What are right-wing/conservative politics if not the preservation of social heirarchy?

Author: Username

Posts

Total: 126
#91
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
In other words, "maximizing freedom" for "traditionalists" (and restricting the "freedom" of "non-traditionalists").
Not at all. Everyone has the same “freedoms” and limitations applied to them. It is all about what world you would like your children to live in. One in which the family is paramount and drug use, ho-ing around, etc are stigmatized.
Hmm, so I take it you're in favor of banning alcohol, white sugar, caffeine, marijuana, and opioid prescriptions?

Isn't it funny how "drugs" ends up being a catch-all for stuff the "traditionalists" don't use?

Or one in which you can act as degenerate as possible and hope everything works out, and everyone calls you “brave” for doing so.
I'm not sure what you consider "degenerate", and I'd hope you'd agree that every person should have some basic sovereignty over their own body and their own property.
#92
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
It's highly unlikely a person would choose to work beyond their means if they could not pass it on to their kids.
Good.  That would leave more open positions for the rest of us.
#93
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
Honestly, most people would either work less or spend all of their money on garbage...
Blowing their money on "garbage" would be a huge boost to the economy!

Imagine if the government only taxed dead people and left all the living people to spend TAX FREE!!
#94
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Hmm, so I take it you're in favor of banning alcohol, white sugar, caffeine, marijuana, and opioid prescriptions?

Isn't it funny how "drugs" ends up being a catch-all for stuff the "traditionalists" don't use?

For all of those, I would either support banning or limiting intake. While I wouldn’t consider sugar a “drug”, it is unhealthy and leads to obesity.

I would say most traditionalists do use sugar and many use alcohol to some extent as well. They don’t like abuse of those substances. Sugar (gluttony). They despise what these drugs and the related addiction do to people, as they should.

I'm not sure what you consider "degenerate", and I'd hope you'd agree that every person should have some basic sovereignty over their own body and their own property.
They should have basic sovereignty. However, degenerate in that sense is referring to a culture obsessed with sexual promiscuity, no modesty, lust, etc. 

Blowing their money on "garbage" would be a huge boost to the economy!

Imagine if the government only taxed dead people and left all the living people to spend TAX FREE!!
I’m not sure how buying a bunch of useless things would have a good long-term effect on the economy. That sounds like it would cause a large shift towards luxury items, which are a less efficient allocation of resources.
#95
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Lol, actually the opposite would happen.

Less reason to work more and invest more means less job creation.

Welcome to Marxism 101.

#96
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
It's highly unlikely a person would choose to work beyond their means if they could not pass it on to their kids.
Are you suggesting that only businessmen with children are motivated to accumulate wealth and power?
#97
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bmdrocks21
They should have basic sovereignty. However, degenerate in that sense is referring to a culture obsessed with sexual promiscuity, no modesty, lust, etc. 
What set of principled laws would you propose in order to mitigate such evils?
#98
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Pornography ban, along with investing a lot more resources in cutting down on human trafficking. Harsher sentences for human trafficking and prostitution.

Have FCC and other regulators for media further regulate what can be said on the radio and what can be in movies at certain ratings

Not sure I would create laws around attire. Seems better served with cultural pressure. Then again... an eroding culture is how we got here.....
#99
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Is that a good justification for a sin tax for working and producing too much?

That if you don't have kids then you deserve a sin tax?

Less reason to work more and invest more means less job creation.

Welcome to Marxism 101.

#100
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,798
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
-->
@Greyparrot
Are you saying that a reduced incentive to work results in less work? Fascinating!
#101
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@bmdrocks21
Lol a government that rewards laziness is one destined for bankruptcy.
#102
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,369
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Socialism in peoples heads perhaps. Just because they do not agree with opposition politics doesn't make U.S. society any less hierarchical.

Fungible....Nice word, but not really in context.....Only humanness in general, but the equivalence stops there.

Inheritance (assuming you mean material inheritance) and nepotism are inevitable factors of a liberal society, to remove such privileges would be to enforce true socialism, and I doubt that many U.S . citizens fancy that style of social authoritarianism....Though Mr Trump seems pretty keen on emulating the Russian model....Though the Russian model is sort of authoritarian liberal corruption....Trump maybe?

