Why do you support the right?

[notyoueither]

The basis of strength for the right is the view that in general, society is better served if individuals are left as free as possible to live their own lives and make decisions for themselves.

The whole will be better if the parts are allowed their full ability to make things better, rather than have jobs and social agencies designed for them from above.

That is true economically and socially. There is some confusion there, as religious groups in the Americas will often go towards the right (so that those of religious temperament may be left to themselves) and some religious groups then attempt to impose their very deeply held views of morality on the entire society. Strange.

As far as abortion is concerned, you do not have to be religious to believe that some limits should be placed on it. You do have to feel that at some point prior to birth, we should become concerned for the child.

I might point out that what defines right and left changes with time and environment. The bit about the right being the bastion of the individual is what I believe it is now in places I am familiar with. I lean that way.

[Sprayber]

Re: Why do you support the right?

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
This is a thread dedicated to all you right wingers out there and the question is 'Why?'

Why do you feel the need to label someone this or that? Why do you need to say you are the left? Why be defined by something that someone else has come up with?

I have no such desire to be called a Republican or Democrat or Left or Right. You shouldn't either.

[Rex Little]

Re: Why do you support the right?

Originally posted by Zulu Elephant
I am simply asking what makes you support the side that seems (to me) to not give a damn about the collective good, whether it benefits everyone or not

I don't believe there is any such thing as the "collective good". Any action by the government--or anyone else for that matter--is good for some people, bad for others and irrelevant to the rest. I don't support the violation of some people's rights for the benefit of other people; I guess that puts me on the right if you insist on shoehorning everyone's views onto a left-right scale, but of course I'm a libertarian.

Can you name anything the right opposes that benefits everyone?

[Verto]

I support the right, because I believe in a government of the people - not people of the government.

I feel that the Republican/Right would like to see people become independent and able to stand on their own, while Democrats want the government to make decisions for them - need government programs for obese people, because they couldn't help eating at McDonalds, for example.

I support a strong military, which the Democrats do not, and I don't think that simply because someone is wealthy, they are criminals, or involved with an Enron-type scandal.

I would like to see more fuel efficient cars, or hydrogen-powers cars, but I don't think outlawing SUVs is the way to go.

And it just seems that, from my personal experiences, that Democrats are semi-opposed to displaying an American flag, or being proud of you're country, because this might offend someone else. Again, that's just from my personal experience.

The question should be, why do you support the left?

[Adalbertus]

My position is roughly the left wing of a conservative European party. Does that count as "right"?
Anyway:
- against abortion
- against death penalty
- against privatization of infrastructure (railway, mail, phone ...)
First, in Germany, none of the companies really improved after privatization, and second, it is a tool for the development of a country. If phones are private, a small village of 100 inhabitants never would get a phone line (unless they are rich to afford all the costs or the government pays for it - in which case there is no gain). Also, they tend to be deficitary in less developed regions. OTOH, one should develop a way to encourage the managers of those companies to run it with as little deficit as possible. Which is what lefties miserably fail to see.
- social support should exist but much more focused. More support for children (invest in future tax payers!), more support in getting a job, less encouragement to live on social aid alone.
- trade unions are getting too powerful in Europe (except England, probably) and have a bad organization: They go to strike when their treasury is full (Germany), or have strike as a collective hobby (France).

[bigvic]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The basis of strength for the right is the view that in general, society is better served if individuals are left as free as possible to live their own lives and make decisions for themselves.

The whole will be better if the parts are allowed their full ability to make things better, rather than have jobs and social agencies designed for them from above.

unfortunately when people are allowed too much freedom, economically and to a lesser extent socially, they cause prblems. greed corrupts the rosy picture of laissez-faire utopianism, as we are seeing now, which could have been deduced fromthe events of 1929, though we never remember anything intergenerational. right wingers in general impress me as people with small genetalia.

[notyoueither]

Better for the individuals at the bottom to be greedy for themselves than the one head honcho and his cohorts at the top to deprive all.

Greed is a factor of human nature. The question is, how do you get the best society? Do you allow people to make their own fates? Or do you enforce that fate from above?

Is charity more effecient when given willingly, or when compelled?

The debate today is more based on which is best. Choose between the supremecy of the individual or the group. Choose wisely.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by bigvic
right wingers in general impress me as people with small genetalia.

That really added to the debate. Come back when you have a point other than the one on your head.

[Stefu]

I don't view government as cornucopia of goods to be given to people without cost, and am suspicious of government interference being used as a solution to most of problems of life. I believe to privatization of most of things that private market could run better than the government. I believe that much of what the Left terms 'greed' is just honest wish for improvement of self's and family's living conditions, and that people always work better to benefit themselves than to benefit society. I don't believe that America and Israel are always evil. I believe that environmental organizations are getting away scot free with lots of being wrong, and that environmental measures should be cost-effective. I think free trade's better than 'fair trade'.

'course, Europe and America being what they are, in America, I'd vote for Democratic party. Without much of a question. Those Republicans are just wacky.

[Timexwatch]

Why dont you support communism/socialism" or anything like that, I am simply asking what makes you support the side that seems (to me) to not give a damn about the collective good, whether it benefits everyone or not

I lean more right than left on this because the collective good, too often, stands for collective mediocrity (sp?). As I see it, the left's stand for the collective good is just a tactic to play both sides against eachother. Whether it be rich or poor, the "powerful" versus the "powerless" or the "minority" vs the "majority", I see appeals to the collective good as a way of instituting mob rule in government.

Maybe that's a little muddled after 2 shots and 3 beers. I'll sum it up by coining a new phrase "the collective good of the individual"...

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Jon, the truth is that the authoritarian-left is just as large as the authoritarian-right. If you don't believe me, try walking into your local Working Men's Club in a pink shirt and announcing your sexuality.

That's not the "authoritarian left". It's anadorned homophobic ****wittery.

The crucial difference is that such ****wittery has never been claimed as an unwritten staple of the left's adherence to "family values".

[The Mad Monk]

You say that you want to understand our point of view, and then phrase your question in a very inflammatory way.

I have no time for this, or you.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by bigvic
unfortunately when people are allowed too much freedom, economically and to a lesser extent socially, they cause prblems.

It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed. - Stalin

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

It is true that when freedom for one results in slavery for others, it is no freedom at all.- Ron Jeremy.

[bigvic]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That really added to the debate. Come back when you have a point other than the one on your head.

i actually considr myself a radical moderate. it seems to me that intelligent people are right and left wingers. the truth must lie somewhere in the middle. in the us due to the nature of the 2 party system, the polity either is more radicalized, or they come to resemble each other. yeah, greed of small fish is not so injurious to society, but the big guys need some watching and regulating by the government. don't understand how people here get so pissed over big government, yet big business and its abuses don't seem to phase anyone, until their abuses and conciousless greed causes personal pain, like all the recent job losses. like enron - what a bunch of bastards - not just for what they obviously did, but for their hijinx overseas, supported by money besotted american politicians.

in the 60's and 70's, democrats in the us, left wingers when that was in the vogue, promised something for nothing a cornicupia of yummy governmeent services for nothing, no increase in taxes.
we found that to be bull****
now the same thing has appeared from the right wingers - republicans. this time its the big gov bad, no tax good. but the moment someone's kid dies of meat poisoning because there is not enough federal meat inspectors, pow! we're all highly indignant.
more bull****

radical moderate am i