Loss Aversion, Fear and Right Wing Political Views

[Idaho]

There was an interesting bit of research a couple of years back. It correlated a strong connection between aversion to losses, fears and anxieties, and consequent right-wing politics. The affect of this increases with age - which explains the commonly seen tendency for older people to become more right-wing.


Conservative fears of nonexistent or overblown boogeymen — Saddam’s WMD, Shariah law, voter fraud, Obama’s radical anti-colonial mind-set, Benghazi, etc. — make it hard not to see conservatism’s prudent risk avoidance as having morphed into a state of near permanent paranoia, especially fueled by recurrent “moral panics,” a sociological phenomenon in which a group of “social entrepreneurs” whips up hysterical fears over a group of relatively powerless “folk devils” who are supposedly threatening the whole social order. Given that conservatism seems to be part of human nature — just as liberalism is — we’re going to need all the help we can get in figuring out how to live with it, without being dominated, controlled and crippled by it.

Consider the recent wave of hysteria over Central American children turning themselves in at the border. There were the hordes of angry demonstrators protesting busloads of children, like it was Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957. There was the congressman/doctor Phil Gingrey’s warning letter to the CDC, claiming that the children might be carrying the Ebola virus — a disease unknown outside Sub-Saharan Africa. There was the ludicrous myth of the “$50 million illegal alien resort spa.” But above all there was the most basic, fundamental fact that the children were turning themselves in at the border — it was anything but a failure of border protection, although that’s what the right-wing hysteria portrayed it as.

Cambridge Journal Abstract (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9292100)

Conservatives see a different, hostile world - Salon/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain_new_study_proves_it_conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/)

Thoughts?

[Papewaio]

Great we have an aging society dominated by the me generation aka the Baby Boomers.

I too hail my grey haired facist overlords!

[rory_20_uk]

Indeed - since when one is young and is happy to have high taxes (for others), high minimum wage (for oneself), subsidised housing / tuition for themselves.

When one gets older they are worried about one's children and later on worried about oneself. Frankly, they suddenly have things to loose - much easier to be happy to share when one is getting things from others after all.

IF there are people earning loads of money that donate a significant portion of their salary they are able to truly follow their beliefs. Others, like Union bosses whose only left wing facet is continuing to live in a subsidised council house don't really count; the Millibands have levels of luxury few of us will ever get and yet purport to be left wing.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Really? You're using Salon as a source? M'kay then.

It sounds exactly like the "political orientation is related to DNA" crap all over again: A correlation based theory latched onto by ideologues wanting to explain away why people don't always agree with them. "I'm not wrong, they're just too old/rich/inbred to understand!"

[Idaho]

Indeed - since when one is young and is happy to have high taxes (for others), high minimum wage (for oneself), subsidised housing / tuition for themselves.

When one gets older they are worried about one's children and later on worried about oneself. Frankly, they suddenly have things to loose - much easier to be happy to share when one is getting things from others after all.

IF there are people earning loads of money that donate a significant portion of their salary they are able to truly follow their beliefs. Others, like Union bosses whose only left wing facet is continuing to live in a subsidised council house don't really count; the Millibands have levels of luxury few of us will ever get and yet purport to be left wing.

~:smoking:

You are obsessed with mythical evil union bosses. It's like leafing through the Readers Digest in 1978 :laugh4:

[Idaho]

Really? You're using Salon as a source? M'kay then.

It sounds exactly like the "political orientation is related to DNA" crap all over again: A correlation based theory latched onto by ideologues wanting to explain away why people don't always agree with them. "I'm not wrong, they're just too old/rich/inbred to understand!"

The research wasn't done by Salon. It's just that I could find a newsy summary of it on there.

[Greyblades]

It's just that I could find a newsy summary of it on there. No surprise there, it's not very newsworthy as beyond confirming that the political stereotypes have a degree of basis in reality (assuming it's a genuine as I cant actually read any of it), the Cambridge article doesn't really say anything substantive, or at least not the bit that isn't hidden behind a £30.00 pay wall.

The salon article is an extreme left propaganda piece typical of Salon.

[Husar]

Indeed - since when one is young and is happy to have high taxes (for others)

Haha, good one. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Because young people don't use roads or schools or tax-subsidized public transportation, right?
You even say yourself later that young people get things from others. The thing about taxes is that they are just a pooling of money to pay for things most people benefit from. Even welfare payments benefit everyone by lowering criminality. Ever been to a country without a proper welfare system where the poor will do whatever it takes to get your money? I wouldn't call it a preferable aspect of such a society. If social security is too large, then maybe it's because you're bleeding out too large a proportion of your citizens with your current economic rules.
Fix the problem, not the symptoms.

[Fisherking]

I don’t see the people on the political right to be any more susceptible to fear mongering than people on the left. In fact I would say your first example, WMDs, was a ploy by Neo-Cons to bring in the left.

Today, it appears as though the right is more concerned with individual liberties and preserving them, where as the left is concerned with safety and protecting minorities, to the point of giving them special privileges. At least in the US, which is what this seems to point to.

I just see fear being used to activate one side or the other for political motives, be that immigration, health insurance coverage, or gun control.

American society is sick and extremely polarised by fear mongers on both sides. One side wants a government that cares for their every need and whim because they fear everyone else is incompetent and one side fears more government encroachment and control over every aspect of life. What little truth there may still be in either argument is distorted to the point of rendering it moot.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There was an interesting bit of research a couple of years back. It correlated a strong connection between aversion to losses, fears and anxieties, and consequent right-wing politics. The affect of this increases with age - which explains the commonly seen tendency for older people to become more right-wing.



Cambridge Journal Abstract (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9292100)

Conservatives see a different, hostile world - Salon/ (http://www.salon.com/2014/07/29/secrets_of_the_right_wing_brain_new_study_proves_it_conservatives_see_a_different_hostile_world/)

Thoughts?

I recall this, and I recall that it doesn't necessarily correlate with age.

There are a number of things going on here though, and it's important to remember that there are peoiple who believe in certain political system on the "left" or "right" of the spectrum of political thought and there are people on the "Political Left" and "Political Right".

