8 ms·

> It's always going to be unfair. Can I ask you a question without I swear any implicit judgement. Do you gravitate towards conservative politicians? Because

> It's always going to be unfair. Can I ask you a question without I swear any implicit judgement. Do you gravitate towards conservative politicians? Because I'm finding that this is the main distinction between Progressive and Conservative-minded people in today's western society. You can account for religion (there are religious leftists and atheist rightists). You can account for racism (there are plenty of racist liberals) But I am developing a mental model (I'm sure it's not original, but I don't know enough about philosophy or sociology to determine who I should read with similar mindset) that the biggest difference is exactly the quote above. Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try. Of course the implicit advantage of conservatism is if that enough people don't try, then it doesn't work, society does not become more fair, and conservatives get to point and say "see?" And, on the flipside, you can spend a generation striving to achieve "real communism" like the USSR did claiming that true socialism is just around the corner, and never actually make any progress because the goal posts keep moving. > Instead of being consumed by envy of others, you can make your own life better. And this is the key reason why I don't agree with you and why I will continue to fight for fairness and equality and equity improvements. I don't want to improve my own life at the expense of others. I think that is inherently selfish and defeatist. I'm a humanist, and I want my contributions go towards maximum optimizations across a multitude of humanity.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raynr 5y ago
Not the poster you were asking, but I did appreciate the stress you put on trying to ask a non judgmental question and I thought I'd add a personal observation, which is: disillusioned progressives also think that way. You try and you try to make society a fairer place to live in, but realise the system is so far gone that nothing you ever do will ever make a difference. So the morally correct and efficient thing to do is to expend those energies into helping you and yours, co-operate with those who extend mutually beneficial arrangements to you, and so on. Not only is it silly to try to create a fairer society, life has extensively proved that it is silly. Not that you disagree with the ideal, it's a great ideal, but it doesn't work in practice. Not that you wouldn't wish to follow it if you could (you would), but life has taught you that trying hurts you and yours. Re: your mental model, I think there are a lot of studies and thinking that have gone into this, but I was immediately remidned of this old ted talk by Jonathan Haidt [0]. I am sure there are tons and tons more research on the topic. [0] "The moral roots of liberals and conservatives" (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw)
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  > Not only is it silly to try to create a fairer society, life has extensively proved that it is silly. Seems rather defeatist. Wouldn't you agree that different societies across the world vary in their levels of fairness? For that matter, how about different societies across time?
  - raynr 5y ago
    I wasn't suggesting to give up, rather it was a response to the poster above, who was trying to build some kind of mental model of how progressives viewed the world in contrast to conservatives. I was trying to highlight that there are progressives out there who are simply tired and just want their lives and the lives of their families to be OK. And I think that's OK. Personally I tend to look at things negatively and push onwards anyway, but I also understand when people say they don't want too much negativity in their lives. So I get it. That's all!
WalterBright 5y ago
> I don't want to improve my own life at the expense of others. That is not what freedom is about. Your comment implies that freedom is a zero-sum system. It most assuredly is not. Under freedom, you (selfishly) prosper by creating value that other people want to give you money for. Stealing is zero-sum, this is not stealing. (Wealth transfer programs are inherently zero-sum, and are unfair.)
- anoncake 5y ago
  No – since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum. And freedom is not a system, it's simply the situation of being able to do what you want without being punished. The freedom to steal is a freedom, just one people generally shouldn't have.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum Neither claim has foundation. > And freedom is not a system Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using.
    - anoncake 5y ago
      > Neither claim has foundation. I'm sorry. Did you just claim that getting 1000€ would improve the quality of life of Jeff Bezos, you and me, and a beggar on the street, by an equal amount? > Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using. And yours is very idiosyncratic. And mostly redundant with "market economy", except a market economy doesn't technically require people to be selfish.
      - chcknsammich 5y ago
        > I'm sorry. Did you just claim that getting 1000€ would improve the quality of life of Jeff Bezos, you and me, and a beggar on the street, by an equal amount? Jeff Bezos does not buy bread with every incremental thousand dollars. He builds institutions that provide bread for a cent cheaper to millions of people. The assumption that you can equate these utilities is exactly the fallacy that caused so many to starve in Russia and China. Markets coordinate capital for the betterment of people at large.
coffeecat 5y ago
> Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try. Having recently decided that I dislike leftist politics and that I align more with right-wing politics (in theory, if not in practice), the thing that switched in my mind is: why does it matter whether or not society is fair? I think that's the wrong question; I don't see any intrinsic value in fairness. I think the right questions are: (1) how can we improve our average level of well-being, and (2) how can we reduce suffering? So in my view, progressives incidentally get some important issues right including single-payer healthcare and environmental conservation. These policies tangibly improve our quality of life. But all the emphasis on equality, fairness, etc? Useless, in my view.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  You can never make life fair for someone who is disabled. I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. There are endless people taller, smarter, faster, younger, handsomer, healthier, etc., than me. Obsessing over the implicit and inevitable unfairness of that is a total waste of time and energy. More generally, no two people are the same. It's not possible to make it fair even for two people, let alone billions.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    That's a strawman. No one's claiming we can achieve total equality.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      > No one's claiming we can achieve total equality I haven't seen any end to raising the bar. Where do you think it should end?
      - anoncake 5y ago
        Obviously you cannot redistribute things that cannot be redistributed, for starters.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
>Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Is this the case? I would think most adults have realized that nature does not do fair, and it cannot be made fair. I was under the impression that "progressivism" is more about raising the floor for quality of life, not about making things fair. So as to avoid the situations of favelas next to high rise condos with pools on their balconies.
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  My experience suggests most progressives don’t realize that: - they tend to be young; - political activists who have done nothing else; - or drug addicts. I can count on my fingers the number of serious progressives I’ve met who aren’t one of those things during my entire life in Seattle. The “progressive” movement is why we have addicts encamped at a school — they’re so out of touch with reality, they view that as “compassion”. Meanwhile, most adults realize police sweeps don’t solve homelessness, but they do prevent violent drug addicts leaving used needles all over the children’s playground.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    >The “progressive” movement is why we have addicts encamped at a school — they’re so out of touch with reality, they view that as “compassion”. I would not classify that as progressivism. Things like voting rights and ranked choice voting, progressive taxation, environmental protection, increasing educational opportunities for all, more nutritional options for food at schools, access to mental and all other healthcare, etc would fall under progressivism in my book. Of course, I'm not the arbiter of what is and is not deemed progressive, but generally I was under the impression that the goals were to keep the bottom quintiles moving forward, not letting drug addicts establish camps on or near school grounds.
    - bopbeepboop 5y ago
      They call themselves Progressives here in Seattle, and purport to do those things you listed, but actually just destroyed our police force, left vagrants to camp at schools, and generally have destroyed the quality of life here in Seattle. Like most Marxist ideas, they claim Utopia and deliver Dystopia.
collyw 5y ago
As someone that has moved from fairly hard left to centre (though probably considered far right by some), to me the difference is that progressives think they can make the world better, conservatives think that such actions are likely to make things worse. Thomas Sowell brings a lot of evidence based arguments to such discussions.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
You might enjoy reading about the left/right dichotomy of whether ‘free will’ is believed to exist. e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318842505_Political_Differences_in_Free_Will_Belief_Are_Associated_With_Differences_in_Moralization https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318842505_Political...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

