Congratulations 48%

[shrub]

Right wingers are either authoritarian, in which case other people should just do as they're told according to existing well-defined codes, or libertarian in which case other people should do what they like, that's what freedom means. Thinking about how society should be made to operate to make the world a Better Place (TM), as I said, is a definition left-wing mindset.

HTH

Ah yes, the old left-right continuum.

The so-called right wing are generally people who claim to adopt a libertarian perspective, and whether they are aware of it or not, they frequently follow the thinking of Ayn Rand. If you analyse what they say and do, there are some pretty consistent themes. The first is "leave me alone to do my thing and don't attempt to restrict me or make me pay for anything I don't personally need". Another theme is a rejection of the concept that human beings operate within a society of humans and within a network of interconnected systems. This is manifested in user pays, which is the idea that "If I look after myself and my needs, then so should everyone else and if anyone wants anything from me they should pay for it just as I will pay for what I need". That extends into the idea that not only do we have no responsibility to others currently alive unless we can either profit or there is no cost to us from the interaction, but that we have no responsibility for others still to live. And it extends even further to a resistance to spending time or money on anything that does not have an immediate material benefit and the idea that the most important considerations are financial, and if there is a profit to be made, that profit shall be made.

So what we see is a resentment towards people who for whatever reason aren't net contributors to the coffers, whether they be beneficiaries, artists, writers, academics etc. They are seen as a big reason the right don't have what they want and that's why beneficiary bashing is so popular, and why academic knowledge is looked down on. We also see people refusing to accept that social problems like the crime rate are symptoms of a disfunctional society and ultimately placing most of the blame for crime on the victims.

We see a complete refusal to accept that the environmental problems we are facing are the result of our actions, and they either deny there are problems or they refuse to accept that they have any part to play, therefore refuse to be a part of any solution. We see a desire to do things like mine the Denniston Plateau, even though the environmental costs far outweigh the financial gains, and why dairy farmers are not required to pay for water or the damage their industry does to the environment because cash trumps everything. We see a consumption of resources (including money) at a rate that exceeds the ability of those resources to regenerate because to reduce the consumption is seen as an infringement of their rights to have and do whatever they want. Ever wondered why the West is collapsing under debt?

I could go on, but I have work to do and then beer to drink.

[Crasherfromwayback]

then beer to drink.

Now you're just showing off!!

[avgas]

The so-called right wing are generally people who claim to adopt a libertarian perspective, and whether they are aware of it or not, they frequently follow the thinking of Ayn Rand. If you analyse what they say and do.........So what we see is a resentment towards people who for whatever reason aren't net contributors to the coffers, whether they be beneficiaries, artists, writers, academics etc. They are seen as a big reason the right don't have what they want and that's why beneficiary bashing is so popular, and why academic knowledge is looked down on. We also see people refusing to accept that social problems like the crime rate are symptoms of a disfunctional society and ultimately placing most of the blame for crime on the victims.

Huh? Sorry I had to point that out.

I like Rand's book - good motivating stories. Yet ironically I have heard her ideas, and listened to her talk......... and in real life she was a strange women.

But I think that is the great thing about books - you change the story according to your own perception. For me Rand's books are all about the inventor being stuck in a workers job, or the designer/artist being told their work was not good enough, or the worker being put upon the machine until he breaks.
Which when you think about - is the complete opposite of what you are proposing I should think. Out of interest have you read a Rand book? If so what was your perception on it? I, imagine yours might have been somewhat different.

When I think about it I used to love Wilbur Smith books as a kid. But now I find them horrible racist piles of crap. So I guess my perception has changed as I got older, and became more aware of things.

[emaN]

It must be bloody frustrating trying to convince people who know more about something than you that you're right and they're wrong.

Depends if such individuals decide to "stop learning" or not.

Lemme hazard a guess.
You've found yourself ensconced in the "more people say its happening than don't, so it must be true" camp.
Can't otherwise imagine why someone with such educated grey matter would believe the IPCC et al.

Must be a muddy jam-packed camp-site by now.