For example, Thatcher was "on the Political Right" but her politics were not all that Right-Wing so much as ego-centric

Likewise the the people who picketed the Conservative party conference were "on the left" but used classic Fascist tactics of violence and intimidation, up to and including physical assault.

[rory_20_uk]

You are obsessed with mythical evil union bosses. It's like leafing through the Readers Digest in 1978 :laugh4:

That's it? And no insight that you're obsessed with the mythical right wing situation?


Haha, good one. :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Because young people don't use roads or schools or tax-subsidized public transportation, right?
You even say yourself later that young people get things from others. The thing about taxes is that they are just a pooling of money to pay for things most people benefit from. Even welfare payments benefit everyone by lowering criminality. Ever been to a country without a proper welfare system where the poor will do whatever it takes to get your money? I wouldn't call it a preferable aspect of such a society. If social security is too large, then maybe it's because you're bleeding out too large a proportion of your citizens with your current economic rules.
Fix the problem, not the symptoms.

Erm, yes. Which is why as one gets more one tends to resent a disproportionate amount getting taken away. I never said remove all taxes as if this was some sort of utopia.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

How is it that these older, richer people have more? How is it that companies are able to turn good profits in a country?

It is because that country has invested in infrastructure, education and social support. These people and companies have benefited but then don't want to pay for its continuation. The Thatcher government broke with previous orthodoxy - that we continue to pay in and develop national infrastructure. She told the rich that they could cash out, and the middle class that they could stop paying in. All except roads and bombs - she lavished money on those.

[rory_20_uk]

Given that the current rate of high tax is 40% with NI on top of that - and of course most things one purchases has VAT on top of that makes me wonder how the middle class is not paying in since some will be paying tens of thousands annually.

Yes, the super rich are able to have offshore trust funds / tax exile companies and all the other weird and wonderful things and get their percentage to extremely low levels.

Companies are equally guilty and this is largely due to the tax complexity. Governments for decades are culpable for not fixing this - I fail to see how this has anything to do with right / left wing unless there are no left wing companies.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Reads like they refuse to make a difference between conservative and the extreme right. All extreme rightists are conservatives,. But not all conservatives are extreme right.

Nigel Farrage is called extreme right, but I just think he's a realist, and his concerns valid.

[Idaho]

Reads like they refuse to make a difference between conservative and the extreme right. All extreme rightists are conservatives,. But not all conservatives are extreme right.

Nigel Farrage is called extreme right, but I just think he's a realist, and his concerns valid.

Farage is a fascist with a surface coating of "reasonable bloke next door" painted on. I would agree with him on many of his criticisms of the EU but he is operating in defence of privilege and him and his ilk are a coiled spring of violence and repression waiting to happen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Farage is a fascist with a surface coating of "reasonable bloke next door" painted on. I would agree with him on many of his criticisms of the EU but he is operating in defence of privilege and him and his ilk are a coiled spring of violence and repression waiting to happen.

No, he is not a Fascist and his supporters are generally not Fascists either.

You talk about fearmongering, but fear is what you're peddling here.

Compare UKIP to the people picketing the Conservative Party Conference.

[Fragony]

Farage is a fascist with a surface coating of "reasonable bloke next door" painted on. I would agree with him on many of his criticisms of the EU but he is operating in defence of privilege and him and his ilk are a coiled spring of violence and repression waiting to happen.

I don't see how, when it comes to facism you might be looking the wrong way

Leftists and europhiles see facism everywhere, but they don't recognise it when looking into the mirror. Farrage is a democrate through and through untill the marbles of his bones.

[Greyblades]

I get the feeling no one on this forum is entirely clear on what fascism actually is.

[Gilrandir]

I get the feeling no one on this forum is entirely clear on what fascism actually is.

I refer you to Russia Today. These guys know a thing or two.

[Fisherking]

I get the feeling no one on this forum is entirely clear on what fascism actually is.

This is great! Let’s go through Fascism. Most definitions say that it is an authoritarian government run by a dictator that surprises its opposition. That is a little too broad, don’t you think?

The interesting thing is that Benito Mussolini said that his form of government might be more rightly termed Corporatism as it was the perfect partnership between corporations and the state. It was a managed economy for the benefit of the state.

We seem to place emphasis on strong Nationalism but it was not the nation that was of ultimate importance. It was actually the State or Government.

The State became ultimate arbiter of disputes and intervened in matters to suppress class and level society.

Fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Hitler spoke of the need to create a new managerial elite led by engineers and captains of industry—but free from the parasitic leadership of industries.

Economic planning was applied to both the public and private sector, and the prosperity of private enterprise depended on its acceptance of synchronising itself with the economic goals of the state.

Other than being ,nominally, Democracies, it doesn’t sound too much different than most western governments today.

[Idaho]

No, he is not a Fascist and his supporters are generally not Fascists either.

You talk about fearmongering, but fear is what you're peddling here.

Compare UKIP to the people picketing the Conservative Party Conference.
Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

[Idaho]

Reads like they refuse to make a difference between conservative and the extreme right. All extreme rightists are conservatives,. But not all conservatives are extreme right.

Nigel Farrage is called extreme right, but I just think he's a realist, and his concerns valid.

The far right's mandate is always predicated on valid and reasonable concerns.

[Idaho]

For the benefit of those outside the UK, there is group of UKIP and Tory fellow travellers called the Taxpayers alliance. They came out with this policy statement:


Ministers should waste no time to make unpopular cuts to pensioner benefits, a think tank director has said.
Many of those hit by a cut to the winter fuel allowance might "not be around" at the next election, said Alex Wild of the Taxpayers' Alliance.
And others would forget which party had done it, he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

This is the nature of the British (actually English) right wing. They have the compassion and morality of alley cats.

[Greyblades]

15 years and he still cant learn how to use the freaking edit button.

[Fisherking]

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

I would say Fascism is government control of the economy. Corporations are allowed a lot of latitude only so long as it coincides with governmental wishes. Unions may also be in the interest of the government in its levelling and conflict resolution.

