Extremism. Where is the logic?

I wish to start a topic on political extremism. By this I mean either far Left or far Right political ideology. There are several questions which I initially have--more can be added later.First, let us define (and come to a consensus) regarding terminology and definitions.Also, why is it that one extreme or the other is "bad" or "evil" while the other side is noble and pure?If humans are all basically the same, does it make any sense that one-half choose evil and the other half choose good?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

What I really want is an explanation of why the Left is bad and the Right is good.

Because we gave our hearts to Satan? It's what I heard.

I'm not convinced that Jesus would have been more right than left. In Acts, when everyone laid their possessions at the Apostles feet (except Ananias and Saphira) the action itself was voluntary...though honesty was required. Today's left believes in taxing the possessions out of the wealthy...while the far right supports voluntary charity---which keeps many a 501 C 3 afloat.I don't believe that the government should legislate morality, although a case could be made that its the only way that adequate charity for the poor will ever occur.This is what Wiki defines Right and Left to be:

quote:

---

The terms left-wing and right-wing are widely used in the United States but, as on the global level, there is no firm consensus about their meaning. The only aspect that is generally agreed upon is that they are the defining opposites of the United States political spectrum. Left and right in the U.S. are generally associated with liberal and conservative respectively, although the meanings of the two sets of terms do not entirely coincide. Depending on the political affiliation of the individual using them, these terms can be spoken with varying implications. A 2005 poll of 2,209 American adults showed that "respondents generally viewed the paired concepts liberals and left-wingers and conservatives and right-wingers as possessing, respectively, generally similar political beliefs", but also showed that around ten percent fewer respondents understood the terms left and right than understood the terms liberal and conservative.[49]

​

The contemporary Left in the United States is usually understood as a category that includes New Deal social-liberals (in contrast to traditions of social democracy more common to Western Europe), Rawlsian liberals, and civil libertarians, who are often identified with the Democratic Party. In general, the term left-wing is understood to imply a commitment to egalitarianism, support for social policies that appeal to the working class, and multiculturalism. The contemporary center-left usually defines itself as promoting government regulation of business, commerce and industry; protection of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of religion; and government intervention on behalf of racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities and the working class.

---

The reason I oppose the far left is because I disagree with forced government regulation to an excessive degree. I'll decide whether or not to rebuild the infrastructure...and in my mind, the wealthy should pay most of it.On the other hand, I oppose the far right because I don't want forced morality either. I think there should be a cap on how wealthy people can get without being taxed. I am against excessive inheritance taxes, but would not mind seeing them on estates over one million dollars. In other words, I will admit that I favor my working class over either the rich or the poor. We need the tax break. We need an opportunity to retire with $100,000.00-$999,000.00 Anything over a million can rebuild the infrastructure.As most of you know, I am a union steward. I favor union wages...the corporations want better executive pay and cheaper worker pay. I believe that every nickel of profit is earned through the workers...whereas they would assert that it is a contract between the customer and the corporation.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes:

quote:

---

The reason I oppose the far left is because I disagree with forced government regulation to an excessive degree.

---

Couple of things:1) You have an unstated assumption: That you're being forced.You're not. You agreed to the social contract when you accepted citizenship in this country. If you don't like the social contract, you have many options: You can change your mind and learn to like it, you can dislike it and merely gripe about it, you can work to change it (we have these things called "elections"...perhaps you've heard of them?) you can ignore them and pay the penalty for doing so, or you can leave.But you are not being "forced" in any way. You agreed to the constitutional mandate our government has to engage in these programs when you agreed to be a citizen.This is Libertarian claptrap and that way lies madness.2) You seem to want all the benefits without any of the responsibilities. You want the feels of doing right by others without actually having to do anything to, you know, do right by them. Notice how quickly you dismiss this very point: Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program this country has ever seen. It is proof positive that government action is sometimes the only thing that works.Again, this is Libertarian claptrap and that way lies madness.

quote:

---

I'll decide whether or not to rebuild the infrastructure

---

No, WE will decide whether or not to rebuild the infrastructure. You seem to be confused, thinking that you are an island and that you and you alone get to choose. Instead, we live in a democracy and we get to determine how we will support our collective needs. It's right there in that Constitution that you hear so many people claiming to revere: We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.What did you think that meant? Again, going back to my first point: If you don't like the social contract that you signed by accepting citizenship, you have many options: You can work to change it, ignore it and accept the consequences, or leave.

quote:

---

I am against excessive inheritance taxes, but would not mind seeing them on estates over one million dollars.

---

You do understand that the current amount for which tax on inheritance starts is $5.45M, yes? That it will be $5.49M next year? That the average rate is only 16.5%?And that this affects only about 11,000 estates? Of which only about 5,200 are taxable? And that of those 11,000, only about 1,000 are regarding businesses/farms of which only about 370 are taxable?This leads to a question: Why is this such a prominent issue? Who told you that it was a problem? I'm reminded of a similar question: Who told you that you were naked? The current tax policy only affects people earning more than 5 times what you think should be the threshold and affects a miniscule portion of the population.But to your original question: It's just a variation on tribalism.

