Posted on 06/16/2003 12:46:18 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou
Ok, I think I'll have to learn new definitions for this forum. "Right" here is defined as tring to minimize government power. I'm used to loose definitions of left and right based on a bunch of idealogies, either one able to get out of control and go totalitarian if given a chance. I see now how this goes against that definition of "right" accepted here. I still contend that there have been people who were considered "right" or "conservative" which have only increased governments size and power.
As for environmental regulations carried out by hordes of Washington bureaucrats, I believe the answer is no. The environment should be regulated locally through individual or group contract and the use of common law in our courts.
Here's a true story:
In about 1890, a mining company built a copper mill to process copper. When the mill cranked up and started milling the copper, big black plumes of smoke rolled out over the town. The ladies living there saw the black soot drifting into their dens and homes, soiling their linens, drapes and clothing.
They banded together, marched down to city hall and demanded that the mayor tell the company to cease and desist - immediately.
The mayor met with the company officials and told them that its milling process was trespassing into the women's homes, causing soiling and other damage. Under the common law called trespass, the company had two choices - agree to pay the laundry bills for the ladies or stop the pollution. If the company refused to act, the ladies could file a common law suit in the local court for trespass. The company opted to stop the pollution and within days fitted its chimney with a soot catcher. It was all carried out quickly to everyone's satisfaction.
Under this common law, the aggrieved party controls the process and wins the damages. Under the process we have now - unelected bureaucrats exerting control - the government is paid the damages and can also be bribed to look the other way.
I'm sure an attorney here can explain common law better than me, but common law gives power to individuals while regulation gives control to big government.
If it takes a $200,000 study to prove that what a company is doing is bad there is a problem here especially if the company has it's own $400,000 fake study showing it's not. Considering court fees and hiring experts the little wives club wouldn't cut it.
Someone has to notice the pollution. The little wives may not notice that some fly by night SOBs dump heavy metals in their drinking water until it's too late. If you know some chemical company or Sadam is producing something naughty, you want to force him to account for his waste disposal.
If you can show me how this can work in private industry so well that the government doesn't need to do it anymore ok. I submit private corporations are just as bribeable as public bureocracies and less accountable to the public. I would hate to see the public system removed before a private one takes over. I'm not saying I like it, but it's better than companies just doing what they want. Sorry I'm sounding like a lefty again :-0.
I submit private corporations are just as bribeable as public bureocracies and less accountable to the public.
Private corporations LOVE regulations because it kills their smaller competition and allows them to buy preferable treatment. You do know why Pew (SUNOCO), Rockefeller (Exxon/Mobil), Prince Bernhard (Shell (when it was Dutch)), and the British Royals (BP) are the largest single group of supporters of environmental NGOs, don't you? They use tax-exempt funds to do it too.
I would hate to see the public system removed before a private one takes over.
The system implementation is incremental.
I'm not saying I like it, but it's better than companies just doing what they want. Sorry I'm sounding like a lefty again :-0.
That's because you are one.
The basic Idea is that Left-Right is far too simplistic a yardstick to judge political philosophies. It uses a two dimensional representation like this:
The social scale roughly measures commitment to individual rights. Both opposition to the war on drugs AND opposition to gun control would rate as "social liberal" positions because they support individual rights over "the good of society" (I put that in qoutes for a reason - everyone has their own definition what "good for society" means and all authoritarians use it as their justification). The Economic scale rates the degree of freedom for businesses and also reflects taxation policy. Note that this reflects feelings towards established business AND entreprenuers - so support for removing bearucratic regulation from big corporations AND removing tax breaks and "corporate welfare" from those same businesses would BOTH be examples of Economic Liberalism.
On this scale you would rate a libertarian as a strong Economic AND Social liberal. A Stalinist would be a strong Social AND Economic Authoritarian. A socialist would tend to be an Economic Authoritarian and Social Liberal. A conservative tends to be a Social Authoritarian and Economic Liberal.
Note that these are scales - not absolutes. Stalin was an extreme Social Authoritarian because he believed that it was OK to starve 20 million people to death to advance his agenda. Someone who supports the war on drugs, opposes the Gay Rights agenda, and thinks the government should do more to support traditional families, is a Moderate Social Authoritarian. It's important to pay attentention to distinctions and not fall into the fanatic's trap of labeling everybody as the most extreme example.
By this chart; Hitler would be near the middle economically (strong regulations of business, but no direct nationalizations), and etremely strong Social authoritarian. He and Stalin would have gotten along famously if they avoided economics.
It should be noted that most of the people on this forum tend to be somewhat Economically Liberal. They range the gamut from fairly Socially Liberal (the libertarians everyone loves to pick on) to Moderately Social Authoritarian (the guys most likely to flame me). The "Liberals" most likely to be maligned here are Economic and Social Authoritarians. They not only hate freedom for business, they hate diversity of opinion (read:"freedom") and seek to stamp it out with their PC speech codes and manditory "sensitivity training". All for "the good of society", of course.
Finally; That I not be accused of throwing mud from the sidelines without revealing my own opinions, here is how I rate:
I am fairly strongly Econmically Liberal with a strong bias towards entreprenuerial "rights" over corporate "rights" (which always seem to boil down to the "right" to protect themselves from competetion). I'm also moderately Social Liberal and describe myself as, "a consevative with libertarian sympathies". It wouldn't be wrong to say "moderate libertarian" except that online the term seems to be an oxymoron.