Governments today all seem to be Totalitarian in scope and interpose their desires on every aspect of society.

Remember that Fascism had its beginnings in Socialism. It didn’t take on any rightwing aspects until it was in power and became of the interest of the State to maintain its power and broaden its base of support.

[rory_20_uk]

For the benefit of those outside the UK, there is group of UKIP and Tory fellow travellers called the Taxpayers alliance. They came out with this policy statement:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

This is the nature of the British (actually English) right wing. They have the compassion and morality of alley cats.

The sentiment is extremely unpleasant... but they are advocating cutting giving money to extremely wealthy pensioners. I would have thought that you'd agree this sentiment to redistribute wealth to the poor and needy.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

The EU is facist then (minos xenophobia), and Farrage an anti-facist

[Greyblades]

Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.
Where do you get the idea that Farage would suppress protest? Frankly most of the time its been his opponents that have been trying to suppress him, remember the Kent pub incident?

[Idaho]

15 years and he still cant learn how to use the freaking edit button.
The edit window is awkward to use on the mobile.

[Beskar]

Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Left-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self in cooperation with others, the goal to create an open and fair society. This would be to treat your fellow human as equals and tend to promote a shared unity. This limits ambition and forces a parity.

Central position is an attempt to straddle these two views, promoting greater betterment, but preventing the extremes from occurring by limiting the power and excesses of those on top whilst promoting independence of those at the bottom. This usually is slow to change and react, but allows ambition limited by keeping an acceptable parity.

Fascism in History was classified as a '3rd way' but it is a bastardisation of extreme right wing views. Totalitarian systems don't fit the scale well as they demonstrate a fixation and extreme on right wing politics by having an elite far above everyone else whilst aiming to promote a symbolic unity such as nationalism to entrench and support the elite from those wading in mud. This is why it is called the 'extreme right' or 'far right'. This allows no ambition and fosters great disparity.

As an off-note, whilst different groups can be classified as on the left or the right, it does not mean they are compatible in working together. In fact, there are examples where those on the opposite sides are more alike than their peers. This demonstrates a lot of the fundamental issues which causes problem in clarification.

Example: tea-party libertarian can find a lot more in common with an anarchist than a royalist. Anarchists tend to believe in individualism to the point there is no one above them, rejecting all authority and free to live in their own at patch and communities, thus creating a parity, whilst Tea-party liberatarian generally against regulation and control of the political sphere authority, granting extra freedoms but removes any restrictions to these which tend to cause economical corporate powers to exploit and fill this vacuum unopposed. Anarchist is on the left due to the parity being enforced including rejecting economical supremacy, whilst tea-party liberatarian is on the right as it promotes economical supremacy. This again is more akin to the royalist who values the supremacy being encouraged but by different actors.

(Yes, I am aware this is simplified.)

[Greyblades]

Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/040/121/wikipedian_protester.png
Alternate image:
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png

[rory_20_uk]

Hence why at the very least Left / Right needs to have a different axis of individualistic / state run.


Another one -

Communism is a bastardisation of Left Wing views where the leaders have been put there by the populace and so to go against the leaders is against the people themselves so no punishment is too severe - often making the powers exercised by Absolute Monarchs seem weak. Absolute hierarchies often initially based on violence but followed by nepotism.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Greyblades

Your picture is not loading for me, but I think your signature is perfect, it sums up exactly why people might be interested in right wing politics. I would have thanked it if it were your reply.

There is a definite feel good factor in the feeling of superiority. This explains the popularity of media such as the daily mail, the feeling as you the reader at better than those scumbags on the cover, you are part of the better part of British society even though you are not the ones at the top of it, it is better than being the rest.

[rory_20_uk]

One's happiness is most influenced not by where one is in the scale on a Global level - but where one is in relation to one's peers / friends. One will be happier having the only indoor toilet compared to having all one's friends are billionaires merely than multi-millionaires.

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Your picture is not loading for me, but I think your signature is perfect, it sums up exactly why people might be interested in right wing politics. I would have thanked it if it were your reply.

Look again, I was questioning your claim that the right wing emphasizes betterment of one at the expense of another.


Communism is a bastardisation of Left Wing views where the leaders have been put there by the populace and so to go against the leaders is against the people themselves so no punishment is too severe This also applies to fascism.

[Beskar]

Hence why at the very least Left / Right needs to have a different axis of individualistic / state run.
I agree, my example is rather broad but seems to encompass the positions more succinctly.


Communism is a bastardisation of Left Wing views where the leaders have been put there by the populace and so to go against the leaders is against the people themselves so no punishment is too severe - often making the powers exercised by Absolute Monarchs seem weak. Absolute hierarchies often initially based on violence but followed by nepotism.

~:smoking:

For sake of clarity, I am assuming you are meaning USSR, China, etc and not exactly what was proposed by Marx.

Communism realised and paraded are a parody of the ideals they espouse, forming what is a totalitarian/fascism state. It is a bastardisation of left-wing ideals to create an extreme-right wing system. It shares a kinship to Nazi Germany more than it does to modern social democracies like Norway.

Greyblades hit the nail on the head with this about his reply showing kinship with fascism.

[Beskar]

Look again, I was questioning your claim that the right wing emphasizes betterment of one at the expense of another.

Had to copy and paste source to see it.

It all depends on how nefarious and malice you apply to the statement.

I give you an example: you want to pay less taxes, to do this, you advocate cutting services such as state welfare, which include things like child tax credits, which are aimed at enabling poorer parents to feed their children better. You have now successfully bettered yourself but caused greater disparity as your betterment was due to these parents being able to provide with less. Whilst you could argue that the left do the same, by suggesting your taxes such help needier elements, it does this to cause greater parity, not disparity.

[Greyblades]

I need more than your somewhat biased word to believe your claim that "Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism," isn't just reciting the party line.

What I'm saying is your labour is showing.

[Beskar]

I need more than your somewhat biased word to believe your claim that "Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism," isn't just reciting the party line.

What I'm saying is your labour is showing.

