*titanium*
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#21
Report 11 years ago
#21
I have always found winston churchills quote on economic left and right very amussing.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
0
reply
C_B_C
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#22
Report 11 years ago
#22
You have to choose between being ant-like and making the political system orbit around the nation, as a whole (i.e. Facisim) or being more dog-like, and only thinking about each individual and their rights (i.e. Comunisim).

Of corse, this is quite an exageration (or a simplification), as I've only mentioned the two extremes.

I think I'm slightly more right-winged then most of society, but I'm still a socialist...even though I am against capitalism.
0
reply
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#23
Report 11 years ago
#23
(Original post by C_B_C)
I think I'm slightly more right-winged then most of society, but I'm still a socialist...even though I am against capitalism.
A sentence that makes no sense...welcome to D&D.
0
reply
Oswy
Badges: 13
#24
Report 11 years ago
#24
(Original post by *titanium*)
I have always found winston churchills quote on economic left and right very amussing.

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
Didn't Churchill call for the nationalisation of the railways?

Besides, you'd have to be ignorant of the history of health care in Britain to deny the hugely positive change which the NHS brought to many lives.
0
reply
ukebert
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 11 years ago
#25
(Original post by C_B_C)
You have to choose between being ant-like and making the political system orbit around the nation, as a whole (i.e. Facisim) or being more dog-like, and only thinking about each individual and their rights (i.e. Comunisim).
Not so, in terms of the individual Communism is a lot closer to Fascism than to Anarchism. A lot closer.
0
reply
*titanium*
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#26
Report 11 years ago
#26
(Original post by C_B_C)
You have to choose between being ant-like and making the political system orbit around the nation, as a whole (i.e. Facisim) or being more dog-like, and only thinking about each individual and their rights (i.e. Comunisim).

Of corse, this is quite an exageration (or a simplification), as I've only mentioned the two extremes.

I think I'm slightly more right-winged then most of society, but I'm still a socialist...even though I am against capitalism.
Forget the ideals for a second, but if you anilise communist systems, yes there is free schoolinh and health care and a guarnteed wage, but then look at how harsh the system is, no fredom, people who opose the government get killed, you cant choose your future you are told by the state what you will do and theres no choice and you get payed poorly for it, you get set targets you can not meet, they turn people in to workhorses. It looks to me like this system is not for the good of the person but for the good of the nation. Whilst the USSR stocked weapons and sent astronauts in to orbit and made advances in enigneering, the quality of life of the citizens was low. the idea is genrally that left is for the good of the person right is for the good of the nation however the specterum is actualy a loop which meets at its extremity and is very nationalistic. Oh and left people do not care about the people they care about the 'ideal' of communism. They support communist countries led by dictators who harm the citizens and often hate their own free countries who are capital. See capital means little government control, communism is full government control, when the government has full control, you get a dictatorship.
0
reply
ukebert
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#27
Report 11 years ago
#27
(Original post by *titanium*)
Forget the ideals for a second, but if you anilise communist systems, yes there is free schoolinh and health care and a guarnteed wage, but then look at how harsh the system is, no fredom, people who opose the government get killed, you cant choose your future you are told by the state what you will do and theres no choice and you get payed poorly for it, you get set targets you can not meet, they turn people in to workhorses. It looks to me like this system is not for the good of the person but for the good of the nation. Whilst the USSR stocked weapons and sent astronauts in to orbit and made advances in enigneering, the quality of life of the citizens was low. the idea is genrally that left is for the good of the person right is for the good of the nation however the specterum is actualy a loop which meets at its extremity and is very nationalistic. Oh and left people do not care about the people they care about the 'ideal' of communism. They support communist countries led by dictators who harm the citizens and often hate their own free countries who are capital. See capital means little government control, communism is full government control, when the government has full control, you get a dictatorship.
Although the USSR and others were not communist by any stretch of the imagination and some of your points are inaccurate, your point can stand, yes. I personally think Communism is a little authoritarian for my taste. Certain breeds of it anyway.
0
reply
darktidus
Badges: 0
#28
Report 11 years ago
#28
(Original post by Bismarck)
It's a false distinction. What is economic leftism? It's certain politicians and/or bureaucrats deciding that they know how to use people's money better than the people who earn it.

