So sick of left vs right, why do Americans buy into the political/media class labels?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV5UTHRx0a4

You keep missing the point Balbus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freetown_Christiania

For sake of argument, they seem to be doing fine without any government.

It's about applying what is most logical. How do we want to live our lives and how do we actually reach for this?

Does going to war contradict with achieving peace? Logical answer required.

I strongly believe that many points made by socialists, capitalists, libertarians, etc, are contradictory to the goal. So what I do, and what I suspect other have done, is look at which ideas are contradictory and which aren't. What are our goals and how do we reach them by reasonable means...etc etc.

Do the Bushmen concern themselves with political labels, or do they call it for what it is? We all want peace, better environments to live in, beauty, allowance of basic human rights, etc. How do we achieve any of that? We achieve it by using logic, and what political labels do is it separates these logical arguments and everything becomes convoluted. A lie here, contradiction here, all of which is hidden away within each ideology and if you mentally put yourself in one of these areas then you limit thinking, and our ability to reach our goals.

Suddenly, you are more concerned with where to place yourself on the chart, rather than the problems at hand, and we end up arguing which 'side' is superior; it's a huge distraction.

"If you label me, you negate me".

 

OK, as of this moment I no longer consider myself left or right. My political views are exactly the same, but somehow I now feel vastly superior to everyone else who is still fooled by the left right paradigm.

 

I don't believe in this to feel superior. It's a belief of mine, simple as that.

 

You don't have to buy into or play out any particular ideology for this to be true of your POV. From what I have read of your posts, I don't think you "believe in this" to feel superior.
Some clearly do.

 

Def

I’ve actually known people that lived in Christiania or stayed there and from what they’ve told me there were (and probably still are) political factions within the community trying to push their viewpoints.

That shouldn’t be surprising; anyone who’s lived in any community knows that factions and groups emerge, sometimes based on a person, an issue or a philosophy.

From allowing the building of a wind farm to what kind of biscuits to have at the meeting to discuss having the wind farm, groups emerge -

One group wants chocolate chip cookies another Garibaldi’s, another digestives and another don’t want any.

A discussion ensues, the merits of each biscuit (or having none) put forward and a compromise struck on getting oatmeal’s.

Now on to the wind farm, but first do people want tea, coffee, water…

**

We all want peace, better environments to live in, beauty, allowance of basic human rights, etc. How do we achieve any of that?

We all want peace but people have differing interpretations as to what peace is – “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace”

The ‘Pax Romana’ did enforce peace and many people in history have claimed they are fighting, conquering in the name of peace. It was how America’s ‘savage’ tribes were ‘pacified’. The imperialist policies of the British Empire were justified on the grounds of the ‘Pax Britannica’.

Others believe in trying to seek peace through negotiation and compromise by trying to achieve a consensus, and others have called such things appeasement.

Are these standpoints the same?

Or are they differing?

**

We all want a better environment to live in but how is that to be achieved and what is a better environment?

A person’s standard of living can have an impact on how nice their immediate environment is but that very standard of living can have a detrimental impact on the global environment.

So someone pushing for a better immediate environment can come into conflict with those seeking to protect the wider environment.

Should people’s life styles be dictated by environmental concerns, should trees be felled, rubbish burnt or oil be drilled or the land and wildlife be protected.

For example some people thing the whole global warming idea is a con; others fear it is all too true, and there are views in-between and many others on what is to be done.

Are these views the same?

Or are they different?

**

We all want people to have basic human rights but what are human rights and when do they apply?

Do all people have a right to life?

What if they take a life, what if they take many, what if they are the cause of many lives being taken?

Should such people be punished, even executed?

If so is a soldier a common murder, is a legally chosen leader who goes to war a criminal?

Is torture a necessary evil if it saves lives or should never be under any circumstances or only used in special cases or is it ok to not do the torturing yourself but send someone on to somewhere that might do it?

**

People have differing views on many subjects and it’s usually never black and white, good or evil, it is virtually all shades of differing hues.

In politics there are left wing and right wing viewpoints and stances.

But I’ve made it very clear over the years that in politics there are not just two block outlooks one block of the right and one block of the left, and never the two shall meet.

There is varying degree from one side to the other from ultra extreme right wing views to ultra moderate conservatives and over to ultra moderate left wingers on to the most hardened Marxist/Stalinist. And not all people hold the same level of viewpoint on every subject.

I have examined my own views and they are left wing and when asked I’ve described myself as a pragmatic socialist with strong green leanings.

I have more left wing friends that think my views are wishy washy, but others here have called me a Stalinist. But I’m not self delusional to the point that I’d believe my views aren’t on the whole left wing.

My viewpoint based in this philosophy of self examination also leads me to a belief in debate as a means of scrutinising the merits of any particular idea or viewpoint.