I am actually more of a Libdem, I haven't voted Labour their than a local in 2007 as I knew the candidate of the ward, so I voted the person. I was never really a fan of the New Labour agenda. I admit, Corbyn is an interesting fellow which I am watching, because it is funny to see the Media attack the left winger and it is having the Farage effect of making him more popular.

It is a point of view as I said, it is not entirely overt as the statement may imply but they generally have that effect, intended or not.

[Greyblades]

Lib-dem, labour, either way you have shown some bias towards the left wing. While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking I am still skeptical that you can evaluate the right wing without being biased. Thus: citation needed.

I'm not sure what Corbyn has to do with this, though I will agree he is indeed interesting and should make a good leader of the opposition but I still do not want the man in the driver's seat.

[Beskar]

Lib-dem, labour, either way you have shown some bias towards the left wing. While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking I am still skeptical that you can evaluate the right wing without being biased. Thus: citation needed.

Scepticism is healthy.

What you can do is understand the reasoning/viewpoint as to why it is like that. You can see my example earlier and go 'okay, he is following that line of reasoning' then you can evaluate it within your own mind.

[Fisherking]

Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Left-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self in cooperation with others, the goal to create an open and fair society. This would be to treat your fellow human as equals and tend to promote a shared unity. This limits ambition and forces a parity.

Central position is an attempt to straddle these two views, promoting greater betterment, but preventing the extremes from occurring by limiting the power and excesses of those on top whilst promoting independence of those at the bottom. This usually is slow to change and react, but allows ambition limited by keeping an acceptable parity.

Fascism in History was classified as a '3rd way' but it is a bastardisation of extreme right wing views. Totalitarian systems don't fit the scale well as they demonstrate a fixation and extreme on right wing politics by having an elite far above everyone else whilst aiming to promote a symbolic unity such as nationalism to entrench and support the elite from those wading in mud. This is why it is called the 'extreme right' or 'far right'. This allows no ambition and fosters great disparity.

As an off-note, whilst different groups can be classified as on the left or the right, it does not mean they are compatible in working together. In fact, there are examples where those on the opposite sides are more alike than their peers. This demonstrates a lot of the fundamental issues which causes problem in clarification.

Example: tea-party libertarian can find a lot more in common with an anarchist than a royalist. Anarchists tend to believe in individualism to the point there is no one above them, rejecting all authority and free to live in their own at patch and communities, thus creating a parity, whilst Tea-party liberatarian generally against regulation and control of the political sphere authority, granting extra freedoms but removes any restrictions to these which tend to cause economical corporate powers to exploit and fill this vacuum unopposed. Anarchist is on the left due to the parity being enforced including rejecting economical supremacy, whilst tea-party liberatarian is on the right as it promotes economical supremacy. This again is more akin to the royalist who values the supremacy being encouraged but by different actors.

(Yes, I am aware this is simplified.)

I am not sure that our current models of political thought are correct. At the moment both terminate in totalitarian states. A better reflection would be the amount of control vested in government.

Anarchy vs Authoritarianism or the individual vs Statism would be more apt.

Currently most governments are functioning more on the Progressive model, where they state has an interest in everything for the supposed welding of its subject peoples.

I would agree that presently, the so-called right places emphasis on the individual but this is more a modern development which only a few decades ago was the provence of the left. It was classic liberalism that promoted the rights of the individual over those of the state.

As politics today are sorted thus, however, I will let the statement stand, with reservations.

But in doing so it also points of the fallacy of the original assertion, that rightwing politics are only a product of fear.

If we dissect individualism opposed to collectivism we would see that collectivism is more based on security and fear than the opposite extreme. It must base its self on self reliance and the ability to succeed personally than does the idea that the state is there to care for you and keep you safe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah what terrible people, protesting at government policy. Farage would soon put a stop to that.

Fascism is characterised by corporate control over the economy, removal of union and worker rights and repression of protest, political expression and democratic rights. There is usually accounted some xenophobia to.

No, he wouldn't, and in any case the point is not that they picketed the conference - it's what they did - attacking delegates - hurling insults - spitting. Honestly - spitting - that's disgusting and you can get all sorts of lasty stuff from that.


For the benefit of those outside the UK, there is group of UKIP and Tory fellow travellers called the Taxpayers alliance. They came out with this policy statement:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

This is the nature of the British (actually English) right wing. They have the compassion and morality of alley cats.

That's Thatcherism - a very specific form of British Right-Wing politics.


Right-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self at the expense of others through guise of individualism, usually leading to a hierarchical system of those on top at various degrees over those at the bottom. It tends to use variables as bloodlines, wealth, ethnic-tensions, map boundaries, religion/ideology. This allows ambition and disparity to flourish.

Left-wing politics tend to emphasise the betterment of one-self in cooperation with others, the goal to create an open and fair society. This would be to treat your fellow human as equals and tend to promote a shared unity. This limits ambition and forces a parity.

Central position is an attempt to straddle these two views, promoting greater betterment, but preventing the extremes from occurring by limiting the power and excesses of those on top whilst promoting independence of those at the bottom. This usually is slow to change and react, but allows ambition limited by keeping an acceptable parity.

This is wildly inaccurate - the Right is generally about promoting a healthy society, with a minimum of government, the Left tries to use the government to achieve equality for the disadvantaged. Neither ideology is really about "one-self" at its core, both are actually about solidarity.

The Centre tries to promote a healthy society and uses government to try to guide the path of that society without resorting to either the default "hands off" Right-Wing approach or the coercive Left-Wing one.

What you are describing are Thatcherism, New Labour, and to a lesser extent the Orange Book. Thatcherism and New Labour are both very ego-centric and ultimately socially corrosive ideologies and we should dispense with them entirely.

[Beskar]

I am not sure that our current models of political thought are correct. At the moment both terminate in totalitarian states. A better reflection would be the amount of control vested in government.
Government is far too narrow. It is the amount of control invested in authority. Even if the government disappeared, it would be overran by corporations who would end up as some sort of defacto government in its stead. 'Government' as such, is pretty much a name for a power structure. It can be replaced with others easily enough.

Also, the left terminates into a situation where everyone pretty much has identical amount of powerlessness with no organisation and structures, kind of a wild-west situation of lawlessness on the extreme end, not a totalitarian government. A little too chaotic and infeasible for my tastes.


