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

[Ben Kenobi]

Agathon:

No fair to respond to your post without stating my views.


The right believes that man is essentially corrupt, and the role of the state is to restrain man from hurting each other.

Secondly, the right also values tradition over innovation. Any innovation must face a burden of truth, because there are good reasons why society has operated the way that it has.

Third, the right believes in freedom of speech and expression, and the existence of fundamental freedoms that are only recognised by society, and are not derived from society.

The left believes that man can be bettered by society, and that given the perfect society, man will become good. The state is thus instructed to perfect the society in order to perfect men.

Innovation is valued over tradition, since we are working on a notion of absolute progress, clearly the new must be better. Tradition is given the burden of proof in order to show why we should not adopt the recent change.

Freedom of speech is not a fundamental freedom, so long as the speech is deemed offensive or subversive to the society in general. The use of the state to suppress these elements opposing progress is justified.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

The right believes that man is essentially corrupt, and the role of the state is to restrain man from hurting each other.

Except that they seem to have convenient lapses when it comes to the acts of the powerful against the powerless.

Secondly, the right also values tradition over innovation. Any innovation must face a burden of truth, because there are good reasons why society has operated the way that it has.

Both don't work.

The first doesn't do what they claim it does. All it says is that we must have good reason to change something (i.e. think it will be better than the present) - any radical could agree with that, so it's an empty principle.

To say there are good reasons why society has operated the way it has is to beg the question against the reformer, since it is not clear that these reasons are good enough.

Third, the right believes in freedom of speech and expression, and the existence of fundamental freedoms that are only recognised by society, and are not derived from society.

Yes, but it's a joke, since the rights and freedoms are formulated so as to be compatible with and sustain massively inequality. Anatole France expressed it best:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

It's an unjustifiable joke.

The left believes that man can be bettered by society, and that given the perfect society, man will become good. The state is thus instructed to perfect the society in order to perfect men.

That's not a specifically leftist trait. National Socialists believe that people can be perfected by society and they aren't leftists by any means.

And - most people think that there are better and worse kinds of social organization. There isn't anything specifically leftist about thinking that different social forms might have different consequences for human welfare.

Innovation is valued over tradition, since we are working on a notion of absolute progress, clearly the new must be better. Tradition is given the burden of proof in order to show why we should not adopt the recent change.

That is a caricature. They don't just believe that the new - the better. Nor do conservatives mindlessly value tradition. The stuff about the burden of proof isn't very persuasive either. Both tradition and innovation face the tribunal of experience equally and disputes between them should be decided on a case by case basis. There is no reason to favour one over the other.

Freedom of speech is not a fundamental freedom, so long as the speech is deemed offensive or subversive to the society in general. The use of the state to suppress these elements opposing progress is justified.

No one on the right really believes in totally free speech either. For example, you aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre or incite a riot.

It's common sense that if the potential consequences are bad enough, gagging people is morally justifiable. It is even if you only deal with rights - for example perhaps granting a fascist candidate the freedom to express his views will cause him to be elected and then put an end to all free speech rights.

[Dry]

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Right = reasonable men
Right wingers are usually more reasonable, pull things back to crude reality, they have no dreams (anymore?), or are happy with reality (conservatives), they are usually older people. Laws - of physics, market, society, religion - do not bother them, they take them as part of the problem (imposed by some superior being?). They do not even try to bypass them. In some extreme cases, they even try to enforce the laws thinking that it is unnatural or against god's will or will bring doom on mankind to even try to bypass them.

Left = unreasonable men
Left wingers are usually not happy with the reality, they want to change it. They are unresonable. They are usually younger people.
Laws bother them. They do not like them as they are, so they want either to change them or to bypass them. A pit where left wingers will often fall is to want a strong human law to counter a unpleasant natural law (here strong government).
In some extreme cases, they will even deny the existence of those laws (officially, they were less earthquake in SU when the soviets were in power). They still have dreams and in some cases they are... well, just dreamers.
But weren't the Wright brothers not just dreamers...

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by Kucinich
Left and right are all relative to center... thus democrats are left, because they are left of the center. And the US isn't really right-of-center... people only say that because they compare it to Europe. Look at, say, Iran, and the US looks communist.

The choice of comparison may depend on one's idea of progress.

Then you are talking about left of YOU, not left of center, also known as "left".

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dry
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

Right = reasonable men
Right wingers are usually more reasonable, pull things back to crude reality, they have no dreams (anymore?), or are happy with reality (conservatives), they are usually older people. Laws - of physics, market, society, religion - do not bother them, they take them as part of the problem (imposed by some superior being?). They do not even try to bypass them. In some extreme cases, they even try to enforce the laws thinking that it is unnatural or against god's will or will bring doom on mankind to even try to bypass them.

