Left wing...why??

[BWS]

Why is it that almost all of you are left wing on your political stance? Im just curious?
Also, what do you dislike about right wing views?

[karasz]

At 9/13/03 11:27 AM, BWS wrote: Why is it that almost all of you are left wing on your political stance? Im just curious?

well I am leftist on some issues and right-wing on others. Its just usually the topics we hit up on the forum, i end up being on the right wing of things...

Also, what do you dislike about right wing views?

nothing really, I dislike people that are ignorant and racist but you can find that on both sides... it really depends on the issue...

[stasmaster]

I'm not personally left or right wing. I just like to use common sense and speak out against the things that are obscenely wrong.

[Kenney333]

I always try to stay open minded on all issues, and never ristrict myself to any solutions, but i still tend to have "left wing" beliefs.

Tendancies i like about the left wing:
-feeling that were all in the same boat
-feeling that we need to work together
-actions based idealogy
-suport of equality

Tendancies i DONT like about the right wing:
-Idea that one person can be better than another
-idea that just because you got lucky you diserve what you got
-Results based beliefs
-Thrives on competition
-The death Penalty

theres more in both categories, im just being lazy.

[bumcheekcity]

Let me just say 'Left Wing' is merely controlling the economy more. 'Right Wing' is letting it have freedom. It has nothing to do with social issues.

I am left wing because I don't like the way the right wing allow corporationg to rule peoples lives, and to user children in the 3rd world for semi-slave labour.

[dudeitsallama]

I'm not really that left wing. I support the right of responsible people to own handguns. I'm for the death penalty (in certain cases). And I really don't have a big problem with the IDEA of large corporations. The problem is that they're influence tends to extend into political affairs. On the other hand, I'm pro-choice, I'm all for equality, and I think that free healthcare would be great. The way I see it, extreme right wingers are driven by ignorance and extreme left wingers are driven by stupidity. I don't really want to be associated with either group.

I like to think of myself as a slightly leftist moderate, although, as the US has slanted towards the right, I've gone a little more to the left. It's an uphill battle, but I fear that if I turn around I'll trip and plummet to my death.

[bumcheekcity]

Left/Right Wing has nothing to do with anything that isn't economics. You can be quite left wing and homophobic, or racist.

A good way of expressing it is with 2 scales. The standard left/right and a social up/down scale with up being facism and down being anarchism.

http://www.politicalcompass.org explains it well.

[dudeitsallama]

Please stop bringing up the political compass as a definition of the terms right and left. These terms came from the French legislative body during the time of the Revolution. The radicals sat on the left, the conservatives sat on the right, and the moderates sat in the middle. Please don't tell me that the French Revolution only had to do with economics.

[mrpopenfresh]

I tend to lean on the left, but im not pro comunnism because im open minded enough to see that this ideal way to live would never work.

Here's what I think about left and right wing:

Left wing:
.Communism is impossible to achieve
.it turns you into identical drones
.no oppurtunitys
.people can mooch off of it very easily
.no motivation(a doctor gets aid as much as a janitor)
.complete invulnerability to stock markets crashes
.no more social groups
.no economical competition

Right wing
.makes the country rich
.also makes it greedy
.forgets about the average worker
.wealth distributed inequally
.heavily dependent on the eonomy
.also heavily dependent on consuming

And on and on and on. Note that thee list cover all branches of left-right wing.

[AbstractVagabond]

I don't consider myself a left-winger even though the majority of my views currently has been on the left side. I call things as I feel I see them. I also think there are some things left-wingers and right-wingers agree on, just disagree on the reason and how to execute it. Take censorship. Both sides are for censorship. Left wingers censor to protect the children and right wingers censor in the name of God.

[Slizor]

Please stop bringing up the political compass as a definition of the terms right and left. These terms came from the French legislative body during the time of the Revolution. The radicals sat on the left, the conservatives sat on the right, and the moderates sat in the middle. Please don't tell me that the French Revolution only had to do with economics.

