The Left Destroys EVERYTHING It Touches

[RCSaunders]

If you deem controlling your borders authoritarian, so be it. Without border control, you have no country. Every country controls their borders. It's number one on the list of things to do when you set your own country.

Is that what you did when, "you set your own country?"

I suspect you never, "set your own country," or know a single individual who has. If you're defending borders, its borders of someone else's country, not yours. It's the, "government's," country--at best you just happen to live in it or may have been born in it. You had nothing to do with making it what it is. It is no more, "your country," than it is anyone else's.

[henry quirk]

Simplicity,

There ain't nuthin' wrong with the open border where the citizens are a self-reliant people, where the proxy of government is small and reigned in, where the only safety net is private charity.

Where citizens have been taught, or forced, to rely, where gov overbears, where all are guaranteed subsistence, the open border is madness.

You're right; they are wrong.

And this whole It's the, "government's," country manure: that there is part of the scam. Don't you believe it.

[FlashDangerpants]

So it's YOU that wants the authoritarian solution, not particularly the right or the left. You want authoritarianism that suits you, to choose who lives where on a top-down basis of your own social engineering. But you also you want to complain about authoritarianism itself while you are doing that. Because you are a hypocrite.

If you deem controlling your borders authoritarian, so be it. Without border control, you have no country. Every country controls their borders. It's number one on the list of things to do when you set your own country.

The left believes that a [select] group of people needs to get together to tell everybody else every fucking thing. In representative democracies, it is [was] believed that you give all the power possible to the citizens because they will act more prudently in their own interests. Look at the results of both systems. Did you grow-up under Communism or far-left socialism?

It simply is a fact of the matter that in setting borders, applying quotas and tests and conditions for who can cross them for how long, for what purpose and so on is a top down authoritarian act. The fact that you approve of this one, or view it as some sort of necessary evil, doesn't change that. It is what it is, you are wasting your efforts by trying to call it something else.

It is also a fact that you opened up a thread saying that the left is bad because they are authoritarians, but in that post one of the authoritarian crimes you accuse them of is ... not doing enough of the authoritarian thing that you happen to like.

It is therefore a fact of simple logic that to the extent that what you wrote could be considered an argument at all, it is a self defeating one. You constructed a poor argument so you should do something about that rather than trying to get personal.

I hate to be "nasty", but this is a philosophy forum, so some elements of philosophy might reasonably be expected to show up in conversation occasionally.

[uwot]

...adopt real money...

What is 'real money'?

[Immanuel Can]

So it's YOU that wants the authoritarian solution, not particularly the right or the left. You want authoritarianism that suits you, to choose who lives where on a top-down basis of your own social engineering. But you also you want to complain about authoritarianism itself while you are doing that. Because you are a hypocrite.

If you deem controlling your borders authoritarian, so be it. Without border control, you have no country. Every country controls their borders. It's number one on the list of things to do when you set your own country.

The left believes that a [select] group of people needs to get together to tell everybody else every fucking thing. In representative democracies, it is [was] believed that you give all the power possible to the citizens because they will act more prudently in their own interests. Look at the results of both systems. Did you grow-up under Communism or far-left socialism?

It simply is a fact of the matter that in setting borders, applying quotas and tests and conditions for who can cross them for how long, for what purpose and so on is a top down authoritarian act.

You're not distinguishing between "authority" and "authoritarian." The former is potentially legitimate, and the latter, always excessive.

There's nothing wrong with "authority" IF that "authority" is legitimate. The question is why we would think a world government would be more "legitimate" than a national one. And why would an unelected, arbitrary and speculative "world government," in order to actualize its own ambitions, have "authority" to destroy borders that the national one has set up in order to protect people?

I hate to be "nasty"...

When did this start?

[FlashDangerpants]

...adopt real money...

What is 'real money'?

He was complaining about something from 50 years ago, so he's presumably a goldbug who resents the collapse of Bretton Woods around that time.

He was also talking about "a moral system of credit/market interest rates" in that same post though, which is likely to be weird and authoritarian.