I normally have a "live & let live" outlook.
However this time, someone else's ignorant & erroneous worldview is having a direct impact on my wallet. Hardly a "live & let live" outcome.

[Winston001]

Where are the canonical examples of right-wing intellectuals? Who is the opposite number of Chomsky, for example?

Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Havek (Austrian School), Theodore Dalrymple...


Your question is well made though: for no particularly good reason the conservative right-wing commentary which grabs public attention tends to be American and somewhat narrow. They have a complete and very successful television channel, Fox News. Dismissing that popularity would be dangerous for the left.

[Robert Taylor]

I work part time (around 12 hours a week) and study the rest of the time - you might notice that I come and go from here - at present I am waiting for some data to come in for analysis, so I am twiddling my thumbs on KB. At the moment I am working with 3 businesses and soon a fourth, and my role is to advise on specific key aspects of their business planning and marketing which I am able to do with a ludicrous charge out rate thanks to my education and qualifications. Two of the companies are exporters with combined exports of just over $117m in 2010, one is a national retail chain and my new client is in the music industry (I'm doing that one for fun and a trip to an overseas concert next year).

How do you contribute to the economy? I understand you import expensive (the less charitable would say overpriced) suspension components for bikes - how does that make NZ a richer and more productive country?

We import HIGH VALUE components that actually work. We employ people and we outsource a percentage of specific machining / fabrication work. We develop settings and build new shocks here that requires such participation from other suppliers / service providers, all of who gainfully employ people.

You mention a ''ludicrous charge out rate''. How does that rest with your socialist leanings?

[SPman]

..this time, someone else's ignorant & erroneous worldview is having a direct impact on my wallet

......and because it might have an impact on your wallet, it is wrong (although supported and even considered very conservative, by 90% of the world's scientists)..........

You've found yourself ensconced in the "more people say its happening than don't, so it must be true" camp.

Are you for real?

Can't otherwise imagine why someone with such educated grey matter would believe the IPCC et al.

aaaaah - there you are then......90% + of scientists and real world observation counts for naught - imagination is where it's at!

I could go on, but I have work to do and then beer to drink.

More important than any of the crap above - in this case 2 bottles of Stones Ruination IPA and 2 more of Stones Levitation Ale....mmmmmm

[rainman]

Its not about persuasion, Its about calling a spade a spade, and any man that actively engages in your argument is as retarded as the comment you made.

Why?

I think there is a good defence for the generalisation that smarter people tend to have a more nuanced view of politics and the human condition, and are more likely to be aligned with "left-wing" ideas than the right, for a bunch of structural reasons related to the core beliefs of these philosophies. This topic is the matter of academic research - not sure how you can validly insist it's "retarded" just because you don't like the conclusion.

The funny thing about intelligence, is that like anything else, it's best to not try and compare yourself with others. For no matter how smart you think you are, someone far smarter is normally not far away.

That's entirely correct, but It's not about me; I know I'm quite smart at some things and dumber than a bag of hammers at others. The real issue is how willing people here are to confront their tribal beliefs. Those of greater intelligence, goes the theory, are more open to novel ideas and better able to cope with ambiguity, so can question received wisdom without excessive insecurity. Ability to empathise with others can also be an important product of intelligence, thus smarter people tend to be more compassionate to the less fortunate. They might also more easily recognise the folly of short-term greed and self-interest, perhaps understanding better that life is a long road with many twists and turns. They can likely grasp more elements of a complex network phenomenon such as a set of economic or policy interactions, and therefore get a better sense of whether these will have the desired effect. They're probably more attuned to tone or semantics in a speech or debate, so can assess candidate intentions and character better, they're probably more widely read and have been exposed to more ideas and know more history... should I go on?

Do you really believe you shouldn't compare yourself with others? Admirable in some senses, I suppose, but how do you deal with sport?

That's a stupid question. Intellectualism, which is really just thinking about how other people should live their lives is a definitively left-wing occupation.

libertarian in which case other people should do what they like, that's what freedom means.

What are you, 14? Newsflash: freeeeedom as the absolute concept packaged by the looney minarchists is a myth, sometimes it's necessary and desirable for people to put limits on others. I swear this "don't tell me how to run my life" bullshit is just unresolved mother authority issues that most of us get over by the time we have to shave. (Women are generally too smart to fall for it in the first place).

