PDA

View Full Version : Define the parameters of left and right



iustitia
10-03-2014, 01:59 PM
I've always maintained here that the left-right paradigm are irrational and historically make no sense. Even moreso in the American political tradition.

That said, please give your specifications of what "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean. If you're going to group fascists and anarcho-capitalists together, explain that. If you're going to group marxists and classical liberals together, please explain that.

Green Arrow
10-03-2014, 02:09 PM
Left and right have traditionally applied to economics. It's really only in the U.S. that "left" means "Democrats" and "right" means "Republicans."

A leftist would thus be someone who believes in leftist economics, such as socialism, communism, syndicalism, etc. A rightist would believe in rightist economics like capitalism, corporatism, etc.

Mister D
10-03-2014, 02:12 PM
I've always maintained here that the left-right paradigm are irrational and historically make no sense. Even moreso in the American political tradition.

That said, please give your specifications of what "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean. If you're going to group fascists and anarcho-capitalists together, explain that. If you're going to group marxists and classical liberals together, please explain that.

It makes zero sense in the American tradition. "American right" and "American conservative" are arguably oxymorons.

KC
10-03-2014, 02:12 PM
Greenie more or less nailed it, but I would add that left and right are always relative terms, define a particular cultural divide rather than a specific ideology.

Mister D
10-03-2014, 02:13 PM
Greenie more or less nailed it, but I would add that left and right are always relative terms, define a particular cultural divide rather than a specific ideology.

True. They are contextual in one sense. The CCCP was "conservative" by the 1970s.

Chris
10-03-2014, 02:14 PM
One who advocates free-market capitalism could be left or right depending largely on whether he accepts the notion of private property.

Left and right politically have little meaning, I prefer looking at politics along a spectrum from authoritarian to libertarian/voluntary.

Mister D
10-03-2014, 02:15 PM
Anyway, the left and right aren't offering substantially different ways of life or visions of society. That's ultimately why the terms have become obsolete.

hanger4
10-03-2014, 02:18 PM
IMO and put simply the left wants to give a man a fish to feed him fpr the day and the left wants to teach the man to fish so he can take care of himself.

Green Arrow
10-03-2014, 02:21 PM
IMO and put simply the left wants to give a man a fish to feed him fpr the day and the left wants to teach the man to fish so he can take care of himself.

The left seems pretty logical, then.

Chris
10-03-2014, 02:22 PM
IMO and put simply the left wants to give a man a fish to feed him fpr the day and the left wants to teach the man to fish so he can take care of himself.

Which is, basically, economics.

Mister D
10-03-2014, 02:25 PM
Which is, basically, economics.

That's more or less what I was getting at.

Bob
10-03-2014, 02:27 PM
Left and right have traditionally applied to economics. It's really only in the U.S. that "left" means "Democrats" and "right" means "Republicans."

A leftist would thus be someone who believes in leftist economics, such as socialism, communism, syndicalism, etc. A rightist would believe in rightist economics like capitalism, corporatism, etc.

That is only partly correct.

The term comes from France. France had a king. The side on the left favored other than the king. Those on the right favored the King. When the king was deposed, it carried over that those on the right favor Government over people and those on the left claim to favor the people more than the Government.

Democrats constantly bray they favor the little guy, meaning the public at large.

This however is mouth perfume and not true. Favoring the poor is not favoring the general public since the general public is not poor.

As to economics, how the fuck can you favor the poor? Do you really want to encourage poverty?

When those of little to no ambition are able to be paid by the Feds for merely agreeing to be non productive, it sends a message.

The Democrats do not favor the so called middle class. That is that mouth perfume. Democrats despise the rich yet themselves will yank out your teeth and blind you just to get your money.

Republicans are more laid back. Actually if any group is favored by them, it is the middle class. We see when some shit all over the rich, it raises our costs. If it only cost the rich more, so what? But it hits our pockets.

When I see Democrats stop kicking bums to the gutter and handing them cash, then I might believe they are for the poor. But they want the poor helped, not with their own cash, they want the Feds to rip someone else off and then hand it to the poor. To hell with that. That is just what Thief's practice.

hanger4
10-03-2014, 02:27 PM
The left seems pretty logical, then.

LOL yup with my second *left* . Should have been *right*. Sorry for the confusion. :)

Chris
10-03-2014, 02:28 PM
IMO and put simply the left wants to give a man a fish to feed him fpr the day and the left wants to teach the man to fish so he can take care of himself.


The left seems pretty logical, then.


If wanting your cake and eating it too is logical. :grin:

Chris
10-03-2014, 02:29 PM
IMO and put simply the left wants to give a man a fish to feed him fpr the day and the left wants to teach the man to fish so he can take care of himself.


LOL yup with my second *left* . Should have been *right*. Sorry for the confusion. :)


I read it right. :laugh:

Bob
10-03-2014, 02:30 PM
IMO and put simply the left wants to give a man a fish to feed him fpr the day and the left wants to teach the man to fish so he can take care of himself.

I hope you mean they want to hand him the fish for the day but republicans want him well schooled to understand how to fish and where.

Republican are generous with our money, Democrat are also generous with our money. But when it comes to their money, Democrats are selfish to the bone.

hanger4
10-03-2014, 02:33 PM
If wanting your cake and eating it too is logical. :grin:

Actualy thats *eat your cake and have it too* but I knew what ya meant.

hanger4
10-03-2014, 02:39 PM
I hope you mean they want to hand him the fish for the day but republicans want him well schooled to understand how to fish and where.

Republican are generous with our money, Democrat are also generous with our money. But when it comes to their money, Democrats are selfish to the bone.

Yes, don't know why I typed left twice. OMG I could be BIPOLITICAL.

GrassrootsConservative
10-03-2014, 02:50 PM
Most people would say you cannot define all of politics in terms of "left and right," and that you need another axis or maybe even two other axii:
Social Freedom, Economic Freedom, and Personal Freedom.

