly one of the only people in that place who worked. I'm not saying all council estates are like this but it's easy to say 'not all people on benefits are like that' when you've never actually been around and lived with people who were on benefits.
And whenever anyone says not all people on benefits are like that I have to laugh. My Labourite friends frequently spout this rhetoric when they have never set foot on a council estate. When I was little I was brought up in one of the worst council estates in London and my Mum was honestly one of the only people in that place who worked. I'm not saying all council estates are like this but it's easy to say 'not all people on benefits are like that' when you've never actually been around and lived with people who were on benefits.
I was raised on a council estate and I agree with you completely, I think the government needs to do what it can to combat laziness and stupidity and there is a concern that taxes are being used to perpetuate this. In my view the best way to do this is to use taxes to reduce it instead, we should reduce laziness by pooling money into creating jobs and reduce stupidity through investment into education. I don't think the tax policy is wrong I think the services are run by idiots.
(edited 8 years ago)
read literature written by right-wring economists such as Hayek and Friedman
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
This freedom isn't even remotely close to existing in capitalism.
define "freedom".
Original post by infairverona
I earn quite a decent amount so I can't speak for those we're discussing but if myself and a husband say were working hard and not being particularly well paid, to be paying loads of tax in order to provide free services for those who are lazy would annoy me no end. One of the reasons I don't want to pay more tax so that everything is free for everyone is because I do earn well and, to be frank, I don't want to pay for those who don't work and do nothing. I can only imagine how much worse it must be to be working hard, not having much disposable income despite working hard, and then knowing there are people abusing the benefits system who sit around all day doing nothing, their lives being funded by the money these hard working people are paying for.
And whenever anyone says not all people on benefits are like that I have to laugh. My Labourite friends frequently spout this rhetoric when they have never set foot on a council estate. When I was little I was brought up in one of the worst council estates in London and my Mum was honestly one of the only people in that place who worked. I'm not saying all council estates are like this but it's easy to say 'not all people on benefits are like that' when you've never actually been around and lived with people who were on benefits.
And whenever anyone says not all people on benefits are like that I have to laugh. My Labourite friends frequently spout this rhetoric when they have never set foot on a council estate. When I was little I was brought up in one of the worst council estates in London and my Mum was honestly one of the only people in that place who worked. I'm not saying all council estates are like this but it's easy to say 'not all people on benefits are like that' when you've never actually been around and lived with people who were on benefits.
Your upbringing sounds like mine!
I think one of the primary reasons you shouldn't be forced to pay more tax is you own your own economic outcomes. You've worked hard for your money, and you are better placed to decide how to spend it than some Oxbridge educated MP with a God complex.
Original post by sleepysnooze
how is a lack of a safety net "predatory"? how is freedom to determine your own success/failure "predatory"? if you aren't responsible and you fail, how can you honestly say that the system was "predatory" when you were also free to set the terms of your contracts too?
freedom to what? starve? there's a natural rate of frictional unemployment (about 2-3%) in a completely capitalist system these people would be completely screwed.
Done it have an msc in economics.
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
This freedom isn't even remotely close to existing in capitalism.
As above, self-righteous indignation, no solution. What do you propose, socialism?
You've got us. Capitalism is the worst economic model in existence...except for all the others.
Capitalism is a reflection of the state of nature. You aren't a collective, you are an individual. There is no such thing as selflessness, and God only knows even if there were, human beings wouldn't be motivated by it.
All individuals are self-interested. Nobody every does anything unless they stand to benefit from it, in some fashion.
Original post by Bill_Gates
Done it have an msc in economics.
I don't think there is any rational reason for you to be right wing Bill. I am a vehement anti-Communist socialist who believes in the preservation of private property while at the same using public money to further national interests, which is apparently quite a crime to the current Tory government.
Original post by Bill_Gates
Done it have an msc in economics.
Have you ever read 'The Road to Serfdom'?
Original post by sleepysnooze
define "freedom".
The vast majority of how successful one is in life is sheer luck. The difference between a daring yet brilliant entrepreneur and a washed-up failure is one stroke of luck in the right place; the difference between a comfortable middle-class life and struggling to make ends meet month after month is often essentially due to the chance of the family into which one was born. People don't have the opportunity; they therefore don't have the freedom to make something of themselves.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
As above, self-righteous indignation, no solution. What do you propose, socialism?
You've got us. Capitalism is the worst economic model in existence...except for all the others.
Capitalism is a reflection of the state of nature. You aren't a collective, you are an individual. There is no such thing as selflessness, and God only knows even if there were, human beings wouldn't be motivated by it.
All individuals are self-interested. Nobody every does anything unless they stand to benefit from it, in some fashion.
You've got us. Capitalism is the worst economic model in existence...except for all the others.
Capitalism is a reflection of the state of nature. You aren't a collective, you are an individual. There is no such thing as selflessness, and God only knows even if there were, human beings wouldn't be motivated by it.
All individuals are self-interested. Nobody every does anything unless they stand to benefit from it, in some fashion.
What I propose is essentially market socialism. I'd need several thousand words to explain it properly, so I won't.
Original post by whorace
I don't think there is any rational reason for you to be right wing Bill.
Whereas there are thousands of irrational reasons for him to be left-wing.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheCitizenAct
Have you ever read 'The Road to Serfdom'?
Yep several times.
Original post by TheCitizenAct
If you believe feeling good about yourself is more important than doing good, you belong on the left. I encourage you to stay there.
