left, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

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

On the past graphs, I tend to plot on the lower right, favouring more liberty than authority, and a smaller rather than larger state.

But I'm not far from the centre, between authority and liberty.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
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.

Totalitarianism isn't really collectivism at all. It is so only in so far as the govt collects the individuals and forces them into servatude. Collectivism is democratic. In a democratic society people collectively make the rules that everyone will follow. Each individual gets to participate in the decision making, and no individuals are taken advantage of.

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.

Ok. I'll tell you what is direct and intentional. The implementation of an unfair system, and the insistance that levying a 'fair' tax can make it fair.

I forgot what this has to do with what we are talking about here though.

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.

Wha? Only because you are assuming incorrectly that economic systems that elinimate priviledge are necessarily totalitarian. The idea is absurd, because totalitarianism is a system of priviledge. You're not showing any connection for this.

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!

Ah, so why do you call collectivization totalitarianism. There are all sorts degrees of collectivism, and only one degree of totalitarianism. Hence, the root word total.

Totalitarianism is the application of authoritarianism, one is directly proportional to the other.

No. Authoritarian system does not totally control the individuals. Unless it is both authoritarian and totalitarian.

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.

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?

unclear. I'm confused and unfamiliar with your idea of freedom, and why you associate that with libertarianism.

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.

You have created to lines. One is relative freedom, and the other is relative equality. However you yourself see that one effects the other one. So the two lines are dependant on each other. How can you say then that you can be right on one and left on the other? How can you be liberal socially and left economically. If you are left economically then you believe that freedom should be restrained for the sake of equality. If you are right economically how can you say that people should be free when the freedom that you are refering to is freedom from constraint and the biggest constraint to freedom is wealth.

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.

My assertion is that the determinant of leftist ideology is if it advocates lifting up those less fortunate in the society. Your questions don't allow me to give you an answer based on the definition that I'm giving you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Winston
BE QUIET!

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

So true. If you're for the little guy you tend to say left. If you want to maintain the position of the powerfull you tend to say right. The confusion really comes when you have two groups fighting for power. Usually then one of the groups attempts to claim to be for the little guy, but in fact they only want to take the power.

[Whaleboy]

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

Well one works on the assumption that people are different and that accordingly people have different views from my own, but for a few that coincidentally might have the same. Whereupon there is a potential difference, the current of debate attempts to equalise and that is no different. If I have a disagreement the logical course of action on that merit is to debate it.

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

Nowhere did I do so. Obviously since most was the predicate, "people" are the subject so there is little more to say on the matter, except to say that since ones views are more a reflection of self it is safer to assume that most people will by default disagree with you if your views are truly transparent of one.

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...

Your side of the street? "Are" is the plural of "is"

I agree completely.

Upon the basis that most people are wrong relative to you, and that the potential difference created causes you to debate that with others and not simply accept and go along with the general trend, then it is difficult on this one occasion to disagree, though of course external stimulii and circumstances may require you to consequentially decide not to debate, upon the basis and merit of the debate itself, one is encouraged to do so.

No-one out Whaleboys Whaleboy!
except maybe Drogue

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Center Right

|----------|----------|----------|----------|

I'm a Teddy Roosevelt type.

[Winston]

Eric Idle could probably out-Whaleboy anyone...

Why-why, what's the point of going abroad, if you're just going to be treated like sheep?

Cartered around in buses surrounded by sweaty mindless oaves from Vetchy and Boventry.

They've blothed backs and their bardigans and their chances to radios, complaining about the tea or they don't make it properly, do they? And stopping at endless Majorcan bodegas selling fish and chips and Rodney's Red Barrel and calamares and toothache. And sitting in their cotton sunfrost, squirting Timothy White Suncream all over their puffy, raw, swollen, parollen flesh, 'cos they overdid it on the first day.
Being herded into countless Hotel Miramars and Bellevues, Bontinentals with their international luxury modern roomettes...

...and swimming pools full of draft Red Barrel and fat German businessmen pretending to be acrobats and forming pyramids and frightening the children and...