*

But what if someone suddenly proclaims there are not differing views, just their view and others, a right way and a wrong way (as Rat has put it).

(Digestive type biscuits are right so all other types of biscuit are wrong)

And what happens when the person saying this seem to hold views that are mainly all right wing and attacks anything that isn’t? But declare his views are not right wing?

What if these people then refuse to discuss their views, because since they think them ‘right’ they don’t need to be defended them or have there merits weighted.

Are they really opening up debate or trying to close it down?

Do people like Rat discuss why their views are not right wing or just tell people they are not? Do they discuss the merits of their political ideas or refuse to discuss them?

**

 

O Rly?

 

Some internet forumtrolls may also reply "O RLY?" in response to a lengthy or overly detailed post

 

Balbus- you say my views are right wing and that i try to hide that they are right wing. What my whole point was about though is the fact that most americans would consider my view on gay marriage to be left wing and so too my view on drug legalization. My point was that the majority of people are not "conservative" or "liberal" or "libertarian" or anarchist", most people are just themselves and sometimes they line up with one group and sometimes they line up with another but that it seems awfully unfair to lump pro-lifers with pro-torturers, or pro-gun rights activists with anti-gay marriage folks. I'll be talking to someone about gun rights and all of sudden i'm labeled a bush loving warmonger, they don't ask my views on the war, the fact that i take a position to the right on one issue means i must take to the right on every issue.

And i don't appreciate you repeating that i'm a darwinist and quoting the same text every time you post in one of my threads or respond to one of my posts. Especially the same unflatteringly emotional words from 2 years ago. Try discussing the topic and words at hand.

and i don't believe i stated in my topic post that my views were neither right nor left. What i tried to convey is that my views could be considered left or right depending on the topic at hand and the degree to which aonther person believes it to be of either right or left from their POV.

 

Hahah. What the hell, Christiana does have its own government, it's a Commune. They are a self-governing community.

Man, that was funny.

 

Well i don't really feel superior, i just think most people have an individual POV and their own reasons for believing this but not that and that but not this are largely shaped by their own experiences. I think the ones with a superiority complex are those political wonks and activists who are so "all or nothing" that as soon as they hear your view on one issue they've already dismissed you and whatever views you might have held on a variety of unrelated topics.

 

It's partially self-governing.

 

Mkay. And the other part is??????

 

An autonomous collective?

An anarcho-syndicalist commune?

*grins wide*

 

I think all of that makes sense. And I think calling you a right wing libertarian misses the point completely.

But I don't see how calling you a libertarian means you don't have an individual POV or that you didn't come to those views independently, its just a reasonably accurate description of the views you have expressed.

I don't know why left wing means big government economics, and small government on (some) social issues, or why right wing means the opposite. But libertarians are a minority, these left right divisions do seem to make sense to most people, across many countries.

So I don't think we can get beyond left and right - even if we disagree that adding up all these supposedly left (or right) wing views on everything from gay rights to taxes results in a coherent (to you or me) ideology, there ARE issues, there ARE two sides to them, and whethere we like it or not, they are left or rights sides in a sense that everyone understands.

 

Shane

My point is that there have been many people that come to the site claiming they are not of the right or left and then go on to
preach what is essentially a right wing viewpoint.

To me that is dishonest.

**

“the majority of people are not "conservative" or "liberal" or "libertarian" or anarchist",”

Imagine someone that claimed they were not libertarian but on the whole pushed a libertarian message, does their assertion that they are not libertarian out-weight the fact that they are pushing libertarian views?

You have given your position on a number of issues but none seem to run contrary to right wing libertarian philosophy.

As to your ideas as to what is ‘right wing’ and what ‘left wing’ I think you miss the point, lets take one of your examples of a ‘left wing’ issue – gay marriage.
In the UK gay rights isn’t really a hot political issue any more but then the we are not a very religious country.



And once you get over a religion based belief that homosexuality is just plain wrong (or evil) then what is their in political terms against gay rights? I mean a member of the (the most right wing of the UK’s major political party’s) the Conservative party, who is also a part of their shadow cabinet Alan Duncan got married to his partner James only a couple of days ago and this is how one of Britain’s most right wing newspapers reported it http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1474657.ece

It wasn’t even a major story just an aside.

It seems to me that the opposition to gay marriage in the US has more to do with religious philosophy than political philosophy?

**

And i don't appreciate you repeating that i'm a darwinist and quoting the same text every time you post in one of my threads or respond to one of my posts. Especially the same unflatteringly emotional words from 2 years ago. Try discussing the topic and words at hand.

(edit: I think you mean Social Darwinist. I believe in evolutionary theory so you could say I’m a Darwinist, but that’s not the same as Social Darwinism)

I’m sure I’m not the only one that would notice that you do not refute or deny what you said, you do make it plain you don’t like me pointing out your viewpoint, but you don’t deny it is your viewpoint.

