wittgenstein

The warrior ethic is about fighting your equals and defending those that are weaker. The right wing ( I refuse to call them conservatives because they are not) attacks the poor and defends the rich. They even ridicule those less off than they are. Liberals attack the rich and powerful and defend the weak. Hmmm Who embraces the warrior ethic and who does not?

Rasta

Hmmm. I don't know. I've always seen politics as choosing the lesser of two evils.

wittgenstein

True, choosing good over evil is good. However, that is not what my post is about. Let me put it this way, Would one imbued with the warrior ethic attack a welfare queen that is still poor but has stolen a few thousand dollars from the government, or attack an industrialist that has killed thousands thru pollution and stolen millions thru his connections with congress?

sturm

As i said not once, what is Evil or what is Good, is just a point of view, and this was proved over in this forum in many many threads.
For instance, what i see as good Rasta may consider bad or evil.

I cannot however understand your thread Wittgenstein, are you saying that all right winged ideas (ideologies) defend the rich and attack the poor, and all Liberals defend the poor and attack the rich?

wittgenstein

First as you say, and I agree, this thread is not about good and evil, it is also not about which economic system is more efficient. That being said,I would agree that not ALL right wingers are pro rich and anti poor. I am also not saying that ALL liberals are anti-rich and pro-poor. However, I will say that it is true of the majority. I have listened to many right wingers and they all sound alike, let the corporations have more power, let them be deregulated...etc... the poor are lazy....This is especially true in the media, Fox etc.

wittgenstein

The warrior ethic would frown upon starting a fight one knew one could easily win. The risk of battle is what gives honor to a warrior.
One can be financially ( perhaps even physically) injured by taking on a corporation. However, writing letters to the editor about welfare queens is risk free.

sturm

I would like to ask, isnt there people who are central, i mean people who approve some of the ideas of the Conservatives, and some of the ideas of the Liberals?

Im asking because in my country, the political system is very different ,there are nationalistic parties, some of those parties are ultra-right winged, there are other nationalists who use more democratic aproach, there are democrats (same like the liberals), there are also left winged parties who are either socialists, or communists.
But there are parties who view themself as central.

Toltec

I don't think liberals attack the rich and defend the poor. They are polite and nice to the rich and ask them awfully nicely if they could be less bad to the poor.

Socialists on the other hand attack the rich and have lengthy conversations about helping the poor, between glasseas of champaigne.

wittgenstein

I agree, but I see nothing wrong with a mug of ale or mead between battles.

wittgenstein

Yes, and I understand your definition of liberal, a person that wants the courage ( warrior ethic) of a socialist and does not have it. I think our disagreement is with the definitions of words rather than one of substance.