[CS-FSLUG] Left, Right; Up, Down?
Christopher Rose
kf6snj at lycos.com
Sat Jul 10 09:58:42 CDT 2004
Ed,
Just for fun, and because this is how I really am, put me halfway between the bottom and center of that chart and to the extreme right.
Thanks.
In Christ,
Christopher
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Hurst <softedges at tconline.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 09:13:53 -0500
To: CS-FSLUG <christiansource at ofb.biz>
Subject: [CS-FSLUG] Left, Right; Up, Down?
> For your amusement, some basic political theory.
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> It's Not Simply Left and Right
>
>
> The bane of our existence in government today is that we are stuck with
> two parties. Worse, these two parties are very similar, but propagandize
> about how deep their "differences" are. There are a raft of so-called
> "third party" groups, the largest of which are the Libertarian and Green
> parties. These are seldom taken seriously, because the two main parties
> have near absolute control over the process. All discussion and debate
> takes place within the framework they have promoted.
>
> That we have such a designation as "left" and "right" arises from a
> time when one particular national legislative body would seat
> themselves in the chamber by party affiliation. From where the speaker
> stood, to his right was a more or less conservative party, and to his
> left was a liberal one. Since that time, the designation has stuck.
> This tends to simplify the debate, and voters will see themselves
> indentified either left or right, and often a mixture of positions
> based on the particular issue at hand.
>
> Wiser heads know that within either of our two parties, there are a
> large number of people who could easily fit with the opposition, but
> keep their affiliation for various reasons. At odd points in our US
> national history, factions within a given party have hijacked the
> leadership and changed things. At one time in our history, the
> Democrats were regarded as conservative, and the Republicans as
> progressive. To add more to the confusion, some particular issues
> really are not a matter of conservative or liberal. An example would be
> immigration. To be open or closed is not simply a matter of liberal or
> conservative. There may be several different categories of reasons to
> resist open borders, and it is the cause of resistance that falls left
> or right, not the resistance itself.
>
> Finally, many issues are not simply left or right, because there is at
> least two different scales: fiscal and social. By rights, there ought to
> be four distinct parties at a minimum. However, the powers that be will
> never allow this to be widely recognized so long as they exercise
> control over the process and means of information. It's not a conspiracy
> theory to realize that a select group run the show in our nation. They
> are the governing elite, and they will work to prevent anyone seeing the
> whole story. That's what governments do.
>
> While the issues are far more complex than just fiscal or social, or
> mixtures of both, let us examine things from this perspective. To take
> this first step away from a false dichotomy will open the doors to an
> even deeper understanding later, should the reader choose to pursue it.
> Consider two crossing scales of liberty and freedom. One scale measures
> social freedom or personal/individual liberties, if you will ("civil
> liberties" has been too twisted by propaganda to be useful). On a
> separate scale, we will measure fiscal freedom, or personal/individual
> economic liberties. We will represent these combined scales as a
> Cartesian coordinate system. We will lable the two scales of freedom
> PERSONAL and ECONOMIC.
>
>
>
> PERSONAL | (more)
> |
> |
> Liberal/ |
> Socialist | Libertarian
> |
> |
> ECONOMIC |
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> (less) | (more)
> |
> |
> Populist/ | Conservative
> Fascist/ |
> Communist |
> | (less)
>
>
>
> You will see that I have placed some popular designations within this
> grid to indicate something of their essential nature, in terms of what
> sort of controls these philosophies seek to assert over citizens.
> Nothing here is meant to disparage any particular group, but merely
> recognize their tendencies. Theoretically, one may justly decide that a
> certain amount of regulation is necessary to provide a disincentive to
> those who flout the rules of common sense, who are willing to prey on
> the rest of society. The debate becomes a matter of how much relative
> control we desire to hand over to governing authorities. At which point
> is the proper to balance between freedom and control?
>
> Let's start with Libertarian philosophy. In general, it favors maximum
> liberty in both scales. In its extreme form, we would call it "anarchy."
> Lest the reader become confused, we use the word academically, simply
> meaning "no organized government" as opposed to the popular meaning,
> which is roughly the same as "chaos" -- doing without a formal
> government is not automatically chaotic. Libertarians would prefer to
> allow folks to choose for themselves whatever they wish, as long as they
> recognize they must moderate their actions and choices to avoid
> infringing the same freedom of choice for others.
>
> While the term "conservative" means holding onto the good we have had
> in the past, it has taken on a distinctive flavor, so that we
> capitalize the word to represent a currently recognized philosophy
> (which in Europe has always been called "Liberal"). This Conservative
> philosophy offers maximum economic freedom, a bulwark of defense for
> private property. However, it is less concerned with personal
> liberties. Today's Conservatives are willing to tell you how you should
> behave in your personal life in order to maintain a nice, orderly
> society.
>
> The modern American meaning of "Liberal" is to assert control over
> economic activity, while giving less concern to individual behavior
> having no economic impact. Thus, for example, human sexual perversion
> is openly tolerated, but taxed and regulated if it goes commercial.
> This is easily identified with the general meaning of "socialist" --
> the government owns (or tightly controls) the means of economic
> productivity.
>
> Our last group goes by many names, and these are often misused for
> propaganda purposes. To exercise government control over nearly every
> aspect of human activity is pleasant only to the governing elite and to
> those who fear their own shadow. Populism is a philosophy that attaches
> a distinct moral quality to every human activity, and seeks to regulate
> based on a model of what is normative. It is based more or less on the
> majority rule of what is "good" and "bad." Fascist philosophy seeks the
> greater good of the nation, and while promoting a moral argument, is
> less concerned with hearing from the population, and more concerned
> with manipulating it. Communism goes Socialism one better, by adding an
> element of economic control down the lowest level, by telling you what
> is the right thing to desire, and thus what you will purchase or sell.
> Everything is centrally controlled. All three claim to operate on
> behalf of the greater good of all.
>
> While this is yet rather simplistic, it should provide a better
> understanding of how we are governed, and what are you options. Now you
> know the rest of the story.
>
> --
> Ed Hurst
> -----------
> Software Freedom Day - 28 August 2004
> Got freedom?
> http://www.softwarefreedomday.org/
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
--
_______________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
More information about the Christiansource
mailing list