...barging into the cues. And if you're not at your table...

...spot on seven you miss your bowl of Campbell's Cream and Mushroom Soup, the first item in the menu of International Cuisine.

Every Thursday night there's a bloody cabaret in the bar featuring some tiny ---- dego with nine-inch hips and some fat bloated tart with her hair really creamed down and big arse presenting her to foreigners.

---- from Birmingham with bloody right...

...legs and diarrhea trying to pick up hairy, bandy legs ,whop degos called Manuel.
And once a week there's an excursion to local Roman remains, where you can buy Cherry Aid and melted ice cream...

...and bleedin' Rodney's Red Barrel.

And one night they take you to a typical restaurant with local...

...atmosphere and color and you sit next to a...

...party from Raleigh who keep singing "I love the Costa Brava!"

"I love the Costa Brava!" And you get cornered by some drunken green grocer from Luton with an Instamatic camera and last Tuesday's Daily Express...

...and he's on and on and on about how it is running the country and how many languages Margaret Powell can speak and she throws up all over the cuba libre. And spending four days on the tarmac at Luton Airport on a five-day package store with nothing to eat but dry----sandwhiches.

And you can't even get a glass of Rodney's Red Barrel because you're still in England with the bloody bar closing every time you're thirsty. And the kids are crying and vomiting and breaking the plastic ashtrays. They keep telling you it won't be another hour, but you know damn well your plane is still in Iceland, because it had to turn back, trying to take a party of Swedes to...

...to take a party of Swedes to Yugoslavia. Of course it loads you up there at 3 a.m. in the morning. And then you sit on the tarmac for four hours because of unforeseen difficulties, i.e. the permanent strike of airtraffic control over Paris. When you finally get to Malaga airport, everybody's cueing for the bloody toilet, and cueing for the bloody half- customs officers, and cueing for the bloody bus that isn't there, waiting to take you to the hotel that hasn't yet been built. When you finally get to the half-built----ruin called the Hotel Limassol, while paying half the holiday money to a license Spaniard in a taxi, there's no water in the pool, there's no water in the bath, there's no water in the tap, there's only a bleeding lizard in the bidet and half the rooms are doublebooked, and you can't sleep anyhow, 'cause the permanent are in the jungles in the hotel next door. Meanwhile, the Spanish National Tourist Board promises that the raging cholera epidemic is merely a mild outbreak of the Spanish Conleigh, while the like of the previous outbreak in 1616 even the bloody rats are dying from it!

Meanwhile, the bloody guardia are arresting 16-yearolds for kissing in the streets----everybody's buying awful little horrid donkeys with their names on, I can't tell you the----and when you finally get to Manchester, there's only another bloody bus to carry you another 60 miles...

[Whaleboy]

Totalitarianism isn't really collectivism at all. It is so only in so far as the govt collects the individuals and forces them into servatude. Collectivism is democratic. In a democratic society people collectively make the rules that everyone will follow. Each individual gets to participate in the decision making, and no individuals are taken advantage of.

I think you'll have difficulty in equating being forced into servitude with democracy whereupon it is encouraged, in other words, a difference between "cog in a machine" functionalism and the modularity of society. However, working upon your definition, we shall call it true communism... as in, a commune, which you seem to have described. I'll spare you the tirade of Aristotle and cynicism that would cause communes not to work in larger societies (a Kibbutz and a state being very different things), but I fail to see what that has to do with the debate.

In order to link leftist collectivism necessarily to liberty by showing how collectivism cannot lead to totality and how collectivism is the only vehicle for liberty, thus linking the two inextricably.

Ok. I'll tell you what is direct and intentional. The implementation of an unfair system, and the insistance that levying a 'fair' tax can make it fair.

