Are we all left-tards here?

Come on now.  Are we?  While I myself wouldn't look for bible-thumping republicans, I think we should at least have a few moderates or radicals like libertarians ETC... 

Or is it the disproportionate european population here?

>>50
That's cause you never met no dadaists before. =B

No one said it had to be absolute, >>80.

>>75
That report is just about complete socialist bullshit. Unless you are physically handicapped or mentally retarded, or your parents keep you in a box, there is no such thing in the United States of America as inequal opportunity, and there is no excuse other than plain laziness. I don't care if you live in the slummiest hole in the worst neighborhood of New York or as far back in the sticks of Montana as it goes, there is ALWAYS a way to get out of poverty in this country, as long as you have the motivation. The fact that a person has had it harder to reach more opportunities shouldn't mean a damn thing to them as long as they love existence enough to reach their goals. In fact, that should make it all the more satisfying in the end. The class warfare nonsense and envy in this country is ridiculous.

>>81
And I don't think I'd want to...

Well, then again, it'd probably make for some of the interesting conversations that come up in this place! :D

>>47
You clearly do not understand the FairTax plan...

>>74
The data only shows that conservatives tend to have certain psychological makeup.  I find the interpretation of that data the part that's condescending.  I thought that someone who can bring such big words to the table as "pearson's correlation" would be able to see through that...

Basically, what you said in your post is "<I>SCIENCE</I> SAYS THAT CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL (even though your basis for juding that is very subjective) SO THEREFORE THEY ARE EVIL!!!! CHECK THE FIGURES! SEE?  EVIL RAISES DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO HOW CONSERVATIVE THEY ARE!!!"

What I'm saying is that such sentences as "Justification of inequality in some form" are leading the reader to believe that these are pretty bad people who'd kill black babies for a buck, when really this fits into a coherent logical worldview (I'll elaborate in the next paragraph).  Basically, the study says that conservatives are creatures who act on instinct, therefore we can disregard anything they have to say.

Conservative worldview:
That some people deserve to be inequal to others because they spend their welfare checks on cheetos ETC and continually make stupid decisions.  I'm not saying that everyone deserves to be a millionare, and I'm not saying that everyone who is a millionare deserves it...  But there's more to life than just money and "class".  Anyone can find happiness for themselves if they'd just so much as seek it out, or try to be the best person they can be at whatever they do... possibly even transcending their "class" (the people who can manage that definately deserve it, and have my respect and I'm sure the respect of most conservatives). 

God damn you people are annoying.  You bring this stuff to the table and then show a complete inability to think critically of it.

>>50
You fit the conservative psych profile to a T, John.

Honestly, I think that my psychological profile is more that of a liberal, just that I don't believe that inequality is neccesarily something we should try ot stamp out (think of the consequences to any solution you'd devise, people... communism failed, and I'm afraid that other systems with similar aims would lead to the same result).  Some people will have more than others, that's the way it is.  Stop juding your life based on what you have.

I probably would have grown up a liberal if it wasn't for the fact that I suddenly turned poor around 16.  Everyone else had their parents buying them cars, and I got nothing.  I was jealous, I was really jealous, but I finally had to accept that I wasn't the most unfortunate being in existence.  Instead of blaming the plant that laid my dad off, I started blaming the fact that I didn't do anything to mean that I had a car... I hadn't put enough in to get out what I wanted.  And the people who got cars for free really didn't seem to appreciate them a whole lot.  It's a hard state to explain to someone who never went though it.

Hmmm...  as an aside, or maybe a non sequitur, Full Metal Alchemist was a lot like that, thematically... equivalent exchange... think the author was conservative?

>>87 "You fit the conservative psych profile to a T, John."

How do you figure? I'm not gonna argue anymore about points I know to be invalid, but I can't ignore a personal accusition, can I... :3

I've never based my life or another's on what I or they have. My parents divorced when I was five years old. My mom went to live on welfare, while my dad went to create his own company, and I lived with either one of them for periods of years at a time. It wasn't hard for me to tell, even at that age, exactly WHY people had what they had. How exactly do I fit the conservative psych? Hell, I've advocated radical change in this thread, the FairTax!

>>>"authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity)"
I've explicitly identified my views as libertarian and expressed them as such in this thread. And yes, I'm rather intolerant of ambiguity. Nothing gets done if you allow uncertainty and ambiguity into your decisions.