I think  what some people despise, is liberalism.....The  old fuddy duddies. 


#103
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
Inheritance (assuming you mean material inheritance) and nepotism are inevitable factors of a liberal society, to remove such privileges would be to enforce true socialism,
Do you believe eliminating inheritance and nepotism would "LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD"?

You know, there is no FREE- MARKET without FAIR-PLAY.

Don't you want a true "meritocracy"?

And as far as being "too restrictive" - WE CURRENTLY LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE ANYONE (THIS MEANS YOU) CAN BE HELD INDEFINITELY ON SUSPICION.

BANK ACCOUNTS CAN BE FROZEN ON SUSPICION.

PRESUMED GUILTY.

NO TRIAL OR BAIL UNLESS YOU ARE PART OF THE BIG CLUB.
#104
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,369
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
There's always a big club.

Meritocracy is just hierarchy in another guise. How one enforces meritocracy ultimately becomes the same as in any other socio-political system. Liberally or strictly or anywhere in between.

How do you think things will pan out in the future, with a burgeoning population more and more dependant on technology?...Do you think that a meritocratic system would be viable?

I personally think that the days of workable meritocracy have long since passed.
#105
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@zedvictor4
One more thing, do you believe eliminating inheritance and nepotism would "LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD"?
#106
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
anarchism does not believe in any form of government.  Libertarians consider that government is necessary in a civilized society. Each institution in society has a role and its own sphere - and these are what safe guard the society from abuse and exploitation by the other institutions. In other words, every institution has the capacity to become greedy and abuse its power because like the old adage, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Libertarians take the position that government ought to be small and balanced against the other institutions. 

Having no government on the other hand leads to the abuse by the other institutions, such as private and elite wealthy power brokers, and also by religious groups. 

These groups would simply and inevitable form their own police and armies and then we would have smaller states with their own governments trying to protect what they own. Again - this would lead naturally to some becoming big - and others forming allies. Some would lose. Anarchism is a pipe dream. As I said above - it is never a situation of hierarchy or no hierarchy - it is always going to be a question of who is the boss. In other words, government is inescapable. Yet, knowing this - and the corruption power brings, libertarianism works with the idea of separation of powers and powers with checks and balances.  

The Left typically make the government bigger and bigger - with the dream pipe notion behind it - to get rid of government completely.  Of course this has never happened and will never happen.  Not for long anyway. Marx never really figured out how to from Government to no -government. Oh yes, he mentions the revolution. Violence. Peace. 

But a bigger and bigger government leads of necessity to a loss in the power of the other institutions. And this leads to a reduction in the checks and balances. And this is in my view not only dangerous - but the autocracy of government. Which is really just another word for the concept "slavery of the people". Communism is ultimately slavery. And despite their objections to such a vile term - it is what it is. People must comply or face consequences.  Individuals have no rights. Individuals become the property of the STATE. 

Anarchy just gives the property of people to another person or state under the guise of fake freedom. 
#107
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do need to have a level playing field? 

And which fields are we trying to level? 


#108
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
.Though Mr Trump seems pretty keen on emulating the Russian model.

You mean the Model where people in power use the state police to target their political rivals?

You must be confused with Obama.
#109
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,369
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
One either appreciates a liberal society or one doesn't I suppose.
#110
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm sure there are other countries opposed to a tyrannical big government...like New Zealand.
#111
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,369
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
What's the alternative to government?
#112
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
A limited one. One limited in scope and purpose.
#113
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,369
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
How limited?

There's a fine line between order and chaos.

How do you address the needs and differing ideologies of 330 million individual people.

Who manages and coordinates things such as infrastructure and resources, national and global aspirations, defence etc.
#114
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Limited to the protection of private property, life, and arbiter of disputes between offended parties. If the parties can not agree to arbitration, then it is fine for the government to come in and impose mandates on a case by case basis. A flat tax to fund government operations penalizing nobody for making different lifestyle choices.

