Right-wing

[SurlyPIG]

Well, being economically conservative myself, I guess I'll contribute a little bit of what I feel about the free market economy.

I think localised FME is the best possible economic system there can possibly be given the nature of humanity at this time. All others have failed rather miserably. There are finite, adjustible drawbacks and many of 'em but the FME is the only political system that directly caters to the needs and wants of the people with consideration for the interests of everyone. Imagine the FME as the downtown portion of a city. There are skyscrapers, and there's pavement way down. The sky is the limit. The biggest social drawback is the pavement. The solution has typically been what most people call a "social safety net" where one cannot go below this level. I don't really like that idea. Nets are meant to trap people. You'll sink into the center and might never get out, maybe get your arm stuck, who knows. What I think is a better way to go is more of a social safety trampoline. Soft, supportive, but launching you right back onto your feet. Should somone 'slip through the cracks' ie go bankrupt, end up on the street, there should be a social crash mat under the trampoline. If you hit this mat ie go bankrupt and end up homeless, all is forgiven, you are helped back on your feet, clothed, fed, and given a handrail to help you walk back up the steps to success.

That said, the government should only be there to make standars. Minimum wage, overtime standards, employee protection, pollution regulations etc. Essentially ensuring that peoples rights are protected. It's been proven time and again that govenment controlled business don't work. In the end, they always crash and crash hard.

Essentially; a society where the people's collective interest is key, hard work is better than otherwise, basic education and opportunities are equal, and the right to choose is the individuals and his alone. That's what it's all about, really, choices.

[Caid Ivik]

As best US president was always considered Coolidge. Why? He was the least active...

[Dante]

Dust: You said that democracy was less efficient than monarchy. Why not explainning yourself by using history as a source?

Britain. When we had a monarch decisions were not always good but they were instant. We had an Empire once you know. What happens with the rise of Labour and worker's power? Bye bye Empire!

France. They had a monarch once. When they got rid of the monarchy they enjoyed a brief spate of being on top of the world before falling into modern sensible paralysation.

Germany. Had a monarch, he just happened to make a few bad decisions. When he fell the country became a democratic republic, plunging into hyperinflation and fighting in the streets, opening the way for Hitler. An evil, foul b****** if ever there was one.

[Egeides]

ACE:

It is false to say that other doctrines failed. Look at Sweden or others. You should also look at the start of USA, Great Britain and Japan. NONE of them were free trade when others were stronger than them. These are the three success stories of free trade... Free trade isn't free for everyone: only for the strongest companies.

Dust Scout:

In all the cases you named, it was sometimes successful for the nation itself but ALWAYS because it was taking over others by force so it was as profitable globally as killing others to take wealth. It was globally catastrophic. Colonialism.

[Dude_Doc]

Dust Scout:

In all the cases you named, it was sometimes successful for the nation itself but ALWAYS because it was taking over others by force so it was as profitable globally as killing others to take wealth. It was globally catastrophic. Colonialism.

And communism is not?

On the other side, conservative ideas are not such bad. Drugs wouldn't be a problem, crime would fall etc. I think it would be a great government if we were at war with an alien race or something, like in Starship Troopers....

[Egeides]

Communism is to make as if the offer and demand doesn't exist!! I see it as overcompensation on the left.

Social democracies like Sweden, Canada or else are different since they bring a competition that is SANE instead of seing rich people being able to stop others by their economic strengt (huge corporations, etc.). Not that Canada and Sweden are perfect, but these countries are better than they would be if they were totally liberal (which means less freedom since big ones have power). We see it on American's lives, where alot more are homeless, constantly working, have problem getting good school for kids...

In the liberal pattern, it's private schools, private hospitals, private all. Thus no rules to limit abuse (health care prices go up when privatized, etc.).

[SurlyPIG]

Egedies this is a right wing topic...the mirror of the other one. If you have nothing to contribue other than criticism then don't.

"It is false to say that other doctrines failed. Look at Sweden or others. You should also look at the start of USA, Great Britain and Japan. NONE of them were free trade when others were stronger than them. These are the three success stories of free trade... Free trade isn't free for everyone: only for the strongest companies."

It's absolutely correct to say they failed. Sweden is still a capitalist system, they just take 95% of the rich's money. And as I said in my last post capitalism is only fair on a national level not an international level or a global level.

[Acriku]

Perhaps I should restate my question lost up there in the myriad of posts...

What does it mean to be Right-Wing morally? Is it that you have your morals, and will not change them, or that you have your morals passed down to you, never changing, or perhaps something else? Also, where does moral development fall in conscerning your 'wing'?

