Right/Left vs. Libertarian

The following illustration provides a general understanding of left-wing tendency and right-wing tendency (scroll to get a full view):



Having a clearer understanding of the differences between left and right and the positive sides of both is helpful to understand what Libertarianism. The political landscape unfortunately emphasises the negatives of the other side by which they both start looking like enemies of civilization.

As you can see the left wants to change and improve the world and the right wants to conserve the world and keeps things as they are. A left-winger who sees the right negatively, claims they halt progress, are rooted in old thinking, are resistant to positive change, have no imagination, are old farts, are fat capitalist pigs who are resting on their cash, are responsible that the world is not improving. A right-winger who sees the left negatively claims they want to destroy good traditions, destroy prosperity, tear down established norms, are hateful and unhappy with life (hence wanting to improve it), are radical and undisciplined nutjobs, are naive and gullible, are responsible that the world is worse off.

In order to develop more compassion, awareness and intelligence it is important to have a full understanding of how the two sides see each other and why. It is then of value to see the merit in both sides, how both sides only want the best for life but what they view as "the best" vastly differs. Those who created our two-sided political system understood the dual nature of humankind - the collectivist vs. indivudal, the future-oriented vs. the past-oriented, the agents of change vs. the agents of conservation.

So the whole left-right paradigm comes down to the following question:

Change the world or not? And people who can imagine better will tend to say "Yes!" whereas people who are already happy will tend to say "No!" The truth naturally lies somewhere in the middle:

Changing what is bad and keeping what is good.. In this understanding, the utopian-idealist is needed to create progress and improvement and the conservative-traditionalist is also needed to preserve what has worked and proven itself throughout time.

Libertarianism is an intelligent choice because it seeks to combine the best of both sides. As you can see in the image above, the left values social freedom and the right values economic freedom. Seen negatively, the left limits economic freedom and the right limits social freedom. There is a lot of historical evidence for this. Both seek to impose on others. I believe the creators of our political system were initiated into how-life-works and devised a system that would one day merge into a libertarian society in which every individual is free and also responsible enough to do as they choose.

The right-winger wants to force you by law to act in certain ways regarding drugs, morals, sex, abortion etc. By doing so he is stealing your ability to chose the right thing of your own free will. The left-winger wants to force you to give money, pay tax, conduct Business a certain way or protect the environment. By doing so he is stealing your ability to chose the right thing of your own free will.

The two systems are therefore Authoritiarian and ultimately in opposition to human nature. Human nature is that in order to learn what is good or not, one needs to make self-determined choices. And even if mistakes are made - thats how you learn. By taking the choices away from you, Authoritarianism cripples your ability to learn and grow more intelligent.

However, if we remove the left-right paradigm right away, society would collapse because we are not mature enough for it yet. Thats why I predict the transition will be slow.

The 20th Century showed us the dark-side of left-ism when taken to its extreme (Stalin, Mao) and the dark-side of right-ism when taken to its extreme (Hitler, Mussolini). The 21st Century will show us more Libertarianism.The future is socially/culturally somewhat liberal and economically/fiscally somewhat conservative.

reply to post by Skyfloating


To have a coherent and honest discussion of political philosphies you may want to start from a basis/depiction of them both that are equally balanced. This chart is so obviously from a left wing perspective, simply look at the terms, and it can be boiled down to enlightened and unenlightened and is thus little more than agitprop.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I think you missed one important aspect of our two party system. Both the dominate parties are expanding the role of nationalized government. Both seek to pacify the population through two different extremes giving the people less choice then ever in our history. Libertarians seem to fall under two distinct categories, yet share a common goal of reducing the scope of national government.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto

I think you missed one important aspect of our two party system. Both the dominate parties are expanding the role of nationalized government.

Yep, they are both are Authoritarian.

Both seek to pacify the population through two different extremes giving the people less choice then ever in our history

Yes, they both take away self-determined choice.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
To have a coherent and honest discussion of political philosphies you may want to start from a basis/depiction of them both that are equally balanced. This chart is so obviously from a left wing perspective, simply look at the terms, and it can be boiled down to enlightened and unenlightened and is thus little more than agitprop.

Most "lets look at both sides equally" models will have a slight left-wing bias. Its impossible to present a completely neutral model. I think the one posted is sufficient for discussion. Of course its full of stereotypes, but the stereotypes accurately reflect the tendencies. And I called them tendencies.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Why would most models, the premise of which are to educate, contain any bias at all? Why would it not be "natural" for most of them to have a right wing bias?

The document provided is nothing more than a display of benign traits of the left and negative traits related to the right. The document is meant to engage in a discussion where the right-leaning person will defend purposefully negative statements. As such, it is merely a propoganda piece and not worthy of spurring a serious discussion.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
The document provided is nothing more than a display of benign traits of the left and negative traits related to the right.

