Left wing or Right wing

[Jorge]

Originally posted by Hayek

No, it's not stupid, because, as Free Enterprise wrote:

Therefore, state-financed schools that brainwash are authoritarian left wing. If private schools would brainwash their students it would require the government to enforce laws on what should be taught in those schools, then you can make an argument that that would be an authoritarian right wing government doing that. I still wouldn't agree, though, since that would mean regulation on how you may use your own property.

Well, that way of thinking led to the comunist revolution. After all, as time passes the right to the property vanishes (it is not the same to own land because you have worked hard for it than own it because your grandfather worked hard for it and gave it to you). At some point, somebody would feel unfair that you are rich just the moment you are born while he has absolutely nothing because his grandfather was lazy. If you don't provide to that person with a chance (education and health care is the minimun), then he could take it by force (if they are many persosn in that situation they will success).

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Jorge
Well, that way of thinking led to the comunist revolution. After all, as time passes the right to the property vanishes (it is not the same to own land because you have worked hard for it than own it because your grandfather worked hard for it and gave it to you). At some point, somebody would feel unfair that you are rich just the moment you are born while he has absolutely nothing because his grandfather was lazy. If you don't provide to that person with a chance (education and health care is the minimun), then he could take it by force (if they are many persosn in that situation they will success).

I don't really see how this has anything to do with my post. I merely stated why I think having public schools is left wing, if they do brainwash their students as well as if they don't (which luckily is far more common). You seem to argue the case for public education (and a few other things on the leftist agenda as well), something which this thread is not intended to discuss.

 

[Jorge]

My mistake in quoting. Inside your post there were some quotes from Free-enterprise about the right wing philosophy or way of thinking. I was trying to quote that, but apparently quotes inside quotes doesn't appear.

In any case, what I was trying to say is that complete free market can have some bad consequences, and as this thread is about left and right I think it is appropiate.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by Hayek

No, it's not stupid, because, as Free Enterprise wrote:

Therefore, state-financed schools that brainwash are authoritarian left wing. If private schools would brainwash their students it would require the government to enforce laws on what should be taught in those schools, then you can make an argument that that would be an authoritarian right wing government doing that. I still wouldn't agree, though, since that would mean regulation on how you may use your own property.

You COMPLETELY missed the point.
EVERYTHING THAT IS ABOUT STATE IS NOT LEFT-WING !
Or else anarchism would be extreme right.
State is a TOOL, not an ENDS.
It's not because it's state-run that it's leftist. Left wing just TENDS to prefer big states.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Akka
You COMPLETELY missed the point.
EVERYTHING THAT IS ABOUT STATE IS NOT LEFT-WING !
Or else anarchism would be extreme right.
State is a TOOL, not an ENDS.
It's not because it's state-run that it's leftist. Left wing just TENDS to prefer big states.

I tried to make a point, based on the quote I inserted by Free Enterprise because I think what he said there can be accepted by everyone. Not by you though, apparently. And by my definition, anarchism IS extreme right.

 

[Akka]

Yes, it can be accepted by everyone. It's a simple definition. I accept it.
In fact, it's precisely because I accept this definition that I used the example of the murderer, because precisely equaling murdering with capitalism is a distortion, the same than equaling state-sponsored brainwashing with socialism.

Go it at least ?

And you can define anarchism as far right as you want, the FACT is that it's extreme left.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by Akka
Yes, it can be accepted by everyone. It's a simple definition. I accept it.
In fact, it's precisely because I accept this definition that I used the example of the murderer, because precisely equaling murdering with capitalism is a distortion, the same than equaling state-sponsored brainwashing with socialism.

Go it at least ?

And you can define anarchism as far right as you want, the FACT is that it's extreme left.

Nothing changes the fact that the state controlling all schools is socialist. Now if the state wants to brainwash the students, how does that, on the economical scale, somehow change the state's policy from socialist to capitalist? Because if right-wing means capitalism (which you said it means and I agree it does), it means it is not right wing for the state to own the school. In fact, if a socialist country chooses to brainwash all its students, it stays socialist, just gets more oppressive.

And do you think the "anarchists" protesting at WTO-meetings really want more freedom if they favour big restrictions on trade? They may think they want it, but disallowing anyone to engage in exchange of goods with others is not very free. In fact, it's extremely authoritarian. Therefore, they're not anarchists.

