The Left's Collapse

[Rockie Cantais]

What is the Left? It depends on what you are measuring our current political environment by for starters. I prefer to us the American ruler or left is big government and anarchy on the Right. If you use socialism on one end and fascism on the other will your limiting you view just to which type of big government you like. Then we can add in social left and right, Conservatism Vs Liberalism but it seems we have a political ruler for those two names also. Go to another part of the world and views change also and it seems people have other rulers that they ,measure things by also.
Principles! now there is something you can hang your hat on that people will understand no matter where you are. You are either for it, against it or have no opinion about it. O' my, how tyrants hate that, propaganda has less of on affect if you say 'I know what I stand for and it is very clear to me.'

So there the first part is done, before you can say the Left is under collapse you have to define what the left is to you. There is a Right also for if there is a Left there has to be an opposite Right? yes/no? and if no then tell me how! Funny, the Progressives/Liberals was screaming that Conservationism was dead at the end of G. Bush run as president, lol. SO, don't even bother with the argument there is no left right left right! I understand that point and agree if we were using no measuring ruler other than principles. Guess what, measuring rulers on where people stand will be done anyway!

So with that out of the way is the Left collapsing in Europe? After Nov, 4 2010 we will now in America!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545309071432827.html

[Magn]

I'll take an unscrupulous, but pragmatic man over one with the wrong set of principles any day.

Hitler was a very principled man. He has some very strong beliefs about his country and he tried to go all the way with these beliefs.

Having beliefs by itself, does not make an individual more valuable if what he believes in is crap.

It is an individual's responsability to constantly re-examine his high level beliefs and ask himself how well it fulfills his core beliefs. Imo, the only beliefs worth a grain of salt are a preciousness of life, a want for widespread propesperity and happiness.

All other "beliefs" are only worth something to the extent that they further that core belief and should be religously re-examined to ensure that it is consistently the case.

I say that the right/left is a meaningless argument, because no system is pure left or pure right (even Russia at the height of communism has some right in it). You always operate in shades of gray with left/right so why are you gonna debate which shade of gray is better by using absolutes? Thats stupid.

Left/right is not a valid principle. Neither is a guarantee is the core principles (ie, life, widesreap prosperity, happiness) I described earlier. Someone who throws a policy away as being too left or too right without examining how the policy will help fulfill core principles is missing the point.

[Rockie Cantais]

I'll take an unscrupulous, but pragmatic man over one with the wrong set of principles any day.

Hitler was a very principled man. He has some very strong beliefs about his country and he tried to go all the way with these beliefs.

Putting a twisted twist on the principles aren't you? I say if any normal person placed their principles up against Hitlers it would be like looking at Day and Night. Hitler was unscrupulous and pragmatic which make me think you need to rethink that. What say the rest of you would you put your principles up against Hitlers?

Having beliefs by itself, does not make an individual more valuable if what he believes in is crap.

Yep! never said its a silver bullet but when you compare principles up against principle you know where everyone stands. Hitler will do nicely as an example.

It is an individual's responsability to constantly re-examine his high level beliefs and ask himself how well it fulfills his core beliefs. Imo, the only beliefs worth a grain of salt are a preciousness of life, a want for widespread propesperity and happiness.

Might be hope for you yet!

All other "beliefs" are only worth something to the extent that they further that core belief and should be religously re-examined to ensure that it is consistently the case.

Question with boldness, question on then.

I say that the right/left is a meaningless argument, because no system is pure left or pure right (even Russia at the height of communism has some right in it). You always operate in shades of gray with left/right so why are you gonna debate which shade of gray is better by using absolutes? Thats stupid.

Yep, you have a point and we are back to principles then aren't we? Unless you have a simple specific example for left and right - Like- left=big government and right=no government.

Left/right is not a valid principle. Neither is a guarantee is the core principles (ie, life, widesreap prosperity, happiness) I described earlier. Someone who throws a policy away as being too left or too right without examining how the policy will help fulfill core principles is missing the point.

Yet, we use these examples of left and right with wild abandonment especially the media and our political leaders the world over. Like I said originally it all depends on how you define right/left. Matter of fact what one words mean in America will mean something different in Europe not to mention Asia etc...


So where does that leave us? Back to what our principle's are!

Is Socialism going to collapse in Europe? If it does, doesn't mean you'll get a Democracy or Republic now does it?

[John Snowstorm]

epic. second line of first reply - straight to godwins law.

conversation over.

[Magn]

epic. second line of first reply - straight to godwins law.

conversation over.

