4 ms·

> If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opi

> If you want to set yourself an interesting challenge, try to figure out why it is you think being on the right wing of politics is incompatible with those opinions. The right wing is large and has lots of factions, with the only thing uniting them being resistance to the left's attempts to reform the system. Which is by and large the entire problem. The right is rarely interested in solving problems. So I could find minor points of agreement -- there's certainly people out there who are a tad too radical for my taste. The problem is that in general though I'm very much in favor of change, and the right isn't.

roenxi 4y ago
> Which is by and large the entire problem. The right is rarely interested in solving problems. The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That is basically why they pick up the label "conservative", the right only exists as a political unit to resist threats from the left. Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). And every faction generally keeps busy dealing with their own perceived problems.
- dale_glass 4y ago
  > The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That's not so much problem solving as just obstructionism. Surely there are things to be done that don't depend at all on what the competition is doing. > Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). No, the right favors non-government approaches because they want to pick and choose. They for instance heavily endorse personal charity because you get to pick who you help. I on the other hand think there should be a floor in society below which nobody is allowed to fall, and that it ideally should be implemented in a fully blind and dispassionate manner, eg, UBI. Everyone gets it automatically no questions asked, without needing to be liked by the local community.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > That's not so much problem solving as just obstructionism. Surely there are things to be done that don't depend at all on what the competition is doing. My government have made it very difficult for me to take my own health, retirement savings, home improvement and often financial decisions into my own hands. Typically the way his happens is that some leftist will be responsible although in the case of the financial stuff it tends to be nonpartisan corruption. If I am too effective at savings then there will also be attempts to gain control of the savings and funnel them into causes I usually think are poorly chosen. Ignoring the left is not really an option; they'll identify resources and come for them to fund their own plans. Otherwise the awkward truth is that controlling government wouldn't be such a big deal.
    - dale_glass 4y ago
      > My government have made it very difficult for me to take my own health, retirement savings, home improvement and often financial decisions into my own hands. > ... > If I am too effective at savings then there will also be attempts to gain control of the savings and funnel them into causes I usually think are poorly chosen Right, that's exactly what I was talking about. We can agree on the surface about some things, but underlying priorities and views aren't really compatible even when things happen to align by accident. Eg, my desire for having guaranteed social minimums isn't really compatible with your desire to personally control what your tax money gets spent on.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - roenxi 4y ago
        Three posts ago you were pointing out obstructionism, now you're saying we have fundamental incompatibilities that can only be resolved by putting money into a pot and having it spent the way you want it to be. I put it to you that it isn't 'obstructionism', it is plain old disagreement. Or if you prefer, the left is being just as obstructionist in blocking the right from making their own decisions. The only difference is where the obstructions are happening.

roenxi 4y ago

> Which is by and large the entire problem. The right is rarely interested in solving problems. The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That is basically why they pick up the label "conservative", the right only exists as a political unit to resist threats from the left. Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). And every faction generally keeps busy dealing with their own perceived problems.

dale_glass 4y ago
> The right are very interested in solving problems; but they are defined by identifying the plans of the left as the biggest problem. That's not so much problem solving as just obstructionism. Surely there are things to be done that don't depend at all on what the competition is doing. > Otherwise the right generally favours non-government approaches to problem solving (partially in an attempt to stop empowering leftists who tend to infest bureaucracies). No, the right favors non-government approaches because they want to pick and choose. They for instance heavily endorse personal charity because you get to pick who you help. I on the other hand think there should be a floor in society below which nobody is allowed to fall, and that it ideally should be implemented in a fully blind and dispassionate manner, eg, UBI. Everyone gets it automatically no questions asked, without needing to be liked by the local community.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > That's not so much problem solving as just obstructionism. Surely there are things to be done that don't depend at all on what the competition is doing. My government have made it very difficult for me to take my own health, retirement savings, home improvement and often financial decisions into my own hands. Typically the way his happens is that some leftist will be responsible although in the case of the financial stuff it tends to be nonpartisan corruption. If I am too effective at savings then there will also be attempts to gain control of the savings and funnel them into causes I usually think are poorly chosen. Ignoring the left is not really an option; they'll identify resources and come for them to fund their own plans. Otherwise the awkward truth is that controlling government wouldn't be such a big deal.
  - dale_glass 4y ago
    > My government have made it very difficult for me to take my own health, retirement savings, home improvement and often financial decisions into my own hands. > ... > If I am too effective at savings then there will also be attempts to gain control of the savings and funnel them into causes I usually think are poorly chosen Right, that's exactly what I was talking about. We can agree on the surface about some things, but underlying priorities and views aren't really compatible even when things happen to align by accident. Eg, my desire for having guaranteed social minimums isn't really compatible with your desire to personally control what your tax money gets spent on.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - roenxi 4y ago
      Three posts ago you were pointing out obstructionism, now you're saying we have fundamental incompatibilities that can only be resolved by putting money into a pot and having it spent the way you want it to be. I put it to you that it isn't 'obstructionism', it is plain old disagreement. Or if you prefer, the left is being just as obstructionist in blocking the right from making their own decisions. The only difference is where the obstructions are happening.