The further left you go on any axis the less freedom you have. Democrats are to the left in America because they award people no freedoms whatsoever. The current problem people see with this is that the "Right" (Republicans) are becoming more and more establishment Liberal by the day. This is evident when Republicans commit atrocities like the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and "Romneycare," putting different private sector things into the hands of an incompetent Liberal government and raising taxes and debt.

This is when, and it's the whole reason for my existence on this forum, true Conservatism needs to be valued again, people need their freedoms back from the Liberal loons, and it needs to happen ASAP before people start dying from Obamacare and a neverending tide of illegal border-hoppers that desire to live here and reap the benefits without having to deal with any of the responsibilities.

Bob
10-03-2014, 03:04 PM
The current problem people see with this is that the "Right" (Republicans) are becoming more and more establishment Liberal by the day. This is evident when Republicans commit atrocities like the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and "Romneycare," putting different private sector things into the hands of an incompetent Liberal government and raising taxes and debt..

Note to forum. I deleted every other statement made by this member because I agreed with his other main points.

This i do not in any way agree with.

Because it is the public that votes, the candidates of all parties do their best to curry favor with voters.

Now, the public ends up being the final judge.

Given those problems, how can you win when the public will not vote for you if you tell them you need to raise their taxes to collect more cash to feed the Government?

Bush 43 was smart and knew he had to promise to hurt all classes LESS than before. His cuts were doled out to all classes. The poor got a good deal when they got excused from Federal income taxes. They no longer have skin in the game.

Romney correctly pointed out that 47 percent of the public thinks they get stuff from Democrats, so they will die and burn before voting for republicans. None of those would vote for any 3rd party person either. What can any 3rd party offer the 47 percent?

Think that over, when you pay zero to very little Federal income taxes, what is your better deal?

If the repupublicans get honest and tell you they will raise your taxes, there the Democrats go with a landslide victory.

Folks, put yourself in the shoes of a person trying to curry favor with more than half the voters?

Come on, put some thinking effort into this.

Ask if you will vote for a person who will raise your taxes?

Most of use never would.

Huckabee did an experiment in Arkansas to test the theory people will pay more for Government.

He taxed them a rate and told them they were free to pay his state more than the rate. He set up a system allowing the public to pay more to the State.

It was a failure. People proved by not paying they did not want to pay more for state government.

GrassrootsConservative
10-03-2014, 03:12 PM
Nobody should ever vote for a person who would raise their taxes (IOW, steal their money, because that's what taxes fucking are) over a person who wouldn't raise their taxes.


Given those problems, how can you win when the public will not vote for you if you tell them you need to raise their taxes to collect more cash to feed the Government?

You're thinking like a Liberal. Politics shouldn't be about winning. Politics should be about doing what's best for the citizens.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 05:50 PM
One who advocates free-market capitalism could be left or right depending largely on whether he accepts the notion of private property.
Free-market capitalism is always right.


Left and right politically have little meaning, I prefer looking at politics along a spectrum from authoritarian to libertarian/voluntary.
It has meaning. I would not associate with anyone with liberal ideology ;)

kilgram
10-03-2014, 07:05 PM
Nobody should ever vote for a person who would raise their taxes (IOW, steal their money, because that's what taxes fucking are) over a person who wouldn't raise their taxes.



You're thinking like a Liberal. Politics shouldn't be about winning. Politics should be about doing what's best for the citizens.
Politics always piss a side. You must choose what side you piss.

If you raise taxes to wealthy, you help the poors but you piss off the wealthy. Every decission has it positive side and it counter part with the negative effects.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 07:07 PM
Most people would say you cannot define all of politics in terms of "left and right," and that you need another axis or maybe even two other axii:
Social Freedom, Economic Freedom, and Personal Freedom.

The further left you go on any axis the less freedom you have. Democrats are to the left in America because they award people no freedoms whatsoever. The current problem people see with this is that the "Right" (Republicans) are becoming more and more establishment Liberal by the day. This is evident when Republicans commit atrocities like the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and "Romneycare," putting different private sector things into the hands of an incompetent Liberal government and raising taxes and debt.

This is when, and it's the whole reason for my existence on this forum, true Conservatism needs to be valued again, people need their freedoms back from the Liberal loons, and it needs to happen ASAP before people start dying from Obamacare and a neverending tide of illegal border-hoppers that desire to live here and reap the benefits without having to deal with any of the responsibilities.
Fucking false.

Seriously. How can you be so closed minded. And if we analyze the shitty parties of USA. Both parties are expert cutting freedoms. And I would say that the conservative are better in that area. But, both are full shit.

The left is not anti-freedom. I remember that governments of Reagan or Thatcher that were portrayed as examples of liberty, "economic liberty" were social freedom killers and they restricted a lot of freedom of people. But yeah, obviously only the left is freedom-killer.

And if we go to the self-called "libertarians" like the bastard of Hayek or Friedman supporting liberators like Pinochet.

donttread
10-03-2014, 07:10 PM
I've always maintained here that the left-right paradigm are irrational and historically make no sense. Even moreso in the American political tradition.

That said, please give your specifications of what "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean. If you're going to group fascists and anarcho-capitalists together, explain that. If you're going to group marxists and classical liberals together, please explain that.

First of all great post. I think the terms are over used . I for example am a fiscal conservative/ social liberal but even that loses meaning.

Chris
10-03-2014, 07:20 PM
Free-market capitalism is always right.


It has meaning. I would not associate with anyone with liberal ideology ;)


Sorry, but it's not. Chartier is a left-wing market capitalist.

As for left and right, the question was about here, in the US. I suppose the terms still have some archaic meaning in Europe.

Chris
10-03-2014, 07:22 PM
Fucking false.

Seriously. How can you be so closed minded. And if we analyze the shitty parties of USA. Both parties are expert cutting freedoms. And I would say that the conservative are better in that area. But, both are full shit.

The left is not anti-freedom. I remember that governments of Reagan or Thatcher that were portrayed as examples of liberty, "economic liberty" were social freedom killers and they restricted a lot of freedom of people. But yeah, obviously only the left is freedom-killer.

And if we go to the self-called "libertarians" like the bastard of Hayek or Friedman supporting liberators like Pinochet.


