Right Wing or Left Wing?

[Lord Beautiful]

Economically right, socially left (mostly), and in terms of foreign policy, center(ish).

Libertarian, baby.

 

[Destal]

I'd describe myself as a Socialist, in the sense of democratic, Nordic-stlye Socialism.

However, the problem with asking people if they consider themselves left or right wing is that the terms are quite relative, for instance:

Personally, I think they both suck and the two party system needs to die.

I would consider the Democratic and Republican parties as right wing, and extremely right wing respectively. But from this person's perspective the Democrats appear quite left wing. I'm sure many of the people who describe as left wing or 'liberal' in this thread would turn out to be quite right wing by my estimation.

So, I think it's a bad question unless people elaborate a bit on their actual polical views rather than just their percieved position on the left-right spectrum.

If you think democrats qualify as still right wing, you are so far to the left you can't even see the moderate left anymore. You would essentially qualify as an extremist left winger if that is the case.

 

[Destal]

While I say that the money should truly be earned instead, simply to maintain competition and so that people have to do better work to earn more money, but then again, corporate bastards take the money from those who are earning it, and then Soldiers are getting paid less to risk their lives than american football players are getting paid to run back and forth knocking each other over. I'd say capitalism is better if it can remain without corruption, but as long as humanity as a species is greedy (which includes the entire forseeable future), then Capitalism cannot work well.

Greed is exactly what makes capitalism work correctly. In a capitalist society, there isn't anyone to take care of you financially, it's all on you. The greedier you are, the more motivated you'll be to succeed. It's when people get too greedy that the government needs to step in. Most of the time though, the free market promotes growth.

 

[Destal]

I suppose I'll also clarify myself a bit. I am all for very small government, maximum personal freedom, and minimal government control on industry. So, essentially, I'd fit into a Libertarian perspective.

 

[Destal]

I like the idea of a world run by the people who actually do the hard work. the lowly working class like me.

Mind telling me which party is the one by working class people? That's a Labour party that died decades ago, they're all career politicians or champagne socialists now. Just a middle class-chic concept!

--

On topic I'm fairly right wing, probably closest to libertarian by British standards. Government should make sure children are given a good education and a chance at University (Which they'll loan you money for) with healthcare provided while in education and maybe for the first couple of years out. If they're growing up in difficult circumstances then they should get the option of some kind of school boarding or something, for extreme cases like. When you're out of education and in the working market tho, you should be left to fend for yourself.

Basically I think everyone should be given a chance, but that's it. True libertarianism is just cruel for poor people/families, people get trapped by it. True socialism is just stupid, because (And I know people like this) you can just do nothing and get a free house and money to put food on the table.

Course this system wouldn't work now, people have paid a fortune their lives for pension schemes and stuff, it wouldn't be fair to just close it like that, and it wouldn't be fair to make the people who'd not get one have to pay for the older generations pensions and so on, we're all trapped into it.

I never got the left-right thing myself. Left is economic-restriction with social freedom, right is economic-freedom with social restriction. Communism is far left and Fascism is far right but they're both economic restriction AND social restriction. It's totally inconsistent. (Libertarianism is social and economic freedom but it's considered far right, like fascism, which it's the total opposite of?)

The way I usually see most spectrum is actually a full grid, left and right for socially, then up and down for fascism and communism. At least I think that's what I remember seeing, it's been quite a while.

 

[seryoga]

im not talking about british people im talking about the british government i meant no offense to the people of england wales and scotland

 

[Danzaivar]

The way I usually see most spectrum is actually a full grid, left and right for socially, then up and down for fascism and communism. At least I think that's what I remember seeing, it's been quite a while.

But how do you separate fascism from communism if you take the social part out of the equation? They're both all about state power and state rights over individual rights and individual power.

Unless you mean the political compass Which puts communism and fascism at opposites socially, but are about the same economically.

 

[Zamn]

I'd describe myself as a Socialist, in the sense of democratic, Nordic-stlye Socialism.

However, the problem with asking people if they consider themselves left or right wing is that the terms are quite relative, for instance:

Personally, I think they both suck and the two party system needs to die.

I would consider the Democratic and Republican parties as right wing, and extremely right wing respectively. But from this person's perspective the Democrats appear quite left wing. I'm sure many of the people who describe as left wing or 'liberal' in this thread would turn out to be quite right wing by my estimation.