Fair enough, I took the first example that came to mind and it was somewhat unimaginative.

I could have said that the terrorists who blew themselves with the planes in 9/11 were very principled and the example would have been equally valid.

Putting a twisted twist on the principles aren't you? I say if any normal person placed their principles up against Hitlers it would be like looking at Day and Night. Hitler was unscrupulous and pragmatic which make me think you need to rethink that. What say the rest of you would you put your principles up against Hitlers?

If he had been unscrupulously pragmatic, he would have halter his invasion at Russia while he finished off England and he would have simply expelled the Jews and acquired their possessions instead of exterminating them.

From what I understood from my history teachers, he was quite clear about his views in Mein Kampft and what he did later on was quite in line with those writings.

If you delve a bit in his history, you'll see that he had a very strong opinion on a lot of matters. Very strong temperament.

What he believed in was extremely evil, but these were his beliefs nonetheless and he stuck to them.

Yep! never said its a silver bullet but when you compare principles up against principle you know where everyone stands. Hitler will do nicely as an example.

Yes, the pathological need to classify people into neatly understood boxes of ideological portfolios.

They do that a lot with celebrities in particular.

People are not fond of paradoxes.

Yet, we use these examples of left and right with wild abandonment especially the media and our political leaders the world over. Like I said originally it all depends on how you define right/left.

Yes, those well rehearsed ideological boxes are very convenient to get a point accross.

People understand them.

People who are in favor of public medicare should also be in favor of everything else that is considered 'socialist' because they are neatly classified in that box right?

EDIT: Merged rebutal to other post in the first post instead of creating a second one.

[Rockie Cantais]

Yeah, I see I was talking to the wall! LOL

Your talking in circles dude and saying the same thing only in a different ways!

[Rockie Cantais]

Moving on lets talk about what causing the economic collapse of Europe. Floor is open!

I say its Socialism but I give the floor up so someone can defend it and/or give their views first!

[Magn]

Yeah, I see I was talking to the wall! LOL

Your talking in circles dude and saying the same thing only in a different ways!

I'll say it in as many ways as I need for it to get through.

If you don't like to hear it, don't bring the left-right argument. Its kinda repetitive and circular (ie, I don't like the left because its left and blablablablabla and it will lead to communism like there was in Russia and blablablablabla, we got it).

[Rockie Cantais]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuG...eature=related


Why not talk about the collapse of Europe?

[Magn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuG...eature=related

Well, I watched the first half and can say the guy is clearly wrong about something.

While left means more government regulations and right means less (the extremes being having a society like and ant colony or anarchy), it doesn't specify anything about the size of the government.

While left tend to increases the size of the ruling body (more regulations often requires a bigger government to regulate), it isn't an absolute rule (an inept and corrupt government with few regulations might still require a great deal of manpower to enforce them for example).

Why not talk about the collapse of Europe?

What collapse are you refering to exactly?

I know Greece is not faring so hot, but I wasn't aware that the rest of the EU was in greater economic trouble than the US for example.

If your intent is to make a correlation between being more "socialist" and faring less well economically, Canada is more of a socialist country than the US in general, but it didn't have to bailout its banking system...

[Rockie Cantais]

Well, I watched the first half and can say the guy is clearly wrong about something.

While left means more government regulations and right means less (the extremes being having a society like and ant colony or anarchy), it doesn't specify anything about the size of the government.

Its not about the actual size but the amount of government control and power over the individual.

While left tend to increases the size of the ruling body (more regulations often requires a bigger government to regulate), it isn't an absolute rule (an inept and corrupt government with few regulations might still require a great deal of manpower to enforce them for example).

Think of it like this: Why do you want to regulate big corporations? Some fear the power they would obtain and abuse it. That concept also applies to Government, which if it gains too much power, it become corrupt and too powerful. The Concept of the Representative Government and the American Constitution is to Regulate the Government not give the individual rights. The Bill of Rights were added for that purpose. Don't think in terms of size but of power over the indivdual.

What collapse are you refering to exactly?

I know Greece is not faring so hot, but I wasn't aware that the rest of the EU was in greater economic trouble than the US for example.

If your intent is to make a correlation between being more "socialist" and faring less well economically, Canada is more of a socialist country than the US in general, but it didn't have to bailout its banking system...

EU is in decline and you are right too soon to say its a collapse. Other nations in the EU "are not/ may not" be that far behind Greece and we'll soon see if they pull it out. Canada has a much smaller and less diverse society than America and to be honest I would have to some research on Canada before I commented on it.

