|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Has the majority of social good in our world come from revolutionaries/progressives/left wingers? |
| yes |
|
42% |
[ 3 ] |
| no |
|
57% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 7 |
|
| Author |
Message |
No_hite_pls
Joined: 05 Mar 2007
Location: Don't hate me because I'm right
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Koveras wrote: |
Your question is senseless unless - as most posters here, even the ones on the "right", seem to be doing - one concedes beforehand to the left's ideal of progress, in brief, socio-economic equality. Progress is classic left rhetoric anyway; no Conservatives put any stock in it.
To make this more concrete: if we define "social good" as the leveling of society, the rise of social democracy, the destruction of class consciousness, the immasculation of males and of sovereignty (the male political principle), and an improvement in material "quality of life" for the proletariat, then it stands to reason that most such progress is thanks to the left. If we define social good in some other way, then the left may in fact seem responsible for most of our civilization's diseases. |
more disparity, more crime, more divorce are all products of the right in America not left. Look at the statistics of red v blue states. The republican states have higher crime, divorce, disparity and in general more unhealthy citizens (fatter). Especially in so-called bible belt. Conservatism in America is crock!
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2007
http://consumerist.com/tag/fattest-states/?i=5021721&t=the-10-fattest-states-in-the-country |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From this book
| Quote: |
The major landmarks of the civil rights revolution have often been credited with the economic advances of the US black population. But history tells a very different story as regards the economic advancement of blacks.
The percentage of black families with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s when "affirmative action" evolved into "goals" or "quotas". While the downward trend in poverty continued, the pace of that decline in fact slackened. However much credit has been claimed for the civil rights laws of the 1960s or the War on Poverty programs of that decade, the hard facts show that blacks' rise out of poverty was more dramatic before any of these government actions got under way |
As someone else said earlier in the thread, progress overwhelmingly comes from free market economics - policies that "progressives" tend not to admire. Passing laws costs politicians nothing, but discrimination against blacks, women or anyone will cost competitive private businesses, in competition with other businesses for labor, money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
from the same book:
| Quote: |
| Mid 19th century, Japan was a poor and backward nation. Yet today, Japan's cars, cameras and other products have set the standard for quality around the world, and the Japanese people are among the most prosperous. At the beginning of the 20th century, Argentina was one of the most prosperous nations on Earth, but it has long since lost that position |
Too much "progressive" socialism in Argentina perhaps? And not enough "conservative" capitalism? 
| Quote: |
The World Bank, among others, has produced statistics showing that the ratio between the incomes of the 20 highest income countries and the 20 lowest income countries has grown over the period from 1960 to 2000. Some have used such data to claim that globalization increases the economic inequality between prosperous and poverty-striken nations.
But the direct opposite conclusion would be reached when comparing the same set of nations in 2000 as in 1960. The income ratio between the initially richest 20 nations and the initially poorest 20 declined from 23:1 to less than 10:1.
Freer and rising amounts of international trade - globalization - was in fact one of the reasons why some nations rose out of the bottom 20 |
Methinks the OP, by "progressives", means some sociologist hippy with a bunch of dusty old books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