As such, it is merely a propoganda piece and not worthy of spurring a serious discussion.

The values on the right are, among others:

Freedom
Self-Reliance
Non-Interference with Society
Discipline
Morals.

So thats rather positive.

I also like the Dove vs. Hawk thing. I wouldnt call the "Hawk" negative, it has much more of an aura of strength and ability than the Dove.

In any case...not that I expect any liberal or right-winger to consider the chart neutral or near-neutral (as I consider it). Thats precisely what makes you guys either left or right.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45c18f0c91a3.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by dolphinfan

Why would most models, the premise of which are to educate, contain any bias at all? Why would it not be "natural" for most of them to have a right wing bias?

The document provided is nothing more than a display of benign traits of the left and negative traits related to the right. The document is meant to engage in a discussion where the right-leaning person will defend purposefully negative statements. As such, it is merely a propoganda piece and not worthy of spurring a serious discussion.

Perhaps you should take the chart and rework it to reflect an un-bias view of the right while leaving the "left" side alone.

This would give ATS a new chart with an un-bias left vs an un-bias right to look at.

reply to post by Skyfloating


I love the cartoon... ROTFLMAO.

It is so funny because it is SOOOoooo true. They forgot the "There should be a LAW" types." that I am getting so sick and tired of.

Nice thread S&F. With all the right/left fighting going on it's refreshing to view it from a higher perspective instead of down in the mud wrestling around.
I thought the chart was fair, and that cartoon is a definite classic!
I found an article in the Washington Post that sheds some insights into what goes on in the minds of political partisans. Here'e the link:
www.washingtonpost.com...
The title of the article is, Study Ties Political Leanings To Hidden Biases, here's some quotes.

The field of social psychology has long been focused on how social environments affect the way people behave. But social psychologists are people, too, and as the United States has become increasingly politically polarized, they have grown increasingly interested in examining what drives these sharp divides: red states vs. blue states; pro-Iraq war vs. anti-Iraq war; pro-same-sex marriage vs. anti-same-sex marriage. And they have begun to study political behavior using such specialized tools as sophisticated psychological tests and brain scans.

Emory University psychologist Drew Westen put self-identified Democratic and Republican partisans in brain scanners and asked them to evaluate negative information about various candidates. Both groups were quick to spot inconsistency and hypocrisy -- but only in candidates they opposed. When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats -- the scans showed that "reward centers" in volunteers' brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior.

Wow, curious parallels with drug addiction, no wonder people have such a hard time giving this stuff up!
One more thing that I'd like to touch on is what really is left and what really is right?

The 20th Century showed us the dark-side of left-ism when taken to its extreme (Stalin, Mao) and the dark-side of right-ism when taken to its extreme (Hitler, Mussolini).

I'd always thought the same thing too, as would most people, but despite economic and philosophical differences, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini are all examples of the extreme left. They all led totalitarian governments, total government to me is the extreme left, total anarchy would be the extreme right. A constitutional republic governed by law , what the U.S. is intended to be, would lie somewhere in the middle of that spectrum.
I want to throw in this video too,it's pretty short, and it's a good one. Thanks again for the post.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

Why would most models, the premise of which are to educate, contain any bias at all?

Because unless each political official was to take the exact same survey that asked where they personally stood on specific issues and that information was put into a database, all generalizations will be subject to the authors personal perception of both parties. In effect making there work bias because it would reflect their own point of view...

That survey could be an interesting undertaking though, it would be pretty cool to have all of their answers in one place so that they could be quoted

reply to post by jlv70


Thats a fantastic Washington Post article. What is fascinating about this drug-like addiction is that you can predict a leftist or rightist responses to various politicians and issues with almost 100% accuracy. .

Regarding the left-right divide: Ive also considered the idea that Hitler was actually a socialist and I also understand the view that says the left-right paradigm was a creation of the French Revolution and then of Marx and Hegel. However, to be fair, many of Hitlers ideals, as well as those of religious zealots could be considered "far-right". Going beyond left-right we could simply consider them all authoritarian and Big-Government focused.

Your view is more up-down dualism (Authoritarian vs. Anarchic) as opposed to the left-right dualism I am showing and that the majority of people have become accustomed to.

Ultimately I feel that modern liberals, classical liberals and right and left libertarians are all in the same camp - philosophically at least. Whilst it's clearly true that they all see different ways to accomplish their goals, their goals are arguably similar; Individual freedom from authority in general and the ability for the individual to make his/her own choices in life.

Originally posted by UngoodWatermelon
Ultimately I feel that modern liberals, classical liberals and right and left libertarians are all in the same camp - philosophically at least. Whilst it's clearly true that they all see different ways to accomplish their goals, their goals are arguably similar; Individual freedom from authority in general and the ability for the individual to make his/her own choices in life.

