Left and Right

[bascule]

 

Please take it with a grain of salt; I'm pretty sure it was made by liberals who didn't mind their "bias" showing a bit. Other that that I really like it.

 

I ❤ infographics and thought this was pretty interesting. I love the inherent ambiguity of some of the phrases... it claims conservatives are "DON'T TAX AND SPEND" but does that actually mean "DON'T TAX" and "SPEND"? I suppose it's up to the reader to decide.

 

Anyway, thoughts? Does it offend your liberal or conservative sensibilities?

[A Tripolation]

Holy crap, I'm a LIBERAL!!!

 

Ha, I'm not, but that thing is saying I am. It is most definitely one of the more interesting infographics I've seen, nice one bascule. But did they switch the colors on purpose? Hmmm.

[Mr Skeptic]

Eh, looks like they got the colors backwards.

 

I found their statistics particularly interesting.

 

But did they switch the colors on purpose? Hmmm.

 

Maybe. I recall reading that red teams do better than blue teams. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327232.400-winners-wear-red-how-colour-twists-your-mind.html

[CaptainPanic]

Funny thing is that the majority of the world's population logically should side with the more socialist politics - since the majority don't own companies, but simply work for them.

 

Yet, many are brainwashed into thinking that as a worker, they should support the rights of the employers. Workers will happily vote for tax cuts for big business.

 

 

Eh, looks like they got the colors backwards.

Only in America is the least social party the red one. Everywhere else red stands for socialism.

[abskebabs]

Interesting that Libertarian is positioned as a characteristic of the left, I would have thought it to break the entire left-right paradigm since libertarians reject both the warfare and the nanny state.

 

Also unsurprising is the lack of acknowledgement that liberal actually means quite the opposite of what is meant in the UK and US in the Spanish speaking world, and also the English speaking world of the past(check out Bastiat, Molinari and the classical liberals).

Edited October 21, 2009 by abskebabs
corrected simple mistakes

[Sisyphus]

I read... somewhere recently that there are actually basic differences in the ways liberals vs. conservatives think, as measured by actual psychological evaluation. For example, when liberals think of morality they're thinking about general concepts like fairness and preventing harm, while conservatives are thinking about specific rules, and concepts like honor and tradition. Conservatives also startle more easily, and are more squeamish across the board, being repelled by the smell of urine and the thought of nontraditional relationships alike. One example of a question was, "would you ever be willing to slap your father in the face as a joke, if he was in on it and ok with it." Liberals mostly say yes, conservatives mostly say no. "No harm done" vs. "disrespecting the institution." Conservatives will pursue justice even if no one benefits from it, liberals will seek the overall beneficial solution even if it means some people get away with misdeeds. And on and on.

 

Of course, all of this wildly oversimplifies things. Hardly anyone is entirely defined in this way, and there are of course these tendencies can manifest in lots of different ways. The futurists and the back to nature people are both "liberal" in thinking, despite wanting essentially opposite things. And some ideologies don't quite fit at all. abskebabs mentions libertarians, which don't quite fit but aren't, I don't think, really a "third pole," either. The chart says conservatives support empoyers and liberals support employees. That's generally true, I find. Well what if I support consumers? Is that libertarian?

Edited October 21, 2009 by Sisyphus

[devrimci_kürt]

I am a leftist, too

[Severian]

Point on the colours: In most of the world red is regarded as left wing while blue is right wing, so they got the colours the right way around. I always think of it as weird that the US puts them the other way around.

 

I really don't like this at all. It is very obviously made from a left wing slant, and basically gives a stereotyped view of what a left-wing person thinks are the values of the right (as bascule pointed out). I think this sort of thing only serves to create mistrust and partisanship, where we should be trying to take the best of both 'sides'.

[swansont]

Just a quick perusal, but I find this generalization/portrayal interesting: Liberals are ethical but not necessarily moral, and conservatives are moral but not necessarily ethical.

[The Bear's Key]

Also unsurprising is the lack of acknowledgement that liberal actually means quite the opposite of what is meant in the UK and US in the Spanish speaking world

Or maybe you're...incorrecto?