So, I think it's a bad question unless people elaborate a bit on their actual polical views rather than just their percieved position on the left-right spectrum.

If you think democrats qualify as still right wing, you are so far to the left you can't even see the moderate left anymore. You would essentially qualify as an extremist left winger if that is the case.

The Democrats would be considered quite right wing if they were in most European countries. By American standards they're left wing. This is the whole point, the terms are relative, they're more to do with how you percieve your political position than your absolute position.

 

[Destal]

The way I usually see most spectrum is actually a full grid, left and right for socially, then up and down for fascism and communism. At least I think that's what I remember seeing, it's been quite a while.

But how do you separate fascism from communism if you take the social part out of the equation? They're both all about state power and state rights over individual rights and individual power.

Unless you mean the political compass Which puts communism and fascism at opposites socially, but are about the same economically.

Yea, that was what I was referring to, like I said it's been a while since I've seen it.

 

[Destal]

I'd describe myself as a Socialist, in the sense of democratic, Nordic-stlye Socialism.

However, the problem with asking people if they consider themselves left or right wing is that the terms are quite relative, for instance:

Personally, I think they both suck and the two party system needs to die.

I would consider the Democratic and Republican parties as right wing, and extremely right wing respectively. But from this person's perspective the Democrats appear quite left wing. I'm sure many of the people who describe as left wing or 'liberal' in this thread would turn out to be quite right wing by my estimation.

So, I think it's a bad question unless people elaborate a bit on their actual polical views rather than just their percieved position on the left-right spectrum.

If you think democrats qualify as still right wing, you are so far to the left you can't even see the moderate left anymore. You would essentially qualify as an extremist left winger if that is the case.

The Democrats would be considered quite right wing if they were in most European countries. By American standards they're left wing. This is the whole point, the terms are relative, they're more to do with how you percieve your political position than your absolute position.

That was my mistake for automatically assuming you were referring to American politics.

 

[Federalist92]

Capitalism.

Because I want the people who actually do the work to actually get the money they earned without the government stealing half of it and pissing it away on some 30 year old chav with 4 kids whose never had a job in her life.

I can live my life without the government holding my hand and I expect you to do the same.

But the people who do the hard work, sometimes dont get the money they deserve.
Take fred Goodwin as an example

 

[Fulax]

Capitalism.

Because I want the people who actually do the work to actually get the money they earned without the government stealing half of it and pissing it away on some 30 year old chav with 4 kids whose never had a job in her life.

I can live my life without the government holding my hand and I expect you to do the same.

But the people who do the hard work, sometimes dont get the money they deserve.
Take fred Goodwin as an example

Fred Goodwin's ridiculously large pension was part of a contract negotiated by the government, so in that sense he deserved it.

Funnily enough, if RBS had gone bust he would have only got around £20k per year but because the government bailed them out he got the full package. Can you really blame Goodwin for accepting the offer? Blame the government for making it in the first place.

 

[Federalist92]

Capitalism.

Because I want the people who actually do the work to actually get the money they earned without the government stealing half of it and pissing it away on some 30 year old chav with 4 kids whose never had a job in her life.

I can live my life without the government holding my hand and I expect you to do the same.

But the people who do the hard work, sometimes dont get the money they deserve.
Take fred Goodwin as an example

Fred Goodwin's ridiculously large pension was part of a contract negotiated by the government, so in that sense he deserved it.

Funnily enough, if RBS had gone bust he would have only got around £20k per year but because the government bailed them out he got the full package. Can you really blame Goodwin for accepting the offer? Blame the government for making it in the first place.

Yeah,
but when they made this deal i doubt they predicted the world reccession that hit and how he nearly put the bank under.
he could ahve at least halfed it. its not like he did his job properly or anything. He totally failed. When you fail at a job and practicaly destroy a company, i'm willing to bet that you wont be given around a £350m a year pension. Even if he had halfed it it would have still been 175 million a year. he could of at least done the moral thing and done that. While other people are failing in their jobs and then going to live on the street, he fails his job big time and gets THAT as a pension. And then he wouldnt half it because it would have been (whinney voice) just too little for him to live on.
Makes me sick

 

[Fulax]

Capitalism.

Because I want the people who actually do the work to actually get the money they earned without the government stealing half of it and pissing it away on some 30 year old chav with 4 kids whose never had a job in her life.

