Democrats and Republicans both don't care about poor people.

[PC2]

You need motivation to do that and actually care what happens to you, both things that are sapped when you are depressed.

Though what you said is accurate, science wise, the human factor is missing. (Sometimes people do irrational things, and that can be due to ignorance or in this case a mental health problem)

Okay so what was the progressive obesity solution?

[PC2]

Ditto for Google (the founder is Russian)...

Born in the Soviet Union, yet didn't innovate there.

[NED funded]

Since American people work in America they see the benefits as well. Steve Jobs created a bunch of jobs, his father was an immigrant. His father displaced one job, Steve Jobs created millions of jobs. Many Americans now work for Apple, or make Apps for the IPhone, or countless of other innovations and Businesses that were created at a loss of one Job.

Ditto for Google (the founder is Russian)...

I could go on... but I need to go now and play on my PlayStation VR. Have fun putting down immigrants.

Did you read what I just wrote? Employers benefit, not workers. I'm not against immigration on principle, I acknowledge that in principle immigration is good but our goverment needs to have a serious conversation about our current immigration policy.

[Theodarzna]

Did you read what I just wrote? Employers benefit, not workers. I'm not against immigration on principle, I acknowledge that in principle immigration is good but our goverment needs to have a serious conversation about our current immigration policy.

The problem with aggregate arguments or "Net Benefits," arguments is they completely ignore and deny empathy to the specific people who DID lose in the policy choice.

If a village of people live in a forest and we clear cut the forest to build millions of homes, sure we could say we created a NET GOOD, but it ignores the tragedy inflicted on that village.

[Xar226]

Democrats focus almost exclusively on the Urban poor

What does that even mean?

I do not consider myself a democrat--I don't profess allegiance to any party--but I am a liberal. Here are just a small sampling of the things I believe in:

1. A strong economy and as many jobs as we can manage.

2. Most importantly, a strong social safety net for those who are left behind, including unemployment insurance, job training/transition assistance, access to medical care regardless of ability to pay, and help to make sure you have enough food to eat and a roof over your head.

3. Assistance to pay for college or the learning of a trade if you can not afford it -- ways to, hopefully, help you out of whatever circumstances you find yourself in if you are considered "poor."

4. A quality public education.

5. Safe neighborhoods and communities.

We're obviously doing better in some of these areas than others and there is a lot of work to do across the board, and we all have different ideas about how to get these things done. But how exactly are any of these very typical liberal positions biased against the rural poor? Even when I disagree with many of them, as I often do about religion, gay rights and any number of other issues, I have never once suggested, or even seen suggested, any kind of discrimination based on the source of one's poverty. If our economy has left you behind, I want there to be help available. Simple as that.

[Deleted]

Socialdemocracy is probaly the best mix of capitalism and socialism you'll find. strong unions and labour laws yet panders with lower taxes for big companies.
Gives you a allround stable country and economy. Support for the poor and disabled and help for the ones in need, because they did not chose the situation they are in.

Yet i would not vote for them in the country i live in (Sweden) as they've gone to far but the idea is still one of the best out there imo.

[NED funded]

The problem with aggregate arguments or "Net Benefits," arguments is they completely ignore and deny empathy to the specific people who DID lose in the policy choice.

If a village of people live in a forest and we clear cut the forest to build millions of homes, sure we could say we created a NET GOOD, but it ignores the tragedy inflicted on that village.

It's quite different though. The theory says that immigrants makes us more efficient, which in turns expands firms and firms hire more employees, so in the long run wages recover, until another supply shock comes and the process repeats. However this doesn't happen in some sub sectors of the populations, blacks for example show a very slow recovery in their wages. In your analogy it would be similar to cutting down trees to build houses and new trees grow elsewhere.

[PC2]

You are not going to get any argument from me about that. I believe the West (and America) is the greatest achievement in human history. I love this country and the West. But that does not mean everything is perfect, or we could not make improvements. We should always strive to make a "more perfect union".

I believe that from you but I'm not so sure of the average liberal view on issues such as cultural and moral relativism. If you only believe that yourself but never expect immigrants to also denounce relativism while only criticizing Western society it will only create opposition, such as with Trump or Brexit.

[Theodarzna]

It's quite different though. The theory says that immigrants makes us more efficient, which in turns expands firms and firms hire more employees, so in the long run wages recover, until another supply shock comes and the process repeats. However this doesn't happen in some sub sectors of the populations, blacks for example show a very slow recovery in their wages. In your analogy it would be similar to cutting down trees to build houses and new trees grow elsewhere.

I can see that, if anything that enhances my analogy.

The forest may never be regrown, or it may be regrown elsewhere. But the effects on the village are still there, and no attempts are made to repay the damages inflicted upon the village.

[PC2]

I can see that, if anything that enhances my analogy.

The forest may never be regrown, or it may be regrown elsewhere. But the effects on the village are still there, and no attempts are made to repay the damages inflicted upon the village.

Record history then focus on growing the forest from the present.

[NED funded]

I can see that, if anything that enhances my analogy.

The forest may never be regrown, or it may be regrown elsewhere. But the effects on the village are still there, and no attempts are made to repay the damages inflicted upon the village.

I agree with you, we should definitely help those affected by immigration policies.

[Theodarzna]

Record history then focus on growing the forest from the present.

That is better than the "Tell them to stop complaining because over all their loss has been a net positive."

