Perhaps.

Post #192,086 by mmoffitt 1/28/05 9:04:55 AM Reply	Perhaps. I hope you'd agree, though, that the motivations are polar opposites. For me, that is enough difference. ;-) Back in college in the 1980's (during the Central American mess) a history prof I greatly admired got into a discussion about Left/Right policies with another student. The student became incensed when the prof said, "The leftist guerilla is morally superior to the right wing guerilla." After some flame back and forth the prof finally said, "Yes, I agree that both types of guerillas are capable of horrific deeds. The distinguishing trait, however, that makes the leftist morally superior is that the leftist believes that by doing what he does everyone will be better off. The right winger, on the other hand, is motivated purely by self interest." I buy that, I guess I always have. Maybe it was all that indoctrination at ages 9 and 10. Or maybe it's correct. :0) bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #192,091 by hnick 1/28/05 9:38:54 AM Reply	About labels and absolutes.. The labels "left" and "right" being directly equivalent to "good" and "bad" or "selfless" and "greedy" may be overly simplistic. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that crusader bunnypants really believes that the world will be a better place with his buddies (all completely trustworthy, in his eyes) running the whole show. By your arguement, he is completely justified in invading anybody who opposes his Utopian dream of universal freedom. That he's deranged, is a minor detail. I tend to be extremely suspicious of anybody who claims "moral superiority". But that could be an overly simplistic abstraction on my part.
Post #192,095 by mmoffitt 1/28/05 10:19:36 AM Reply	I think that'd be giving him more credit than is due. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, that crusader bunnypants really believes that the world will be a better place with his buddies (all completely trustworthy, in his eyes) running the whole show. Maybe its my built-in distrust of big-time capitalists. But I just cannot imagine that any dyed-in-the-wool capitalist ever thinks about "everybody" except to ponder the extent to which they can be exploited. I, too, am leary of anyone claiming moral superiority. It's just I can still remember the first utterance from the prof of my macro-Econ class as a freshman. He, a dyed-in-the-wool capitalist, said, "Capitalism is built upon self interest. It depends on the uneven distribution in wealth and the individual's drive to have more. That is why it works. That is why no other system ever will." (That's very close to literal). I remember being disgusted with that sentiment. And I am still. bcnu, Mikem Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer. (Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Post #192,098 by hnick 1/28/05 11:23:40 AM Reply	Distrust and disgust are fine I tend to share both when regarding extremists at either end of the spectrum. In the same way I would tend to doubt Bush's sincerity, I would also be hesitant to assume altruistic motives in AK47 packing social activists. I find that "good", "bad", "greedheads" are probably too simplistic to be useful when dealing with a complicated world. YMMV.
Post #192,093 by Arkadiy 1/28/05 9:41:48 AM Reply	And that goes back to my argument about revolutions eating their children. But I guess I've got my point across to you. No more needs to be said. -- - I was involuntarily self-promoted into management. [link\|http://kerneltrap.org/node/4484\|Richard Stallman]

Welcome to IWETHEY!