This is what divides the left wing and the right wing, its the concept of "free will"

I honestly believe the core of the left and the rights disagreement is free will, the right wing believes in free will and thinks poor people are poor because its all their fault, whereas the left wing believes poor people are poor due to a lack of education, malnutrition, and just a overall unhealthy environment that they are raised in. The right wing loves anecdotal evidence so when they see one poor person out of 100 make it out of poverty they see it as proof of free will and proof poor people are just lazy bums, whereas the left wing see's this for what it is, an anecdotal piece of evidence, no more no less.

If we can settle this issue of free will we can settle much of the fighting between the left and right wing. Sadly though, the right wing does not appreciate the scientific method which is why they deny climate change, evolution, and the non-existence of free will. So I suppose a more important issue than right wingers realizing free will doesnt exist would be getting right wingers to appreciate the scientific method in the first place, because with out that they are a lost cause.

 

Political ideology isn't based upon science, it's based upon each of our own individual journeys. It's not something that one choices like a snack from a vending machine, it's something that is molded over time. Inside each person is something that we find true and from there it grows, shaped by the experiences we have in life. It can range from a simple idea to complex ideologies that find themselves debated on TV. To somehow say that the right isn't based upon evidence or that the left is stupid for their beliefs is just wrong. An ideology is nothing more then a fancy word for an opinion. Opinions are never wrong, only when we debate them can they be proven either way.

 

Darn, I had hoped you'd actually made som progress in understanding the underlying differences between the left and right...

No, you are wrong, but you are kind of going in the right direction. For starters, you are making an obvious straw man when you describe the right. Seriously, do you think that's how a right winger sees it? The underlying assumption when you try to figure out the underlying differences between the left and right is that both want the best for everyone. If you can't understand that you're not getting anywhere.

Another thing is that you're not going deep enough. Atleast you've realised that the left-right divide is deeper than opposite positions on issues like gun control and free markets. Congratulations. You've come to the second level, which consists of these fuzzy concepts like freedom and equality. But the question you should ask yourself is "are these differences on what constitutes these concepts the result of some even deeper underlying differnce?". The answer to that is, yes: the differences between the left and right originate even deeper down, waay down fuzzy philosophical-road.

Is that enough to get you thinking some more?

 

It's a huge task but a promising start.

I think believing in free will is politically neutral but I take the point being made. Speaking only for myself, as a left of centre type, I think that the right believes too much in laissez-faire economics. I think you have to manage an economy, not let it run as it will. That doesn't mean shackling it or putting a limit on individual wealth. It does - only my opinion - mean ensuring that those on the bottom of the heap are given a hand - up as the saying goes, not out. I'm reminded of an old Trotskyist mate of mine who said he doesn't care how much someone earns but he'd like to see a BMW in every driveway in Australia (and local BMW dealers would agree no doubt).

 

Are all poor people the way they are, because they're lazy, of course not. Do some poor folks stay in the situation they are because the choices they've made, yep.

Do those folks on the left, believe one can pull themselves up by the bootstraps, I'm sure some do. Do those on the right believe that the only remedy to lift oneself out of poverty, is lifting themselves up by the bootstraps, yep. But Krane is right, science has nothing to do with it.

 

yeah, we need to judge our society by it's weakest members not it's billionaires... there are billionaire tyrants in africa should we judge those countries by the top guy who plunders his countries wealth or the masses of impoverished they rule over...in western countries (mine included) it's inexcusable we still have undereducated, homeless, malnourished ...there will always be those we can't reach or don't want help but there are still millions we can assist...

 

Poor people are poor directly because of the choices they have made. With the exception of being extremely crippled or mentally handicapped there is no other excuse other than making poor choices. There are plenty of ways for people to get out of poverty and many do but it takes some motivation and hard work and many people would rather rely on the government to do it for them, with the democrats blessings of course.

 

At least you admit that the left doesn't believe people are able to think for themselves. Which explains a lot of the problems in your party.

 

Poor choices. What sort of choices would those be?

 

Depends on the poor person doesn't it. I am quite sure they all have not made the exact same choices but I can guarantee you that if you show me any poor person and give me their life story I can point out exactly what they did to fail.

Maybe it was having that third kid by the time your 20 or having that new cell phone every year while working a minimum wage job. Perhaps it is not going to college or getting into drugs/alcohol......it depends. But the fact is that many break out of poverty because they make the proper choices.

 

we need to figure out how the corporate 1% has sold the rags to riches fantasy to the right wing middleclass... that they actually believe they have a chance to join the 1% even while the gap between the middleclass and the 1% grows wider every year...the right wing middle class have become the embodiment of gullible...

 

Why have you decided that should be everyone's goal?

Maybe everyone does not want to do what it would take to be in the 1%, maybe earning a decent living to have a nice house, a family, and a couple of cars with the yearly vacation is enough.

 

It's not that free will doesn't exist. If a person works hard and has a great idea, they can accomplish pretty much anything.

For example, you could win the Olympics.