The original article I posted pointed a few things out about Europe. Which I am going to read again before going on. I do remember it talked about the failure of the left. Which we can just agree to disagree on the definition for now. The title of the article is the same as this thread.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124545309071432827.html

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-packages.html

To be honest I see news articles like this a lot more of lately and to tell the truth its hard to make heads or tails out of what is what in Europe. Hard enough time figuring on my own country.

Reread the article and while its not saying the left is collapsing its is talking of a decline of it, EU only they pointed out! LOL I have turned off my rhetoric to see if anyone in the EU can shed some light on the matter.

[Magn]

Its not about the actual size but the amount of government control and power over the individual.

The point is that in the video, the autor claimed that the extreme left cannot be because one ruler is not enough to rule an entire population.

Thats a fallacy. The extreme left can have a government of arbitrary size as long as it excerts complete control over its population. It cannot be because its impossible to excert complete control over an human population.

Based on this failed leap in logic, I would be very skeptical about the rest of the video. I question the author's reasoning skills.

Think of it like this: Why do you want to regulate big corporations? Some fear the power they would obtain and abuse it. That concept also applies to Government, which if it gains too much power, it become corrupt and too powerful.

Big corporations having too much power would cause the oligarchy you so fear (even worse, the corporations are not elected in power and so are less likely to correctly represent public interest).

A democratic goverment is accountable to its populace. As long as the system is not extreme left and that the populace has a say in the government body, then the government cannot do what the heck it wants if it wants to remain in office.

I'm repeating myself here, but so are you and imo, my argumentation is more defendable.

The Concept of the Representative Government and the American Constitution is to Regulate the Government not give the individual rights. The Bill of Rights were added for that purpose. Don't think in terms of size but of power over the indivdual.

I hope you realize that your whole constitution is an oligarchy put in place by a group of men who are not growing any younger.

Your skepticism is admirable, but misplaced. In the end, you gotta trust somebody.

As ideas change, people will find that your constritution is not well aligned with their way of thoughts and you'll have to either tear it down, ignore it or bring heavy modifications to it.

Imho, as long as you keep your populace educated and legislate in such a manner that decisions can't be implemented in the heat of passion (like the war in Iraq for example), you avoid the downfall of "mob rule".

If the above is the case, then I choose to trust in the wisdom of crowds (when I say crowds, I don't mean a medieval mob, I mean a large group of people thinking about a problem rationaly).

A government will never be better than its people, no matter what type of legislation you put in place for it to be the contrary.

In the end, the best investment you can possibly make for your political process is to ensure that your populace has a quality upbringing and is educated. Anything less is simply delaying the inevitable.

EU is in decline and you are right too soon to say its a collapse. Other nations in the EU "are not/ may not" be that far behind Greece and we'll soon see if they pull it out.

Yes, so you keep saying. Do you have any evidence besides some claims made in a right wing article?

Canada has a much smaller and less diverse society than America and to be honest I would have to some research on Canada before I commented on it.

Thats a bold claim. Canada certainly has a smaller economy than the US and is more dependent on the whim of outside factors for its economic well being.

In terms of diversity, I am skeptical. If you mean strictly DNA, the US might be more diverse. If you mean in terms of culture, my understanding is that Canada is less of a melting pot and is culturally more diverse as it allows many groups to preserve a greater part of their original culture.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...-packages.html

Without even touching the topic of veracity, Spain is not a good choice if your purpose is to put a representative picture over the whole of Europe as it has always been one of their poorer countries.

If your intent is to make a strong case here, I would attack their economic powerhouses first (like Germany).

[Rockie Cantais]

The point is that in the video, the autor claimed that the extreme left cannot be because one ruler is not enough to rule an entire population.

Thats a fallacy. The extreme left can have a government of arbitrary size as long as it excerts complete control over its population. It cannot be because its impossible to excert complete control over an human population.

Based on this failed leap in logic, I would be very skeptical about the rest of the video. I question the author's reasoning skills.

Discredit what you cannot argue down? Attack the authors reasoning ability. One person is not enough to rule its always a small core group. You create a large political machine to help you rule.

Big corporations having too much power would cause the oligarchy you so fear (even worse, the corporations are not elected in power and so are less likely to correctly represent public interest).

A democratic goverment is accountable to its populace. As long as the system is not extreme left and that the populace has a say in the government body, then the government cannot do what the heck it wants if it wants to remain in office.

I'm repeating myself here, but so are you and imo, my argumentation is more defendable.