No, that is where the terms "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" come from, but not the definitions. The current political definitions derive from economics.

BCC: I would like you to explain how you could believe in equality and be homophobic....doesn't seem to work.

I ask the question: Why be right wing?

[dudeitsallama]

At 9/14/03 11:29 AM, Slizor wrote: No, that is where the terms "Left Wing" and "Right Wing" come from, but not the definitions. The current political definitions derive from economics.

"Right
The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing."

"Left
The people and groups who advocate liberal, often radical measures to effect change in the established order, especially in politics, usually to achieve the equality, freedom, and well-being of the common citizens of a state. Also called left wing."
--dictionary.com

I ask the question: Why be right wing?

Why be left wing?

[FUNKbrs]

Schroeder is my God.....

I'm a pretty blatant fascist, but in what I consider to be a good way. I believe that people are happiest when they take care of their own problems, as opposed to having their problems solved for them like retards and invalids. I believe that strength and simplicity are virtues. I also believe that some people are flawed (ex pedophiles) and need to be eliminated in order to benefit the population. I believe that some cultures are flawed, and must be reeducated. I believe a world dictatorship is the best government, because it is simple, efficient, and strong. I believe in a flat tax, and laissez faire. I believe in rewarding efficiency and punishing wastefullness. I'm a pragmatic. I don't believe in sticking to ideals if they aren't utilitarian.

I think you get the point......

[Slizor]

"Right
The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing."

I said Political Definitions, y'know like the ones that are taught in politics lessons, not dictionary definitions.

I ask the question: Why be right wing?

Why be left wing?

Well there are several reasons to be left wing, some find that it embodies a moral superiority, others see it as based on religion. I'm left wing because I'm forward looking (unlike Conservatives who are backwards looking) and I think people have a plastic human nature, oh and I believe that Freedom should be defined by the legal non-intereference and the actual ability to do something.

[Slizor]

I'm a pretty blatant fascist, but in what I consider to be a good way. I believe that people are happiest when they take care of their own problems

So you don't believe in Full Employment policies?

I believe that some cultures are flawed, and must be reeducated.

Which cultures?

I believe a world dictatorship is the best government, because it is simple, efficient, and strong. I believe in a flat tax, and laissez faire.

Ummm, I do believe Fascism is incompatable with laissez faire.

I'm a pragmatic.

Pragmatist.

I don't believe in sticking to ideals if they aren't utilitarian.

Utilitarianism is subject to perception.

[FUNKbrs]

*salutes*
Let the best man win!

At 9/14/03 03:12 PM, Slizor wrote:

I'm a pretty blatant fascist, but in what I consider to be a good way. I believe that people are happiest when they take care of their own problems

So you don't believe in Full Employment policies?

How can a man solve his own problems without working? We may disagree on what comprises "employment", but everyone should be doing something productive for themselves. If everyone works, then everyone benefits from the work being done. There's plenty of work for everyone, its just a matter of making that work available.

I believe that some cultures are flawed, and must be reeducated.

Which cultures?

ones that are more interested in taking what others have than making something for themselves. Any culture can be redeemed, but some cultures are flawed. For example, the welfare state.

I believe a world dictatorship is the best government, because it is simple, efficient, and strong. I believe in a flat tax, and laissez faire.

Ummm, I do believe Fascism is incompatable with laissez faire.

hey, believe whatever you want. If everyone were properly educated, then there would be no need for the state to control trade. If everyone works hard, there will be enough goods and services to go around. Not everyone can be equal, but everyone CAN be content.

I don't believe in sticking to ideals if they aren't utilitarian.

Utilitarianism is subject to perception.

What ISN'T subject to perception? If we all "percieve" ourselves to be happy, who is to say were not all happy? EVERYTHING is in the eye of the beholder. It's more important to FEEL as though all your needs are satisfied than to have some arbitrary list of needs put before you that you should check off. There's nothing wrong with being content with little things. However, there is quite a bit wrong with not being content with big things.

