Ask a republican anything.

[republican2]

- I believe in a strong national defense

- I believe that various degrees of capitalism is objectively the best economic system

- I do not believe in equality by fiat

These are generalizations of course, but it provides a bit of context. Also I'm not a supporter of libertarianism. Ask me anything.

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

[danyboy27]

[Ocean Seal]

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

We don't believe that just because something is moral by tradition that makes it intrinsically good. A lot of it is linked to sexism (even the parts which many tout as the "good" of traditional morality) and because we don't seek going back to the past.
For example, what is traditional morality. Women staying at home and taking care of children? Why should they be any less entitled than men to seek an education and perform labor outside of the house?

Is it traditional morality for someone to look up to their boss and not complain about working conditions in the hope's of becoming the boss and oppressing workers?

Is it traditional morality for someone to be loyal to their country? If so, why? What does my country give me other than my oppression? Why should I value people living in my country as superior to those outside of it? Why should I pledge loyalty to something that I do not agree with, even if it does terrible things. Should I support imperialism to be loyal to my country. Should I support the massacre of 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians? Or 800,000 Palestinians?

Is traditional morality supporting the law? Even if in 1950's the law was used to create the super-oppression of racial minorities preventing them from so much as sitting next to whites in a restaurant.

Traditional morality is not in itself a good thing, therefore we disregard it when making decisions.


As for capitalism. Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor. Under socialism the people own the means of production. If right wingers are so concerned with those who work the hardest being rewarded for their labor they should be socialists where you earn according to how hard you work not how hard others work for you. You might complain about welfare, but the real thieves are those who own the means of production. The bosses who own the factories and businesses pay workers a wage in order for them to produce. Lets suppose that a worker makes $50 of product per hour and gets paid $10 per hour. Where did those $40 at the end of the hour. Into the bosses pocket. What did the boss do to earn that money? Nothing. Is that just the way things are? Then why don't we change that. The boss is no longer necessary, the means of production have been all but centralized. If we don't need the boss he is merely in power by fiat or some kind of subjective emotional reason. But why keep the boss at the expense of everyone else. It's not like they can't make it without the means of production. Its simply judicially authorized theft. Why is that the best system.

Also based on your introduction post it seems similar to a wave of trolls we've been getting this summer so there.

[danyboy27]

you are too easy to troll red brother.

[Sam_b]

Yawn.

[Kamos]

As it happens, I also believe in a strong national defence:

[Manic Impressive]

[Ocean Seal]

you are too easy to troll red brother.

I knew it was one but I decided to respond anyway to see if he could come up with any arguments that the libertarian, white-nationalist, and black-nationalist didn't already come up with. I recognized it by his posting style and the traditional "ask a ... anything". For whoever's time I've wasted please accept this image of Lady Rainicorn as an apology

[bezdomni]

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

The traditions of the dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the minds of the living...

[republican2]

We don't believe that just because something is moral by tradition that makes it intrinsically good. A lot of it is linked to sexism (even the parts which many tout as the "good" of traditional morality) and because we don't seek going back to the past.
For example, what is traditional morality. Women staying at home and taking care of children? Why should they be any less entitled than men to seek an education and perform labor outside of the house?

Is it traditional morality for someone to look up to their boss and not complain about working conditions in the hope's of becoming the boss and oppressing workers?

Is it traditional morality for someone to be loyal to their country? If so, why? What does my country give me other than my oppression? Why should I value people living in my country as superior to those outside of it? Why should I pledge loyalty to something that I do not agree with, even if it does terrible things. Should I support imperialism to be loyal to my country. Should I support the massacre of 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians? Or 800,000 Palestinians?

Is traditional morality supporting the law? Even if in 1950's the law was used to create the super-oppression of racial minorities preventing them from so much as sitting next to whites in a restaurant.

Traditional morality is not in itself a good thing, therefore we disregard it when making decisions.


As for capitalism. Most of the world is capitalist, most of the world is poor. Under socialism the people own the means of production. If right wingers are so concerned with those who work the hardest being rewarded for their labor they should be socialists where you earn according to how hard you work not how hard others work for you. You might complain about welfare, but the real thieves are those who own the means of production. The bosses who own the factories and businesses pay workers a wage in order for them to produce. Lets suppose that a worker makes $50 of product per hour and gets paid $10 per hour. Where did those $40 at the end of the hour. Into the bosses pocket. What did the boss do to earn that money? Nothing. Is that just the way things are? Then why don't we change that. The boss is no longer necessary, the means of production have been all but centralized. If we don't need the boss he is merely in power by fiat or some kind of subjective emotional reason. But why keep the boss at the expense of everyone else. It's not like they can't make it without the means of production. Its simply judicially authorized theft. Why is that the best system.

