left, right?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You can't have socialist elements in a right wing govt. You either have a system where all people are treated equally and they are not oppressed by the govt, or you have a system where some people are given special priviledges and or the govt oppresses people. The first is left, the second is right.

What about a system where all people are equally oppressed?

So a libertarian society, with no tax but equal rights, is a left wing society?

[Kidlicious]

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

But what prevents you from saying that you are not socially left?

[MikeH]

I avoided it because it seemed to be contentious. I see social liberalism to be left, and oppressive social restriction to be right wing.

[Drogue]

Because left-right is an economic line, and liberal-authoritarian is a social line. Otherwise you end up with people being left in one side and right in another.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue
What about a system where all people are equally oppressed?

What exactly do you mean? A special interest group who has captured the govt and oppresses everyone. No. Right wing.

So a libertarian society, with no tax but equal rights, is a left wing society?

Equal rights doesn't make a fair system. If I have no property what the hell do I care about the right of private property? If I have private property, enough to not have to work, what the hell do I care about the right to a fair wage?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MikeH
I avoided it because it seemed to be contentious. I see social liberalism to be left, and oppressive social restriction to be right wing.

mmmkay. So the only thing that seperates you from the libertarians is the importance of property rights. Correct?

[Whaleboy]

You aren't making any argument. You are just making subjective generalized assumptions. Like collectivization is right wing.

WTF? I'm saying precisely that is isn't necessarily right wing, it is merely totalitarian, and that there is a difference between.

You can't have socialist elements in a right wing govt. You either have a system where all people are treated equally and they are not oppressed by the govt, or you have a system where some people are given special priviledges and or the govt oppresses people. The first is left, the second is right.

I think that's been thorougly countered by now, however I'll go over it one more time. Since left or right is primarily an economic factor (and any social link is situation and secondary... variable historically) there can be a separate social elements... that second dimension. However to understand this you need to understand why left and right are solely economic concerns. To do that you need to be shown how the same economic policy can apply in a totalitarian or libertarian environment.

Heres the example. High taxes, lots of state ownership, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Left wing, but liberal. Low taxes, little state ownership, private enterprise. Freedom of speech, freedom of association. Fundamentally different economies, same social policy. Left and right respectively.

I think you are succumbing in the same way many have, of assuming communism, socialism, capitalism are coherent, rigid political systems. They are not, they are elements, the building blocks of more specific systems. Consider the difference between the UK and China. Liberty and totality are the same as building blocks... just because you choose to use one block from economics does not oblige you to use a certain block from social... you can choose.

Stalin only claimed to be left wing. No one can prevent people from claiming anything. The fact is, that he was one of the most right wing in history.

The state owned everything? By definition, he was left wing. This isn't a question of categorisation of a political system, this is a question of definition of elements of that system.

You are a classical liberal which really doesn't fit into the present context. You are right wing because you support a system of haves and have nots. You probably believe that your right to your property is more important than others right to life, and other silliness.

Here's the deal, I'll tell you what I believe and you will accept it and not put words into my mouth. The nature of my views are irrelevant, if you want to discuss my "silliness" then start another thread or PM me, here we are discussing definition. As much as I disapprove of political definition, there are better methods and inferior methods and the two-dimensional method is more descriptive and accurate than a one-dimensional (economic) method.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue
Because left-right is an economic line, and liberal-authoritarian is a social line. Otherwise you end up with people being left in one side and right in another.

Both have to do with equality. I don't see any need for 2 lines. People who are on the left on one line and on the right on the other are truely elitists in some fashion.

[Whaleboy]

But what prevents you from saying that you are not socially left?

Because socially left is an oxymoron. Left and right are irrelevant to social issues.

Equal rights doesn't make a fair system. If I have no property what the hell do I care about the right of private property? If I have private property, enough to not have to work, what the hell do I care about the right to a fair wage?

We're not talking what is fair and what isn't, though I'm personally speaking more than happy to crush you in showing that mine is also "fair" and consistent, I won't do so here. You didn't answer his question, do you consider his example left or right?

mmmkay. So the only thing that seperates you from the libertarians is the importance of property rights. Correct?

If you separate economics from property, namely taxation (easier since money is more abstract than material), then he can make his argument dualistically. As a continuous argument, he can simply claim utility. Either way, it doesn't affect that standing.

[Whaleboy]

Both have to do with equality. I don't see any need for 2 lines. People who are on the left on one line and on the right on the other are truely elitists in some fashion.

But does the left necessarily mean equality?

Is it not conceivable to have a system where everyone pays equally high taxes, but some are given more rights than others, say freedom of speech?

You seem very hung up on showing that your system is better than others here, which is not what we're here for. We're talking about definition.

As for there being a need for two lines, if you have two factors that are essentially unrelated but used to create a cohernet system (X,Y) then there is a need to relate them as the two dimensional graph I've shown.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
WTF? I'm saying precisely that is isn't necessarily right wing, it is merely totalitarian, and that there is a difference between.

Oh, right. I should have said that you claim that collectivization is authoritarian.

I think that's been thorougly countered by now, however I'll go over it one more time. Since left or right is primarily an economic factor (and any social link is situation and secondary... variable historically) there can be a separate social elements... that second dimension. However to understand this you need to understand why left and right are solely economic concerns. To do that you need to be shown how the same economic policy can apply in a totalitarian or libertarian environment.

Heres the example. High taxes, lots of state ownership, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Left wing, but liberal. Low taxes, little state ownership, private enterprise. Freedom of speech, freedom of association. Fundamentally different economies, same social policy. Left and right respectively.

You need to talk to Ramo. High taxes are not left wing, and low taxes are not right wing. The tax rate is completely irrelevent.

The state owned everything? By definition, he was left wing. This isn't a question of categorisation of a political system, this is a question of definition of elements of that system.

Private property verses collectivization also is irrelevent.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Because socially left is an oxymoron. Left and right are irrelevant to social issues.

Wha? How so?

We're not talking what is fair and what isn't, though I'm personally speaking more than happy to crush you in showing that mine is also "fair" and consistent, I won't do so here. You didn't answer his question, do you consider his example left or right?

Oh. This is typical. He didn't give me the information to make that judgement.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
But does the left necessarily mean equality?

Of course it does.

Is it not conceivable to have a system where everyone pays equally high taxes, but some are given more rights than others, say freedom of speech?

Exactly, and such a system is right wing.

You seem very hung up on showing that your system is better than others here, which is not what we're here for. We're talking about definition.

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.

As for there being a need for two lines, if you have two factors that are essentially unrelated but used to create a cohernet system (X,Y) then there is a need to relate them as the two dimensional graph I've shown.

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

[Whaleboy]

Oh, right. I should have said that you claim that collectivization is authoritarian.

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.

You need to talk to Ramo. High taxes are not left wing, and low taxes are not right wing. The tax rate is completely irrelevent.

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!!

Private property verses collectivization also is irrelevent.

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.

Wha? How so?

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).

Oh. This is typical. He didn't give me the information to make that judgement.

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.

[Provost Harrison]

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