Hayek or Friedman (a) were not libertarians and (b) did not support liberators like Pinochet. We discussed this several times now and your lies have been exposed as misreadings out of context, character assassinations typical of liberals like you.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 07:26 PM
Hayek or Friedman (a) were not libertarians and (b) did not support liberators like Pinochet. We discussed this several times now and your lies have been exposed as misreadings out of context, character assassinations typical of liberals like you.
When did someone expose any lie from me about those bastards?

I've never lied about them. They supported Pinochet, Thatcher, Reagan and all those right-idols.

Friedman and his Chicago boys worked actively in the period of freedom and liberty of Pinochet.

Say that left is authoritarian is a fucking lie. Like saying that all the right tends to systems like Pinochet period of freedom is also a fucking lie or at least an inexactitude. However here I believe I am a little hypocrite.

Hayek is the founder of the Austrian School. Economic theory that the Libertarianism drinks a lot. Well they basically use the theories of that school. So we can conclude that they are libertarians. Or in European sense, liberal.

Peter1469
10-03-2014, 07:28 PM
First of all great post. I think the terms are over used . I for example am a fiscal conservative/ social liberal but even that loses meaning.

That is why we keep social issues on one axis and liberty issues on a separate axis. The charts that Chris post are much more accurate, they just don't lend themselves to shallow conversations about political ideology.

Peter1469
10-03-2014, 07:29 PM
Sorry, but it's not. Chartier is a left-wing market capitalist.

As for left and right, the question was about here, in the US. I suppose the terms still have some archaic meaning in Europe.

Right. Their definitions are rooted in the Enlightenment.

Chris
10-03-2014, 07:34 PM
Here's one from Jonathan Haidt: The Happiness Hypothesis, a Critique (http://www.askwhy.co.uk/truth/326The_Happiness_Hypothesis.php):

http://i.snag.gy/pwDWn.jpg

His The Righteous Mind looks at politics in terms of what people value.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 07:34 PM
Sorry, but it's not. Chartier is a left-wing market capitalist.

As for left and right, the question was about here, in the US. I suppose the terms still have some archaic meaning in Europe.
I don't know who is Chartier.

And can you explain me how can you be left-wing and market capitalist?

The Xl
10-03-2014, 07:37 PM
Left and right mean nothing in American politics.

Chris
10-03-2014, 07:39 PM
I don't know who is Chartier.

And can you explain me how can you be left-wing and market capitalist?

I'll let Chartier explain. He's left libertarian. Don't let the title fool you, as he says in the opening, "If by Capitalism you just mean absolutely free markets, we have no problem with that." He then goes on to criticize crony capitalism, the collusion of government and business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdrBeBwHenk

Peter1469
10-03-2014, 07:42 PM
Left and right mean nothing in American politics.
Of course it does. It is just different.

The Xl
10-03-2014, 07:43 PM
Of course it does. It is just different.

The leftist politicians want corporatism, interventionism, authoritarianism, bailouts, etc, and the conservative politicians want the exact same.

The only differences lie in the smaller groups not bought off, like the libertarian party, green party, constitutional party, etc, but their is no difference between the mainstream leftist group and mainstream cons

Safety
10-03-2014, 07:48 PM
I've always maintained here that the left-right paradigm are irrational and historically make no sense. Even moreso in the American political tradition.

That said, please give your specifications of what "left-wing" and "right-wing" mean. If you're going to group fascists and anarcho-capitalists together, explain that. If you're going to group marxists and classical liberals together, please explain that.


I think for the most part, Americans are lazy when it comes to politics. We find it's much easier to generalize and group than it is to actually concern ourselves how people vote. Someone could be pretty conservative in their stance, but they may not like everything republicans do, but when they speak about it, they get called a lefty. The same phenomenon happens on the left, you don't like something Obama does, you get labeled a righty.

Peter1469
10-03-2014, 07:50 PM
The leftist politicians want corporatism, interventionism, authoritarianism, bailouts, etc, and the conservative politicians want the exact same.

The only differences lie in the smaller groups not bought off, like the libertarian party, green party, constitutional party, etc, but their is no difference between the mainstream leftist group and mainstream cons


Yes, I realize that.

Peter1469
10-03-2014, 07:51 PM
Most people chalk that up to Americans being dumb. Another theory is that we have it so well we don't feel the need to get deep into politics. Bread and circuses and all that.


I think for the most part, Americans are lazy when it comes to politics. We find it's much easier to generalize and group than it is to actually concern ourselves how people vote. Someone could be pretty conservative in their stance, but they may not like everything republicans do, when the speak about it, they get called a lefty. The same phenomenon happens on the left, you don't like something Obama does, you get labeled a righty.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 07:53 PM
I'll let Chartier explain. He's left libertarian. Don't let the title fool you, as he says in the opening, "If by Capitalism you just mean absolutely free markets, we have no problem with that." He then goes on to criticize crony capitalism, the collusion of government and business.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdrBeBwHenk
I don't see differences of his arguments from yours... I don't see any leftist idea.

I've seen an argument of inequality involving the state... but that argument is typical in liberals (I am using this term to include all the liberal ideologies, Libertarian related).

Chris
10-03-2014, 07:55 PM
The leftist politicians want corporatism, interventionism, authoritarianism, bailouts, etc, and the conservative politicians want the exact same.

The only differences lie in the smaller groups not bought off, like the libertarian party, green party, constitutional party, etc, but their is no difference between the mainstream leftist group and mainstream cons


Well, keep in mind it's a spectrum, one is more or less authoritarian, more or less libertarian--not every lefty is a Stalin and every righty a Hitler! :shocked:

To me it's not where you stand but what direction you're headed in by what you advocate. You either want more centralized authority or more distributed liberty.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 07:57 PM
The leftist politicians want corporatism, interventionism, authoritarianism, bailouts, etc, and the conservative politicians want the exact same.

The only differences lie in the smaller groups not bought off, like the libertarian party, green party, constitutional party, etc, but their is no difference between the mainstream leftist group and mainstream cons
Well, that is true in every country.