[Gobalopper]

It would have more to do with where you stand on moral issues like abortion, maybe capital punishment?, gay marriages, and stuff like that.

[Acriku]

Ah, just another label like "Republican" or "Democrat" I see.

[Egeides]

Egedies this is a right wing topic...the mirror of the other one. If you have nothing to contribue other than criticism then don't.

"It is false to say that other doctrines failed. Look at Sweden or others. You should also look at the start of USA, Great Britain and Japan. NONE of them were free trade when others were stronger than them. These are the three success stories of free trade... Free trade isn't free for everyone: only for the strongest companies."

It's absolutely correct to say they failed. Sweden is still a capitalist system, they just take 95% of the rich's money. And as I said in my last post capitalism is only fair on a national level not an international level or a global level.

And can you say this without being rude?

Ok ok, if discussing the left criticism isn't on menu. In my head, these threads included ANYTHING concerning the subject (here right, left in other thread).

[Edric O]

Britain. When we had a monarch decisions were not always good but they were instant. We had an Empire once you know. What happens with the rise of Labour and worker's power? Bye bye Empire!

France. They had a monarch once. When they got rid of the monarchy they enjoyed a brief spate of being on top of the world before falling into modern sensible paralysation.

Germany. Had a monarch, he just happened to make a few bad decisions. When he fell the country became a democratic republic, plunging into hyperinflation and fighting in the streets, opening the way for Hitler. An evil, foul b****** if ever there was one.

Yes, those nations were all big and powerful under their monarchies, but the people suffered in misery and starvation. They had powerful armies and rich kings, but 99% of the population lived in semi-slavery. Their food was filled with pathogens. Health care and education was non-existant. They were periodically decimated by plagues. Is that the kind of government you support?

And Hitler was no different from an absolute monarch. He just happened to have slightly different ideas... but I thought we're not supposed to question the orders of the allmighty ruler, are we, Dust Scout? ::)

[Dante]

No. You're supposed to kill him and then take his place. Feudal system. Not question. Questioning just gets you killed. Hitler was a foul, oppressive, evil, discriminating blight upon the face of the earth. Not because he wielded power, but because he used it so wrongly. Discrimination of any form is to me a crime that should be punishable by up to and over 20 years hard labour. Hitler is to me what Stalin is to you, Edric. A supposed supported but about as far away from your morals as it is possible to go.

And I believe that a country is more important that it's people. An individual is a different case. Or a family, like the Romanovs. But 'the people' the masses. If their suffering buys the greatness of the country to go on to better times, so be it.

[Edric O]

But 'the people' the masses. If their suffering buys the greatness of the country to go on to better times, so be it.

So, will YOU volunteer to suffer and die for the "greatness" of a handful of lazy rich aristocrats?

[Warlord Ripskar]

Hitler was just another murderous republican like all the others.

Oliver Cromwell; genocidal dictator

Robspiere; genocidal dictator

Napoleon Bonaparte; genocidal dictator

General Franco; genocidal dictator

Adolf Hitler; genocidal dictator

Lenin; genocidal dictator

Josef Stalin; genocidal dictator

Mao Tse Tung; genocidal dictator

Pol Pot; genocidal dictator

Saddam Hussein; genocidal dictator

Ho Chi Minh; genocidal dictator

Given the track record of republican systems I'll take Royalty any day.

[Dante]

Don't be silly. Nobody wants to do that. It's Darwinism here, the strong survive. Whether this is strong of muscle or strong of brain is immaterial, it will be the strong that rise to the top.

Personally I'd prefer the strong of brain. Then we could have chess matches for ownership of countries. White or Black Edric?

[Edric O]

Social darwinism is EVIL in its purest form.

But we can't really argue if we disagree on the definitions of good and evil, can we?

Warlord Ripskar: First of all, Ho Chi Minh and Lenin were not genocidal dictators. Second of all, it's really nice how you picked the 9 bad republican rulers and left out the hundreds of good ones... ::)

It's also real nice how you ignore the fact that every king and queen in history has silenced opposition and ruled with an iron fist.

[Dante]

King Canute (or Knute) went out of his way to prove that he wasn't perfect. Hardly an iron fist. Mary Queen of Scots was so popular with her people that many of them endangered themselves to protect and feed her when turning her in would have earned them a high reward. A good monarch can exist and have existed.

[Anathema]

Those were exceptions, however.

Ripskar: your point is, that a genocidal, royal dictator is better then a genocidal, republican dictator? Personally I find neither appealing.

