Do you consider yourself a Lefty or Righty

[Traitorfish]

There are some old-school Communists (The Communist Party of Germany comes to mind with their hatred of the SPD)

The KPD was dissolved more than fifty years ago. Closest you'd get now is the Kommunistische Plattform of Die Linke, and they're relatively ambivalent to the SPD (i.e. not pro-SDP, like the Netzwerk Reformlinke, but not anti-SPD, like the Antikapitalistische Linke).

 

[Tee Kay]

Workers of the World, Unite!

 

[Mise]

@kochmann: Yeah, I think there are a lot of people who just genuinely don't give a crap about disadvantaged groups, and use liberal economics to rationalise it. There are some people who pretend to believe that eliminating the welfare state or reducing taxes on people earning over $250,000 will magically make poor people richer, whereas in fact they just want a nice tax break for themselves.

But then there are people who genuinely believe that liberal economics will help poor people. People like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, etc pretty much reflect my own personal views on the role of the state... Those Third Way guys are who I most identify with myself. For me, liberalising markets, making it easier for businesses to hire new staff, reducing unemployment, opening up trade (and so keeping prices low) -- all these things help poor people. Economic growth helps poor people, and we can distribute the proceeds of economic growth (i.e. tax revenues) to help even more poor people. This, broadly, forms the basis of modern centre-left thinking since the 1990s. This would traditionally be classifed as "right wing" economics, but because it stems from a desire to help poor people, and is packaged with other policies designed to help poor people, it fits perfectly within centre-left economic orthodoxy. People might call Clinton and Blair right wingers, because they broadly followed Reganite/Thatcherite policies of economic liberalisation. But everything else that they did will tell you that they merely follow a new kind of centre-left politics. They are left wingers.

I don't think there are many people who genuinely want to help the poor, but simultaneously want people earning $250k per year to be taxed less than their cleaners earning $25k per year. I think it's fair to call these people right wingers, and not left wingers.


One more thing:

To be clear, I'm not really talking about personal charity or individual actions here. I'm talking about the scope of the government. There are some on the right who care about disadvantaged groups, but don't believe that the government has the authority to help them. That is, they'll give plenty of their own wealth to charity, but will still vote against parties that want to expand the welfare state and so on. Those people I classify as right wing, because their views of what the government should do falls into "every man for himself".

I don't deny that there are plenty of individually charitable right wingers. However, they are still right wing under my definitions, because they focus on individual charity, and believe that the government has no place spending other people's money. That's very much an "every man for himself" world-view, even if they aren't, personally, particularly selfish people.

 

[kochman]

@kochmann: Yeah, I think there are a lot of people who just genuinely don't give a crap about disadvantaged groups, and use liberal economics to rationalise it. There are some people who pretend to believe that eliminating the welfare state or reducing taxes on people earning over $250,000 will magically make poor people richer, whereas in fact they just want a nice tax break for themselves.

But then there are people who genuinely believe that liberal economics will help poor people. People like Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, etc pretty much reflect my own personal views on the role of the state... Those Third Way guys are who I most identify with myself. For me, liberalising markets, making it easier for businesses to hire new staff, reducing unemployment, opening up trade (and so keeping prices low) -- all these things help poor people. Economic growth helps poor people, and we can distribute the proceeds of economic growth (i.e. tax revenues) to help even more poor people. This, broadly, forms the basis of modern centre-left thinking since the 1990s. This would traditionally be classifed as "right wing" economics, but because it stems from a desire to help poor people, and is packaged with other policies designed to help poor people, it fits perfectly within centre-left economic orthodoxy. People might call Clinton and Blair right wingers, because they broadly followed Reganite/Thatcherite policies of economic liberalisation. But everything else that they did will tell you that they merely follow a new kind of centre-left politics. They are left wingers.

I don't think there are many people who genuinely want to help the poor, but simultaneously want people earning $250k per year to be taxed less than their cleaners earning $25k per year. I think it's fair to call these people right wingers, and not left wingers.


One more thing:

To be clear, I'm not really talking about personal charity or individual actions here. I'm talking about the scope of the government. There are some on the right who care about disadvantaged groups, but don't believe that the government has the authority to help them. That is, they'll give plenty of their own wealth to charity, but will still vote against parties that want to expand the welfare state and so on. Those people I classify as right wing, because their views of what the government should do falls into "every man for himself".

I don't deny that there are plenty of individually charitable right wingers. However, they are still right wing under my definitions, because they focus on individual charity, and believe that the government has no place spending other people's money. That's very much an "every man for himself" world-view, even if they aren't, personally, particularly selfish people.

Pretty much agree.
Those that want a higher tax rate for the poor? I'm not familiar with many of them... unless you are talking about relative to disposable income. Flat taxers fall into that category... and yes, are often right wing (and ridiculous).

 

[timtofly]

Is it the part that helping the poor is wrong, or is the fact that they command the rich to do it in an authoritarian way? I am not against governement welfare, as long as they have the means to do it, that is not authoritarian. Maybe a smaller government means no more lobbyist and a balanced budget? It seems to me that local government agencies have a good idea what is going on rather than lobbyist and special interest groups who beseige the Fed.