I can live my life without the government holding my hand and I expect you to do the same.

But the people who do the hard work, sometimes dont get the money they deserve.
Take fred Goodwin as an example

Fred Goodwin's ridiculously large pension was part of a contract negotiated by the government, so in that sense he deserved it.

Funnily enough, if RBS had gone bust he would have only got around £20k per year but because the government bailed them out he got the full package. Can you really blame Goodwin for accepting the offer? Blame the government for making it in the first place.

Yeah,
but when they made this deal i doubt they predicted the world reccession that hit and how he nearly put the bank under.
he could ahve at least halfed it. its not like he did his job properly or anything. He totally failed. When you fail at a job and practicaly destroy a company, i'm willing to bet that you wont be given around a £350m a year pension. Even if he had halfed it it would have still been 175 million a year. he could of at least done the moral thing and done that. While other people are failing in their jobs and then going to live on the street, he fails his job big time and gets THAT as a pension. And then he wouldnt half it because it would have been (whinney voice) just too little for him to live on.
Makes me sick

When they made the deal the recession was well under way and it was blatantly obvious that RBS was in pretty bad shape after their takeover of ABN AMRO. The fact that the government didn't take this into account just goes to show that politicians should keep their grubby paws off the economy.

If you got sacked would you give up half of your pension? He is legally entitled to every penny. Don't hate him just because he's rich. And anyway, the government already takes half of it off him in income tax.

 

[Federalist92]

Capitalism.

Because I want the people who actually do the work to actually get the money they earned without the government stealing half of it and pissing it away on some 30 year old chav with 4 kids whose never had a job in her life.

I can live my life without the government holding my hand and I expect you to do the same.

But the people who do the hard work, sometimes dont get the money they deserve.
Take fred Goodwin as an example

Fred Goodwin's ridiculously large pension was part of a contract negotiated by the government, so in that sense he deserved it.

Funnily enough, if RBS had gone bust he would have only got around £20k per year but because the government bailed them out he got the full package. Can you really blame Goodwin for accepting the offer? Blame the government for making it in the first place.

Yeah,
but when they made this deal i doubt they predicted the world reccession that hit and how he nearly put the bank under.
he could ahve at least halfed it. its not like he did his job properly or anything. He totally failed. When you fail at a job and practicaly destroy a company, i'm willing to bet that you wont be given around a £350m a year pension. Even if he had halfed it it would have still been 175 million a year. he could of at least done the moral thing and done that. While other people are failing in their jobs and then going to live on the street, he fails his job big time and gets THAT as a pension. And then he wouldnt half it because it would have been (whinney voice) just too little for him to live on.
Makes me sick

When they made the deal the recession was well under way and it was blatantly obvious that RBS was in pretty bad shape after their takeover of ABN AMRO. The fact that the government didn't take this into account just goes to show that politicians should keep their grubby paws off the economy.

If you got sacked would you give up half of your pension? He is legally entitled to every penny. Don't hate him just because he's rich. And anyway, the government already takes half of it off him in income tax.

mmm...
yes...
i see.
So what your saying is the government is an idiot and they should definatly not be handling our finances, pensions, recession or indeed country. When the workers decide where the money goes to, and it all goes to the benefit of the workers. No giving it away in huge contracts to one person.
mmm.
Is that not called socialism.
is that not LEFT leaning?

 

[Fulax]

mmm...
yes...
i see.
So what your saying is the government is an idiot and they should definatly not be handling our finances, pensions, recession or indeed country. When the workers decide where the money goes to, and it all goes to the benefit of the workers. No giving it away in huge contracts to one person.
mmm.
Is that not called socialism.
is that not LEFT leaning?

The first part is correct. While I do believe the government should handle things like defence and justice, the economy is best left to the people. That means no government intervention. No income tax, no subsidies, no protectionism, no corporatism. Who knows what you want to spend your money on better than you? No one, and certainly not the government.

So the workers decide where their money goes. However, people like Fred Goodwin are also workers and they also have the right to decide where their money goes. None of this 'redistribution of wealth' bullshit. If a company wants to give someone like Fred Goodwin a huge contract, that's fine too. Its the company's money, so they're only going to give it to someone they think can justify a 6 figure salary.

That's called free market capitalism.

