As an unrepentant individualist who believes that people & societies thrive best when that society is socially cohesive, meaning it shares a foundational worldview with respect to rights and responsibilities, recognizing that there are no rights without responsibilities, I'm curious as to what distinguishes a "mutant" socialist from a "mutant" individualist?
Keeping in mind that Am I my brother's keeper? and Who is my neighbour? are biblical questions that pointedly made clear that even in an individualistic and conservative worldview, social responsibility can be just as foundational.
I also agree emphatically with the words of another poster below regarding a "social safety net that protects the vulnerable & creates opportunities for the less fortunate to be their best and contribute to the common wealth" and only quibble with the qualifier "strong". Certainly it needs to be strong in terms of societal support, but I suggest that the level of support, even though one could categorize it as "strong" should still leave an appropriate amount of room for individual responsibility where warranted, i.e. in competent, working age adults. Support for minors, seniors and the disabled should clearly be greater.
While I'm no slave to Ayn Rand's work, I certainly did enjoy it (yes, I was much younger), and found much to agree with.
So, does all that make me a mutant socialist, or a mutant individualistic capitalist?
I won't speak for David, but my sense is that the word "mutant" largely reflects the notion that there are shibboleths and orthodoxies on the left that keep their tent very small and pure, as they push out people who have slight variations on their package of ideals and pet policies. I have at times thought that I leaned pretty hard toward socialism, until self-described leftists attacked me for being slightly less radical, or slightly more self-controlled, than they were.
On the other hand, I grew up in very conservative circles and was happy to identify with them until I realized that much of their vitriol against the dreaded "socialists" were actually about things I thought were good ideas, and therefore kind of directed at me. I didn't choose to leave conservatism, I was pushed out there too.
So where does someone go to find political nuance and timeless principles? You find other people wandering the political wastelands between party territories, and form new communities of people united by some common principle or value. I suppose we're united by our leanings toward socialism, and figuring out what that looks like outside of the angry Twitter mob that claims to own the word "left".
I suspect maybe US is just protecting their own interests at the top, 'so-called' and socialism would lower their assets.
I don't think Mark Carney has any interest in socialism but doesn't disrupt what's been done. He seems to be a 'type of' corporate and interested in Capitalism.
Well, an investment banker who excels at trade negotiations wouldn't be interested in socialism.
I'm wondering who he takes care of? I can't tell his position on working Canadians but it seems good.
But it's not socialist. Yet, his cross implementation methods utilizing Canadian for projects might be verging on socialism?
“Mutant socialist” here — or rather, an unrepentant liberal who believes that people & societies thrive best when provided a strong social safety net that protects the vulnerable & creates opportunities for the less fortunate to be their best and contribute to the common wealth.
As an unrepentant individualist who believes that people & societies thrive best when that society is socially cohesive, meaning it shares a foundational worldview with respect to rights and responsibilities, recognizing that there are no rights without responsibilities, I'm curious as to what distinguishes a "mutant" socialist from a "mutant" individualist?
Keeping in mind that Am I my brother's keeper? and Who is my neighbour? are biblical questions that pointedly made clear that even in an individualistic and conservative worldview, social responsibility can be just as foundational.
I also agree emphatically with the words of another poster below regarding a "social safety net that protects the vulnerable & creates opportunities for the less fortunate to be their best and contribute to the common wealth" and only quibble with the qualifier "strong". Certainly it needs to be strong in terms of societal support, but I suggest that the level of support, even though one could categorize it as "strong" should still leave an appropriate amount of room for individual responsibility where warranted, i.e. in competent, working age adults. Support for minors, seniors and the disabled should clearly be greater.
While I'm no slave to Ayn Rand's work, I certainly did enjoy it (yes, I was much younger), and found much to agree with.
So, does all that make me a mutant socialist, or a mutant individualistic capitalist?
I won't speak for David, but my sense is that the word "mutant" largely reflects the notion that there are shibboleths and orthodoxies on the left that keep their tent very small and pure, as they push out people who have slight variations on their package of ideals and pet policies. I have at times thought that I leaned pretty hard toward socialism, until self-described leftists attacked me for being slightly less radical, or slightly more self-controlled, than they were.
On the other hand, I grew up in very conservative circles and was happy to identify with them until I realized that much of their vitriol against the dreaded "socialists" were actually about things I thought were good ideas, and therefore kind of directed at me. I didn't choose to leave conservatism, I was pushed out there too.
So where does someone go to find political nuance and timeless principles? You find other people wandering the political wastelands between party territories, and form new communities of people united by some common principle or value. I suppose we're united by our leanings toward socialism, and figuring out what that looks like outside of the angry Twitter mob that claims to own the word "left".
I suspect maybe US is just protecting their own interests at the top, 'so-called' and socialism would lower their assets.
I don't think Mark Carney has any interest in socialism but doesn't disrupt what's been done. He seems to be a 'type of' corporate and interested in Capitalism.
Well, an investment banker who excels at trade negotiations wouldn't be interested in socialism.
I'm wondering who he takes care of? I can't tell his position on working Canadians but it seems good.
But it's not socialist. Yet, his cross implementation methods utilizing Canadian for projects might be verging on socialism?
Thanks, David.
“Mutant socialist” here — or rather, an unrepentant liberal who believes that people & societies thrive best when provided a strong social safety net that protects the vulnerable & creates opportunities for the less fortunate to be their best and contribute to the common wealth.