I also think this is a large part of my thinking 'what the hell is going on?'. I had a female friend post a comment saying the election was entirely about gender. A male replied listing some other factors - her response was something about how it was so enlightening to here from men that male privileged doesn't exist.

When did this become a completely normal way to argue in a political discussion? — shmik

From what I've seen of U.S. political arguments in the past 15 years or so... it's always been like that, no? I mean that's exactly the same kind of thing that I've been seeing over and over and over again on the right-wing side as well. I find it truly bizarre that all of a sudden it's "the left" that is being accused of engaging in rhetorical misdirection and trying to redefine words and being intellectually dishonest and regressive, when that's precisely what you've had from "the right" for a really long time.

What, you're against torture or illegal wiretaps? Oh it's so enlightening to hear that you're on the side of terrorists.
What, you're for free healthcare? Oh it's good that you admit being a communist.
What, you want any gun control? Oh wow you just want to take everyone's guns so you can instate dictatorship.
What, you think women or minorities still face some problems? Oh well you just really hate white straight men don't you yeah we know you do.

Why are so many people suddenly seeming to forget that that kind of constant torrent of right-wing demagoguery really was a thing, and frankly still is? I feel like witnessing the onset of some kind of mass amnesia.

Yes, regressive anti-intellectualism is a problem, but it sure as hell is not a recent leftist invention even if it's now left-wing regressive anti-intellectualism that is more mainstream or gets more visibility than some 10 years ago.

Uh, okay.

The only Trump building I have seen, Trump Tower in Chicago, is a very large, and quite satisfying building, at least on the outside. (Didn't get the VIP inside tour.) He is, granted, somewhere in the small heap of rich and successful entrepreneurs at the top of the larger heap of the still larger heap of entrepreneurs in general. If the Clintons are as rich as I've heard they are (with most of their wealth accumulated in the last 16 years) then they have done very well for themselves as well -- a few million $$ to what? over 200 million $$$ ??? is good money for book royalties, consulting fees, speaking tours, et al.

Is he any worse than a lot of rich people? Certainly not. So then why don't I like him? Because, for one thing, he isn't any better than a lot of rich guys, and compared to the other very rich guys who have made a run for the presidency, he lacks 3 things:

1. Experience in public service.
2. Gravitas
3. Intellectual depth

So for #3, he certainly isn't unique here. If still waters run deep... George Bush II was/is the very model of a shallow gulch, a drainage ditch, a dry arroyo. So was Ronald Reagan, IMHO. In politics, "shallow" is not a disqualifier.

For #2, a quality separate from depth and his CV, he isn't unique either. A number of presidents have gotten through a term or two on gaseous gravitas. But they aren't remembered as great, either.

For #1, he is kind of a stand out. Of course, President Eisenhower didn't have political experience either.

Trump University is to a real university what a home made raft is to the Queen Mary. So no, he didn't "do universities".

As for the Rockefellers, I suppose it is the case that the current generation, like many of the scions of wealth, are living on the proceeds of their inheritances. John D. Rockefeller Jr., however did enlarge the family wealth. Rockefeller Center was a "yuuge" real estate deal which took quite a while to assemble and build, and quite a bit longer to turn a profit, but become profitable it did. (The Great Depression got in the way.)

If the Clintons are as rich as I've heard they are (with most of their wealth accumulated in the last 16 years) then they have done very well for themselves as well -- a few million
towhat?over200million
towhat?over200million
$ ??? is good money for book royalties, consulting fees, speaking tours, et al. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, that's the kind of money they should never have been allowed to make. Their "work" (speeches, ghostwritten books, "consulting", etc) has simply done very little, if anything, of value to merit earning that kind of money. I hate folks like that, who make money doing nothing - same feeling I have for Wall-streeters. I find that disgusting. But I've always respected someone who had a good ability to find opportunity and make money by providing something of value. It's just that I detest those who don't deserve the money.

So then why don't I like him? Because, for one thing, he isn't any better than a lot of rich guys, and compared to the other very rich guys who have made a run for the presidency, he lacks 3 things:

1. Experience in public service.
2. Gravitas
3. Intellectual depth

So for #3, he certainly isn't unique here. If still waters run deep... George Bush II was/is the very model of a shallow gulch, a drainage ditch, a dry arroyo. So was Ronald Reagan, IMHO. In politics, "shallow" is not a disqualifier.

For #2, a quality separate from depth and his CV, he isn't unique either. A number of presidents have gotten through a term or two on gaseous gravitas. But they aren't remembered as great, either.

For #1, he is kind of a stand out. Of course, President Eisenhower didn't have political experience either. — Bitter Crank

I agree, but I also don't like Trump for those reasons. However, I prefer Trump and his buffonery over seeing the self-righteous supporters of Crooked - especially the Media and Hollywood - maintain their hegemony over culture. I think that they are responsible for far more of our current social problems and ills than many of us are willing to believe. I think we are all defined in part by what we oppose most. Their Hollywood anti-intellectualism and pro-sensualism is my number one enemy.

