Really... right/left in politics is stupid.

Post Reply New Topic

It was a term coined for how a bunch of people sat at a table in a very specific time, with very specific conditions, and has for some 300 years divided intelligent people into two (semi)hostile camps.

I couldn't agree more.
I find it mildly irritating when someone labels me as one or the other based on one of my stated beliefs. Out of all eleventy billion of them.
So, since I'm for capital punishment, I'm some sort of neoconservative right-wing fascist.
But wait, I also believe in welfare, so I guess that makes me a pink bleeding-heart liberal commie.

There's also the point that the US might think it has two political parties with radically different ideologies, but in reality, it has one dysfunctional party that can't agree with itself but is still fairly to the 'right' end of the spectrum.

Its not even right-left in the US anymore, it is liberal-conservative.

I don't like right-left either, but the two party system we have is a byproduct of our electoral system, and so is currently the best (and only) way for political movements to get their ideas and the candidates who support them into power.

The plethora of political movements out there (pro-gun rights, anti-abortion, pro-choice, anti-gay marriage, pro-gay marriage) having to jam themselves into two political parties has an inevitable polarizing effect.

So if you say, "I am pro-choice," some people may infer, "Aha! Liberal democrat through and through!"

However, there are some pro-choice Republicans, such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

And if you say, "I am pro-gun rights," some people may infer, "Aha! Conservative republican through and through!"

However, there are some pro- gun rights Democrats, such as DNC Chairman Howard Dean.

Third parties have had a difficult time coexisting with the two major parties in the political parties. What parties constitute the two major parties has changed before (for instance, from Anti-Federalist to Democrat, and from Whig to Republican). But never has a third party been able to have a comparable amount of influence in the electoral process. Some people thought it might with the Bull Moose Party under Theodore Roosevelt and non-party affilliated independents under Ross Perot. (Ross Perot founded his political party in 1995 before his second run for President.)

Dont fool yourself: Here in Canada we have lots of political parties and they still line themselves up along left/right lines.

It is simply done out of efficiency in labeling one's politics. In a broad sense there tends to be a left and a right but not one that is typically defined as purely these side controversial issues. The left and the right are in the truest sense views on how society should be run, not so much on individual issues, although the stances on those individual issues come from the view on how society should be run.

What pisses me off is that the gap between Australia's two political parties is as thin as a cigarette paper. Our current governamet, the Liberal party, is a standard rightwing party (although moderate by world standards), but then our leftwing opposition, the Labor party is filled with so much corruption that they've contradicted every little reason I had to vote for them over Liberal. So I don't really care who wins the next election, it's a choice between one type of conservative and another.

Too right, SLOOOOOW progress here in Australia, it seems to me labour kind of just tries to mirror the liberals in every aspect, and comes across as a little lost puppy dog. Because the liberals aren't exactly breaking new ground its a weird kind of stand off.

Maybe because we're got such a large over 50's population here the general consensus is against change?

As for Labor v Liberal, I generally think its a good policy to vote against the incumbent. Keep electorates marginal and keep them on their toes.

Economically speaking the left right wing argument has long settled. Capitalism won

Choosing the lesser of 2 evils is a stupid idea

1) You cant ban anything - Banning results in prejudice and does not easily allow for such "solutions" to stop (in other words, you ban one thing, you must ban more)
- Gun bans
- Drug bans
- Prostitution bans
All problems they are supposed to fix do not, instead, use of drugs is higher and so is crime (with reference to Prohibition), and banning guns does nothing since gun laws exist already (and most criminals buy their weapons illegally NOW as it is)

2) Forcing anyone to do anything under a government is about the dumbest thing you can pyschologically do
- Welfare
- Healthcare
- Military
Welfare = charity and I do not want to donate to a charity run by a government where money is going to people who simply made bad decisions.. I'm becoming broke because of others and not my own actions
Heathcare suffers, here in Canada, because there is no open market.. Government health care can be replaced by insurance, you're just paying to a different party but at least you know where your money is going
Military - I dont start wars, why should I fight in them?

The solution to which "government" works is obvious - NONE!

So next time, dont go out and vote. Sometimes, its best that logic dictate life because thats what IS.. IF you vote, it doesnt matter "who" wins, just that "they" win

If you have those in charge of the welfare state who were trainned to run and manage a business and who have no interest in maintaining the institution then you will get a sloppy system. If the canadian system like the NHS in the UK was to be privitised over night I know exactly who would benefit by "selling" their knowledge of managing health care over night and it won't be those who require these services.