The larger the government, the more ways in which the government can abuse its position. Let's take a simple scenario: one country has a government that controls 1% of the economy (libertarian) and another country has a government that completely controls an economy (socialism). If both governments were corrupt, which of the two would be able to cause more harm?
The second government, of course, would cause less harm. That's obvious. What's been omitted is that the power lost by government goes somewhere, and in a right-capitalist view, that means, in practise, straight to powerful corporations. The real question is whether these corporations can or would cause more damage than a government.

Now, I like your idea of limited government. I agree that 'that government which is best which governs least', but I also agree with the logical (and I think sensible) extension seen in the addition made by Henry David Thoreau: "it amounts finally to this...that government is best which governs not at all".

Moreover, I think you missed my point, probably because I didn't make it clear enough. My point was that there is a difference between authoritarian leftism, of the breed that Lenin, Stalin and so on are famous for, and the far more common libertarian leftism that is prevalent among British students. Libertarian leftists are generally at least as opposed to government and assertions of authority as libertarian rightists, usually far more so (take say, the matter of prisons, for example).
0
reply
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#29
(Original post by ukebert)
Depends how you define "political activity"
I suppose I mean this: if we went back to "the start" (hypothetically), what way would there be of deciding who to rule and how? Think of how in the game Age of Empires, you always start with a set of resources and a few workmen standing there doing nothing. Assuming we were those workmen, how do we decide on what to do with the resources? What sort of arguments would justify the allocation of those resources? What sort of considerations is politics mounted on? Can it really all be about personal considerations or is it also about choosing with others in mind? etc etc
0
reply
mfm89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 11 years ago
#30
i'd like to make it like a game of Monopoly. Everyone starts out with the same opportunities to create wealth. Some end up richer, some go bankrupt, but everyone had the chance to be either.
0
reply
ukebert
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#31
Report 11 years ago
#31
You ever lost monopoly?
0
reply
mfm89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 11 years ago
#32
No i'm always banker and cheat, slip myself 100's.
0
reply
ukebert
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#33
Report 11 years ago
#33
You thinkking of extending that tactic to real life then? :p:
0
reply
Gilliwoo
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report Thread starter 11 years ago
#34
If Phawkins or Drunkhamster are lurking about somewhere, I'd be very interested in their (no doubt contrasted) views, with particular relevance to this version of the thread question
0
reply
mfm89
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 11 years ago
#35
(Original post by ukebert)
You thinkking of extending that tactic to real life then? :p:
If i could get away with it.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#36
Report 11 years ago
#36
(Original post by Gilliwoo)
If Phawkins or Drunkhamster are lurking about somewhere, I'd be very interested in their (no doubt contrasted) views, with particular relevance to this version of the thread question
I think my answer would be fairly simple - ideally, there wouldn't be anyone ruling (so the question of how to rule wouldn't really come into play). I'm not sure the A of E example is a good one to illustrate what I'm talking about though, because it already posits the existence of commander and a starting set of 'communally' owned resources, with no hint of how the situation came to be this way. My entire political viewpoint is based around the idea that people will be better off without a dictatorial centralised power.

Rather, I think that the libertarian principles of non-aggression and a reasonable theory of homesteading (i.e. a conception of how it is that unowned natural resources can be justly turned into property, most likely with some kind of Lockean proviso of leaving 'enough and as good... to others') would be by far lead to the best results; best from a utilitarian, altruistic, deontological, rights-based or even egalitarian point of view depending on your taste.