That's all the government should be responsible for.

It's funny how nearly every other job the government does currently (and fails at) can currently be outsourced to private contractors.

From private security forces to mail to education to adopt-a-pothole programs.

Keep the government simple. KISS philosophy. People shouldn't support a government that has global aspirations like England did in the 1800's

People should support a government that protects its people from other governments with global aspirations. Like the Founding fathers envisioned. The founding fathers created a land free from tyranny, and it needs to stay that way. In no way did the founding fathers support genocide on the Indians. They were not at fault for the smallpox natural disaster that happened.
#115
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,369
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Hmmmmm.....Moderate anarchy.

And who monitors and regulates  the private security contractors etc.

The founding Fathers would be completely out of their depth in today's society...The same principles just do not apply today.....Just as British 19th century principles do not apply today.

Living in the past is something of a human failing. it's one of the drawbacks of memory.

Within the context of today's more complex society, old fashioned values are just not applicable. You're sort of expecting 380 million people to get along just fine with minimal fuss....You've absolutely no chance.

Ultimately, what we achieve in life is down to us. Britain and the U.S are free and opportunistic societies, and continually blaming governments for our own problems is par for the course, even if they're the governments we voted for.............You try complaining to the private security guy.

I would suggest that what you think you want, is what you already have.

Though, I would further suggest that what you have is a little less chaotic than what you think you want.


#116
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 23,186
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
The founding Fathers would be completely out of their depth in today's society...The same principles just do not apply today.

Tyrrany will be with us for all the ages until we genetically engineer it out of our DNA.
#117
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,369
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree.
#118
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,731
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Why do need to have a level playing field? 
Would you prefer to participate in a sport where the dominant teams made the rules of the game and could change the rules of the game to their advantage on a whim?

Or, would you prefer to participate in a sport where everyone played by the same rules and all participants had a realistic chance of "winning"?
#119
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
he who makes the rules can change the rules.  Until profit is taken out of "public service" this is the way it will be.  Can you blame a lawyer for finding a loophole in a law?  Same thing for businesses, rich people etc.

 would you prefer to participate in a sport where everyone played by the same rules and all participants had a realistic chance of "winning"?
If someone with no legs wants to race you, should your legs be cut off?

Do you have a realistic chance of winning against any pro athlete?  Why would you think you could win against a pro business person?
Some people are better at x than other people, it's impossible and immoral to try and make them equal.

as far as rules go I see them much like standards generally speaking, should they be lowered like the soft bigotry of low expectations?

I'm not so sure it's the rules that are the problem but rather the loop holes and those not held to those rules, the exceptions.  Anyway I think it all starts and is the fault of the people who become multi millionaires "serving the public"
Term lengths should have been a thing long, long ago.
#120
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,343
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Why do need to have a level playing field? 
Would you prefer to participate in a sport where the dominant teams made the rules of the game and could change the rules of the game to their advantage on a whim?

Or, would you prefer to participate in a sport where everyone played by the same rules and all participants had a realistic chance of "winning"?
I prefer not to think of life as a sport.  As it is someone has to make the rules. And most likely it will be the ones who are dominant. And we all know that there are always going to be dominant people or organisations.  Those who have an unusually loud voice even when a minority in the community.  So what? 

The point is - we need to have equality before the law. Same law for EVERYONE. When we start changing the law to make things more equal - it actually causes a greater division and more injustice in the community. 

I don't think life is about winning.  Life is not a game. It is  not a sport. If we were to use a sports illustration - which sport would you propose life is like? Chess - where every piece has the same skill level? Gridiron where every individual is the quarterback. Soccer where every person is the goalkeeper? What sort of game would that be? I suspect it would be very boring and not much fun. 

The progressive movement wants everyone to be the quarterback. Everyone the star. Yet anyone who knows about games - realises that the quarterback is only as good as the rest of the team. In any event, I don't desire to be the same as everyone else. I simply want the same laws to apply equally to all. I find the level playing field a nonsensical progressive - (regressive) fantasy land where in reality only the elite get rich and everyone else just has to suck it up.