Does the left promote laziness and expectations of handouts? [CK2308 vs. The Ugly]

[CK23]

Topic title: Does the left promote laziness and expectations of handouts?
Details My views as a rightist versus the overall left; especially relating to the issue of work and the quality of work which is to be done.
Position: I stand on the right as a protector of the right and against the left which degrades the quality of people.

Overall the debate is about the left and right of the political spectrum however, a special part is based on how I believe that the left promotes laziness and creates expectations of hand outs. I shall let my opponent have the first word.

The Ugly, present.

[rollinnse]

if i ever get around to it, i'm all about this argument

i meant what i just said

haha

[CK23]

if i ever get around to it, i'm all about this argument

i meant what i just said

haha

You can talk to The Ugly if you want...he doesn't seem that interested.

[scarybandit]

Perhaps this debate could progress if, as the initiator, you outlined the specific leftist political theories or policies that promoted laziness or entitlement, respectively.

Part of this outline might include differentiations between the many leftist political positions, eg: an anarcho-communist has a rather different outlook to that of a social democrat, or even a Maoist for that matter.

[Claudius Gothicus]

I've had my debates with Jingle back in the day... AND UNLESS YOU REALLY have proof(not circumstantial but actual proof) of your proposition you are gonna get whooped really hard

[molonthegreat]

I don't see the point with debating how society should work communists since it's like explaining advanced physics to a retard, no matter how hard you try to explain and argue they just won't get it. However I hope you make good enough arguments so other young fellows in this site is dissuaded from communism, so good luck.

[Himster]

The left promotes tolerance, open-mindedness and collective-ness, the right promotes the individual, self-righteousness and draconian law.

Right now I view the left as being the lesser of two evils, but: If you're not Liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not Conservative when you're 35, you have no brain.

[Sabin Stargem]

I am of the mind that Socialist mechanisms, like public schooling, fire departments, law enforcement, universal medical care, infrastructure, and services is key to the wellbeing of civilization. However, it is lacking when it comes to efficient distribution of goods and generally isn't flexible where trade is concerned. Capitalism, on the other paw, mostly benefits the people who have money, which isn't good since it reduces the quality of civilization across the middle and lower class citizens. As such, I endorse something along the lines of having Socialism applied to Services, while Capitalism is focused on Goods. People who are educated and in good health are more likely to make money or possess abilities that contribute to society in the long run.

Communism gets a bad reputation, which is partially deserved, but considering Communism as a form of technology, the Russians got a really buggy and poorly misapplied version of it. Fortunately, everyone else was able to watch and take away some of the good parts of communism, and went on to fuse it with the bits of capitalism that works. Essentially, both Capitalism and Communism are inherently flawed and need to be understood so that their best components could be retained, while the more cruddy portions can be discarded. I feel that Capitalism in modern society is successful because it primarily operates on how most humans possess some sort of ambition, and therefore it appeals to them. Socialism is a large beast that isn't immediately obvious in its benefits, requiring years of investment and observation before it may bear fruit. That is tedious, thus people are not interested despite the benefits.

When thinking about the Right's claim that Big Government is bad, and Small Government is good, I feel that Government should be considered as a house. When altering a house, expanding it is generally easier than removing parts of it, because the old infrastructure can ineffectively support the new, but removing parts of a house can cause it to collapse. Rather than trying to shrink the government, I believe that carefully planning and constructing each department and regulation would contribute far more to the overall cause of improving society, than to tear down walls and supports that do not support an convenient ideological position.

[The_Fan]

Excellent post! I only disagree with the last paragraph and only in part. I would contend that big government is not a good thing only because it never seems to shrink. Once a department is added or expanded it just seems to keep growing and then another agency is formed to regulate it. Before long redundencies abound all over the place.

The heart of the issue isn't big or small government, it is the mentality of the people at large. The government should do something about this or that or some such and looking to them get involved is causing this.

I am in commercial construction and as such we are regulated by city building officials, state osha and federal osha (and not to leave out insurance companies).
I am confused why there still is a federal osha program (leaving aside my thoughts on the constitutionality of an organization that is the police/judge/jury/collection agent all at the same time)
If there is an accident on site that results in injury or death you get inspected by your insurance agency, city, state and federal osha AND the court system. WOW!
I am a firm believer in safety practices and hold mandatory weekly safety talks and conduct daily job site inspections.
State osha will come out and conduct inspections of sites once a month and issues correction notices (not fines - unless you fail to fix the problems in a certain amount of time).
Federal osha does what? They randomly may show up on a job site if they are in the area and NEVER fail to issues large fines - which you have to then negotiate with them to get lowered (that is if they decide they want to negotiate). Oh yea, they also show up for sure if there is a serious injury or death - to (you guessed it) fine you. Please note I am not against going after someone if they did something wrong but isn't the court system the correct place to do this?
I am not trying to hijack the OP I am just giving an example of an agency who has outlived their time. There was a time for federal osha as safety standards were bang out of whack but things are quite different today.