Do you support authoritarian politics.

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't know, the few that I personally know didn't inherit any money. In fact two were immigrants, and started, stepping off the boat with nothing. One didn't even finish high school.

Two found a need and found a way to fulfill that need. The other did it as a worker. He saved and invested.

And the few that I personally know had their entire education and initial investments paid for before they even got out of high school. I'll bet you my hat there is a lot more of the latter than the former.
As a first world nation, the US has one of the worst poverty rates around. I would feel a lot more comfortable coming with just the clothes on my back to so called socialist scandanavia then I would to the US.

As an aside, still fitting today.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know, the few that I personally know didn't inherit any money. In fact two were immigrants, and started, stepping off the boat with nothing. One didn't even finish high school.

Two found a need and found a way to fulfill that need. The other did it as a worker. He saved and invested.

I inherited net debt from my parents.
So my wealth isn't due to inheritance.
But they did give me around $4000 for college tuition.
(The black & Hispanic students I knew paid no tuition.
Amerindians pay no tuition ever in MI.)

 

[Nakosis]

I inherited net debt from my parents.
So my wealth isn't due to inheritance.
But they did give me around $4000 for college tuition.
(The black & Hispanic students I knew paid no tuition.)

I think if someone can retire with a nest egg of 1 million they'll probably do ok. I don't think it's hard to do with a little foresight which we should be educating our kids on.

Calif seems a little tough on the kids though because the state takes a pretty good chuck of what people earn that they could otherwise be saving.

Ends up making folks dependent on the state instead of independent of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ends up making folks dependent on the state instead of independent of it.

I suspect that's a common but unspoken goal.

 

[Nakosis]

And the few that I personally know had their entire education and initial investments paid for before they even got out of high school. I'll bet you my hat there is a lot more of the latter than the former.
As a first world nation, the US has one of the worst poverty rates around. I would feel a lot more comfortable coming with just the clothes on my back to so called socialist scandanavia then I would to the US.

As an aside, still fitting today.

Helsinki everyone gets a place to stay. It's given to them. They own it with no requirements. Pretty much no homeless.

Finland's homeless crisis nearly solved. How? By giving homes to all who need.

 

[Stevicus]

"Matthew MacWilliams’s Pre-Primary Poll with Four Weird Questions
He asked , in four questions, about the respondents’ beliefs concerning childrearing. In each of these questions he asked them to choose which of two traits was more important for a child to have. Specifically, he asked whether it is more important to raise a child to be (1) respectful or independent; (2) obedient or self-reliant; (3) well-behaved or considerate; and (4) well-mannered or curious. It turned out that these questions were, for Republicans, by far the best predictors of who planned to vote for Trump—better than gender, age, race, income, religiosity, or anything else that was asked."

(Extract from https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/...ing-beliefs-were-best-predictor-trump-support)

This is far more than about Trump

It seems that these predictors are the best way to divide people of All Parties into those biased toward Authoritarianism and those who prefer the traditional liberal values. it is not about left and right or about republicans and democrats.

There is a lot of research going on at this time looking into this phenomenon. and it seems to be a good indicator of the types of people who support Brexit, Putin. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and many of the current leaders throughout the world that seem to be promoting Authoritarian rule and the reduction of personal and press freedom.

Theses tendencies seem to have been present ever since Political statistical research has been undertaken.
However it is only recently that this Authoritarian characteristic has been identified as traversing all shades of politics, both right and left. and accounts for about one third of people and inherent in ALL populations.

This is more than enough to sway the results of all elections towards Leaders displaying these characteristics, From what ever Party. Even though it is usually against the personal interests and freedoms of the voters who do so. It is a human characteristic.

Discuss

Looking at it from the viewpoint of the common people, I think most people probably just want to live their lives and be left alone. But they also have their basic human needs, for which they need to be able to work and earn a living. This is even more true in the industrial era, where most people live in urban areas and can't really live off the land.

People also want (sometimes even demand) protection from their government, whether from criminals or outside invaders.

It doesn't necessarily mean they want an authoritarian government, but most seem to prefer a society of law and order. They want economic and political stability and some expectation of a better future for their progeny. Most people (even including those in "free" countries) have been willing to give up a portion of their freedom in order to get a certain level of protection and consideration as citizens.

If people perceive that a society is unstable, or if they don't feel they're protected enough or that their way of life is threatened, then they might be in more of a mood to give their government a freer hand in restoring society or fixing whatever it is that may be broken.

Most humans have lived under authoritarian rule in one form or another throughout most of history. I'm not sure that many people genuinely care all that much about "freedom," except only on an abstract level.

 

[Stevicus]

Ends up making folks dependent on the state instead of independent of it.

The state is dependent upon political stability. Some of the more progressive capitalists and politicians in this country realized the political necessity of spending on social welfare and other programs. There's an inherent risk to political stability in having large numbers of impoverished people in a growing underclass.

How they got to be so impoverished - or why there's so many - that seems to be the ongoing debate.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The most interesting thing about this thread is the way a large majority of the posters have missed the point entirely.