Modern liberals may be pro-choice for abortion and drugs, but they are not pro-choice on a vast amount of other things. In a Libertarian society I get to chose what I pay taxes for and what I do on my property and how I run my company. They manifest way too many bureaucratic, collectivist and values-imposing tendencies to be considered allies by Libertarians.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Modern liberal thought is based off of the idea that it's all very well being legally able to make a choice, but it means very little if you're unable to actually make these choices due to material conditions. This is why welfare, "social justice" etc. are central parts of modern liberalism - by levelling the playing field and reducing the rights of an individual at the top of the pile (such as through taxes, arguably infringing on this individual's property rights) they are able to fund programs such as state schooling or welfare benefits which enable greater social mobility among the lower classes, increasing their own individual rights.

Whether you see the logic as sound or not I would certainly place them all in the same philosophical camp. Classical liberals and right-libertarians generally emphasise government control, modern liberals generally emphasise the power that the rich and corporations have over those below them and left-libertarians tend to put emphasis on both.

Although I do have a problem with a lot of political labelling, where it seems a lot of people think that they are "liberals" just because they're in favour of gay marriage or abortion, rather than because they have a fundamental philosophical commitment to freedom above all. At the risk of making a "no true scotsman" fallacy I think there is an important distinction which can be made between statist authoritarians who hold some "liberal" social views (such as myself) and actual liberals.

Libertarianism falls closer to the right of the center, while Anarchism falls closer to the left. Both have similarities contrary to what most believe. Both have pluses and minuses.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
The following illustration provides a general understanding of left-wing tendency and right-wing tendency (scroll to get a full view):



Having a clearer understanding of the differences between left and right and the positive sides of both is helpful to understand what Libertarianism. The political landscape unfortunately emphasises the negatives of the other side by which they both start looking like enemies of civilization.

As you can see the left wants to change and improve the world and the right wants to conserve the world and keeps things as they are. A left-winger who sees the right negatively, claims they halt progress, are rooted in old thinking, are resistant to positive change, have no imagination, are old farts, are fat capitalist pigs who are resting on their cash, are responsible that the world is not improving. A right-winger who sees the left negatively claims they want to destroy good traditions, destroy prosperity, tear down established norms, are hateful and unhappy with life (hence wanting to improve it), are radical and undisciplined nutjobs, are naive and gullible, are responsible that the world is worse off.

In order to develop more compassion, awareness and intelligence it is important to have a full understanding of how the two sides see each other and why. It is then of value to see the merit in both sides, how both sides only want the best for life but what they view as "the best" vastly differs. Those who created our two-sided political system understood the dual nature of humankind - the collectivist vs. indivudal, the future-oriented vs. the past-oriented, the agents of change vs. the agents of conservation.

So the whole left-right paradigm comes down to the following question:

Change the world or not? And people who can imagine better will tend to say "Yes!" whereas people who are already happy will tend to say "No!" The truth naturally lies somewhere in the middle:

Changing what is bad and keeping what is good.. In this understanding, the utopian-idealist is needed to create progress and improvement and the conservative-traditionalist is also needed to preserve what has worked and proven itself throughout time.

Libertarianism is an intelligent choice because it seeks to combine the best of both sides. As you can see in the image above, the left values social freedom and the right values economic freedom. Seen negatively, the left limits economic freedom and the right limits social freedom. There is a lot of historical evidence for this. Both seek to impose on others. I believe the creators of our political system were initiated into how-life-works and devised a system that would one day merge into a libertarian society in which every individual is free and also responsible enough to do as they choose.

The right-winger wants to force you by law to act in certain ways regarding drugs, morals, sex, abortion etc. By doing so he is stealing your ability to chose the right thing of your own free will. The left-winger wants to force you to give money, pay tax, conduct Business a certain way or protect the environment. By doing so he is stealing your ability to chose the right thing of your own free will.

The two systems are therefore Authoritiarian and ultimately in opposition to human nature. Human nature is that in order to learn what is good or not, one needs to make self-determined choices. And even if mistakes are made - thats how you learn. By taking the choices away from you, Authoritarianism cripples your ability to learn and grow more intelligent.

However, if we remove the left-right paradigm right away, society would collapse because we are not mature enough for it yet. Thats why I predict the transition will be slow.

The 20th Century showed us the dark-side of left-ism when taken to its extreme (Stalin, Mao) and the dark-side of right-ism when taken to its extreme (Hitler, Mussolini). The 21st Century will show us more Libertarianism.The future is socially/culturally somewhat liberal and economically/fiscally somewhat conservative.

edit on 25-8-2011 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

Left and right is a meaningless concept.

Only the "up and down" paradigm matters. Libertarian and authoritarian. There has never been a libertarian/anarchist dictatorship.

Most of the dictators are very authoritarian. Like say Mao,Stalin,bush and Hitler.