 |
| |
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
You aren't making any argument. You are just making subjective generalized assumptions. Like collectivization is right wing.
|
WTF? I'm saying precisely that is isn't necessarily right wing, it is merely totalitarian, and that there is a difference between.
quote:
You can't have socialist elements in a right wing govt. You either have a system where all people are treated equally and they are not oppressed by the govt, or you have a system where some people are given special priviledges and or the govt oppresses people. The first is left, the second is right.
|
I think that's been thorougly countered by now, however I'll go over it one more time. Since left or right is primarily an economic factor (and any social link is situation and secondary... variable historically) there can be a separate social elements... that second dimension. However to understand this you need to understand why left and right are solely economic concerns. To do that you need to be shown how the same economic policy can apply in a totalitarian or libertarian environment.
Heres the example. High taxes, lots of state ownership, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Left wing, but liberal. Low taxes, little state ownership, private enterprise. Freedom of speech, freedom of association. Fundamentally different economies, same social policy. Left and right respectively.
I think you are succumbing in the same way many have, of assuming communism, socialism, capitalism are coherent, rigid political systems. They are not, they are elements, the building blocks of more specific systems. Consider the difference between the UK and China. Liberty and totality are the same as building blocks... just because you choose to use one block from economics does not oblige you to use a certain block from social... you can choose.
quote:
Stalin only claimed to be left wing. No one can prevent people from claiming anything. The fact is, that he was one of the most right wing in history.
|
The state owned everything? By definition, he was left wing. This isn't a question of categorisation of a political system, this is a question of definition of elements of that system.
quote:
You are a classical liberal which really doesn't fit into the present context. You are right wing because you support a system of haves and have nots. You probably believe that your right to your property is more important than others right to life, and other silliness.
|
Here's the deal, I'll tell you what I believe and you will accept it and not put words into my mouth. The nature of my views are irrelevant, if you want to discuss my "silliness" then start another thread or PM me, here we are discussing definition. As much as I disapprove of political definition, there are better methods and inferior methods and the two-dimensional method is more descriptive and accurate than a one-dimensional (economic) method.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
 |
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
WTF? I'm saying precisely that is isn't necessarily right wing, it is merely totalitarian, and that there is a difference between.
|
Oh, right. I should have said that you claim that collectivization is authoritarian.
quote:
I think that's been thorougly countered by now, however I'll go over it one more time. Since left or right is primarily an economic factor (and any social link is situation and secondary... variable historically) there can be a separate social elements... that second dimension. However to understand this you need to understand why left and right are solely economic concerns. To do that you need to be shown how the same economic policy can apply in a totalitarian or libertarian environment.
Heres the example. High taxes, lots of state ownership, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Left wing, but liberal. Low taxes, little state ownership, private enterprise. Freedom of speech, freedom of association. Fundamentally different economies, same social policy. Left and right respectively.
|
You need to talk to Ramo. High taxes are not left wing, and low taxes are not right wing. The tax rate is completely irrelevent.
quote:
The state owned everything? By definition, he was left wing. This isn't a question of categorisation of a political system, this is a question of definition of elements of that system.
|
Private property verses collectivization also is irrelevent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Oh, right. I should have said that you claim that collectivization is authoritarian.
|
Do we mean collectivisation as opposed to individualism? It is authoritarian in that case, but that can be on the left or the right, with a slight inclination toward the left.
quote:
You need to talk to Ramo. High taxes are not left wing, and low taxes are not right wing. The tax rate is completely irrelevent.
|
Individual contribution to the state, redistribution of wealth, however you wish to call it. It is relevant, and solely relevant to economics, namely left or right as previously said. Do you now claim that economics has nothing to do with left and right? I previously thought you claimed economics and social policy were integral to the other, in which case your new stance is even more fallacious!! 
quote:
Private property verses collectivization also is irrelevent.
|
For the sake of argument, assume private property is a social issue. In which case, of course it's relevant because it would be symptomatic of a conflict between liberty (right to own private property in this argument) and totality. Again, for the sake of argument, call it an economic issue, where is isn't irrelevant to collectivsation, but relationship to it, according to two sets of axis, not one.