 

[Federalist92]

mmm...
yes...
i see.
So what your saying is the government is an idiot and they should definatly not be handling our finances, pensions, recession or indeed country. When the workers decide where the money goes to, and it all goes to the benefit of the workers. No giving it away in huge contracts to one person.
mmm.
Is that not called socialism.
is that not LEFT leaning?

The first part is correct. While I do believe the government should handle things like defence and justice, the economy is best left to the people. That means no government intervention. No income tax, no subsidies, no protectionism, no corporatism. Who knows what you want to spend your money on better than you? No one, and certainly not the government.

So the workers decide where their money goes. However, people like Fred Goodwin are also workers and they also have the right to decide where their money goes. None of this 'redistribution of wealth' bullshit. If a company wants to give someone like Fred Goodwin a huge contract, that's fine too. Its the company's money, so they're only going to give it to someone they think can justify a 6 figure salary.

That's called free market capitalism.

But the question is...(not really i just wanna know) do you think Fred goodwin DESREVED what he got.

also, in my opinion its better for the state to control everythig and dish it out accordingly. It works well in healthcare and education. so why not adopt it for everything else. if you have enough insurance and money everytime you want call an ambulance.I mean...can you imagine a purly capitalist society like the US where you have to check how much money and insurance you have before you call an ambulance. I couldnt live like that. Our systems are much better...and they're socialist (though we still do have capitalist elements like the Bupa hospitals as an NHS alternative that you must pay for.

 

[Fulax]

But the question is...(not really i just wanna know) do you think Fred goodwin DESREVED what he got.

Goodwin deserved what he got because it was part of a legally binding contract. Should the government have ever offered such a contract? No. Especially seeing as they already knew (or should have known) that they would bail RBS out sooner rather than later. Problem is, the government has no money of its own. It is all stolen from us, the people. If you go into town with £50 of your own money your spending habits will be different than if you go into town with £50 you've just robbed off someone.

also, in my opinion its better for the state to control everythig and dish it out accordingly. It works well in healthcare and education. so why not adopt it for everything else. if you have enough insurance and money everytime you want call an ambulance.I mean...can you imagine a purly capitalist society like the US where you have to check how much money and insurance you have before you call an ambulance. I couldnt live like that. Our systems are much better...and they're socialist (though we still do have capitalist elements like the Bupa hospitals as an NHS alternative that you must pay for.

If you think British healthcare and education are good you obviously have very low expectations.

Healthcare is being discussed elsewhere on this forum so I won't get into it here. I would though like to say that the US is not a purely capitalist society and even without insurance you can get treatment. Also, the NHS costs you more in taxes than it would to get private insurance.

Regarding the education system I think it should be much easier to set up a private school than currently is the case. I don't think the state should pull out of education completely, but state schools need competition to keep them on their toes. They have a good system in Sweden where every parent get a voucher, equivalent to the cost of putting their child through a year of state school, which they can use to either get free state education or money off private education. Free education for those who want, more people have the chance to go private and increased competition leads to higher quality.

Which brings me on to socialism's biggest problem, apart from being a morally bankrupt system that can never achieve it's desired aim, obviously. Lack of competition. We need competition to advance. Do you think NASA would have landed on the moon in 1969 if they weren't competing against the Russians? I'm not so sure.
If the state controls everything there is no competition. If there is no competition there is no feedback from the market, no quality, no efficiency, no innovation, no advancement and ultimately no wealth. Wealth is not a pie that needs to be cut up and dished out by the government. Wealth can grow almost without limit and in a truly free society anyone can take part in that growth. Just because you're born into poverty shouldn't mean you have to stay there. Socialism gives the poor a bit, but takes a lot. Free market capitalism gives them a chance.

 

[Federalist92]

But the question is...(not really i just wanna know) do you think Fred goodwin DESREVED what he got.

Goodwin deserved what he got because it was part of a legally binding contract. Should the government have ever offered such a contract? No. Especially seeing as they already knew (or should have known) that they would bail RBS out sooner rather than later. Problem is, the government has no money of its own. It is all stolen from us, the people. If you go into town with £50 of your own money your spending habits will be different than if you go into town with £50 you've just robbed off someone.

also, in my opinion its better for the state to control everythig and dish it out accordingly. It works well in healthcare and education. so why not adopt it for everything else. if you have enough insurance and money everytime you want call an ambulance.I mean...can you imagine a purly capitalist society like the US where you have to check how much money and insurance you have before you call an ambulance. I couldnt live like that. Our systems are much better...and they're socialist (though we still do have capitalist elements like the Bupa hospitals as an NHS alternative that you must pay for.