 

[Crezth]

Is it the part that helping the poor is wrong, or is the fact that they command the rich to do it in an authoritarian way?

How did the rich earn their wealth in the first place? I mean, if we're going to take it down to brass tacks, it's worth noting that the "authoritarians" who take money from the wealthy are exercising at least no more coercion than the wealthy did to get that way in the first place.

 

[kochman]

How did the rich earn their wealth in the first place? I mean, if we're going to take it down to brass tacks, it's worth noting that the "authoritarians" who take money from the wealthy are exercising at least no more coercion than the wealthy did to get that way in the first place.

People have gotten rich through hard work and good ideas, without immorally crushing others, you know... it's not a crime to become rich.

 

[JollyRoger]

Like Steve Forbes and the Walton clan?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

People have gotten rich through hard work and good ideas, without immorally crushing others,

Who?

you know... it's not a crime to become rich.

That's not proof of anything but the law.

 

[kochman]

Who? Really?
Come on Cheezy...

I find it interesting that you think being rich is immoral, if not illegal.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Who? Really?
Come on Cheezy...

Examples are too much to ask of you?

I find it interesting that you think being rich is immoral, if not illegal.

I find it interesting that you think the ability to procure for oneself goods of necessity should be based upon one's skill at convincing others to produce and/or purchase products.

 

[Quackers]

I would harzard a guess - Henry Ford? Seems like a nice enough bloke.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

I would harzard a guess - Henry Ford? Seems like a nice enough bloke.

Brace yourself.

 

[kochman]

Examples are too much to ask of you?

I know people in my area, that you wouldn't know, so, why bother?
How about Walt Disney... or a sports player who also runs charities... such as Lionel Messi?
I don't agree with the amount they make necessarily, but I don't blame them for it.

I find it interesting that you think the ability to procure for oneself goods of necessity should be based upon one's skill at convincing others to produce and/or purchase products.

I don't limit to that only... just a quick example off the cuff.

 

[madviking]

Nominally right.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How did the rich earn their wealth in the first place? I mean, if we're going to take it down to brass tacks, it's worth noting that the "authoritarians" who take money from the wealthy are exercising at least no more coercion than the wealthy did to get that way in the first place.

People have gotten rich through hard work and good ideas, without immorally crushing others, you know... it's not a crime to become rich.

Aren't you reading too much into Crezth's statement? I think he does have a point. Funny thing is, you seem to think so as well, but have an odd way of showing

I buy a service from a business, I pay money. I want the grand de-luxe version of that service, I pay more. That's not coercion. You take part in society, you pay money. You have a larger footprint on society, you pay more. That's not coercion.

And people, mostly libertarians, often talk about how taxing people (at gunpoint) is coercion, but often forget that that same gun will also be pointed when I take what I want from businesses without paying for it.

I think the point was that without the society that government maintains there's no environment for those who became rich to become rich. Without government the way to become rich is to do what you said: "immorally crushing others". It's not a crime to become rich. It's not a crime to expect people to contribute to society.

So from my point of view you both have the same take on the matter.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Too tired to read the entire thread, so I'm just skipping to the last page to report that I think of myself more as a lafty than a raghty.

 

[Ajidica]

I would harzard a guess - Henry Ford? Seems like a nice enough bloke.

In Germany, Ford's anti-Semitic articles from The Dearborn Independent were issued in four volumes, cumulatively titled The International Jew, the World's Foremost Problem published by Theodor Fritsch, founder of several anti-Semitic parties and a member of the Reichstag. In a letter written in 1924, Heinrich Himmler described Ford as "one of our most valuable, important, and witty fighters."[63] Ford is the only American mentioned in Mein Kampf.[64][65] Adolf Hitler wrote, "only a single great man, Ford, [who], to [the Jews'] fury, still maintains full independence...[from] the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions." Speaking in 1931 to a Detroit News reporter, Hitler said he regarded Ford as his "inspiration," explaining his reason for keeping Ford's life-size portrait next to his desk.[66] Steven Watts wrote that Hitler "revered" Ford, proclaiming that "I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany," and modeling the Volkswagen, the people's car, on the Model T.[67]

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

 

[History_Buff]

I am not against governement welfare, as long as they have the means to do it, that is not authoritarian.

Care to define what you mean by authoritarian here? I'm really, really hoping you don't mean by requiring them to pay higher marginal tax rates.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I know people in my area, that you wouldn't know, so, why bother?
How about Walt Disney... or a sports player who also runs charities... such as Lionel Messi?
I don't agree with the amount they make necessarily, but I don't blame them for it.

Athletes are actually a good example I hadn't thought of, that's why I asked for one (an example, not an athlete, lol). So in the sense that they exploited someone in order to gain that money, I would say the accusation is false. But in the sense that, because they own that much money, many other people do not, the criticism still remains. Money is a social tool, which we use to obtain the necessities and desires of life from those who have them and desire money in return. Thus from which the principle of equitable distribution, and the idea that possession of money means the possession of equal amounts of social responsibility, springs forth.