Why Does The Left Destroy Everything It Touches?

[baker]

If people would take complete responsibility for themselves, it would eliminate 90% of the problems they have [and the other 10% would be quite manageable].

This is wisdom passed down for millennia, not my feelings. It can't get anymore basic than this.

This is just a halfassed way of victim playing and blaming others.
And now you can play the almighty karma card, and you have absolved yourself from any and all responsibility!

[Steve3007]

You can't nor should you attempt to fix everybody. These are adults and they need to make their own decisions and suffer the consequences [or reap the rewards] of those choices. This is how people learn. You want to bail everybody out, then you will further the incredibly dys-functional adult-child culture that has been in place for several decades now.

Let people figure it out for themselves. As long as they do no harm to others, it's their life. Let them live it the way they see fit. This is freedom and sometimes it's a bit ugly, but the overall result is the best man can hope for...

OK, a fairly standard libertarian view which would be shared by a lot of people. Conventionally seen as being politically on the right because it goes with such things as small government, low taxation and very limited taxpayer-funded public services. One of the arguments against it is that, as illustrated by problems like obesity or climate issues, it can lead to long term problems that inevitably spill over into adversely affecting everyone, and not just those people who failed to control their appetites. In the field of healthcare, if you have a publicly funded healthcare system it increases costs to everyone, not just those who failed to take care of their own health. If you decide that you're going to let people reap what they sow by not having publicly funded healthcare then you progressively reach a state where more and more people face ruin and death. Having a massively unhealthy and therefore increasingly unproductive workforce is arguably bad for everyone, not just the unhealthy.

My own view is that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. The alternative to libertarianism is not just communism or socialism. I'm in favour of such things as taxpayer funded healthcare and a certain amount of taxation on some products (notably tobacco) with the purpose of artificially inflating their prices and reducing their use. I'm not in favour of a universal policy of making people live with their mistakes and weaknesses. It ends up being bad for everyone.

[baker]

The obese are a tremendous burden on the health care system [fiscally and otherwise]. I am saying that people should be completely responsible for their behavior and pay the consequences [not have everybody else pay]. This goes for individuals, government, corporations, etc.

Should, should, should. Then make them!

Oh, wait, it's not your karma to make them pay.

[Steve3007]

If people would take complete responsibility for themselves, it would eliminate 90% of the problems they have [and the other 10% would be quite manageable].

And if people stopped fighting there'd be no more wars. And if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle. As I've said, I don't really set much store by the old "if only people were all like this..." thing. I think it's a waste of time wishing that human nature was different to how it actually is.

The obese are a tremendous burden on the health care system [fiscally and otherwise]. I am saying that people should be completely responsible for their behavior and pay the consequences [not have everybody else pay]. This goes for individuals, government, corporations, etc.

On a practical level, how would you ensure that people are made to take complete responsibility for their lifestyle-related health issues? How would you decide the extent to which their condition is lifestyle related and therefore "their own fault"? My mother, for example, suffers from diabetes. But she is not overweight and has always eaten healthily. She receives treatment, insulin etc from the NHS. So do people who are overweight. Would you be more inclined to make one of those people pay for all of their own healthcare costs more than the other?

[impermanence]

The obese are a tremendous burden on the health care system [fiscally and otherwise]. I am saying that people should be completely responsible for their behavior and pay the consequences [not have everybody else pay]. This goes for individuals, government, corporations, etc.

Should, should, should. Then make them!

Oh, wait, it's not your karma to make them pay.

You "make them" by not giving them a way out.

This has become a system where the elite are more than happy to have the working class pay for not only themselves, but also, for all the ills of society.

You have to cut-out all this non-sense.

[impermanence]

If people would take complete responsibility for themselves, it would eliminate 90% of the problems they have [and the other 10% would be quite manageable].

And if people stopped fighting there'd be no more wars. And if my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle. As I've said, I don't really set much store by the old "if only people were all like this..." thing. I think it's a waste of time wishing that human nature was different to how it actually is.

The obese are a tremendous burden on the health care system [fiscally and otherwise]. I am saying that people should be completely responsible for their behavior and pay the consequences [not have everybody else pay]. This goes for individuals, government, corporations, etc.