I find it odd how so often I see people describing how they're disillusioned by their current or former political in-group, as if they suddenly see the motivations and shortcomings of other people on their side more clearly and realize that they're on average not that much smarter or nicer than anyone else. Or rather, I don't find it odd that people do come to those sort of realizations, but rather the fact that it often seems to be a bit of a shock to them because they so strongly identified with that group. Doesn't that just mean that they primarily identified with the people, and that the actual issues and arguments behind them were secondary? — zookeeper

I don't think this is particularly accurate. At least in my case it's more about allowing the other side to have a voice and bothering to listen to what they are saying.

There has always been reasons to dismiss the other side. On some issues it was because they were completely informed by religion, in other issue it was racism or sexism etc. Always a reason so that one didn't need to listen and even more, one knew that there was no point in listening even if you tried. It's easy to view things like that, firstly because I know conservatives who are entirely informed by their religion and I know others which definitely have prejudice.
For me now it's mainly that I am actively seeking out ideas and arguments from the right and realizing that these issue are not be entirely clear cut.

increasing exposure to and agreement with the other side, and a reconsideration of how the metaphysical and ethical principles I hold to apply to various political issues. — Thorongil

Do you have any recommendations of things to read to get a balanced idea of the other side (the right)?
Also, curiously what changed your view on abortion?

or some reason I seem to think you're Australian - perhaps something you wrote once at the old place.

If you are, then what do you think of Philip Adams as an example of someone of the Left that is very friendly, open-minded and non-abusive to those with whom he disagrees, often having them as guests on his late night talk show on Radio National. He seeks to engage with and understand them rather than shouting at or accusing them.

Is he a model of what we need more of on the Left? Or do you think that he also suffers from too many of the flaws that concern you? — andrewk

Actually I can often get on board with people on the left. Do you have any recommendations of someone similar on the right. It would be really interesting to hear, especially if they didn't just repeat the arguments which have been made by members of the liberal party over the years but provided more insight.

You say that you had had discussions about abortions for years. What did those discussions entail if no one ever brought up considerations regarding the fetus? To me it seems like anywhere one goes to participate in discussion about a controversial topic like that, there's always someone who brings up the so-called pro-life side of the argument — zookeeper

I think this has a descent amount to do with being Australian. The pro life movement is often viewed as a largely American thing. Also it is associated with Christianity. I don't think I have ever met an atheist that was pro life (or at least one that mentioned they were).
A few years ago the leader of the liberal party (the conservative party) had to play down his views on abortion. He even promised that he would not change abortion laws if he became prime minister.

I can tell you that I don't think I have ever met an atheist that was pro life (or mentioned they were) — shmik

I used to be an atheist that was pro-life. In fact, I was a conservative before I became religious, and I became religious because I was conservative, that was part of the path. For me, the reason why I side with the right is because I detest the arrogance, self-righteousness and pettiness of the left, and I love the Ancient Greek culture, which I see as an ideal. I have a feeling that real men and women used to live back then - men like Alexander, ready to conquer the world, with gigantic ambitions and passions. It seems to me that the left is reducing all of us to our common denominator, our animal nature - it's the outgrowth of democracy which seeks to make a level playing field for all. It's seeking to make more and more of us like Hollywood pop-culture. What used to take restraint and courage, the virtues, are now despised. Strength is despised.

I dislike the premissiveness of left-wing culture. Regarding abortion for example, I simply don't think (1) that a developing child, the fetus, should be killed because of the whims of the mother, and (2) I don't think that women should be free to do as they please with their bodies (and neither should men for that matter). We live in communities and we have responsibilities one towards another. This whole idea of "freedom" is barbaric. This used to be called "bondage to lust" by Spinoza and Aristotle. We should consider our behaviour in relation to others, not only to ourselves.

I find the left's obsession with the importance of sex petty and disgusting. What should be a tertiary concern in life becomes the purpose of it. Jokes are about sex, conversations are about sex, everything is about sex. I mean what the - man should not be a worshipper of pussy - I find that disgusting. The mere idea that one is to "have to do something" to have sex is ridiculous! Outrageous! Or the whole "if you're not having sex, you're not living" mantra of the left. What's with this whole building of self-esteem around sex? Are these people actually serious? A man's self esteem should revolve around sex? I mean, that, as Kierkegaard said, may be fit for a worm, but not for a being as great as man. There's a reason why I say the media and Hollywood are the professors of that pussy-grabbing Donald Trump - they, and their culture, created him.

Conflict isn't playing out in terms of policy. What's at stake isn't, for example, the enacting of one particular racist policy or not. The Left isn't just saying: "We ought not lock-up and deport illegal immigrants because it's racist." They are concerned about an underlying identity that sees us even pose such racist policies in the first place. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why must the desire to take laws seriously be grounded in underlying (racial?) identity? Every nation, and not just those with a white majority, should have the right to secure its borders and keep track of who comes in. I wouldn't dream of moving to China or Thailand or Mexico without going through the proper legal channels. If I did show no respect for their laws, I sure as hell wouldn't complain about their racism if I were arrested and deported. That's not racist, that's common sense. This spurious connection between ALL white people and racism - our thoughts and actions are always determined by racial considerations, regardless of the circumstances - betrays a grotesque arrogance and presumptuousness. Not every white person is so one-dimensional in outlook, however much you or others may be. White racists are not respected by anyone outside their small and cloistered community. Let's keep it like that and stop giving them more ammo to draw in potential sympathizers, which is precisely what I think the the Left is doing these days.