Ummm, direct and intentional in the utilitarian sense formerly and existentialist latterly. However, I think you'll find that this unfair system evolved out of human nature. Ok I will allow us to digress considering that we have covered all the points, you have been refuted and continually repeat yourself instead of defending yourself so lets have something more interesting:

Why make society fair and give everyone an equal chance at all? I prefer the idea of making laws consistent, giving everyone freedom of expression and association and letting them get on with their lives, following the course they wish to go on, instead of constantly making sure the same choices, the same options are available to all. After all, we are always making our own choices, and individually responsible for our own positions. We can't turn round and say "well "the man" made me do it", thats BS. You decided to take your life in that direction. You're not going to achieve anything fantastic if you don't have the opportunity to lie in the gutter.

I forgot what this has to do with what we are talking about here though.

Definition of left and right. You seem unwilling to actually address my argument, as opposed to reiterating yours though.

Wha? Only because you are assuming incorrectly that economic systems that elinimate priviledge are necessarily totalitarian. The idea is absurd, because totalitarianism is a system of priviledge. You're not showing any connection for this.

Which part of tenuous isn't blindingly obvious? A system that takes more of your money might, under the worst conditions, be more inclined to take more of your rights, that is all. Necessarily totalitarian? You need to learn what is a necessary or sufficient condition! As for me necessarily linking an economic system with a social system, that is the exact opposite of what I was doing!!

Ah, so why do you call collectivization totalitarianism. There are all sorts degrees of collectivism, and only one degree of totalitarianism. Hence, the root word total.

If we are to say that there is a difference between collective by choice (which isn't totalitarian and is better described as a society and collective by obligation, then the latter is totalitarian.

No. Authoritarian system does not totally control the individuals. Unless it is both authoritarian and totalitarian.

That is exactly what I said read what I write. Authoritarian government is an idea. The application of that idea results in a condition of totality, whereupon the government controls the individuals.

unclear. I'm confused and unfamiliar with your idea of freedom, and why you associate that with libertarianism.

This idea of freedom you could possibly call existentialist utilitarianism, but I'll attempt to simplify it. Assuming that the individual at the moment has free will, he makes his own choices and is responsible for them. To add utilitarianism to that means that he has to deal with other people, requiring an equilibrium, that results in total freedom of expression and freedom of association, as long as they do not impede upon the others right to do the same. It's basically libertarianism but not based upon natural rights, I call it the Mill Limit, since Mill inspired it.

It means that you equalise and denote to all FoE and FoA, but any more is not the perogative of the individual. On top of those rights, you could offer them the chance to ride a spaceship to the moon. But that is still your perogative to offer. Their choice has increased, their freedom has not, and thus their liberty has not. Choice cannot be equalised unless we all live the same lives, same place, same time etc. Only way to do that is live an infinite distance from everyone else or kill everyone.

So the two lines are dependant on each other.

Not really. You can have equality of freedom (see above) but not equality of choice which is fine by me. Equality of choice will inevitably run contrary to freedom.

How can you be liberal socially and left economically.

I'm not. I'm right economically and liberal socially. I think as long as you have humans living together, the free market is the most consistent system, and FoE and FoA.

If you are right economically how can you say that people should be free when the freedom that you are refering to is freedom from constraint and the biggest constraint to freedom is wealth.

A self-contained assumption. Put simply, I do not consider wealth to be a constraint to freedom. A constraint to choice for the unfortunate, perhaps. Existentially, yes you can make the argument, but that has to be upon an individual basis, descriptive not prescriptive, in other words can only be communicated to others, not imposed, those others deciding to live non-materialistically by battling their human nature. I think you'll find very few people who can do that, good luck if you seek to base a political system upon it.

My assertion is that the determinant of leftist ideology is if it advocates lifting up those less fortunate in the society. Your questions don't allow me to give you an answer based on the definition that I'm giving you.

Intriguing. Let me put this to you. We all act equally in our own self interest, but in so far as our opinions are concerned, we all seek to make the world a better place, improve life etc etc. There is no essentially malevolent political system or philosophy, they intend to do good. How well they do that? Experimentation by history or subjective preference is not a good method of objective verification since that takes it out of the subjective context it resides in initially! . Now I'm telling you as a historical fact that left and right are economic, but history has shown those on the left to be traditionally libertarian. That is not a basis for categorisation, nor a good method for predicting the future because historical circumstances change. We have, after all, already seen totalitarian communism. I do not believe there is sufficient grounds to change this already consistent definition of left and right, I know you disagree, so on that matter we shall have to agree to disagree.