>>> "epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management)"
Exactly what the hell is wrong with any of that?

And blah blah. Personally, I thought Full Metal Alchemist sucked.

Eh, I agree John dude.  Personally I think between the two of us we've ripped that study to shreds.

You are all wrong, except where you agree with me. I am right.

>>90
I assume that you're accusing me of closed-mindedness, yes?

Well, you're completely wrong. :3

Are you so uncomfortable with your non-absolutist positions on the issues that you have to put up this inferiority-complex front to make the other guy seem like an idiot instead of you?

Moreover, why do you take such offense at my last post as to make that comment? What is it about individual confidence that you leftists find simply as ignorance, or stupidity, or arrogance? In this way, you're exhibiting the same attitude that you're condemning, only you scream about it louder...

If you think I'm wrong, then call me on it and I'll consider it openly. Spare me the rhetoric, and the scornful sarcasm such as >>89 exhibits...

Er, as >>90 exhibits...*

Studies by such radical publications as the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Economist have shown that the wealth gap is increasing and social mobility is declining. They've revealed that it's tied to factors like class, education and skin privilege. The billionaires agree. >>75

Even so, people see themselves as middle class (even the poor working class self-report being middle class), socially mobile, and most think they will be rich one day, despite the data. The ultra-wealthy -- with the help of politicians hand picked from their ranks -- inculcate this myth on the masses. It's important that the masses maintain faith in meritocracy. If the playing field were revealed to be a sheer cliff, there would be revolt.

>>93
Of course they say so, they're left-wing rags. Ok, wealth gap. Let's talk about the wealth gap. It's very simple.

The rich keep getting richer, because... They keep doing the things that made them rich!

And the poor keep getting poorer... because... THEY KEEP DOING THE THINGS THAT MADE OR KEPT THEM *POOR*, DAMMIT!

WHY is that so hard to understand for you people that believe that the conditions of one's life are merely thrown up to chance and luck? What in the bloody hell is the MATTER with you people? -_-

And why is social mobility declining? Also quite simple. It's because the GOVERNMENT keeps making it to where you BENEFIT from being poor! You're REWARDING them for BAD BEHAVIOR! What are they gonna do? Keep mooching! Why should they have to work for a living?

And my gosh, do you think that our "public" (government run/funded/employed) schools might have something to do with that? Without teaching kids the basics of how our fucking economy works, sure, we can expect social mobility to rise without anyone having a god damn clue how things work! Sure, that works just fine!
... My god. -_- I'm so sick of these damn excuses.

What in the bloody hell is the MATTER with you people?

Hey, man, same goes for you. I swear you're a troll, because you'd be batshit insane if you were for real. Your version of reality really is alternate.

PS. I thought you left this board.

HAND

>>95
Well, I saw some ridiculous comments that I just couldn't not respond to. And so in response to your response...

Tell me how I'm batshit insane. Explain it to me.

I explained my points quite clearly, and they make perfect sense, though I apologize if you in particular are not quite able to follow them.

Now it's your turn. How do my views conflict with your 'views' of reality? I'm dying to understand people of your mindset... If you don't mind indulging someone that's batshit insane, to borrow your intelligent little phrase, that is.

Why bother further explaining to a person who insists the world is black and white? What do you think we've been doing the past month? Repeatedly? Did it get us anywhere?

Subtle nuance is beyond your grasp, as you've proven repeatedly, because it's all either/or. We discuss nuance, but you just keep coming back with strawmen developed through your own inability to handle a world that isn't a dichotomy. If I say 0.7, you'll claim it's bad because 1.0 is horrible. Well, no shit, too much vitamin A can kill you too.

That, and a complete lack of knowledge of history. Look at the history of Russia or France (or even England) before proclaiming the tripe your wrote in the fifth paragraph of >>94. It's all been done before, and it didn't work. Don't know what I'm talking about? Time to break out some books.

Oh, wait, intellectuals are baddy bad, right? As the great and glorious "common man" such trivialities are beneath you. You probably take pride in your ignorance, unlike those crazy overeducated and indoctrinated left-tards, right?

>>97 Ok, I think I've got it now...

Poor people aren't lazy, and rich people aren't motivated. Life is nothing but chance and luck and chaos. Intellectuality is only a realm of subjectivism. The past contains all wisdom. Individuality is evil...