In their everyday lives, a lot of the people the Left is criticising get along fine with people of many different ethnicities. For many, it's only when the abstraction of American identity becomes involved that the issues come out. When discussion of our identity that impacts our reaction to people we don't know occurs, it becomes all about the importance and superiority of white people. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What is this abstract American identity? My guess is your narrative won't square with the that offered by a majority of those maligned Trump supporters. Things like economic stagnation, a rising drug and crime rate in these supposedly privileged white working-class communities, national crisis in education and healthcare, or a general feeling of hopelessness in an increasingly alien world dominated by global finance and advanced technology couldn't have possibly influenced white peoples' decision to vote against an establishment candidate? A candidate moreover who had no answers for this situation other than 'Hey, everything is great, and if you don't think so you must be a racist.' In my more cynical moments I'm inclined to see this a shameless attempt (honesty is of little consideration for those who want to maintain power) by the 'establishment' to keep working class whites, blacks and Latinos divided and distracted from the genuine villains in this narrative. We're so fucking stupid and so desiring of acceptance that we buy into this one-sided way of perceiving things and thereby perpetuate class domination. White working class people have WAY more in common with non-white working folk than they do with affluent and highly-educated upper crust whites.

People who point out an advantage white men have are suddenly "vilifying white men" for pointing out out a state of society and/or claiming it is unjust. The moment the abstraction "white man" comes-up, the importance and superiority of the white man casts aside any other consideration. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, it's you who seems to be casting aside any other consideration and zeroing in on race as the sole determining factor in peoples' thoughts and actions. Well, at least white peoples'--I'd imagine non-whites in their inherent nobility and open-mindedness will be a priori exempt from this charge. The concrete lives of real human beings - rather than demonized caricatures - is full of complexity and nuance. Or maybe that's yet another abstraction? To assume that we're all helpless against the injustices of some impersonal 'system' grounded in white racism betrays a narrow-minded and dogmatic perspective. White people are not a monolith. Nor are black or brown people. Nor are gay people. Does that mean racism doesn't exist? No, that would be an equally dogmatic position completely lacking in nuance and subtlety, and completely disrespecting the (at least potential) uniqueness of particular human beings.

There are indeed racists and bigots out there, quite a few in fact, but we conquer their narrative not by buying into their premises by rather by challenging their guiding assumptions and beliefs. The hate and bigotry of both the hardcore Left and Right are both symptoms of mass lunacy and, to me, betray a disturbing lack of genuine insight for the sake of abstract idols. These must be defended at any cost, even if that means distorting the truth to serve an agenda. Real life experiences have a powerful way of bringing those preconceived notions which supposedly determine the 'essential' traits of people based upon race or religion crumbling down, if we only set aside our assumptions and allow them to speak.

If I point out that a Trump voter has supported a racist party and platform, and so has an identity bound-up with that racism, I'm supposing lying. Supposedly, I'm unfairly stereotyping white working class Trump supporter, as if I failed to understand they are not racists but rather concerned with something else (the economic degradation of their communities under the modern neo-liberal economy). In this situation, my truthful statement about Trump supporters is misunderstood as a self-serving lie based on my irrational prejudice. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No, you're only lying when you extend the fringe group's racist motivations to anyone and everyone who voted for Trump. And I wouldn't call it 'lying', I'd call it being arrogant in your self-righteousness and extreme presumptuousness. As if you had some sort of access to the actual thought-processes of people whom you've never met or spoken with. Even if they told you racism wasn't their motivation for voting Trump, you'd think they were lying because you know what motivates them better than they themselves do. This, again, is dogmatism and 'esentializing' of the new 'other' at its worst. It's an attempt to invert a racial hierarchy instead of striving to overcome it altogether. The intention to rectify past and current injustices is genuine and good, I believe, but the execution on pragmatic lines amongst the Left is horrible and riddled with unintended consequences. Nothing could harden people more to your message - assuming it's one that seeks ultimate racial harmony or even irrelevancy - than this condescending and holier-than-though approach. Incidentally, this phenomena is probably partly the reason for Trump's victory. You bludgeon and browbeat people enough with baseless accusations - coupled with an implicit assumption of your own superiority and infallibility - and they'll finally respond to you with a resounding Fuck You!

