Why elites tend left

[cema]

Удивительный текст. Никто из моих левых друзей не считает себя выше прочих, насколько мне известно. (Разве что в интеллектуальном плане, но на это бывают основания.) И к власти не стремятся.

Про генетическую предрасположенность к политическим предпочтениям я читал и раньше, тот текст был куда более наукообразным. А этот — простая партийная публицистика.

Comments

[arbat.livejournal.com]

Ну, это Вы сказали - как в лужу пернули. Действительно, правые имеют тенденцию бессмысленно запрещать наркотики. Однако, обучение детей - тут Вы отнюдь не правы. Сильно консервативная позиция состоит в том, что обычение вообще не должно быть государственным, а более мягкая - в том, что государство должно дать родителям ваучер, который те смогли бы использовать в школе по своему выбору. Та же чушь в отношении благотворительных пожертвований (Консерваторы предпочитают не собирать налоги на социальные программы). Та же чушь - про что нельзя есть, равно, как и уроки по семитскому фольклору - см. выше.

Так что, с поправкой на чушь, которую Вы напороли, - можно согласиться. Да, консерваторы самым возмутильным образом запрещают людям употреблять наркотики. Ну и, разумеется, они не отказываются от возможности сделат подарок своим избирателям за счет казны. Однако, сие не есть часть их идеологии - наоборот, для них - это проявление беспринципности.

[(Anonymous)]

How convenient! When you want, you ascribe libertarian views to conservatives; when it is not, you do not. What is the conservative standpoint on abortion?

[arbat.livejournal.com]

Well, I have described it quite a few times. Conservative idea is not to prevent a woman from doing something to her body. It is quite easy to prove: if conservatives were indeed, motivated by a desire to take away woamn's right to her body, they would have prohibited removal of an appendix as well.

Thing, that liberals do not understand is that from the point of view of the "pro-life" crowd, we are talking about not one, but two individuals here: a woman, and an unborn child. The second person, according to the "pro-life" viewpoint is as much a human being as a first one. Which means - this human being can not be killed just to make the life of a woman more convinient. This is actually, why they use the term "pro-life".

You may disagree with the premise, you may say that conservatives are incorrect in considering fetus a human being - bbut you most definitely can not claim that the motivation here is not a defense of someone's rights.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree with the propensity to legislate morality in all forms and shapes, and the conservatives are notorious for the attempts to do that.

[arbat.livejournal.com]

Yep, they do it from time to time. However, your comment is totally senseless - absolutely ALL laws are legislated morality. No exclusion. From "shall not kill" to "must pay taxes".

Question is: whether the law is needed to protect someone's rights - or simply to impose one's views on others without any need to protect an innocent person. Conservatives are guilty of trying to do the latter. However, for a liberal, an idea of imposing his views - is a cornerstone, a basis of all his views.

[(Anonymous)]

If I legislate "thou shalt not kill" because I do not want to be killed, there is nothing moral about it, it's pure self-preservation, aka cowardice, if you like. If I legislate "must pay taxes", there is nothing moral about it either, it's pure expectation (whether justified or not) of my positive gain, aka greed, if you like. Not that I care much about being labelled a greedy coward; be my guest. In this vein, in principle, I have not much against the conservatives trying to protect outdated business practices - at least I understand their motivations.

On the other hand, if I legislate "thou shalt not abort a faetus", or "... commit adultery", or "... engage in recreational sex in unconventional ways", or "... consume certain mind-altering substances" not for the reasons of population dynamics or some such that I can benefit from in any way, but simply because I think that it is a wrong thing to do, I'm guilty of legislating morality.

And if you start doing that, who's to say whose morality should win?
Whoever has produced more emotional or more populistic rhetorics?
The only way to stop the vicious cycle of "his religion says/her emotions say" is to rationalise it, and that brings us back to paragraph one.

Beneath all that fluff about protecting rights and innocent persons there is a perfectly rational reason: disenfranchised members of society (or those who feel disenfranchised) are unproductive at best and dangerous at worst, that's all.

Conservatives cater to people who feel disenfranchised or threatened because the world does not live by their meager mental models and hang a carrot of low taxes in front of them.

