I Hate Middle Class "Liberals" and "Socialists" (and here's why)

The OP is complaining about behaviors of groups, not individuals. A given middle-class socialist may be very honest and treat the working man with great respect. Just because the bumper stickers and the loitering laws arrive at the same time does not mean the individuals with the bumper stickers are making the laws.

Sorry your neighborhood is not the way you like it.

 

Groups are simply made up of individuals, often many who are willing to ignore and/or accept what would otherwise be unacceptable as long as they are achieving/acquiring something desirable. A given individual of any class, or label, may be very honest and treat both the working and the non-working man with respect. Bumper stickers are expressions of those who apply them, and the vast majority of individuals have little if any effect on what laws are created.

Don't be sorry, my neighborhood is exactly how I like it, and why I moved into and became a member of it. But don't tell the government, because they would probably want to change it, making us more equal to other neighborhoods. We are the epitome of how democracy can work on a small scale, without loss of individual Liberty which becomes a necessity when employing democracy on a large scale.

 

You're right, there's enough to go around.

This does not mean that some people should get lots and some people should get nothing, this means that there should be plenty for everyone, there is no need for anyone to work too hard, when there should be plenty for everyone with only a reasonable amount of work.

 

That's not exactly what I wrote.

Wondering how you intended me to interpret the word 'This' boldened above, I'm wondering how you think people should acquire their needs and wants. While thee is 'plenty' of most of the things people may need or want, I assume you DO recognize the fact that there is an underlying cost to making each of those things available. Fairness in remuneration is achieved when the prospective employee and employer both agree on the amount to be paid in return for the labor either mental or physical to be produced. If you do nothing at all, you have no claim or entitlement to anything at all other than what people are willing to give to you. Of course you are free to join a commune and become a member of a collective, if they are willing to support you with nothing in return.

I'm sorry, but using your definition of intrinsic, "useful", a growing number of the population have little intrinsic value, and some none at all. With no intent to be coarse, or lacking in sympathy or empathy, how often has the premature loss of a rich, a middle class, or a poor person, had a noticeable effect on your life? What I'm trying to get across is that societies work best when the members work together, and that is best achieved on small scales where everyone is allowed input in decision making.

Expressing hate for an individual, group of individuals, or middle class liberals and socialists, achieves nothing but division within a society and allows those who govern to do so by mandates and force.

 

There is an underlying cost.

And that cost is very low, compared to what it once was. There is no reason for people in general to labor as they once had to.

 

I agree that the costs of producing most things that were very costly and labor intensive in the past to produce has diminished greatly today, making many things available to a much greater number of persons.

I made no mention of people having to labor as they once did, only that labor, our own or that of someone else, is the means by which we receive our wages or assistance.

 

Well that's quite correct.

So then, why should we not distribute the burden evenly, such that everyone gets enough, since there is enough to give everyone enough, with minimal labour from all? Why should people who do no real work, reap huge benefits, while those who do actual labour, get very little?

 

What are you defining to be the burden? Labor, expenses, or something else?

It's beginning to sound like it's NOT a case of "I hate middle class Liberals and Socialists (and here's why)" but instead a case of "I hate those who have more than I think they need, or should be allowed to have, and I want government to take some of it and give it to someone else".

There are no laws I'm aware of that forbid us from giving to others we wish to help. Government, who I'm sure you view as the source from which everything should be provided, can only give from what it first takes from those who produce a product or income. People are paid based on the value they bring to those who employ them, and with a growing population the supply of prospective employees creates a competitive job market, not to mention the competition with 3rd world workers who are able to greatly increase their income and life style at a fraction of the cost of employing an American worker, while maintaining or even increasing productivity, and costs to the employer making their product available to a greater number of people and at a lower price. Just imagine if computers and their component parts were only allowed to be produced by American workers. What would they cost? How many of us could afford one? The same is true for much, if not most of the numerous high tech products found in homes of both the rich and the poor in the U.S.

As long as people are acquiring what they have legally, I have no problem or complaint as to how much they acquire. As people gain work experience they usually see their income rise. Patience and persistence usually are rewarded appropriately.

 

The problem I see RooR as dancing around (basically the fundamental Marxist problem from the very beginning) is this: people are currently COMPELLED to work to gain access to the means of life because those means are controlled by aa small group of powerful interests, called "capital", who have (mostly ill-gotten) ownership privilege over the resources (land, virgin materials, and means of production).

The general formulation, which I happen to agree with, is that this setup places undue power in the hands of middlemen, and estranges actual laborers from the fruits of their work.

If the ownership interests were not so disproportionate--if, for instance, more of Earth's natural wealth were in "the commons", or if workers owned the more of the means for turning those raw materials--it is speculated (but, it should be pointed out, has rarely if ever been shown in actual experience) that the need for labor on the part of the average human would go down, and it would be a kinder, gentler world to live in.

RooR, have I summarized well, or were you trying to go a different direction w the argument?

 

I don't know of anyone who believes that.

In your world, what percentage of the population believes that?

For some haters, hate might be based on what other people have and what another thinks they deserve to have. But that's not true of all haters. Your conclusion is invalid.

 

Raga Mala,

Sounds quite close to me.

 

Ehh, you largely got it.

Indie, WHY do you keep talking like I, RooRshack, hate middle class liberals and socialists? This is NOT my thread, I AM a middle class liberal socialist.

 

So you have a small circle of acquaintances or ignore what even the media presents when interviewing voters?

In the world we both live in, I have no access to reliable data to provide a figure from, however it would appear that a large enough percentage of the population allowing Obama and others like him to be elected and/or re-elected should indicate it is a sizeable and significant percentage.

Invalid because you say so? It would appear that most every thread in the political forums I've visited here exhibit a large amount of animosity towards those who have what is claimed to be more than they need, often enhanced by a generous mixture of vulgarities for emphasis.

 

It was already clear.

It IS the thread topic, and I don't recall directly stating that I am referring to you as being a hater. And if true, you are a middle class liberal socialist, then you should recognize that I don't agree with or support the thread title, although I AM middle class, but neither a Liberal nor a socialist, and have no hate for them but do disagree with their political views when they are imposed on me or others by what has become of our government without the consent of the greater majority as it should be.

 

I'm simply saying, I am in here to discuss the thread title, but I'm doing that by attacking it.

Or at least, I was, when that's what the thread was about. I originally posted because the OP was full of shit, which I think that you would agree with, regardless of who he thinks he didn't like moving into his neighbourhood. OP seems like the low class version of the middle class thing which he hates.

 

I can't comment on the events claimed to have occurred in the OP, only that 'hate' seldom, if ever, leads to any mutually acceptable solutions. On the positive side referring to the OP, people cannot be judged as good or bad based on their political leaning which seems to be the point, however the title deemphasizes that in my opinion. But then again, we are becoming very divided societies even on issues that once united us.

I imagine politicians of all parties would get a big kick out of some of the emotional rhetoric that takes place between those on the Left and those on the Right or even those in the middle on these forums.

 

Honestly, I know at least one neo-nazi that is a fucking awesome person. And her position saddens me, and I've expressed my feelings on it; but she's still an awesome person, and treating her like an outcast won't help her wake up any.

Beautifully put.

Divided we fall. Unite or die.

 

You rock harder than Graphene. You win the Internet. All of it.

 

I must say, I agree with you totally. Bankers always win and it makes me sick

 

"a growing number of our population has no intrinsic value". A common and historical theme, indeed. 53% hubris, locally. Cake, anyone?