I gave the quote because that seemed to be basically your position but I also gave a link to a much longer discussion that examined views in more detail.

Are you claiming here that you have now changed your position?

**

 

Okay, i can understand your point, you don't want posters claiming they have no allegiance to a particular political viewpoint and then proceed to promote one particular viewpoint, claiming neutrality while not remaining neutral. I'm not trying to "fly under the radar" or anything. I will agree that the majority of my political views fall under the "right wing" catagory. I guess my real issue is people using the term "right wing" to lump my libertarian/individualist beliefs in with the same group of people who believe in prayer in school, enhanced interrogation, and a border fence. The reason i say i'm sick of "left vs right" is that it seems that we have a "pick a side" mentality going on, and i don't feel entirely comfortable being associated with the sides that have been drawn up.

I'm glad gay marriage is not much of an issue in the U.K., but i don't think it's just Americans who have a problem with it, traditionalists abound worldwide, i am very much pleased that at least it's being discussed and debated in the U.S. and no longer treated as a contemptable blasphemy as it is in a lot of the world. Fortunately public opinion appears to be for the joining of the rest of the first world in the "love who thou wilt" area.

the truth is that my words in the part you keep quoting were ill thought out. I don't want to rip apart the constitution. that comment stemmed mostly from my frustration at it's seeming irrelevancy. I don't want to tear up all the roads, though i do wish we were living in tighter communities where we are encouraged not to commute 1/2 a state away throughout the week, but to live work and play in our local communites, communities in which we cultivate and protect our natural environment. I don't want to give everyone a gun and have them shoot it out, but i do believe that mentally competent adults should have access to the most effective means of self defense at their disposal should they ever need to defend themselves.

My views are pretty much the same, but i am a bit embarrased at the immature way in which they were previously expressed.

i would also say that while some of my views have changed somewhat, it has been more of an evolution of thought than an abrupt change of opinion. I will admit though that the comments regarding responsibilty to your fellow man were a bit harsh. I should say that my view is that we do have a moral responsibilty to our fellow human beings, and the top of that list is to treat our fellow human beings as equals and as individual sovereign human beings. I do not believe that government is the best vehicle to inact needed social change, nor do i believe it is morally just to force 1 man to give to another, only to encourage and promote the practice of charity. I believe that force demeans both the giver and reciever, is ineffective, sometimes counter-productive and encourages a power structure that generally holds the welfare of either party a distant second to the continuance of the power structure. Charity not welfare, love not duty, cooperation not obedience.

And i don't believe in social darwinism, i believe in protecting individual rights and encouraging individual responsibility, i don't want to throw anyone to the wolves, but neither do i want to be coddled or forced to coddle another from cradle to grave with responsibilty and accountablitiy being replaced by blame and scapegoating. My fear is that history will repeat itself and the individual will become subordinate to a powerful and ambitious government that seeks it's own interests above that of the people. History has shown the authoritarian impulse to be active in both left and right circles. And though i don't want to pull a godwin here, they all started with a collectivist battleground mentality. One is sacrificed for the good of many. I'm concerned that if we let our guard down the sacrife we are asked to make will again be too much for a utopian vision that was always unattainable. whether that makes me a leftist or a righty is, to me, beside the point. i feel pressure to join one club or the other simply because i share a handfull of issues in common when the truth is that i don't think my overall POV fits comfortable in either camp. I'd rather not be boxed in, but that doesn't mean i'm trying to avoid being held accountable for the reasons behind my own views.

does that make sense to you?



*** on a side note: oh when i had the patience, time and energy to engage in the kind of discussion in those threads. Living kind of gets in the way of thinking after a while...

 

Ty Shane. You articulated that very well for me.

I can tell people that I am a libertarian, but all of my ideas don't always perfectly align themselves with the grid. I will say that I am a Libertarian as some sort of road map for others to understand where I stand, but it doesn't accurately represent me.

The right vs left mentality right now is that people end up supporting their side no matter how idiotic their leaders are being. I don't like how someone's ideology is more important than using their minds to try to solve the unique issue at hand, individually; Instead, I feel that people use ideologies as a blueprint - a blanket - to solve everything for them; Copy and pasting 'solutions' based on that blueprint. If one solution isn't working, then move onto something else, but I don't really see that in politics right now. I don't see people critically thinking in order to solve their issues, but instead, enact that blueprint from their 'side'. Either side doesn't want to admit that the other side may have a good idea here and there.

Their needs to be more cooperation, instead if blindly fighting for your side.

I want people to start talking about solutions instead focusing on so deeply where people fall politically...

