What are right-wing/conservative politics if not the preservation of social heirarchy?

Author: Username

Posts

Total: 126
#121
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
he who makes the rules can change the rules.  Until profit is taken out of "public service" this is the way it will be.  Can you blame a lawyer for finding a loophole in a law?  Same thing for businesses, rich people etc.
WE MUST DEMAND A LOGICALLY COHERENT SET OF LAWS BASED ON EXPLICIT PRIMARY AXIOMS.
#122
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
would you prefer to participate in a sport where everyone played by the same rules and all participants had a realistic chance of "winning"?
If someone with no legs wants to race you, should your legs be cut off?

Do you have a realistic chance of winning against any pro athlete?  Why would you think you could win against a pro business person?
Some people are better at x than other people, it's impossible and immoral to try and make them equal.

as far as rules go I see them much like standards generally speaking, should they be lowered like the soft bigotry of low expectations?

I'm not so sure it's the rules that are the problem but rather the loop holes and those not held to those rules, the exceptions.  Anyway I think it all starts and is the fault of the people who become multi millionaires "serving the public"
Term lengths should have been a thing long, long ago.
Ok, ok, calm down now Harrison Bergeron. [LINK](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBcpuBRUdNs)

"Winning" in this example is the lowest possible bar.  The right to LIFE, FOOD, CLOTHING, AND SHELTER.

Nobody should expect to be handed a free super-bowl ring every year just for watching the game.  That's not what we're talking about.

IN ORDER TO LIVE IN A VOLUNTARIST SOCIETY (meritocracy), WE MUST MITIGATE ALL FORMS OF COERCION.

THIS WILL NEVER RESULT IN "CHOPPING OFF PEOPLE'S LEGS".
#123
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
I prefer not to think of life as a sport. 
Please present your preferred metaphor.

As it is someone has to make the rules. And most likely it will be the ones who are dominant.
Just like a sport.

And we all know that there are always going to be dominant people or organisations.
Not necessarily.  Are you familiar with HOLACRACY?  What about RCV?  Or maybe VOLUNTARISM?

The point is - we need to have equality before the law. Same law for EVERYONE. When we start changing the law to make things more equal - it actually causes a greater division and more injustice in the community. 
WE MUST DEMAND A LOGICALLY COHERENT SET OF LAWS BASED ON EXPLICIT PRIMARY AXIOMS.

I don't think life is about winning.  Life is not a game. It is  not a sport. If we were to use a sports illustration - which sport would you propose life is like? Chess - where every piece has the same skill level? Gridiron where every individual is the quarterback. Soccer where every person is the goalkeeper? What sort of game would that be? I suspect it would be very boring and not much fun. 
Life is a collection of different games, different jobs, hobbies, friendships, relationships, each with different goals and definitions of "success".

The main "problem" is that some people can participate voluntarily (don't have to work if they don't want to or can quit their job without fear of starvation) AND SOME ARE FORCED TO PARTICIPATE.

The people who are FORCED TO PARTICIPATE are generally relegated to dangerous and or unpleasant jobs low paying jobs with precious few (if any) protections against coercive and tyrannical employment practices.

The progressive movement wants everyone to be the quarterback.
STRAWMAN.

Everyone the star.
STRAWMAN.

Yet anyone who knows about games - realises that the quarterback is only as good as the rest of the team.
I agree.

In any event, I don't desire to be the same as everyone else.
I thought you said something like, "equal under the law" or somesuch.

I simply want the same laws to apply equally to all.
Ok, there it is.  Would you care to explain?  Do you believe that rich people should be able to get out of jail time by paying multi-million dollar fines?

I find the level playing field a nonsensical progressive - (regressive) fantasy land where in reality only the elite get rich and everyone else just has to suck it up. 
Do you find the idea of an inalienable right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" - a regressive fantasy land?

LEVEL PLAYING FIELD = NO COERCION
#124
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
how can that ever happen realistly when "in government we trust"?  it's kind of laughable isn't it?  who put us in the situation of the unending and incomprehensible bureaucracy and legal system?  If we get more government, more socialist ideas that will fix it, right?  The left, for whatever reason, is putting all their money in hopes of electing people who will fix the system the government created.  Their savior has been in this system for what, 50 years or more?  
President Trump is no savior either, but which one has done justice reform and removing redundant and useless regulations?  He needs to do much more, but it's still more than the nothing previous administrations have done.
The independent/libertarian leaning people need to take control imo.

Is affirmative action and race based programs leveling the playing field?  How about raising the Asian s.a.t. score requirements?

I agree the rules should be minimal and apply to everyone equally.  But that also requires letting and accepting that people will fail and then we fall into the trap of social programs which treat people differently.

but let's take this a step further.  Does the U.S. play on a level playing field?  I'd say no hence the new trade agreements and drug prices, but that's just the beginning and far more needs to be done.  Level playing field means not subsidising the rest of the world.
#125
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The left, for whatever reason, is putting all their money in hopes of electing people who will fix the system the government created.  Their savior has been in this system for what, 50 years or more?  
"TWO PARTY" = ONE PARTY

The "left" and the "right" BOTH put their hopes in electing people who will "fix" the system.  It's the classic HERO MYTH.

You can't expect an individual to fix a SYSTEMIC FAILURE.

So called, "justice reform and removing redundant and useless regulations" is just more window dressing and CORPORATE BOOT LICKING.

The independent/libertarian leaning people need to take control imo.
WE MUST DEMAND RCV.

Is affirmative action and race based programs leveling the playing field?
NO.

I agree the rules should be minimal and apply to everyone equally.  But that also requires letting and accepting that people will fail and then we fall into the trap of social programs which treat people differently.
If everyone was guaranteed an inalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" then they could CHOOSE to work VOLUNTARILY.

People could then QUIT WORKING FOR ABUSIVE EMPLOYERS.  NO "REGULATION" NEEDED.

Level playing field means not subsidising the rest of the world.
Level playing field means NO MORE CORPORATE WELFARE.
#126
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
but let's take this a step further.  Does the U.S. play on a level playing field?
If you bend your own rules because "someone else somewhere is bending the rules" then you don't believe in your own rules.

LIVE BY THE FREE-MARKET AND DIE BY THE FREE-MARKET.

You can't expect to be able to COERCE the rest of the world into "free-markets".

And if you did manage to COERCE the rest of the world into "free-markets" you'd have created a DE FACTO DICTATORSHIP.

And don't forget, FREE-MARKETS REQUIRE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF LABOR.