Another example is the reaction to some Leftist's protests against the election of Trump. The white working class are given a free pass to approve a racist, sexist and heterosexist values and platform as a protest against economic degradation, yet the moment minority groups and their allies put in a protests about the values and platform of who's been elected, they are just sore losers without who have no reason to be concerned. In the abstraction of identity, white people view themselves as the only ones who matter, who are the ones to whom America belongs. It's this the Left is targeting, not just people who'd like to lynch anyone in their town who's not white. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Again, your penchant for blanket generalizations is truly remarkable. Please call me out if I engage in the same sort of idolotry and obsession with the a priori and I will thank you for it. Just because some idiots are lacking in self-awareness and are therefore oblivious to their own hypocrisy, doesn't necessarily mean that ALL Trump supporters are 'racist, sexist, and heterosexists' who support that fringe element. The anti-Trump crowd (the pro-Trump crowd too) has a right and a duty to exorcise that small segment of Trump supporters who are just as narrow-minded and beholden to abstractions as the ideological dogmatists on the other side of the political spectrum. Once again, your narrative and worldview seems to be a projection that you've imposed upon this new hated 'other' in your Manichean scheme of things. The Left (I'm aware that this too is an abstraction) can hate, and hate passionately, without feeling bad about it. They can even feel righteous in their hatred within this quasi-religious narrative, one in which they fight the forces of evil and oppression for the sake of the downtrodden and oppressed. I will admit it was compelling for me back when I identified with this group, and still is to a certain extent. 'He who battles monsters...'

Now don't get me wrong, I too believe in the importance of narratives, and even the use of abstractions to a limited and qualified extent, but the exemplary figures in my preferred story are off all races and ethnicities, and they view the world through a lens that, at the very least, attempts to move beyond this obsessive preoccupation with racial biology and towards a higher and more inclusive identity. It's basically an identity which encompasses anyone who believes in a modified version of the American Dream. Now I definitely have issues with this 'dream' as traditionally interpreted, but the basic idea of working hard, playing by the rules, respecting the rights and freedoms of others within the constraints of a set of shared values and beliefs, regardless of race, is something I no longer mindlessly ridicule. I have mocked this 'Dream' in the past - being a socialist/communitarian at heart - but there are parts of this narrative that I respect now, especially by way of contrast with what the Left is offering: a continued stoking of racial divisiveness and other resentments directed at white working class folk. It resonates with people for a reason and is an inspiring vision of a society not dominated by a strict alignment of my identity with my race or caste.

So it's not the Dream that's the issue, it's the failure of implementation. Nowadays many people don't even appear to want to participate in it since it would mean the end of their native 'culture' and tradition, yet they are quick to call out white people for fearing the loss of their culture. Seems the hypocrisy is all around. To be honest, my wife's family - traditional Spanish-speaking and relatively recent Mexican immigrants - had much more of a problem with her marrying me than my white trash family had with me marrying her. Go figure. Seems like almost all people feel a bit insecure about losing their sense of identity, but only one segment of the population is demonized for doing so. Anyhow, why don't you articulate your understanding of this American Identity and I'll offer up mine in response. This is the very important conversation that needs to commence, and in order for it to do so we should temporarily set aside the one which only ever sees human interactions within the context of racial identity and mutual hostility based upon one of innumerable possible identifying factors.

Apologies for the harsh tone of this post. I don't like Trump at all, but I do have many family members who voted for the guy so I get a little defensive when people disparage and caricature all of his supporters as instantiating some essential traits. They (my family) look at the racist goons who supported Trump - 'White Nationalists' or whatever they call themselves - without the least bit of sympathy or connection. So yeah, this is deeply personal issue and, as mentioned, these abstractions impact the way they perceive things. I think we need to find new ways of understanding ourselves and others moving forward which, IMO, do a better job of matching the experiences of actual people, i.e. those engaged in the day-to-day grind of working honestly, supporting their families, trying to be positively involved in their communities, etc.

Concrete examples drawn from direct firsthand experience have a way of humanizing the villain - even those villains on the Left and the Right that I've portrayed here - and are therefore a threat to the world of tidy abstractions which give the powers that be even more power. These are far from benign, and while offering us a stable sense of identity and a good conscience they also contain the seeds of violence and oppression. Who doesn't want to be one of the 'good guys' in this simplified (and largely manipulative) plot, fighting the injustices and racism of uneducated and foolish buffoons? There are other equally dangerous narratives: We're one the good guys fighting the global oligarchs. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the communists. Or we're the good guys fighting the colonial oppressor. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the Jews. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the atheists. Or we're one of the good guys fighting the religious dogmatists who would threaten our freedoms. How powerful and comforting these illusions are - by providing us with a sense of meaning and purpose that may otherwise be lacking - and how hard it is to let go of them is more a matter of ego than of 'truth' or anything else. I'll be the first to admit this. But let's at least acknowledge how extremely dangerous these abstractions can be; we can see how the historical demonization of the 'other' paved the way for the eventual use of violence against them as a moral duty. Let's just keep that in mind as we continue to perpetuate this racial narrative.

I am resolute in one thing, and that would be my conviction that we desperately need a new story to bind us together. Less abstractions, less double-standards, and more open and honest dialogue. That would be a start, and that is exactly the opposite of what the Left (and the Right) is doing these days.