Hi Phat,There is no answer. It is subjective and as variable as there are people.If your hanging out with Liberals then you'll hear how evil the fascist pubs are.If your hanging out with conservatives you'll hear how evil the smelly tree hugging left is.Republicans want to change the world as they think it should be.
Democrats want to change the world as they think it could be.

I don't. I believe it's a privilege to contribute to society in the form of taxes. The working classes should pay the bulk of the taxes - but they should be paid enough so that they can do so. If the average worker's wage was $30 dollars an hour (just picking a hypothetical number out of thin air) I wouldn't care if the billionaires contributed a nickel.

I would. The billionaires control well over half the entire pool of money in existence. For them to not contribute is criminal at best. If they can't part with their precious money, it should be taken from them. There. I said it.Perhaps I am morphing into an extremist...when the situation inconveniences me.My critics often point out that at times I can be entirely selfish.

That's a second-hand solution: let them steal the money and then take it back. They should be prevented from stealing the money in the first place.The workers should be able to take control of their workplace, if necessary - with or without compensation to the original "owners". That is a fairly extreme position but one that would cause less pain in the long run.

It doesn't work that way, Phat. I can't claim to understand much about money so I may get some of this wrong but here goes: There isn't a finite "pool" of money that is shared among all, wealth is actually created by people who build enterprises. They aren't just hoarding something that belongs to everybody, they literally "made" it in some sense, which benefits everybody in the end because money is always being used and circulated, nobody just sits on it. The more that gets created the more there is to go around in the shole society, that's why America became so prosperous in the first place, so that even poor Americans aren't poor by most of the world's standards. If money isn't being created everybody is poor. And generally those who have a lot give a lot.One major problem with socialism is that it stifles the motivation to build enterprises and create wealth, it makes everybody poor. I think you've bought a socialist idea of money. Maybe you should read some conservative books on economics.ABE: I agree, however, that wealth needs to be regulated so that it does benefit everybody. Fallen humanity is naturally greedy, and that includes poor people.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The poor also make that money. The issue at stake is: are they getting their fair share of the money they make?

Faith writes:

quote:

---

wealth is actually created by people who build enterprises.

---

And who do you think those people are?People like Trump who simply owns a name?Or the people who actually built the hotel that has his name on it?Wealth is created by labor, not capital. Capital needs labor in order to be used to create wealth.Labor, in the end, doesn't need capital. Oh, capital makes it easier, yes, but labor is all that is required.

quote:

---

The more that gets created the more there is to go around in the shole society

---

Not if the people who have it don't spend it. That's the stupidity of thinking tax cuts will help the economy. For the past 30+ years, the Reaganite philosophy that the wealthy will "trickle down" the wealth has been shown to be false: Despite the fact that productivity has tripled, all of the gains from that increase in productivity has gone to the wealthiest. Wages are flat and wealth has not increased for the bottom.They were the ones who created the wealth.And it was stolen from them by those who didn't create it.

quote:

---

that's why America became so prosperous in the first place

---

No, American didn't really become prosperous until after the Great Depression when we started implementing "socialist" economic policies like unions, Social Security, Medicare, etc. It's why the poverty rate for the elderly was 90% until then.

quote:

---

And generally those who have a lot give a lot.

---

Showing a severe lack of understanding regarding economics.And your own Bible that you claim to hold so dear:Mark 12: Your own holy man contradicts you regarding this, Faith. The fact that you "give a lot" means nothing if you already have a lot. The question is not the mere amount of what you give.It's whether your are giving "enough."

quote:

---

One major problem with socialism is that it stifles the motivation to build enterprises and create wealth

---

So England, Germany, Japan, and France are all "stifled"? Strange how their economies seem to be doing fairly well.How can that be given their socialistic economic policies?Did you just confuse socialism for communism?

quote:

---

it makes everybody poor.

---

Strange how Scandinavia, one of the most "socialist" regions on the planet, is so wealthy.Maybe you should stop reading all those conservative books on economics.They are lying to you.

As I understand it, and I said I don't understand a lot about money but I've picked up a few things, it is the enterprise that creates the wealth and if there is no capital there won't be an enterprise so it is the capital that creates the wealth. Wage-earners can't create wealth, they are beneficiaries of it, though there may be an argument that they should share in it in a more direct way. Good employers take good care of their workers.There are different levels of socialism. Scandinavia is of course an unusual case. Go with the USSR or Communist China.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is the propaganda version but of course it is as is so often the case refuted by reality.Before there was capital there was wealth. Before there was an enterprise there was wealth. It is another of the con-jobs to keep the proles in check and hopefully not notice that they are being raped.

But wasn't the wealth before capitalism all in the hands of feudal lords, who didn't get it by enterprise but by conquest? Capitalism does benefit the whole society in a way the feudal system of course did not. I'm certainly not arguing that capitalism is some kind of perfection if completely uncontrolled by law because it can be exploitative too, and it can be used against the people too, as Soros' billions are being used.