It's the biggest political fallacy of our time that 'left-wing' is conflated with 'caring.' The left supported fascism all throughout the 20's and 30's - many policies within the Fascist Manifesto are policies of modern left-wing political parties. In the US, the left established the KKK, and voted against the abolishment of slavery; Republicans saw it through.
'Caring' precipitated the banking crisis by offering loans to under qualified borrowers. The left's altruism is synonymous with many, many negative qualities, including prioritising their own group ahead of all others, even in light of rational observation, even when it happens to run contrary to any conceptualisation of individual liberty.
Left-wing economic models are fundamentally, unequivocally dehumanising. They determine individuals aren't individuals, but categories - he or she is the product of the state, as are his or her economic outcomes. That's NOT moral, that's not even sensible.
Every left-wing policy - well, to be accurate, left-wing and progressive policy - is orientated around the group, greater centralisation of power and control. They argue nothing other than imagined identities - 'black', 'white', 'homosexual', 'male', 'female', and see you as nothing more than your imagined or perceived identity.
Every safe space, near every restriction on freedom of speech originating from a university, comes from a progressive - don't have a uterus? You aren't qualified to talk abortion. Opposed to immigration? You conflict with our feelings - you're banned.
They complain incessantly about the expenses scandal, or HoL reform, yet all they ever argue is for more power to be centralised in fewer hands. The EU is the best example of progressive tyrannical rule, with little democratic accountability.
Everything is an appeal to emotional rhetoric, not logic. Feelings are their logic, logic is their blasphemy. Dead 3 year old children aren't beyond exploitation. All they ever do is derive a sense of moral superiority from their position; 'we are selfless', everyone else is 'selfish.' In reality, the right is principally just a reflection of the state of nature, and the left is orientated around change - and any change will do. It's why both Stalin and Hitler loathed liberal individualism and laissez faire capitalism, much like the left.
n.b. I wouldn't even classify myself as 'right-wing', quite a few self-proclaimed right-wingers are f**ktards. I would classify myself as veering towards libertarianism and opposed to group think and progressivism.
It's the biggest political fallacy of our time that 'left-wing' is conflated with 'caring.' The left supported fascism all throughout the 20's and 30's - many policies within the Fascist Manifesto are policies of modern left-wing political parties. In the US, the left established the KKK, and voted against the abolishment of slavery; Republicans saw it through.
'Caring' precipitated the banking crisis by offering loans to under qualified borrowers. The left's altruism is synonymous with many, many negative qualities, including prioritising their own group ahead of all others, even in light of rational observation, even when it happens to run contrary to any conceptualisation of individual liberty.
Left-wing economic models are fundamentally, unequivocally dehumanising. They determine individuals aren't individuals, but categories - he or she is the product of the state, as are his or her economic outcomes. That's NOT moral, that's not even sensible.
Every left-wing policy - well, to be accurate, left-wing and progressive policy - is orientated around the group, greater centralisation of power and control. They argue nothing other than imagined identities - 'black', 'white', 'homosexual', 'male', 'female', and see you as nothing more than your imagined or perceived identity.
Every safe space, near every restriction on freedom of speech originating from a university, comes from a progressive - don't have a uterus? You aren't qualified to talk abortion. Opposed to immigration? You conflict with our feelings - you're banned.
They complain incessantly about the expenses scandal, or HoL reform, yet all they ever argue is for more power to be centralised in fewer hands. The EU is the best example of progressive tyrannical rule, with little democratic accountability.
Everything is an appeal to emotional rhetoric, not logic. Feelings are their logic, logic is their blasphemy. Dead 3 year old children aren't beyond exploitation. All they ever do is derive a sense of moral superiority from their position; 'we are selfless', everyone else is 'selfish.' In reality, the right is principally just a reflection of the state of nature, and the left is orientated around change - and any change will do. It's why both Stalin and Hitler loathed liberal individualism and laissez faire capitalism, much like the left.
n.b. I wouldn't even classify myself as 'right-wing', quite a few self-proclaimed right-wingers are f**ktards. I would classify myself as veering towards libertarianism and opposed to group think and progressivism.
It seems you have only met a certain subset of left-wingers. That's a sweeping, sweeping generalisation - it's like me saying all right-wingers are racists. I am far-left - I believe full drug decriminalisation is a good idea, full nationalisation of large businesses should be an economic goal and that workers' collectives should be established - yet I am the complete opposite of literally everything you have just said.
Original post by TheDefiniteArticle
The vast majority of how successful one is in life is sheer luck. The difference between a daring yet brilliant entrepreneur and a washed-up failure is one stroke of luck in the right place; the difference between a comfortable middle-class life and struggling to make ends meet month after month is often essentially due to the chance of the family into which one was born. People don't have the opportunity; they therefore don't have the freedom to make something of themselves.
tell me a few situations that can be said to be based on luck on business which aren't based around mass-generalisations. and, again, "freedom" is path-dependent - if you are born into a poor family, then freedom is about being free to use what you've been given, not being free to take money from others. it's about independence and responsibility - if you aren't independent, then you aren't responsible. if some are richer, then it's not their fault. it's a matter of path dependence. also, being poor doesn't mean that you are going to fail. there is a huge list of examples of poor people going from rags to riches. it's all a matter of success. me having a great idea isn't going to be based on luck, and even if it is based on luck, then that's my luck and I should use it how I see fit, not have somebody else claim that it's unfair. this is why I'm asking you to define freedom - taxation isn't freedom. you're wanting taxation to reinvent freedom. that's contradictive.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
