How can anyone with AS be a conservative?

Post Reply New Topic

Your empirics are sound. Somehow both France and Germany are doing quite well under a national system. Britain and Canada are having mediocre results. Maybe there is something in the drinking water of English speaking people that makes their national system less than ideal.

ruveyn

Or maybe we need only see what the Germans and French are doing differently.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I will point out also that France isn't doing well, the only example where you may have a point on is Germany. However, I would point out that the German people have an incredible work ethic.

I have questioned the opposite. My impression was that people who have aspergers tend to be intensely rational, and lacking emotion. I find the conservative perspective (as far as economics goes) tends to be based on rational thinking, whereas the liberal argument against free markets is founded on emotion. So I am perplexed as to why so many aspergians are so liberal.

I suppose this kind of answers that curiosity. In terms of the typical aspergians sense of identity and self interest, it's preferable to believe in government handouts, in medicare and that sort of thing.

The answer I suppose, if I can speak for conservative aspergians, is that we don't identify with a particular group against another and just look at things logically. Purely logical, not in terms of who's interest, but in terms of basic right and wrong.

It extends from the premise that coercion is wrong, and the fundamental idea that people ought to be free.

Obviously not all aspergians are lacking in emotion. It seems only natural that a lot of aspergians would be extremely sensitive to issues of injustice in the world. Many grew up experiencing bullying. What could be more injust than bullying? And what about NT social games, rules, and hierarchies that have little to do with actual merit or fairness? What about the system of corporate capitalism which often rewards people based on their ability to play office politics rather than their ability to perform their job well?


What if it's not about identity but survival? I know plenty of aspergians who have trouble just keeping a job, any job - and the lowest paying jobs are often the worst types of jobs for aspergians. The cold and impersonal "free market" certainly doesn't care about the ability of individuals to cope and survive in the world.


There is no such thing as a purely logical definition of "right" and "wrong". Even if you say that the idea that "people ought to be free" is not based on an emotional value, it certainly isn't based on logic. I would say that "people ought to be treated fairly and given an equal chance" is just as valid. The liberal position is to find the proper balance between "people ought to be free" and "people ought to be treated fairly and given an equal chance". Your position only seems to care about the former while totally ignoring the latter. Therefore, in my view your idea of "basic right and wrong" is missing something, thus I do not find it moral. This has nothing to do with emotional bias towards one particular group against another. My moral views apply just as universally as yours.

"My idea is the only rational idea!" is a emotional statement

btw I always found progressive/Leftist ideas far less dogmatic

the right-wing idea of "Market participants go about their egoistic business, trying to maximize their utility, oblivious of the interests and action of all, bar those they interact with directly and...somehow everyone WIN!" of "free market" is,in my view,a Theologican dogma

Quite so. The Free Market has never really existed in the real world. All markets are regulated to some degree, some more than others. The closest thing to capitalism the world has seen is (or was) Hong Kong. It appears that the Government of Mainland China as decided not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, so Hong Kong appears to be rather free and open economically.

ruveyn

Economics Milton Friedman popularized a flawed analysis of Hong Kong in 1980,but it was wrong

The most obvious starting place is the fact that the government owns all the land. To state the obvious, land nationalisation is hardly capitalistic.

52 percent of the population live in subsidised housing, most of whom rent(and there is rend control in HK) flats from the Housing Authority with rents set at one-fifth the market level. There is Univeral Healthcare and a Welfare states,In 1995-6, it spent 47 percent of its public expenditure on social services (only slightly less than the United Kingdom).

One of the reasons why its direct taxation levels is so low because Hong Kong had no need to pay for defence

IMHO the closed capitalism the world has seen was Pinochet's Chile....no minimum wage,no regulation,all privatized except the Chilean copper industry

The problem is that you are American, you think within the terms of debate that American society has set out for you and you have never intellectually travelled outside of it's boundaries.

Truthfully, how many of these books do you have on your shelf?

The Republic
Great Learning
Two Treatises of Government
Leviathan
Defence of Usury
Wealth of Nations
On Liberty
The System of Economic Contradictions
Das Kapital
The Communist Manifesto
Mein Kampf
On Contradiction
Atlas Shrugged

Take a look at this, American link:
http://www.blupete.com/Library/Political/Books.htm

The 'classic political books' but you have no mention of communism except for books that disagree with the philosophy.
Take a look at what gets taught at that dangerous leftist institution, Yale:

http://academicearth.org/courses/introd ... philosophy

You guys can study Plato and Aristotle but under no circumstances can communist or fascist or confucian texts even be mentioned?