 

[Akka]

Ok I give up. If you just can't properly read/understand, it's just useless to repeat it again and again...

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by Akka

Ok, let's the flames go down for a moment, and let's put things back in context :
- Hayek makes an argument, saying that Nazi were, just like leftist, in favour of national healthcare and education.
- I say that's wrong, that Nazis weren't for education and healthcare, but for brainwhasing/embrigadement and eugenism, and that it's a totally different thing, as anyone with half a neuron can obviously see.
- You answer this specific part and say that free education = left-wing and that free medical care = left-wing. On principle, seems right. But as you answered that to the part of my post that made the difference between education and brainwashing, and healthcare and eugenism, I could assume that you just said "whatever the brainwashing part, it's still 'free education' and 'medical healthcare' so it's left-wing", which is totally stupid, as said above.
If you wished only to remind that the left has the ideals of offering everyone the access to education and healthcare, then fine, but then what was the point and why in answer to this specific part of my post ?

I said free education is left wing regardless of type because on most scales that is what it is. The Nazi government may have engaged in brainwashing however it also engaged in some education that is what I meant. I was pointing out that any free education is left wing in modern political jargon. These are the basic points:

Here is some facts about what I was trying to say:
1. Brainwashing is different from effective education, I agreed there.

2. Nazis did some actual educating and some actual health care although they did brainwash and eugenics also.

3. On the diamond/square scale and by many others free, state sponsored, education is left wing.

4. I disagree that brainwashing is a trait of the right wing as do most people it seems.

5. I didn’t mix the two ideas of brainwashing and education (though I am repeating this from part 1).

6. Claiming that the Nazis didn’t want any education a complete and obvious lie. The schools did educate in addition to brainwash. They had the goal of educating and the goal of brainwashing. Claiming the Nazis did want healthcare for anyone is false. Although the terms are not the same it is insane to claim the Nazis did not ever want to educate anyone. Not too hard to comprehend how this can occur. Going by the exact definition of education your statement is patently false.

Disagreeing is a thing that is perfectly acceptable.
Mixing two concepts that are opposed as being the same (like your answer could be interpreted, though I stand corrected if it wasn't the case, as I described above) is stupid, and saying so is not having a closed mind.

Chalk it up to randomly placed sentences if it sounding like that, however in reality I consider brainwashing separate from education. Plus I agree Nazis did brainwash in addition to many other things. Everything I said was totally logically. I have not ever said that brainwashing is the same the as education. I just was saying obviously most people seem to consider free government services as at least moderately left wing. Conversely, the more extreme right supports only private education.

Well, as you say, it can be argued to be a type of conformism, or simply equality. Depends on the point of view. Still, the goal was equality, not conformism, even if the practical application had the rather opposed effect.

Equality cannot occur with conformism or enforcement. If you say that duty is the goal of the right than you cannot argue equality is the goal of the left because the right and left must be opposites. Regardless of that, I think according to your theory equality isn’t a requirement of the left wing. Right and left wing must be opposites or a right-left theory is insane. A line has two opposite points. Therefore each point is the opposite.

Yes, left-wing is in favour of free education for all, because it considers it's a right.
But my point was that there is a fundamental opposition between "education" and "brainwashing", as one is geared toward increasing critical thinking and free will, and the other is geared toward suppressing them.
So my point was to say that nazism/fascism ideal of "education" was the OPPOSITE of the "free education" leftist ideal, and so could not be said to be "leftist tendency".

If one example can be shown that the Nazis or fascists ever encouraged free thinking or free will that can blow a hole in this theory. The opposite of free education is NO education or an attempt to stop education from occurring, not brainwashing. By the way, how exactly did you develop this scale or did you read it somewhere? I haven't seen this ever before even though I have seen a lot of different methods of classification. By far most people do not use any system remotely like this one. Also, you don’t really mean education you mean encouraging critical thinking and free will. The exact definition of education is quite different. Teaching someone how to fly an airplane is education.

I wish to raise a subtlety here : there is a difference between "submission" and "recognizing the legitimacy". I mean, I recognize that the state has power to make laws and enforce them, but it does not mean I *have* to sacrifice myself if it can bring positive results for the state. While, in fascism, it would be my DUTY to sacrifice myself for the state.

