I can make democrats win every election with one change

[xenogear3]

Don't collect tax at all !
Not even sales tax. This tax thing is confusing !

If the government needs money, just writes a check !

[Hinastorm]

This kind of position only makes sense if you fundamentally think in terms of status quo, rather than in terms of principle.

The left-wing principles in play, here, are (loosely speaking and without an attempt to be particularly thorough);

1> People should have the same opportunity to succeed at life, and their differences should not act as impediments to doing so.
2> Any impediments that are found to exist should be societally negated where possible, and societally redressed where not (for instance, blind people have some disadvantages, and mandating accessibility for the visually impaired in public spaces makes sense in a just society; hopefully that example isn't going to provoke a fight).
3> Societal structures found to contribute to inequality of opportunity or to otherwise be found to act against this principle shall be broken down and rebuilt in a more just manner.

(Just a note; I'm trying to use "inequity" in general, and only use "inequality" specifically in reference to issues of opportunity. I'm not arguing for equality of outcomes, because I don't believe that's reasonable or just.)

So, for instance, this explains why the left wing were pushing to address racial inequalities in the '60s (and continue, since that's not resolved yet). Addressing inequities on the matter of LGBT issues in the '80s and particularly the later '90s and onward, that's not a "new step" for those left-wing principles. It's the same principles, addressing another inequity. It isn't actually a new direction for those with left-wing values. It's the same values. They haven't changed. We've just made enough progress in society to better identify new battleground issues where further ground can be made up in pursuing those values.

I feel like you almost make a better argument about status quo here, than about principle.

I think I understand the point you're trying to make, maybe I don't, but it seems that while the base of what the left fights for is always justice, what is considered worth fighting for changes as societal views change.

I never said the left would not be fighting for justice in 50 years, I said that what that justice looks like will be VERY different in 50 years, so much so that current left wing justice will be downright right wing in comparison. So different that former democrats might become republicans as they age, because they no longer understand liberalism anymore.Of course that would depend on the state of the republican party at said time as well.

[Muzjhath]

I never said the left would not be fighting for justice in 50 years, I said that what that justice looks like will be VERY different in 50 years, so much so that current left wing justice will be downright right wing in comparison. So different that former democrats might become republicans as they age, because they no longer understand liberalism anymore.Of course that would depend on the state of the republican party at said time as well.

The issue with quoted is that things have always worked this way. It's the reason "older people are conservative". They don't change values. They hold old values.
Which is why groups have changed as people changed.
/gross oversimplification

[PC2]

I said that what that justice looks like will be VERY different in 50 years, so much so that current left wing justice will be downright right wing in comparison.

Maybe, it could be very different. Every generation thinks that we're nearing a pinnacle in terms of understanding the world and then someone comes up with an entirely new idea that smashes everybody's prior assumptions.

"The left" is more about an equality principle though so the "progressives" in 5,000 years may not even care about financial equality as there could easily be a superior means of increasing everybody's quality of life even if financial equality is plummeting because some octillionaire is rapidly increasing the amount of planets they own.

[Felya]

Maybe, it could be very different. Every generation thinks that we're nearing a pinnacle in terms of understanding the world and then someone comes up with an entirely new idea that smashes everybody's prior assumptions.

The rhetoric will change, but the paradigm will not. Even during what we call the dark ages, civilization actually had significant progress. You can’t stop progress, the best you can do is mitigate it.

"The left" is more about an equality principle though so the "progressives" in 5,000 years may not even care about financial equality as there could easily be a superior means of increasing everybody's quality of life even if financial equality is plummeting because some octillionaire is rapidly increasing the amount of planets they own.

That’s socialism...

[Endus]

I never said the left would not be fighting for justice in 50 years, I said that what that justice looks like will be VERY different in 50 years, so much so that current left wing justice will be downright right wing in comparison. So different that former democrats might become republicans as they age, because they no longer understand liberalism anymore.Of course that would depend on the state of the republican party at said time as well.

"What justice looks like" doesn't change. Society is unjust. We may have addressed some injustices, the most glaring ones, but that does not mean we've reached the goal, by any means.

