What exactly does "left" or "right" mean to you?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kucinich
How much other people are willing to pay them

That's not it.

[Boris Godunov]

Left = right
Right = wrong

Simple enough.

[SpencerH]

exactly

left=right
right=wrong

therefore

left=wrong

[Boris Godunov]

False correlation, notice my strategic differentiation of words through the use of capital letters.

[SpencerH]

I saw them, but I took it to mean that you hadnt had time to correct the typo.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's not it.

I am thus refuted

[Imran Siddiqui]

So you agree that Burke begs the question.

Then so does everyone else.

And most people believe that gradual change is best. Hell, even Sava does .

It's dumb to agree with Burke just because of the French Revolution

Well we could bring in the Russian Revolution as well . Upsetting the traditions of people overnight just will lead to violence and bloodshed. You've simply overturned most people's world.

The French Revolution is used because it REALLY went out of its way to go against tradition, in a sense no other revolution has really done. Even the Russian Revolution, for instance, kept the same days and months!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

So you agree that Burke begs the question.

Then so does everyone else.

But on a case by case basis. As a general rule of reason it is fallacious.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Well we could bring in the Russian Revolution as well . Upsetting the traditions of people overnight just will lead to violence and bloodshed. You've simply overturned most people's world.

Yes, the world wide non-massacres of women following the extension of the franchise in New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States being notable examples.

Or the non-mass slaughters of Catholics following Catholic Emancipation in the United Kingdom (yes there were the Gordon Riots, but these were quickly contained).

The Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867 extending the franchise in the United Kingdom and reforming Parliament also didn't lead to bloodshed.

Three examples of the world turned upside down with minimal bloodshed or destruction.

[Ben Kenobi]

left=right
right=wrong

therefore

left=wrong



'Fraid he has you here Boris.

[Agathon]

Man... the righties aren't coming off too well in this thread.

Come on Ben, you know you are a lefty really.

Fidel was right - nobody could read what the Man said without being one at heart.

[Ben Kenobi]

Come on Ben, you know you are a lefty really.

Sometimes I wonder when I agree with Che about the abolition of the army.

I disagree with so many things that I see in society today, yet would it be proper to call me a reformer?
Someone on the left?

[Agathon]

If you believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings, most of it follows.

My definitions are pretty expansive. I just intended them to catch the most fish, and I think they are about as good as one could get, although not perfect. That being so, there is a a lot of room for maneuver within both left and right.

There's nothing about abortion that means you must be a rightie. Plenty of lefties are anti-abortion. It's not part of the core view.

[Agathon]

Actually Ben, if you believe that the core of the moral view is to consider others as ends in themselves and not means, you must reject capitalism as a moral system since it compels you to value others as commodities (and hence, as unequal to yourself).

And if you hold that God loves all his children equally, and is prepared to extend forgiveness to all of them and see the best in all of them, then you must do so as well. That goes for homosexuals and abortionists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Three examples of the world turned upside down with minimal bloodshed or destruction.

All three were results of gradual change and long, long periods of debate and shifting ideas. Neither renders Burke's point wrong. Besides other traditions still were in existance, unlike the French Revolution's aftermath.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Left means new, progress. Right means old, anti-progress. All extensions of freedom came because leftists forced rightists to give it up.

La Lucha Continua.

I think this is a difference between liberal and conservative.

I view "right" as those who fundamentally believes in liberty. The extreme right are the liberatarians. The right generally believes that less government is the best government, and tend to be isolationists. The right opposes single-party police states as a matter of principle.

I view "left" as those who fundamentally believe in "equality." The extreme left seems to advocate single-party police states (dictatorship of the proletariate) in order to effectuate their prinicples.

Neocons are aggressive rightists (which makes them liberals) willing to use force against police states to extend democracy.

[Kidicious]

Ned,

How can the neocons be liberals if they don't believe in equality?

[Imran Siddiqui]

How can the neocons be liberals if they don't believe in equality?

Why do they don't believe in equality? Equality in what sense? Cultural equality?

Just about everyone in the American mainstream political spectrum is a 'liberal' in the classical sense of the world.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Three examples of the world turned upside down with minimal bloodshed or destruction.

All three were results of gradual change and long, long periods of debate and shifting ideas. Neither renders Burke's point wrong. Besides other traditions still were in existance, unlike the French Revolution's aftermath.

Women's votes came about as a result of gradual change? What, they had a 25% vote, then a 50% vote, then a 75% vote?

The enfranchisement of women is a major overturning of tradition, a tradition set in stone in politics and religion.
They either had the vote or they didn't- you can't be slightly pregnant.