In Spain, the mainstream parties are exactly the same as in USA. But obviously as I told, they are in the right-authoritarian quarter. Just one is a little less rightist/authoritarian than the other. But differences are minimium. That is the typical consequence of the turnism an bipartisanship.

- Turnism: Is a term used for a period of XIX century politics of Spain where there was only two parties: Conservative/Liberal. And I believe it defines very well the American politics.

Chris
10-03-2014, 07:59 PM
I don't see differences of his arguments from yours... I don't see any leftist idea.

I've seen an argument of inequality involving the state... but that argument is typical in liberals (I am using this term to include all the liberal ideologies, Libertarian related).


At the level he's talking, there's really not much difference.

He would probably dislike Walmart and like CostCo with its Conscious Capitalism.


I'm all for equality before the law, just not equality by law. IOW, the state, if there must be one, must treat all people, from ruler to ruled, equally, all must follow the same law, but the state cannot by law make people equal by favoring and giving to some and disfavoring and taking from others.

The Xl
10-03-2014, 08:01 PM
Well, that is true in every country.

In Spain, the mainstream parties are exactly the same as in USA. But obviously as I told, they are in the right-authoritarian quarter. Just one is a little less rightist/authoritarian than the other. But differences are minimium. That is the typical consequence of the turnism an bipartisanship.

- Turnism: Is a term used for a period of XIX century politics of Spain where there was only two parties: Conservative/Liberal. And I believe it defines very well the American politics.

Seems like it's that way in most countries, unfortunately.

The Xl
10-03-2014, 08:01 PM
Well, keep in mind it's a spectrum, one is more or less authoritarian, more or less libertarian--not every lefty is a Stalin and every righty a Hitler! :shocked:

To me it's not where you stand but what direction you're headed in by what you advocate. You either want more centralized authority or more distributed liberty.

True. The issue in the US is, most politicians here function in the same manner. The rhetoric can be different, much different even, but the actions are the same. See a Reagan vs an Obama for instance. Different rhetoric, different bases, similar policy.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 08:07 PM
At the level he's talking, there's really not much difference.

He would probably dislike Walmart and like CostCo with its Conscious Capitalism.


I'm all for equality before the law, just not equality by law. IOW, the state, if there must be one, must treat all people, from ruler to ruled, equally, all must follow the same law, but the state cannot by law make people equal by favoring and giving to some and disfavoring and taking from others.
The problem is that when you have strong inequality. You must fight it in some way. Actively. Not passively.

If you have different groups... but all groups have the same initial conditions there is no problem. When you have groups with different conditions, one better than other, then you have a problem. And more before the law.

For example, let's take law.

Why does usually in USA poor groups get worse sentences than rich groups? Because poors cannot get the same lawyers as a rich. The rich can get the best lawyers, use the law in better ways to his benefit. You created a privilege.

Capitalism creates privileged and non-privileged classes. In capitalism we have to stop to talk about rights and talk about privileges.

kilgram
10-03-2014, 08:10 PM
Seems like it's that way in most countries, unfortunately.
Yeap.

It can be relatively stopped with other parties. But if we study the radical left of today with the one of 20 years ago you will see tht is much more conservative.

For example, maybe in Spain, it relatively can change with "Podemos". Podemos has many good ideas, and let's see what happens if he gets to power. This party can be a truely leftist party, a socialdemocrat. Refusing to bail out corporations... And focusing in people. As you can see, I am very pessimist, even if they look pretty good and they have many "libertarian" roots like bottom-top instead top-bottom as almost every party do.

Chris
10-03-2014, 09:07 PM
True. The issue in the US is, most politicians here function in the same manner. The rhetoric can be different, much different even, but the actions are the same. See a Reagan vs an Obama for instance. Different rhetoric, different bases, similar policy.

Maybe it's the nature of the beast, government.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ~George Washington

Chris
10-03-2014, 09:09 PM
The problem is that when you have strong inequality. You must fight it in some way. Actively. Not passively.

If you have different groups... but all groups have the same initial conditions there is no problem. When you have groups with different conditions, one better than other, then you have a problem. And more before the law.

For example, let's take law.

Why does usually in USA poor groups get worse sentences than rich groups? Because poors cannot get the same lawyers as a rich. The rich can get the best lawyers, use the law in better ways to his benefit. You created a privilege.

Capitalism creates privileged and non-privileged classes. In capitalism we have to stop to talk about rights and talk about privileges.


Capitalism does nothing, it is an emergent social order arise from people trading.

It is the state that creates privilege.

donttread
10-03-2014, 10:26 PM
The leftist politicians want corporatism, interventionism, authoritarianism, bailouts, etc, and the conservative politicians want the exact same.

The only differences lie in the smaller groups not bought off, like the libertarian party, green party, constitutional party, etc, but their is no difference between the mainstream leftist group and mainstream cons


Very well put

kilgram
10-04-2014, 04:58 AM
Capitalism does nothing, it is an emergent social order arise from people trading.

It is the state that creates privilege.
Capitalism creates privileges. That economic system is based on that.

Government obviously also creates them, but the economic system helps.

Chris
10-04-2014, 07:06 AM
Capitalism creates privileges. That economic system is based on that.

Government obviously also creates them, but the economic system helps.


Well I guess if you say capitalism creates privilege then it must be so! LOL

Ransom
10-04-2014, 07:10 AM
Capitalism does nothing, it is an emergent social order arise from people trading.

It is the state that creates privilege.

You would have made a great King George in your school Revolutionary War play. Wow. Few comments define quite like this one.

Chris
10-04-2014, 07:12 AM
You would have made a great King George in your school Revolutionary War play. Wow. Few comments define quite like this one.

Try to articulate what you're saying. I mean, we're talking economics, not Revolutionary War.

Ransom
10-04-2014, 07:29 AM
Try to articulate what you're saying. I mean, we're talking economics, not Revolutionary War.
Misread Chris, taken out of context.

Chris
10-04-2014, 09:02 AM
Capitalism creates privileges. That economic system is based on that.

Government obviously also creates them, but the economic system helps.


Ayn Rand with a simple explanation of the source of privilege:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_PQlX9NDL0

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 09:08 AM
Oh Rand, the wealthy woman who took Medicaid from the state while preaching independence...