It's like if you start a charity to cure cancer, and your funding manages to find one treatment that has 30% efficacy on one particular type of cancer. And you don't think that's nearly enough. And yet, a lot of people are trying to tell you "hey, you developed one treatment! Why are you trying to find any more?" Because you haven't cured cancer. You haven't achieved the goal you set out to achieve. And you're going to keep working towards that goal, until you do.

The idea that a half-assed partial attempt is "good enough" and we should accept the remaining injustices in society is completely fucking baffling to people who actually stand on values and principle. No, we're not going to compromise our integrity and goals because other people lack such things.

- - - Updated - - -

"The left" is more about an equality principle though so the "progressives" in 5,000 years may not even care about financial equality as there could easily be a superior means of increasing everybody's quality of life even if financial equality is plummeting because some octillionaire is rapidly increasing the amount of planets they own.

Left-wing views are fundamentally rooted in the concept of equity, not equality. They aren't similar concepts, even if they're spelled similarly.

[PC2]

Left-wing views are fundamentally rooted in the concept of equity, not equality. They aren't similar concepts, even if they're spelled similarly.

Okay well tell that to the leftists who mainly only talk about equality rather than equity. Equity is more debate-able because what is fair and impartial is very hard to judge, where as you can't argue that a homeless person with zero wealth doesn't experience massive inequality compared to Jeff Bezos who has $100 billion in wealth.

The rhetoric will change, but the paradigm will not. Even during what we call the dark ages, civilization actually had significant progress. You can’t stop progress, the best you can do is mitigate it.

Yeah I think it's impossible to stop progress over the long-term because it's guaranteed that if people don't make enough progress(new knowledge) then society will collapse and people would go extinct.

[Endus]

Okay well tell that to the leftists who mainly only talk about equality rather than equity.

Pretty sure most of them are saying the same thing I'm saying.

Equality of opportunity and equality of treatment always gets misconstrued by right-wingers as if we're talking about equality of outcome, which nearly nobody is ever actually talking about.

Equality pretty much only ever gets introduced when equality is what brings about equity, in that particular context. The fundamental root goal is still always equity.

Equity is more debate-able because what is fair and impartial is very hard to judge

Not particularly, no. The concept of justice dates all the way back to Hammurabi, at a minimum. This isn't exactly a new idea.

[PC2]

Pretty sure most of them are saying the same thing I'm saying.

Maybe but I rarely ever hear the word equity where as I hear equality all the time. *shrug*

Equality of opportunity and equality of treatment always gets misconstrued by right-wingers as if we're talking about equality of outcome, which nearly nobody is ever actually talking about.

I don't think anyone is debating that here.

The concept of justice dates all the way back to Hammurabi, at a minimum. This isn't exactly a new idea.

Yes but since justice relates to morality the important part is getting everyone to agree one the same interpretations and implementations of justice, which is obviously very difficult. Future people will probably understand justice in a much better way then we understand it right now and there's no way of knowing how they will interpret justice in the future.

[Howel]

Said by a conservative while the US government, under the helm of cowardly and incompetent republican leadership, has the largest deficit and debt in US history.

I have a better idea, you can have the HAM radio waves for the next conservative conspiracy theory, and the rest of us will govern this country back to the world leaders we used to be.

It was mostly meant as a joke, so don't take it too serious

Also yeah I am conservative, in my own country, where we run a surplus and a strict tax policy that always makes sure of that. So we have had conservative governments raise taxes, because we are more concerned about the reality of not going bankrupt as a country (because that already happened once), than boo hoo my paycheck doesn't afford me a Porsche.

So don't lop me in with your republicans, because frankly that's an insult to any other conservative in the world at this point.

[Daelak]

It was mostly meant as a joke, so don't take it too serious

Also yeah I am conservative, in my own country, where we run a surplus and a strict tax policy that always makes sure of that. So we have had conservative governments raise taxes, because we are more concerned about the reality of not going bankrupt as a country (because that already happened once), than boo hoo my paycheck doesn't afford me a Porsche.

So don't lop me in with your republicans, because frankly that's an insult to any other conservative in the world at this point.

Oh thank god, yeah conservatives in the US are just racist reactionaries.