And I guess I'd reject the dichotomy between making a decision between, as you put it, "personal considerations or... choosing with others in mind.' I think that the beauty of voluntary trade and free markets consists in the fact that the two are intimately tied together; if the market is free enough, the only way to personally gain is to provide value to others. I'd be happy to elaborate a lot more if you want
0
reply
Socrates
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#37
Report 11 years ago
#37
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
I think my answer would be fairly simple - ideally, there wouldn't be anyone ruling (so the question of how to rule wouldn't really come into play).
Shame it would never work.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#38
Report 11 years ago
#38
(Original post by DrunkHamster)
most likely with some kind of Lockean proviso of leaving 'enough and as good... to others')
I have trouble squaring the circle of finding morality in property rights. In that sense, I am probably a simple rule utilitarian in terms of anything external to the individual.

Surely the Lockesian provisio that you cite is complete twaddle though? It may be quite attractive to a woodsman in a forest, felling the occasional tree for firewood. However in other circumstances, its weaknesses seem rather obvious. How can you exploit oil yet leave 'enough and as good... to others'?

The various gold rushes of history show natural resources being exploited by huge numbers of people, usually only taking very small quantities of the resource in question - however it still doesn't change the fact that enough and as good was not left for others.
0
reply
DrunkHamster
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#39
Report 11 years ago
#39
(Original post by L i b)
I have trouble squaring the circle of finding morality in property rights. In that sense, I am probably a simple rule utilitarian in terms of anything external to the individual.
Fair enough; I'm not sure I particularly disagree with you these days. But at any rate, if you're enough of a deontologist to believe in self-ownership, I think there's a fairly persuasive argument in that it's worthless without the ability to utilise and own parts of the external world, at least to the extent needed to sustain yourself. What's the point of owning your body if you can't own the food you need to stay alive?

Surely the Lockesian provisio that you cite is complete twaddle though? It may be quite attractive to a woodsman in a forest, felling the occasional tree for firewood. However in other circumstances, its weaknesses seem rather obvious. How can you exploit oil yet leave 'enough and as good... to others'?
Yeah you're absolutely right, and I didn't mean to suggest that I'm a firm believer in a naive Lockean proviso. The concept clearly needs a lot of refining: as it has been pointed out, all property would be disallowed if we insisted that 'enough and as good' remained. (It doesn't work because someone at the end of a chain of acquisitions of a resource will eventually be faced with a scenario that would not leave enough and as good, and hence not be allowed to appropriate them. But, then, the person immediately before him will not have left enough and as good, as well as the person before him etc). Additionally, 'mixing labour' with a resource is not, IMO, a necessary or sufficient condition for ownership. I think Nozick is far more along the right lines when he reformulates the principle by saying that ownership of a natural resource is just and acceptable if and only if the position of others after the acquisition is no worse off. Yes, this doesn't mean that the position of others will be optimal (or even better), but I believe that economic theory sorts that out well enough.

(Original post by Socrates)
Shame it would never work.
Never is a long time... maybe not in the Feudal ages, but I see no reason why a modern, technologically advanced, post-enlightenment civilisation couldn't operate perfectly well without a central government.
0
reply
CartesianFart
Badges: 0
#40
Report 11 years ago
#40
(Original post by Gilliwoo)
Here's a lovely simplistic question: is right-wing politics simply a convenient cloak for systematic spite? OK, less biasedly, is political activity (which I will take to mean, here, collective effort and decisions in the allocation of a community's resources) essentially referenced to, and justified by power-sources e.g. monarchs, the relgious order, oligarchs, plutocrats and The Evil State; or is it in fact informed by moral ideals (taking 'moral' here to mean considerations of justice and fairness). Third Ways and thoughts are welcome.
By God! Right-Wing and Left-Wing are simply bigoted ideologies.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (26)
7.22%
They might tell the bully (34)
9.44%
I don't think they'd understand (55)
15.28%
It might lead to more bullying (139)
38.61%
There's nothing they could do (106)
29.44%

Watched Threads

View All