The first vote I casted was on the liberal-conservative party (liberal in the classical sense), at the age of eighteen. I have been a right winger, pretty much my entire life. I can even remember that I questioned the governmental involvement in social securities as a child.

Since then, my right wing views have only strengthened and I have taken the position as a secular conservative. It is worth mentioning that I am a non-believer, since conservatism is often linked with religiosity. Political views are partly based on genetics / personality characteristics, and as Haidt mentions, we are born lawyers not scientists. We rationalise our case and antagonise ‘the other’. I can partly agree with this, but the relationship between socialism and capitalism is imperfectly oppositional, in my view. Capitalism makes a case for capitalism, whereas socialism has historically been anti-capitalistic. Capitalism makes the case for private ownership, whereas socialism is the negation of private ownership. Leftism has always been rebellious, revolting, revolutionary and their case can be summed up in three words: “away with capitalism!” However, if you ask them what the alternative should be, they scramble some incoherent vague empty statements or they write thick unreadable books with utopian untested ideas and naïve Rousseauen view of human nature. The more educated you are, the more isolated you are form reality and the better you are at rationalising your own untested and unchallenged case. See Chomsky. The professor of words.

The following quote remains relevant: “If You Are Not a Liberal at 25, You Have No Heart. If You Are Not a Conservative at 35 You Have No Brain” – numerous of people.

I have no heart I guess.

Regarding abortion, I find the sheer dismissive attitude from the left absolutely appalling. It is something that ought to be discussed collectively, coherently and with empirical evidence, because the moral status of the unborn should not depend on the convenience of the mother. The argument from autonomy is awful, illegal and lacks parental responsibility. The very arbitrariness of the moral status of the unborn child is what I fundamentally object to, since I notice a deliberate effort to dehumanise a human being. The safety of abortion is also highly disputed and even the data is incredibly misleading: http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionmedicalkeyissues/childbirthcomparison/

Calling the unborn child “parasite” or “tumour” does not help the leftist case. Their only strategy is to proclaim that they are at least not racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, greedy deplorable white privileged heterosexual men. This novelty seems to have worn off (make America great again!).

Like Haidt cited a study, right wingers understand left wingers better than left wingers understand right wingers for psychological reasons.

Regarding abortion — Emptyheady

My predilections have been leftist for a long time, and I have always argued that it's a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. If she doesn't want to be pregnant, then out with it. The argument (behind this position) is consistent, especially if one ignores the fetus that will become a person in just a few months.

Of late, I have come to find the absolute autonomy / biology is not destiny / pro-choice / fetus-discarding-approach unsatisfactory. Maybe I am drifting rightward; I hope not. There are always two people involved in a pregnancy, and most of the time both partners were pretty much willing to roll the paternity/maternity dice.

I do not wish to extend personhood to fetuses in general, especially in the first two trimesters. Not granting personhood to an 8 month fetus is not rational. If born in the 8th month, it has a fairly good chance of surviving, high tech or not. But a fetus is not a meaningless blob either, even at 1 month. It is an incipient person, even if natural biological causes end it's development early through miscarriage.

If the conception is not interfered with immediately (by using Plan B), it seems to me that there is at least some obligation to complete the pregnancy. Granted, there are circumstances that override the obligation--factors associated with incapacity, not inconvenience. No one should be forced to raise a child they do not want. Plenty of misery has been caused by unwilling parenthood (the 18 year long march version) and adoption should be readily available.

Absolutely nothing I have said here is of any significance. All this has been said by others many times before. The only thing that is significant (to me, mostly) is that I have changed my thinking.

@BC

At what point does the life of a human being start? Can you back it up with some scientific evidence and sound arguments? Your assertion seems to be completely arbitrary.

My argument remains the same. The shift of the start of life does not affect my argument, but my conclusion. If life starts at another point than at the moment of conception, I'd like to know.

Does development determine one's moral status? Does the moral status grow with development? Does the baby have lower moral status than an adult? What about objectively underdeveloped adults? Some people are more "developed" than others, do they also differ in moral status?

"No one should be forced to raise a child they do not want. "

So infanticide should be morally and legally acceptable?

PS. Parental negligence is illegal, especially if the child dies due to that. Autonomy is an awful and controversial argument. There are laws for parental responsibilities, or better said to enforce parental responsibilities.

The pro-choice mantra of 'doing whatever I want' is exactly what morality is not about.

Your assertion seems to be completely arbitrary. — Emptyheady

Yes, it's arbitrary. "a life" clearly begins at conception but the time at which the fetus becomes a person is arbitrary. If you want to place it at conception, fine.

"No one should be forced to raise a child they do not want." So infanticide should be morally and legally acceptable? — Emptyheady

No, of course infanticide is not acceptable.

Unwanted (like, really not wanted) babies are nothing new. We can pursue a child-friendly policy:

adoption
extra assistance to mothers who are not capable (at the time) of embracing the child's care
social support for parents raising children whether they wanted them or not.