[Slizor]

There's plenty of work for everyone, its just a matter of making that work available.

Ah, but making that work available would be solving other people's problems.

I believe that some cultures are flawed, and must be reeducated.

Which cultures?

ones that are more interested in taking what others have than making something for themselves.

So Western Culture? Gotcha.

For example, the welfare state.

The Welfare State is a culture?

Ummm, I do believe Fascism is incompatable with laissez faire.

hey, believe whatever you want. If everyone were properly educated, then there would be no need for the state to control trade.

How do you figure?

I don't believe in sticking to ideals if they aren't utilitarian.

Utilitarianism is subject to perception.

What ISN'T subject to perception?

Most Ethical systems will claim not to be subjective. But subjective utilitarian ethics, especially as the ethics of a ruler, is pretty much open to the ruler's whims.

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/14/03 05:55 PM, Slizor wrote:

Ah, but making that work available would be solving other people's problems.

Compromise is necessary to maintain a happy society. Isn't that a major Fascist tenet? People need to feel useful to be happy. Unemployed people arent useful. The best case scenario is that the unemployed find jobs on their own, but if this is not possible, then the unemployed should be conscripted to work. In order to insure Full Employment, only the elderly, invalids and children should be allowed to go jobless. Anything less is not allowing society to flourish at its fullest.

So Western Culture? Gotcha.

Oh, no, I am for the establishment of a perfect culture, based on prosperity and hard work. Western culture is just as flawed as any other, and its followers shown a better way.

The Welfare State is a culture?

You mean to deny the denizens of our slums their own culture? Have you not seen ghettos, and the lifestyle that accompanies them? That of drug use, theft, and violence? Are not generations with their own distinct lifestyle a culture? Is that culture not also flawed and must be changed?

hey, believe whatever you want. If everyone were properly educated, then there would be no need for the state to control trade.

How do you figure?

Under the rigorous educational system I support, all children will be taught the moral and financial benefits of largescale creation of goods for the welfare of all. The measure of a man's life is not measured in dollars, and this important lesson is to be taught to even the smallest children. This message of contentment will give the people of my fascist state a measure of happiness despite what they lack, and the drive to find ways to use ALL available labor.

I don't believe in sticking to ideals if they aren't utilitarian.

:: Most Ethical systems will claim not to be subjective. But subjective utilitarian ethics, especially as the ethics of a ruler, is pretty much open to the ruler's whims.

I fail to see this as a bad thing. A ruler should have the freedom to do what is best for his people, even if not all the people are capable of seeing the wisdom of his actions. A dictator who is properly trained through a lifetime of education and philosophical enlightenment for rule will make the best decisions he is capable of. Rule by the fitest is of vital importance, and thus I believe that rulers should be chosen through examination and competition from childhood. Elections have too much room for error. Only the greatest of our scholars should have the right to decide who is to lead us into the future, for who else is wise enough for such a momentus task?

Democracy is inefficient and outdated mode of rule. Only a dictatorship is capable of the efficiency necessary to keep taxes low and reduce the burden of government on the populace.

[n0g0d]

At 9/14/03 02:50 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Schroeder is my God.....

I'm a pretty blatant fascist, but in what I consider to be a good way. I believe that people are happiest when they take care of their own problems, as opposed to having their problems solved for them like retards and invalids. I believe that strength and simplicity are virtues. I also believe that some people are flawed (ex pedophiles) and need to be eliminated in order to benefit the population. I believe that some cultures are flawed, and must be reeducated. I believe a world dictatorship is the best government, because it is simple, efficient, and strong. I believe in a flat tax, and laissez faire. I believe in rewarding efficiency and punishing wastefullness. I'm a pragmatic. I don't believe in sticking to ideals if they aren't utilitarian.