The problem is that the right-wingers expect everybody to win the Olympics, all the time, or else die immediately. They make it harder for the poor to compete, and easier for the rich to compete. Not to mention that the games are set up by rich people that get to act like they already won something even though they never actually had to compete in the first place, but rather were just handed their medals at birth.

 

Actually it does when it comes to the right/left divide. On most subjects conservatives tend to turn first to the voices of authority whereas liberals tend to look for empirical evidence.

For instance there is an abundance of evidence illustrating the phenomenon of man caused global warming yet many conservatives deny what even their own eyes tell them because their authorities, like Rush and those at FOX news, tell them otherwise.

Likewise, many liberals fail to find any evidence of a god yet the conservative knows it's real because his authority (preacher, parent, peer group...) repeatedly tells him so.

 

and how does that third kid of a potentially drug abusing single mother living an destitute inner city make a right choice? how does that kid get a job other than selling drugs, where does that kid get a proper education, healthcare, nutrition?...I suppose in your world kids in a hellish environment just leave home at 5 or 6yrs old get a job in the 'burbs, attend Harvard and get a ceo job on wall street, all nice and easy...got some more fantasies you wanna share?

 

And how exactly do they make it harder for the poor to compete?

I am very curious about this.

 

Hmmmm, let's see.

How about going and applying at Mcdonald's and studying in school instead of getting involved in drugs. Is that like impossible in your world?

Well it can't be impossible because many people have done it so that theory is destroyed.

Maybe it is because some people actually want out? Naw, it can't be that because I am sure that everyone wants out of poverty.

Is it because maybe some people are smart and others are stupid?

I don't know but there are plenty of ways out. Using the scientific method we can see by evidence that no person is locked into poverty so the reason must lie within the individual.

Correct?

 

So you think its just a coincidence most right wingers deny basic science like evolution and climate change? They all made their own personal journey and came up to their own conclusion that the science is wrong? Whereas very few left wingers "coincidentally" did not do that and instead did the opposite by accepting science? Its not a coincidence, there is a reason the right wing denies science and the left doesnt, its not about "personal journeys" or any of that hippie babble crap, no offense but thats what it was lol.

In a way it is about individual journeys, if you are born in Nevada Missouri your journey is going to be VERY right wing, if you are born in El Paso Texas its going to be very left wing, which is why most people born in Nevada are right wing and most born in El Paso, such as myself, are left wing. Again, its not a coincidence, free will does not exist we are products of our environments, products of our "personal journeys" as you call it. If I was born in Nevada with the rest of my family I would be a ignorant racist conservative just like the rest of my family who lives there, I have no doubt about that. Thankfully I was born in El Paso, a very progressive city even though it is in Texas (we are far off on the border away from the rest of Texas, Texas is huge so we are not all the same, as Rick Perry the Governor of Texas said "They are the blueberry in Tomato soup, if you know what I mean".

 

If that were true then you would be saying that 100% of people born in El Paso will be left wing but they obviously are not.

So your theory is flawed.

That is just being scientific.

If it is not 100% then your argument falls apart because it means there are other factors that determine your political leaning such as a person making their own choices.

- - - Updated - - -

My goal is not to be in the 1%.

So I have made the right choices.

 

I believe the difference is founded in the concept of "freedom". Each side has very different concepts of freedom.

The left believes people should be free from responsibility for their own choices and actions. They should be free from the requirement to provide food, housing, and health care for themselves. They should be free from any financial obligations for their own health and well being.

The right believes people should be free to follow their own path. Free to make decisions for themselves. Free to succeed OR fail based on those decisions. Free to give of themselves for those less fortunate. Free to accept help from those more fortunate. Free to exercise their rights as guaranteed in the Constitution.

 

I agree with what you are saying but it doesnt refute what I said, you say " the differences between the left and right originate even deeper down, waay down fuzzy philosophical-road. " but does the issue of free will not do that exact thing? The issue of free will is probably the most "fuzzy philosophical road" there is, this goes along perfectly with what you are saying. You may not see it as that deep and philosophical but that doesnt mean its not, you just have to think about it harder. The concept of Free Will is a very tough serious philosophical debate, you pretend its not?

 

Do you not see how this is ENTIRELY relevant to the concept of free will?

The left believes the choices people make are based on their environment, not their free will

The right believes people are "free" to make their own choices and they have ultimate free will in every single decision, therefore anything they do wrong is their fault, with that attitude you are clearly less likely to want to help someone when you think "its their fault" as opposed to the left wing view which is essentially "its societies fault". The left wing blames the environment for their misdeeds, the right wing blames the individual.

Again, you guys think you are refuting my claims pretending free will has nothing to do with this while at the same time giving perfect examples of exactly how free will has EVERYTHING to do with this, its at the very core of every single issue

 

You are describing the original libertarian view where they professed a belief in the minimal government. That is indeed what conservatives want.

The government should enforce contracts, provide defense, and construct and carry out laws. That is all. Robert Nozick and to some extent, John Locke showed us how this system works.

 

It's sad that you think there is no job options other than selling drugs for kids who grew up in the inner city.






​