What exactly does "left" or "right" mean to you?

[Sava]

Originally posted by skywalker
Huh? You don't obey the constitution because it's tradition, you obey it because it's the law. Otherwise, anyone except an anarchist is conservative.

the consitution doesn't really set up laws individuals have to obey, it's more like a blueprint for government and an outline of civil rights... except for that stupid prohibition crap... hopefully all this gay marriage talk is hot air, because I'd hate to see a great document disgraced once again.

Plus, I follow my own moral guidelines. For instance, I piss on marijuana laws.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's simpler. It's a conflict of fundamental values. The stuff about governments and policy are just means to an end. That's why both right and left have endorsed statist solutions at one time or another.

In my view the fundamental value of the left is equality: no person's welfare has more moral significance than anyone else's. The resulting political program emphasizes equalizing outcomes as much as practically possible (exceptions can be made when inequalities will lead to the bottom group being better off than they would have been under absolute equality.

For example, public education is a leftist institution because it attempts to give everyone a good education so that they may fairly compete for the more desired positions in society. In the view of the left this is a just and efficient outcome. Just because it preserves equality of opportunity and efficient because (ideally) nothing gets in the way of talent being recognized.

The fundamental value of the right is inequality - the privileging of the welfare of certain groups over that of others. That's why the right will tend to support anything that preserves power, class and privilege and why it is the preferred ideology of the powerful - in our case that usually means inequality of wealth.

Again education is a good example. The right prefer private education over public because it allows wealthy individuals to give their children a competitive advantage and maintain class inequality (they give other reasons, but this is the real one - which parents who send their kids to private school will admit if pressed).

that is all bull****

[Agathon]

To add to my post above.

- This is why "The Christian Right" is an oxymoron.

[Arrian]

And Agathon trots out the old "the Right is evil" line.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

I'll compromise with Agathon.

Left=tooth fairies
Right=evil dentists

Does that work for you?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's based on tradition. Those on the right are for very slow, gradual progress, but keeping as many traditions as are possible. The far right want no change at all or to go back to a 'better time'. The left wants more rapid change and screw tradition where it conflicts with what is 'just'. The far left wants super-rapid change and screw tradition even where it doesn't conflict with what is 'just'.

Cool, now I can claim to be right-wing.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
A de-emphasis of private sector solutions and/or penalizing of same.

And, to me, a private sector solution is an oxymoron.


The problem with a lot of replies in this thread is that they are defining one side and then just stating that the other is the opposite.

Saying that the Left == "pro-taxes" is silly. Yes, the Right may == "anti-taxes", but the Left isn't the Right's complement. The two sides have different priorities and taxes -- whether raising or lowering -- just aren't high on the Left's list. Taxes are a means to an end. They are not an end in and of themselves.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Arrian
And Agathon trots out the old "the Right is evil" line.

-Arrian

Historically, that is what the right has stood for. It's the simplest and best explanation that links together right wing behaviour.

The right currently want to privilege the welfare of heterosexuals over homosexuals and rich over poor.

Historically, they've privileged the welfare of men over women and whites over everyone else (esp. Jews). See a pattern?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by jimmytrick

that is all bull****

Says the man who has never posted anything worth reading in his whole Apolyton career.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's based on tradition. Those on the right are for very slow, gradual progress, but keeping as many traditions as are possible. The far right want no change at all or to go back to a 'better time'. The left wants more rapid change and screw tradition where it conflicts with what is 'just'. The far left wants super-rapid change and screw tradition even where it doesn't conflict with what is 'just'.

Keeping tradition for it's own sake. Has there ever been a more brainless philosophy? I think not...

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Agathon


Says the man who has never posted anything worth reading in his whole Apolyton career.

well, how can I argue with that kind of statement

[Buck Birdseed]

I hate to agree with Ag, who'se obviously a weapons-grade tosser, but that's how it is more or less. Find any system of oppression where one group dominates another, and the ones who support the weak group are inevitably "the left" while those who support the continual domination of the strong group are "the right".

[Japher]

Left=Che
Right=Ned

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's simpler. It's a conflict of fundamental values. The stuff about governments and policy are just means to an end. That's why both right and left have endorsed statist solutions at one time or another.

In my view the fundamental value of the left is equality: no person's welfare has more moral significance than anyone else's. The resulting political program emphasizes equalizing outcomes as much as practically possible (exceptions can be made when inequalities will lead to the bottom group being better off than they would have been under absolute equality.

For example, public education is a leftist institution because it attempts to give everyone a good education so that they may fairly compete for the more desired positions in society. In the view of the left this is a just and efficient outcome. Just because it preserves equality of opportunity and efficient because (ideally) nothing gets in the way of talent being recognized.

The fundamental value of the right is inequality - the privileging of the welfare of certain groups over that of others. That's why the right will tend to support anything that preserves power, class and privilege and why it is the preferred ideology of the powerful - in our case that usually means inequality of wealth.

Again education is a good example. The right prefer private education over public because it allows wealthy individuals to give their children a competitive advantage and maintain class inequality (they give other reasons, but this is the real one - which parents who send their kids to private school will admit if pressed).

Where, then, would you place a system that focuses on giving benefits based on merit, but has an equal opportunity to show that merit? Where would you place a system that wants to make everyone better, but doesn't care if they're equal?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
The right currently want to privilege the welfare of heterosexuals over homosexuals and rich over poor.

SOME of the "religious right" want to privilege heterosexuals over homosexuals. Notice that a lot of the "right" at 'Poly don't.