I remember when I was eight years old sitting at my seat in my elementary school classroom and my teacher asked everyone if they are liberal or republican. Now, what do eight year old's know about politics? Yet she asked everyone what they were, and the teacher came to me, I froze and I just blurted out something (It felt strange to me to choose a side). The answer I gave (dunno if I said lib or rep) cused everyone in the classroom to look at me, and one of the kids was surprised by my answer and asked me, "Really?". At eight years old, and already asked to PICK A SIDE. What about focusing on how to creatively and critically solving individual issues? Focus on the issues.

It seems that choosing a side acts more as a means to gain social acceptance than a means to solve important issues.

I choose the solutions that WORK, regardless of what side these solutions come from and regardless if it goes against my main viewpoints. My viewpoints are not static and I am always willing and open to changing my mind. "If you can't change your mind, then you probably don't have one".

 

Shane
I guess my real issue is people using the term "right wing" to lump my libertarian/individualist beliefs in with the same group of people who believe in prayer in school, enhanced interrogation, and a border fence. The reason i say i'm sick of "left vs right" is that it seems that we have a "pick a side" mentality going on, and i don't feel entirely comfortable being associated with the sides that have been drawn up.

You really should read some of my posts, one of the major themes has been the (mostly) America view that seem to equate any left wing thought as hard-line Stalinism.

I’m sure you must have seen it yourself someone puts forward some slightly liberal viewpoint and they get accused of being a ‘pinko’.

This is the very reason why people need to discuss openly and frankly about their political ideas and be willing to explain them.

And they need to look at them objectively, I’m not a Stalinist and I find it rather offensive to be called one but that doesn’t make me claim I’m not left wing because that would be silly, my views are left wing. All I can do it explain why my views are not Stalinist.

You may not like being associated with other areas of the right just as don’t like being associated with some areas of the left, but that doesn’t mean you views are not mainly right wing.

It is not about having to pick a side a then stick by it ‘right or wrong’, I’ve criticised left wingers many time (again you really should read my posts), Christopher Hitchins is of the left but his conduct (and the others of the left that took his stance) over the Iraq war makes me livid.

As I’ve repeated many times I’m a pragmatic socialist with green leanings, I’d work with right wingers if they were pursuing what I thought was a good policy but that wouldn’t mean I’d stop criticising there over all philosophy.

Be loud, be proud, come on out of the political closet and say what you think.

 

Shane

I do not believe that government is the best vehicle to inact needed social change, nor do i believe it is morally just to force 1 man to give to another, only to encourage and promote the practice of charity. I believe that force demeans both the giver and reciever, is ineffective, sometimes counter-productive and encourages a power structure that generally holds the welfare of either party a distant second to the continuance of the power structure. Charity not welfare, love not duty, cooperation not obedience.

The problem is it didn’t work, before the introduction of state provision, charity alone had very little impact on many social ills especially at the times when it was needed most.

It was also open to corruption, manipulation and bias; even today there are charity scandals and in the UK charities are monitored and regulated by government for the very reason that such corruption took place.

Then there are Jewish, Christian or Islamic charities were a recipient has to be a Jew, a Christian or a Muslim. Then there are those that put other conditions on receiving money such as hospitals only having abstinence based sex health programmes.

In the past many charities came under the control of those with the money and therefore the times to ‘do’ charity work and therefore mirrored their values as to who were the deserving and undeserving poor and who should receive the money.

Try reading - Poor Relief and Charity by R. Humphreys

**

And i don't believe in social darwinism, i believe in protecting individual rights and encouraging individual responsibility, i don't want to throw anyone to the wolves,

But the question is how you stop people being thrown to the wolves, if you really want to rely solely on charity I can’t see how you can stop it happening.

**

but neither do i want to be coddled or forced to coddle another from cradle to grave with responsibilty and accountablitiy being replaced by blame and scapegoating.

By why should it be “replaced by blame and scapegoating”?

**

My fear is that history will repeat itself and the individual will become subordinate to a powerful and ambitious government that seeks it's own interests above that of the people.

I think we’ve been through this before…anyway which history? What do you term government?

Feudalism is a system of government, absolute monarchs had government. To me libertarianism would inevitably lead to a plutocratic oligarchy but it would still be a system of government.

Thing is that oligarchies have a tendency to be very authoritarian toward those not in the right class.

**

History has shown the authoritarian impulse to be active in both left and right circles.

This is why people need to discuss politics to see if within a political viewpoint dangers might be hidden.

I’ve made it no secret that believe there are dangers with a libertarian system. Are you willing to discuss those fears?

**

on a side note: oh when i had the patience, time and energy to engage in the kind of discussion in those threads. Living kind of gets in the way of thinking after a while...

I agree and my three year old definitely gets in the way sometimes, but hey I love her for it.