 

Check out the spanish words for "liberal" translated in english-to-spanish: http://translate.google.com/translate_t#en|es|liberal

 

Now from the list of spanish words appearing on the right, translate each back to english one at a time. You'll find they all mean just what our english version specifies.

 

 

And on review of the word's history, the same applies...

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=liberal

c.1375, from O.Fr. liberal "befitting free men, noble, generous," from L. liberalis "noble, generous," lit. "pertaining to a free man," from liber "free," from PIE base *leudheros (cf. Gk. eleutheros "free"), probably originally "belonging to the people" (though the precise semantic development is obscure), from *leudho- "people" (cf. O.C.S. ljudu, Lith. liaudis, O.E. leod, Ger. Leute "nation, people"). Earliest reference in Eng. is to the liberal arts (L. artes liberales; see art (n.)), the seven attainments directed to intellectual enlargement, not immediate practical purpose, and thus deemed worthy of a free man (the word in this sense was opposed to servile or mechanical). Sense of "free in bestowing" is from 1387. With a meaning "free from restraint in speech or action" (1490) liberal was used 16c.-17c. as a term of reproach. It revived in a positive sense in the Enlightenment, with a meaning "free from prejudice, tolerant," which emerged 1776-88. Purely in ref. to political opinion, "tending in favor of freedom and democracy" it dates from c.1801, from Fr. libéral, originally applied in Eng. by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness) to the party favorable to individual political freedoms. But also (especially in U.S. politics) tending to mean "favorable to government action to effect social change," which seems at times to draw more from the religious sense of "free from prejudice in favor of traditional opinions and established institutions" (and thus open to new ideas and plans of reform), which dates from 1823.

 

 

More roots of the word's origins (from all etymology books at the library)...

 

The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology

(1988)

liberal

adj

Probably before 1350, befitting free men, noble, generous;

.....

Cognates of Latin

liber

are found in Greek eleutheros free (originally) belonging to the people, of genuine tribal stock,

.....

The sense of free from prejudice, tolerant, is first recorded in Gibbon's

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

(1776-88), followed by the political sense of favoring constitutional change and legal reforms in 1801. The latter was probably borrowed into English from French

libéral

, attested in 1750 with the sense of favorable to individual political freedoms.

 

 

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

(1986)

liberal

pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; (of political opinion) XIX.

 

 

The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology

(1966)

liberal

pert. to the arts considered "worthy of a free man"; free in bestowing XIV; unrestrained XV; free from prejudice XVIII; of political opinion XIX (opp. to

Conservative

,

Tory

) 1801.

 

 

Dictionary of Word Origins

(Joseph T Shipley)

(1945, 2nd Ed.)

liberal

See

liberty.

 

........

 

liberty

The L. word for free is

liber

; the noun,

libertas

(whence Eng.

liberty

), the adj.,

liberalis

. Thus the

liberal

arts are those befitting a free man. But Latin

liber

,

libr—

, originally the bark of a tree, came to mean book (

see Bible

); whence L.

librarius

, whence Fr.

libraire

,

librarie

, whence Eng.

librarian

,

library

. The diminutive of L.

liber

, book, is

libellus

, little book, whence Eng.

libel

; but since pamphlets, from Elizabethan England on, were full of scurrilous attacks, the name was transferred from the booklet to its contents.

Liberty

does not permit

libel

—though from the freed man, L.

libertinus

, comes Eng.

libertine

. (The 17th and 18th c. Fr.

libertine

was unrestrained in politics and religion rather than in morals.) But L.

libra

also means balance, scales; whence the sign of the Zodiac,

Libra

. Hence also the use of L.

libra

as a measure, 12 ounces, one pound, and our abbreviation, 1

lb

. The term

libration

is used in astronomy to mean oscillation, as a balance might tremble.

Liberate

means to set free; but

deliberate

is from L.

de

, down —

liberare

, to balance, weigh in one's mind.

[abskebabs]

I think I possibly should have said the "continental" meaning of the word as opposed to the specific spanish, thoug valid reference.

