Enough with the left/right lib/con dichotomy

T

thenextbesthang

#1
For a while, I have noticed that you can't really put people into a political left/right dichotomy - that is, there are no such things as liberals in the left, conservaitves in the right. No one really knows what that means - what does it mean for someone to be right of center? How does that translate out into policy and other things? In the terms of political ideaology, how does one differ between right wing facists, and left wiing socialists? Why are they polar opposites, yet many of their goals are very similiar?

Here, I offer a new spectrum that should be used by people-

Consider this. Every analysis of politics must begin at the basic level - that is, the human level. In terms of this post, my analysis is this:

Way back when, when us humans were first coming together, there were essentially two ogroups of people - those who supported unificiation and what later came to be 'civil society', versus those who did not support it, and remained the way that they were.

Conceptually speaking, one group supported building up a society, with division of labor, government, and everything else that we normally associate with society. The problem with this society is that although it produced a lot when people came together, there is now a sense that people are dependent on other people for their lives; so while it could support more people, it also forced more people to do things that they may not want to do.

On the other hand, you had the group who supported remaining by themselves. The problem with this society is that it really did not produce a whole lot; because people were isolated or there were really small groups of people, there was minimal trade, and minimal 'unificiation'. However, in this society, people were free to act as they chose - because there is no 'central' law that dictates how people should act, there is no way to enforce such things.

That's my natural dichotomy:
Worker vs. Soldier
Unity and dis-freedom and comfort vs Dis-unity and freedom and dis-comfort

If I am not clear, tell me, and i'll try to explain some more.

Now, this is how politics should be judged. I hear talk about how conservatives value the 'conservation of things'; like private property, private enterprise, individual choice, etc. But what they fail to realize is that through many of these things, if you just keep on valuing it the way that you do, it may not bring your desired result.
One example is in business - people value the right of businesses to regulate themselves, but what if the businesses themself become tyrannical? (see gilded age, monopoly, wal-mart, etc)
Another example is so-called 'social conservatism'. Social conservatives are defined as people who are anti-gay marriage, pro-life, anti-stem cell research, etc. But look at the nature of these things; in the terms of the marriage argument, obviously there is some prevelance placed on normal hetero-sexual couples. However, by aggressivly trying to ban it, perhaps by raising it as an issue so much, people will think to themselves 'hmm...I don't want to be associated with these 'crazies'...let's try something else'. I don't know - but basically, does trying to outlaw all 3 of these things necessarily get rid of them, or achieve the desired result of having a 'moral society'? I postulate that it doesn't; because each persons definition of moral is different, the only way to have a 'moral' society is to totally disregard what the people as individuals want. In a sense, you are substituting the desires of the few for the desires of the many, all in the name of stability and peace.

The 'left' is not immune from this as well. Things that define the left: individual choice, regulation of business, social programs, etc.

The problem with this is that as social programs increase, and as regulation of businesses increase, people become more dependent on the government for support, thus lowering peoples ability to make a truly indivudal choice. Just because 'liberal' policies in the field of social politics (marriage debate) will be pursued, under the banner of 'individual choice', it does not mean that the individual will really be the one choosing; perhaps by making it an individual choice manner, you are opening up the people to be influenced by society in what is the best 'choice.'

That's why I see the left/right spectrum as it is defined now as either hypocritical, wrong, or stupid. Take your pick. The way it should be is this:

On the far left, you have the people who want to substitute society for the individual; that is, the people become more a reflection of what 'group' they participate in, people more become dependent on society - in the long run, the 'people' will end up being just another person in the world, they will end up being another number in the place where they have been this way, not really anything more than that. They will have a long, comfortable life, and enjoy the fruits of it.

On the far right, you have the people that do not want society influencing their life in any way shape of form, that is: the peopple are a reflection of the choices that they make and only the choices that they make, not anyone elses. In the long run, the people will feel a unique sense of individuality, like they are truly masters of their domain. They will have a short life, but they will feel truly free in their pursuits.
 
F

Feslin

#2
For once, I think, I agree with you.

In my opinion, people should be free to control their own destiny, without anyone else telling them what to do. This is not only a free and moral society, but a society in which people must better themselves substantially in order to survive and prosper.
 
T

thenextbesthang

#3
thanks.

In my opinion, people should be free to control their own destiny, without anyone else telling them what to do. This is not only a free and moral society, but a society in which people must better themselves substantially in order to survive and prosper.
Herein lies the problem.
People better themselves by producing more money, by producing more and selling more.
This producing more lowers prices and increases supply of goods.
Because this is the case, everyone else benefits due to the fact that they have more goods at a cheaper price.
It is this phenomenona that causes people to become complacent, to not work as hard for each thing.
So therefore, if even government leaves the markets alone, people will become complacent assuming that there is a stable market. The only way they won't become complacent is if they constantly seek more then they have the means to get - that is, if they have a motive to 'work'.
 
