• 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!

Do far right Conservatives/Libertarians lack empathy?

Do those on the far right lack empathy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 26.2%

  • No

    Votes: 62 73.8%
  • Total voters
    84
  • Poll closed .
Henrin said:
As long as compulsory taxation lasts--in other words giving power to some men to use other men against their beliefs and their interests--liberty will be but a mocking phrase. Between liberty and compulsory taxation there is no possible reconciliation. - Auberon Herbert
Click to expand...

A better quote by Herbert on the matter of compulsory taxation:

"There can be no true condition of rest in society, there can be no perfect friendliness amongst men who differ in opinions, as long as either you or I can use our neighbor and his resources for the furtherance of our ideas and against his own. The present power to levy taxes compulsorily seems to me the inner keep, the citadel of the whole question of liberty; and until that stronghold is leveled to the ground, I do not think that men will ever clearly realize that to compel any human being to act against his own convictions is essentially a violation of the moral order, a cause of human unrest, and a grievous misdirection of human effort. Of the immediate ill effects, of the waste, of the extravagance, of the jobbery, that are all born of the compulsory taking of taxes, I will not speak here. The first and greatest question is whether to help oneself to one’s neighbor’s property by force is or is not morally right."
 
Green Man said:
I don't think you can, which is a very good reason to oppose continual war.
Click to expand...

I can agree we shouldn't be in a perpetual state of war, however, at this point we need the military for protection. We have made a lot of enemies.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I can agree we shouldn't be in a perpetual state of war, however, at this point we need the military for protection. We have made a lot of enemies.
Click to expand...

And if they attack us, we should defend ourselves against them. Unless and until that happens, there's no need for endless war.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Right, however we still need a standing army for protection.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree. But even if we agree you are right, a standing army necessary to to defend our borders would cost significantly less than one required to invade other countries. Not to mention the medical costs (and human costs) of caring for those maimed on foreign soil.
 
Green Man said:
I don't necessarily agree. But even if we agree you are right, a standing army necessary to to defend our borders would cost significantly less than one required to invade other countries. Not to mention the medical costs (and human costs) of caring for those maimed on foreign soil.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree.
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
I can agree we shouldn't be in a perpetual state of war, however, at this point we need the military for protection. We have made a lot of enemies.
Click to expand...
Which brings us back to "war is the health of the state".
 
rabbitcaebannog said:
Which brings us back to having to pay taxes. Thank you for proving my point. I assumed it was understood.
Click to expand...
As I view things, there will always be threats from outside the US that require a standing military for defense.

However I am less than convinced we need an army capable of multiple conflicts around the world, for poorly defined reasons.

It just seems like we're fighting small wars all over the place for no good reason. Or at least no reason that has been explained to my satisfaction.
 
The Mark said:
As I view things, there will always be threats from outside the US that require a standing military for defense.

However I am less than convinced we need an army capable of multiple conflicts around the world, for poorly defined reasons.

It just seems like we're fighting small wars all over the place for no good reason. Or at least no reason that has been explained to my satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm hardly against on cutting back defense spending. You're preaching to the choir.
 
OnWisconsin said:
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.
Click to expand...
No.

Although a lot of Dumocrats would like you to think so, simply because the Dumocrats are evil dishonest scumbags.
 
tacomancer said:
Most charities go to groups that are part of ones cultural ingroup. Its not a good measurement.
Click to expand...

BS. Giving from ones own wealth to help another (no matter which "group") is a much better measure than taking from another's wealth and redistributing it. BTW I had never heard anyone associate empathy with groups before.... seems odd.
 
johndylan1 said:
BS. Giving from ones own wealth to help another (no matter which "group") is a much better measure than taking from another's wealth and redistributing it. BTW I had never heard anyone associate empathy with groups before.... seems odd.
Click to expand...
Actually the two are equal as the motivation is what matters. In both cases, people are seeking to help those in need. Pretending charity matters more is just partisan BS.

The reason the ingroup thing matters is that helping the ingroup versus just worrying about needs is a way to reinforce the culture of the ingroup making it an evolutionary survival strategy instead of an altruistic act. It has a lot of selfishness attached to it.
 
tacomancer said:
Actually the two are equal as the motivation is what matters. In both cases, people are seeking to help those in need. Pretending charity matters more is just partisan BS.
Click to expand...
Giving away someone else's money doesn't involve personal sacrifice. Giving away your own money requires enough empathy to overcome your own wants. When you're giving away someone else's money, there's nothing to overcome, so very little empathy is required.
 
mpg said:
Giving away someone else's money doesn't involve personal sacrifice. Giving away your own money requires enough empathy to overcome your own wants. When you're giving away someone else's money, there's nothing to overcome, so very little empathy is required.
Click to expand...

I am going to disagree with that. Fixing the issues of society that get people in the situation in the first place is recognizing that the scope of the issue then the feel goods of giving some money here and there.

It requires deep enough thought to understand the short term "I'm proud of myself" feeling is insufficient to do any real long term wide spread good
 
tacomancer said:
I am going to disagree with that. Fixing the issues of society that get people in the situation in the first place is recognizing that the scope of the issue then the feel goods of giving some money here and there.

It requires deep enough thought to understand the short term "I'm proud of myself" feeling is insufficient to do any real long term wide spread good
Click to expand...
Politically speaking, giving away someone else's money IS the simple solution. Doing what's good for the economy requires more thought.
 
mpg said:
Politically speaking, giving away someone else's money IS the simple solution. Doing what's good for the economy requires more thought.
Click to expand...

The two aren't mutually exclusive and government has a role to play in enhancing the economy
 
mpg said:
If you mean small government, then yes.
Click to expand...
I mean a regulatory government which makes up for market failures
 
johndylan1 said:
BS. Giving from ones own wealth to help another (no matter which "group") is a much better measure than taking from another's wealth and redistributing it. BTW I had never heard anyone associate empathy with groups before.... seems odd.
Click to expand...

tacomancer said:
Actually the two are equal as the motivation is what matters. In both cases, people are seeking to help those in need. Pretending charity matters more is just partisan BS.

The reason the ingroup thing matters is that helping the ingroup versus just worrying about needs is a way to reinforce the culture of the ingroup making it an evolutionary survival strategy instead of an altruistic act. It has a lot of selfishness attached to it.
Click to expand...

Not “partisan BS” at all, but basic ethics.

Charity consists only of giving what is rightfully yours to give. Taking from others what is not yours is just theft, no matter how noble you think your purpose is for what you are taking.

There is no charity in being generous with other people's resources; only with your own.
 
OnWisconsin said:
A complete inability to relate to those who are less fortunate.
Click to expand...

No, not as a whole. Though each group (and other groups not mentioned) likely have individuals who do.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Yes and no. While there are some bastards on the far right who completely lack any ability to care about anyone else (which is certainly not unique to any political persuasion), I think on a most basic level it's not about a lack of caring of others, it's just a different set of priorities.

Generally speaking, those who are considered on "the left" try to focus their energy on improving the community, with the idea if the community is stronger, life will be better for the individuals. Those on "the right" tend to believe in focusing their energy on the individual, with the idea if all individuals are better off, then the community is will be stronger and life will be better.

I don't think it's so much that people on the right don't care about others, they just believe effort should be put into improving the individual instead of the the community.
Click to expand...

I agree. Both sides want much of the same thing but disagree on how to go about it. Both want fairness. Both want everyone to do well. But the devil lies in the details of how to accomplish that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom