Why does the left villify success?

Ugh. It's Christmas.

0/10

Why does the right want to restrict success?

I think you should define success. My hunch is that you're talking about a certain restricted kind of corporate success: the fat cats (and trim, badass cats) in the 1%, the guys raking in huge $$$ on commissions and drinking the big Cabs at Spark's.

There are many, many sort of success that the left embraces.

--any occupational, athletic, military, other personal success by a person (or animal) in the EEOC protected categories: disabled (excuse me: differently abled), women, minorities, gays, etc.

--any success by an entrepreneur in a category that can be linked to a specific political position or orientation that the left supports: i.e., two women in a coastal town in Maine who run a successful B&B that donates 10% of its profits to a battered women's shelter. (On the other hand, when Ben & Jerry or Tom's of Main sells out to a corporation...watch out!)

--any successful attempt by a member of the 1% to break away from the fat-cat mentality and give back in a huge way. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

I heartily endorse all these forms of success. But I know a couple of fat cats--they're actually trim, incredibly fit badasses--who are good people, too. One of my friends in particular has taken many, many risks over the years, with little payoff, $$$$-wise, until he finally hit it big. He's a talking head on FoxBusiness and CNBC from time to time. Good guy.

sc42 wrote:

Ugh. It's Christmas.

0/10

Yes, and Obama has pledged to win the War on Christmas.

Today, we live in the Age of Envy.

“Envy” is not the emotion I have in mind, but it is the clearest manifestation of an emotion that has remained nameless; it is the only element of a complex emotional sum that men have permitted themselves to identify.

Envy is regarded by most people as a petty, superficial emotion and, therefore, it serves as a semihuman cover for so inhuman an emotion that those who feel it seldom dare admit it even to themselves. . . . That emotion is: hatred of the good for being the good.

This hatred is not resentment against some prescribed view of the good with which one does not agree. . . . Hatred of the good for being the good means hatred of that which one regards as good by one’s own (conscious or subconscious) judgment. It means hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.

If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.

The nature of the particular values a man chooses to hold is not the primary factor in this issue (although irrational values may contribute a great deal to the formation of that emotion). The primary factor and distinguishing characteristic is an emotional mechanism set in reverse: a response of hatred, not toward human vices, but toward human virtues.

To be exact, the emotional mechanism is not set in reverse, but is set one way: its exponents do not experience love for evil men; their emotional range is limited to hatred or indifference. It is impossible to experience love, which is a response to values, when one’s automatized response to values is hatred.

-Ayn Rand ("The Age of Envy")

You just learned the word "vilify" and wanted to use it in a sentence, didn't you? Too bad you spelled it wrong. Next time, slugger!

Typical tactic of the left: when you have no ability to attack the message, attack the messenger.

When Warren Buffet wants restructure taxes to take more from high earners is it envy?

LSL wrote:

Typical tactic of the left: when you have no ability to attack the message, attack the messenger.

Typical tactic of the right, when you have no ability to attack liberal policies, make up a liberal belief and attack it instead.

OP,

The left does not vilify success. Next question.

spade detector wrote:

LSL wrote:

Typical tactic of the left: when you have no ability to attack the message, attack the messenger.

Typical tactic of the right, when you have no ability to attack liberal policies, make up a liberal belief and attack it instead.

CORRECT!

genuine random a hole wrote:

OP,

The left does not vilify success. Next question.

CORRECT!

exthrower wrote:

genuine random a hole wrote:

OP,

The left does not vilify success. Next question.

You seem to be morally challenged....Remember liberals attacking Romney for being successful?

I've come to the conclusion that most liberals are closet commies....

They are just furious and outraged that the World isn't 'fair/equal'....

Shows their naivete/immaturity..

INCORRECT!

why does the right vilify people who aren't rich?

exthrower wrote:

genuine random a hole wrote:

OP,

The left does not vilify success. Next question.

You seem to be morally challenged....Remember liberals attacking Romney for being successful?

You must be mentally challenged. Romney was not attacked because he is successful.

Let me give you an example to seep into your tiny brain. You dislike Obama because he is black and you are racist, Right?

No, of course not. (I will give you the benefit of the doubt) You dislike him for many other reasons. Liberals may have "attacked" Mitten for a number of reasons. They might even attack based on the manner in which he obtained his successes. They may even believe his financial success (and/or priviledged upbringing) makes him unable to relate to the majoity of the public. But he was not attacked because he is successful, just like you don't attack Obama because he is black.

Get it?

Probably not.

They mistakenly believe that wealth creation is a zero sum game. They think of salaries like an allowance that daddy hands out from a fixed pot. If someone gets more, that must mean that someone else is getting less.

What they don't take into account is that when a financier invests in a successful company, they have helped to create wealth where there was none before.

Moreover, they tend to confuse economic worth with worth as a human being. The idea that different people have wildly different contributions to the process of wealth creation makes them really uncomfortable.

Ha ha! While the conservatives in this thread give sound answers and examplesa, the leftists haven't come up with a single argument, just attacking the OP for this successful thread.

But but but rich guys!!!!!!!!! wrote:

They mistakenly believe that wealth creation is a zero sum game. They think of salaries like an allowance that daddy hands out from a fixed pot. If someone gets more, that must mean that someone else is getting less.

What they don't take into account is that when a financier invests in a successful company, they have helped to create wealth where there was none before.

Moreover, they tend to confuse economic worth with worth as a human being. The idea that different people have wildly different contributions to the process of wealth creation makes them really uncomfortable.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Can someone provide examples of what the OP is talking about? Vilifying success in what way? Are we talking about taxes? I'm not sure how to answer when the question is vague.