Ummm, this has been the subject of my many posts here, you may have been reading but I doubt you've been understanding. Left and right are economic concerns, liberty vs totality are social concerns. They are relational (which we can see because systems are generated using both elements) but separable (which we can see because one can have a constant and a variable).
quote:
Oh. This is typical. He didn't give me the information to make that judgement.
|
Sure he did! He said there was a society where there were lots of rights and low taxes, and asked you whether or was left or right? I would say right, you would say left, and we would refute you accordingly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Of course it does.
|
Doesn't look that way to me! *Whaleboy looks to USSR and China). Equality requires a basis. Do we say, national, religious, cultural, political, human?
quote:
Exactly, and such a system is right wing.
|
Nein! Someone needs to read Paine...
quote:
I'm not. I'm claiming that the left historically has fought against tyranny, while the right has fought to protect it except in the case where tyranny does not benefit them personally.
|
I concur there, but that is situational. I'm looking at it in terms of what the views actually are, instead of their historical context, where they were lumped together as a reaction to the world around. For example, where society was right wing and totalitarian (not necessarily the same), the reaction in many cases was left wing and libertarianism. Look at the fall of communism in Russia. Left wing and totalitarianism replaced by right wing and liberal.
quote:
Argh! They are related. They both have to do with equality.
|
Equality is not the basis of this definition! In terms of equality, left and right economics are more or less level playing, with a slight favour toward the right. They are relational, they are not dependent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
Do we mean collectivisation as opposed to individualism? It is authoritarian in that case, but that can be on the left or the right, with a slight inclination toward the left.
|
Bingo! It can be left or right. The real issue is whether everyone benefits equally or some people benefit at the expense of others.
quote:
Individual contribution to the state, redistribution of wealth, however you wish to call it. It is relevant, and solely relevant to economics, namely left or right as previously said. Do you now claim that economics has nothing to do with left and right? I previously thought you claimed economics and social policy were integral to the other, in which case your new stance is even more fallacious!!
|
Tax rate alone doesn't determine your contribution to the state, and the benefit that you recieve from it.
quote:
For the sake of argument, assume private property is a social issue. In which case, of course it's relevant because it would be symptomatic of a conflict between liberty (right to own private property in this argument) and totality. Again, for the sake of argument, call it an economic issue, where is isn't irrelevant to collectivsation, but relationship to it, according to two sets of axis, not one.
|
I didn't say it was irrelevent to collectivism. I said it was irrelevent to the left right dichotomy. A better way to say it, however, is that it's not a determinant of left or right.
quote:
Ummm, this has been the subject of my many posts here, you may have been reading but I doubt you've been understanding. Left and right are economic concerns, liberty vs totality are social concerns. They are relational (which we can see because systems are generated using both elements) but separable (which we can see because one can have a constant and a variable).
|
I disagree that they are separable anymore than freedom and equality are seperable.
quote:
Sure he did! He said there was a society where there were lots of rights and low taxes, and asked you whether or was left or right? I would say right, you would say left, and we would refute you accordingly. |
No. I can't say either one.
Last edited by Kidicious on 03-09-2004 at 22:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Bingo! It can be left of right. The real issue is whether everyone benefits equally or some people benefit at the expense of others.
|
That seems like a concession to me. I'm assuming collectivisation to mean "cog in a machine" totalitarianism (we are the borg) in which case everyone benefits at the expense of everyone (but that's not the issue at stake... this isn't an opportunity for you to tout your views, it is like I have said, a question of definition).
Correct me if my "cog in a machine" totalitarianism interpretation of collectivisation is not what you mean, I'm only going on the definition of that term I have been taught.
quote:
Tax rate alone doesn't determine your contribution to the state, and the benefit that you recieve from it.
|
As far as a system of politics is concerned, it does, because tax is direct and intentional, any other benefits are consequential, and logicall of the same value as an "act of god".
quote:
I didn't say it was irrelevent to collectivism. I said it was irrelevent to the left right dichotomy. A better way to say it, however, is that it's not a determinant of left or right.
|
Assume it to be an economic issue, in which case it is. Assuming it to be a social issue, social issues are irrelevant to left and right anyway.
Even by your logic is it a determination of left and right, if you assume economics to determine social policy, a leftist economic policy would deny the property, thus creating a totalitarian environment (which is why the left slightly favours totality).
quote:
I disagree that they are separable anymore than freedom and equality are seperable.
|
But can you not be equal to others, where everyone has very limited freedom? Consider a bath of water. It is level regardless of the amount of water in the bath.
quote:
No. I can't say either one.
|
Lots of rights, low taxes. Left, right, centre. Explain which is the primary determination?
I'll a few more for you.
Lots of rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, low taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Well, I've hidden it pretty well all this time, but really I'm -- a lefty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kidicious
|
|
Diety of Kidiverse
Mar 2003
time: 21:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whaleboy
That seems like a concession to me.
|
It's obviously a typo.
quote:
I'm assuming collectivisation to mean "cog in a machine" totalitarianism (we are the borg) in which case everyone benefits at the expense of everyone (but that's not the issue at stake... this isn't an opportunity for you to tout your views, it is like I have said, a question of definition).