F

Feslin

#4
Herein lies the problem.
People better themselves by producing more money, by producing more and selling more.
This producing more lowers prices and increases supply of goods.
Because this is the case, everyone else benefits due to the fact that they have more goods at a cheaper price.
It is this phenomenona that causes people to become complacent, to not work as hard for each thing.
So therefore, if even government leaves the markets alone, people will become complacent assuming that there is a stable market. The only way they won't become complacent is if they constantly seek more then they have the means to get - that is, if they have a motive to 'work'.
But do people really become complacent? Even the rich want more. It is in human nature to seek what you don't have, even if you don't need it, no?
 
L
#5
But do people really become complacent? Even the rich want more. It is in human nature to seek what you don't have, even if you don't need it, no?

Maybe slighlty, yes. But the "Right" foster the impulse of greed being good. How many arguments are defensed by saying that it is good for the economy? There is a thing as being a hard worker and having ambition, but it is now going beyond that founding principle of the party's ideals.

Same story on the left. They tend to try to foster humanity, social responsibility, taking care of your nieghbor, that kind of thing. That can be bad too, if unchecked. It can bring an economy down enough to be bad overall for everybody in the long run.

Both parties are flawed and corrupted, we need more balance.
 
B

bla bla

#6
A truly honest, and objective, discussion on the benefits of
government control vs. individual freedom always settles into
a narrow region of compromises on both sides.

The inherent problem in holding this conversation with people
is that humans tend to be competitive. Viewpoints become
stances, defending the position becomes the focus of critical
thinking. Analyzing ones own concepts is left behind early on.

It is in the interest of political parties to encourage this polar-
ization. Looking at the commonality of motivations in ideologies
does not win elections.
 
D

Dr.Knuckles

#7
Sounds great nextbestthing. The thing is I think 99.9 percent of people agree with you. Those people just make lousy guests on talk shows that have to show rabid morons in lunatic disagreement, or be boring as hell to watch. Could you imagine watching two intelligent, rational people discuss politics on TV? Like watching paint dry.
 
T

thenextbesthang

#8
first of all knuckles, I like your avatar.
My responses to these responses:

But do people really become complacent? Even the rich want more. It is in human nature to seek what you don't have, even if you don't need it, no?
Yes. People by and large become complacent. It does not mean that I don't work towards things - but how much of the day is spent actively 'working' for those things. By work, I mean the definition that you physically toil to bring that thing under your possession. Even the rich people, the enrons, the rockefellers; they have people do those things for them, which is how they get so much money. The 'rich' people don't really do any work, they just pay others to do their work. Need something to be clean? Pay someone. Need to be somewhere? Buy a jet. Not many rich people persay actually will go out and do something, when they could just buy it instead.

Maybe slighlty, yes. But the "Right" foster the impulse of greed being good. How many arguments are defensed by saying that it is good for the economy? There is a thing as being a hard worker and having ambition, but it is now going beyond that founding principle of the party's ideals.

Same story on the left. They tend to try to foster humanity, social responsibility, taking care of your nieghbor, that kind of thing. That can be bad too, if unchecked. It can bring an economy down enough to be bad overall for everybody in the long run.

Both parties are flawed and corrupted, we need more balance.
My point is that your definition, and the 'accepted' definition of right versus left, will alwasy create those flaws and hypocrisy.

Sounds great nextbestthing. The thing is I think 99.9 percent of people agree with you. Those people just make lousy guests on talk shows that have to show rabid morons in lunatic disagreement, or be boring as hell to watch. Could you imagine watching two intelligent, rational people discuss politics on TV? Like watching paint dry.
LoL. Maybe it could be interesting if they knew what they were talking about.
 
D
#10
A truly honest, and objective, discussion on the benefits of
government control vs. individual freedom always settles into
a narrow region of compromises on both sides.

The inherent problem in holding this conversation with people
is that humans tend to be competitive. Viewpoints become
stances, defending the position becomes the focus of critical
thinking. Analyzing ones own concepts is left behind early on.

It is in the interest of political parties to encourage this polar-
ization. Looking at the commonality of motivations in ideologies
does not win elections.
Very well put. The refuge we seek for political companionship overpowers the ideal focus of each party: a better nation for all of us. We feel as though our agenda is worthless without numbers to lend support and ultimately compromise with other beliefs to satisfy our strongest concerns. Instead of finding comfort we find ignorance.

DLee