Btw I count myself as being not too far from being a libertarian (-socialist, that is), although I'm more interested in reforming the individuals (and myself) than the society as such.

Well as a "don't give a fuck libertarian", it's axiomatic that the best way for everyone to live is with the maximum amount of freedom and self-responsibility. I don't need some poncy intellectual taking time off from writing crap plays or their university sinecure, to tell me how I should be running my life.

Yet I'll bet you pay close attention to the prognostications of economists.
What kind of libertarian is a "don't give a fuck libertarian", btw? How do you differ from a disengaged nihilist?

Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Havek (Austrian School), Theodore Dalrymple...

Your question is well made though: for no particularly good reason the conservative right-wing commentary which grabs public attention tends to be American and somewhat narrow. They have a complete and very successful television channel, Fox News. Dismissing that popularity would be dangerous for the left.

Thanks for answering the question. I've always found Rand to be tedious and wouldn't regard her as a particularly brilliant intellect, but one's MMV I guess. Popper was undoubtedly a bright chap, but was a reformed Marxist/social liberal, so centrist at best; I'll give you Friedman and Hayek, although I'd prefer Keynes of course - and I have not read any of Mr Daniels, although I'll add him to my list. (Hmmm, maybe not - he seems to argue multiculturalism is against "common sense" if Wikipedia is to be believed).

My current favourite non-leftie smart bugger is Nassim Nicholas Taleb - but then he's non-right too.

Re Fox: Popularity is not evidence of intelligence. Fox is evidence of that!

[Brian d marge]

Ayn Rand, Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, Friedrich Havek (Austrian School), Theodore Dalrymple...


Your question is well made though: for no particularly good reason the conservative right-wing commentary which grabs public attention tends to be American and somewhat narrow. They have a complete and very successful television channel, Fox News. Dismissing that popularity would be dangerous for the left.

Hayek , is interesting reading , ( hard work , wish he would use more commas,,,,,,,,, The road to serfdom is sitting on my desk as we speak , I’m on page 87 , planning and the rule of law , for the third time ( I’m just about to watch mythbusters .....actually )

Stephen

[slowpoke]

Ah yes, the old left-right continuum.

The so-called right wing are generally people who claim to adopt a libertarian perspective, and whether they are aware of it or not, they frequently follow the thinking of Ayn Rand. If you analyse what they say and do, there are some pretty consistent themes. The first is "leave me alone to do my thing and don't attempt to restrict me or make me pay for anything I don't personally need". Another theme is a rejection of the concept that human beings operate within a society of humans and within a network of interconnected systems. This is manifested in user pays, which is the idea that "If I look after myself and my needs, then so should everyone else and if anyone wants anything from me they should pay for it just as I will pay for what I need". That extends into the idea that not only do we have no responsibility to others currently alive unless we can either profit or there is no cost to us from the interaction, but that we have no responsibility for others still to live. And it extends even further to a resistance to spending time or money on anything that does not have an immediate material benefit and the idea that the most important considerations are financial, and if there is a profit to be made, that profit shall be made.

Basically: the strong survive and the weak perish. Physically, financially and intellectually. Maybe, but you're intertwining of morals and politics is a lil' too murky. In absolutes you may be right, but human's are...well...human. To play devils advocate could not the focussing on financial health lead to more largesse in subsiding the less fortunate, whereas concentrating on the less fortunate and ignoring the financials does no-one any favours long term? There's a balance that has to be struck: I'd no more trust Mother Theresa in charge of the country than I would Donald Trump.

So what we see is a resentment towards people who for whatever reason aren't net contributors to the coffers, whether they be beneficiaries, artists, writers, academics etc. They are seen as a big reason the right don't have what they want and that's why beneficiary bashing is so popular, and why academic knowledge is looked down on. We also see people refusing to accept that social problems like the crime rate are symptoms of a disfunctional society and ultimately placing most of the blame for crime on the victims.

