Story Comments
Posted by: jeffery1 1 year, 4 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
71%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ther right-wing certainly does put forth the idea that rights exist only if they are enumerated int he Bill of Rights. You should read how Scalia, Bork, Thomas, and other right-wingers interpret the constitution and rights. The government's role in the economy is simply a component of the debate. The right's free-market ideology follows directly from Calvinism, which holds that those that have deserve it and those that do not have deserve it because a person is awarded in accordance with his righteousness. And, because god rewards, no man can act contrary to god's will.
Because the constitution was seen as granting explicit powers to government, it was seen as dangerous to enumerate any rights because the government was not granted any power to grant rights. The government and therefore the majority that controlled it could then make the claim that Scalia makes today. The Bill of Rights was not originally part of the constitution. It was added to ensure that the concept of rights was part of the constitution and the Ninth Amendment added to ensure that unenumerated rights existed.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Really, I know what Calvinism is. I know what right wing is. You do not understand the concept I put forth. Instead of looking at it as a line, look at it as a graph. On this graph one axis is left/right which is purely economic. Collectivist economy versus the free market. The second axis is libertarianism versus fascism. You can very much be a free market believer (thus, right wing) and not an authoritarian. In fact that is what the Libertarian Party in the United States predominantly is. By the same token one can be like myself, a libertarian who is also rather far to the left. A person can also be an authoritarian left winger, like Stalin. Fascism is not a right wing governmental philosophy all the time; in fact one definition of fascism is simply an authoritarian government regime. Is authoritarianism reserved for the right and libertarianism for the left? Hell no and your comments don't seem to reflect this at all.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In other words, the version you seem to have decided to put forth (not necessarily) is one which muddles economics and social issues. Just because a person believes in a literal reading of the Constitution or the idea that government grants rights (an idea I despise, if you are wondering, we have rights because we are human) does not make them right wing. It makes them authoritarian and, at the extreme, fascist. This person can be left wing (collectivist on economics) and still be an authoritarian. Stalin is a brilliant example. He was a left winger and a fascist. Hitler was a right winger and a fascist. What we have is quickly approaching fascism and the rest of the world isn't far behind. Both parties absolutely suck on our rights.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, I'm no right winger. I just don't want figures that I know on the right wing who are very much non-authoritarian being brushed as authoritarians just for their economic views any more then I'd like to be called a Communist for mine. Well, considering what communism really is, I'd not mind it. But I'd hate being called a socialist.
Reply-
80%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Most people haven't a clue about what "communism" or "socialism" actually are. For example, did you know that Lenin did not think that Stalin was a communist? That the Soviets did not consider China communist? In fact, communism was never a threat to the U.S. because our history was not one that accepted it. The Soviets weren't real threats because they had enough trouble controlling the regions they had troops in and they didn't get along with China. In fact Stalin can be thought of more as yet another Czar and Mao yet another Emperor than Marxists.
It is the complications of reality that the right-wing has trouble with. They like empty platitudes, such as "freedom", "liberty", and "communist" because they mean whatever they want. Good, bad is about all they can handle.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Socialism is just another class driven society which is why I'd rather not be considered one. Its just in socialism the worker takes the place of the capitalist. Most first world nations are liberal in the American sense which isn't really socialism. Communism, of course, is the ideal society. Classless and wealth shared. I'd not mind being called a communist but a very long time ago I decided there was no chance a society such as that would ever emerge. The best that can be hoped for is a balance in the power the classes have.
Reply
-
-
-
-
80%
jeffery11 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I know what you're saying about the spectrum of political thought, it is shown well here:
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/polsp.html
But the concept of rights transcends economics. Rights are the corollary to the obligations of moral beings. Because the right-wing does not believe that they have any obligation beyond satisfying their desire, rights do not exist except those that they agree exist.
Of course there are conservatives, not all conservatives are right-wing, that agree with the concept that it is not the majority, as expressed by government power, that creates rights but our obligations as moral beings and citizens.
It is the ignorant right-wing that requires rights to be explicitly enumerated in the constitution because they see no obligation to anyone or anything but themselves.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's the thing though, I think we are disagreeing on how to phrase things. I like the idea behind the political compass in which its essentially the right wing is free market economics, devoid of liberties and the left is collectivism devoid of liberties as well. Then another axis is plotted (vertical this time) and they plot where you are on that. This vertical axis is based around fascism vs libertarianism. It doesn't quite codify everyone in a specific area. I think you are using right/left for what I use fascist/libertarian. Either way I'm an extreme lefty, whether it be a belief that the government has no authority over what I do (I'm not quite that extreme, but rather close at times) or the idea that wealth should be based more on need then greed. I think that its very divisive to declare right wing as authoritarian when there are plenty of people who will claim to be on the right, yet are very definitely not authoritarian. Ron Paul is a good example of this; the man is maybe very slightly authoritarian, but he's more libertarian then most of Europe (which has followed the US in its turn towards authoritarianism, back in the 80s). He, I believe, is very definitely a right winger. Just a fiscal right winger.
Reply-
100%
Mdiar1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay one more thing then I think I'm going to leave it as I have some stuff to do.
The graph you provided seems highly American-centric. Of course, when discussing US politics, this is fine. For example, liberals actually believe in free market economics on par with Republicans outside of the United States. Our usage of "liberal" is fairly unique on the world stage. May I advise you to check out the basic idea behind the rather simple political compass?
http://www.****************.org/*********
This was done by a Brit I believe and seems like a good idea, at the very least.
Reply
-
-
-
100%
willottica1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Instead of looking at it as a line, look at it as a graph."
That would certainly clear up a lot of confusion. As I was taught the political spectrum in school, it was actually 2 separate lines. There was the economic spectrum and the social spectrum. Each had a left and a right. So jeffery is not wrong when he refers to "right-wingers".
In fact, if you look at the wikipedia "political spectrum", "Left-ism" and "Right-ism" aren't defined as being on the left and right, but rather on the opposite diagonals. However, 3 graphs shown can't agree on the orientation of the axes, so the definitions get rather confusing. One actually has the axis at 45 degrees to the horizontal, to make "left-ism" and "right-ism" actually sit on the left and right.
Reply
-
-
100%
Natureboy1 year, 4 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Bill of Rights was added to sweeten the deal for many of the founding fathers who staunchly opposed the creation of a federal government. Those early refuseniks reasoned (and rightly, I would argue) that the heirarchy implicit in a strong central government, combined with a police force and military at its disposal, would inevitably turn to tyrrany. The anti-federalists would not sign a document creating such a government absent some protection of the peoples rights.
Now we know that while a tyrannical central government is quite real, might makes right, and the Bill of Rights is as Bush said, merely a piece of paper, which cannot succeed in protecting individuals from the might of a government run amok.
Reply
-
loading ...
joey-evans
Charlson
jovial
scott4261
bluetexasvalley
Wolfie2007
Mdiar
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.