Left=Right

[ku]

I've been reading Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and a general idea I get from this book is that economic freedom is a prerequisite for social freedom. E.g. in China the idea is that as the people get more and more prosperous their power increases relative to the government's and with this power they are more able to express their rights.

 

Looking at today's political spectrum of Left versus Right, we see that the Left is socially liberal (e.g. porn is allowed) and economically authoritarian (e.g. protection from outsourcing) while the Right is socially conservative (bans on evolution and abortion, etc) and economically liberal (free trade, free markets, pro-business, and so on).

 

If economic liberalism brigns about social liberalism, then it would follow that the Left and the Right are the same. If the conservatives are in power, their economic liberalism will bring about social liberalism. So either way, we become socially free. More or less.

[aguy2]

Looking at today's political spectrum of Left versus Right' date=' we see that the Left is socially liberal (e.g. porn is allowed) and economically authoritarian (e.g. protection from outsourcing) while the Right is socially conservative (bans on evolution and abortion, etc) and economically liberal (free trade, free markets, pro-business, and so on).

[/quote']

 

I see the somewhat contradicory dichotomys of both the 'left' and the 'right' as something akin to a self-perpetuating loop, with the social liberalism of the left tending to stimulate social conservatism in the right, while the across the board increases in prosperity caused by economic liberalism tending to stimulate social liberalism. What do you think?

 

aguy2

[In My Memory]

Ku,

I've been reading Milton Friedman's Free to Choose and a general idea I get from this book is that economic freedom is a prerequisite for social freedom.

Social freedom is a prerequisite for social freedom. Social freedom is compatible with almost any economic system, from far left-wing environmentalists (like me ) to anarchocapitalists like Libetarians. Theres no contradiction in saying "socialized medicine for everyone" and "freedom to vote and express yourself" at the same time.

 

Many parts of the UK and Australia are much more socialist than America, but they have significantly more freedoms.

 

If the conservatives are in power, their economic liberalism will bring about social liberalism. So either way, we become socially free.

Not likely. Conservativism and Liberalism in the US today has nothing to do with economics, its confined almost exclusively to social conservatism. Very few conservatives and liberals I've met actually know anything at all about economics, and they instead become parrots of partisan hackery without understanding just how governments are supposed to stabilize economic growth in the first place.

 

And economic freedom doesnt equal social freedom in the US. Nothing is more restrictive and controlling than right-wing social conservatives, especially since the religious right hijacked the Republican party. They might enjoy laissez-faire capitalism, but I've been a straight-ticket Democratic voter for years, because I think they want to censor the internet, censor the media, roll back womens rights, roll back civil rights, criminalize homosexuality, criminalize abortion, disenfranchise the rights of religious minorities, and so much more.

 

I dont think my vote makes a difference economically, but socially I think conservatives are scary and authoritarian, so I dont vote for them.

[gcol]

It is a shame that people of moderate views are forced to polarise between left and right. Left and right wing politics, carried to extremes, result in the same totalitarianism and restriction of all freedoms. Maintaining ones balance on the needle point of the middle ground is a difficult act. The best we can do is shift our balance to counteract excessive swings.

[ecoli]

It is a shame that people of moderate views are forced to polarise between left and right. Left and right wing politics, carried to extremes, result in the same totalitarianism and restriction of all freedoms. Maintaining ones balance on the needle point of the middle ground is a difficult act. The best we can do is shift our balance to counteract excessive swings.

 

hear, hear... Why must we have a mere bipartisan government?

[pcs]

Not likely. Conservativism and Liberalism in the US today has nothing to do with economics, its confined almost exclusively to social conservatism. Very few conservatives and liberals I've met actually know anything at all about economics, and they instead become parrots of partisan hackery without understanding just how governments are supposed to stabilize economic growth in the first place[/b'].

 

Oh, the irony. Even if I forget that "stabilize economic growth" is as meaningless and pithy as any technobabble I've heard in a long time, what is the difference between your position and the typical liberal line?

 

And economic freedom doesnt equal social freedom in the US. Nothing is more restrictive and controlling than right-wing social conservatives, especially since the religious right hijacked the Republican party.

 

Is this an example of independent political thought, or parroting partisan hackery? Wait, I've got a response.

 

Nothing is more restrictive and controlling than the debauched, suffocating nannyism and racialism of the secularist Left--you know, the group that's hijacked the Democratic Party.