Actually, quite a lot of children are not "wanted". Slip ups happened and more children arrived. Generally people raise the "unwanted" child as well as they raise the desired children.

The US doesn't do all that great a job at providing extra assistance or social support. We could do better.

I totally agree that parents are responsible for their children. Neglect or active harm is and should be illegal and should be prosecuted. But... people who can not handle parenthood do have a lawful, appropriate alternative: adoption.

Have any of you ever read Henry Ford's autobiography, My Life and Work? I'm asking because - aside from his anti-semitism which is injurious - he does bring an entirely different vision with regards to economics - a vision which, while on the right, is distinct from the general right-view or the general left-view. I read it when I was very young, but re-reading it now surprises me at how much of his economic ideas I've adopted without even knowing. His vision is centred around the following:

1. Disapproval of the making of money for money's sake out of non-productive enterprises - ie banking, speculation, etc. Basically out of anything that does not provide value to others. This part is left-leaning, and I too share it. I find it disgusting that some folks are making money pressing buttons in front of a computer, buying and selling stocks - and not only are they making money, some of them are making HUGE money.
2. That whether rich or poor, people are really more alike than different in that both have the same human needs - human needs which cannot be fulfilled by mere money, but require actual goods and services and hence work to be fulfilled -> thus the world is really separated in people who want to work and love to work for others - and people who don't like to work - whether they be rich or poor.
3. That business should exist not for profit - but for service, and like in other fields of work, in business too there should be ethics governing what should be done and how.
4. That business shouldn't be organised with the ideal of infinite growth (and hence infinite consumption) in mind - but rather with the ideal of fulfilling necessities, and if all the necessities are met, then that is enough. This entails quite a bit of a different economy than what we have today, an economy which doesn't demand infinite growth.
5. Opposition to speculative interests that seek purposefully to earn out of war, conflict and suffering.
6. That it is natural for men and women to work.

Here are some interesting statements from his work:

"Between the rich and the poor is the great mass of the people who are neither rich nor poor. A society made up exclusively of millionaires would not be different from our present society; some of the millionaires would have to raise wheat and bake bread and make machinery and run trains—else they would all starve to death. Someone must do the work. Really we have no fixed classes. We have men who will work and men who will not. Most of the "classes" that one reads about are purely fictional.

Take certain capitalist papers. You will be amazed by some of the statements about the labouring class. We who have been and still are a part of the labouring class know that the statements are untrue. Take certain of the labour papers. You are equally amazed by some of the statements they make about "capitalists." And yet on both sides there is a grain of truth. The man who is a capitalist and nothing else, who gambles with the fruits of other men's labours, deserves all that is said against him. He is in precisely the same class as the cheap gambler who cheats workingmen out of their wages. The statements we read about the labouring class in the capitalistic press are seldom written by managers of great industries, but by a class of writers who are writing what they think will please their employers. They write what they imagine will please. Examine the labour press and you will find another class of writers who similarly seek to tickle the prejudices which they conceive the labouring man to have. Both kinds of writers are mere propagandists. And propaganda that does not spread facts is self-destructive. And it should be. You cannot preach patriotism to men for the purpose of getting them to stand still while you rob them—and get away with that kind of preaching very long. You cannot preach the duty of working hard and producing plentifully, and make that a screen for an additional profit to yourself. And neither can the worker conceal the lack of a day's work by a phrase"

"It takes only a moment's thought to see that as far as individual personal advantage is concerned, vast accumulations of money mean nothing. A human being is a human being and is nourished by the same amount and quality of food, is warmed by the same weight of clothing, whether he be rich or poor. And no one can inhabit more than one room at a time.

But if one has visions of service, if one has vast plans which no ordinary resources could possibly realize, if one has a life ambition to make the industrial desert bloom like the rose, and the work-a-day life suddenly blossom into fresh and enthusiastic human motives of higher character and efficiency, then one sees in large sums of money what the farmer sees in his seed corn—the beginning of new and richer harvests whose benefits can no more be selfishly confined than can the sun's rays.

There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured. They are both on the wrong track. They might as well try to corner all the checkers or all the dominoes of the world under the delusion that they are thereby cornering great quantities of skill. Some of the most successful money-makers of our times have never added one pennyworth to the wealth of men. Does a card player add to the wealth of the world?

If we all created wealth up to the limits, the easy limits, of our creative capacity, then it would simply be a case of there being enough for everybody, and everybody getting enough. Any real scarcity of the necessaries of life in the world—not a fictitious scarcity caused by the lack of clinking metallic disks in one's purse—is due only to lack of production. And lack of production is due only too often to lack of knowledge of how and what to produce"

"This much we must believe as a starting point:

That the earth produces, or is capable of producing, enough to give decent sustenance to everyone—not of food alone, but of everything else we need. For everything is produced from the earth.

That it is possible for labour, production, distribution, and reward to be so organized as to make certain that those who contribute shall receive shares determined by an exact justice.

That regardless of the frailties of human nature, our economic system can be so adjusted that selfishness, although perhaps not abolished, can be robbed of power to work serious economic injustice."