On a practical level, how would you ensure that people are made to take complete responsibility for their lifestyle-related health issues? How would you decide the extent to which their condition is lifestyle related and therefore "their own fault"? My mother, for example, suffers from diabetes. But she is not overweight and has always eaten healthily. She receives treatment, insulin etc from the NHS. So do people who are overweight. Would you be more inclined to make one of those people pay for all of their own healthcare costs more than the other?

You make people be responsible by not having recourse. It's the same way most folks will not drive the wrong way down the highway. Immediate personal responsibility is the result. You need this same basic design everywhere. You would be amazed how people would step-up [and if not, that's the way it goes]. If nothing else, it serves as a really good lesson for those paying attention [just like the homeless].

As far as health care is concerned, you have an actual health care system instead of a disease care system. If people do not want to maintain their health, let them suffer the consequences. It's the only sane [and sustainable] way to approach health care.

As far as people who have issues which are no fault of their own, society will have to determine how much it can afford to spend keeping everybody alive. Technology will soon make it possible to spend unlimited amounts of money. It's not going to work. Reality suggests that there is only so much money you can spend on treating illness and infirmity. That's just the way it is. The solution is for people to stay as healthy as is possible.

[Sy Borg]

Given how the table is tilted, I do not judge the obese or others who many judge as 'self destructive".

If you were treating the ravaging affects of diabetes, you might feel differently.

That's because you are looking at surface issues.

Greta, don't give up hope. Things are never as good or bad as they seem. Once a great deal of the dys-function is purged from the system, even better opportunities will present themselves. For now, people should conserve their resources and look within [where all the good stuff is anyway].

I have more hope than anyone I know. I see a future beyond the inevitable catastrophes that overpopulation, overconsumption and corrupt governance will bring. Most humans will be removed, and others will regress to a wilder way of living (as is already the case), leaving empowered, technologically enabled post-humans and AI to achieve what humans could not - a cohesive and sustainable way of being. But that is a long way off and "you have to break eggs to make an omelette". The short and medium term prognoses are basically a nightmare but, failing unexpected major events (eg. asteroid strikes) the long term outlook for the non-atavistic portion of humanity is good IMO.

But I maintain that, aside from the odd fluke or genius, it is impossible for single members of the public to make ground-breaking discoveries today as was once the case. All of the obvious discoveries have been made, and the remaining unknowns tend to be so technical that you need millions of dollars of equipment and a crack team of experts to add significantly to the human body of knowledge, eg. CRISPR.

On an individual level, all people simply do the best they can. What else can they do? If they could do better, they would. If they cannot do better, then that points to limitations (that most won't admit to, and thus they beat themselves up for "failing". The old lie of "you can do anything you like" is just a feelgood platitude that flies in the face of human history, where the vast majority of people have lived unexceptional, mediocre lives - and we continue to do so.

[impermanence]

You really believe that people do the best they can? Most people hardly do anything. Picking up the remote or walking to the refrigerator seems difficult for many people.

The average person is capable of amazing things. Why it happens as infrequently as it does is a question that has been asked forever. Like all questions, the answers are unknowable [too complex (infinitely-factorial) for us to understand].

Just as nobody gets a free pass, everybody lives an amazing life. Just waking up and making it through some days is a miracle in and of itself [especially for those who you might think are very ordinary]. It's just a matter of seeing it.

Not everyone has the same drive - just as we differ in all attributes - to expect otherwise is unrealistic.

That's what happens in large societies that have, until now, only functioned due to their extreme diversity. Until now, if everyone was the same, society would collapse, as a diversity of attributes and skills is necessary for complex societies.

I say "until now" because humans are increasingly superfluous to industry's needs, other than as clickers and customers. With no need for diversity, there has been an intense norming drive running through all societies. Difference is no longer tolerated. Hence the cancel culture. Hence rising divisions and hatreds. Hence the demand that everyone be a hard worker. Hence social credit and equivalent less-extreme systems. Hence the distrust and medicalisation of people who were once valued as "loveable eccentrics".