Alright going strictly by this standard it is very possible that Marx advocated duty to the proletariat cause. Every government has to have duty, therefore you probably could not name one leader you think is leftist. Following this theory is completely useless, it is a waste of time and an attempt to make the right look like everything you hate. Although the odds are you will reverse the argument, you cannot say I do the same to the left you do to the right. This is one of the most axe-grinding theories seen on this board.

Nope, I never said that.
Again, I just said that the goal of education is opposed to the concept of brainwashing.
And then that one of the typical ideal of left-winger in general is free education for all, while one of the typical ideal of fascists is brainwashing.
So I'm just saying that the national brainwashing of fascist has just nothing to do with the idea of "free education for all" that we often see in left-wing programs, and so saying that fascists tends to be left-wingers because of this is contradictory.

First of all the Nazis DID support education for the German people. They did ALSO brainwash. The two can coexist. However this is completely off topic because the right-left scale pertains to how the government operates, not an attempt to smear the opposition. Left wingers OFTEN do SUPPORT brainwashing. Saying right-wingers support brainwashing is contradictory. Rush Limbaugh or Neil Boortz (both widely accepted right wingers) does not support brainwashing without any true education. Right-wingers support entirely no state run education. Would you then deny Rush Limbaugh or Boortz are right wing?

Yes, but you can use authoritarianism without it being a founding component.
I can use a gun that lies in the vicinity to defend against someone that attack me. That does not mean I'm pro-gun.

The Chinese communists, most Soviet leaders thought you needed a solid authoritarian or totalitarian state. They had it as their founding components. Many, many, many, many widely accepted left wing governments could be listed that had it as a founding concept. Furthermore, most of these supported brainwashing. Although you could argue they aren’t Marxists totally, they claimed to be communists. The fascists certainly didn’t invent authoritarianism. Not all governments that have authoritarianism as a founding concept are fascist. That means some governments that are extremely commonly defined as radical left wing have it as a founding concept.

Laws are also a form of authoritarianism, if you use this stretched and twisted logic.

Yes. Hence, anarchy can be viewed as the opposite of authoritarian, totalitarian, or overbearing governments. I stress pure raw anarchy does not work well therefore some limited authoritarianism has to occur. Any action the government FORCES you to take is authoritarianism. That is why anarchy is completely the OPPOSITE of fascism and actual practiced communism.

 

[Free Enterprise]

The last message was too long to fit into a single post here is part 2:

Taxes are voluntary. You can perfectly leave the country and hence not pay any more taxes. Just like I can perfectly stop to pay the renting of my house if I leave it.
You can say "but it's MY property, MY rights, I don't have to pay to keep it", but then I can answer back : "and what PROTECTS your rights and your properties ?".
Well, society. If you wish to live within, then pay your taxes.
If you don't wish to live within, because you don't like it (perhaps it's too leftist for you and you would prefer a libertarian-inclined society ?), then get out. Or vote to make things change. Or start your political party to make it change.

Taxes are pretty much not voluntary unless you move to Antarctica. The society/government is forcing you to pay for them or they will throw you in jail. It is illogical to claim they can force you to move without violating your rights then. It is like this: You either pay the taxes which you did not want to pay or the government reprimands you using FORCE. Either way something undesirable occurs. That means one could say that government and society make taxes and duty or try to. You could argue you have a right to live in a part of the country in which your house, that you own is located without the government/commune/whatever it is stopping you Almost every recent political science book seems to agree the right supports lower taxation while leftists want a high amount of taxation to fund programs. If a person didn’t ask for protection the then they still do not owe the government anything for protecting their rights.

Analogy :
If you don't like the room in an hotel, you can decide to not use it. If you use, you pay it. The price is the same if you use the bathroom or not, if you use the TV or not, if you use the bed or sleep on the floor.
The price of the room is scaled comparatively to the services it offers (TV, bathroom, bed, etc.). If it's too pricey for you, then go find another hotel where there is less services and the room is less expensive. Don't say that it's authoritarian to make you pay for the room of your choice.

Look it IS authoritarianism because you DO NOT have a choice to avoid using the services of the government. Say you own a house the government can FORCE you to do certain things even if it is on your own property. Hence, authoritarianism.

I hardly see where I do contradict myself. Example, please ?
Moreover, I already said it : a single axis is clearly insufficient to represent adequately the near-infinite differences in political opinions. So a single-axis is BOUND to lead to many contradictions.

