Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Jordan Peterson: The fatal flaw in leftist American politics | Big Think" video.

  1. No, his offense is declaring that we haven't as yet solved the problems of institutional inequality and human misery so we shouldn't try. He's entitled to his opinion, but some of us have higher aspirations for humanity.
    11
  2. The problem with this is that equity of result, while extreme, is not morally repugnant in the way that racism and xenophobia are. The far left lacks the cruelty agenda that would make walling them off seem reasonable to those of us in the moderate left. And while we definitely disavow those acting violently to promote their agenda, that's such a small sliver of the left as to be practically negligible. That's not to say that the moderate left and the far left get along. We don't, and it's tearing the Democratic party apart. But nobody in the moderate wing thinks that the hard-core progressives are anything remotely comparable to the alt-right and because of that we're not going to see them pilloried by the "reasonable" left.
    10
  3. I respectfully disagree. People who make large sums of money only provide jobs for people who move around large sums of money, usually to increase their resource absorption or to avoid taxation. Demand creates jobs. Some clever folks create goods or services that society finds desirable creating demand. The people who create these things should get rich. But if somebody would create something like this to become the next billionaire but won't create something like that if it only means he can be a millionaire then he's a greedy bastard, an idiot, and a detriment to society. You don't need to lock up insane amounts of money in a limited number of individuals to stimulate ingenuity and entrepreneurship. As for the money that some of these people distribute through philanthropy? I'm not impressed. That's exactly what government is for, to gather the community's resources and apply them according to the priorities of society, not the priorities of some rich guy. I agree that opportunity needs to be available to industrious, ambitious, intelligent, well-connected, lucky individuals to obtain more wealth than their less industrious, less ambitious, less intelligent, less connected, less lucky counterparts and it should be enough to make it a goal worth striving for but it doesn't need to be insane. And to the extant that a bum on the streets of New York has opportunity? Of course many "bums" could pull their lives together and move into normal society. But the opportunities he has to do this are provided in large part by social programs that assist with housing and job placement, not to mention the "streets" of New York that he walks are built and maintained through municipal socialism.
    4
  4. adventwrath, I'll admit, I don't know a lot about this guy. I've heard his name tossed around a bit as a libertarian type. I'm a strong believer in the value of collective accomplishment through state government which is my definition for high aspirations for humanity. He seems to be advocating for more of an entropic future which to me seems like a sad future reminiscent of our sad past. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions and I appreciate people who can demonstrate ambition and succeed through merits like work ethic, drive, study and talent, but I still see a need for affirmative action for historically disenfranchised groups and he seems to be suggesting that that makes me and people who agree with me the leftist equivalent of neo-nazis, which is nonsense.
    3
  5. On the socialist/liberal political axis liberal is definitely on the right. Classic liberals are individualists who push for extremely limited government (low taxes and no regulation). Traditionally they've been exploitative and avaricious. On the conservative/liberal axis they're on the left because they're against traditional institutions like the Church and class (mostly because old money won't let new money play with them). The concept of political left and right is actually way too simplistic, especially considering that these labels have had three centuries to grow and get themselves mangled.
    2
  6. Mr. Antsy, I totally agree with you. There has to be an incentive to succeed otherwise people won't try. That being said, there's no need, considering our capacity as a society, for nutritional shortage, homelessness, lack of medical care, poor infrastructure, etc., etc. A lot of the misery present in our society is due to a lack of will to deal with it and much of that is because those with the power to make change are comfortable with the status quo (why wouldn't they be?). There certainly is no need for one individual to be absorbing a billion dollars worth of resources. The prospect of obtaining a little fame, having authority to make decisions and bringing in a quarter of a million dollars a year in today's dollars should be enough incentive for anybody to work hard and be as clever as possible so long as we make sure that contributors are recognized and lauded for their contributions and that free riders, when identified are called out and punished. There are always going to be abusers of any system. In a socialist system the abusers are free riders who absorb public services while refusing to contribute. In a liberal system the abusers are exploiters who concentrate the contributions of the many into the hands of an avaricious few. The real danger to society is ideological purity. If you go totally socialist nobody has any incentive to contribute and society stagnates. If you go totally liberal that the vast majority of the population is impoverished and miserable while the tiny sliver of rich people live in a state of constant paranoia. The best answers are in the middle and the optimal position changes from society to society depending on their development as well as other needs and conditions.
    2