I would agree that presently, the so-called right places emphasis on the individual but this is more a modern development which only a few decades ago was the provence of the left. It was classic liberalism that promoted the rights of the individual over those of the state.

The right norm is luckily a far more left than many examples in history. But there is a reason I tried to avoid discussing individualism is because of the different meanings it could tell. In many respects, individualism is the province of the left and the right. Going to your example, the rights of the individual such as to practice 'homosexual acts' is clearly on the left, the freedom of religion. On the other hand, 'Freedom to Shoot People' is on the right, as the left advocates that individuals should not have the power of life and death, because this is always greatly abused.


But in doing so it also points of the fallacy of the original assertion, that rightwing politics are only a product of fear.
I haven't advocated this, but you would be correct. The left feels the abuse of power and position by those who wield it above themselves, as such, they advocate systems such as democracy which aims limits these powers to curb excesses.


It must base its self on self reliance and the ability to succeed personally than does the idea that the state is there to care for you and keep you safe.
Going back to Greyblades, this is the opposite view of my example.


This is wildly inaccurate - the Right is generally about promoting a healthy society, with a minimum of government,
I will be honest, Phillipvs, if you just didn't give the erroneous propaganda piece about "promoting a health society" straight after your objection, I would have taken it more seriously.

I only have to look at the news to see how poorly the concept "promoting a healthy society" is being applied. All around me initiatives to ensure people are reintegrated in society are collapsing, health and social care budgets being slashed, all the support systems being strangled financially. People losing their incomes, their wages are being depressed, they are overworked. On the other hand, the richest are getting richer, enjoying tax cuts and tax evasion being rather rampant.

Unless your definition of "promoting a healthy society" means ensuring those at the top end up better off with the cost passed onto the poor... I have to say you are being misguided.

Also, the translation of "Minimum of Government" seems to translate into cutting tax rates for the rich and corporations, whilst cutting the welfare state, and then expanding our military and security forces.


the Left tries to use the government to achieve equality for the disadvantaged.
I cannot really argue much with this one.


Neither ideology is really about "one-self" at its core, both are actually about solidarity.
I argue otherwise. The left is usually more collective selfishness opposed to individual selfishness.
"Treating others like you should be treated yourself." is at its core selfish statement which promotes greater social cohesiveness.


What you are describing are Thatcherism, New Labour, and to a lesser extent the Orange Book. Thatcherism and New Labour are both very ego-centric and ultimately socially corrosive ideologies and we should dispense with them entirely.
I am not a fan of Thatcherism or New Labour either.

[Greyblades]

While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking
I wish to retract back this evaluation .

[Beskar]

I wish to retract back this evaluation .

:laugh4:

[a completely inoffensive name]

My side is about everything that is good in the world, your side is about everything that is bad.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I will be honest, Phillipvs, if you just didn't give the erroneous propaganda piece about "promoting a health society" straight after your objection, I would have taken it more seriously.

I only have to look at the news to see how poorly the concept "promoting a healthy society" is being applied. All around me initiatives to ensure people are reintegrated in society are collapsing, health and social care budgets being slashed, all the support systems being strangled financially. People losing their incomes, their wages are being depressed, they are overworked. On the other hand, the richest are getting richer, enjoying tax cuts and tax evasion being rather rampant.

Unless your definition of "promoting a healthy society" means ensuring those at the top end up better off with the cost passed onto the poor... I have to say you are being misguided.

Also, the translation of "Minimum of Government" seems to translate into cutting tax rates for the rich and corporations, whilst cutting the welfare state, and then expanding our military and security forces.

Struggling with the difference between principle and application, are we? Also, bear in mind the financial downturn and the massive hole in the budget left by Gordon Brown. It's all well and good to say we should be spending more on this or that, but the money has to come from somewhere. Also, you will note that the Conservatives have lifted thousands of people out of Tax, and this was a Conservative principle BEFORE the Coalition, and also that the military was savagely cut during the last parliament and is now unable to carry out most missions without American logistics - see Libya and the lack of Carriers and Harriers.

By healthy I meant "socially cohesive" in any case and that's achieved primarily through education, social care budgets are a left-wing tactic.


I cannot really argue much with this one.

The Left is, however, coercive - remember when Labour tried to ban criticism of religion? Also consider that between 1997 and 2010 they essentially bankrupted the country, putting everyone's livelihood in danger. Consider also that the last Labour government abolished the 10p tax rate and then instituted more "Tax Credits", essentially creating a system to pay back the money they had taken from the poor.


I argue otherwise. The left is usually more collective selfishness opposed to individual selfishness.
"Treating others like you should be treated yourself." is at its core selfish statement which promotes greater social cohesiveness.

"Treating others like you should be treated yourself." is not a Right-Wing belief, I doubt it would be a core Labour belief at the turn of the last century, either. This cod-philosophy is a modern cancer.

Consider the actual quote the "Golden Rule" , which is in ther Sermon on the Mount - which says that "This is the Law and the Prophets" then consider Matthew 34-40, which says that all the Law hangs on the two greatest commandments - which are "love thy God" and "love thy Neighbour as thyself".

The fetishisation of the Golden Rule has sheered it of it's context and robbed it of all meaning.

Historically, the Right appealed to tradition and social convention as the glue that held society together and gave it moral resilience whilst the Left decried the inherent economic and political unfairness of the same system. Crucially, both tried to appeal to people's inherent sense of "right" whilst presenting diametrically opposed ideal societies.


I am not a fan of Thatcherism or New Labour either.

In a world without God or morals they are, sadly, more popular than either traditional Toryism or the original Labour movement.

[Idaho]

Lib-dem, labour, either way you have shown some bias towards the left wing. While it must be noted that you are better than most at not letting political alignment colour your thinking I am still skeptical that you can evaluate the right wing without being biased. Thus: citation needed.

I'm not sure what Corbyn has to do with this, though I will agree he is indeed interesting and should make a good leader of the opposition but I still do not want the man in the driver's seat.

