Would Adam Smith be a Republican or a Democrat today?

Dutch Uncle said:
More proof you're a fucking moron, Yak, since that's not what @Cypress wrote.

Consider those in the US military. Most could make more money on the outside, but choose to stay in. Why? Because unlike you, most aren't willing to sell their souls for money.
Click to expand...

The MAGAs and Perry don't seem to understand how complex the English language is, and that it contains words like selfish, obligation, responsibility, duty - all having their various shades of meaning. MAGA and Perry seem to want to reduce the English language to about 300 words and a just cram, shoehorn, and stuff a large pantheon of words and actions under the umbrella "self interest".
 
Cypress said:
The MAGAs and Perry don't seem to understand how complex the English language is,
Click to expand...

Actually I do. I am fascinated how rigid you are in your thinking. You never seem to think through any topic very deeply. You certainly never question your assumptions.

Rigid thinking is the hallmark of a lesser intelligence.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
I do not see how @Cypress is that rigid although I can see why you never graduated college, Perry. Is it because you have a below average IQ? Didn't have the money? Dropped out of HS? What was the reason, Perry?
Click to expand...
My answer to the topic is that Adam Smith probably wouldn't find a home in either the Democratic or Republican party.

Trump fancies himself Mr. Tarriff. That would alienate Smith.

But he would probably not find the large social welfare state appealing either. He really comes from a different world, and we can't apply 21st century standards to him
 
Cypress said:
The MAGAs and Perry
Click to expand...

I'm fascinated by the depth of your hatred. I've only ever met one person who is so dedicated to their hatred and grudges. You can't possibly be a functional adult. Not even close.

I worked with a guy about 20 years ago like you. He would occasionally find someone he didn't like and set up a grudge which he never let go. He got so scary that he was threatening the person he held a grudge against. I think everyone was happier when that guy was let go.

You remind me of that guy. Under normal circumstances he was a good worker and a capable person. But he couldn't let go of his hatred.
 
Cypress said:
My answer to the topic is that Adam Smith probably wouldn't find a home in either the Democratic or Republican party.

Trump fancies himself Mr. Tarriff. That would alienate Smith.

But he would probably not find the large social welfare state appealing either. He really comes from a different world, and we can't apply 21st century standards to him
Click to expand...
Based upon the OP, it seems clear to me that, if he had to choose between the two, he'd be a Democrat.

While Democrats do lean hard into the "social welfare state", they are more moderate than the cult of personality in which the Republican Party has been perverted.

Additionally, as Einstein is often quoted as saying, "Everything is relative". Compared to the Euros, the American Democratic Party is a bastion of RWers.

2024

The Political Compass

The Political Compass: a 2-dimensional typology of political opinions
www.politicalcompass.org www.politicalcompass.org

2020

The Political Compass

The Political Compass: a 2-dimensional typology of political opinions
www.politicalcompass.org www.politicalcompass.org

2016

The Political Compass

positions of the US primary candidates 2016
www.politicalcompass.org www.politicalcompass.org

 
Kafka said:
The best part about debates around "altruism" and other questions about why people do things (self interest or not) is that it reveals those who have actually thought about the topic more than superficially.

Those who think superficially run right to the "self interest" part because that carries emotional baggage and appears to be synonymous with "selfish". Nothing could be further from the truth. But that is how you know the person hasn't thought deeply about the topic.

Self-interest comes in many forms most of which are in no way "selfish". They are probably actually just plain ol' biology. Our brains are wired to help us survive and there's a lot of evidence that many of our inclinations to take actions may be driven subconsciously, or even BEFORE we develop the intent to do something. There's obviously a reward for the brain and the organism for following that directive (or there has been in the evolutionary past, take "fight or flight" responses).

Couple this with the FACT that people who do good for others feel good about doing it. It really does carry a reward for the doer. It is not selfish by any stretch and may actually be beneficial to a social animal like humans. Having an in-built instinct to help as opposed to hurt would be VERY helpful for a social animal.

Doing good FEELS GOOD which is a reward. It encourages us to continue doing the "good" thing.

It's not selfish.
Click to expand...

And then we saw this:

Cypress said:
The MAGAs and Perry don't seem to understand how complex the English language is, and that it contains words like selfish, obligation, responsibility, duty - all having their various shades of meaning. MAGA and Perry seem to want to reduce the English language to about 300 words and a just cram, shoehorn, and stuff a large pantheon of words and actions under the umbrella "self interest".
Click to expand...

I might be psychic.
 
Cypress said:
There is a reason we have the word "selfish" in the English language. The word does not exist for no reason at all. We use it for people who only act in their own self-interest or strictly for their own benefit and enjoyment.

English also has the words "obligation" or "responsibility" which you are totally ignoring, which are frequently used in moral, social, religious contexts.

There are about one thousand things that would "feel good", provide more enjoyment, be more self-interested than going to volunteer to serve inmates in State prisons, distributing humanitarian relief in Gaza, or refusing to tell Nazi interrogators you are hiding a Jewish family in your basement.
Click to expand...
Correct, ONLY in self interest but we all act in self interest

I dont ignore them i just realize that wherever and whenever possible people will meet their obligations and responsibilities toward their self interests. Your way of thinking here explains why you think you can pretend to be "defenders of democracy" even though your behavior reveals the exact opposite. You want us to believe you care that trump supposedly raped a woman even though he was found liable even though she didnt know when this supposed rape took place and state law was changed to accommodate the filing of the charges. It's in the self interest of Democrats to do all they can to get rid of trump but you cloak it in your supposed care for the "victim".

Self interest isn't bad it only matters what it's in the service of.
 
Cypress said:
Nope. The "classical liberals" were replaced in Europe the late 19th and early 20th century by social democrats, a more progressive kind of liberalism that took into account labor rights and social welfare.

By the late 19th century and early 20th century when Lenin and Marx were around, they were reacting negatively towards social democrats and democratic socialists.
Click to expand...
It wasn't "liberalism" but rather socialism that they advocated for. They were all for wealth redistribution, government meddling in the marketplace, if not outright owning larger corporations, and the collusion of labor unions and government.

The result was by the 1960's Europe--now mostly ruined by decades of social democrats in power--was economically on the ropes and going down. By the mid-70's most European nations had ditched most of what socialists had put in place. Governments divested state owned corporations, public housing was privatized, and social-welfare benefits pared back.

Marx, Lenin, and other communists wanted to go further and we've seen the disasters they created as a result. Socialism and Communism simply do not work.
 
Truth Detector said:
I wish you could just answer a very simple question and not engage in your laughably inept fist pounding and flailing.

What is a better answer to fiat currency? Still waiting.
Click to expand...
i've said sound currency at least 2 times.

that's still my answer.

you can still have digital accounts and checks and stuff, but the currency is backed by something somewhere at some time.

this fantasy spending on the backs of the people is totaltitaraian horseshit.

you need to do better.

you need to think better.

Sound currency and tariffs is not too much ask, globalist neocon traitor faggot.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
FTFY, Fredo
Click to expand...
you dirty dog.
norm-macdonald.gif
 
Yakuda said:
Good grief! So I'm selfish if I take a job that they pay me to do? That's asinine. Self interest and selfish aren't the same.

Then you would be a fool. I also said previously that if people are only self interested that is not good. You're letting your emotions get the best of you here. Slow down and think. You keep assuming things such as self interest and selfish are the same or that acting in ones self interest.always brings about success.
Click to expand...
You have to remember that Sybil doesn't read or understand English.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top