It's all just intolerance of difference. As machines take the lead in society, people become more machinelike, more conforming, more like members of hive minds. So one tribe will adopt an "ideals package" like this:

preserve natural environments
more public education
more welfare
more public healthcare
pro-feminism
gay acceptance
racial acceptance
legal abortions
assisted suicide for terminally ill
removal of death penalty
ending the drug war
removing religious interference in the secular world
one vote/one person.

The other tribe routinely adopts exactly the opposite positions, and almost all members fall neatly in line on all issues.

The lot of them are simply biological machines, programmed automatons. Humans have already mostly left the building, so to speak.

[impermanence]

You really believe that people do the best they can? Most people hardly do anything. Picking up the remote or walking to the refrigerator seems difficult for many people.

The average person is capable of amazing things. Why it happens as infrequently as it does is a question that has been asked forever. Like all questions, the answers are unknowable [too complex (infinitely-factorial) for us to understand].

Just as nobody gets a free pass, everybody lives an amazing life. Just waking up and making it through some days is a miracle in and of itself [especially for those who you might think are very ordinary]. It's just a matter of seeing it.

I am assuming you wrote this, Greta...

Not everyone has the same drive - just as we differ in all attributes - to expect otherwise is unrealistic.

This is true, but just the same, you do your best [or not]. And that's the life you live.

That's what happens in large societies that have, until now, only functioned due to their extreme diversity. Until now, if everyone was the same, society would collapse, as a diversity of attributes and skills is necessary for complex societies.

Agreed.

I say "until now" because humans are increasingly superfluous to industry's needs, other than as clickers and customers. With no need for diversity, there has been an intense norming drive running through all societies. Difference is no longer tolerated. Hence the cancel culture. Hence rising divisions and hatreds. Hence the demand that everyone be a hard worker. Hence social credit and equivalent less-extreme systems. Hence the distrust and medicalisation of people who were once valued as "loveable eccentrics".

Are you assuming that current trends are permanent? The pendulum always swings back.

It's all just intolerance of difference. As machines take the lead in society, people become more machinelike, more conforming, more like members of hive minds. So one tribe will adopt an "ideals package" like this:

preserve natural environments
more public education
more welfare
more public healthcare
pro-feminism
gay acceptance
racial acceptance
legal abortions
assisted suicide for terminally ill
removal of death penalty
ending the drug war
removing religious interference in the secular world
one vote/one person.

The other tribe routinely adopts exactly the opposite positions, and almost all members fall neatly in line on all issues.

If you see things that black and white, i believe you are mistaken. There are many on both sides who are, say, fiscally conservative and socially liberal, etc.

The lot of them are simply biological machines, programmed automatons. Humans have already mostly left the building, so to speak.

So where is this hope of yours?

[Sy Borg]

The lot of them are simply biological machines, programmed automatons. Humans have already mostly left the building, so to speak.

So where is this hope of yours?

As I said, the apparent short-term prognosis is a nightmare. Medium term is far from promising - for humans. Long-term, though, I am confident that there is a grand future ahead for post-humans. Think of it as akin to the future of apes. For most apes, the 21st century will bring extinction in the wild, wiped out by one particular type of ape that fulfilled more of the potentials of the ape mind.

A small percentage of humans too will transcend and leave the rest in their dust. The trends are clear. Non-empowered humans, though, are doomed, and we are clearly on track to wipe ourselves out with delusionality, corruption, dishonesty and tribalism. I may be optimistic but I have no interest in rose-tinted glasses or euphemisms. As I say, an omelette requires broken eggs.

[impermanence]

So where is this hope of yours?

As I said, the apparent short-term prognosis is a nightmare. Medium term is far from promising - for humans. Long-term, though, I am confident that there is a grand future ahead for post-humans. Think of it as akin to the future of apes. For most apes, the 21st century will bring extinction in the wild, wiped out by one particular type of ape that fulfilled more of the potentials of the ape mind.

A small percentage of humans too will transcend and leave the rest in their dust. The trends are clear. Non-empowered humans, though, are doomed, and we are clearly on track to wipe ourselves out with delusionality, corruption, dishonesty and tribalism. I may be optimistic but I have no interest in rose-tinted glasses or euphemisms. As I say, an omelette requires broken eggs.

Optimistic?