Democracy is rule by the majority with the minority having little or no voice. As long as they maintain that majority they maintain power and will use it keep the minority down.

I hope you realize that your whole constitution is an oligarchy put in place by a group of men who are not growing any younger.

Then you fail to understand it and what a Representative Republic is.

Your skepticism is admirable, but misplaced. In the end, you gotta trust somebody.

Trust is earned and should never be given freely. Trust but verify!

As ideas change, people will find that your constritution is not well aligned with their way of thoughts and you'll have to either tear it down, ignore it or bring heavy modifications to it.

So the Liberals/Progressive in my country want to make us believe. That is false for we have ways to amended it if needed.

Imho, as long as you keep your populace educated and legislate in such a manner that decisions can't be implemented in the heat of passion (like the war in Iraq for example), you avoid the downfall of "mob rule".

We can agree that the population needs to be educated.

If the above is the case, then I choose to trust in the wisdom of crowds (when I say crowds, I don't mean a medieval mob, I mean a large group of people thinking about a problem rationaly).

A government will never be better than its people, no matter what type of legislation you put in place for it to be the contrary.

In the end, the best investment you can possibly make for your political process is to ensure that your populace has a quality upbringing and is educated. Anything less is simply delaying the inevitable.

That we can agree on.

Yes, so you keep saying. Do you have any evidence besides some claims made in a right wing article?



Thats a bold claim. Canada certainly has a smaller economy than the US and is more dependent on the whim of outside factors for its economic well being.

In terms of diversity, I am skeptical. If you mean strictly DNA, the US might be more diverse. If you mean in terms of culture, my understanding is that Canada is less of a melting pot and is culturally more diverse as it allows many groups to preserve a greater part of their original culture.

Have to back off this one until I do more reading on it.

Without even touching the topic of veracity, Spain is not a good choice if your purpose is to put a representative picture over the whole of Europe as it has always been one of their poorer countries.

If your intent is to make a strong case here, I would attack their economic powerhouses first (like Germany).

Lets try this the EU and the USA have some similarities no, we are nothing alike. Actually, I was digging for other opinion on this who is not from America. Should a more direct question be better? lol

[Magn]

Discredit what you cannot argue down? Attack the authors reasoning ability. One person is not enough to rule its always a small core group. You create a large political machine to help you rule.

Well, the beginning sounded quite pompous and he made it sound like a democracy is conductive to lynch mobs.

If you look at his video, he claims that the far left can't exist because a single person cannot rule a country.

Overall, I didn't find his presentation to be very credible.

Democracy is rule by the majority with the minority having little or no voice. As long as they maintain that majority they maintain power and will use it keep the minority down.

People have such contradictory opinions on many things that some people are bound not to get their way.

As long as the population is kept open-minded, legislations will be made to give as much freedom as possible.

Then you fail to understand it and what a Representative Republic is.

Trust is earned and should never be given freely. Trust but verify!

Then, trust the education system to produce a populace that can make enlightened decisions by iteself in general.

I get the whole elitist idea suggested by Plato's Republic (you seem to be an ardent believer that you know what a Republic is all about, surely you must have read his work right?) and its ideas have merits in a civilisation where the masses are not well educated, but as the general amount of knowledge tend to spread, so should political power.

Whether you feel that the general populace of your country (the US) is enlightened enough to make sound political decisions is another matter entirely.

I certainly have such an opinion of my own country.

So the Liberals/Progressive in my country want to make us believe. That is false for we have ways to amended it if needed.

Well, if you can have the constitution amended, then you recognise that it is fallible and not the final authority on political matters, no? Rather, those that have the power to amened the constitution are...

[Rockie Cantais]

LOL,

Enough, we can go around in circles until the world ends! I'm just happy to say that we agree that we need an educated society who wants to put the good of the society first. What form of government they pick is up to that each individual group. Trust me I have no desire to tell anyone country how they need to run their government.

I get the feeling that the world think all Americans want is to rule the world! lol. Some might, to the tell the truth most of us are sick and tired of getting pulled into other peoples fights all the time. A lot of us don't like or trust government and a World Government makes us sick! Just some other A$$ to tell us what to do! Obama, is an American Citizen but he does not understand its people and is falling flat on his face for it. He would have been a better European leader! LOL. SO, I think we should bring all our troops home and just let the world figure its own problems out! Unless you ask for it no more military aid and even if you ask I think we still should say NO! Enough Americans have died for the worlds freedom, time for you to pay for it or lose it! Unless you fight for it you never understand the feeling for it! This idea is growing!