I think you get the point......

you know our United States constitution allows for just that type of society, but without the dictator and oppression. the Libertarian Party www.lp.org wants a society free from the burdon of the lazy welfare culture. they want equal taxation for all citizens so those who are born lucky or are more productive don't get punished. they want a country that doesn't punish people for committing "victimless crimes" drug use, prostitution, sodomy, etc; because these are crimes against a person's beleifs and not against any persons! they want to promote responsibility with gun use rather than gun bans. they want politicians to be held accountable for their actions and they want the feds / state to be held up to the same standards that it holds corporations to (ie: pollution regulation, proper management of money and time). they want a country that encourages freedom of all religions and promotes no single one over all others. they want censorship to be erradicated. they want social security and healthcare to be privatized and controlled by those who depend on them, the citizens. they want schools to be privatized so that government waste does not decay the education of our children and they can be held accountable for their failures. they want america to fight just and honorable wars rather than being the world's police force. they want federal governemnt to stay our of social issues than focus on it's 2 purposes (regulation of trade & the defense of the Union). they want a country that doesn't require it's citizens to pledge alliegence, but rather want a country where it's citizens are proud to be Americans.

...and this is the country i want too...

[Slizor]

Ah, but making that work available would be solving other people's problems.

Compromise is necessary to maintain a happy society. Isn't that a major Fascist tenet?

No, it's not. It's pragmatism, common sense, not a strict adherance to an ideology.

Oh, no, I am for the establishment of a perfect culture, based on prosperity and hard work. Western culture is just as flawed as any other, and its followers shown a better way.

Now how do you decide when you have reached this perfect culture?

The Welfare State is a culture?

You mean to deny the denizens of our slums their own culture?

No, but that's not a Welfare state culture. If anything, it's a lack of welfare state culture. Places with a more substantial welfare state don't have such problems.

Under the rigorous educational system I support

Ah, indoctrination, the very foundations of fascism.

I fail to see this as a bad thing. A ruler should have the freedom to do what is best for his people

So if he can quanitify it as good, then it is good?

A dictator who is properly trained through a lifetime of education and philosophical enlightenment for rule will make the best decisions he is capable of.

Eurgh, Plato. So where is the protection, or safeguards against a ruler with megolomania?

Rule by the fitest is of vital importance

How do you decide who is the fittest (BTW Fittest, as Darwin used it, means "most apt".)

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/15/03 10:13 AM, Slizor wrote:

Compromise is necessary to maintain a happy society. Isn't that a major Fascist tenet?

No, it's not. It's pragmatism, common sense, not a strict adherance to an ideology.

since when was being practical and efficient against the Fascist ideology?

Oh, no, I am for the establishment of a perfect culture, based on prosperity and hard work. Western culture is just as flawed as any other, and its followers shown a better way.

Now how do you decide when you have reached this perfect culture?

Perfect is an abstract, thus it can never truly be reached. However, it is the duty of society to get as close as possible.

You mean to deny the denizens of our slums their own culture?

No, but that's not a Welfare state culture. If anything, it's a lack of welfare state culture. Places with a more substantial welfare state don't have such problems.

All welfare does is devaluate real work. By allowing people to live off the dole, we scream "You don't have to work if you are lazy!" By creating work instead of welfare, we maintain the integrity of our societies moral and generate goods and services that benefit everyone.

Under the rigorous educational system I support

Ah, indoctrination, the very foundations of fascism.

Exactly. I endorse it because it works.

I fail to see this as a bad thing. A ruler should have the freedom to do what is best for his people

So if he can quanitify it as good, then it is good?

A dictator who is properly trained through a lifetime of education and philosophical enlightenment for rule will make the best decisions he is capable of.

Eurgh, Plato. So where is the protection, or safeguards against a ruler with megolomania?

hey, that's what the indoctrination is FOR. I'm a little more hardline than the Nazis. Indoctrinated from birth to be the best.

Rule by the fitest is of vital importance

How do you decide who is the fittest (BTW Fittest, as Darwin used it, means "most apt".)

I thought I stated a standardized test designed by the worlds greatest scholars... oh well.

