left, right?

[Whaleboy]

Of course it does.

Doesn't look that way to me! *Whaleboy looks to USSR and China). Equality requires a basis. Do we say, national, religious, cultural, political, human?

Exactly, and such a system is right wing.

Nein! Someone needs to read Paine...

I'm not. I'm claiming that the left historically has fought against tyranny, while the right has fought to protect it except in the case where tyranny does not benefit them personally.

I concur there, but that is situational. I'm looking at it in terms of what the views actually are, instead of their historical context, where they were lumped together as a reaction to the world around. For example, where society was right wing and totalitarian (not necessarily the same), the reaction in many cases was left wing and libertarianism. Look at the fall of communism in Russia. Left wing and totalitarianism replaced by right wing and liberal.

Argh! They are related. They both have to do with equality.

Equality is not the basis of this definition! In terms of equality, left and right economics are more or less level playing, with a slight favour toward the right. They are relational, they are not dependent.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, I thought you were leaving due to mental illness?

Have therapy in the evenings, and taken time off work

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Do we mean collectivisation as opposed to individualism? It is authoritarian in that case, but that can be on the left or the right, with a slight inclination toward the left.

Bingo! It can be left or right. The real issue is whether everyone benefits equally or some people benefit at the expense of others.

Individual contribution to the state, redistribution of wealth, however you wish to call it. It is relevant, and solely relevant to economics, namely left or right as previously said. Do you now claim that economics has nothing to do with left and right? I previously thought you claimed economics and social policy were integral to the other, in which case your new stance is even more fallacious!!

Tax rate alone doesn't determine your contribution to the state, and the benefit that you recieve from it.

For the sake of argument, assume private property is a social issue. In which case, of course it's relevant because it would be symptomatic of a conflict between liberty (right to own private property in this argument) and totality. Again, for the sake of argument, call it an economic issue, where is isn't irrelevant to collectivsation, but relationship to it, according to two sets of axis, not one.

I didn't say it was irrelevent to collectivism. I said it was irrelevent to the left right dichotomy. A better way to say it, however, is that it's not a determinant of left or right.

Ummm, this has been the subject of my many posts here, you may have been reading but I doubt you've been understanding. Left and right are economic concerns, liberty vs totality are social concerns. They are relational (which we can see because systems are generated using both elements) but separable (which we can see because one can have a constant and a variable).

I disagree that they are separable anymore than freedom and equality are seperable.

Sure he did! He said there was a society where there were lots of rights and low taxes, and asked you whether or was left or right? I would say right, you would say left, and we would refute you accordingly.

No. I can't say either one.

[Provost Harrison]

Well don't worry, you'll be in good company tomorrow

[Whaleboy]

Bingo! It can be left of right. The real issue is whether everyone benefits equally or some people benefit at the expense of others.

That seems like a concession to me. I'm assuming collectivisation to mean "cog in a machine" totalitarianism (we are the borg) in which case everyone benefits at the expense of everyone (but that's not the issue at stake... this isn't an opportunity for you to tout your views, it is like I have said, a question of definition).

Correct me if my "cog in a machine" totalitarianism interpretation of collectivisation is not what you mean, I'm only going on the definition of that term I have been taught.

Tax rate alone doesn't determine your contribution to the state, and the benefit that you recieve from it.

As far as a system of politics is concerned, it does, because tax is direct and intentional, any other benefits are consequential, and logicall of the same value as an "act of god".

I didn't say it was irrelevent to collectivism. I said it was irrelevent to the left right dichotomy. A better way to say it, however, is that it's not a determinant of left or right.

Assume it to be an economic issue, in which case it is. Assuming it to be a social issue, social issues are irrelevant to left and right anyway.

Even by your logic is it a determination of left and right, if you assume economics to determine social policy, a leftist economic policy would deny the property, thus creating a totalitarian environment (which is why the left slightly favours totality).

I disagree that they are separable anymore than freedom and equality are seperable.

But can you not be equal to others, where everyone has very limited freedom? Consider a bath of water. It is level regardless of the amount of water in the bath.

No. I can't say either one.

Lots of rights, low taxes. Left, right, centre. Explain which is the primary determination?

I'll a few more for you.

Lots of rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, low taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?

[debeest]

Well, I've hidden it pretty well all this time, but really I'm -- a lefty.

[Stuie]

I had KFC for lunch, and the commercial is right: they both taste the same.

[Whaleboy]

PHILISTINE!!!!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That seems like a concession to me.

It's obviously a typo.

I'm assuming collectivisation to mean "cog in a machine" totalitarianism (we are the borg) in which case everyone benefits at the expense of everyone (but that's not the issue at stake... this isn't an opportunity for you to tout your views, it is like I have said, a question of definition).

Correct me if my "cog in a machine" totalitarianism interpretation of collectivisation is not what you mean, I'm only going on the definition of that term I have been taught.

Exactly. It's the assumption that you have been taught to make.

As far as a system of politics is concerned, it does, because tax is direct and intentional, any other benefits are consequential, and logicall of the same value as an "act of god".

Don't shift the blame to God. How do you expect me to respond to that?

Assume it to be an economic issue, in which case it is. Assuming it to be a social issue, social issues are irrelevant to left and right anyway.

