|
One mans opinion of Left v. Right
"While the right wants to reward beneficial choices and discourage destructive directions, the left seeks to eliminate or reduce the impact of the disadvantages that result from bad decisions. In place of the conservative emphasis on accountability, the left proffers a gospel of indiscriminate compassion".
http://townhall.com/columnists/Micha...g_lifes_losers |
Waaay more heat than light
|
I think it is important to discriminate between the social and the economic left and right.
You can be socialy right wing, yet economicaly left wing or vice-versa. this text does not make that discresion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I then started to research the social activision which I thought was morally correct and didn't affect me economically. What I found was that huge economic insitutions have grown around the social morals which I found important. Much of the good I thought was being done was wasted upon extravagance and waste. The Red Cross, after 9/11, and how it used the contributions is but one example. I have been been convinced, by my research, that social and economic ideals cannot be seperated. Although I am often saddened by the plight of the unfortunate, I cannot in good conscience condem those who are in a better position both socially and economically. |
Quote:
Both where socialy authoritarian (on the right), however whilst Stalin was on the economic left, Hitler was mainly on the economic right wing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
But, to show the difference between economic theory and social policy, they're not bad. Both, as you said, dictatorial. An authoritarian social model, where all power is in one man. Yet regarding economics, Stalin was a lot further along to the left than Hitler. Thinking of present day politics, observe the difference between social liberalism and economic liberalism. most of this is semantics anyway, country-specific semantics. a blasphemy/heresy hobbyhorse for the century. bleh. |
Quote:
In this way their social and economic left/right tendencies where separate. I use Hitler and Stalin as they are extreme examples that make the point stark and clear. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW....I doubt any leading polotician belives in any economic system that is not the prevailing one! ;) |
[quote=Letum]
Quote:
Both were socially leftwing and dicatorial. Much like Fidel Castro's government of today. |
Quote:
Hitler belived in:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If you compare yourself with others,
you may become vain or bitter, for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. |
Quote:
|
Sigh, can you please be a little less mean?
There are socialists around here too you know, and we don't appreciate being called two-faced loser-lovers :roll: Take it easy, will you? I can say lots of things about the right. For one, I believe the fundamental problem with the right is the issue of motivation. You call it material incentive, I call it greed. For me, a world based on greed and impulses rather than reason and sustainability is at risk of eating itself. Which socialists broadly believe it's doing; the Marxists dream of helping it along a little with some revolutionizing, the non-Marxists (myself included) just take a seat and offer alternatives to the inevitable (in our humble view) downfall of capitalism (and, we hope, not the human race along with it, though it's unfortunately a real possibility). Socialism doesn't have to be dogmatic and strictly theory-based, though theorizing comes naturally. I personally have trouble with Marxism for that specific reason (it's too pervaded by near-dogmatic theory for any real progress). Likewise, for me socialism is not the domination of society over individual; in fact I would like socialism to look more at the individual - but I see a rational socialist "system" being aimed at an egalitarian, sustainable society where the primary motivations are not greed but - if nothing else - survival, reasonable quality of life and sustainability for all. The second reason (after greed) that I can't accept the right is that it inherently assumes that people have right to be superior to others, which devolves into creepy resemblance of social darwinism. To me that's an insult both to society and individualism, and it's scary to think that someone who emphasizes rights of the individual believes in 'losers' and the rationalization of mass human suffering for the sake of a 'better' person's rights. I always put my belief this way - "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - but only in that order". If your rights to liberty and doing what you want infringe on another person's life, then you don't deserve these rights (clarification: I am not talking about fundamental human rights here). If your happiness and luxury infringe on another person's freedom, then you don't deserve that luxury. It's not a matter of taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's a matter of observing fundamental humanist principles. A society which accepts material excuses for violating these is immoral. I may not believe in morals as such, but I think it even goes beyond that; I think a society that accepts material excuses for violating these is doomed to self-degradation and self-destruction. And I think I have a vested interest in the well-being of homo sapiens, beyond merely the specimen I inhabit. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I see many knash teeth over how terirble is the plight of the so called 'dis-advantaged', yet other than lip service and being modern day Robin Hoods I don't see much sacrafice out of them. Talk is cheap and spending someone else's hard earned money is easy. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.