raynr 5y ago

Not the poster you were asking, but I did appreciate the stress you put on trying to ask a non judgmental question and I thought I'd add a personal observation, which is: disillusioned progressives also think that way. You try and you try to make society a fairer place to live in, but realise the system is so far gone that nothing you ever do will ever make a difference. So the morally correct and efficient thing to do is to expend those energies into helping you and yours, co-operate with those who extend mutually beneficial arrangements to you, and so on. Not only is it silly to try to create a fairer society, life has extensively proved that it is silly. Not that you disagree with the ideal, it's a great ideal, but it doesn't work in practice. Not that you wouldn't wish to follow it if you could (you would), but life has taught you that trying hurts you and yours. Re: your mental model, I think there are a lot of studies and thinking that have gone into this, but I was immediately remidned of this old ted talk by Jonathan Haidt [0]. I am sure there are tons and tons more research on the topic. [0] "The moral roots of liberals and conservatives" (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw)

MaxBarraclough 5y ago
> Not only is it silly to try to create a fairer society, life has extensively proved that it is silly. Seems rather defeatist. Wouldn't you agree that different societies across the world vary in their levels of fairness? For that matter, how about different societies across time?
- raynr 5y ago
  I wasn't suggesting to give up, rather it was a response to the poster above, who was trying to build some kind of mental model of how progressives viewed the world in contrast to conservatives. I was trying to highlight that there are progressives out there who are simply tired and just want their lives and the lives of their families to be OK. And I think that's OK. Personally I tend to look at things negatively and push onwards anyway, but I also understand when people say they don't want too much negativity in their lives. So I get it. That's all!