A single axis does not have to have contradictions. Right-left is a line therefore the polar ends must be opposites. Anything that fits outside this line must form its own line. Hence the popularity of square or diamond charts. Your original contention about what constitutes right and left is different that this new one. Socialism requires the government to force you to pay up in taxes. Capitalism does not REQUIRE you to pay anything.

"if you fail in life, then it's your fault, nobody should have to help you but yourself"...).

By its self that quote, is the essence of the right wing….. Yes this is a correct statement….. The government is not needed for anything.

Moreover, I have refined my opinion on what fundamentally differentiate left and right during this thread. My ideas have not changed, but I have tried to find the difference at the most basis level.
Actually, here is my opinion, in a VERY rough way, and, AGAIN, it's bound to have some contradiction, as the single-axis is just not sufficient :
Left is more or less geared toward "justice" (communism by equality, anarchism by end of "oppression", socialism by trying to find a balance between ideals and practical...).
Right is geared toward strenght (capitalism reward economical strenght, fascism look for military/state strenght, libertarian consider the whole "personnal" strenght, as in "if you fail in life, then it's your fault, nobody should have to help you but yourself"...).

Capitalism is completely incompatible with fascism. You can not claim they can coexist. Fascists desire an END to capitalism. I have quoted Mussolini to prove it. The writings of fascists have proven this.

Great.
Too bad to see if "ignoring the individual good in IF the same stretched logic that made "crush the individuals for the good of the group" was considered fitting socialism.

Definition from MSN Learning & Research.com:
socialism [ sṓshə lìzəm ]
noun
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles
2. movement based on socialism: any of several political movements or theories of the 19th and 20th centuries based on principles of socialism, typically advocating an end to private property and the exploitation of workers
3. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need

Now, that is what socialism is defined as. I have defined capitalism from this site already and Hayek has taken the time to post it again to ensure everyone gets to see the definition. There is no single logic to capitalism.

Yes, education require others to provide it.

Bingo! Therefore you can’t have a right to education. You cannot have a natural right that requires infringing on someone else’s rights. Otherwise you must admit you are forcing someone to do something.

Protection your own rights also require police and magistrate, there is not a magical lightining that comes from the sky to strike someone who rob, rape or murder you. Protecting your rights requires the help of OTHERS.
[/B]

Your system violates freedom. A person cannot keep their own money therefore it cannot be totally free. Unless you renounce the government or society forcing this to occur. Pure raw anarchy allows total political and economy freedom in the negative rights sense. Positive freedoms require the aid of other people. In this sense the ultimate system of “government” for freedom would be anarchy (although not a government technically). That means you can’t claim to have a right to something another person owns without impeding on their freedom. The only true freedoms that can exist are ones that do not rely on impinging on other people’s freedom. This can exist in a state of anarchy. You cannot take society into account when ranking how left-right a government is. Only the government, this is logical. When someone kills another person that PERSON has violated the other person’s rights. That does not mean when a GOVERNMENT violates someone’s rights it is any different.

Did it took you all these years to realize it ?

Obviously then you don’t see how this is connected the fact that a government forcing someone to do something is ALWAYS authoritarianism. Because I have accepted this I tried to prove that the “right” to education REQUIRES authoritarianism. Even in theory you cannot have a RIGHT to an education unless you claim you have a RIGHT TO ANOTHER PERSON’S money or time. Therefore it is contradictory. Hence ONLY negative rights can logically exist.

 

[Free Enterprise]

Originally posted by Akka
Or else anarchism would be extreme right.

It is.

State is a TOOL, not an ENDS.

Right-left wing governments are determined by methods of rule. The goal of the ideology is not right or left wing.

Originally posted by Hayek

And do you think the "anarchists" protesting at WTO-meetings really want more freedom if they favour big restrictions on trade? They may think they want it, but disallowing anyone to engage in exchange of goods with others is not very free. In fact, it's extremely authoritarian. Therefore, they're not anarchists.

You are exactly correct. Mercantilism or protectionism is incompatible with the "anarchist" protestors. Also, these anarchists sometimes favor other types of globalism.

 

[Cactus_Jack]

Bah i got confused with my posts. No one did delete my post it was just on a other thread.

 

[jroa99]

Yet another "no-wing" here...both extremes are just plain silly and tend to lapse into over-generalization/simplification of very complex issues far too easily, usually also having overly egoistical purposes/objectives. Nothing "good" can ever come out of any of them (other than creating ever-increasing criticism towards their viewpoints and the emergence of moderates, of course)....

Good Day