• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is being a Lefty or Righty a moral issue?

And just saying, over and over, that a true statement is false does not make it less true. A country that has: elected an African American POTUS, that may very well elect a woman POTUS in 2016, that has more women than men in college, that is one way or another going to legalize 11 million illegal immigrants, is not a bastion of white male privilege.:roll:

Look at our prison systems, our impoverished urban neighborhoods, then tell me about how we're "not a bastion of white male privilege."
 
It seems like conservatives are always against helping people. They hate immigrants, poor people, and people in jail. What do you guys think, is politics a moral issue?

Stirner tried to separate morality from politics. I think that history has occurred contrary to that position. It's very clear that production, education and leisure (mostly) are social activities, and every time human cooperation occurs, moral values are expressed.
 
Stirner tried to separate morality from politics. I think that history has occurred contrary to that position. It's very clear that production, education and leisure (mostly) are social activities, and every time human cooperation occurs, moral values are expressed.

Yes I would agree, I think morals show be the center of the decision making.
 
Yes I would agree, I think morals show be the center of the decision making.

Maybe. There's more to it than that. Need, self-interest - whither that be economic, or civil -, and forms of outside influence are all major determinants of individual decision making. Morals have a role, sure, but depending upon the individual, it's not the center.

So I where Stirner may have been able to accept his own amoral nihilism, we can take empirical issue with it in the fact that his (and his followers') advocacy bore very little fruit.
 
Maybe. There's more to it than that. Need, self-interest - whither that be economic, or civil -, and forms of outside influence are all major determinants of individual decision making. Morals have a role, sure, but depending upon the individual, it's not the center.

So I where Stirner may have been able to accept his own amoral nihilism, we can take empirical issue with it in the fact that his (and his followers') advocacy bore very little fruit.

I was referring to political parties, a middle class person definitely as you describe.
 
I was referring to political parties, a middle class person definitely as you describe.

Hmm, I disagree there as well. Political parties' actions occur based on defined ideology, and on their need to gain power. Sometimes that ideology is based on a kind of morality, sometimes it's not.
 
Hmm, I disagree there as well. Political parties' actions occur based on defined ideology, and on their need to gain power. Sometimes that ideology is based on a kind of morality, sometimes it's not.

I don't know, I would have to look into it. Do you think the russian, cuban, and other revolutions were justified? I haven't looked into it, so maybe you can give me an idea.
 
Virtually all issues are, at the root, moral issues. Ultimately, all politics is about right/wrong.

Unless you can redefine right and wrong at will like we see today then all bets are off.
It all tends to fall into a gray area and anything goes. those who propound morality are called racist bigot homophobe hah or just stick in the mud?
Or worse yet accused of not wanting to 'help' people.
Lather, Rinse, repeat.
 
I don't know, I would have to look into it. Do you think the russian, cuban, and other revolutions were justified? I haven't looked into it, so maybe you can give me an idea.

Those two were. I'll give you an overview of both - you can ask me whatever comes to mind.

Cuba

The Cuban Revolution was the armed overthrow of Fulgencio Batista by groups of guerrillas. It was the result of corruption, rampant crime, poverty and foreign business exploitation. When successful, Fidel Castro was installed as president, immediately passing Agrarian Reform, which gave ownership to agricultural property to workers and the state. He also embarked on a literacy campaign, giving free education (on all levels) to all citizens. Medicine and housing were also provided, free of cost. Living standards have greatly improved as a result of these measure. Of a revolutionary sentiment, Castro has decried the United States' for passing a trade embargo, and crippling the Cuban economy. But with the help of other Latin American socialisms, and by keeping those disloyal to the cause out of government - by vetting the candidacy of individuals running for the roughly 50% of government positions open for elections -, the government has managed to stave off disaster.

Democracy has been a problem, along with political persecution, but many Cubans recognize that to maintain socialism in the face of immense capitalist pressure, these things are necessary. It's a kind of siege mentality that likely won't disappear unless a strong international bloc is formed.

Russia

Russia is a lot more complex. So you'll probably need to be asking a lot more questions. Especially since I'm writing a post, not a book. ;)

The Revolution was started with the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II by a popular uprising, and the subsequent overthrow of a socialist-majority republic by the Bolshevik Party. Soviets, industrial communities led by workers' councils, were intended to elect representatives to lead the country, but upon realizing this was impossible - due to the lack of a democratic tradition, and the decision to industrialize the country through a Marxist programme -,V. I. Lenin transferred power to a dictator. The New Economic Policy is the most crucial thing to understand about the Russian Revolution. See, in the fist stage, a mixed-economy was established, with an immense tax on peasant surpluses being used to fund industrial development. After the end of Lenin's years, debates over a second stage began. Leon Trotsky and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky formed the left faction, advocating more rapid development (using a larger peasant tax) to ward off capitalist elements forming within the country. And Nikolai Bukharin and Joseph Stalin formed the center-right faction, advocating slower development by largely following the first stage's path. But ultimately, neither won out, with Stalin using political dealings to gain power and implement "socialism from above", which consisted of mass political repression, unreasonable taxes and quotas for peasants (leading to a famine), and cooperation with US enterprises.

The economy is today more capitalist than it's ever been, due to opposition to the brutality of the Stalin years.

* * *

That was grossly summarized, but it'll suffice.
 
