Right vs Left - Political spectrum, socialism and conservatism

Agustino

Recently I have turned more and more right-wing, and I am interested to discuss with members of this forum, many whom I know to be leftist/socialists. The way I see it, the left takes certain values, such as equality for all, freedom against culture/norms, etc. and then imposes these over the rest of the world, and anyone who doesn't respect them becomes a misogynist, racist, sexist, etc. The left claims to be tolerant, but only for things which respect their fundamental values; towards anything else, absolutely intolerant. But there are so many different ways of life under the sun. Who am I to condemn, for example the Islamic way of life and go tell them that their women should have a choice to wear the burkha etc etc? It's their fundamental right to decide what rules are to be obeyed on their lands, and what rules are not. Everyone has their own laws on their lands, in their families, and true toleration means not interfering with these. In fact, the world is beautiful precisely because there is diversity and there are many different customs, religions, and cultures. This diversity should be respected I believe, and we should not aim towards a globalisation of culture, in which we slowly aim for the whole planet to have and share the same values. All that is required, I think, are a set of international values, along the following lines: "My land, my rules. Your land, your rules. I will not interfere with you unless you do something that is threatening or damaging to me"

Instead of the leftist position that others must observe rights, I much rather prefer the conservative position that others must not interfere with rights. It seems both more tolerant, and more ethical. Hopefully this is enough to get some discussion started :)

Marchesk

This well end well. *Pulls up chair, waits on Landru to join discussion.*

_db

The left claims to be tolerant, but only for things which respect their fundamental values; towards anything else, absolutely intolerant. — Agustino

I think this a massively sweeping claim. The left presumably believes these fundamental values are intrinsic rights to every human being. So of course they are going to be intolerant to the right and others who dismiss many of these values. They are intolerant of intolerance, intolerant of backwards thinking.

Everyone has their own laws on their lands, in their families, and true toleration means not interfering with these. — Agustino

This is a funny thing to say, considering you said you are leaning to the right (which has history of supporting the rolling of tanks into countries that don't necessarily want them).

Agustino

This well end well. *Pulls up chair, waits on Landru to join discussion.* — Marchesk

Is Landru the de facto Commie of TPF? :P

Moliere

↪Agustino

I hope not, given that he's a very consistent progressive -- but, I will note, would not get along in radical circles even in the U.S., which are rather conservative themselves when you consider the world picture. [sorry, mate: don't mean to hate. but. . . it's rather true. especially considering your views on weapons, where most radical leftists are fine with weapon ownership, whether it violates laws or no] @Landru Guide Us [edited so landru sees us all and stuff]

Marchesk

↪Agustino

He just has strong opinions, particularly when it comes to politics, and calling him a "Commie", even in jest, is a conservative meme that will be seen as a battle cry.

Agustino

I think this a massively sweeping claim. The left presumably believes these fundamental values are intrinsic rights to every human being. So of course they are going to be intolerant to the right and others who dismiss many of these values. They are intolerant of intolerance, intolerant of backwards thinking. — darthbarracuda

True, not all leftists would be like this. However, I disagree that these are fundamental values and intrinsic rights. Who are they to claim so? As far as I'm concerned, the only rights a man has by birth are the same rights a tiger has - which are not many. It is society which grants man any other rights that he has, and man owes it to his community for having them. Thus it is man's duty to support his community which has provided for him while he couldn't provide for himself - and it is also his duty to remember that if it wasn't for his community he'd be in no better or worse state than a tiger is. Hence, for the left to claim that there are "intrinsic rights" is nonsense, unless of course we believe in a God who has granted these intrinsic rights. Mother Nature certainly has not :)

This is a funny thing to say, considering you said you are leaning to the right (which has history of rolling tanks into countries that don't necessarily want them). — darthbarracuda

To counter threats, yes. And yes, there were also mistakes in this, that's inevitable.

Moliere

True, not all leftists would be like this. However, I disagree that these are fundamental values and intrinsic rights. Who are they to claim so? As far as I'm concerned, the only rights a man has by birth are the same rights a tiger has - which are not many. It is society which grants man any other rights that he has, and man owes it to his community for having them. Thus it is man's duty to support his community which has provided for him while he couldn't provide for himself - and it is also his duty to remember that if it wasn't for his community he'd be in no better or worse state than a tiger is. — Agustino

Oh my. I agree with the beginning, but I must admit a severe disagreement with your conclusion. Yes, rights are only granted by society, but -- this only means we can get more, not that we have to respect society. And, really, why shouldn't we ask for more? If we don't, then we have an over-class of folks who take advantage of those who are below them -- and I don't blame them, of course, because that's only human nature -- but we don't have equality until people in the underclass actually come together and fight.

_db

However, I disagree that these are fundamental values and intrinsic rights. Who are they to claim so? As far as I'm concerned, the only rights a man has by birth are the same rights a tiger has - which are not many. — Agustino

Who are you to claim so?