If you think British healthcare and education are good you obviously have very low expectations.

Healthcare is being discussed elsewhere on this forum so I won't get into it here. I would though like to say that the US is not a purely capitalist society and even without insurance you can get treatment. Also, the NHS costs you more in taxes than it would to get private insurance.

Regarding the education system I think it should be much easier to set up a private school than currently is the case. I don't think the state should pull out of education completely, but state schools need competition to keep them on their toes. They have a good system in Sweden where every parent get a voucher, equivalent to the cost of putting their child through a year of state school, which they can use to either get free state education or money off private education. Free education for those who want, more people have the chance to go private and increased competition leads to higher quality.

Which brings me on to socialism's biggest problem, apart from being a morally bankrupt system that can never achieve it's desired aim, obviously. Lack of competition. We need competition to advance. Do you think NASA would have landed on the moon in 1969 if they weren't competing against the Russians? I'm not so sure.
If the state controls everything there is no competition. If there is no competition there is no feedback from the market, no quality, no efficiency, no innovation, no advancement and ultimately no wealth. Wealth is not a pie that needs to be cut up and dished out by the government. Wealth can grow almost without limit and in a truly free society anyone can take part in that growth. Just because you're born into poverty shouldn't mean you have to stay there. Socialism gives the poor a bit, but takes a lot. Free market capitalism gives them a chance.

That is such a long post i almost couldnt be bothered to reply, but if i dont it will make it look like youve won and are right, which your not.
(people reading this argument should take head of the politeness as recently i had a conversation where i posted a polite comment and just got insulted alot)
Socilaism is as fair as you can get. Just look at all the problems in the world greed has caused (up to and including the oil crisis and the world recession). If there was a socialist government it works simply. You make money. the government takes around 50% of your money. (this might seem bad, but wait for it) that 50% then goes to ensuring free healthcare, free education, free transport and lots of other free stuff. Your large taxes suddenly dont really matter because your suddenlly not paying for as much stuff as you normally would. Also, in socialism there is no sirs, madams, lord, ladys, kings and queens. only citizen. It makes everyone feel more free and equal with each other, rather than feeling small and unimportant next to the honourable admiral lord sir walter higginbottom. everyone also gets the same ammount of money for whatever they do. no more footballers getting payed more than firefighters and doctors like what happens now.
the society would be alot friendly and it would take away alot of envy that people have for each other. which is good. i personelly hate feeling envy.
Your turn to respond.

 

[Fulax]

Socilaism is as fair as you can get.

Fair? The government steals half of my money and spends it on something I don't care about and that seems fair to you? Why can't I decide what I spend my money on? If you think giving money to a certain section of society is desirable then by all means do it. Donate to charity. Just don't take my money to pay for your personal convictions.

Just look at all the problems in the world greed has caused (up to and including the oil crisis and the world recession).

The current recession was caused by central banking which has nothing to do with free markets and everything to do with government control.

If there was a socialist government it works simply. You make money. the government takes around 50% of your money. (this might seem bad, but wait for it) that 50% then goes to ensuring free healthcare, free education, free transport and lots of other free stuff. Your large taxes suddenly dont really matter because your suddenlly not paying for as much stuff as you normally would.

That argument works both ways. If the government lets you keep 100% of your money you have plenty to spend on education, healthcare etc. As an added bonus, as I outlined in my last post, these services would be better and cheaper thanks to free competition.

everyone also gets the same ammount of money for whatever they do. no more footballers getting payed more than firefighters and doctors like what happens now.

People get paid based on the value of their labour. A factory worker might work very hard, long hours for his money, but the fact of the matter is that its a job that requires little training and there are millions of people who could take his place. There are very few people in the world with the skill and money making potential of, say, David Beckham, which is why he commands such high wages.

Its simple supply and demand.

the society would be alot friendly and it would take away alot of envy that people have for each other. which is good. i personelly hate feeling envy.

If I spend 10 years training to become a doctor only to end up on the same wages of a bin man, I'd be pretty pissed off.

Even if it could work economically (which it can't), human nature will always prevent your socialist utopia from materialising,