Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Big Cities & Leftism: Why is it a given?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bunkster, Sep 30, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bunkster

    Bunkster Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26
    It is a given that the larger a city is, the more leftist it will be.

    Do big cities attract leftists?
    or
    Does one become a leftist when they move to a big city?

    The question is never "if" a big city is leftist. They are, plain and simple. The only question is, are they incubators for leftism, or are they magnets for leftism?

    Or, is it a case that when you throw an extremely large group of people together within a small area, the only way they can live together is have everything dictated to them by a governing body?

    Regards
     
  2. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    Large concentrations of Dolists, academics, college students, and mediacrats. All of which are noted bastions of collectivist thinking.

    A city doesn't have to be large to be liberal; many smaller college towns have a very pronounced list to port, since the school and its faculty so thoroughly dominate the local political landscape.
     
  3. KMKeller

    KMKeller Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,633
    Location:
    NC
    Take Chapel Hill, NC for example... PLEASE!
     
  4. greyhound

    greyhound Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,665
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Short version in my opinion:

    In general leftists like the hustle and bustle of the city, having lots of people around, and lots of things to do close at hand.

    Conservatives/Libertarians tend more to be loners who want some land and to be left alone.

    Gross generalization, of course, and there are lots that buck the trend.
     
  5. Bunkster

    Bunkster Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26
    Tamara, excellent point!

    However, with large cities, it is automatic. Is it simply that humans must be dictated to when placed in large groups? Would the non-leftist become a leftist if they existed within a large body of people?

    Regards

    ps In no way am I attempting to excuse the horrid, pathetic, destructive existence of the leftist. I'm just trying to figure things out.
     
  6. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    Prob'ly not. I lived in the Virginia Highlands neighborhood of Atlanta for many years, and really loved being able to walk to bagel shops, pubs, gourmet grocers, used bookstores, and art galleries. It kinda sucked having to drive 30 minutes to get to an indoor range, but there ya go.

    I always said that I wanted to live someplace on a lake, where I could shoot in the back yard, yet still had high-speed 'net access and was within a ten minute drive of good pubs, bookstores, and a mall. Now I do. :D
     
  7. 2dogs

    2dogs Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,865
    Location:
    the city
    In general leftists like the hustle and bustle of the city, having lots of people around, and lots of things to do close at hand.

    Conservatives/Libertarians tend more to be loners who want some land and to be left alone.

    And each environment seems to lend itself to the types who inhabit it.

    The higher the concentration of people in an area (attracted by the hustle and bustle and easy access to many types of "entertainment"), the more they require public services (traffic control, waste diposal, water treatment, sewers, fire, police etc). The more they require services, the more power over their lives they will (and want to) turn over to goverment.

    The people attracted to the urban environment tend then to be for the most part liberal, bloodsucking leeches (present company excepted ;) ).

    For myself- hey, I work here. And I like the anonymity of urban life (as opposed to suburban) and at this point in my life doubt I could adapt to Tamara's mountain top.:)
     
  8. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,000
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Lemme add to 2dogs' "The higher the concentration of people in an area (attracted by the hustle and bustle and easy access to many types of "entertainment"), the more they require public services (traffic control, waste diposal, water treatment, sewers, fire, police etc). The more they require services, the more power over their lives they will (and want to) turn over to goverment."

    Worldwide, people are attracted to the jobs more prevalent in cities. Many lack the job skills to get a high enough wage to be independent. This creates many problems, including that of publicly-paid support--which leads to voting for more support. (Which brings up deTocqueville's 1853 comment about voting oneself funds from the public coffers.)

    The atmosphere of academe is emotionally comfortable for those of socialistic bent. Couple this with the normal idealism of the young and ignorant, and you have the liberal atmosphere of a small college town. Me, I suggest changing the voting laws to require two years of gainful employment before eligibility to vote--with "gainful employment" including house spouses. :D

    Art
     
  9. Marko Kloos

    Marko Kloos Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    2,587
    Location:
    Enfield, NH
    The Roman Republic had a representative system called the Assembly, where each of the social classes had a certain number of seats. The Patricians ("old money" nobles) had 80 seats, the Plebeians (merchants and "new money") had 90, the Equestrians (military elite) had 18, the Artisans had 2, and the Proletarians (landless lower class) had 1 seat.

    This system, while generally recognized as one of the first all-inclusive assemblies, is regarded today as "unfair", because of the obvious vote advantage of the upper classes. The Romans argued that this system was inherently fair, since the classes who had the most stake in the system (the aristocrats and merchants) also had the most voice in where the Republic as a whole was going.

    The current system is good, because it affords equal representation, equal access, and equal protection before the law. It is bad, because it allows the politicians to use the tax pot to bribe votes from the population. As a result, the Dolists have a representation in Congress that is out of proportion to their actual contributions to society, solely because they are present in ever-growing numbers...and the vote of a Dolist is worth as much as the vote of a business owner. The Dolist will always vote for the person who promises the most benefits. So will the productive business owner or worker, but the difference is that Dolists sap the paychecks of their fellow citizens, whereas the business guy and the worker mostly just want to be benefited by left alone and *not* have their paychecks sapped. One of these groups makes the economy run; the other just saps productivity from others. Since one of these groups gets subsidized out of the other's pocket, the balance in sheer numbers will sooner or later tip in favor of the Dolists, and that's when social unrest is inevitable.
     