Marchesk

However, I disagree that these are fundamental values and intrinsic rights. — Agustino

There isn't any such thing, except as we decide there are intrinsic rights. My opinion is that deciding there are makes for a better world for everyone in it, so we might as well act like there is such a thing.

Agustino

Who are you to claim so? — darthbarracuda

No one, but keep in mind, I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm stating a fact, which is that we don't have any rights by Nature. If we did, then we should expect Nature herself to have a mechanism to assure us those rights.

Agustino

There isn't any such thing, except as we decide there are intrinsic rights. My opinion is that deciding there are makes for a better world for everyone in it, so we might as well act like there is such a thing. — Marchesk

I disagree for example that "everyone being equal" is a good thing. What will happen with the millions of people who, like me, also disagree? Will we be oppressed for it?

Marchesk

Who are you to claim so? — darthbarracuda

I don't think a coherent philosophical argument can be made for the objective existence of inherent rights. The best anyone can do is invoke God, and that will only get you as far as people believe in God. And even then, God doesn't seem to bother to enforce those rights, so ...

Marchesk

↪Agustino

Being treated equally means that you can express your opinion freely without legal consequence. Some people might not like you for that, but they are free to dislike you or to challenge your opinion. You're not being oppressed just because you end up with a minority opinion that most people dislike.

Agustino

If we don't, then we have an over-class of folks who take advantage of those who are below them -- and I don't blame them, of course, because that's only human nature -- but we don't have equality until people in the underclass actually come together and fight. — Moliere

Well, it's inevitable for some people to be better than others. Instead of making everyone equally bad, why not allow those who are better to pull the rest, as much as possible towards where they are? And for those who are worse to have something to aspire to?

Agustino

You're not being oppressed just because you end up with a minority opinion that most people dislike. — Marchesk

This doesn't follow, because I will be oppressed in social terms, I will be treated as a social outcast, with whom no one wants to be associated with. So therefore, this is necessarily intolerant towards me, since it acts as a way to marginalise me.

Marchesk

Well, it's inevitable for some people to be better than others. — Agustino

Better than others in what way, though? Athletically, intellectually, better at making money, better at exploiting and manipulating, being more beautiful, being the right skin color, being born to the right family, etc? How are you going to define the criteria for who is better?

Who do you think deserves to be considered better?

Agustino

Better than others in what way, though? Athletically, intellectually, better at making money, better at exploiting and manipulating, being more beautiful, being the right skin color, being born to the right family, etc? How are you going to define the criteria for who is better? — Marchesk

Better in any of these ways. Not better in absolute terms, since there is no way to decide if the best plumber is better than the best lawyer :)

Marchesk

I will be treated as a social outcast, with whom no one wants to be associated with. So therefore, this is necessarily intolerant towards me, since it acts as a way to marginalise me. — Agustino

So you think people should be required to socialize with you even if they can't stand your views? I think people should be free to socialize with whomever they want.

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Marchesk

Landru would be pretty much right too. Agustino is worshipping the myth of rights having nothing to do with what people do here, as if systems which assign rights and define the lives of people who live there had nothing to do with the actions of the people and their culture. As if "Rights" were more important than doing what is right.

There is much to be said against (in recent times, Western) Imperialism and it's destruction of local culture, way of life and power organisation. It can result in outright disaster. But this is not because any local way of life is necessarily good. It's because such interference causes social destruction, instability, war and similar horrific outcomes. Interference is frequently terrible. As quite a few on the Left have been at pains to point out (all that stuff on Colonialism and Western Imperialism and the damage it caused to so many indigenous peoples, the damage inflicted by modern Western Imperialism and globalisation, etc.,etc.).

Agustino is confusing the question of the ethics of interference with the ethics culture (and the Left with Western Imperialism to a significant degree here).

Marchesk

Better in any of these ways. Not better in absolute terms, since there is no way to decide if the best plumber is better than the best lawyer — Agustino

But in most societies it's already the case that people can find all sorts of ways to end up better off than others financially, in terms of status quo, or other ways. A free and equal society gives people the most opportunity to do this, whereas more stratified societies tend to put barriers in place for ambitious individuals born to the wrong class, ethnicity, gender or circumstances.

Agustino

So you think people should be required to socialize with you even if they can't stand your views? I think people should be free to socialize with whom they want. — Marchesk

No, as they can't be required to do so. Therefore I believe that the system which encourages them to ostracize me, and believe absolutely that they have the correct values, and I don't, is wrong. A system which encourages epistemic humility, on the other hand, is to be preferred.

Agustino

As quite a few on the Left have been at pains to point out (all that stuff on Colonialism and Western Imperialism and the damage it caused to so many indigenous peoples, the damage inflicted by modern Western Imperialism and globalisation, etc.,etc.). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, nevertheless, these very same leftists send NGOs and money in the Middle East to educate Muslim women how to be Western, because being Western is clearly the right thing to be for the whole world! ;)

But in most societies it's already the case that people can find all sorts of ways to end up better off than others financially, in status quo, or other ways. A free and equal society gives people the most opportunity to do this, whereas more stratified societies tend to put barriers in place for ambitious individuals born to the wrong class, ethnicity, gender or circumstances. — Marchesk

I disagree with this. A "free and equal" society gives everyone good opportunities to become average. But if someone wants to be truly great, he's much better off in a stratified society, where the opportunities for big gains, big advances, etc. are much greater.