Left = unreasonable men
Left wingers are usually not happy with the reality, they want to change it. They are unresonable. They are usually younger people.
Laws bother them. They do not like them as they are, so they want either to change them or to bypass them. A pit where left wingers will often fall is to want a strong human law to counter a unpleasant natural law (here strong government).
In some extreme cases, they will even deny the existence of those laws (officially, they were less earthquake in SU when the soviets were in power). They still have dreams and in some cases they are... well, just dreamers.
But weren't the Wright brothers not just dreamers...

I guess I again qualify as Left...

[Edan]

Originally posted by Al'Kimiya
There is a reason one direction is called "right".

Irony?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You don't obey the constitution because it's tradition, you obey it because it's the law.

Law is tradition, especially in a common law state such as the US. There is a reason many people in the world consider both US parties to be right wing. There is some truth in that as they are both fairly conservative with the law these days. Both believe in the Constitution, and while some of the farther left of the Democratic Party want to change bits and pieces of the Constitution and other law, it doesn't make up a majority of the party.

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

You are anything but pro-tradition .

Keeping tradition for it's own sake. Has there ever been a more brainless philosophy?

A so-called philosophy professor who hasn't read Burke .

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You don't obey the constitution because it's tradition, you obey it because it's the law.

Law is tradition

But tradition is not always law.

What law prevented women owning property, or voting?

The law may have said who was entitled to vote, but not in every case did it have to outline who was not entitled to vote, or forbidden to vote- because it was 'unthinkable' that women should have the vote because they were 'naturally' unfit to exercise the franchise.

Or own property or inherit when married.

Or to allege rape in marriage, because traditionally, a woman's body was not her own.

[Agathon]

I've read Burke (a long time ago).

It strikes me that saying one should keep to traditions as much as possible just begs the question against the reformer.

In fact, on balance, change has been for the better.

[Kuciwalker]

One should ignore which is "tradition" and which is not, and simply go with whatever looks better.

[Kidlicious]

Right is the old crusty ****.:

Left is the new fresh hotness.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except that they seem to have convenient lapses when it comes to the acts of the powerful against the powerless.

Like abortion? Great example of the powerful taking advantage of the powerless.

Secondly, how does the right take advantage of the powerless? Free markets help everyone.

To say there are good reasons why society has operated the way it has is to beg the question against the reformer, since it is not clear that these reasons are good enough.

Without justification, we cannot adopt the ideas of the reformer.

If they have a good argument, then sure. But the burden is placed on the innovator.

It's an unjustifiable joke.

Unlike constructed value, where the society can simply define people to not be persons? Now that's the joke. A conservative can argue for intrinsic worth and value, and also care about the plight of the poor. One would be inconsistent to do otherwise.

That's not a specifically leftist trait. National Socialists believe that people can be perfected by society and they aren't leftists by any means.

Then why did they exclude Jews? I would argue that the National Socialists did not believe that people could be perfected by society.

And - most people think that there are better and worse kinds of social organization. There isn't anything specifically leftist about thinking that different social forms might have different consequences for human welfare.

No. Conservatives acknowledge that while we should have some help for those who are worse off, this help should not be the responsibility of the state, but ought to be a voluntary contribution.

Anything else, is just wealth redistribution, which is a favourite sport of the left.

There is no reason to favour one over the other.

Given equal evidence, would you favour the new solution over the old?

No one on the right really believes in totally free speech either. For example, you aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre or incite a riot.

Yes, but this is different from muzzling those to whom you disagree.

Conservatives could care less about what their opponents have to say, provided they have the ability to rebut their points. They believe that their arguments are better, and if they are not, then they will likely adopt the point of view of the reformer.

It's common sense that if the potential consequences are bad enough, gagging people is morally justifiable. It is even if you only deal with rights - for example perhaps granting a fascist candidate the freedom to express his views will cause him to be elected and then put an end to all free speech rights.

And the same is for anyone whom the left can label 'reactionary and anti-progress.'

I've been there, you know I have, and I have little love for the left wrt freedom of speech.

[Kidlicious]

These are strange to me.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The right believes that man is essentially corrupt, and the role of the state is to restrain man from hurting each other.

Third, the right believes in freedom of speech and expression, and the existence of fundamental freedoms that are only recognised by society, and are not derived from society.

I should get my Adam Smith out for this quote, but if I did it would essentially say that only corrupt men enter into public duty.

Anyway, it seems like a contradiction to give corrupt men freedom.

I don't think what you have discribed as left of right.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway, it seems like a contradiction to give corrupt men freedom.

It may seem so to you, but it isn't. If men are corrupt, then their is no legitimacy for a dictator. Only an elected government is legitimate. Have you ever heard the saying "it takes two crooks to strike an honest bargain"?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but it's a joke, since the rights and freedoms are formulated so as to be compatible with and sustain massively inequality. Anatole France expressed it best:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

It's an unjustifiable joke.

Good quote.