Also based on your introduction post it seems similar to a wave of trolls we've been getting this summer so there.

You misconstrue the definition of morality and apply your own generalizations to whatever you think may or may not be moral. Simply rejecting morality's etymology because throughout history and cultures it was accepted that women should spend their time raising children instead of abandoning their household is not a convincing argument to abandon traditional morality. Isn't it ironic that Marx said capitalism was responsible for the destruction of families because working in cities took women out of the house? So I guess Marx is pretty much on the right in terms of the household You can use morality to act as a compass to decide whether you want to support your country or think it's evil, but it doesn't make your views correct. On the topic of abortion, ever since Roe vs Wade, total pregnancies have gone up exponentially, and with that rise so --obviously-- have abortions. Without traditional morality people could completely reject the value of an unborn child and see nothing wrong with this. It's a pathology which spreads over to other aspects of life and government such as profligate spending and more.


On capitalism, you call bosses thieves, yet there is no robbery occurring. Working for an owner of a business is completely voluntary — meaning all wages are contractual and guaranteed; any specific unfortunate anecdote of actual robbery is and should not create an equivalence with capitalism and private ownership. You discounting corporate finance to a mere $50 boss, worker $10 is foolish. Honestly, there are so many variables, factors, additional company expenditures, and the logical need to pay some workers higher than others. (CEOs earn free market wages.) There must be incentives and allowance to produce and expand — stifling private ownership only allows for an ossified economy. Not to mention, you are free to collectively own your means of production in a capitalist society; if you want to co-own a business you are free to do so.

edit: Each underdeveloped nation cannot achieve parity with places like Western Europe and America overnight. They too must undertake the ardous process of industrialization and learning advanced trades. Simply look at India and China for two momentous displays of global capitalism at work. You expect utopias overnight by revolution.

[RedSunRising]

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

Where did you get that idea first off, and second off what do you define as traditional morality?

Thirdly it looks to me that it is capitalism which has been undermining the family in the USA and sexual morality in a way that no socialist country has done near to do doing. Now some on this forum will see that as a bad thing, some as a good thing and some as a mixed blessing...But when I hear or read of capitalists going on about defending high culture or traditional morality I have to laugh!

[Revolution starts with U]

5 people work on making a widget. 1 gets 3/5 the money from the sale, another gets 1.5/5, and the other three get .5/5
There's a robbery occurring somewhere in there.

[Dr Mindbender]

- I do not believe in equality by fiat

Most of us here would agree that car manufacturers have never been the best entities for delivering equality.

Which given the OP's failure to reply is rather ironic that this is another drive by trolling.

[republican2]

Where did you get that idea first off, and second off what do you define as traditional morality?

Thirdly it looks to me that it is capitalism which has been undermining the family in the USA and sexual morality in a way that no socialist country has done near to do doing. Now some on this forum will see that as a bad thing, some as a good thing and some as a mixed blessing...But when I hear or read of capitalists going on about defending high culture or traditional morality I have to laugh!

Capitalism has coexisted alongside of strong family values up until the sexual revolution here in the 1960s. You know, the counterculture of Ho Chi Minh crusaders who came to dominate the ethos of America in weeks. Capitalism has nothing to do with family per se, and although mindless consumerism can put a strain on this it in itself has nothing to do with family. (You could also be mindless consumers in the USSR if you had the rubels; you could consume endlessly as well under mercantilism or other forms of economic systems which involve even a modicum of trade.)

Leftists on the other hand have been the driving force for eroding structure and family. If you look at the gay rights movement in the 1960s all of the spokespersons were in fact on the left. One of their core mantras was the destruction of the family. But the message is promulgated by more than just gay rights activists: many on the left simply hate the West so much that they constantly strive for chaos and disorder in every area of life so that a new government can eventually take hold from the ashes. Wasn't that Saul Alinski's central focus in Rules for Radicals?

Moreover, simply look at the nonsustaining birthrates in former communist and socialist republics for evidence of an empirical breakdown in family and marriage.

[RGacky3]

On capitalism, you call bosses thieves, yet there is no robbery occurring. Working for an owner of a business is completely voluntary — meaning all wages are contractual and guaranteed; any specific unfortunate anecdote of actual robbery is and should not create an equivalence with capitalism and private ownership. You discounting corporate finance to a mere $50 boss, worker $10 is foolish. Honestly, there are so many variables, factors, additional company expenditures, and the logical need to pay some workers higher than others. (CEOs earn free market wages.) There must be incentives and allowance to produce and expand — stifling private ownership only allows for an ossified economy. Not to mention, you are free to collectively own your means of production in a capitalist society; if you want to co-own a business you are free to do so.