The 1832 Reform Act overturned a traditional voting system that had seen members of the ruling oligarchy safely ensconced in power from mediaeval times- Old Sarum, an earthwork, sent two M.P.s to Parliament, having only seven voters, whose franchise was effectively controlled by the local landowner.

The 1830s and the 1840s were felt even at the time (as Dickens's writings show) to be a revolutionary era in Great Britain- effectively achieving without the same degree of bloodshed what the Revolution in France had originally set out to do. There were riots in Bristol centred around the 1832 Reform Act, and disturbances associated with the more militantly inclined Chartist Movement (a meeting put down by soldiers in Newport in Wales for instance) but it was more of a velvet revolution than either the American or the French Revolutions.

The 1867 Reform Act was also seen in its own day as revolutionary, as Matthew Arnold's 'Culture and Anarchy' and some of William Morris's writings confirm. The further extension of the franchise to the lower classes, it was felt, would sound the death knell for high culture and privilege.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Women's votes came about as a result of gradual change?

As a result of a long struggle, a gradual changing of people's minds. For example, in the US, it took about 50 years from the beginning of the sufferagist movement until the right to vote was finally realized. Yes, gradual change.

The other acts as well, were gradual in nature. It wasn't some uproar and suddenly the tradition was gone! Over time, people were convinced through debate and ideas to change things.

The fact that a democratically elected Parliament set those acts in progress show the gradual nature of the changing of tradition. It took plenty of time and discussion to get the majority necessary for the changes. It wasn't just an overnight thing like the French revolution, where the people overthrew the government and then placed in a system which deviated from just about every single tradition France had at the time.

[Agathon]

Conservatives hate policies that lead to radical change, like the Great War and the crash of 1929.

[joncha]

The French Revolution wasn't just an overnight thing either. The situation had been building to that point for some time, and the revolutionary process itself took several years... the Revolution began in the summer of 1789, but the monarchy wasn't even abolished until the end of 1792.

[Imran Siddiqui]

3 years is overnight in historical terms . It isn't simply the abolition of the monarchy (which could have been suffered), but changing everything. Killing the nobles, changing the flag, changing the days and months, etc, etc. The common people had nothing to ground themselves to anymore. It created a nice little place for a Napoleon to come in.

[joncha]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
3 years is overnight in historical terms . It isn't simply the abolition of the monarchy (which could have been suffered), but changing everything. Killing the nobles, changing the flag, changing the days and months, etc, etc. The common people had nothing to ground themselves to anymore. It created a nice little place for a Napoleon to come in.

...a full 3 more years later...

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, if you believe that the core of the moral view is to consider others as ends in themselves and not means, you must reject capitalism as a moral system since it compels you to value others as commodities (and hence, as unequal to yourself).

As a moral system?

Why would I want to value capitalism as anything more than an economic system?

To put it another way, Christianity is a moral system, capitalism is not.

There's nothing about abortion that means you must be a rightie. Plenty of lefties are anti-abortion. It's not part of the core view.

Really. I have yet to see someone on the left proclaim themselves to be prolife.

Unless, of course, you consider the Pope to be a leftist (which he is on economic values).

[Imran Siddiqui]

...a full 3 more years later...

And you believe that to be a slow change?!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
left=right
right=wrong

therefore

left=wrong



'Fraid he has you here Boris.

No, as I pointed out to him, and you omitted here, I specifically used capital letters judiciously in reference to the political stances, lowercase for the moral rectitude.

more disingenuity.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Really. I have yet to see someone on the left proclaim themselves to be prolife.

Unless, of course, you consider the Pope to be a leftist (which he is on economic values).

Umm, a large percentage of Catholics who are pro-life are political leftists. I work with one such person, and have known several over the years.

There's also:

http://www.democratsforlife.org/

Not sure if this is willful ignorance or what...

[Agathon]

As a moral system?

Why would I want to value capitalism as anything more than an economic system?

Hard line righties believe that capitalism is the only morally permissible economic system.

To put it another way, Christianity is a moral system, capitalism is not.

Based on what I said before, the Christian has to view capitalism at best as a necessary evil, and probably as a vile menace that requires removal.

Really. I have yet to see someone on the left proclaim themselves to be prolife.

Plenty do. There's nothing in the fundamental values of left wing movements that mandates pro-choice.

[General Ludd]

Really. I have yet to see someone on the left proclaim themselves to be prolife.

I am in principle, but not in practice. I don't think it should be banned - if someone doesn't want a kid, they are just going to get rid of it another way. I just think it should be discouraged, along with responsibility being encouraged.

EDIT: That is, if you want to call me 'left', anyways.