Populists/totalitarians cater to those who are so threatened by the changing world that they do not even need the carrot.

Liberals cater to people who feel threatened for other reasons and who agree to forego the carrot.

Libertarians cater to everyone else.

[arbat.livejournal.com]

А, я понял. Вы согласны с законом "не убивать" не потому, что Вы считаете убийство злом и нарушением Высшей Морали, а потому, что Вы ссыте за свою жизнь. Если бы не эта боязнь - Вы резали бы народ направо и налево, ибо человек Вы, по Вашему приознанию, лишенный нравственных ориентиров.

Так - я же это и туверждаю. Это и есть отличие между человеком, который верит в Абсолют Морали и атеистом. Последний - может вести себя прилично только от сраха наказания. Иногда такого маленького наказания, как боязнь, что о нем плохо подумают. Не бойтесь. Я уже о вас плохо думаю.

[(Anonymous)]

Are you lacking the ability to understand language by nature or by nurture? Just in case, I'll say it again without being deliberately inflammatory. :) There is no need for the Higher Morals for people who are capable of introspection. Whatever you deem "evil" is merely useless for people who can think several steps ahead. Has it ever occurred to you that atheists behave in a decent manner just because it is more convenient to them? And that the religious types will always find some excuse to kill, to steal or to engage in any other mortal sin and to feel good after it whenever they need to? After all, it is only the religous types who could have the temerity to come up with "there is no atonement without sin, there is no salvation without atonement". By the way, have you ever checked the crime rates in the increasingly secular Europe and in the "God-fearing" United States?

By the way, never think bad of anyone - do not spoil your karma. Who knows, what if your Judeo-Christian ideas about the Supreme are wrong, and there is a karmic cycle instead?

[arbat.livejournal.com]

This is exactly what I said. You lack morals.
Which point you very well illustrated with bigoted generalizations about religious people who are all thiefs and murderers.
And, yes, I understood - you are actually proud of having no morals.
Which morals you do not need. Because, as you explained, the current system of laws ensures that you will follow the rules out of fear of punishment.

Luckily for the rest of us - lack of morals goes hand in hand with cowardice.

[(Anonymous)]

One cannot lack something he does not need. That is the religious types who need morals (aka fear of God - you see, they openly acknowledge that they follow the rules out of fear of punishment, there is no shame in that) to keep them from killing and stealing. Luckily for the rest of us, the adherence to so-called morals goes hand in hand with cowardice as well.

It would have been a draw, if not for the Ockam's razor. Why bother inventing morals if simple cowardice works just as well?

[arbat.livejournal.com]

Ok, ok, I got it - you do not need morals.
You have fear of punishment. Got to be sufficient.

Geeez!!

[(Anonymous)]

Being in denial is so comforting, isn't it?

You poor soul cannot even fathom that some people behave not because of the fear of punishment (worldly or other-worldly - does not matter), but for other reasons.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Like, the morals?

An example, if you have one?

[arbat.livejournal.com]

I can see only few reasons why someone will not kill another person (in no particular order):

1. You like that other person.
2. You need that other person.
3. You are afraid of punishment.
4. Your belief system says that The Great Moral Law of Nature prohibits it. It is Wrong to kill.

Which one is it? Or - do you have another one? My poor soul would be interested to learn something new. Let's hear it.

Re: An example, if you have one?

[ktotam.livejournal.com]

maybe
n. you believe that the world as a whole would be better (=more convenient) for you to live in if the people would not kill each other indiscriminately?
like keeping to the right lane on a highway when it's free even if there's no police around.

Re: An example, if you have one?

[arbat.livejournal.com]

This is not "n". This is strict #4 - all the way. You just expressed believe that no-killing makes World Better. No because we are not killing some particularly useful guy. But simply - anybody.

As for keeping in the right lane - I do it not because the World Will Be Better, but for much more practical reasons - to avoid certain dangers.

[cema.livejournal.com]

Про лужу лишнее.

[arbat.livejournal.com]

Как в ведро пернули?

[cema.livejournal.com]

В консерватории подправить надо.