The logic that classical liberals used, was along the lines of, the poor should not be helped because it will extend their suffering to everyone else, right?

rather than just a portion of people

And what if one argues that doing so is a net negative?

That and also the belief the poor could help themselves. There wasn't any legal subjugation or discrimination against the poor among classical liberals

as in, it hurts more people than it helps

Not to mention, notions of charity

Right, but a laissez-faire attitude isn't equitable to legal discrimination

I've always believed, and it may be me projecting my past beliefs, that Leftist thought is tied to the inability to recognize that they aren't the only ones who believe in the "Let's make the world a better place!" song and dance.

I can see a counterargument against my second point, the economic equality, but in terms of legal status, it's difficult to really contend this

It would explain the black and white mentality

The thing is

In many notions of "making the world a better place", particular segments of society are left out or excluded

Solely to "benefit" another group

I used to be pretty damned far right, honestly

I don't identify with the right

the right has destroyed nationalism

I was simply trying to reveal that I haven't always been leftist - I know many on the right seek a better world, but said methods often involved the complete neglect, if not outright oppression of other groups

I suppose some segments had an almost misguided paternalistic attitude on certain issues, but many did not, and simply favored neglect.

Laws of economics dictate that the lot of all can never be equal and prosperous. They cant be both.

And besides, if you fatten the masses with luxuries (not possible, but if) then whats there to strive for anyway? Whats the goal of such a society? To help mankind feed their appetites? The nature of mankind is that of an ever expanding appetite. No man finds fulfillment without God.

Shitty take

Kill yourself pareto misconstruer

@Jay1532

@PebbЛe @Deleted User great rebuttal, my dudes

I don't believe in God, but I don't see a point in arguing whether or not he exists. Religion often functions as a social glue. I think the government should be secular, but religion should certainly be there.

Thats a fair position, but i disagree that the government should be secular. I dont think the church should run the government, but religious doctrine should be integrated at every level. Without religious vow taking and symbolism, individuals reigns supreme and exacerbates the principle-agent problem in government.

The best alignment of interests with regards to the principle agent problem is, of course, monarchy, wherein the problem in theory disappears altogether.

It is not the states job to mandate worship. However, it should reflect the religion of the nation. The United States in its origin was Christian at every level while not mandating religious beliefs to any citizen.

no, but you said in government

i think that a prereq for government work would have to be religious membership. Possibly exclusive to one denom, possibly not. Depends how much people try to create religions to skirt this requirement

and its not a requirement to worship, more membership and adherence to codes and so on.

Many states passed laws that required one be Christian to hold office. Would you bring that back?

I would, yeah

the key to the principle-agent problem is that if you cannot align interests, which is often impossible in cases of asymmetrical ownership, then you must align values

otherwise you get perverse outcomes

I don't care if it's a Christian or a bloody Hindu in office, if the people voted them in, and they don't royally fuck up or overstep their (should-be-limited) power, then we can let them do their thing.

@Zayan Watchel in <#452955238186614794> you said that a nation must have a culture, and that a people without a culture are bound to fail. Wouldn't having someone rule over you with a different culture be detrimental to the nation? There is no way that a Hindu has the same culture as a Christian. So why shouldn't a nation require it's leaders to hold to the same culture?

A Hindu can be of similar culture to a Christian, if you think of culture on a scale larger then surface items like religion, food, etc. it(religion) becomes such an insignificant tidbit that it really shouldn't affect shit.

Also, culture should be organized by the people, the state shouldn't be involved.

And I'm an Athiest who holds the same culture as any other Canadian, so I shouldn't be kept out of office.

culture is scalar