No they didn't. They split into a third party. Many ended up joining the Republican Party, but only after repudiating their stand on segregation. Die hard Confederate sympathizers remain Democrats to this day, because they will never vote for the party of Lincoln. Neo-nazis don't support either major party because they believe both are controlled by jews.
When pro-Isreal groups gained support of the reps, antisemitists will pop up with the dems and other left parties... We just have to make it 100% clear to our politicians if you support these racists in any way... we'll vote against you.
The left considers the Israelis to be the racists, not to mention the republicans. The left is against Israel because they hate all patriotism and religion.
As he was complaining about capitalism then, he was being funded by banks and rich buisnessmen.
You are confusing finance with capitalism. Plenty of rich businessmen support socialism.
Hitler and the Nazis considered capitalism and communism both to be materialistic Jewish inventions. They smashed the windows of Jewish department stores for the same reason anti-globalism protestors do today. They demonized the "greedy" jews with the same class warfare rhetoric the left now uses to attack American businessmen.
The Nazi regime was a centrally planned socialist economy. The government directed the industry. They just didn't murder all the managers and businessmen like the Communists do.
...on the other side Hitler died a Catholic never denounced by the church.
He certainly denounced Catholicism.
Nazis were the result of the German Right loosing faith in democracy and buying into a bunch of bull crap.
Nazis were the result of the common German worker buying into a lot of bull crap. The blue-blooded aristocracy always hated Hitler and tried to kill him because they wanted to win World War 2.
Definately at the time he was considered to be right wing
Right and left are relative terms. What was 'considered' right in another country at some time in the past doesn't necessarily have anything to do with American conservatism.
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
The "Green Wing" of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents
That said...
The misconception that "Hitler and the NAZIs came from the right" goes back to who and when that statement was made - Joe Stalin WWII.
Any attack on Stalin would have, by necessity, come from the "right" as he was posited as far to the left as possible. To equivicate "that right" with today's conservative right is falsity, and will destroy any credibilty you may have built up here on FR.
The left likes to throw the Nazi term at the right to deflect attention away from their own exstreamisms. 99% of the time this attempt occurs, they have already lost the argument and they know it.
It should be noted that most of the people on this forum tend to be somewhat Economically Liberal. They range the gamut from fairly Socially Liberal (the libertarians everyone loves to pick on) to Moderately Social Authoritarian (the guys most likely to flame me).
Yeah, I've found this marriage of convience on the social axis working together on the economic side quite interesting. I'm sure it happens on the left too. On the one side maybe it's actually a positive sign that the country has agreed on a level of social authority, and that the only fights left are on economic issues. I worry however that while Americans are divided on economics, the government is gobling up more and more authority on the social side especially in the face of terrorism. I've seen posts here indicating that some of the non-bushbots here have similar worries.
The "Liberals" most likely to be maligned here are Economic and Social Authoritarians.
Yeah, I can understand that. I just wish they wouldn't assume one based on the other though. Not everyone that supports public schools has a picture of Mao or Stalin on his wall.
Sure I'll rate myself too. I'm pretty social liberal like you. I believe that the first obligation of a goverment is to protect individual freedoms. Without those the economics will deteriorate anyway.
On the economic scale I'm kind of pragmatic. I tend to think unregulated captialism can do bad things and that there is a responsiblity of the people to elect officials to set up rules to make markets fair as well as free. I think there are some things the public sector can do better than the private, but the majority of the economy should be private. I respect for example Germans giving everyone the right to health care, as long as the system works. I repect initiatives to privatize goverment industries as long as they work afterwards. I hope nobody takes this the wrong way: I view those who would privatize everything with about the same skepticism I would those who wanted to nationalise everything.
Any attack on Stalin would have, by necessity, come from the "right" as he was posited as far to the left as possible. To equivicate "that right" with today's conservative right is falsity, and will destroy any credibilty you may have built up here on FR.
Yes, and I've tried to make it clear that I'm not calling anyone here a fascist just because they call themselves right. First off I'd argue that both modern left and right in America try to purge themselves of any commis or fascists, at least publically.
I'm probably going to get blasted for this too, but there are still some modern threads left over from the left vs. right conflict of that time. I'm going to illustrate some points the two sides argue around. I used Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932 contrasting his view with socialism.
1) "All men were created equal."
commi: yes equal everything, lets kill the rich and take their stuff.
social democrat: progressive taxation, social services for the poor, let's actively fight social disparity.
conservate: flat tax, get rid of social services, the rich will take care of the poor if you let them.
fascist: no, nature never made all men equal. My race/nation/group has a right to crush others if it can. Evolutionary supperiority of races/peoples/cultures.
2) Internationalism
Commi: "workers of the world unite!", the worker has no country, solidarity for all man (and usually women).
socialist: let's strenghten the UN and make big international treaties
conservative: America first, use loose coalitions as we see fit. The threat of war will keep other countries honest. Never compromise our sovereignty.
fascist: "War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it." My country should be conquering its neighbors or I'm doing something wrong.
There may be other points were this contiunum from left to right is appearent. Of coarse on important issues like democracy and freedom both wing nuts seem to wind up the same. I like the political compass Capt Phoenix mentioned.
The left likes to throw the Nazi term at the right to deflect attention away from their own exstreamisms. 99% of the time this attempt occurs, they have already lost the argument and they know it.
Yes, I agree, and not all people on the left are raving commies. It is important to save words like fascist or communist for the few occasions where they really fit. You may have a point that there may be more nutty leftists that don't value democracy than there are rightists that would openly question the value of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.