 

They might enjoy laissez-faire capitalism, but I've been a straight-ticket Democratic voter for years, because I think they want to censor the internet, censor the media, roll back womens rights, roll back civil rights, criminalize homosexuality, criminalize abortion, disenfranchise the rights of religious minorities, and so much more.

 

I'm pretty sure this also counts as parroting partisan hackery. One good turn deserves another.

 

Leftists want to censor the Internet, they do censor the media, they have cynically and irresponsibly stereotyped women and ethnic minorities and shunt them to state subsidized hellholes, force homosexuality on our children, mass murder the unborn, disenfranchise the religious majority and so much more.

 

I dont think my vote makes a difference economically, but socially I think conservatives are scary and authoritarian, so I dont vote for them.

 

You could write for the DNC, if the DNC didn't already have an overabundance of people with the same ideas and the same language.

 

I do think my vote makes a difference, and I think leftists are dangerously stupid, so I don't vote for them.

[pcs]

It is a shame that people of moderate views are forced to polarise between left and right. Left and right wing politics, carried to extremes, result in the same totalitarianism and restriction of all freedoms. Maintaining ones balance on the needle point of the middle ground is a difficult act. The best we can do is shift our balance to counteract excessive swings.

 

I don't think there's anything to the claim that left and right wing politics, carried to extremes, result in totalitarianism or restrictions of all freedoms. I don't consider France a totalitarian regime, anymore than I consider Ireland one or the US a century ago. I think there's an argument that statism, carried to an extreme, enables and encourages authoritarian oppression. As the 20th century has shown, this is predominantly a feature of leftist regimes. Where right wing authoritarians have emerged, coinciding with economic liberalism, their regimes were extremely weak and faltered within a generation of leadership (Chile).

 

 

PS. What defines a political moderate? Hopefully, I'll get an answer a bit more substantial than "disagree with somethings, agree with others."

[Pangloss]

Many parts of the UK and Australia are much more socialist than America' date=' [b']but they have significantly more freedoms.[/b]

 

Examples?

[Severian]

Social freedom is a prerequisite for social freedom.

 

Is that what you meant to say?

 

Social freedom is compatible with almost any economic system' date=' from far left-wing environmentalists (like me ) to anarchocapitalists like Libetarians. Theres no contradiction in saying "socialized medicine for everyone" and "freedom to vote and express yourself" at the same time.

[/quote']

 

A libertarian would strongly disagree with that. Economic oppression is surely also social oppression because you are forcing the populace to spend its money in a predetermined way. Therefore "socialized medicine for everyone" is in fact itself social oppression.

 

Very few conservatives and liberals I've met actually know anything at all about economics, and they instead become parrots of partisan hackery without understanding just how governments are supposed to stabilize economic growth in the first place.

 

Considering that I know many conservatives and liberals alike who have degrees in Economics, I don't think that is a fair representation (perhaps you just have odd friends).

[gcol]

PCS

Not sure where I gave the impression that France, Ireland, or US were totalitarian because I don't think that. But france during their revolution? Well now, that may a useful example of left wing excess, but I suspect you may have a wonderful and politically scientific nit-picking term for it that paints it a different shade of pink. Impress me with a string of references and a flood of grand phrases.

It may be that this century leftist regimes have been more succesful at extreme statism. Right wingers must try harder, they are behind on points. Left wing despots wear their extremism as a populist badge of courage, right wingers disguise it as something else.

 

QUOTE, PCS:

"PS. What defines a political moderate? Hopefully, I'll get an answer a bit more substantial than "disagree with somethings, agree with others.

 

A simplistic but to me, useful way of visualising moderation and extremism, is to consider a clock-face. At 1 is rightwing extremism, 6 is moderation, and 11 is leftwing extremism. Notice how close left and right become..... Somewhere between, perhaps 5 and 7 lies moderation.

 

I have answered a couple of questionaires designed to test ones political leanings, and to my surprise, and that of people who know me, I showed strong liberal tendencies. (that may p*** you off, but....) I reckon I'm a 7. Where are you?

[Sisyphus]

Leftists want to censor the Internet' date=' they do censor the media, they have cynically and irresponsibly stereotyped women and ethnic minorities and shunt them to state subsidized hellholes, force homosexuality on our children, mass murder the unborn, disenfranchise the religious [i']majority[/i] and so much more.

 

I'm going to assume this is aimed more to be rhetorically powerful (or at least trollishly provocative) than actually accurate, but I do think you're being quite unfair here, so I'd like to address these complaints individually, anyway.