I do believe I understand your mindset now. Thank you.
Please correct me if I happen to be, *Clears throat*, mistaken.

>>93
Er, how would the politicians and the business elite benefit if everyone stayed poor?

>>97
I haven't seen you use any subtle nuance, so I don't know where you're getting that from...  just saying.

And we aren't exactly old england or russia or anything; you just make yourself believe that and that that's what we're doing to justify your own beliefs.  Never in history has our "underclass" been more educated or in actuality, socially mobile.  Who cares if that statistic (which I don't neccesarily condone or understand, I'd like to know how they calculated it) shows that people are becoming less able to get out of poverty?

For some reason, you seem to believe there's some huge conspiracy to keep the poor poor, when really things DO move in cycles.  Economies rise and fall, poverty stricken populations do likewise.Really, I think the business elite would stand to benefit if everyone started becoming more affluent; they'd have more money to spend on their useless wares.  You're looking at one point in recent history and deciding to go batshit over it.   Or maybe it was just a nuance you just didn't pick up.

100get

>>99
Point well-made. 100 GET!

Damn! >.<

>>98
Please correct me if I happen to be, *Clears throat*, mistaken.

Consider yourself corrected. Good job with the strawmen there.

>>99
Please reread this:
And why is social mobility declining? Also quite simple. It's because the GOVERNMENT keeps making it to where you BENEFIT from being poor! You're REWARDING them for BAD BEHAVIOR! What are they gonna do? Keep mooching! Why should they have to work for a living?

The point is there used to be no government support. No money? You starved. Guess what happened?

Oh, right, people started climbing up the social heirarchy, right? Not.

JOHN IS A GENIUS!

>>104
Problem is that both situations lead to poorness.

But one leads to a less pleasant (and potentially far more violent) form of poorness.

In Germany they give ridiculous sums of money to the unemployed, which really might make citizens care less, but complete removal (hello dichotomy) is equally stupid. There's this thing called the middle ground.

>>106
Give them enough not to starve, but not so much as to be a burden on everyone else.  Problem solved.

It looks like >>107 got it.

Actually, Australia has a pretty good system. They're semi-generous with their unemployment payments, but they watch you like a hawk. If they think you're being a bum and not looking for work like you're supposed to, you get cut off. If you're not employable, you're required to get further training or education, and on the side you must do free work for the government.

Needless to say, people don't stay out of work very long in this system. It's effective yet humane.

>>103
I've heard the word "strawman" pop up in this thread about 5 times... Lemme guess, you took critical thinking in college? Although you don't seem to be able to actually correct me. Excuses...

>>104, >>106, >>107
Why does the question of personal responsibility never come up for you people?

>>108
Watch em like a hawk, and if they don't get a job, kick em out... Well, it's better than a simple free ride like they get here in the U.S. at least.

HELLO. MY NAME IS JOHN. THE GOVERNMENT IS ALWAYS BAD. THAT IS ALL.

>>110
Of course it isn't always bad, JOHN, that's ridiculous and I've never said it. The sole purpose of government is to protect people's rights, so I dare say that it's good by nature! HOWEVER, when you get these hack politicians that want to extend that power to every freakin' aspect of people's lives that they have no business in, then yeah, it pisses me off! As it should you and every other citizen... Let me know if you want examples, I could write a damn book on it buddy.

Personal responsibility in the US LOL!  In america, cc companies pay when you lose your credit card and someone else uses it; in EU, you're responsable for your own credit card and you have to pay.  That's why they have no more than a 20th of the bankruptcy rate of the us!

>>112
I agree. My point is, you gotta wonder the reasons why so many people are bankrupt or what-have-you in this country, and why people are just more and more in the lines of thinking that many things are just not their responsibility, but the government's. Take your credit card company example for example. Someplace else than here, they have to actually watch their ass or they're in the shitter. Here? "Oh, it's no problem, we'll take care of it. You don't have to be responsible." I'm just illustrating the attitude that people and our government are developing over here that's going to lead us into another, much scarier, Hillary Clinton occupation in the White House if we don't get our act together... Income tax rebates for the people in Puerto Rico that don't even pay income taxes? Universal health care? This country'll go straight down the socialist toilet if she gets elected... But I digress... e_e

HELLO. OF COURSE THE GOVERNMENT IS BAD. MY OWN GOVERNMENT SUCKS MONKEY BALLS, SO CLEARLY ALL BIG GOVERNMENTS ARE ALSO INFERIOR. WITH A SAMPLE OF ONE, AREN'T MY DEDUCTIVE SKILLS GREAT?!

