Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (11094)	4/12/2001 1:51:14 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't know many wealthy people who define themselves as "left". In fact the people I know who define themselves as "left" are usually working for non-profits or in helping professions, so they have very little money. But they give of themselves. Which can sometimes be better than money- depending on the person. There are some people that don't seem to be worth a dime (but of course I allow that it's my judgment and I may not be seeing their special worth)- however those people in my judgment are usually not identifying themselves as left. I did not intend the definitions to be helpful. I intended them to be unhelpful. I am sure the Black Caucus defines liberal differently than Jewish liberals, and that Jewish liberals define liberal differently than the little enclaves of Che worshippers I met at Berkeley and THEY all define liberal differently than the United Farm Workers. What I think most liberals have in common is a genuine feeling that service and care of the fellow man is the job not only of the individual but of the State as representative of the collective will of individuals. I think liberals are suspicious of unbridled capitalism and lust for money. I think many leftists and liberals gravitate to education, and other occupations where they feel they can advance social change- since liberals and leftists usually want social change (although I would suggest what they want varies greatly).

To: The Philosopher who wrote (11094)	4/12/2001 8:27:34 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If a term is to have any meaning, it has to have at least some agreed definition. Otherwise it becomes a meaningless sound. Which maybe leftist has become. I think that most terms like liberal, leftist, conservative, rightist, ad nauseam have become meaningless sounds, precisely because there is no established consensus on what they mean. To me, a "leftist" is more "left" than a "liberal": in order to be a "leftist", to me, you have to embrace at least some elements of outright socialism; a "liberal" is more likely to support a somewhat more highly regulated version of capitalism. I try not to use these classifications in conversation, though, simply because they are hopelessly amorphous and subject to an infinite degree of confusion and overlap. I don't think anything is gained by using such labels to classify people, and I prefer to avoid it entirely.