  10. BigG

    BigG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    7,081
    Location:
    Dixieland
    Dolists, per Tamara

    Political exploitation of the *cough* poor - those who receive largesse paid for by John Q Public - ensure that leftist politicians will stay in power in the urban areas where the voting bloc is largely concentrated.

    Short of nuking the cesspools of discontent... ?
     
  11. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    People who have a need to exercise power and control over others, need lots of other people around to exercise power and control over ---> the city.

    Kind of hard to excercise much power and control over antelope and jackrabbits ... ;)
     
  12. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    ...at least without a good .243, it is. :D
     
  13. greyhound

    greyhound Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2003
    Messages:
    1,665
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    Here in Baltimore we just had the Democratic primary for Mayor. No one even pretends that the regular election means anything. The place is so leftist that the Democratic primary IS the real election.

    To my knowledge no Republican is even running for Mayor. Why waste your money?
     
  14. Bill Hook

    Bill Hook member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,246
    That would be me. I'd like to be within an hour's drive of a city, but not live there. Too bad most jobs are in urban areas.
     
  15. C.R.Sam

    C.R.Sam Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    2,632
    Location:
    Chino Valley, AZ., USA
    Domestic Beehive
    Ant colony
    Rabitt warren
    City
    ....Commonality ?

    Works for me.

    Sam
     
  16. foghornl

    foghornl Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    7,403
    Spot on, TallPine.

    Don't remember the exact line, but it was along the line of "...If you think you are really somebody, try ordering around someone else's dog..."

    About the question of "Are big cities magnets or incubators of leftism?", the answer is "Yes, to both parts".
     
  17. Ian Sean

    Ian Sean Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2003
    Messages:
    730
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Dolists? Thats a new one on me but I like it. I have to get out more.

    From what I gather Republican Sam Katz is giving the Democratic Mayor of Philadelphia John Street a real run. He almost beat him the last time. Not to sure of just how conservative Katz is though. I heard a few of his speeches way back and he sounded OK.
     
  18. BamBam

    BamBam Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    At least here (Memphis, TN) the left is thriving because of it's high percentage of blacks (and recently Hispanics). They VOTE! They VOTE for the same candidate. They VOTE every election (sometimes twice and even after they die).

    Also, with the help of the leftist media, fingers are constantly being pointed at conservatives. We conservatives, it seems, just refuse to pull the wagon hard enough.
     
  19. BerettaNut92

    BerettaNut92 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,724
    What about the suburbs? Seems like lots of people are 'conservative', but an Arnold Schwarzenegger type of 'conservative'...I'll drop my pants but let me keep my wallet :banghead:
     
  20. Big_R

    Big_R Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    384
    Location:
    That little strip of land between New York and L.A
    I don't think we can group all large cities together. For example, in the Twin Cities area of MN, you have liberal concentrations, Minneapolis, Egan, etc., but you also have conservative concentrations, Maple Grove, Plymouth. It is very evident at least here that inner city (the hood) is liberal and the outer suburbs (high dollar) are conservative. From this, it would appear that people with money (that they earned themselves) tend to be conservative. People who inherited or were given money tend to be liberal.

    The one thing I've found fairly consistent in inner city thinking (I work with a lot of people from the hood) is they all have tunnel vision. Their only thoughts are about themselves and today. Not one I talk to cares about anything political except welfare and subsidies. More than a bunch are upset about the welfare reform limits, hence the reason they are working. There are no thoughts about long term planning, only living for today, thinking about their own little world, etc. And, no these are not all minorities.

    At least that's what I see.

    Ryan
     
  21. DigitalWarrior

    DigitalWarrior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    867
    Location:
    Nashua NH
    A better change.

    Voting change.
    Anyone who works directly for the government (politicians, social workers, military) or takes the majority (51%) of their income from the public coffers (Welfare, Unemployment, Social Security) should not be permitted to vote.

    I think it would create a self-correcting amount of bureaucracy. If the public dole becomes too high for the producers (the only one allowed to vote) to bear, then the producers will vote to reduce government dole.
     
  22. Morgan

    Morgan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    546
    Two words: Welfare Class.
     
  23. Greg L

    Greg L Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,381
    Location:
    Northern KY
    But not including anyone who is working for/receiving a government check (perhaps exclusions for military). The "gainful employment" has to be out in the private sector (for at least the two years) preferably dealing with sorting through the paperwork that needs to be sent to the govt to continue to receive their blessing to stay in business.

    Greg
     
  24. ACP230

    ACP230 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,293
    Location:
    Upper Michigan
    My theory is that the Leftist/Demo control of most cities is the beginning symptom of a behavioral sink.
     
  25. tcdrennen

    tcdrennen Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    438
    Location:
    Tustin, Orange County, PDR of Kalifornistan
    Tamara -
    Another Honor Harrington fan! :D

    Was it Mark Twain or H.L. Mencken who said, "Democracy works fine until the electorate realizes it can vote itself largesse from the public purse."

    Which was one of the reasons the Founders were more afraid of Democracy than of Monarchy! The Federal system AND the States' original Representative Republics were INTENDED to dilute the mob sentiments of pure democracy by using democratic methods to elect BUT severely restrict the powers of those elected. And even the franchise was restricted in various ways, some proper at first (property ownership, income levels, length of residence, literacy) and some evil (race, gender, religion, and later the racist application of property, literacy, income, etc.

    We can blame the Progressives of the 19th and early 20th century for much of the gutting of those limitations on Pure Democracy - and our modern Statists (liberal OR 'conservative') for the rest.

    But we've ALL acquiesced in it. :uhoh: :scrutiny: :banghead:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page