You use the word "bias" like a teenage youtube comment-maker.

Bias is when you present factual evidence in a selective fashion. Its when you purport neutrality, but have an agenda. It can also mean when you have a tendency toward a direction.

In the context of a political discussion where were are expressing our opinions and beliefs, it's meaningless.

I may *be* right or left-wing. I may *express* views pertaining to either. But that doesn't make me "biased". They are my beliefs or opinions.

For some reason the catch-all tag of "biased" is exclusively used against people's opinions by those with a right-wing bias (tendency).

[Greyblades]

Couldn't let a dumb thread die, could ya?

[Idaho]

You are welcome to my gift of education ;)

[Papewaio]

Don't worry about Idaho. He will become more right wing with age.

[Idaho]

I will! I try and guard against it. Conservatism, fear of change, xenophobia. All to be resisted.

[Fragony]

I will! I try and guard against it. Conservatism, fear of change, xenophobia. All to be resisted.

All to be questioned, are they really that. Fear of change and xenophobia are spells build into a magic stfu-wand that used to win any debate, but the wielder is on the defence now as things actually change, and xenophobia, well isn't that fear of change. Gonservatism, fear of change, xenophobia, why do you need three ways to say the exact same thing.

[rory_20_uk]

Like most beliefs, they don't need to make sense.

For example, Idaho appears to still live in Exeter. He has not moved where he lives frequently to ensure that he is resisting Conservatism and fear of change. I went to school in Exeter. Since then I've lived in over 10 different places.

Indeed, the resistance against the same things appears to be itself unchanging. Apparently this sort of fixed position is allowed.

"Xenophobia" is a term often used these days to describe anyone who is not thrilled to have their way of life utterly altered by other people, not reserved by those who are phobic or fear / repulsed by outsiders.

~:smoking:

[Idaho]

I've gone cross-eyed trying to unpick those last two posts!

Conservatism, fear of change and xenophobia are all different things. The first two are linked, but not identical.

Rory - I have not moved where I live frequently? :confused:

I've lived in 3 different countries and 6 different cities in my life. I would happily move again (I'd like to live in the sticks) but I am am staying put as my children are in school.

[Fragony]

ffs Idaho, xenophobia litteraly means fear of the unknowm

[Greyblades]

Evidently I shouldn't have said anything at all.

[Idaho]

ffs Idaho, xenophobia litteraly means fear of the unknowm

Xenos = strange/foreign. Different to change.

[Fragony]

Xenos = strange/foreign. Different to change.

Education, try it again. Yeah it means that. Different to change so afraid of change, so xenophobia is the same thing as fear for change. You make Greek thinkers really sad I hope you are proud about yourself

[Fisherking]

Idaho is just a very conservative communist. That’s all.

Really you don’t have to do a lot to find your self on the other side of the political spectrum.

In the US of the 1960s Democrats and Republicans had left and right wings, but it was the Republicans who historically backed racial equality and Democrats who opposed it. Individual right and nonconformity were on the left along with racial equality. The struggle was against the established order and their political agendas.

Right wing policies result in more laws and order in the social structure. Left wing originally were for change to the order resulting in more liberty and a freer society.

What we see today by both the so-called left and right are just more laws and regulations. More societal controls. A one-size-fits-all world. The supposed left may even be worse because they propose controlling every aspect of life and nothing is outside governments scope.

The only difference I see in the two sides are which special interests they say they support but when it comes down to it the only people who seem to consistently benefit are the top financial 0.001%. These and their elected lapdogs constitute a ruling elite and the rest are just their dupes.

Your only choice is which you allow to exploit you.

[Idaho]

Education, try it again. Yeah it means that. Different to change so afraid of change, so xenophobia is the same thing as fear for change. You make Greek thinkers really sad I hope you are proud about yourself

Sorry but no matter how much you hate to admit you are in error, you are still in error. Xenophobia doesn't not mean fear of change.

[Idaho]

I don't think I'm a communist. I might be.. but I am not sure. I consider myself a left-leaning, skeptical, political agnostic.

[Fragony]

Sorry but no matter how much you hate to admit you are in error, you are still in error. Xenophobia doesn't not mean fear of change.

Oh it really does, I would prefer 'fear of the unknown' though. You ae still wrong regrdless as it's remains the same thing, stacato done wrong.

[Sir Moody]

Education, try it again. Yeah it means that. Different to change so afraid of change, so xenophobia is the same thing as fear for change. You make Greek thinkers really sad I hope you are proud about yourself

Sorry Frag but he is right - Xeno refers specifically to strange and/or foreign so Xenophobia is a fear of the strange and/or foreign.

fear of changes is Metathesiophobia.

[Fragony]

So it's fear for change but not fear for change? I would prefer fear for the unknown, can be foreign.

[Husar]

So it's fear for change but not fear for change? I would prefer fear for the unknown, can be foreign.

I would prefer if Fragony meant old lovely lady who gives me candy every day.

[Fragony]

I would prefer if Fragony meant old lovely lady who gives me candy every day.

Get one. I am not responsible for the meaning of words

[Idaho]

So it's fear for change but not fear for change? I would prefer fear for the unknown, can be foreign.

Dogged inability to simply admit error is the Internet/male perfect storm.

[Husar]

Get one. I am not responsible for the meaning of words

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

Well, these guys feel responsible and they pretty much agree with Idaho.
Your personal feeling that it should mean something different is acceptable but not widely accepted.

[Fisherking]

Actually the political spectrum has become a muddle. Ideologies may start from a perspective that fall left or right but are usually co-opted or distorted fairly quickly.

Republicanism began as a radical leftwing view. It seeks limited government with powers derived from the people. It is strongly anti-authoritarian.

I would argue that any ideology which promotes a strong state is rightwing. Regardless of what it purports to do socially it is ultimately authoritarian promoting a strictly ordered populous.

The only way in which many of the socialist, communist, or progressive ideologies were ever left leaning were in that they were changes from the established order.