No one seems to have understood the significance of the four questions. and have tried to apply them to government rather than the voters. It is not about the elected at all, it is about the mind set of a sector of the electors( real people). These people do not even recognise themselves as a group. They are to be found in all political parties. They can have beliefs ranging from communist to fascist and everything in between.

In the UK we have the phenomenon where poor farm and other country workers, always vote Conservative. They hold a deep traditional conviction and respect for the superiority of their social betters. they invariably vote for people who have no interest in their welfare, but are the right "Sort". It is a respect of "authority" that has been ingrained in them from birth. It is a foundation of the way they perceive the world.

This particular article has applied that view of "the power for respect of Authority" to explain the Trump phenomenon. though it applies equally to the other leaderships I listed.
It is probably better demonstrated by the Mindset of those that believe in the total truth of the Bible when reason and science would indicate that such an over arching belief is irrational. It produces a mind set capable of accepting such "Authority" where ever it is to be found.

The independent; self-reliant; considerate; and curious elements in their lives are submerged under the authority of the respectful; obedient; well-behaved; well-mannered aspects of their upbringing.
Such a way of thinking produces people who are easily led, and prefer a stable unchanging and traditional life under a strong leadership, that remove the responsibility of thinking for them selves. They prefer the security of the past to the uncertainty of the future.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

"Matthew MacWilliams’s Pre-Primary Poll with Four Weird Questions
He asked , in four questions, about the respondents’ beliefs concerning childrearing. In each of these questions he asked them to choose which of two traits was more important for a child to have. Specifically, he asked whether it is more important to raise a child to be (1) respectful or independent; (2) obedient or self-reliant; (3) well-behaved or considerate; and (4) well-mannered or curious. It turned out that these questions were, for Republicans, by far the best predictors of who planned to vote for Trump—better than gender, age, race, income, religiosity, or anything else that was asked."

(Extract from Childrearing Beliefs Were Best Predictor of Trump Support)

This is far more than about Trump

It seems that these predictors are the best way to divide people of All Parties into those biased toward Authoritarianism and those who prefer the traditional liberal values. it is not about left and right or about republicans and democrats.

There is a lot of research going on at this time looking into this phenomenon. and it seems to be a good indicator of the types of people who support Brexit, Putin. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and many of the current leaders throughout the world that seem to be promoting Authoritarian rule and the reduction of personal and press freedom.

Theses tendencies seem to have been present ever since Political statistical research has been undertaken.
However it is only recently that this Authoritarian characteristic has been identified as traversing all shades of politics, both right and left. and accounts for about one third of people and inherent in ALL populations.

This is more than enough to sway the results of all elections towards Leaders displaying these characteristics, From what ever Party. Even though it is usually against the personal interests and freedoms of the voters who do so. It is a human characteristic.

Discuss

Those characteristics seem awfully like false dichotomies. Maybe the fact I want my kid to have characteristics from both sides is why I'm not a Trump supporter.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Those characteristics seem awfully like false dichotomies. Maybe the fact I want my kid to have characteristics from both sides is why I'm not a Trump supporter.

Those characteristics seem awfully like false dichotomies. Maybe the fact I want my kid to have characteristics from both sides is why I'm not a Trump supporter.

The Questions have been chosen in pairs to get at the underlying mind set. You must choose which is the more important to you, they are not absolutes. We probably would like a child to have all those attributes, but the questions force us to make a choice between them. it is these choices that you make,that are the important indicating factor.

 

[Stevicus]

In the UK we have the phenomenon where poor farm and other country workers, always vote Conservative. They hold a deep traditional conviction and respect for the superiority of their social betters. they invariably vote for people who have no interest in their welfare, but are the right "Sort". It is a respect of "authority" that has been ingrained in them from birth. It is a foundation of the way they perceive the world.

This particular article has applied that view of "the power for respect of Authority" to explain the Trump phenomenon. though it applies equally to the other leaderships I listed.
It is probably better demonstrated by the Mindset of those that believe in the total truth of the Bible when reason and science would indicate that such an over arching belief is irrational. It produces a mind set capable of accepting such "Authority" where ever it is to be found.

You make some good points, although one can also discern that part of the "Trump phenomenon" also rests in a certain propensity (on the part of some) to defy authority. Or they might pick and choose which authorities they're going to respect versus those they choose to defy.

A lot of Trump's base seems to indicate profound disaffection and dissatisfaction with "the establishment" in one form or another.

And it's really not that difficult to figure out why. The lower classes are those who have gotten routinely screwed by "authority," so it should be expected that they would eventually become resistant, even to the point of becoming angry and defiant.

 

[Nakosis]

The state is dependent upon political stability. Some of the more progressive capitalists and politicians in this country realized the political necessity of spending on social welfare and other programs. There's an inherent risk to political stability in having large numbers of impoverished people in a growing underclass.

How they got to be so impoverished - or why there's so many - that seems to be the ongoing debate.

