[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by dub CRISP

Well looking at left and right on a two dimensional scale is inherently flawed because of what you just mentioned. Economic right and left don't really have anything to do with social or political right and left. You can be politically left and economically right or vice versa. They have also evolved over time. I was giving current examples of the views of people who identify as "right" and "left" rather than the traditional meanings.

You're trying to get at the original meanings of "right" and "left" no?

The fact that economic policy and political philosophy do not coincide is exactly why I'm suggesting we remove economics from our discourse here. There is no historic precedent which gives credence to their being an inherently Leftist or Rightist form of economics. Let's focus on political and social order, please.

I know what the origin is. I'm trying to break through the fog so that we may all understand what the division is.

[barrel roll]

Economic left/right is a misnaming of what you're actually seeing. A conservative man can do liberal things, and vice versa. A government controlled economy is conservative, while a free and unhinged economy is liberal. With regard to philosophy, where it (economics) ends up on the scale is determined by how many teaspoons of government were put in the concoction.

And before anyone says it, the idea that the political spectrum is a circle is silly. On one end you are a slave, while on the opposite you are free to gallop across the great plains naked with the buffalo.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

A conservative man can do liberal things, and vice versa. A government controlled economy is conservative, while a free and unhinged economy is liberal.

This hinges upon the idea of "government controlled economy" in being traditional with no distinction between the types of government controlled economics. I would be wary of painting with such large stokes.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Economic left/right is a misnaming of what you're actually seeing. A conservative man can do liberal things, and vice versa. A government controlled economy is conservative, while a free and unhinged economy is liberal. With regard to philosophy, where it (economics) ends up on the scale is determined by how many teaspoons of government were put in the concoction.

Damn you, you beat me to calling lazy fair capitalism liberal. Oh well. I'll agree to this post tentatively. The reason being, what is done with wealth and enterprise is up to the authority(ies) in a right wing society.

[dub CRISP]

I'm still confused as to the context of this discussion. Traditionally economic liberalism is free market but now if you look at the left wing in this country, the farther left you go, the more government intervention is desired.

I guess economics has no place in this discussion though because it gets too hairy when trying to compare things across history and this is a political discussion.

Carry on with the politics.

[pbragesauce198]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Preface: I think that we all could benefit from a better understand of where each of us is coming from. Especially if we are going to be identifying with or choose to label others as either Left of Right. Most of all, I think the distinction is sorely misunderstood.

Left: Equality is a moral good

Right: Inequality is a moral good.

From these foundations, it is easy to understand the emergent values. Here's a short list of some to help illustrate:

Left:
Autonomy
Plurality
Relativism
Internationalism

Right:
Authority
Hierarchy
Rank
Nationalism

Feel free to dispute. I tried to keep this concise and to the point.

Good to hear some intelligence coming out of the paintball community, I like the thread. Gotta expect that your gonna get a sh*tstorm of misinformation though haha. I agree mostly with your assessment, although it may be a bit of an oversimplification (albeit a necessary one). I think a lot of people choose a political ideology purely from social issues and then can be easily offended and become defensive when they see their party being labeled as authoritarian. Good stuff though, ill second your take.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by dub CRISP

I'm still confused as to the context of this discussion. Traditionally economic liberalism is free market but now if you look at the left wing in this country, the farther left you go, the more government intervention is desired.

I guess economics has no place in this discussion though because it gets too hairy when trying to compare things across history and this is a political discussion.

Carry on with the politics.

The context is political philosophy. Matters of economics are very muddy. Especially when you take into account the differences between agrarian, industrial and information economies. Furthermore, the impact on economics from the Empire building of any nation - the balance act between national economics and the inflow of Tribute must be considered. What a society chooses tends to be what is advantageous. This isn't to say that political philosophy doesn't get intertwined from time to time, but, it is hardly worth making a rule out of.

[dub CRISP]

yeah I'm in economics so that's most of what I know.

[TheSilentAssassin]

I can't imagine a more ridiculous way to talk about a political spectrum than by tradition. The confusion stems from this. Why not subject political systems to judgement of value (communal v personal autonomy, divisions of power, etc) instead of this archaic method of historical evaluation?