WalterBright 5y ago

> I don't want to improve my own life at the expense of others. That is not what freedom is about. Your comment implies that freedom is a zero-sum system. It most assuredly is not. Under freedom, you (selfishly) prosper by creating value that other people want to give you money for. Stealing is zero-sum, this is not stealing. (Wealth transfer programs are inherently zero-sum, and are unfair.)

anoncake 5y ago
No – since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum. And freedom is not a system, it's simply the situation of being able to do what you want without being punished. The freedom to steal is a freedom, just one people generally shouldn't have.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > since wealth has diminishing marginal utility, wealth transfer programs are inherently positive-sum Neither claim has foundation. > And freedom is not a system Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    > Neither claim has foundation. I'm sorry. Did you just claim that getting 1000€ would improve the quality of life of Jeff Bezos, you and me, and a beggar on the street, by an equal amount? > Freedom has many meanings. I made it clear which meaning I refer to, and it isn't the one you're using. And yours is very idiosyncratic. And mostly redundant with "market economy", except a market economy doesn't technically require people to be selfish.
    - chcknsammich 5y ago
      > I'm sorry. Did you just claim that getting 1000€ would improve the quality of life of Jeff Bezos, you and me, and a beggar on the street, by an equal amount? Jeff Bezos does not buy bread with every incremental thousand dollars. He builds institutions that provide bread for a cent cheaper to millions of people. The assumption that you can equate these utilities is exactly the fallacy that caused so many to starve in Russia and China. Markets coordinate capital for the betterment of people at large.

coffeecat 5y ago

> Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Conservatives believe it is not possible, and it's silly to even try. Having recently decided that I dislike leftist politics and that I align more with right-wing politics (in theory, if not in practice), the thing that switched in my mind is: why does it matter whether or not society is fair? I think that's the wrong question; I don't see any intrinsic value in fairness. I think the right questions are: (1) how can we improve our average level of well-being, and (2) how can we reduce suffering? So in my view, progressives incidentally get some important issues right including single-payer healthcare and environmental conservation. These policies tangibly improve our quality of life. But all the emphasis on equality, fairness, etc? Useless, in my view.

WalterBright 5y ago
You can never make life fair for someone who is disabled. I wouldn't trade my health for a billion dollars. There are endless people taller, smarter, faster, younger, handsomer, healthier, etc., than me. Obsessing over the implicit and inevitable unfairness of that is a total waste of time and energy. More generally, no two people are the same. It's not possible to make it fair even for two people, let alone billions.
- anoncake 5y ago
  That's a strawman. No one's claiming we can achieve total equality.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > No one's claiming we can achieve total equality I haven't seen any end to raising the bar. Where do you think it should end?
    - anoncake 5y ago
      Obviously you cannot redistribute things that cannot be redistributed, for starters.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

>Progressive people believe that society is not fair but could be. Is this the case? I would think most adults have realized that nature does not do fair, and it cannot be made fair. I was under the impression that "progressivism" is more about raising the floor for quality of life, not about making things fair. So as to avoid the situations of favelas next to high rise condos with pools on their balconies.

bopbeepboop 5y ago
My experience suggests most progressives don’t realize that: - they tend to be young; - political activists who have done nothing else; - or drug addicts. I can count on my fingers the number of serious progressives I’ve met who aren’t one of those things during my entire life in Seattle. The “progressive” movement is why we have addicts encamped at a school — they’re so out of touch with reality, they view that as “compassion”. Meanwhile, most adults realize police sweeps don’t solve homelessness, but they do prevent violent drug addicts leaving used needles all over the children’s playground.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  >The “progressive” movement is why we have addicts encamped at a school — they’re so out of touch with reality, they view that as “compassion”. I would not classify that as progressivism. Things like voting rights and ranked choice voting, progressive taxation, environmental protection, increasing educational opportunities for all, more nutritional options for food at schools, access to mental and all other healthcare, etc would fall under progressivism in my book. Of course, I'm not the arbiter of what is and is not deemed progressive, but generally I was under the impression that the goals were to keep the bottom quintiles moving forward, not letting drug addicts establish camps on or near school grounds.
  - bopbeepboop 5y ago
    They call themselves Progressives here in Seattle, and purport to do those things you listed, but actually just destroyed our police force, left vagrants to camp at schools, and generally have destroyed the quality of life here in Seattle. Like most Marxist ideas, they claim Utopia and deliver Dystopia.

collyw 5y ago

As someone that has moved from fairly hard left to centre (though probably considered far right by some), to me the difference is that progressives think they can make the world better, conservatives think that such actions are likely to make things worse. Thomas Sowell brings a lot of evidence based arguments to such discussions.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

You might enjoy reading about the left/right dichotomy of whether ‘free will’ is believed to exist. e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318842505_Political_Differences_in_Free_Will_Belief_Are_Associated_With_Differences_in_Moralization https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318842505_Political...