 

My point was that the word liberal having socialist or social democratic connotations is only a comparitively recent phenomenon, hence the distinction between its orignal conception that is labelled classical liberalism and what is often referred to as social liberalism.

 

Liberalism originally was a doctrine advocating the defence of individual and property rights in the form of advocating freedoms both economic and social, from arbitrary trespass on the part of the state. Hence it used to be more properly associated with thinkers like Richard Cobden, Frederic Bastiat, Gustave de Molinari etc.

 

In the 20th century this has been significantly narrowed and diluted to only a defense of social freedoms, if that.

 

Hence your false left-right dichotomy.

 

For reference check out:

 

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_(Denmark)

 

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_(Serbia_2005)

 

Admittedly the word liberal is one with changing connotations, and I don't doubt that the current western connotations are being adopted in other countries.

[A Tripolation]

I think this sort of thing only serves to create mistrust and partisanship, where we should be trying to take the best of both 'sides'.

 

I agree completely. I mean honestly, is there anyone here who wasn't agreeing a lot with BOTH sides?

I think we all want our children to be self-reliant AND open and compassionate, not just one of the two.

And I think almost everybody recognizes that diplomacy should most certainly be tried first, and war only used as a last last last resort.

 

And don't we ALL want to be nurturing but strict parents? Basic psychology shows us that neither the authoritarian nor permissive style of parenting works, and that we need a combination which results in the good-style of authoritative parenting.

 

Each side has great points, why not take the best of both worlds?

[Sisyphus]

I don't think describing opposing ways of thinking precludes a best of both worlds approach. In fact, I'd say the opposite.

[JillSwift]

Each side has great points, why not take the best of both worlds?

Probably disagreement on what the "best" bits are.

[abskebabs]

Well what if I support consumers? Is that libertarian?

 

Libertarians support the defense of individual property rights and prevention of the violation of voluntary contracts. If that means coming on the side of the employer, employee or consumer so be it.

[The Bear's Key]

I agree completely. I mean honestly, is there anyone here who wasn't agreeing a lot with BOTH sides?

I think we all want our children to be self-reliant AND open and compassionate, not just one of the two.

And I think almost everybody recognizes that diplomacy should most certainly be tried first, and war only used as a last last last resort.

 

And don't we ALL want to be nurturing but strict parents? Basic psychology shows us that neither the authoritarian nor permissive style of parenting works, and that we need a combination which results in the good-style of authoritative parenting.

I too definitely agree with Severian's point. And you make a good case also. I take it one step further and offer that it depends entirely on the child and parent, where more nurture is favorable to positive growth while for another child, more strictness is favorable to positive growth, with the qualifiers that punishment dealt with anger is far inferior to punishment dealt with calm and explained respectfully, and that nurture in the form of allowing the child to walk all over you and be persistently in control is far inferior to a nurture that successfully establishes the parent as boss in a mutually respectful manner.

 

Of course, there are situations where the child's growth isn't noticeably hindered by the less optimal approaches, however I believe that's inherent to the child's natural physiology, along with external influences that are difficult to pinpoint/quantify.

 

Libertarians support the defense of individual property rights and prevention of the violation of voluntary contracts. If that means coming on the side of the employer, employee or consumer so be it.

Easy then.

 

A company/organization is a group of people...not an individual.

 

Therefore in cases where many random people or one citizen is being treated harmfully and/or unconstitutionally, the rights of each individual (citizen) overrides the rights of any larger organized group.

[abskebabs]

Easy then.

 

A company/organization is a group of people...not an individual.

 

Therefore in cases where many random people or one citizen is being treated harmfully and/or unconstitutionally, the rights of each individual (citizen) overrides the rights of any larger organized group.

 

Not sure what you mean. Apart from the situation of states and "public property" that is effectively owned by no one, companies are exclusively owned by entrepreneurs or exclusive ownership is split into portions delineated among shareholders. Disputes are then settled between parties accordingly by the settlement according to contractual agreements between individuals, i.e. between creditors and stockholders.

