4 ms·

>>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can

>>The left, as I see it, gets and respects human vulnerability, and our need to depend on one another, and wants to build a just, equitable society where we can all fluorish. >This is what people dislike about the modern left, when it makes the assumption that the intentions of its political opponents are bad just because they disagree on methodology. The writing of the person you're responding to is so egregiously bad that it makes me want to kick a puppy, but your argument is really off base here. The rather Randian, post-eighties conservatism that's prominent today is antithetical to a recognition of "our need to depend on one another." As Thatcher said: They are casting their problems at society. And, you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first. That's not a disagreement about methodology, that's a fundamental difference in outlook, not to mention intentions. It is not helping anything to say "hey, we all want the same thing amirite?"

logicchains 8y ago
Recognition of "our need to depend on one another." is not the end goal of the average left-leaning person (or at least those I know), the end goal is for nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The average right-leaning person would also like nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The right just believes that government intervention won't help poverty, and that it destroys family and community bonds via the government stepping in to fulfil the roles previously played by family and community. The left believes government intervention is needed to fight poverty, and to fix the failures in family and government. I'm sure if you offered the average leftist the chance to live in a world where nobody lived in poverty, albeit one without "a recognition of our need to depend on one another" (whatever that means), they'd happily accept.
- specialist 8y ago
  Our local political organizations are (legally) reformed every two years. We Democrats have a ritual where we introduce ourselves and say why we're a Democrat. Most people say something like "I believe in the greater good." Which I suppose could be warped into whatever you just described. My answer has been "To help people help themselves and to help those who can't." TLDR: You should probably meet some lefties, in person, before you claim to speak for them. Try meeting some righties too.
- aabeshou 8y ago
  you misread my point. I was saying that the policy disagreement comes from that fundamental attitude difference with regard to vulnerability/dependence. It is not an explicit policy goal for all leftists to have kumbaya circles. My point is we cannot eradicate poverty and other economic injustice without recognizing the need for mutual dependence. I challenge you to come up with a plan for eradicating poverty and injustice that does not involve human codependency. But those who would say the only acceptable plan is basically everyone lifting themselves up by bootstraps do not respect or acknowledge the truth of our fundamental vulnerability and dependence on one-another on this earth.
timthorn 8y ago
As Thatcher went on to write in her autobiography: "they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations."
aabeshou 8y ago
whats your issue with my writing?

logicchains 8y ago

Recognition of "our need to depend on one another." is not the end goal of the average left-leaning person (or at least those I know), the end goal is for nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The average right-leaning person would also like nobody to suffer through poverty/neglect. The right just believes that government intervention won't help poverty, and that it destroys family and community bonds via the government stepping in to fulfil the roles previously played by family and community. The left believes government intervention is needed to fight poverty, and to fix the failures in family and government. I'm sure if you offered the average leftist the chance to live in a world where nobody lived in poverty, albeit one without "a recognition of our need to depend on one another" (whatever that means), they'd happily accept.

specialist 8y ago
Our local political organizations are (legally) reformed every two years. We Democrats have a ritual where we introduce ourselves and say why we're a Democrat. Most people say something like "I believe in the greater good." Which I suppose could be warped into whatever you just described. My answer has been "To help people help themselves and to help those who can't." TLDR: You should probably meet some lefties, in person, before you claim to speak for them. Try meeting some righties too.
aabeshou 8y ago
you misread my point. I was saying that the policy disagreement comes from that fundamental attitude difference with regard to vulnerability/dependence. It is not an explicit policy goal for all leftists to have kumbaya circles. My point is we cannot eradicate poverty and other economic injustice without recognizing the need for mutual dependence. I challenge you to come up with a plan for eradicating poverty and injustice that does not involve human codependency. But those who would say the only acceptable plan is basically everyone lifting themselves up by bootstraps do not respect or acknowledge the truth of our fundamental vulnerability and dependence on one-another on this earth.

timthorn 8y ago

As Thatcher went on to write in her autobiography: "they never quoted the rest. I went on to say: There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then to look after our neighbour. My meaning, clear at the time but subsequently distorted beyond recognition, was that society was not an abstraction, separate from the men and women who composed it, but a living structure of individuals, families, neighbours and voluntary associations."

aabeshou 8y ago

whats your issue with my writing?