Now teach us all about how the American & French Revolutions were completely different.
 
Look at our prison systems, our impoverished urban neighborhoods, then tell me about how we're "not a bastion of white male privilege."

We're not a bastion of white male privilege. If white males committed more crimes then more of them would be in prison.:peace
 
Define the supposed 'morals' of the Left for me?
 
Now teach us all about how the American & French Revolutions were completely different.

One succeeded, the other failed, for one thing.
The French Revolution was more similar to the Confederate Revolution than to the Revolutionary War (which was more 'war' than 'revolution').
That's not 'all about' it, but it's all the effort the question is worth.
 
Those two were. I'll give you an overview of both - you can ask me whatever comes to mind.

Cuba

The Cuban Revolution was the armed overthrow of Fulgencio Batista by groups of guerrillas. It was the result of corruption, rampant crime, poverty and foreign business exploitation. When successful, Fidel Castro was installed as president, immediately passing Agrarian Reform, which gave ownership to agricultural property to workers and the state. He also embarked on a literacy campaign, giving free education (on all levels) to all citizens. Medicine and housing were also provided, free of cost. Living standards have greatly improved as a result of these measure. Of a revolutionary sentiment, Castro has decried the United States' for passing a trade embargo, and crippling the Cuban economy. But with the help of other Latin American socialisms, and by keeping those disloyal to the cause out of government - by vetting the candidacy of individuals running for the roughly 50% of government positions open for elections -, the government has managed to stave off disaster.

Democracy has been a problem, along with political persecution, but many Cubans recognize that to maintain socialism in the face of immense capitalist pressure, these things are necessary. It's a kind of siege mentality that likely won't disappear unless a strong international bloc is formed.

Russia

Russia is a lot more complex. So you'll probably need to be asking a lot more questions. Especially since I'm writing a post, not a book. ;)

The Revolution was started with the overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II by a popular uprising, and the subsequent overthrow of a socialist-majority republic by the Bolshevik Party. Soviets, industrial communities led by workers' councils, were intended to elect representatives to lead the country, but upon realizing this was impossible - due to the lack of a democratic tradition, and the decision to industrialize the country through a Marxist programme -,V. I. Lenin transferred power to a dictator. The New Economic Policy is the most crucial thing to understand about the Russian Revolution. See, in the fist stage, a mixed-economy was established, with an immense tax on peasant surpluses being used to fund industrial development. After the end of Lenin's years, debates over a second stage began. Leon Trotsky and Yevgeni Preobrazhensky formed the left faction, advocating more rapid development (using a larger peasant tax) to ward off capitalist elements forming within the country. And Nikolai Bukharin and Joseph Stalin formed the center-right faction, advocating slower development by largely following the first stage's path. But ultimately, neither won out, with Stalin using political dealings to gain power and implement "socialism from above", which consisted of mass political repression, unreasonable taxes and quotas for peasants (leading to a famine), and cooperation with US enterprises.

The economy is today more capitalist than it's ever been, due to opposition to the brutality of the Stalin years.

* * *

That was grossly summarized, but it'll suffice.


Thanks for the summary, I am going to have to do more research on the subject at hand.
 
still waiting


For what? The morals are quite obvious, no one can claim that supporting the equality of races and equality in social rights, supporting those in need who can not help themselves, supporting religious equality and in general social progressivism is immoral. I could go on, but I think I made my point.
 
Last edited:
For what? The morals are quite obvious, no one can claim that supporting the equality of races and equality in social rights, supporting those in need who can not help themselves, supporting religious equality and in general social progressivism is immoral. I could go on, but I think I made my point.

I support those things, but progressives don't, in my experience.:peace
 
"equality of races"
reverse discrimination via affirmative action?
"equality in social rights"
is that code for cramming homosexuality down our throats?
"supporting those in need who can not help themselves"
redistributing wealth at the point of a gun from makers to takers
"supporting religious equality"
only if its Islam

and in general social progressivism
WTF is that?

har and I'd guess only slightly reworded you'd agree with the thread starter that the morals of the right run along these lines
"conservatives are always against helping people. They hate immigrants, poor people, and people in jail."
 
It seems like conservatives are always against helping people. They hate immigrants, poor people, and people in jail. What do you guys think, is politics a moral issue?
On the face of it. Ideology informs one's preferences. Preferences as morality is the game of PR.

Above and beyond all this, politics is and always was horse sense and timing. Very practical. Morality is the What to to politics' How.
 
Well these days the Rinos are just me-too Democrats
neither wants less government or less intrusions into our lives
So it really doesn't matter one whit what Conservatives think.
 
Lefties hate babies, Christians, freedom, rich people, white people, male people, and straight people or anyone not living in a sexually deviant lifestyle.

Seems like they are against love and full of judgement. Is it a moral issue?

Please note I am being sarcastic but also illustrating the flaws with your post.

morality aside, the groups the GOP has written off or alienated are the youngest and fastest growing ... therein lies the rub for the GOP ...
 
yes yes yes we need to become more like you to ever have any chance of winning an election
not sure who is dumber the left for saying that or the idiot Republicans for actually believing it

narr buddy them white trash rednecks are still bashin' out the ankle biters by the dozen there will always be toothless hillbillies to vote GOP
 
Back
Top Bottom