At the end of the day this just comes from selfish individuals who have made their money who dont want to pay for those trampled at the bottom. I guess you would rather go back to the pre-welfare state of little kids on the street starving everytime theres a recession or depression or an industry becomes obsolete in the market. These same people will then lecture others as "model citizens" over taking responsibility for their lifes and to get themselves out of the dole etc but then not accepted their own footprints and legacy they create. Social responsibility is a wonderful thing really. Otherwise society just ain't worth it for some and i sympathise with them thats what creates serfs

No, Laz, and you did a great job at taking what I said and assuming my view on it. This is why I need to write a 300,000 word essay on this subject, people always want to assume you're the worst human on earth. My goal is to prove that through the supporting of welfare, you come off as worse:

I'm not against welfare. HOWEVER, you cannot FORCE people to do anything, and that includes giving (go ahead, force someone to give money to a charity). Once government is removed, taxes are reduced to the minimum (minus high court and home defense/police services) which allows people to take home what they earn (99%). Under an open market, that can be considerably more then they do now. As a result, more people will be more inclined to give money to, yup, CHARITY. That word again is "Charity." Charities are much more efficient then welfare and is spent more much efficiently PLUS you know the money went to a good cause. Its designed to help those who seek it and not just given to those who don't want jobs. As well, under an open market, ideas such as "minimum wage" are removed (you can read a book on how minimum wage effects do more harm then good) and jobs open up (oops, Welfare doesnt do anything about opening jobs up, its fuels poor people with enough money to continue being poor while providing no option to get out and get education)

My choice:
- Open market creating full opportunity to old AND new business
- Allow fewer taxes to be taken away which increases the amount of pay each individual takes home
- Provide TRUE equal opportunity for employment. Under an open market, you WILL make a difference.
- ALLOW people the CHOICE (god, I dont know why you want to force me) to donate money. If people truely care, then they will donate out of their own good will without someone telling them what to do. Don't believe me? Ask cancer fund raisers how much they obtained through donations.

Your apparent choice:
- Keep welfare running. It provides enough money to sneak by, which, in reality, does absolutely nothing anyways
- Its YOUR (as in our) job to make sure no one ever makes a mistake. As well, when someone does, your hard earned cash will pay for their troubles no matter how irresponsible they are (this is my weakest argument but one that exist, nonetheless)
- Maintain the current governmental structure that allows the NEED for welfare to exist

Now, I never said I was against donating money, I simply stated that forcing people to do "good things" is a bad thing. Force = bad, you telling me I'm a bad person because I didn't give into force is "bad." Asking = good, telling = bad. Force = bad, providing option for choice = good = good things happen

And thats how simple it is, thats how you fix it, thats how welfare goes from being required to having little need. Consult you local libertarians for more information: www.libertarians.ca

I expect you to be HEAVILY resistant to these ideas, however, they would and "will" work much more effectively then anything we do now (which is basically nothing). you must understand the important of "freedom, responsibility, and individuality" and those are core elements to life. anything that forces another human to do anything is absolutely WRONG no matter what the good intention behind it is, it just doesnt work. Thats why there are people like me who fight to stop governments mooching off of us.

Last edited by Corvus on 25 Oct 2006, 9:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Overly simplistic, man.
I'd bet you that an even majority of those on welfare weren't there because of 'bad decisions'. And more to the point, I sincerely hope you never find yourself in need of assistance, as it might force you to rethink your view and that can be tough.

You dont understand. Your heart is in the right place, super, but you cannot force anyone to do anything.

"The welfare state, supposedly designed to aid the poor, is a growing and parasitic burden on all productive working people, and injures rather than benefits the poor themselves. We propose the elimination of all government involvement in welfare and relief programs. Any aid to the poor should be conducted on a voluntary basis."

www.libertarians.ca

But believe that forcing people to do these things is good

Also believe that its societies responsiblity. You have to fess up to your problems. If you fail, there are systems, charities, and banks that can help you. Dont believe everyone on welfare is fighting for their lives - McDonalds is hiring all the time, everyone like that is, but people don't want that job - research is beyond government slides

EDIT: Ever heard of insurance? Under an open market, you can get insurance to protect against that. Its called being responsible and covering your own ass

All Government is, is one big insurance industry that you can't pick and choose - it forces you into everything

Canada's Government wants me to spend my hard earned money on National Day Care! Come on, I BARELY get by on my own now I have pay for someone elses child going to day care? Where are your minds? Why is it you want to keep me barely above poverty, myself, while keeping others under it? I'd be benefitting society more if I had money.

Seriously, believe everything the government tells you, what "sounds good" rarely is