"We must have production, but it is the spirit behind it that counts most. That kind of production which is a service inevitably follows a real desire to be of service. The various wholly artificial rules set up for finance and industry and which pass as "laws" break down with such frequency as to prove that they are not even good guesses. The basis of all economic reasoning is the earth and its products. To make the yield of the earth, in all its forms, large enough and dependable enough to serve as the basis for real life—the life which is more than eating and sleeping—is the highest service. That is the real foundation for an economic system. We can make things—the problem of production has been solved brilliantly. We can make any number of different sort of things by the millions. The material mode of our life is splendidly provided for. There are enough processes and improvements now pigeonholed and awaiting application to bring the physical side of life to almost millennial completeness. But we are too wrapped up in the things we are doing—we are not enough concerned with the reasons why we do them. Our whole competitive system, our whole creative expression, all the play of our faculties seem to be centred around material production and its by-products of success and wealth.

There is, for instance, a feeling that personal or group benefit can be had at the expense of other persons or groups. There is nothing to be gained by crushing any one. If the farmer's bloc should crush the manufacturers would the farmers be better off? If the manufacturer's bloc should crush the farmers, would the manufacturers be better off? Could Capital gain by crushing Labour? Or Labour by crushing Capital? Or does a man in business gain by crushing a competitor? No, destructive competition benefits no one. The kind of competition which results in the defeat of the many and the overlordship of the ruthless few must go. Destructive competition lacks the qualities out of which progress comes. Progress comes from a generous form of rivalry. Bad competition is personal. It works for the aggrandizement of some individual or group. It is a sort of warfare. It is inspired by a desire to "get" someone. It is wholly selfish. That is to say, its motive is not pride in the product, nor a desire to excel in service, nor yet a wholesome ambition to approach to scientific methods of production. It is moved simply by the desire to crowd out others and monopolize the market for the sake of the money returns. That being accomplished, it always substitutes a product of inferior quality."

"The business of life is easy or hard according to the skill or the lack of skill displayed in production and distribution. It has been thought that business existed for profit. That is wrong. Business exists for service. It is a profession, and must have recognized professional ethics, to violate which declasses a man. Business needs more of the professional spirit. The professional spirit seeks professional integrity, from pride, not from compulsion. The professional spirit detects its own violations and penalizes them. Business will some day become clean. A machine that stops every little while is an imperfect machine, and its imperfection is within itself. A body that falls sick every little while is a diseased body, and its disease is within itself. So with business. Its faults, many of them purely the faults of the moral constitution of business, clog its progress and make it sick every little while. Some day the ethics of business will be universally recognized, and in that day business will be seen to be the oldest and most useful of all the professions."

"The natural thing to do is to work—to recognize that prosperity and happiness can be obtained only through honest effort. Human ills flow largely from attempting to escape from this natural course. I have no suggestion which goes beyond accepting in its fullest this principle of nature. I take it for granted that we must work. All that we have done comes as the result of a certain insistence that since we must work it is better to work intelligently and forehandedly; that the better we do our work the better off we shall be. All of which I conceive to be merely elemental common sense."

If you want to place it at conception, fine. — Bitter Crank

Yes, that seems to me the least arbitrary moment at ascribing moral status to a human being, when human life starts. The issue of development seems to me a red herring, no one consistently believes that as you run in all sort of serious moral problems following that logic. Like I said, it is a deliberate effort/red herring to dehumanise the human being you wish to murder.

Regarding the rest of your post. Yes, that is called responsibility. The government should enforce responsibility, but is not responsible as a caretaker. Again, I am not religious and socially a bit more progressive than I present myself, but there is some wisdom from the religious right to hammer out irresponsible sex.

The greater the governmental support, the lower private support and personal responsibility.

If you have got 5 minutes to read the following two short article regarding that topic:

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/06/07/is-personal-responsibility-obsolete-n2174321

http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/06/07/is-personal-responsibility-obsolete-part-ii-n2174320

Regarding the rest of your post. Yes, that is called responsibility. The government should enforce responsibility, but is not responsible as a caretaker. Again, I am not religious and socially a bit more progressive than I present myself, but there is some wisdom from the religious right to hammer out irresponsible sex. — Emptyheady

I have a good right-wing acquaintance, and he told me that liberals and progressives just wanna smoke weed and fuck all day... I think he wasn't far off >:O

See - the real problem is that they cannot understand responsibility, the progressive mind just doesn't work that way, it operates a different OS. It's like Macintosh vs Windows.

On the Right you understand responsibility - why? Because you look at life and think there's a good way to be and a bad way to be, which is objective, and out there. You're being responsible when you get closer to that good way of being, and irresponsible when you get farther from it. Your job is to change yourself to be in accordance to that standard. So being responsible is taking ownership of your actions and their consequences - recognizing that such consequences ought to follow from such actions. For example if someone smokes weed all day, they're irresponsible with both their health and the fact that they're not doing anything useful to provide for themselves. Why so? Because they ought to work, and they ought to take care of their health - that's what being a good human being amounts to.