[FlashDangerpants]

If you deem controlling your borders authoritarian, so be it. Without border control, you have no country. Every country controls their borders. It's number one on the list of things to do when you set your own country.

The left believes that a [select] group of people needs to get together to tell everybody else every fucking thing. In representative democracies, it is [was] believed that you give all the power possible to the citizens because they will act more prudently in their own interests. Look at the results of both systems. Did you grow-up under Communism or far-left socialism?

It simply is a fact of the matter that in setting borders, applying quotas and tests and conditions for who can cross them for how long, for what purpose and so on is a top down authoritarian act.

You're not distinguishing between "authority" and "authoritarian." The former is potentially legitimate, and the latter, always excessive.

Well with you that is always going to be a matter of religion and therefore a nothing debate.

If Simplicity wants to try to make that distinction objective in the absence of a dependency on a hypothetical supernatural entity he's welcome to give it a shot but it doesn't look promising.

The question is why we would think a world government would be more "legitimate" than a national one.

Erm.... what?

[Immanuel Can]

Well with you that is always going to be a matter of religion...

I actually said zero about "religion."

I was just speaking about the difference between "authority" and "authoritarian."

The question is why we would think a world government would be more "legitimate" than a national one.

Erm.... what?

What's not to understand? The question is, "Why would a world government be more 'legitimate' than a national government?"

The answer, obviously, is that there's no reason it would be.

And if, as is the case with Brussels or Davos, the group who is aiming to form the larger, world government is totally unelected, what legitimacy does such a project have at all? It doesn't even have permission of the governed.

The national goverment, in a democracy, at least has that.

[simplicity]

So don't expect them ever to agree that your freedom or your country matters.

I agree with the lion's share of what you say, but I do believe that they care a great deal about all the things we care about, it's just they want it all for for free [appropriated], that is, the party elite. Anybody who is pro-left sees themselves are one of the chosen elite of the new left. The rest never knows what's going to hit them!

Leftism is a huge lie based on childish fantasies that end up murdering millions. That's about the best you can say about it.

[simplicity]

Is that what you did when, "you set your own country?"

I suspect you never, "set your own country," or know a single individual who has. If you're defending borders, its borders of someone else's country, not yours. It's the, "government's," country--at best you just happen to live in it or may have been born in it. You had nothing to do with making it what it is. It is no more, "your country," than it is anyone else's.

This is the best you have? You're more cleaver than that!

[simplicity]

It simply is a fact of the matter that in setting borders, applying quotas and tests and conditions for who can cross them for how long, for what purpose and so on is a top down authoritarian act. The fact that you approve of this one, or view it as some sort of necessary evil, doesn't change that. It is what it is, you are wasting your efforts by trying to call it something else.

Perhaps you would like to have a free-for-all? They generally don't end well.

It is also a fact that you opened up a thread saying that the left is bad because they are authoritarians, but in that post one of the authoritarian crimes you accuse them of is ... not doing enough of the authoritarian thing that you happen to like.

Again, although I do consider myself a philosophical anarchist, actual anarchy doesn't work-out well [as noted above].

It is therefore a fact of simple logic that to the extent that what you wrote could be considered an argument at all, it is a self defeating one. You constructed a poor argument so you should do something about that rather than trying to get personal.

Do you know my 9th grade English teacher [although I suppose she's moved on to the great classroom in the sky decades ago]?

I hate to be "nasty", but this is a philosophy forum, so some elements of philosophy might reasonably be expected to show up in conversation occasionally.

You can't really help it. It's what happens when you only see the bad that happens in the world and need somebody else to blame. You need balance. There is a great deal of good in the world, as well. Try to enjoy it once in a while.

[simplicity]

...adopt real money...

What is 'real money'?

You should read up on the subject because if you don't understand how using FIAT currency trashes a culture, you're not going to have a very good grasp on what has been going on for the past 50 years.

Essentially, real money is money that has value in and of itself, that is, it can not just be created out of thin air. Gold and silver has been used for thousands of years because you can not counterfeit it. You can use anything that is rather scarce and would be agreed on by the society.