So true. If you're for the little guy you tend to say left. If you want to maintain the position of the powerfull you tend to say right. The confusion really comes when you have two groups fighting for power. Usually then one of the groups attempts to claim to be for the little guy, but in fact they only want to take the power.

Historically, all groups with any number of people want power regardless of politik. You're use of the word "tend" is telling. While it is wise to learn from the consequence of history, it is wiser still to learn of the intent behind it imo.

[Whaleboy]

Winston: And what is wrong with that?

[Winston]

Nothing, except the poor travel agent had to call the police and have him committed. He's probably still on...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
This idea of freedom you could possibly call existentialist utilitarianism, but I'll attempt to simplify it. Assuming that the individual at the moment has free will, he makes his own choices and is responsible for them. To add utilitarianism to that means that he has to deal with other people, requiring an equilibrium, that results in total freedom of expression and freedom of association, as long as they do not impede upon the others right to do the same. It's basically libertarianism but not based upon natural rights, I call it the Mill Limit, since Mill inspired it.

It means that you equalise and denote to all FoE and FoA, but any more is not the perogative of the individual. On top of those rights, you could offer them the chance to ride a spaceship to the moon. But that is still your perogative to offer. Their choice has increased, their freedom has not, and thus their liberty has not. Choice cannot be equalised unless we all live the same lives, same place, same time etc. Only way to do that is live an infinite distance from everyone else or kill everyone.

I suggest we move this portion of the argument to another thread. What do you think?

[Whaleboy]

Nothing, except the poor travel agent had to call the police and have him committed. He's probably still on...

I suggest we move this portion of the argument to another thread. What do you think?

Ideally yes but I'm in London for the next two days and a busy week ahead, so keep it on the back burner perhaps, or PM me with your response to remind me and I'll start the thread?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Ideally yes but I'm in London for the next two days and a busy week ahead, so keep it on the back burner perhaps, or PM me with your response to remind me and I'll start the thread?

Ok we'll try not to get into it too much for now. It's interesting though.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I think you'll have difficulty in equating being forced into servitude with democracy whereupon it is encouraged, in other words, a difference between "cog in a machine" functionalism and the modularity of society. However, working upon your definition, we shall call it true communism... as in, a commune, which you seem to have described. I'll spare you the tirade of Aristotle and cynicism that would cause communes not to work in larger societies (a Kibbutz and a state being very different things), but I fail to see what that has to do with the debate.

This is what it has to do with the debate. I'm arguing that people can be freer in a collectivist system. If you equate collectivism with totalitarianism then that can't hold true. The problem is that you don't know what totalitarianism is. Totalitarianism is total control of the state for the state's benefits. Anything less than total is not totalitarianism.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).

In order to link leftist collectivism necessarily to liberty by showing how collectivism cannot lead to totality and how collectivism is the only vehicle for liberty, thus linking the two inextricably.

I'm not showing that collectivism cannot lead to totality, or that collectivism is the only vehicle to liberty. What I'm showing is that collectivism doesn't necessarily lead to totality, and that you can believe in liberty and collectivism. If you equate incorrectly collectivism with totalitarianism then you can make a scale between liberty and collectivism. But if you believe correctly that you can believe in liberty and collectivism then you can't be placed on your scale.

Ummm, direct and intentional in the utilitarian sense formerly and existentialist latterly. However, I think you'll find that this unfair system evolved out of human nature. Ok I will allow us to digress considering that we have covered all the points, you have been refuted and continually repeat yourself instead of defending yourself so lets have something more interesting:

Why make society fair and give everyone an equal chance at all? I prefer the idea of making laws consistent, giving everyone freedom of expression and association and letting them get on with their lives, following the course they wish to go on, instead of constantly making sure the same choices, the same options are available to all. After all, we are always making our own choices, and individually responsible for our own positions. We can't turn round and say "well "the man" made me do it", thats BS. You decided to take your life in that direction. You're not going to achieve anything fantastic if you don't have the opportunity to lie in the gutter.