 

1) There is a movement among powerful Democrats to censor the internet, and I think it's quite misguided. To be fair, though, it's not really a "leftist" issue, though, since they seem to be doing it mostly to appeal to social conservatives and family values voters. (Soccer moms?)

 

2) How do they censor the media?

 

3) Liberals have come to rely on minority support, presumably still riding leftover support from the civil rights movement. This is unfair - I agree wholeheartedly. I don't know what "state-subsidized hellholes" you are referring to, however.

 

4) Force homosexuality on our children? That doesn't even deserve a response.

 

5) Mass murder the unborn - if you consider abortion to be murder, then that's that. But, to be fair, this phrasing implies they're going out forcing people to have abortions, when in fact they merely consider it to be a far more complex ethical issue than do the pro-lifers, and see an ambiguity in defining life which is more subjective than objective in some cases, and thus shouldn't be legislated.

 

6) Disenfranchise the religious majority? Do you really believe that? Liberals want freedom of religion more than conservatives do - they just want to keep it out of government. So where is the oppression, exactly? Our nation was founded secular intentionally, and has remained so. What certain (but not all) Christian groups like to cast as "oppression" is really just a resistance to turning the nation into a theocracy, i.e. avoiding oppression of religious minorities, like the founders intended. So give an example of this disenfranchisement, please!

[-Demosthenes-]

...anarchocapitalists like Libetarians.

 

I'd have to disagree, libertarians are not anarchists.

 

Not likely. Conservativism and Liberalism in the US today has nothing to do with economics, its confined almost exclusively to social conservatism. Very few conservatives and liberals I've met actually know anything at all about economics, and they instead become parrots of partisan hackery without understanding just how governments are supposed to stabilize economic growth in the first place.

 

This I can agree with.

 

And economic freedom doesnt equal social freedom in the US. Nothing is more restrictive and controlling than right-wing social conservatives' date=' especially since the religious right hijacked the Republican party. They might enjoy laissez-faire capitalism, but I've been a straight-ticket Democratic voter for years, because I think they want to censor the internet, censor the media, roll back womens rights, roll back civil rights, criminalize homosexuality, criminalize abortion, disenfranchise the rights of religious minorities, and so much more.

 

I dont think my vote makes a difference economically, but socially I think [b']conservatives[/b] are scary and authoritarian, so I dont vote for them.

 

Or rather the extreme religious right?

 

It is a shame that people of moderate views are forced to polarise between left and right. Left and right wing politics, carried to extremes, result in the same totalitarianism and restriction of all freedoms. Maintaining ones balance on the needle point of the middle ground is a difficult act. The best we can do is shift our balance to counteract excessive swings.

 

I like this idea.

 

Nothing is more restrictive and controlling than the debauched, suffocating nannyism and racialism of the secularist Left--you know, the group that's hijacked the Democratic Party.

 

 

I do think my vote makes a difference, and I think leftists[/b'] are dangerously stupid, so I don't vote for them.

 

Or rather the far left?

[JohnB]

Many parts of the UK and Australia are much more socialist than America, but they have significantly more freedoms.

IMM, what did you mean by this?

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

Many parts of the UK and Australia are much more socialist than America' date=' but they have significantly more freedoms.[/quote']

Examples?

This will probably be my partisan leftism talking, but probably since 9/11 we've become a significantly less free nation, especially by the government spying on its citizens, labeling people enemy combatants to circumvent constitutional protections.

 

Here are a few issues that come to mind:

- parts of the UK have liberalized euthanasia laws

- the the UK has recently legalized gay marriage (compare to the US where 11 states have banned it)

- the UK and Australia have both taken steps to expand anti-discrimination policies to gays and lesbians

- the US has the highest legal drinking age in the world, as well as some of the most restrictive drug laws in the world.

- many countries have a much freer press. See Reports Without Borders, where the United States was marked as the 44th freest nation in the world, behind several dozen European nations and Australia.

 

The US continues to execute prisoners, which I would consider a human rights violation. And among other things, I dont think many UKers have to worry about the government seizing their property to build a minimall.

 

 

JohnB,

IMM, what did you mean by this?

That the cliche "America is the freest nation in the world" is, at worst, an American-made myth.

 

 

Severian,

Very few conservatives and liberals I've met actually know anything at all about economics' date=' and they instead become parrots of partisan hackery without understanding just how governments are supposed to stabilize economic growth in the first place.[/quote']

Considering that I know many conservatives and liberals alike who have degrees in Economics, I don't think that is a fair representation (perhaps you just have odd friends).

