[Politics] It isn't easy being Blue.

[davywavy]

Whilst out on the town a few weeks ago, I got talking to a girl in a bar. After a while, for reasons I can't recall, the conversation came round to politics. Suddenly she stopped short and looked at me quizzically.
"You're right-wing, aren't you?"
"Yup", I replied.
"Well, I don't think we should let homeless people starve to death on the street", she said, smugly ensuring her moral superiority over me and my homeless-starving ways whilst necking the booze I'd just bought her like there was no tomorrow.

A friend of mine who shares my political opinions once told me they didn't really like going to social events with many of my friends, because they knew that they would be belittled and insulted for holding their political beliefs. They found it upsetting that they would be insulted by people they barely knew not even for their beliefs, but for what those people considered their beliefs to be without even taking the time to find out the reality of the situation. In other circumstances this sort of behaviour would be considered 'prejudice'. When you're dealing with a lot of people I run into, it's called 'informed debate'. Sometimes it's nice to open LJ and read the wise words of the mind-numbingly gorgeous vulgarcriminal, who is political voice of reason.
The irony of the intellectual intolerance of many people amuses me in a bleak sort of way; most of the people on my friends list consider themselves to be tolerant, understanding and non-judgemental; however this just highlights the basic dichotomy of many people's political views - they're tolerant of any kink, perversion, social attitudes and outre behaviour which they happen to agree with. Their tolerance doesn't extend so far as being polite to people who think that, oh, say, civil liberties have been undermined quite a lot by the current government or that spending thirty-seven billion quid which we don't have every year in a slowing economy might lead to trouble later.
raggedhalo recently made a post in which he compared prejudice against vegetarians to homophobia, and presented himself as being a persecuted minority. Personally I think it's a bit difficult to be a persecuted minority when you're a socialist vegetarian in a student union, but that's just me.
Re-reading his post, it's interesting to me just how much of his argument I can apply to my own point. After all, if he can compare prejudice against sexualities with his own political views, so can I - to object to that would be prejudiced, wouldn't it? Back in the 1980's, being gay would get you socially ostracised and sometimes insulted in public, whilst being Conservative would get you social acceptance and congratulations on your snappy dress sense. And now...?
There's a comparison to be made here, I think...

Of course, I think Joe's comparison is as nonsensical as mine. But it's funny nevertheless.

Comments

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

I've been reading AJP Taylor's introduction to the Communist Manifesto, and Socialism was only supposed to involve about ten people - oh, and Marx would be their leader, and punt anyone who disagreed with him.

I'm not socialist, just a realist. I'm not trying to bring down the government, or society, or even Unilever, it just gets my goat when people say that it's a moral obligation. It's not moral - it's making yourself rich at the expense of others disposable income. Do it if you want, but don't say it's a shining ethical example. Likewise, you won't get me packing in my job to volunteer to work with AIDS orphans in Sumatra.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Is it moral? in a way it is, because trade and the markets have enriched humanity and improved the lives of more people than any other philosophy or system before or since. in terms of common good actually achieved, it's probably one of the most moral systems I can think of.
And as for "making yourself rich at the expense of others disposable income"? As a capitist and entrepreneur who hopes to become at least wealthy through my business, I'm interested to know how you relate that statement to myself, as the most immediate example.

[jonnyargles.livejournal.com]

That's more the representative democracy element rather than the capitalism, though.

They have capitalism and a monarchy in China, which is doing great for a particular sector of the country; but when someone gains money, someone else loses it. Money doesn't just come from nowhere.

Even America, that bastion of Free Trade, is currently kicking up a stink over agricultural protectionism, because it extends its moral obligation no further than sea to shining sea.

As regards the moral aspect, I'd let you off, because you're a B2B company. You're just interested in making yourself wealthy at the expense of other companies, which is a worthy thing.

[(Anonymous)]

"Money doesn't just come from nowhere."

... so, the world contains exactly the same amount of wealth, good design, scientific discovery, craftsmanship, art, architecture, manufactured goods as it always has done?

Well, it's an interesting, er, theory.

H

Money is now coming from nowhere.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You've been reading my crap for long enough to know that my argument is "Western Liberal Capitalist Democracy is the best thing since sliced bread"; I usually add the caveat that the best example is probably the Australian model, which I really like.

One thing I strongly disagree with you is that 'Money doesn't just come from nowhere". We've hit a point where it does, pretty much; we live in an energy and information trading economy where ideas have cash value, but ideas cost nothing to produce. The Economist ran an intersting piece years ago which basically said that if you add up all the money in the world, you could buy up all the physical resources in the world have have money to spare, indicating that money is now an entity seperate from the resources it originally represented. The idea that capitalism is a zero-sum game is the idea which the original Communist manifesto was based upon, but is actually at least two centuries out of date. You might read the authors introduction to Tom Jones in which Henry Fielding praised his benefactor, a man who made a lot of money by simply having a good idea and not utilising any physical resources to achieve it.

Modey monetary economics is efectively an elaborate charade which only works because we all agree to make it do so; however, we all agree (or enough of us do so to make it work) because it's the best system out of all the systems anyone has yet come up with.

[applez.livejournal.com]

Slight correction, if I take your point correctly:

it's making yourself rich at the expense of others disposable income.

Healthy capitalism would be that, but there is plenty of enrichment at the expense of others needs going on.