Correct me if my "cog in a machine" totalitarianism interpretation of collectivisation is not what you mean, I'm only going on the definition of that term I have been taught.
|
Exactly. It's the assumption that you have been taught to make.
quote:
As far as a system of politics is concerned, it does, because tax is direct and intentional, any other benefits are consequential, and logicall of the same value as an "act of god".
|
Don't shift the blame to God. How do you expect me to respond to that?
quote:
Assume it to be an economic issue, in which case it is. Assuming it to be a social issue, social issues are irrelevant to left and right anyway.
Even by your logic is it a determination of left and right, if you assume economics to determine social policy, a leftist economic policy would deny the property, thus creating a totalitarian environment (which is why the left slightly favours totality).
|
You mean authoritarian, not totalitarian. Anyway, no one believes that absolute freedom is a possibility. If they do, then they don't believe in civilization. We're talking relative conditions, not absolute.
quote:
But can you not be equal to others, where everyone has very limited freedom? Consider a bath of water. It is level regardless of the amount of water in the bath.
|
You can not be truly free in a society where others enjoy more priviledges than you. Only the priviledged are free.
quote:
Lots of rights, low taxes. Left, right, centre. Explain which is the primary determination?
I'll a few more for you.
Lots of rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, low taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary?
Few rights, high taxes - left, right, centre, which is primary? |
This part of our argument isn't going anywhere.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Exactly. It's the assumption that you have been taught to make.
|
Well, you dont explain your use of the term, I'm forced to rely upon what I've been taught. Nonetheless, if there is any difference, I suggest you explain.
quote:
Don't shift the blame to God. How do you expect me to respond to that?
|
By firstly reading and attempting to understand, instead of trying to score points at every abstraction. Tax is direct and intentional, also predictable. You can say "ok, contribution will be X amount" which people pay. If, by some accident or consequence, or some stroke of luck, something else benefits you, for example, some taxpayer discovers a method to triple the nations wealth, that is contributing but contributing by consequence, and as such, these events cannot be relied upon in a political theory unless you demonstrate otherwise, which you have not. Furthermore, you need to demonstrate your link between economic left and right, and necessarily liberty and totality accordingly. The only link, albeit a tenous one, links lefist economics with totality.
quote:
You mean authoritarian, not totalitarian. Anyway, no one believes that absolute freedom is a possibility. If they do, then they don't believe in civilization. We're talking relative conditions, not absolute.
|
Hang on a second, who brought up absolute freedom? Where was that mentioned? Conversely, how was a notion of absolute totality introduced to counter it? When it comes to relative conditions as opposed to absolute conditions, you do realise my reputation for being a relativist? Theres preaching to the converted, then there's preaching to a deciple! 
/egotism
Totalitarianism is the application of authoritarianism, one is directly proportional to the other. As for libertarianism, I take that to mean freedom of expression and freedom of association. You could plausibly differentiate there between civil and political rights but that's unnecessary here.
quote:
You can not be truly free in a society where others enjoy more priviledges than you. Only the priviledged are free.
|
As I see it, you have freedom as freedom of expression and association, and anything on top of that is freedom by choice, not rights... for example, offering someone the choice to go to the moon isn't making them freer since it is still your perogative. It is self-evident that freedom should remain equal for consistency, but why equalise choice above that (going to moon as opposed to FoE and FoA), since after all, we are not all equal?
However that is irrelevant. You have failed to demonstrate that freedom necessarily links leftist economics with libertarian sociology, since any perceptible gains in freedom with the former are negated by the equalisation, so in effect, equalisation serves as a constraint upon freedom. I don't think its necessary to show how human nature runs contrary to the notion of equality. Freedom means freedom to better yourself, yes at the expense of others but they have the same rights, not choices, since everyone acts in their own best interests anyway.
quote:
This part of our argument isn't going anywhere.
|
Why not? It's a basic question that allows for a response from both my reasoning, which is self-explanatory, and yours, which will be easily refuted upon your doing so. I take it that your refusal to do so is an admission that it would be demonstrative of the holes in your reasoning thus.
BK: From your views, I doubt a simple left, right + liberty, totality graph is sufficient for you, since your views seem to transcend that they would appear inconsistent the fewer dimensions considered. It would seem that both democracy and moral dimensions would be needed too, but I'm not so great at drawing hypercubes so we'll save that for a rainy day .
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-09-2004 21:16
|