Maybe things are different in the UK, but I think 95% of all American voters would fail a first-semester economics 101 exam if one were given to them right this second. Economics is more important than any other science for the typical American, but I dont think many people in the United States make informed economic judgements.

 

And I think our politicians make monetary and fiscal policies based on what their party wants rather than what makes good economic sense. I'd prefer to see a whole seperate branch of government, made up of economy theorists and professors and Alan Greenspan, created to handle economy rather than our easily bribed congressman. (<--- IMM doesnt like her state senators.)

[Saryctos]

All your professors already come 'pre-bribed'

[Pangloss]

Pangloss' date='

 

This will probably be my partisan leftism talking, but probably since 9/11 we've become a significantly less free nation, especially by the government spying on its citizens, labeling people enemy combatants to circumvent constitutional protections.

 

Here are a few issues that come to mind:

- parts of the UK have liberalized euthanasia laws

- the the UK has recently legalized gay marriage (compare to the US where 11 states have banned it)

- the UK and Australia have both taken steps to expand anti-discrimination policies to gays and lesbians

- the US has the highest legal drinking age in the world, as well as some of the most restrictive drug laws in the world.

- many countries have a much freer press. See Reports Without Borders, where the United States was marked as the 44th freest nation in the world, behind several dozen European nations and Australia.

 

The US continues to execute prisoners, which I would consider a human rights violation. And among other things, I dont think many UKers have to worry about the government seizing their property to build a minimall.

 

You've answered my question (to give examples), which I appreciate. But this doesn't make a prima facie case for more freedoms. It gives examples of freedoms that exist in one place but not the other. What freedoms might exist in the US that don't exist in the UK or Australia? Are you saying that there are none? I would find that hard to believe, because a number of examples of freedom curtailings in UK and Australia have been in the news recently, some of which (such as the handling of domestic terrorism) have been discussed here.

 

So how do I know that one is not greater than the other? Since you admit your opinion is partisan, I need more objective information to assess this.

 

Note that I left out any issue of partisanship here. I don't have any problem with your statement of opinion.

[JohnB]

Sorry IMM, I meant more like "How is Australia more socialist than the US?"

 

Be careful in thinking Commissions like HREOC are always a good idea. Most often the push for them comes from an Ideological POV with little regard for the realities of life. In Oz, this has led to some terrible miscarraiges of justice.

 

BTW, that is why the power was taken away from HREOC and it's ilk and given to the courts. (Where it should have been from the start. IMO) A little thing called "Separation of Powers".

[In My Memory]

Pangloss,

So how do I know that one is not greater than the other? Since you admit your opinion is partisan, I need more objective information to assess this.

The best objective source I have is Human Rights Watch. But for now, I'll concede and say that I dont see the US through rose-colored glasses like everyone else does, and leave my comments at that without further comment

 

 

JohnB,

Sorry IMM' date=' I meant more like "How is Australia more socialist than the US?"

 

Be careful in thinking Commissions like HREOC are always a good idea. Most often the push for them comes from an Ideological POV with little regard for the realities of life. In Oz, this has led to some terrible miscarraiges of justice.

 

BTW, that is why the power was taken away from HREOC and it's ilk and given to the courts. (Where it should have been from the start. IMO) A little thing called "Separation of Powers". [/quote']

Alright, I was hasty in my comment, and it turns out I was wrong It turns out I get too much of my news from American sources, and both the UK and Australia have freer economies than the US (thats certainly a surprise for me!). See Index of Economic Freedom which says:

The Most Free

 

Hong Kong (1st)

Singapore (2nd)

Ireland (3rd)

Luxembourg (4th)

Iceland (5th)

United Kingdom (5th)

Estonia (7th)

Denmark (8th)

Australia (9th)

New Zealand (9th)

United States (9th)

 

:embarass:

 

*IMM slinks away, hoping no one will notice *

[aguy2]

*IMM slinks away' date=' hoping no one will notice *[/quote']

 

IMM fails again! Overt 'slinkyness' definitely gets my attention.

aguy2

[JohnB]

Alright, I was hasty in my comment, and it turns out I was wrong

Should this be in the "Great Quotes" thread? I don't think we'll see it too often.

 

Maybe I'll just print and frame it.

 

BTW, you may not be too far wrong anyway. I think our Public Health system probably verges on a "Socialist" idea. We possibly have more "Social Justice" policies than the US. I don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't surprise me.

[ku]

Intellectual honesty is preferable to stubbornness. We've seen enough of that with the creationists.