In other words you're saying, "Why create a system where the lowest of the low have more choices?" My answer is this. First, that is what's fair. Second, The lowest of the low benefit far more from having more choices than the priviledged of society. The priviledged of society don't need more choices. They have enough choices already to do better than those on the bottom.

Definition of left and right. You seem unwilling to actually address my argument, as opposed to reiterating yours though.

That's no argument. Left wing does not equate with high taxes. There are left wingers who believe in low taxes. In fact Marx was totally against tax.

As for me necessarily linking an economic system with a social system, that is the exact opposite of what I was doing!!

I surrender the debate if you can answer this question correctly. Which one is an economic system, elitism or totalitarianism?

If we are to say that there is a difference between collective by choice (which isn't totalitarian and is better described as a society and collective by obligation, then the latter is totalitarian.

No it's not. Obligating individuals is not totalitarianism. Individuals are obligated to obey the law in every type of civilization. That's what civilization means. It's when the individuals are obligated to do whatever the govt tells them to do that is totalitarianism.

That is exactly what I said read what I write. Authoritarian government is an idea. The application of that idea results in a condition of totality, whereupon the government controls the individuals.

Where is your connection. This is just a base assumption not supported by real world data. In general, too much collective organization by society results in special interests usurping the govt and establishing totalitarian regimes.

Their choice has increased, their freedom has not, and thus their liberty has not. Choice cannot be equalised unless we all live the same lives, same place, same time etc. Only way to do that is live an infinite distance from everyone else or kill everyone.

No it can't be made totally equal, remember we aren't talking about absolutes. What you can do is give the underpriviledges more choices.

Equality of choice will inevitably run contrary to freedom.

Sure it will. But for the priviledged. What you want is to give some unlimited freedom, and you want to limit other peoples choices. While I a choice can't necessarily give you a freedom. Limiting people's choices limits their freedom.

I'm not. I'm right economically and liberal socially. I think as long as you have humans living together, the free market is the most consistent system, and FoE and FoA.

But your belief in the free market doesn't make you right wing. Your lack of concern from those that your FoA and FoE doesn't help is right wing though. Therefore believe in inequality is what make one right wing, not their belief in free market.

A self-contained assumption. Put simply, I do not consider wealth to be a constraint to freedom. A constraint to choice for the unfortunate, perhaps. Existentially, yes you can make the argument, but that has to be upon an individual basis, descriptive not prescriptive, in other words can only be communicated to others, not imposed, those others deciding to live non-materialistically by battling their human nature. I think you'll find very few people who can do that, good luck if you seek to base a political system upon it.

Wealth is absolutely a constraint to freedom. It's as much of a constraint as a brick wall. What are you free to do after your money runs out. Three things, work, beg, or die. Working, begging and death are no ones idea of freedom.

Intriguing. Let me put this to you. We all act equally in our own self interest, but in so far as our opinions are concerned, we all seek to make the world a better place, improve life etc etc. There is no essentially malevolent political system or philosophy, they intend to do good.

Social Science isn't just a tool to create systems that are beneficial and fair to citizens. It's a tool for special interest to gain and maintain power over others. No ideology that claims to give priviledge to special interests is popular with the masses, but that doesn't mean that they aren't driven by special interests. Have you ever heard of a lie?

Historically, all groups with any number of people want power regardless of politik. You're use of the word "tend" is telling. While it is wise to learn from the consequence of history, it is wiser still to learn of the intent behind it imo.

Exactly. The meek, by definition never get that power. Giving the meed the power is what leftism is all about.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by BeBro
Centre > BeBro < Left

How would you describe your own position, Maciej?

I'm the centre of universe, so I guess I'm a centrist

[Urban Ranger]

What's missing from this debate so far is a distinction between positive and negative rights.

Positive rights are the rights to do certain things. Negative rights are the rights from being interfered from doing certain things.

Libertarians are only interested in negative rights. However in a society where freedom is maximised positive rights are at best marginalised.