Economically, it is hard to move left of an unregulated and free market economy, where people haggle for their exchanges and participate voluntarily. The problem most have with economics is one of perceived fairness, that there are winners and losers. But and restraints placed on them also result in winners and losers. In a completely controlled, command economy the people have no choices. All is in the hands of the state. In a regulated economy the choices are still those of the state to pick those winners and losers. Most of you object to who governments have chosen as the winners with regulations, special deals, and monopolies. Something you wrongly attribute to too much freedom.

I would argue that a political system that offers the most freedoms and choices to the individual are on the left of the political spectrum, with anarchy being the extreme and moving to the right as the system becomes more authoritarian.

[Beskar]

There is also the problem where a free market can only exist with regulation as otherwise you end up with monopolies and conglomerates controlling people like governments do. Akin to the old Victorian towns where the factory owner runs and controls everything through a virtual serfdom/slavery. There were other issues such as Pollution being rampant as it is more cost effective to dump chemicals into people's drinking water supply.

This is something is you repeatedly failed to consider.

So where a constitution limits political control for freedom of the people, the same is needed of the economical sphere.

[Fisherking]

There is also the problem where a free market can only exist with regulation as otherwise you end up with monopolies and conglomerates controlling people like governments do. Akin to the old Victorian towns where the factory owner runs and controls everything through a virtual serfdom/slavery. There were other issues such as Pollution being rampant as it is more cost effective to dump chemicals into people's drinking water supply.

This is something is you repeatedly failed to consider.

So where a constitution limits political control for freedom of the people, the same is needed of the economical sphere.

Most of us have no idea of what a free market is. You usually only find it practiced on a very small scale in most modern countries. Monopolies are hardly possible in a real free market as anyone at anytime can start a business to compete with it. A free market empowers the customer and forces the provider of goods and services to satisfy the demands of those using their product. The one providing the best perceived value is the one who would most likely succeed.

Businesses usually detest it. They would much rather that governments set boundaries for who may compete and often time, the more restrictive the better.

Providing such things as purity laws, weights and measures, etc. are not bad things. Companies who displeased the public by polluting or abusing employees should also face public outcries which would also affect their bottom line.

Companies which got away with such practices in the past were also shielded by government or societal construct, as the class system. Red tape saying who may start a business, licensing fees, and other restrictions have always been to restrict and limit competition. Just as laws limiting liabilities for damages have favoured the select.

This is a system of free enterprise where anyone with a particular skill may use it to best mean to improve their lot and those who provide substandard results will not fare as well as those who excel.

[Fragony]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/xenophobia

Well, these guys feel responsible and they pretty much agree with Idaho.
Your personal feeling that it should mean something different is acceptable but not widely accepted.

widely considered is good enough for me, saying fear for change AND xenophobia is just double. Conservatism makes it triple.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Most of us have no idea of what a free market is. You usually only find it practiced on a very small scale in most modern countries. Monopolies are hardly possible in a real free market as anyone at anytime can start a business to compete with it. A free market empowers the customer and forces the provider of goods and services to satisfy the demands of those using their product. The one providing the best perceived value is the one who would most likely succeed.

Businesses usually detest it. They would much rather that governments set boundaries for who may compete and often time, the more restrictive the better.

Providing such things as purity laws, weights and measures, etc. are not bad things. Companies who displeased the public by polluting or abusing employees should also face public outcries which would also affect their bottom line.

Companies which got away with such practices in the past were also shielded by government or societal construct, as the class system. Red tape saying who may start a business, licensing fees, and other restrictions have always been to restrict and limit competition. Just as laws limiting liabilities for damages have favoured the select.

This is a system of free enterprise where anyone with a particular skill may use it to best mean to improve their lot and those who provide substandard results will not fare as well as those who excel.
What government policies were in place between 1860-1890 that promoted monopolies (excluding the railroad industry)?

[Beskar]

Monopolies are hardly possible in a real free market as anyone at anytime can start a business to compete with it.
That actually requires regulation, as the bigger company would simply use the product themselves and sell it for cheaper due to the profits made on other products, causing that start-up to instantly go out of business because they do not have the finical clout to compete. A world without regulation will give birth to monolith institutions which would dwarf the ones which have such labels today. There are many dystopia around this theme, known as 'hypercapitalism'. These feature in the Shadowrun series, that faction in Eve Online, books such as Jennifer Government, etc.

What you call "free market" is not a "free" market. It is only free for the 1% who take all the power for themselves. This is why I arguably advocate for a "fair market" which has different connotations.


A free market empowers the customer and forces the provider of goods and services to satisfy the demands of those using their product. The one providing the best perceived value is the one who would most likely succeed.

Not without regulation you won't. You require things like Consumer Rights, but since that is pesky regulation you just removed to 'free the market', so goodbye to that.

---

I will be honest with you, Fisherking, I actually agree with your goal. An environment where free enterprise can flourish, protected by the predatory nature of big corporations is something I can fully support. I can support having strong consumer rights and protection as well.

However, what you are proposing does not create the result you desire. I can understand why you might dislike a lot of excessive regulation which was brought in via corruption and corporate lobbying in the USA especially, and I dislike this too. But you are proposing throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which causes a defacto anarchy where only the strongest survive and crush the weak. The weak require protection for them to flourish.

[rory_20_uk]

A "free market" can often work in an established, diversified market since there are already several established players and new entrants can start in niches and work outwards. So Pharmaceuticals is mainly OK if for no other reason that there are so many companies involved already this makes up for the impossibly high barriers to entry for new entrants a free market on provision on water or electricity wouldn't work since they'd never manage to lay the infrastructure to pipe in the services. It requires regulation to make the market a more level playing field.

~:smoking:

[Fisherking]

What government policies were in place between 1860-1890 that promoted monopolies (excluding the railroad industry)?
Perhaps we should look at them one at a time. If you provide a list of what you think are the biggest offenders we can figure it out.


That actually requires regulation, as the bigger company would simply use the product themselves and sell it for cheaper due to the profits made on other products, causing that start-up to instantly go out of business because they do not have the finical clout to compete. A world without regulation will give birth to monolith institutions which would dwarf the ones which have such labels today. There are many dystopia around this theme, known as 'hypercapitalism'. These feature in the Shadowrun series, that faction in Eve Online, books such as Jennifer Government, etc.