The great thing about life is that we really have no clue what's going to happen. I was down the YouTube rabbit hole the other night and came upon a portion of one of my favorite TV shows when I was a kid back in the 60's called, "The 21st Century," with the American news icon Walter Cronkite narrating. This episode was about what the house of the year 2001 would look and be like. Other than getting the big TV and computer influences correct, everything else was a pipe-dream and waaaay off [and they were only predicting 34 years ahead].

The reason it is so difficult to predict the future is that 99.9% of what determines it has not occurred as of yet, so with the acceleration of technology and other transformations taking place, it's nearly impossible to know what's coming down. Even somebody as brilliant as Karl Marx had no idea what he was talking about when he thought he could interpolate forward.

Don't be so negative. Sure things are going to be challenging for a while as society goes through this transition [and who knows, perhaps WWIII is in the offing] but you never know what good will come from it, as well. Stay positive and try to enjoy yourself. You must admit, Greta, it's amazing time to be alive!

[Steve3007]

You make people be responsible by not having recourse. It's the same way most folks will not drive the wrong way down the highway. Immediate personal responsibility is the result...

As with many other aspects of life, driving the wrong way down the highway doesn't just hurt the person doing it. It also hurts the person with whom they have a head on collision who was driving the right way. My main objection to the libertarian principle has always been that it oversimplifies and underestimates the extent to which the individuals in a society are connected. As I said, simply allowing people to, for example, eat themselves to death doesn't just hurt those people. So I'd rather stick with the compromise between free market and public services which includes such things as publicly funded education and healthcare and the use of taxation not just to raise revenue to fund public services but to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. By some standards that makes me a socialist. By others it makes me a centrist.

[impermanence]

You make people be responsible by not having recourse. It's the same way most folks will not drive the wrong way down the highway. Immediate personal responsibility is the result...

As with many other aspects of life, driving the wrong way down the highway doesn't just hurt the person doing it. It also hurts the person with whom they have a head on collision who was driving the right way. My main objection to the libertarian principle has always been that it oversimplifies and underestimates the extent to which the individuals in a society are connected. As I said, simply allowing people to, for example, eat themselves to death doesn't just hurt those people. So I'd rather stick with the compromise between free market and public services which includes such things as publicly funded education and healthcare and the use of taxation not just to raise revenue to fund public services but to encourage certain behaviours and discourage others. By some standards that makes me a socialist. By others it makes me a centrist.

Steve, don't you find it amazing that thousands of people can be flying down the freeway at 80mph and basically come out alive? What makes people behave themselves on the highway? Immediate consequences. If it works on the highway, it will work every else, as well.

Public anything sucks. It just the way it is. The goal should be to go for a minimally corrupted private sector that can provide EVERYTHING better, cheaper, and faster. Look how Amazon [and I know all the issues] has changed the way people get stuff. The West is what it is because people had the freedom to make it that way. Take away freedom and you introduce mediocrity [at best]. Socialism simply cannot work. It is destroying what's left of any semblance of free markets.

The narrative is being taken over by people who feel sorry for the less fortunate among us but this does not help them. These feelings are about themselves. Helping other people is about empowering them to do for themselves, not about creating generational dependency. Socialism [other than the fact that it is simply a redistribution scheme] creates massive dependence, the ultimate impediment to individual achievement and self-realization.

[Steve3007]

Steve, don't you find it amazing that thousands of people can be flying down the freeway at 80mph and basically come out alive? What makes people behave themselves on the highway? Immediate consequences. If it works on the highway, it will work every else, as well.

Yes. Immediate consequences. What are the immediate consequences of eating sugary foods or smoking?

[impermanence]

Steve, don't you find it amazing that thousands of people can be flying down the freeway at 80mph and basically come out alive? What makes people behave themselves on the highway? Immediate consequences. If it works on the highway, it will work every else, as well.

Yes. Immediate consequences. What are the immediate consequences of eating sugary foods or smoking?

The immediate consequences are the knowledge that [without others to bail your sorry ass out], your future will be not-so-wonderful. If that's not enough to motivate better choices, then so be it. You must treat adults like adults, otherwise you will only support poor behavior and their inevitable outcomes [the same results as spoiling children] .