Hah. I love how there are no responses = there are no NDP voters. That's the point. They vote socialist once then hang their heads in shame and never admit it.

NDP voters don't want to waste time arguing with brainwashed capitalists :)

You should have seen the provincial candidate for Lethbridge West. What an intelligent, experienced woman. One of the only NDP candidates in Alberta who had a fighting chance to get a seat, it's a damn shame she missed the mark. Other than the candidate, I believe in the platform. I believe in sharing the wealth and investing in public institutions rather than reforming them into private systems. We all know how the American health system works, or doesn't work, and the same goes for the education system in the States. I'd like the Canadian government to stay Canadian, and the NDP represent that. Tommy Douglas was a great Canadian NDP, and I am a huge fan of his.

Conservative ideologies on the whole (as well as liberal) are getting to be quite outdated and useless. They are going no where. The NDP are at the moment moving towards to centre from their social democrat (right on the socialist political spectrum) position. The NDP have some good goals, but they need to reform.

30% of tuition now = bribe to keep current generation of university (and incoming) university students content with McGuinty's lie that he would cut tution by 30%.

So our only choices are "conservatism" and "liberalism"? That's going to make for a pretty boring discussion (and rather pointless one, given the false dichotomy.)

I'm also not convinced that all past ideologies can be split into either "conservatism" or "liberalism." Good luck on trying to pass off a Marxist as a liberal.

Another thing I've noticed in contemporary North American society is how the words "Marxism" and "socialism" have become positively dirty for the average individual, as if one's talking about a crude swear word, or Voldemort. To regard a serious ideology to which many men and women have devoted (and still are devoting!) their entire lives to studying and developing as nothing more than a punchline seems, to me, equivalent to intellectual auto-asphyxiation.

I'm not a Marxist. But neither am I a philistine.

As for the OP's query, I would suggest that the reason why no one's directly "answered" her/him is because they would be walking into a snake pit. Notice the premise implicit in the post: "If one is rational, intelligent, and ethical, then one could never vote for the NDP." Now, who really thinks they would be able to have a rational, intelligent, and mutually respectful discussion about the NDP with an individual who begins the conversation like that?

This is the only post so far that addresses the question. Sort of.

I know the NDP platform. You don't have to tell me that you "believe in sharing the wealth." Tell me why? This requires an explanation of why you believe it is ok to violate the natural right to private property. Is this based on utilitarian or deontological ethics?

Regarding the US healthcare system - government has been heavily involved in healthcare for decades. Pointing to its inefficiencies is in no way a valid argument against limited government involvement. Same with education.

You'll have to try harder.

You're simply not educated/experienced enough to be involved in this discussion, as evidenced by your previous display of ignorance.

Stick to discussing topics that are more on your level of intellect - such as what your favorite flavor of ice cream is.

You've pre-supposed a premise again (read: natural right to private property), and are trying to trip up your opponents before they've even had a chance to respond. I'll answer this one out of good faith, but I hope that you won't proceed through all of the surely numerous discussions you will have in your life so thuggishly.

A utilitarian would reject the concept of natural rights. Due to diminishing returns on utility/happiness with capital accumulation, a utilitarian would (should?) likely be in favour of taking measures to prevent excessive income inequality.

http://latimesblogs.lati...enmark.html?track=icymi

^ I wonder what the Gini coefficients are for those countries?

Also found this via 1-second google:

http://people.virginia.e...ess-Psych%20Science.pdf

From abstract: "Using General Social Survey data from 1972 to 2008, we found that Americans were on average happier in the years with less
national income inequality than in the years with more national income inequality."


A deontological framework would of course be compatible with natural rights, including natural property rights. But I suspect not many people would be willing to adhere to an absolutist deontological framework. Rawls, arguably the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, believed that property rights were a basic liberty, but not an absolute right to unlimited private property. See Rawls, Theory of Justice.

Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen argued strongly not just for private property rights, but for their intrinsic value. However, Sen notes that rights ought to have both intrinsic and instrumental value; "a right that is regarded as quite valuable in itself may nevertheless be judged to be morally rejectable if it leads to disastrous consequences." And his Nobel came from showing the disastrous consequences of systems in which property rights have been taken to be absolute, specifically the artificially created famines that have resulted from such systems, such as the Bangladesh famine of 1974 which occurred in a year of peak food availability. See Sen, "Property and Hunger."

@HieronymusBosch I actually prepared a sizable response, but for whatever reason I was signed out and couldn't post ><. To answer the going nowhere claim quickly what I did was I extended a dotted line from where we are, looked around and made a logical conclusion based on that. I don't expect things to change adequately enough to avoid this range of the graph so be prepared for some great (not in a good way) changes. You might see what I talking about, but you might not. Either way it will become existential in our lifetime (providing we do not plot another course). Oh and I don't throw conservatism/liberalism entirely out the window. They do have concepts and elements that are well thought out and useful (liberalism much more so than conservatism).

I'd rather publish a paper and get credit for it down the road then post it on a internet forum. I have yet to see someone go into this specifically

Anyways you are over analyzing metaphors lol, but that's fine I'd do the same in your position as I'm not backing up my vague claims am I?