Thus is the flaw of Utilitarian thinking, its easy to stomach when looked at in aggregate, when you see the net pay off, but its much more ethically bankrupt when you see the corpses.

[PC2]

That is better than the "Tell them to stop complaining because over all their loss has been a net positive."

Thus is the flaw of Utilitarian thinking, its easy to stomach when looked at in aggregate, when you see the net pay off, but its much more ethically bankrupt when you see the corpses.

Aggregate is a good way to judge civilization. As far as the US I do think most everything that the new generation(Millenials) go through and fight for is easy to stomach, often times laughable in comparison to previous centuries.

[Theodarzna]

Aggregate is a good way to judge civilization. As far as the US I do think most everything that the new generation(Millenials) go through and fight for is easy to stomach, often times laughable in comparison to previous centuries.

I am of the opinion that utilitarianism is generally morally bankrupt.

[I Push Buttons]

Aggregate is a good way to judge civilization. As far as the US I do think most everything that the new generation(Millenials) go through and fight for is easy to stomach, often times laughable in comparison to previous centuries.

Nah man, you heard Theodarzna... We should make our societal decisions based on the potential effects on every single individual. If one bad thing happens to one person, all of society should stop doing it and make a new plan.

Obviously we will get a ton of things done this way and society will be great.

[Macaquerie]

I have made no bones about having immigrants integrate into society. I do not believe in cultural or moral relativism (in practice in civilization), so it is not something I would ever fight for. Cultures are different and sometimes some aspects are better or worse when compared to another.

When I came to this country I fell in love with American idealism (in Humanity), from Jefferson and before him the Magna Carta; I do not want the Russian authoritarianism to take root here, nor do I feel any connection to Russia itself.

The ability to integrate seamlessly into American society isn't really an option for everyone though. Regardless of the enormous gap between Russian and America culture, you can still essentially become part of mainstream society and indistinguishable from the average Joe Sixpack within a generation, whereas if you happen to come from Kenya, Syria, India, etc. you'll always be somehow "other" regardless of what language, religion, and cultural values you adopt.

[PC2]

I am of the opinion that utilitarianism is generally morally bankrupt.

You mentioned Chomsky several times before? He puts a high value on immorality as a function of total body count.

I dont like the idea of quantitative utilitarianism, I put more value on per capita statistics. Reducing scarcity per capita to zero while not overpopulating the planet is a good goal.

- - - Updated - - -

whereas if you happen to come from Kenya, Syria, India, etc. you'll always be somehow "other" regardless of what language, religion, and cultural values you adopt.

It depends on the culture, for example many Indians have integrated and achieved huge success in the US. The idea that they are being treated as a lower "other" while holding so many important positions is ridiculous.

[Theodarzna]

You mentioned Chomsky several times before? He puts a high value on immorality as a function of total body count.

I dont like the idea of quantitative utilitarianism, I put more value on per capita statistics. Reducing scarcity per capita to zero while not overpopulating the planet is a good goal.

I've actually never mentioned Chomsky outside of purely linguistic discussions. I don't put much stock in him outside of his linguistics work.

I look at Utilitarianism through this core lens.

First I look to the Trolley Problem and I ask, "Why not sacrifice yourself?"

The core issue I have with it is that it is all well and good to discuss sacrifices made when one is not the one being sacrificed or doing the sacrificing. It is easy for say Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, or any other tech billionaire to see the little lives of little people to be worthless compared to a greater goal, but that is because it is precisely not their lives being sacrificed, their future is not at stake.

In general Utilitarianism just feels sceevy for that reason. Rarely is the ones making the calls also the ones making the sacrifices. If in the Trolley Problem it costs you nothing to make a call, than I see that as the ultimate ethical dilemma within it.

- - - Updated - - -

Nah man, you heard Theodarzna... We should make our societal decisions based on the potential effects on every single individual. If one bad thing happens to one person, all of society should stop doing it and make a new plan.

Obviously we will get a ton of things done this way and society will be great.

I believe that person should be compensated.

The crimes against human rights, which are a specialty of totalitarian regimes, can always be justified by the pretext that right is equivalent to being good or useful for the whole of society in distinction to its parts and this problematic situation is by no means solved if the unit to which "good for" applies is as large as mankind itself. For it is quiet conceivable that one fine day a highly organized and technocratic or even still democratic humanity will conclude that for humanity as a whole it would be better to liquidate certain parts thereof.

[I Push Buttons]

I believe that person should be compensated.

The crimes against human rights, which are a specialty of totalitarian regimes, can always be justified by the pretext that right is equivalent to being good or useful for the whole of society in distinction to its parts and this problematic situation is by no means solved if the unit to which "good for" applies is as large as mankind itself. For it is quiet conceivable that one fine day a highly organized and technocratic or even still democratic humanity will conclude that for humanity as a whole it would be better to liquidate certain parts thereof.

Ah the crux of it.

This was a "technocrats are evil" thread in disguise all along.

[PC2]

The crimes against human rights, which are a specialty of totalitarian regimes, can always be justified by the pretext that right is equivalent to being good or useful for the whole of society in distinction to its parts and this problematic situation is by no means solved if the unit to which "good for" applies is as large as mankind itself. For it is quiet conceivable that one fine day a highly organized and technocratic or even still democratic humanity will conclude that for humanity as a whole it would be better to liquidate certain parts thereof.

I believe in starting from the present, rewarding work, studying, productivity.

Edit: Oh you are concerned about authoritarianism apparently.