[Warlord Ripskar]

Lenin was the leader when Russia was purged of its land owners, they were rounded up and executed, the entire strata. That is genocide however you cut it, I don't recall him holding elections either.

Ho Chih Minh not a genocidal dictator? Would anyone from the US or Australia like to comment?

You want some more outstanding examples of republican leadership?

Idi Amin, the Taleban, the Burmese Junta, the Argentinian Junta, Robert Mugabe, Tito, Ceausescu, Gen. Ironsi, Col. Gaddafi, Daniel Moi, Brig. Kassem, Col. Aref, Ahmed Al-Bakr, The Ayatollahs of Iran, Gen Suharto, Kim Il Sung...

The instnces of royal genocide are by contrast rather rare.

[Caid Ivik]

Social darwinism is EVIL in its purest form.

Altough I should first count how many people died from the terror Uncle Ho started in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodja, I would refer only to this sentence. YOU ARE TRUE. But then why you support marxism, if that was based on state and capitalism evolution theory?

[Edric O]

Ho Chi Minh did not start any "terror". And he was only the leader of North Vietnam, not any other countries. I think you're confusing him with Pol Pot. Get your facts straight.

Now, getting back to the matter at hand: Caid, the concept of social darwinism (the idea that human society should be like a jungle, where only the strongest survive and the weak are enslaved, and where all love and mercy is abolished) is the culmination of capitalism. And I despise it. I loathe it. There are no words to express my hatred for this absolute immorality.

Marxism is the complete opposite of social darwinism. Marxism promotes EQUALITY. Sharing. Brotherhood. In a Marxist society, altruism and compassion are the highest of virtues. In capitalism, it is greed and selfishness.

[zamboe]

Now, getting back to the matter at hand: Caid, the concept of social darwinism (the idea that human society should be like a jungle, where only the strongest survive and the weak are enslaved, and where all love and mercy is abolished) is the culmination of capitalism. And I despise it. I loathe it. There are no words to express my hatred for this absolute immorality.

Marxism is the complete opposite of social darwinism. Marxism promotes EQUALITY. Sharing. Brotherhood. In a Marxist society, altruism and compassion are the highest of virtues. In capitalism, it is greed and selfishness.

Under what kind of considerations are you saying that the social darwinism (a quite ambiguous two word concept) drives to capitalism ? , btw there is no relation between being strong and slave others, you seem to think that automatically if someone or something gets stronger will slave the rest, that's not sustainable.

[SurlyPIG]

He makes no such considerations Zamboe.

Capitalism is not a jungle of survival, it is a game of competition. Everyone has the same equipment, abides by the same rules and is refereed by the same officials. But unlike most games there are numerous possible objectives and many ways of achieving those. Like in the game speedaway where you can kick a goal, punt a field goal, or run a touchdown. And just like all civilised games, it is never fatal and it ends when the whistle blows, the buzzer sounds, or the last runner crosses the finish line.

BTW I'd like to point out how more than one left-winged person has taken it upon themselves to distrupt the point of this thread to their own ends while its counterpart remains undisturbed (last I checked).

[Caid Ivik]

Ho Chi Minh did not start any "terror". And he was only the leader of North Vietnam, not any other countries. I think you're confusing him with Pol Pot. Get your facts straight.

Now, getting back to the matter at hand: Caid, the concept of social darwinism (the idea that human society should be like a jungle, where only the strongest survive and the weak are enslaved, and where all love and mercy is abolished) is the culmination of capitalism. And I despise it. I loathe it. There are no words to express my hatred for this absolute immorality.

Marxism is the complete opposite of social darwinism. Marxism promotes EQUALITY. Sharing. Brotherhood. In a Marxist society, altruism and compassion are the highest of virtues. In capitalism, it is greed and selfishness.

Ho started a guerilla war against French in 50's, after de facto succesful fight with japanese invasion. Vietkong army was his work, all commanders his people. He died before the fall of Saigon, and so on before Vietkong spread over big part of Indochina. Pol Pot, leader of cambodjian Red Khmers was, of course, many times worse, his slaughteries took over one fifth of his population... No surprise they couldn't stand vietnamese intruders. But those were just raids, no real invasions, altough with much pain on civilian side.

Marx used darwinism too. But in even more primitive scale. Not strength of intellect, money or spirituality, but strength of pure numbers. His logic was weird, he tought that if the "proletariate" is the largest, it should prevail over puny "capitalist" caste and assimilate or annihilate them. THEN we can talk about "brotherhood" or "equality". State would never know what I need, also I won't to fill my needs by myself, not by others.