Who will be your next president?

[Rankenstein]

Exactly like the straw man of the 'pathology of the left' - I was deliberately using a stupid argument, to highlight how stupid that argument is, to highlight the use of straw men. I was fighting straw with straw. I thought you would have got that.

[John Scott]

Exactly like the straw man of the 'pathology of the left'

Why do you think that an ideology isn't associated with a pathology? I think that most ideologies are indeed borne of pathological tendencies. Communism is borne of the pathology of equality, and it's fair to call it a pathology when it's as irrational as communism is.

The problem with the pathology you offer is that it isn't representative of the right. If you want to offer an intelligent assessment of the right wing pathology, I'd be interested in hearing it. But what you did offer was nonsense.

[Rankenstein]

Pathology is a study of diseases. I wouldn't call ideology a disease, any more than I'd call religion a disease. And Communism is no more nor less irrational than religion.

Regarding whether what I suggested about the pathology of the right was representative, that's not the point. The point was it was just as non-representative as what was suggested in the 'pathology of the left'. Yet you let that slip by without comment. (Which is normal human behaviour and on reflection, nothing to do with the argument per se.)

OK, I'll try to think of a valid point for the 'pathology' of the right. I'll try to phrase things objectively. I'll go one at a time while I'm thinking. Try and think of some valid one's for the left if you like.

1) The Right believes that government should not take on responsibility for the health of its citizens.

[John Scott]

I wouldn't call ideology a disease

Nor did I. I said it was borne of a pathology. Lay off the straw man arguments already.

And Communism is no more nor less irrational than religion.

I'd say that communism is much more irrational than religion. Religion, for the most part, doesn't claim to be rational. Like my saying "I like the color blue". It's a matter of personal preference.

Communism, on the other hand, claims to be an intellectual justification for denial of private property. Insofar as it claims to be rational, and intellectual, it's fair game to subject it to intellectual analysis. And analysis would reveal that it's counter-productive to it's own stated goals. Which makes it irrational.

[Rankenstein]

Interesting and reasonable. However Communism and religion both can be insidious, and if you ask me they are both wrong, so the distinctions between rational and irrational don't make any difference.

I'd rate Communism as worse than religion though.

[m42]

Religion has a few positives attributes. Communism does not.

[John Scott]

However Communism and religion both can be insidious

Belief alone doesn't make either harmful. One of my best friends here in Japan is a communist. Absolutely blows my mind, but I'm gradually changing her into a laissez faire individualist.

so the distinctions between rational and irrational don't make any difference.

They do if rationality means something to you.

I'd rate Communism as worse than religion though.

I really don't understand how you can say that, when some of you seemingly core principles are communist. Like government-imposed health care.

[m42]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Belief alone doesn't make either harmful.

That can be said of all ideologies.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by m42

That can be said of all ideologies.

It's aimed at those who think that some beliefs should be made illegal. Like Dawkins.

Freedom of belief. Just don't impose your beliefs on me.

[m42]

Your forum appears to be infested with socialists, I am the least of your worries.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by m42

Your forum appears to be infested with socialists, I am the least of your worries.

I don't worry about you at all. You can impose anything you want to on me.

[m42]

What if we had diametric political ideologies?

You've set a precedent. I don't think anything online has ever made me blush.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by m42

What if we had diametric political ideologies?

Intelligence and looks = double whammy.

If you were a commie, you'd still have the looks, which are nothing to shake a stick at, but the intelligence really does enhance the whole package.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

I really don't understand how you can say that, when some of you seemingly core principles are communist. Like government-imposed health care.

Communism tells you what to do and doesn't allow otherwise. It is assumed that the state will somehow know best what everyone should do and who needs what. But the state is just people, and people generally know dick-all about large scale social engineering like that. Maybe in some utopian future where sentient AI might have a clue, it could be discussed... might be worth a look but I doubt it. You just can't tell people what to do like that. You might be the worst computer programmer in the world, but you should be free to make a hash of it time after time if you want. Not have someone tap you on the shoulder and tell you to get sweeping the roads.

Religion usually allows some measure of free will. Religion usually doesn't try to take over the world. (Some religions are exceptions to this - but it isn't a feature of religion in general). Sure, I think religion is dotty and foolish and people do stupid and mean things in its name, but that doesn't mean it's completely bad. Under Communism, the group is all that matters and the individual is ignored. That's not good at all.

[John Scott]

Communism tells you what to do and doesn't allow otherwise.

That's just the totalitarian aspect of communism, which really can be present in lessor degrees than Stalin imposed. Current Chinese communism is much more free in many respects.

And you didn't address the right of some to demand that others pay for their health care on penalty of prison.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

...you didn't address the right of some to demand that others pay for their health care on penalty of prison.

Which could easily happen under a system such as democracy, too, if it was the will of the people. And if you make it a plank of your election platform, who can argue? Notice that practically no-one in the UK wants the National Health Service abolished. If you break a leg or need stitches, just go to the hospital. What's the big deal? You can go private if you want, but if you can't you're still covered. Simple.

[John Scott]

Rank, I wasn't asking how, I was asking "by what right".

I am guessing you are invoking the principle of majority rule. Is that correct?