 

Individuals may act in groups but catallactic action like all others is vitiated by individuals, and dealt with accordingly.

 

There is no mythical "group right", and I think you mistake the concept of property rights with your own arbitrary egalitarean whims for the redistribution of wealth.

[bascule]

Just a quick perusal, but I find this generalization/portrayal interesting: Liberals are ethical but not necessarily moral, and conservatives are moral but not necessarily ethical.

 

I think they did because of word usage by the respective groups. I certainly recognize that morals are to ethics as the cosmos are to cosmology, or as life is to biology, or the universe is to physics.

 

Generally speaking, the right (or at least the religious right in the US) is more apt to be concerned with "morals", "morality", "immorality", etc., whereas liberals are more apt to be perplexed with "ethical dilemmas".

 

On a more subversive level perhaps it means the left scrutinizes their moral code, whereas the right does not and accepts what they are taught about morality (by religion or otherwise) unquestioningly.

Edited October 22, 2009 by bascule

[The Bear's Key]

Not sure what you mean. Apart from the situation of states and "public property" that is effectively owned by no one, companies are exclusively owned by entrepreneurs or exclusive ownership is split into portions delineated among shareholders. Disputes are then settled between parties accordingly by the settlement according to contractual agreements between individuals, i.e. between creditors and stockholders.

 

Individuals may act in groups but catallactic action like all others is vitiated by individuals, and dealt with accordingly.

I'm certainly not talking about disputes between operators/partnerships. Rather I'm talking about valid grievances by everyday people who are victims of an organization's possible abuses.

 

There is no mythical "group right",

Correct. And it's best that you remember such in the future.

 

...and I think you mistake the concept of property rights with your own arbitrary egalitarean whims for the redistribution of wealth.

Ironic just how backwards you've gotten it. The wealth has already long been redistributed, most of it funneled to a handful of people. It'd simply be healthy economically to craft as many opportunities for undoing that redistribution a bit.

[abskebabs]

Ironic just how backwards you've gotten it. The wealth has already long been redistributed, most of it funneled to a handful of people. It'd simply be healthy economically to craft as many opportunities for undoing that redistribution a bit.

 

If you're talking about the bailiuts and the redistrbutional Cantillon effects benefitting bankers and their main industrial clients as the ones who first receive new credit; for once I can entirely agree with you.

 

This should never have been allowed to occur and at once we should get rid of central banks and legal tender laws to get rid of this facist favourite picking system.

[The Bear's Key]

If you're talking about the bailiuts and the redistrbutional Cantillon effects benefitting bankers and their main industrial clients as the ones who first receive new credit....

Actually, I wasn't. Solely things in need of reasonable oversight.

 

However, what you mention above is sometimes true yet only part of it. Let's add to the mix behemoth-sized mergers/consolidations, price fixing, insider trading, bribing key government officials, lobbying power, and secretive/unlawful interference against new competition.

 

There we have a much clearer picture.

 

Now as for your claim, here's something on which I'd like to hear your opinion: Who's actually more responsible for the instances when giant banks and their industrial clients make out like thieves?....

 

1. Business -- with its semi-unchecked and powerful influence over government lawmaking?

 

Or,

 

2. would it be government for not having the appropriate safeguards to prevent this from occuring?

[gre]

Which side has the best economic philosophy?

 

It seems like the right favors a "natural" economy and believes in 'trickle down' economics, and the left likes injecting (investing) money into it's own economy and favors more grass roots economics.

Edited November 1, 2009 by gre

[bascule]

That's hard to say. In the US, Republicans pay lipservice to conservative economics, but Reagan and Dubya have together run up the national debt more than all other presidents combined.

[SH3RL0CK]

That's hard to say. In the US, Republicans pay lipservice to conservative economics, but Reagan and Dubya have together run up the national debt more than all other presidents combined.

 

Not quite true. Obama has run it up more than all previous presidents combined.

[Dudde]

I don't think he's necessarily done that quite yet - are we taking the predicted debt we're accruing over the next couple of years as already counted against him?

 

I'm with Bascule on this one