[Nikilwig]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

God, do I have to make a mallet that says "social democracy =/= socialism" and beat you all over the ****ing head with it? Despite the bull**** Fox news spews, there is nothing socialistic about the Democratic Party. Period. ****ing read a book

Nothing socialistic about the democratic party? I would argue that there are very socialistic qualities to the democratic party as well as the republican party.

In fact I would even put forth that America is a socialist nation, even if just moderately. Look at our total government expenditure in relation to our current gross domestic product. Our government spending is roughly 42% of the GDP, where do you think that money comes from, that comes from the people and the corporations. As it stands the US at least has a socialist nature, and the government are major stakeholders in corporations and individuals and does play a steady hand in the means of production.

I'd advise against slapping mental condition labels on people like aspergers that's asinine and has nothing to do with the conversation. And no I don't watch Fox News, why is that even being asked, just deal with the facts. We can all try to discuss and prove each other wrong civilly.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Nikilwig

Nothing socialistic about the democratic party? I would argue that there are very socialistic qualities to the democratic party as well as the republican party.

In fact I would even put forth that America is a socialist nation, even if just moderately. Look at our total government expenditure in relation to our current gross domestic product. Our government spending is roughly 42% of the GDP, where do you think that money comes from, that comes from the people and the corporations. As it stands the US at least has a socialist nature, and the government are major stakeholders in corporations and individuals and does play a steady hand in the means of production.

I'll get to work on that mallet.

"social democracy =/= socialism"

But really, I don't want to have this conversation with someone who doesn't understand that and I don't want to ruin Martians discussion, so that's as far as we are going to go.

Originally Posted by Nikilwig

I'd advise against slapping mental condition labels on people like aspergers that's asinine and has nothing to do with the conversation.

It's a running joke. Why are you making assumptions you clearly couldn't understand?

[Nikilwig]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

I'll get to work on that mallet.

"social democracy =/= socialism"

But really, I don't want to have this conversation with someone who doesn't understand that and I don't want to ruin Martians discussion, so that's as far as we are going to go.



It's a running joke. Why are you making assumptions you clearly couldn't understand?

Social democracy = socialism

But really, I don't want to have a conversation with some who doesn't understand that so that's as far as we're going to go. Gee that was easy, could you use facts or logic to support your argument so I can understand where you are coming from?


How was I supposed to understand that running joke...

[dub CRISP]

Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism.

from:
Busky, Donald F. (2000), Democratic Socialism: A Global Survey, Westport, Connecticut, USA: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.,, p. 8, "The Frankfurt Declaration of the Socialist International, which almost all social democratic parties are members of, declares the goal of the development of democratic socialism"

[Nikilwig]

I think he meant to say social democracy =/= communism or marxism

It's socialist by definition at least by my interpretation.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Nikilwig

Social democracy = socialism

But really, I don't want to have a conversation with some who doesn't understand that so that's as far as we're going to go. Gee that was easy, could you use facts or logic to support your argument so I can understand where you are coming from?

Sweden is a social democracy. China is a socialist state.
Finland is a social democracy. Cuba is a socialist state.
To be clear, we are a liberal democracy.

The difference is as clear as authoritarianism v democracy. This is intro level political science stuff. There is no debate. You have shown a clear ignorance of comparative politics. Please stop.

Originally Posted by Nikilwig

How was I supposed to understand that running joke...

You weren't. The joke wasn't for you. But you made an assumption about a poster in a forum you are new to (or at least not frequent in) and looked dumb for it.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by dub CRISP

Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism.

Keep reading that wiki article:

"Social democracy beginning in the 1920s was influenced by the development of liberal socialism that fused liberal and socialist ideals while rejecting both Marxism and state socialism."

Social democracy no longer means what Bernstein created a century ago, just as modern Communism doesn't really have much to do with Marx. The idea that socialism and social democracy are even close to related at this point is archaic at best.

[quakcer]

Originally Posted by Tafari Makonnen

Blake is one of those sad stupid people that is unaware of how stupid he is, and actually believes his is more intelligent than others.

Here we have irony post of the day. It almost seems like you'd have to purposely try to fail that hard.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Good job, Blake. You got him...

[Tafari Makonnen]

Oh ****! A typo!

[F1VENOM]

Originally Posted by quakcer

Here we have irony post of the day. It almost seems like you'd have to purposely try to fail that hard.

Or fat finger and autocorrect fails?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Gentlemen,

Blake has been weighed and measured a few times over. He's still young, cut him a little slack.