If I want to become moderately rich, a "free and equal" society is good. But if I want to become immoderately rich, extremely rich - then such a society places more constraints on me than its opposite.

TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, it's inevitable for some people to be better than others. Instead of making everyone equally bad, why not allow those who are better to pull the rest, as much as possible towards where they are? And for those who are worse to have something to aspire to? — Agustino

Better in any of these ways. Not better in absolute terms, since there is no way to decide if the best plumber is better than the best lawyer — Agustino

This is contradiction. When each individual is accepted in terms of their ability, there is no-one to aspire too because that would be to covert what one was not. It would be for the best plumber to think, in absolute terms, the best lawyer was more valuable because they were the best lawyer rather then the best plumber. Your argument is masquerading an assertion of absolute value as respecting each individual for what they do well.

Agustino

This is contradiction. When each individual is accepted in terms of their ability, there is no-one to aspire too because that would be to covert what one was not. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes, I, being a plumber, can aspire to another plumber whose plumbing is better than mine. There is no contradiction there.

It would be for the best plumber to think, in absolute terms, the best lawyer was more valuable because they were the best lawyer rather then the best plumber — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it wouldn't. The best plumber would know that, in terms of plumbing, he is the best, better than the best lawyer. In terms of law, of course the best lawyer is better than he. There is no "best" independent of context; best is context specific.

Marchesk

If I want to become moderately rich, a "free and equal" society is good. But if I want to become immoderately rich, extremely rich - then such a society places more constraints on me than its opposite. — Agustino

I don't know. Seems like the tech billionaires did alright for themselves. Bill Gates was the richest person in the world for how long? How influential are companies like Google and Facebook?

TheWillowOfDarkness

↪Agustino

Nope. Since this plumber is not as good, doing that would be to insist they needed to have more than the abilities they have. It is to give the better plumber more absolute value. The worse plumber is think the MUST, as a person, be a great plumber like the other guy, else they have failed as an individual. If each individual is respected for their own abilities, it must be alright for the worse plumber to be worse.

Agustino

I don't know. Seems like the tech billionaires did alright for themselves. Bill Gates was the richest person in the world for how long? How influential are companies like Google and Facebook? — Marchesk

Yes - but that is simply because technology (esp. computers) is a relatively new and young industry, which only relatively rich and developed societies could have proper access to. (hence a priori it was restricted for much of the time to the Western world, esp. the US) Try to do the same in plumbing, or making jeans, or pretty much any other industry, and you'll have quite a big problem in a country like the U.S. It would be much easier to become rich from jeans in a less developed country - that is why people like Amancio Ortega, Giorgio Armani, etc. come from the war-torn, relatively less developed (at the time) continent of Europe.

Agustino

Nope. Since this plumber is not as good, doing that would be to insist they needed to have more than the abilities they have. It is to give the better plumber more absolute value. The worse plumber is think the MUST, as a person, be a great plumber like the other guy, else they have failed as an individual. If each individual is respected for their own abilities, it must be alright for the worse plumber to be worse. — TheWillowOfDarkness

But it's reasonable for the best plumber to be more respected than the worse one. He should be more respected, why else did he work and put all the effort to be the best for? Otherwise he should just have thrown up his hand, done a mediocre job, and leave it like that. He'd have a much easier time doing a mediocre job afterall. So yes - the worse plumber should always aspire to the better one, and seek to develop his skills (something that is not impossible), in order to become better than he currently is, and perhaps even better than his colleague.

Marchesk

I will agree with Augistino in one sense. Societies do determine what the fundamental values are. I happen to grow in a society where equality, justice and tolerance are promoted. But I could have grown up in Sparta. So from an absolute point of view, how does anyone say which values are best? That's kind of disturbing.

As it stands though, the West has the power and influence to remake the world in their image, and so those values are the ones which will win out. I say that's good, but with an understanding that it's my modern Western preference for those particular values. And also with an understanding that China could change that equation in the future. And as the rests of the world modernizes and makes it online, the balance of influence could shift.

Agustino

I will agree with Augistino in one sense. Societies do determine what the fundamental values are. I happen to grow in a society where equality, justice and tolerance are promoted. But I could have grown up in Sparta. So from an absolute point of view, how does anyone say which values are best? That's kind of disturbing. As it stands though, the West has the power and influence to make the world in their image, and so those values are the ones which will win out. I say that's good, but with an understanding that it's my modern Western preference for those particular values. — Marchesk

Bingo. I disagree about being "good" part, but the rest is very well put! :)

Right vs Left - Political spectrum, socialism and conservatism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions