Bush Blames the Sailors

[Ramo]

They obviously believed in economic freedom (aside from slavery of course) so do legalised drugs violate that belief?

That's a pretty big aside. To have the state enforce the total subjagation of millions of people much takes away a tremendous amount of freedom in society. If the amount of freedom in a society determines how far right the political system is, and if the founders are right-wingers, then the most totalitarian states of the 20th century (i.e. Stalinist Russia) could also be considered right-winged.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
btw, the white house finally put out a statement saying that although it was the idea of the crew to put up a banner that said mission accomplished, the white house was the one that did put it up and design it.

Yeah, right. So Bush and the boys are saying it wasn't our stupid idea. They were just trying to help those deserving, patriotic sailors. What a load of BS. The Bush administration keeps digging themselves deeper and deeper.

It's bad enough that American troops have to pay with their lives for the idiocy of the Bush administration, but now the Bush boys are trying to pin their political mistakes on the troops.

Disgusting.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Templar attack the argument and not the man.

I couldn't find a 'falling out of a helicopter smiley ...

You criminal!

[Ned]

In my view, the left-right divide has to be broken down by issue or at least category of issues. Among these issues are

1) Political freedom: Whether the people get to vote directly on issues, vote for representatives of their choice, vote for representatives of the government's choice, don't get to vote at all because the governnment is under the control of an oligarchy, political party or a monarchy.

(On this spectrum, I am on the extreme left. I really like having the people directly vote on issues and almost resent having a legislature imposing new laws and taxes. I think we could operate quite well if we had only the executive and judicial branches of government.)

2) Economic equality

The extreme left here requires complete economic equality. The extreme right tolerates extreme differences in wealth with no social safety net.

As well, this issue also affects political freedom as equality cannot be achieved without totalitarianism and extreme differences in wealth usually leads to oligarchy.

(I tend to be in the middle here.)

3) The right to privacy and personal rights, including the right to practice or not practice religion of one's choice

On the left, individuals have the right to do anything (drugs, sex, religion) so long as it does not immediately hurt another individual. Abortion, of course, is about whether the fetus is another individual. Also, such rights cannot be removed except through due process. On the right, individuals have no right to privacy, and big brother can control everything you do at all times. The fascists liquidated the aged, handicapped and insane. The communists force abortions, liquidate their political opponents, deny religious freedom and generally do not recognize any right to privacy or personal rights. I think both fascists and communists are on the right here. Certainly they deny freedom of religion to people, just as much as a Islamic country denies such freedom to non Islamic religions.

(Here I am on left.)

4) The right of ownership of property

Here, the spectrum is from no property rights, to recognization of personal property rights, to the recognition of real property rights. The far right would deny any right for even the government to control or effect property rights.

(On this issue, I am on the right, but recognize the right of the government to regulate the use of property.)

5) The right of association, contract and exclusion (free market vs. planned economy)

The right would allow complete freedom of contract, association and exclusion. The left would ban all forms contract, association and exclusion. Socialists, Communists and fascists are on the left here in that deny freedom of contract and association. The extreme right would permit monopolization, contracts in restraint of trade, unrestrained union power, as well as all white country clubs and the like.

(I tend to be in moderate right here because I approve of restraints on the power of unions and the right to monoplize or contract in restraint of trade, but I totally reject the communist/socialist approach of denial of the freedom to contract.)

6) Race/tribe/nationalism

The left recognizes the equality of races and denies priviliges based upon raical or tribal identity. The right says my tribe or race is the only one that has rights. Countries like Germany and Japan are even today nationalistic. Ditto Israel. The United States may today be the most equalitarian country in the world where once we were not.

Here, I am on the left as I think the modern US approach is the best.

I don't think there is a left-right breakdown on foreign policy. The world aligns fairly much along its interests.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Hmm...so opposing autocrats is left wing? Castro was a left winger when fighting the revolution but he became a right winger once he was the autocrat in charge?

Would the Founders still be considered left wing in today's politics?

It depends. Some could definately be conisdered at least liberal by today's standards. Many of the people who fought the revolution could defiantely be considered lefties, as the leveling impulse was very strong among them.

[Ned]

Che, are you more of an SDS'er or a communist?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, are you more of an SDS'er or a communist?

Don't you think that's really a question for a seperate thread?

[Ned]

Maybe, why don't you start one. However, I note you come from Chicago (where I went to school at the height of the SDS movement). The SDS movement seemed centered in Chicago and there must be large numbers of them still around that have no place to go except the communist party.

Out here in Santa Cruz, the left is dominant. They all seem to me to be SDSers, not communists.

[chequita guevara]

I've already started four in the past two days. Can't start another 'till tomorrow.

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ned
The SDS movement seemed centered in Chicago

Ahem... Ann Arborites might have a little something to say about that...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Left and right are meaningless if these terms depend on what is or is not tradition

Well then you think it meaningless, because that is how it arose . The socialists in the French General Assembly sat on the left, the monarchists on the right. Left-right means opposition or support of tradition. This is why the 'right' in the US backs capitalism much more and why 'right' in many European states can be monarchist.

That's just the way it is.

It seems to me that if legalised drugs was a right wing idea, it remains a right wing idea no matter what happens in the future.

Does that mean that you believe that capitalism is left wing? After all, it arose as a lefty idea against the right wing idea of monarchism.

Heck, we now have a federal bureau of education, Social Security, Medicare, etc., which have become "traditions". Does that mean the conservatives in this country who want to abolish these programs are left wing?

We call those who want to go back to the 'way things were' (ie, abolish programs) back to old traditions as reactionaries, which is as far right as you can get.

Legalized drugs was never a 'tradition'.

I'd call these guys left wingers

Yes, and then you get laughed out of the room for calling Falwell and Robertson lefties. There is a reason they are called the Christian Right.

drug prohibition was always a product of autocratic regimes

Yep, and for most of human history the world was littered with autocratic regimes... most of them on the right. Such as the Catholic Church in the 1400s, perhaps the largest conservative, right winged organization of all time.... at least in the Western world

[Berzerker]

Ramo -

That's a pretty big aside. To have the state enforce the total subjagation of millions of people much takes away a tremendous amount of freedom in society. If the amount of freedom in a society determines how far right the political system is, and if the founders are right-wingers, then the most totalitarian states of the 20th century (i.e. Stalinist Russia) could also be considered right-winged.

But roughly half the states didn't have slavery.

Imran -

Well then you think it meaningless, because that is how it arose .

Yup, seating arrangements in some assembly 200 years ago don't reflect the left-right ideology of today. Many Europeans may have a different view of left-right but I live in the US where we have our own history.

The socialists in the French General Assembly sat on the left, the monarchists on the right. Left-right means opposition or support of tradition. This is why the 'right' in the US backs capitalism much more and why 'right' in many European states can be monarchist.

That's just the way it is.

Is the "right" in these European states anti-capitalism and pro-socialism as much or more so than the "left"?

Does that mean that you believe that capitalism is left wing? After all, it arose as a lefty idea against the right wing idea of monarchism.

You just said the French left were socialists so how could capitalism be left wing based on where these people sat? Were the monarchists pro-socialism? It seems they were more capitalistic than socialistic although I believe mercantilism was still being practiced.

We call those who want to go back to the 'way things were' (ie, abolish programs) back to old traditions as reactionaries, which is as far right as you can get.

Legalized drugs was never a 'tradition'.

Drugs were legal in the US for more than half it's history, so I'd call that a tradition. Was alcohol prohibition left wing since it was a break with tradition?

Yes, and then you get laughed out of the room for calling Falwell and Robertson lefties. There is a reason they are called the Christian Right.

The underlying principle of their ideology is left wing, and they are called the Christian right by many on the left who don't like their anti-personal freedom agenda. You seem to think political opponents are by definition on opposite sides of the political spectrum when in fact they can be on the same side and just have different desires. Just look at the Dems and Repubs, the budgets passed by both shows there just isn't much of a difference between the two, yet they paint this picture of a left-right struggle.

With my linear spectrum autocrats are at the end of the left wing and anarchists are at the right end. Would you consider Falwell and Robertson more autocratic than anarchist?

Yep, and for most of human history the world was littered with autocratic regimes... most of them on the right. Such as the Catholic Church in the 1400s, perhaps the largest conservative, right winged organization of all time.... at least in the Western world

If the Catholic Church was/is a right wing institution, why does your spectrum have autocrats on both wings?

[Q Classic]

so like, i thought we were discussing seamen.

and anybody who isn't a moderate is still wrong.

[Ramo]

But roughly half the states didn't have slavery.

So if I start rounding up CEO's, taking their money, and enslaving them, I'd be a far-rightwinger(since the proportion of CEO's in today's population is much, much lower than the proportion of slaves in the early US). Sweet.

[Berzerker]

But roughly half the states didn't have slavery.