Chris
10-04-2014, 09:11 AM
Oh Rand, the wealthy woman who took Medicaid from the state while preaching independence...

And common "attack the messenger" sense has spoken.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 09:35 AM
And common "attack the messenger" sense has spoken.

When the messenger is a hypocrite like her...I have a hard time taking her seriously.

I do know you love your little videos...

Chris
10-04-2014, 09:46 AM
When the messenger is a hypocrite like her...I have a hard time taking her seriously.

I do know you love your little videos...


False, common, but go ahead and pretend logical fallacies such as your ad homs are valid arguments.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 09:52 AM
False, common, but go ahead and pretend logical fallacies such as your ad homs are valid arguments.

...and you don't see the hypocrisy of attacking me in an ad hom fashion? You don't like my comments? Move on or be a hypocrite.

I stand by what I said. You continue to post other people's philosophies that tend to be hyperbolic and hyper partisan because they fit your world view. That's fine. But I'll continue to point out the flaws in their characters and their hypocrisy and lies. Maybe you should be less reliant on others and post your own views. If you have them.

Chris
10-04-2014, 10:03 AM
...and you don't see the hypocrisy of attacking me in an ad hom fashion? You don't like my comments? Move on or be a hypocrite.

I stand by what I said. You continue to post other people's philosophies that tend to be hyperbolic and hyper partisan because they fit your world view. That's fine. But I'll continue to point out the flaws in their characters and their hypocrisy and lies. Maybe you should be less reliant on others and post your own views. If you have them.


I am not attacking you, common, I'm attacking your false argument.

But you, sir, are attacking me.

You have demonstrated no flaw in anyone's character or argument.

I don't rely on Rand, I posted her argument, for which you apparently have no counterargument, just ad hom. Dissembling aimed at distracting from the topic.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 10:07 AM
I am not attacking you, common, I'm attacking your false argument.

But you, sir, are attacking me.

You have demonstrated no flaw in anyone's character or argument.

I don't rely on Rand, I posted her argument, for which you apparently have no counterargument, just ad hom. Dissembling aimed at distracting from the topic.

Did I attack you? I attacked your methods and maybe a little dig...but come on. Nor am I "attacking" Rand. I just have a hard time taking her seriously since she was a hypocrite.

I made my comment...it was your choice to pursue it.

Chris
10-04-2014, 10:11 AM
Did I attack you? I attacked your methods and maybe a little dig...but come on. Nor am I "attacking" Rand. I just have a hard time taking her seriously since she was a hypocrite.

I made my comment...it was your choice to pursue it.


No, you attacked and continue to attack the messenger, Rand, rather than addressing her message.

Calling me a hypocrite is attacking the messenger again rather than addressing my argument.

Defend you fallacies all you like but fallacies don't lead to truth.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 10:20 AM
No, you attacked and continue to attack the messenger, Rand, rather than addressing her message.

Calling me a hypocrite is attacking the messenger again rather than addressing my argument.

Defend you fallacies all you like but fallacies don't lead to truth.

Her message is one of hypocrisy...but specific to the video, her premise is flawed. She makes a false claim that a monopoly only exists because of govt intervention. This is where the Rand ideologues leave reality. Monopolies existed before govt intervention. Her and the Paul's live in a fantasy world where the invisible hand is all powerful. Reality is far more complex than their simplistic philosophy. It's just unrealistic.

Chris
10-04-2014, 10:20 AM
Ayn Rand with a simple explanation of the source of privilege:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_PQlX9NDL0


Stepping around common's fallacious distraction, returning to kilgram's concern about privilege, Rand's argument is that privilege, monopoly privilege, only comes about through government with it's restrictions on competition. The only power actors in the free market has is to produce things of value.

Chris
10-04-2014, 10:23 AM
Her message is one of hypocrisy...but specific to the video, her premise is flawed. She makes a false claim that a monopoly only exists because of govt intervention. This is where the Rand ideologues leave reality. Monopolies existed before govt intervention. Her and the Paul's live in a fantasy world where the invisible hand is all powerful. Reality is far more complex than their simplistic philosophy. It's just unrealistic.

If we eliminate all your hyperbolic ad hom, all you're saying is you think she's wrong. But she is historically accurate. Unless you've got some facts to counter that, which you're not presenting. And we're not here discussing natural monopolies.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 10:34 AM
If we eliminate all your hyperbolic ad hom, all you're saying is you think she's wrong. But she is historically accurate. Unless you've got some facts to counter that, which you're not presenting. And we're not here discussing natural monopolies.

She's not historically accurate at all. Monopolies of the early 20th century existed before govt intervention and were only curtailed by govt intervention. The Sherman anti trust act broke up monopolies. What Rand and her proponents fail to recognize are the self perpetuating tactics of monopolies. Price fixing and sheer size prevented real competition that the idealists thought would happen without intervention. That's because the invisible hand is a naive theory that doesn't take cheating, corruption and reality into account.

Chris
10-04-2014, 10:42 AM
She's not historically accurate at all. Monopolies of the early 20th century existed before govt intervention and were only curtailed by govt intervention. The Sherman anti trust act broke up monopolies. What Rand and her proponents fail to recognize are the self perpetuating tactics of monopolies. Price fixing and sheer size prevented real competition that the idealists thought would happen without intervention. That's because the invisible hand is a naive theory that doesn't take cheating, corruption and reality into account.


And your facts are what? Well, nonexistent, your argument drifts off into abstractions about idealists, invisible hand (which you do not understand) and other distractions.

Monopolies are created by government. The intent of such laws as the Sherman Act were to prevent monopoly and promote competition for the benefit on consumers. It's application has been the opposite at the beck and call of corporate rent seekers. See Armentano's Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure which documents this history of government created monopoly.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 10:48 AM
And your facts are what? Well, nonexistent, your argument drifts off into abstractions about idealists, invisible hand (which you do not understand) and other distractions.

Monopolies are created by government. The intent of such laws as the Sherman Act were to prevent monopoly and promote competition for the benefit on consumers. It's application has been the opposite at the beck and call of corporate rent seekers. See Armentano's Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure which documents this history of government created monopoly.