Yeah...nah. It's the "whatever reason" which you gloss over that is at the crux of most peoples resentment. I don't see it as "the right not having what they want", I see it as the right (and many people in general) rightly or wrongly fearing they are being forced via taxes to help people who won't help themselves. I agree regards the societal problems contributing to crime rates, but "blaming the vitim"? I think you've got your wires crossed on that one, no-one (not even the right) blames a dairy owner when he's robbed.

We see a complete refusal to accept that the environmental problems we are facing are the result of our actions, and they either deny there are problems or they refuse to accept that they have any part to play, therefore refuse to be a part of any solution. We see a desire to do things like mine the Denniston Plateau, even though the environmental costs far outweigh the financial gains, and why dairy farmers are not required to pay for water or the damage their industry does to the environment because cash trumps everything. We see a consumption of resources (including money) at a rate that exceeds the ability of those resources to regenerate because to reduce the consumption is seen as an infringement of their rights to have and do whatever they want. Ever wondered why the West is collapsing under debt?

To paraphrase "we see a complete refusal to independently analyse environmental problems". I for one take with a bag of salt any report from any organisation who's very existence is dependent on what conclusions it draws. That questioning or discussion of the wild variance between these conclusions is actively discouraged does nothing to engender faith in their veracity.

So what value do you/we/I put on things like the Denniston Plateau? What value on ghost towns on the West Coast? Me, I haven't seen anything except some desolate pictures so what value would I put on it? Considering I work in the resource sector outside NZ I'd put a high value on mining it because it's in a remote location and it would give me a chance to earn worthwhile money in NZ (and for NZ) instead of a 2 day commute to work and 30% of the tax on my (not bad) income going to 2 other countries before the IRD even get a sniff at the dregs. My thinking: if we're prepared to use minerals/resources (which we all are) then we should be prepared to produce them. To do otherwise is to shirk our responsibilities.

It's all very well to decry the demise of Sumatran rain forests but no-one is rushing to replant our pasture lands. We continue to reap millions, and enjoy 1st world (-ish) living standards as a result of our own deforestation, yet tell others they can't do the same and have the same. That they don't listen to our hypocritical bleating probably has something with needing to get food in hand while we sip our latte's and wonder what the sharemarket is doing today. Can't say I blame them.

I could go on, but I have work to do and then beer to drink.

Mmmmmmm, beeeeeeeeeeeeer.......5 1/2 nightshifts, 506,000bbl's, and counting.

[Robert Taylor]

One of the very biggest hypocrisies in evidence is that by and large most left wing politicians espouse an equal society, and yet they are just as eager to be at the feeding trough of taxpayer funded perks. Take that fag Chris Carter as one of the most blatant examples, a socialist and a ''man of the people'', but he had a lovely old time at the taxpayers expense.

[Spearfish]

Ah yes, the old left-right continuum.

The so-called right wing are generally people who claim to adopt a libertarian perspective, and whether they are aware of it or not, they frequently follow the thinking of Ayn Rand. If you analyse what they say and do, there are some pretty consistent themes. The first is "leave me alone to do my thing and don't attempt to restrict me or make me pay for anything I don't personally need". Another theme is a rejection of the concept that human beings operate within a society of humans and within a network of interconnected systems. This is manifested in user pays, which is the idea that "If I look after myself and my needs, then so should everyone else and if anyone wants anything from me they should pay for it just as I will pay for what I need". That extends into the idea that not only do we have no responsibility to others currently alive unless we can either profit or there is no cost to us from the interaction, but that we have no responsibility for others still to live. And it extends even further to a resistance to spending time or money on anything that does not have an immediate material benefit and the idea that the most important considerations are financial, and if there is a profit to be made, that profit shall be made.

So what we see is a resentment towards people who for whatever reason aren't net contributors to the coffers, whether they be beneficiaries, artists, writers, academics etc. They are seen as a big reason the right don't have what they want and that's why beneficiary bashing is so popular, and why academic knowledge is looked down on. We also see people refusing to accept that social problems like the crime rate are symptoms of a disfunctional society and ultimately placing most of the blame for crime on the victims.