The power of using real money is so great that in the U.S., prices [actual prices] were cheaper in 1900 than they were in 1800. When the productivity of a society increases with real money, the money becomes more valuable and everybody who uses money benefits. In a FIAT system, creating inflation only benefits those who have initial access to the money [before it loses its value]. Inflation [money printing] destroys the value of work done by the entire society.

[Immanuel Can]

Anybody who is pro-left sees themselves are one of the chosen elite of the new left. The rest never knows what's going to hit them!

That's absolutely true. They don't know that their real overlords see them as serfs and pawns, not as peers. The think that "free" is going to mean "more for me," whereas it's actually going to mean, "much less for everybody except the real elite."

To be an elite Leftist, it's not enough to be passionate for Leftism. They don't understand that. What you have to have is massive, massive privilege on your side already. The top Leftists are multi-millionaires and billionaires, and they have no intention of letting the plebs swim their pool. No way.

You can see this in the leading Democrats in the States. For you, they flood the borders with poverty-stricken immigrants and drug runners. For them, it's "Don't you dare send them to my gated community." For you, it's "No police serving the urban ghettos." For them, it's "Private security on every hand." For you, it's "Equality of poverty." For them, it's offshore bank accounts, international chalets, and sailboats in the Hamptons all summer...

Leftism is a huge lie based on childish fantasies that end up murdering millions. That's about the best you can say about it.

Yep.

[FlashDangerpants]

It simply is a fact of the matter that in setting borders, applying quotas and tests and conditions for who can cross them for how long, for what purpose and so on is a top down authoritarian act. The fact that you approve of this one, or view it as some sort of necessary evil, doesn't change that. It is what it is, you are wasting your efforts by trying to call it something else.

Perhaps you would like to have a free-for-all? They generally don't end well.

It is also a fact that you opened up a thread saying that the left is bad because they are authoritarians, but in that post one of the authoritarian crimes you accuse them of is ... not doing enough of the authoritarian thing that you happen to like.

Again, although I do consider myself a philosophical anarchist, actual anarchy doesn't work-out well [as noted above].

It is therefore a fact of simple logic that to the extent that what you wrote could be considered an argument at all, it is a self defeating one. You constructed a poor argument so you should do something about that rather than trying to get personal.

Do you know my 9th grade English teacher [although I suppose she's moved on to the great classroom in the sky decades ago]?

I hate to be "nasty", but this is a philosophy forum, so some elements of philosophy might reasonably be expected to show up in conversation occasionally.

You can't really help it. It's what happens when you only see the bad that happens in the world and need somebody else to blame. You need balance. There is a great deal of good in the world, as well. Try to enjoy it once in a while.

Your argument is self-contradictory. You don't seem to be up to understanding that, let alone rectifying it. Which is worrying because it's an extremely simple predicament. Either you need to withdraw your complaint that the evil nasty LEFT is authoritarian... or you have to withdraw your objection to this Open Borders thing you are blaming them for given that you want a more authoritarian apparoach than they do.

I don't find your efforts to divert the conversation to mild personal insults very interesting. If you really need to do that instead of just dealing with the structural problems in your argument then you need to add some spice.

[Sculptor]

The "Left" has elevated the entire western world from a state of feudalism to one in which the people are protected from crime, fire, and ill health. One in which all are literate and able to vote.
The "Left" initiated concern for the people and in the leites fear of uprisings and rebellion were forced to provide police and fires services, town and city planning, water systems free from disease. Pressure from the "Left" caused the building of bridges and roads, ending turnpike tolls. Pressure from the "Left" also promoted universal education for all, which has transformed the very fabric of society.

The "Left" and pressure from the left led to further democritisation, with the extension of the vote to people who did not own property, to women and to ordinary working people.

What have the "Left" every done for us???

Health services, Police, and Fire Services.
Transport. Free roads
Equality under the law
Town and City Planning
Clean Air and Water
Education, Education, Education.
Vaccination programmes