Look, I'm not going to write you a novel.

Let's look at one company that was broken up, Standard Oil. How was SO a monopoly that was created by government?
It's a very simple question.

I love your first paragraph, btw...you don't attack at all. LOL...

Chris
10-04-2014, 10:53 AM
Look, I'm not going to write you a novel.

Let's look at one company that was broken up, Standard Oil. How was SO a monopoly that was created by government?
It's a very simple question.

I love your first paragraph, btw...you don't attack at all. LOL...


OK, look at SO. Did SO restrict production and raise prices, the two things monopolies are said to do and laws like the Sherman Act are to prevent? Hint, no, SO increased production and lowered prices. Competition works. But its competitors, unable to compete in the market, competed politically, rent seeking the favor of the courts.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 10:56 AM
OK, look at SO. Did SO restrict production and raise prices, the two things monopolies are said to do and laws like the Sherman Act are to prevent? Hint, no, SO increased production and lowered prices. Competition works. But its competitors, unable to compete in the market, competed politically, rent seeking the favor of the courts.

You didn't answer my question. How did govt create the SO monopoly?

So used its size and clout to push competitors out of the market. Something that contradicts the Rand version and the Smith's hand.

Again, how did govt create the SO monopoly?

Chris
10-04-2014, 11:02 AM
You didn't answer my question. How did govt create the SO monopoly?

So used its size and clout to push competitors out of the market. Something that contradicts the Rand version and the Smith's hand.

Again, how did govt create the SO monopoly?

SO wasn't a monopoly. It didn't engage in predatory practices. As I said, it increased production and lowered prices. It was also highly innovative. It pushed competitors out by being competitive. All to the benefit of consumers.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 11:05 AM
SO wasn't a monopoly. It didn't engage in predatory practices. As I said, it increased production and lowered prices. It was also highly innovative. It pushed competitors out by being competitive. All to the benefit of consumers.

LOL...Ok. So the price fixing was just good old fashioned competition.

Chris
10-04-2014, 11:19 AM
LOL...Ok. So the price fixing was just good old fashioned competition.

Governments price fix, common. A business cannot fix price for it's competitors would under-price them out of business. That's what SO was doing, innovating, especially in the vertical market from drilling to refining to delivering to selling oil and gas, increasing production to take advantage of economies of scale, and cutting prices to attract more customers.

Explain again why SO was broken up? Certainly not to increase innovation, expand production and reduce prices.

Common Sense
10-04-2014, 11:23 AM
Governments price fix, common. A business cannot fix price for it's competitors would under-price them out of business. That's what SO was doing, innovating, especially in the vertical market from drilling to refining to delivering to selling oil and gas, increasing production to take advantage of economies of scale, and cutting prices to attract more customers.

Explain again why SO was broken up? Certainly not to increase innovation, expand production and reduce prices.

SO was indeed price fixing. They were able to lower prices to the point that smaller companies could not compete with them. They did so to drive out the competition.

SO was broken up to create a more level playing field.

donttread
10-04-2014, 11:25 AM
Governments price fix, common. A business cannot fix price for it's competitors would under-price them out of business. That's what SO was doing, innovating, especially in the vertical market from drilling to refining to delivering to selling oil and gas, increasing production to take advantage of economies of scale, and cutting prices to attract more customers.

Explain again why SO was broken up? Certainly not to increase innovation, expand production and reduce prices.

Actually the megacorps don't compete within a market, especially over price, they simply manipulate the market altogether . That in a nutshell is why for freedom to live the megacorps must die

Peter1469
10-04-2014, 12:13 PM
Actually the megacorps don't compete within a market, especially over price, they simply manipulate the market altogether . That in a nutshell is why for freedom to live the megacorps must die

Many people miss that aspect of the power of large corporations. To blame it all on government is silly and dangerous.

Chris
10-04-2014, 12:35 PM
SO was indeed price fixing. They were able to lower prices to the point that smaller companies could not compete with them. They did so to drive out the competition.

SO was broken up to create a more level playing field.



They were able to lower prices to the point that smaller companies could not compete with them.

You've just defined competition. SO through innovation and economies of scale outcompeted other companies.

And that's what the Sherman Act was intended to protect. Not create a "level playing field" with higher prices and less competition.

Chris
10-04-2014, 12:37 PM
Actually the megacorps don't compete within a market, especially over price, they simply manipulate the market altogether . That in a nutshell is why for freedom to live the megacorps must die


And the evidence of megacorps, sans government collusion, doing this?

Microsoft, a megacorporation. Through innovation and economies of scales lowered prices, in cases giving apps away, and out competed others.

Chris
10-04-2014, 12:37 PM
Many people miss that aspect of the power of large corporations. To blame it all on government is silly and dangerous.

Examples, please.

The Xl
10-04-2014, 01:11 PM
People are naive if they believe that corporations won't try to impose their will, government of any size, or no government at all.

Government is the hitman, but the intent is solely with the corps.

Chris
10-04-2014, 01:25 PM
People are naive if they believe that corporations won't try to impose their will, government of any size, or no government at all.

Government is the hitman, but the intent is solely with the corps.


Agree, but people are also naive to think corporations can impose anything without the coercive back of government. So, indeed, government is the hitman, and crony collusion the mafiosa. The amazing thing is the government comes around collecting extortion (taxes) for protection from that mafia.

Peter1469
10-04-2014, 01:28 PM
That is silly. Without any government, large corporations would take over.

Chris
10-04-2014, 01:30 PM
That is silly. Without any government, large corporations would take over.

How, peter? Without government Protectionism to protect their monopolies, they would have to face competition in the market and could grow only by producing things of value to consumers. But you go ahead and explain your theory how corporations would take over. No science fiction, please.

Peter1469
10-04-2014, 01:32 PM
How, peter? Without government Protectionism to protect their monopolies, they would have to face competition in the market. But you go ahead and explain your theory how corporations would take over. No science fiction, please.
You drop capitals in names just like a dog tucking its tail to protect his nads.