Property rights a form of theft.

YOu can have a farm owner, who has never seen the farm, it was handed down by his father and so on. Whereas workers could have worked their their whole life, planted seads, watered and reaped, yet they have NO right to the produce of their labor, only the farm owner has, they have no choice in the matter, (other than maybe working for someone else in the same wage slave conditions), he controls 100% of the produce, that THEY create, giving them just whatever they can get to survive (which is very little considering the high unemployment).

THAT is real theft.

edit: Each underdeveloped nation cannot achieve parity with places like Western Europe and America overnight. They too must undertake the ardous process of industrialization and learning advanced trades. Simply look at India and China for two momentous displays of global capitalism at work. You expect utopias overnight by revolution.

The US got wealth post WW2 due to becoming an empire, i.e. DISPOSSESING the rest of the world, (plus huge government spending and progressive policies from FDR up to Reagen).

Europe got that way partially from the martial plan, (some countries also maintained imperialism), and huge socialist reforms poast WW2.

The undeveloped world got that way by being forced into the washington consensus.

[Dr Mindbender]

Leftists on the other hand have been the driving force for eroding structure and family.

Bullshit. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, were all married men, some of which had children. This is a confused viewpoint because the church has been the most ardent cheerleader of the archetypical family. Leftists do not oppose families, what we do oppose however is the nuclear family ideal for the sake of the nuclear family ideal because we have no stake in preserving the W.A.S.P. values that are so precious to conservatives.

If you look at the gay rights movement in the 1960s all of the spokespersons were in fact on the left.

You reckon that could be because the right are predominately homophobic asshats? Who'dve thunk it?

One of their core mantras was the destruction of the family.

I doubt it. Its more likely their 'core mantra' was equal rights which you were in turn interpreting as ''they want to take your shit away'' because it would be an affront to your privilege as a middle class, heterosexual, (probably) white male.

Moreover, simply look at the nonsustaining birthrates in former communist and socialist republics for evidence of an empirical breakdown in family and marriage..

The causes of declining birthrates in those countries are due to socio-economic factors, not ideological. In Russia, birthrates have dropped SINCE the implementation of the new oligarchy, not during the USSR.

[mikelepore]

I'd like to start things off by asking a simple question myself: Why do many leftists hold such disdain for traditional morality?

How many years does traditional mean? How about the command by King Edward I that anyone who lends money to the poor and then charges them interest shall be hanged by a rope around the neck? Is the year 1275 traditional enough?

[republican2]

YOu can have a farm owner, who has never seen the farm, it was handed down by his father and so on. Whereas workers could have worked their their whole life, planted seads, watered and reaped, yet they have NO right to the produce of their labor, only the farm owner has, they have no choice in the matter, (other than maybe working for someone else in the same wage slave conditions), he controls 100% of the produce, that THEY create, giving them just whatever they can get to survive (which is very little considering the high unemployment).

Unfair maybe. Theft, no. Unless you live in a country which does not have property rights.

The US got wealth post WW2 due to becoming an empire, i.e. DISPOSSESING the rest of the world, (plus huge government spending and progressive policies from FDR up to Reagen).

The US got its wealth from our sheer productivity and and absolute monopoly on the entire world's industry after World War II. It is an objective fact that government spending cannot grow and economy; and while I sympathize with many aspects of the New Deal, it was not responsible for a thing besides making certain people's lives easier to deal with in hard times.

Europe got that way partially from the martial plan, (some countries also maintained imperialism), and huge socialist reforms poast WW2.

Europe was already far into its industrial development well before the second world war. Nearly every third world country besides certain colonized areas had never even began to evolve past their agrarian economies.

The undeveloped world got that way by being forced into the washington consensus.

I've spoken with, read articles by, seen testimonies from, and know by pure fact that if given the offer and opportunity, third worlders will generally never deny multinationals entry into their country. Yes you get the occasional socialist takeovers who nationalize the businesses, but look at how that ends.

[republican2]

Bullshit. Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Che Guevara, were all married men, some of which had children. This is a confused viewpoint because the church has been the most ardent cheerleader of the archetypical family. Leftists do not oppose families, what we do oppose however is the nuclear family ideal for the sake of the nuclear family ideal because we have no stake in preserving the W.A.S.P. values that are so precious to conservatives.

In an above post I acknowledged that Marx was not against traditional roles for a woman. So would you say feminists are on the right of the political spectrum then? The leftist counterculture in the 1960s was the driving force for the devaluation and antipathy towards family life, not Marx or Lenin themselves.

[L.A.P.]

Whoever responds to this thread seriously is an idiot (that goes to you, Rgacky3). I'm as fuck right now and this thread is hilarious. I never know a Conservative knew how to work a computer.