And we Americans don't? The American worker won the second world war as much as our fighting men did. And I believe that spirit is still alive in our working class.
I'll remind you, the Germans aren't just a bunch of automatons that work till they die. They're very much believers in organized labor, which definitely gives them their moneys worth in winning them benefits. And as the ghost of Hitler still haunts Germany, the unions usually get national support, because it's still remembered how the unions were the Nazi's outspoken opponents, while it was the big corporations who sided with Hitler.
Sorry to go off on a tangent - had to stop myself there. Goes to show you what happens when you get an Aspie obsessed with history posting.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

You think we weren't bullied? Sorry, but you aren't the only one that was bullied when they were younger. Despite what you may think, I actually do have emotions, I just consider that stopping and considering the facts is more important than making snap judgements based on feelings.



I consider right and wrong to be more important than what may benefit me personally. To be frank, my part time job is probably something most people here probably would not be able to do when things get really busy. However, I actually manage to handle helping multiple customers, phone calls, and another store buzzing me on a nex-tell asking if we have such and such book. I actually like working with the co-workers, that I work with, and while I want to head into my degree area instead of staying at a part-time job, economic reality makes finding a job in my field difficult at best.

A lot of you consider me a failure, but hey seems to me quite a few people here are the real failures, because they simply give up, because something is outside of your comfort zone.



This is where you are fundamentally wrong, there is such a thing as right and wrong; part of the problem with society these days is this moral relativism crap and the social justice crap. You aren't saying people should be judged on their merits, you're saying they should be judged on their skin color, or whether or not they had a hard life.

You give someone a pass because they are of a minority background when another person had much better academic scores and better all around resume. Sorry but that is not what Martin Luther King Jr. was calling for, he called for people to be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. If people are not supposed to consider race in determining college applications, how about you not ask what people's skin color is in the application to begin with.

All you do when you play this moral relativism and social justice garbage is to make people dependent on government instead of dependent on themselves. I would argue it hurts people, it doesn't help them.

Also before you start blabbering about charities, a charity is different than a Government handout in the fact charities get their money from voluntary donations and people understand it is just there for them to get back on their feet.

I don't think the latter idea is as easy or simple as many people try to make it out to be. I mean, the whole analysis of coercion will depend upon claims about the original property rights scheme. If we say that the state in some sense owns all land, then... anything the state does would be legitimate under a propertarian libertarian framework. But... such a notion distorts the overall conception of coercion vs non-coercion. After all, only the label of "ownership" would be meaningful.


I can see you claiming that his view strongly represents a view that would only be found in America. I can see you claiming that his view has been undercut by understandings outside of America, but I don't see much else to go on about.


What are you really trying to measure here? I mean, even being educated in political theory does not depend on knowing those books, and there are relevant books that haven't even been mentioned at all.


The list is just a random person's list. It tells us nothing. In fact, just judging the list, I'd suspect that the author of it is a political libertarian simply because Hayek was way way overrepresented and Spencer was actually allowed to be on the list.


The class is an introductory class. It will not mention communist, fascist, or confucian texts. Instead, it will introduce students to their political tradition, and that's exactly what the class does. Ideas that are considered dead(rightly or wrongly), such as communism, fascism, or confucianism would not have a place in an introductory class. I don't know what the basis of criticism is though, as somehow I doubt that this educational tendency is uniquely American.

Note: There are undergraduate classes that will teach about Confucius at various institutes. There are undergraduate classes that will reference communism. A large segment of courses will introduce Marxian thought, as Marx was an influential figure in sociology. I am not sure what you would want or expect, as professors will tend to teach what they know, and most professors will not be experts in ideas that are not considered to have relevance.

I don't think anyone here is going to call you a failure, least of all, me. As I've said more than once, my family and I hardly have a pot to piss in, and unless I eventually get published (I'm working on a novel), I don't see my situation changing.
And you're right, there is right and wrong - and siding with those without, when it comes to eating or shelter, or medical care, is always right.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

The problem is there is not a balance, where the opposing viewpoints are shown. Marxism looks good on paper, but it does not work in real life.

I actually don't know what the heck you are talking about. In fact, I don't think you know what the heck you are talking about either. So, please tell me, what are you talking about in terms of "lack of balance"?

Inuyasha, nobody doubts that you have feelings. Lots of people doubt that you stop and consider the facts.