Stop playing games. No honest person thinks that corporations only have power because of government. It is a tired game and in court I would simple object: asked and answered. (over and over and over again).

The judge would say: sustained.

Chris
10-04-2014, 01:54 PM
You drop capitals in names just like a dog tucking its tail to protect his nads.

Stop playing games. No honest person thinks that corporations only have power because of government. It is a tired game and in court I would simple object: asked and answered. (over and over and over again).

The judge would say: sustained.

Too many logical fallacies in that mess to bother pointing them all out. Let's just point out the well poisoning of "No honest person thinks". Though I think it fair to say no honest person argues with logical fallacies.

The Xl
10-04-2014, 06:22 PM
How, peter? Without government Protectionism to protect their monopolies, they would have to face competition in the market and could grow only by producing things of value to consumers. But you go ahead and explain your theory how corporations would take over. No science fiction, please.

That's true, but much of these companies have already acquired wealth, influence, and resources. And even if their power dropped in a stateless society, they'd still be more powerful and influential than a regular person.

How does someone wronged by a big corporation get reparations with no state? I'm aware that they do not now, but that's because the state is corrupted.

The Xl
10-04-2014, 06:23 PM
Agree, but people are also naive to think corporations can impose anything without the coercive back of government. So, indeed, government is the hitman, and crony collusion the mafiosa. The amazing thing is the government comes around collecting extortion (taxes) for protection from that mafia.

What makes you think they couldn't? You're assuming they'd just lose all of their wealth and resources.

Peter1469
10-04-2014, 06:34 PM
That's true, but much of these companies have already acquired wealth, influence, and resources. And even if their power dropped in a stateless society, they'd still be more powerful and influential than a regular person.

How does someone wronged by a big corporation get reparations with no state? I'm aware that they do not now, but that's because the state is corrupted.

Don't distract the theoretician with facts..... :shocked:

The Xl
10-04-2014, 06:36 PM
Don't distract the theoretician with facts..... :shocked:

That's my issue with anarchy. Way too many what if variables, too much conjecture.

Peter1469
10-04-2014, 06:37 PM
That's my issue with anarchy. Way too many what if variables, too much conjecture.

Me too. It works on a small scale. If there is a big collapse of the economy and society it will be the best thing. But as we rebuild we will return to some type of government. It is human nature. :smiley:

donttread
10-04-2014, 06:40 PM
And the evidence of megacorps, sans government collusion, doing this?

Microsoft, a megacorporation. Through innovation and economies of scales lowered prices, in cases giving apps away, and out competed others.

When you literally control supply you own the market. That is the opposite of Capitalism.

Peter1469
10-04-2014, 07:21 PM
When you literally control supply you own the market. That is the opposite of Capitalism.

True. Adam Smith was not fond of corporations. They distort the free market because of the limited liability. That pushes the invisible hand away.

Chris
10-04-2014, 09:00 PM
That's my issue with anarchy. Way too many what if variables, too much conjecture.

It's the same thing with statism. Do you really think anyone who supports that knows what they're talking about? Do you really think it's a sound argument to say the state exists therefore it should?

Chris
10-04-2014, 09:01 PM
When you literally control supply you own the market. That is the opposite of Capitalism.

No one controls the supply.

Besides, demand drives supply, not the other way around.

Chris
10-04-2014, 09:04 PM
True. Adam Smith was not fond of corporations. They distort the free market because of the limited liability. That pushes the invisible hand away.


Let's be clear here. When Smith discussed corporations he was talking about towns and cities being incorporated. What we call corporations today were in his day called joint stock companies, created by government, protected by government as monopolies--what we today call cronyism. Of course that distorts the market. That's what I've been arguing all along.

Peter1469
10-05-2014, 06:15 AM
The corporations of Smith's day were much more controlled by government than they are now. I posted a long list of restrictions on them.

donttread
10-05-2014, 08:13 AM
Examples, please.

Oil, Auto, Food, Tobacco, Energy and coming soon water are all controlled by oligopolistic megacorps who own governments and markets. For God's sake Monsanto writes legislation !

Chris
10-05-2014, 09:43 AM
The corporations of Smith's day were much more controlled by government than they are now. I posted a long list of restrictions on them.

Right, but the point is that's why he was against them, government control and protection against competition.

Chris
10-05-2014, 09:45 AM
Oil, Auto, Food, Tobacco, Energy and coming soon water are all controlled by oligopolistic megacorps who own governments and markets. For God's sake Monsanto writes legislation !

If they have any control it is through government. Monsanto writes legislation. Insurance companies participated in writing the ACA.

IMPress Polly
10-05-2014, 12:14 PM
@ the OP:

The terms "left wing" and "right wing" date back to the French Revolution, wherein the monarchists were seated on the right side of the National Assembly and the radical democrats on the left side. The range of debate that existed in the Assembly was from feudalist to capitalist. The range of political debate in the modern world is basically from capitalist to communist, by contrast. It didn't take long to start moving toward the modern dynamic from the point of the French Revolution.

The consistency between the terms "left wing" and "right wing" over the ages lies in that the political left has been consistently associated with ideas of increased social and economic equality. The French Revolution's radical democrats, for example, favored abolishing the monarchy, the Church, and indeed the whole of the feudal aristocracy. They supported the redistribution of agricultural land from feudal lords to ordinary peasants on an equitable basis and demanded universal male suffrage, as in without property qualifications being a requirement to vote. Modern-day economic populists, communitarians, socialists, communists, and syndicalists, as well as feminists and minority rights advocates and others, carry on that legacy of fighting for increased political, social, and economic equality, just often in different forms. The political right is the aristocratic logical opposite of all this.

Now, as a minor additional comment here, being a leftist is not always the same thing as being progressive. The progressive advocates a reduction in the overall burden of labor in order to improve the balance of human living standards, which is often achieved technologically, though sometimes also through policy measures. There are leftists out there who, in contrast to this, either subjectively or objectively advocate for a more labor-intensive society and world with lower living standards, just as long as said living standards are distributed equitably. (I refer to phenomena like anti-technology primitivists, whom might be justly termed left wing reactionaries.) This matters to yours truly because Marxism is progressive first and egalitarian second. The Marxist supports egalitarian politics in as far as they're believed to improve the living standards of the working masses who form most of the world's population, NOT where and in as far as they have the opposite affect!