On the Left on the other hand, their brain doesn't function like this. Life isn't about becoming better - it's about being who you are and enjoying yourself. So if enjoying yourself is smoking weed the whole day, it's all about getting yourself in an arrangement where you can do precisely that all day. If something goes wrong - say you run out of money - then that's something that shouldn't happen because it gets in the way of you living your life as you want. That's evil then. That's why the Left has no notion of shame - nothing is shameful for them, simply because there is no responsibility. So if you're a bum smoking weed the whole day in your house and never getting your head out of there nor doing anything useful or productive - then that's nothing to be ashamed of. If you're a girl who is the town bicycle and everyone gets a ride - nothing to be ashamed of. They just don't have the notion of shame or responsibility, because they don't view life as being about becoming better, or about being a good human being.

Nothing that can be done. I'm starting to think that the Right and the Left will never get along. We should separate the world, give half of it to them, and take half of it ourselves. In 100 years they'll be living in the jungle, so we'll take it back easily, not to worry >:O

If you're a girl who is the town bicycle and everyone gets a ride - — Agustino

Funny. Did you make that up just now?

the Left has no notion of shame - nothing is shameful for them, simply because there is no responsibility. So if you're a bum smoking weed the whole day in your house and never getting your head out of there nor doing anything useful or productive - then that's nothing to be ashamed of. — Agustino

You are, of course, exaggerating and have crucified a scarecrow on which you fastened a sign, "King of the Potheads".

Back when there were actual hard-core leftist parties--various Communist and Socialist organizations--I think you would have found them a rather conventional, hard-working, abstemious, responsible class of people. You might have agreed with NONE of their politics, but they weren't pot-smoking air heads or libertines. They were as responsible and hard nosed as Republican bankers were.

I don't actually know many pot-heads; the few that I know are usually not politically committed one way or the other. Why would they be?

What we have politically (at least in the US) are a lot of people who are politically inarticulate, bend towards liberal or conservative, and are paragons of neither your views nor mine. They don't smoke pot, they go to work every day, they do aspire to be happy in who they are (why shouldn't they?), and they keep the wheels of the economy turning. They may or may not be religious, they are more likely to be "spiritual" (whatever the hell that is), they keep their gardens (lawns) neat, have reasonably well kept living quarters, drive carefully, and live lives of conventional morality.

About the left and right never getting along... They did get along fairly well when both of the mainline political parties continued liberal and conservative wings. There used to be "Rockefeller Republicans" (after Nelson Rockefeller) who were fiscally conservative and socially liberal--by Republican Standards, and their opposites in the democratic party, fiscally liberal and socially conservative. They certainly didn't all agree on everything, but were able to work together well enough to obtain effective government on both state and federal levels. Both parties went through upheavals in the 1960s and 1970s which began breaking down the working relationship.

Funny. Did you make that up just now? — Bitter Crank

>:O

Back when there were actual hard-core leftist parties--various Communist and Socialist organizations--I think you would have found them a rather conventional, hard-working, abstemious, responsible class of people. You might have agreed with NONE of their politics, but they weren't pot-smoking air heads or libertines. They were as responsible and hard nosed as Republican bankers were. — Bitter Crank

Yes, yes I know. Remember that time in Soviet Russia when a woman said at the Commie party: "sex is like drinking - when you're thirsty you go drink" and comrade Lenin replied: "yes, but not from a dirty glass"?

I think my politics and economics may in some ways be closer to yours (communists) than you think. I'm against Wall-Street speculators, and against bankers. If I was in charge, I'd close both of them down. The (main) difference between me and you, I suppose, would be that I am very much pro entrepreneurship - finding and doing work on your own, rather than through a company. I suppose you'd replace the company with an entity owned by the workers themselves - I'd be against this. My ideal society and economy has a large percentage of people being self-employed.

In fact - even socially I'm close to Communism. I believe that husband and wife should own their bodies in common - but these greedy individualistic capitalists want it all for themselves! >:O

Quite seriously now I've been drumming up a hypothesis that the Old Left (which was in large share socially conservative) was hijacked by the Capitalist Right and turned in the New Left, which while seemingly opposed to them, helps make the mass consumption society possible/bearable through their socially liberal views - it gives the big $$$ a human face. So now folks like me have no choice but to be on the Right (because those on the Old Left have mostly sold out to the carrot and bought into the New Left), even though some of the leading figures on the Right have no interest in social policies - their major beef has always been an economical one.

Did anyone invite you here? :P

>:O And what do you want me to do about that? Stitch it back for him??

On the political spectrum there is a certain class I dislike more than the progressives. They are called Libertarians, and I think you might be one of them >:O :D


Here's the guy who wants small government, loves smoking pot and doing whatever one wants, and believes in freedom! Does that sound like you John? ;)

And what's that on the bottom right then? A tattoo? >:O

A plant...or...wrong hair colour...to grab the lamplight...or...the pussy?

Man - I have to say that I'm out of words on that one.