[Slizor]

Compromise is necessary to maintain a happy society. Isn't that a major Fascist tenet?

No, it's not. It's pragmatism, common sense, not a strict adherance to an ideology.

since when was being practical and efficient against the Fascist ideology?

It's not against Fascism, it is not compatable with lassiez faire economics, in fact it is the opposite to lassiez faire economics in so much as you are involving yourself with the economy.

Now how do you decide when you have reached this perfect culture?

Perfect is an abstract, thus it can never truly be reached. However, it is the duty of society to get as close as possible.

You didn't answer my question. Is there a definitive absolute "perfect" or is it subjective? If it is subjective then couldn't one leader strive towards one society then the next leader strive for a totally different society?

All welfare does is devaluate real work. By allowing people to live off the dole, we scream "You don't have to work if you are lazy!"

Ah, the "dependency culture". How come countries with nice comfortable safety nets haven't fallen to pieces through sheer idleness?

By creating work instead of welfare, we maintain the integrity of our societies moral

How does this have anything to do with morals?

Ah, indoctrination, the very foundations of fascism.

Exactly. I endorse it because it works.

Indoctrination doesn't work, it just creates people full of dogma. Indoctrination restricts intellectual growth, thus restricts technological growth.

Eurgh, Plato. So where is the protection, or safeguards against a ruler with megolomania?

hey, that's what the indoctrination is FOR. I'm a little more hardline than the Nazis. Indoctrinated from birth to be the best.

And say this indoctrination doesn't work?

How do you decide who is the fittest (BTW Fittest, as Darwin used it, means "most apt".)

I thought I stated a standardized test designed by the worlds greatest scholars... oh well.

Because the world's greatest scholars clearly have a consesus on the issue....

[Nirvana13666]

I consider myself to be rebellious in the sense that I don’t conform to conventionalist ideologies. I tend to sway away from any ideas where one’s mind is in some way controlled. I don’t see the need for any form of government where the people being governed are silenced. I think we should all be leaders because that is the only way the world will be molded to satisfy all of us. We should all have complete control over every aspect of our lives. It is our birth right and no one can tell me otherwise.

[FUNKbrs]

At 9/15/03 02:45 PM, Slizor wrote: It's not against Fascism, it is not compatable with lassiez faire economics, in fact it is the opposite to lassiez faire economics in so much as you are involving yourself with the economy.

So your saying I should be MORE fascist than I already am? I'm always willing to compromise my earlier beliefs for the greater good. I'm not STRICT laissez fair, I just think the US is currently too involved with our trade infrastructure.

You didn't answer my question. Is there a definitive absolute "perfect" or is it subjective? If it is subjective then couldn't one leader strive towards one society then the next leader strive for a totally different society?

ah, but MY leaders rule for a lifetime, thus guaranteeing at least 50 to 60 years of constant progress in one direction. Also, the leader is chosen by the leading scholars, who were the same scholars who train ALL potential leaders from birth. The chances of drastic policy change are rather remote, barring a radical new development in science.

All welfare does is devaluate real work. By allowing people to live off the dole, we scream "You don't have to work if you are lazy!"

Ah, the "dependency culture". How come countries with nice comfortable safety nets haven't fallen to pieces through sheer idleness?

I know my city has.

Indoctrination doesn't work, it just creates people full of dogma. Indoctrination restricts intellectual growth, thus restricts technological growth.

You assume too much about the values that are indoctrinated. Were you not indoctrinated into your beliefs through YOUR education? Education ALWAYS indoctrinates. It's better to realize this and take advantage than claim ignorance.

And say this indoctrination doesn't work?

I doubt there would be much variation. After all, the failures are insane, because the doctrine is TRUE. Never forget the fact that my doctrine is based on truth.

Because the world's greatest scholars clearly have a consesus on the issue....

Some scholars are less great than others. Only the best, my friend, only the best.

[JoS]

I think we should be free from social injustices and be able to evolve constantly as a society, which is more left wing than the conservative and traditional side of the right.