Furthermore, despite how common it is here in this country for people to use the terms "leftist" and "liberal" interchangeably, objectively speaking a leftist and a liberal are also different things even though there is often overlap. A liberal, as the term suggests (as its root is the same as that for the term "liberty") is someone who advocates permissive policies in general. Permissive policies aren't necessarily always egalitarian in nature and thus are not always left wing. For example, tolerating the sex industry would be a liberal position, but, recognizing how doing so can tend to foster sexist attitudes in society and hurt women in particular in other ways, it's hard to argue that tolerating the sexist industry represents an egalitarian (i.e. left wing) political position. Degrees of liberalism progress as follows: In its most moderate form, it's generally just called "liberalism", but in a more extreme, minarchist form, might instead be termed "libertarianism". The logical extreme form of liberalism would be anarchism, and especially anarcho-capitalism.

The conservative is another thing entirely, though conservative politics are usually associated with social authoritarianism. Social conservatives may be hardcore socialists (like ISIS) or solid advocates of right wing capitalism (like this country's Faith and Freedom Coalition). They rarely venture all the way to the economic poles of communism (on the far left) and laissez-faire capitalism (on the far right) though. What unites them is a certain fear of modernity, which often translates into more than just wariness of modern policies and culture, into the area of also including wariness of modern technologies (e.g. John McCain learning to use e-mail only in 2008). It encompasses a fear of the unfamiliar in any area, be it fear of new social positions for men and women, fear of immigrants, or fear of cell phones and the Internet. The term "conservative" means "to preserve". Fascists fall into this category, as do all primitivists either left wing (like the anti-development hippies) or right wing (like the anti-technology Amish). Conservatism is the logical opposite of progressivism, not of leftism as such.

Mister D
10-06-2014, 10:22 AM
The conservative is another thing entirely, though conservative politics are usually associated with social authoritarianism. Social conservatives may be hardcore socialists (like ISIS) or solid advocates of right wing capitalism (like this country's Faith and Freedom Coalition). They rarely venture all the way to the economic poles of communism (on the far left) and laissez-faire capitalism (on the far right) though. What unites them is a certain fear of modernity, which often translates into more than just wariness of modern policies and culture, into the area of also including wariness of modern technologies (e.g. John McCain learning to use e-mail only in 2008). It encompasses a fear of the unfamiliar in any area, be it fear of new social positions for men and women, fear of immigrants, or fear of cell phones and the Internet. The term "conservative" means "to preserve". Fascists fall into this category, as do all primitivists either left wing (like the anti-development hippies) or right wing (like the anti-technology Amish). Conservatism is the logical opposite of progressivism, not of leftism as such.

Polly, with all due respect this doesn't even qualify as a caricature and is based largely on post-war pseudoscience. Anyway, to criticize modernity is not to fear modernity. Moreover, modernity is over.

Chris
10-06-2014, 10:23 AM
Mister D: "modernity is over"? What do you mean?

Mister D
10-06-2014, 10:26 AM
@Mister D (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=4): "modernity is over"? What do you mean?

Modernity refers to a historical period, its attitudes, and its myths. Wikipedia actually gives a good overview as it usually does on topics that aren't controversial:


As a historical category, modernity refers to a period marked by a questioning or rejection of tradition (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Tradition); the prioritization of individualism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Individualism), freedom (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Political_freedom) and formal equality (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Equality_before_the_law); faith in inevitable social, scientific and technological progress (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Progress_(history)) and human perfectibility; rationalization (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Rationalization_(sociology)) and professionalization (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Professionalization); a movement from feudalism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Feudalism) (or agrarianism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Agrarianism)) toward capitalism (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Capitalism) and the market economy; industrialization (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Industrialization), urbanization (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Urbanization) and secularization (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Secularization); the development of the nation-state (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Nation-state) and its constituent institutions (e.g. representative democracy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Representative_democracy), public education (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Public_education), modern bureaucracy (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bureaucracy)) and forms of surveillance (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Surveillance) (Foucault 1995 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#CITEREFFoucault1995), 170–77). Some writers have suggested there is more than one possible modernity, given the unsettled nature of the term and of history itself.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernity

Chris
10-06-2014, 10:39 AM
I wonder though is it over.

French anthropologist Pierre Clastres in his 1989 Society Against the State argues two the two revolutionary changes man has experienced are the Neolithic and Industrial Revolutions, that while some see us past the second, he argues we're still there. The second would still be modernity. We seem to be discovering the failures of all Wikipedia describes, but still caught up in them.

Mister D
10-06-2014, 10:52 AM
I wonder though is it over.

French anthropologist Pierre Clastres in his 1989 Society Against the State argues two the two revolutionary changes man has experienced are the Neolithic and Industrial Revolutions, that while some see us past the second, he argues we're still there. The second would still be modernity. We seem to be discovering the failures of all Wikipedia describes, but still caught up in them.

Whenever I see the term used it encompasses much more than the Industrial Revolution or general technological innovation. Obviously, faith in progress is dead at least among intellectuals, the nation state is in terminal decline, individualism is succumbing to more holisitic conceptions of society, and so on. There simply is no more modern metanarrative. I do see it as a past era or perhaps we are in a transitional period.

Mister D
10-06-2014, 10:52 AM
That said, I don't doubt that we are still experiencing the effects of the Industrial Revolution.

Chris
10-06-2014, 10:53 AM
Whenever I see the term used it encompasses much more than the Industrial Revolution or general technological innovation. Obviously, faith in progress is dead at least among intellectuals, the nation state is in terminal decline, individualism is succumbing to more holisitic conceptions of society, and so on. There simply is no more modern metanarrative. I do see it as a past era or perhaps we are in a transitional period.

Transitional period sounds good.

Mister D
10-06-2014, 10:56 AM
Transitional period sounds good.

Yeah, that may be more appropriate.