THE FACT THAT IT'S JUST MY GOVERNMENT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!

>>114
The U.S.'s government sucks monkey-balls, huh? Look, I've been vehemently bitching about it's flaws all through this thread, but in retrospect, ours is comparatively the best damn government on the planet. Show me another that allows more personal and financial freedom than ours. Freedoms are why this country was actually FOUNDED. Show me another country that was founded on those principles and has achieved the same success as ours.

No, I don't like the size and span of our government, or the people that run it the way they're running it these days. But I love this country's Constitution and what it stands for, and the fact that I can and will achieve my aims in life because that constitution is there.

In short, you little bad all-caps impersonator...
Fuck you.

>>115
>Show me another that allows more personal and financial freedom than ours.

Personal freedoms: Most social democracies are ahead of the US in social freedoms. Patriot Act, anyone? The US has the highest non-violent drug incarceration rates in the developed world, more than all of Western Europe combined. The Netherlands is an obvious example of a country with significantly more personal freedoms.

Financial freedoms: (right-wing newspeak for low tax rates and other laws enabling corporate dominance). There are a number of countries more "financially free" that the US; countries like Bulgaria, Latvia, Romania, Ireland, Lithuania and Zambia. The newest member of this contingent is Halliburtonia aka Iraq.

DON'T YOU DARE CRITICISE MY GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT'S THE BEST DAMN GOVERNMENT EVAR. I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE AMERICA IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE, SO I DON'T NEED TO TRAVEL, YOU SOCIALIST COMMUNIST JEW. ALSO, THE FACT THAT I HATE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

GO AMERICA. UNLESS IT'S ME BITCHING ABOUT IT.

People always scream about how libertarians would give business free reign to destroy the entire world and enslave humanity because they're in the stock market and would benefit, when that's really not the case.  They're really very philosophically oriented people.  They don't want their lives to be defined by anyone else, be it corporate, government, or whatever.  They don't want an anarcho capitalist state of the Nike corp going to war with Reebok in full military fashion for control of certain shoe-buying populations (ala Jennifer Government).  They just don't believe that forced equality through taxation should be the way the world works; they don't want to work all their lives and have it amount to nothing because someone gets jealous.  They just think socialism isn't a good solution.

The government shouldn't try to reduce corporate dominance by taxing them, they should instead institute something else...  For example, forced total transparency. 

Libertarians would be anti-corporation as hell if they got into power. While they hate big government, they'd definately do something to counteract big business power (because it'd be a problem).  Because they aren't technically people, and have limited liability for their actions, yet they have all the rights of a person, they'd feel morally justified doing something against corporations. 

Libertarians would probably institute policies to protect and encourage small businesses, just from reading their philosophy...  Yet I belive they would reign in big business where neccesary.  That's the whole anti-dominance thing, government as protector not provider.

Socialism is an answer, but I believe it's not the best answer, and I think that america will probably go down another path, one that would be more encouraging to scientific ETC... progress.  Social "progress" would most likely have secondary importance.  Libertarians (or more specifically the future america) would need to even the playing field a bit, but not through absolute egalatarianism.

The libertarians have no interest in government politics; they're just trying to develop a working system that focuses more on individuality than treating people as groups.

While they hate big government, they'd definately do something to counteract big business power

I'm interested to know how you'd do this without a large government. For example, a lack of a social safety net gives corporations far more power when bargaining. If you don't have some form of universal medicare, insurance companies will wield greater power over people. No education? The uneducated are easier to manipulate. And so forth.

Power fills a vacuum.

Anyone ever read the Redwall books? (ZOMG FURFAG BURN!?1/) That's my ideal society. Or something like Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. That's all I wanna say...

But of course, you people would never encourage such a society, because hey, most people are too stupid to actually live in harmony according to your views, right? And if one did exist, you would only say that it can't work indefinitely because some other greedy bastard of a government would come and take it over... And in the second case, you'd probably be right, these days.

To hell with you all.