[The-Darklands]

Ironic that left wing and right wing was started during the french revolution. They mean they same thing then as they do now. Right = aristocracy, im better than you ideology Left = democracy, more concerned with equality. Both will fight a war both like capitalism except the right enjoys it to be more unrestricted. Its not that difficult. Example Bush went to yale and probably has roots of the ffv. Clinton is more of a nobody. This isn't foolproof but its a good example. Oh and people more to the left here because its violent flash movies not church. If you don't agree with me you're an idiot.

[The-Darklands]

funkbrs just to let you know lazaifare and fascism are incompatible. You're not a fascist. In fascism government officials dictate the economy but leave all the profits to the capitailist. And culture doesn't mean government policies. Welfare State depends on the policy not the culture. Work for all is "fascist" and good. Elimination of invalids is screwed up. In my professional opinion you're not a fascist just real slow.

[Slizor]

So your saying I should be MORE fascist than I already am? I'm always willing to compromise my earlier beliefs for the greater good. I'm not STRICT laissez fair, I just think the US is currently too involved with our trade infrastructure.

As the poster above said, Fascism involves the Government to involve itself in the economy loads....in fact they pretty much become the same thing.

ah, but MY leaders rule for a lifetime, thus guaranteeing at least 50 to 60 years of constant progress in one direction. Also, the leader is chosen by the leading scholars, who were the same scholars who train ALL potential leaders from birth.

The same scholars!? They live longer than the leader? It's rather strange how you don't question the corruptability of these scholars.

The chances of drastic policy change are rather remote

Because a state which always stays the same isn't stagnation at all!

All welfare does is devaluate real work. By allowing people to live off the dole, we scream "You don't have to work if you are lazy!"

Ah, the "dependency culture". How come countries with nice comfortable safety nets haven't fallen to pieces through sheer idleness?

I know my city has.

I say again "nice comfortable safety nets". You blame crime, etc on the welfare state and thus take crime as a sign of a welfare state. I take crime, etc of a sign of a lack of welfare state. Poverty produces the "ghetto culture" (along with racial discriination.)

Indoctrination doesn't work, it just creates people full of dogma. Indoctrination restricts intellectual growth, thus restricts technological growth.

You assume too much about the values that are indoctrinated. Were you not indoctrinated into your beliefs through YOUR education?

No, I developed my beliefs independent of my education, this can clearly be shown by the fact that people who have had pretty much the same education as me have different beliefs.

I doubt there would be much variation. After all, the failures are insane, because the doctrine is TRUE. Never forget the fact that my doctrine is based on truth.

Wait, I thought you said that truth was subjective, thus truth has little objective meaning as it is different for all people.

Because the world's greatest scholars clearly have a consesus on the issue....

Some scholars are less great than others. Only the best, my friend, only the best.

And they will have a consensus why?

[karasz]

At 9/17/03 01:37 AM, miket311 wrote: Example Bush went to yale and probably has roots of the ffv. Clinton is more of a nobody.

except a rhode scholar thats all...

This isn't foolproof but its a good example. Oh and people more to the left here because its violent flash movies not church. If you don't agree with me you're an idiot.

ever think that its cuz people have decided to be more left because they agree with ideology? no wait of course not... people making their own decisions goes against exactly what you believe...

[Slizor]

Ironic that left wing and right wing was started during the french revolution. They mean they same thing then as they do now.

No they do not. The left right scale was invented way after the French Revolution, it's that the terms originate there.

Both will fight a war

No, part of Leftist is international equality, thus they are internationalists and will not fight wars.

both like capitalism except the right enjoys it to be more unrestricted.

Oh, I always got the impression that Socialists advocated Socialism......which is not Capitalism.

Oh and people more to the left here because its violent flash movies not church.

You assume that the Right is the only side to do with God? The left has many prominent organisations which are religious. This is because the left normally advocates a more moral economy and thus society.