Even by your logic is it a determination of left and right, if you assume economics to determine social policy, a leftist economic policy would deny the property, thus creating a totalitarian environment (which is why the left slightly favours totality).

You mean authoritarian, not totalitarian. Anyway, no one believes that absolute freedom is a possibility. If they do, then they don't believe in civilization. We're talking relative conditions, not absolute.

But can you not be equal to others, where everyone has very limited freedom? Consider a bath of water. It is level regardless of the amount of water in the bath.

You can not be truly free in a society where others enjoy more priviledges than you. Only the priviledged are free.

Lots of rights, low taxes. Left, right, centre. Explain which is the primary determination?

I'll a few more for you.

Lots of rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, low taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?

This part of our argument isn't going anywhere.

[Sandman]

I am socially liberal and financially left wing. Nothing exlusive about the two unless you take them to ridiculous extremes.

People should be allowed to do whatever they want socially/sexually/religiously etc, as long as they don't harm/infringe on the freedoms of other people and there should be taxation based welfare including free education and healthcare for all and assistance for living costs for people unable to work as well as police, a fair court system, defence etc. Free market is ok as long as you prevent exploitation and monopolies. Basically in the UK we are fairly close to that, but a bit too socially restrictive.

Actually, free education was one of the things in Marx's Communist Manifesto and most people in the western world take that for granted these days.

I basically agree with this.

I also strongly support state ownership of certain industries and services. The railways is the obvious one. The rail network is so maladapted for the free market that it's laughable. Nuclear power and defence industries are the other main ones.

[Ben Kenobi]

According to most polls, they list me very close to the centre.

It seems my beliefs in open immigration and pacifism counteract my other rather conservative tendencies.

But I think my fiscal conservativism swings me to the right.

[Whaleboy]

Exactly. It's the assumption that you have been taught to make.

Well, you dont explain your use of the term, I'm forced to rely upon what I've been taught. Nonetheless, if there is any difference, I suggest you explain.

Don't shift the blame to God. How do you expect me to respond to that?

By firstly reading and attempting to understand, instead of trying to score points at every abstraction. Tax is direct and intentional, also predictable. You can say "ok, contribution will be X amount" which people pay. If, by some accident or consequence, or some stroke of luck, something else benefits you, for example, some taxpayer discovers a method to triple the nations wealth, that is contributing but contributing by consequence, and as such, these events cannot be relied upon in a political theory unless you demonstrate otherwise, which you have not. Furthermore, you need to demonstrate your link between economic left and right, and necessarily liberty and totality accordingly. The only link, albeit a tenous one, links lefist economics with totality.

You mean authoritarian, not totalitarian. Anyway, no one believes that absolute freedom is a possibility. If they do, then they don't believe in civilization. We're talking relative conditions, not absolute.

Hang on a second, who brought up absolute freedom? Where was that mentioned? Conversely, how was a notion of absolute totality introduced to counter it? When it comes to relative conditions as opposed to absolute conditions, you do realise my reputation for being a relativist? Theres preaching to the converted, then there's preaching to a deciple!

/egotism

Totalitarianism is the application of authoritarianism, one is directly proportional to the other. As for libertarianism, I take that to mean freedom of expression and freedom of association. You could plausibly differentiate there between civil and political rights but that's unnecessary here.

You can not be truly free in a society where others enjoy more priviledges than you. Only the priviledged are free.

As I see it, you have freedom as freedom of expression and association, and anything on top of that is freedom by choice, not rights... for example, offering someone the choice to go to the moon isn't making them freer since it is still your perogative. It is self-evident that freedom should remain equal for consistency, but why equalise choice above that (going to moon as opposed to FoE and FoA), since after all, we are not all equal?

However that is irrelevant. You have failed to demonstrate that freedom necessarily links leftist economics with libertarian sociology, since any perceptible gains in freedom with the former are negated by the equalisation, so in effect, equalisation serves as a constraint upon freedom. I don't think its necessary to show how human nature runs contrary to the notion of equality. Freedom means freedom to better yourself, yes at the expense of others but they have the same rights, not choices, since everyone acts in their own best interests anyway.

This part of our argument isn't going anywhere.

Why not? It's a basic question that allows for a response from both my reasoning, which is self-explanatory, and yours, which will be easily refuted upon your doing so. I take it that your refusal to do so is an admission that it would be demonstrative of the holes in your reasoning thus.

BK: From your views, I doubt a simple left, right + liberty, totality graph is sufficient for you, since your views seem to transcend that they would appear inconsistent the fewer dimensions considered. It would seem that both democracy and moral dimensions would be needed too, but I'm not so great at drawing hypercubes so we'll save that for a rainy day .

[Winston]

BE QUIET!

Tell us if you're left or right, most people can do so without using dozens of 400-word posts.

[Whaleboy]

BE QUIET!

No.

Tell us if you're left or right, most people can do so without using dozens of 400-word posts.

Most people are wrong.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Most

What do you mean, most? Are we talking percentages, because if we are how do you determine... bla, bla, bla...

Originally posted by Whaleboy
people

People are people too, you know. You shouldn't bad-mouth people just to make a point in a discussion on... bla, bla, bla...

Originally posted by Whaleboy
are

Are you sure you spelled that the right way? Most people our side of the street seem to think that you took liberty with having no... bla, bla, bla...

Originally posted by Whaleboy
wrong

I agree completely.