Important though, IMO, that we find an answer that is apolitical. If I was among the impoverished, I'd be getting kind of pissed off at being used as a pawn in a political game. A real solution is not political.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Important though, IMO, that we find an answer that is apolitical. If I was among the impoverished, I'd be getting kind of pissed off at being used as a pawn in a political game. A real solution is not political.

I don't think it's possible to have an apolitical solution, since its going to involve public policy to one degree or another. I'd be more pissed if it were written off as politically irrelevant.

 

[Nakosis]

I don't think it's possible to have an apolitical solution, since its going to involve public policy to one degree or another. I'd be more pissed if it were written off as politically irrelevant.

Ok, but from my POV, we should have a solution, should have had a solution a long time ago. I don't think either party wants a solution, both have had their opportunity. Problems can be solved if people want to solve it. The only reason it hasn't been solved is because it is political.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Ok, but from my POV, we should have a solution, should have had a solution a long time ago. I don't think either party wants a solution, both have had their opportunity. Problems can be solved if people want to solve it. The only reason it hasn't been solved is because it is political.

What's the solution? And how could you implement it apolitically?

 

[Nakosis]

What's the solution? And how could you implement it apolitically?

IMO, mentoring. Mentoring by successful people. Most people can't get out of poverty on their own. They need to be shown how to be successful. I was homeless for awhile. I had people teach me how to look for a job, how to do successful interviews. Even helped me practice doing an interview. After I was working, they even helped me find an apartment of my own.

I needed someone to help me get through these initial steps that I wasn't familiar with. It's not stuff they teach you in school.

What I would do is offer tax incentives to rich successful entrepreneurs to volunteer their time to teach impoverished communities how to be successful. To be successful, IMO, you need to be mentored by someone who has been successful.

This works, I've seen it work but usually it is isolated to a family or close community. Were one successful shows others how to succeed.

Rich parents, are likely to teach their own kids how to succeed. So wealth stays with successful families. We need to expand that mentoring beyond just the family and close knit community.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

IMO, mentoring. Mentoring by successful people. Most people can't get out of poverty on their own. They need to be shown how to be successful. I was homeless for awhile. I had people teach me how to look for a job, how to do successful interviews. Even helped me practice doing an interview. After I was working, they even helped me find an apartment of my own.

I needed someone to help me get through these initial steps that I wasn't familiar with. It's not stuff they teach you in school.

What I would do is offer tax incentives to rich successful entrepreneurs to volunteer their time to teach impoverished communities how to be successful. To be successful, IMO, you need to be mentored by someone who has been successful.

This works, I've seen it work but usually it is isolated to a family or close community. Were one successful shows others how to succeed.

Rich parents, are likely to teach their own kids how to succeed. So wealth stays with successful families. We need to expand that mentoring beyond just the family and close knit community.

That certainly will work for some people. Though again the skill of successful people is highly overrated. Trump is a successful idiot and loses more money than he makes when put into business, makes more money through capitol gains on his family's money. I have a feeling that a mentor program will have about the same effectiveness as a business degree: a lot more stupid ideas than smart ones and no magic bullets to be found.

But most people who are below poverty have one or more jobs and a good chunk of those who don't have physical or psychological ailments that prevent them from working full time. The problem for many if not most isn't skill it's opportunity or a strong support such as unions and labor laws which keeps their available work from being exploitive and low pay. Coupled with a new budding housing crisis...

 

[Nakosis]

That certainly will work for some people. Though again the skill of successful people is highly overrated. Trump is a successful idiot and loses more money than he makes when put into business, makes more money through capitol gains on his family's money. I have a feeling that a mentor program will have about the same effectiveness as a business degree: a lot more stupid ideas than smart ones and no magic bullets to be found.

Ok, well I know it works, seen it work and work consistently.

But most people who are below poverty have one or more jobs and a good chunk of those who don't have physical or psychological ailments that prevent them from working full time. The problem for many if not most isn't skill it's opportunity or a strong support such as unions and labor laws which keeps their available work from being exploitive and low pay. Coupled with a new budding housing crisis...

More successful people means more tax revenue, more money available to the government to help those with physical/mental ailments.

We've had labor unions and labor laws, yet here we are. Maybe time to try something else.

People can be exploited because they don't know how to succeed for themselves. They end up depending on the success of others.

 

[Shad]

Helsinki everyone gets a place to stay. It's given to them. They own it with no requirements. Pretty much no homeless.

Finland's homeless crisis nearly solved. How? By giving homes to all who need.

This is merely an expansion of the welfare state not a solution to the problem itself which is why people are homeless.

 

[Nakosis]

This is merely an expansion of the welfare state not a solution to the problem itself which is why people are homeless.

Ok but you have to admit, it's hard to get/keep a job when your homeless.

Another thing to though, is this is about a few thousand folks in on city. It's something that wouldn't be doable in a city like Los Angeles. Too many people needing too many homes and the cost of building any of housing make this unaffordable.

Building housing is not that hard, materials is not that costly. Regulation, fee and taxes make the cost of even simple housing out of reach.