We see a complete refusal to accept that the environmental problems we are facing are the result of our actions, and they either deny there are problems or they refuse to accept that they have any part to play, therefore refuse to be a part of any solution. We see a desire to do things like mine the Denniston Plateau, even though the environmental costs far outweigh the financial gains, and why dairy farmers are not required to pay for water or the damage their industry does to the environment because cash trumps everything. We see a consumption of resources (including money) at a rate that exceeds the ability of those resources to regenerate because to reduce the consumption is seen as an infringement of their rights to have and do whatever they want. Ever wondered why the West is collapsing under debt?

I could go on, but I have work to do and then beer to drink.

Fucks sake, put some pictures in between the paragraphs, this type of wordsmithing is way to much like a book for us magazine readers.

[shrub]

Huh? Sorry I had to point that out.

I like Rand's book - good motivating stories. Yet ironically I have heard her ideas, and listened to her talk......... and in real life she was a strange women.

But I think that is the great thing about books - you change the story according to your own perception. For me Rand's books are all about the inventor being stuck in a workers job, or the designer/artist being told their work was not good enough, or the worker being put upon the machine until he breaks.
Which when you think about - is the complete opposite of what you are proposing I should think. Out of interest have you read a Rand book? If so what was your perception on it? I, imagine yours might have been somewhat different.

When I think about it I used to love Wilbur Smith books as a kid. But now I find them horrible racist piles of crap. So I guess my perception has changed as I got older, and became more aware of things.

I read Atlas Shrugged a few years ago, and it's well written and intelligent. But it's also profoundly flawed in it's focus on the primary right of the individual and belief that the individual is rational. That idea of rational self interest has merit in arguing that human evolution is dependent on individuals operating under a code of personal values while seeking to improve their lot. However the overwhelming flaw is that it doesn't recognise that each individual operates within and is dependent on a society of interconnected individuals to be successful, and that society needs to be organised. It also doesn't recognise that human society in turn operates within a physical environment that is a network of interconnected systems, and that if those systems break down society collapses.

It's interesting when looking at Rand's ideas to consider Michels' iron law of oligarchy which is basically that all forms of human organisation descend into oligarchy. This is because of the tendency of humans to be self interested at the expense of others, so leaders inevitably seek increasing levels of power and control until they reach a state of oligarchy.

[shrub]

One of the very biggest hypocrisies in evidence is that by and large most left wing politicians espouse an equal society, and yet they are just as eager to be at the feeding trough of taxpayer funded perks. Take that fag Chris Carter as one of the most blatant examples, a socialist and a ''man of the people'', but he had a lovely old time at the taxpayers expense.

Or the right wing politicians who espouse personal responsibility and reject feeding at the trough, yet can't get their snouts in fast enough. Take that Rodney Hide as one of the most blatant examples, a right wing libertarian and a ''man who rejects users'', but he had a lovely old time at the taxpayers expense.

[Headbanger]

Why?

I think there is a good defence for the generalisation that smarter people tend to have a more nuanced view of politics and the human condition, and are more likely to be aligned with "left-wing" ideas than the right, for a bunch of structural reasons related to the core beliefs of these philosophies. This topic is the matter of academic research - not sure how you can validly insist it's "retarded" just because you don't like the conclusion.

Right, Lets look at the word.

Intellectualism denotes the use and development of the intellect, the practice of being an intellectual,^[1] and of holding intellectual pursuits in great regard.^[2] Moreover, in philosophy, “intellectualism” occasionally is synonymous with “rationalism”, i.e. knowledge derived mostly from reason and reasoning.^[3][4] Socially, “intellectualism” negatively connotes: (i) single-mindedness of purpose (“too much attention to thinking”), and (ii) emotional coldness (the absence of affection and feelings)

So, in real world terms its a highly educated academic without a real job with their head stuck so far up their arse that they survive by inhaling their own brain farts.

There are such people spread all over the political, academic and social spectrum, Its just that being a flawed human being (as we all are ,some more so then others but we all have our prejudice) you only attribute the highest level of intelligence and rationality to those that are writing items that agree with or align with your personal view on the world, and dismissing as inferior view points you don't share.



In short, giant wank.