What you call "free market" is not a "free" market. It is only free for the 1% who take all the power for themselves. This is why I arguably advocate for a "fair market" which has different connotations.



Not without regulation you won't. You require things like Consumer Rights, but since that is pesky regulation you just removed to 'free the market', so goodbye to that.

---

I will be honest with you, Fisherking, I actually agree with your goal. An environment where free enterprise can flourish, protected by the predatory nature of big corporations is something I can fully support. I can support having strong consumer rights and protection as well.

However, what you are proposing does not create the result you desire. I can understand why you might dislike a lot of excessive regulation which was brought in via corruption and corporate lobbying in the USA especially, and I dislike this too. But you are proposing throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which causes a defacto anarchy where only the strongest survive and crush the weak. The weak require protection for them to flourish.

Beskar, I am familiar with that line of reasoning but it just does not pan out. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Herbert Dow’s price war with the German bromine cartel? It pretty much shows how predatory pricing fails.

It is true that not everyone will succeed in every endeavour but artificial forces placed on the market that limit competition only favour business, not the customers.

The remedies regarding product liabilities and sharp business practices have always been a part of common law. Changes in statutory laws which limit liability and tort law have always favoured business and the legal profession.



A "free market" can often work in an established, diversified market since there are already several established players and new entrants can start in niches and work outwards. So Pharmaceuticals is mainly OK if for no other reason that there are so many companies involved already this makes up for the impossibly high barriers to entry for new entrants a free market on provision on water or electricity wouldn't work since they'd never manage to lay the infrastructure to pipe in the services. It requires regulation to make the market a more level playing field.

~:smoking:

Just as a side note, there was a time when there were competing power and water utility companies in the US. I don’t know about the UK but there is not reason to presume, absent government that there was not the same there. It was government, mostly local, that granted monopolies in areas to specific companies or took over the utilities themselves.

[Idaho]

Free market is nonsense. It's a fantasy. In any market, a leading player will take all actions available to them to control and dominate the market - a market that was already distorted thus when our leading player was just starting out.

[Fisherking]

Free market is nonsense. It's a fantasy. In any market, a leading player will take all actions available to them to control and dominate the market - a market that was already distorted thus when our leading player was just starting out.

Is that not true of every human endeavour? No matter what you do, people will seek advantage.
Nothing is perfectly safe and nothing will prevent it.

We live in a highly regulated society today and in every country there are regulations. All of them favour some while hurting others. There is no perfectly level playing field. In most cases governments set the lines of who may compete. There are a few who may join in but most may not. All those who may not must become labourers for those few who may. Their skills and ideas become the property of those who are allowed by the rules to play the game. Because few can compete it makes labour a cheep and plentiful commodity. As such, rather than competing in the marketplace with their skill, abilities, and ideas, they are relegated to a set wage while their employers reap the benefits.

The more bearers and hurtles place by regulation the fewer competitors in the market to bring down prices or increase wages of the highly skilled.

You bemoan the unfairness of society yet wish to stifle the means to create greater opportunity for your fellow man.

By asking for a true free market I am not taking a pro-corporate stance. Far from it. It is big business that profit most from limiting competition. Governmental intervention in the economy has also favoured the giants. If giants fail from their own business errors demand for products will not go away and smaller enterprises or even startups would fill those gaps.

I see the current system as a construct which favours established wealth and order over the industriousness and invention of the individual.

Perhaps, I am looking at it all wrong. Would you care to enlighten me?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which government policies allowed for Rockefeller to establish his monopoly?

[Fragony]

Which government policies allowed for Rockefeller to establish his monopoly?

Can't expect a system to be without extremes, that is also true for capitalism. Problemis that it can disurbt democracy by default, just like everything else.

[Montmorency]

If you follow the Austrian School, then you will acknowledge that Standard Oil never managed to form a monopoly, and in fact stimulated the market so much that natural competition quickly came to overshadow it after 1900.

On the other hand, post-Civil War kerosene tariffs and patent law (esp. as regards transport logistics) helped a little, as did competition between states to pass laws favorable to Standard expansion, and therefore investment.

Fraud and government corruption at all levels had no effect either way.

Also, :daisy: those protectionists John Sherman and Teddy Roosevelt.

:wacky:

[Fisherking]

Which government policies allowed for Rockefeller to establish his monopoly?

That is a very interesting case. It is one of two I would have expected.

Standard Oil was a near Monopoly but there are a lot of caveats.

Principally, Rockefeller’s company operated by delivering the product at the lowest cost. The elimination of competitors was not in driving them out of business but in the purchases of the companies at fair market value. Many of the former owners were brought into the company. Others made their fortunes by repeatedly founding new companies that were again acquired by Standard Oil.

He bought firms dealing with all aspects of production and because of scale got sweetheart deals from the railroads shipping his product. He increased his profit margin by developing new markets to make use of byproducts of the refining process.

So long as he competed on price and smart business practices all was fine. The trouble came when the company tried to circumvent state laws in Ohio preventing holding stock in another firm and to restrict product supply. In other words, hostile takeovers and colluding with others in price fixing.

Collusion to set prices or wages is fraud. Corporate law is another sore point with me. The idea that a firm can achieve Personhood and is virtually immortal with responsibilities only to its investors, without regard to its employees or the public, I find reprehensible. So far as I can see, they are merely an artificial construct to limit liability and decrease personal risk to investors. They are little more than a legal way of forming a cartel and ought to be eliminated.

[Furunculus]

i think i must have misread the opening quote:


Left-wing fears of nonexistent or overblown boogeymen — America, climate change, not checking ones privilege, Thatchers radical anti-union mind-set, private enterprise, etc. — make it hard not to see lefty's prudent risk avoidance as having morphed into a state of near permanent paranoia, especially fueled by recurrent “politically-correct panics,” a sociological phenomenon in which a group of “socialist ideologues” whips up hysterical fears over a group of relatively powerless “capitalist devils” who are supposedly threatening the whole moral order.

did i do it right, mom?