What is it that ideas and people are 'left' or 'right' of?

[there4eyeM]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

Center is more or less the middle of the political spectrum. It's relative to the people who make up the normal left and right positions. So center in the US is more to the right in British terms whereas the center in the UK is more to the left in US terms.

This is equally true for most of Europe, especially France and Germany.

Well the US, with it's election system which is tilted towards the right, is the most right wing country in the first world.

That might be considered difficult to quantify. As 'right' is often associated with militarism, however, the U.S. is by far the most progressed in this vein.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

Center is more or less the middle of the political spectrum. It's relative to the people who make up the normal left and right positions. So center in the US is more to the right in British terms whereas the center in the UK is more to the left in US terms.

This is equally true for most of Europe, especially France and Germany.

Well the US, with it's election system which is tilted towards the right, is the most right wing country in the first world.

That might be considered difficult to quantify. As 'right' is often associated with militarism, however, the U.S. is by far the most progressed in this vein.

Well, usually this is just a feeling of what things are, and most people who know these countries would say so.

 

[sparky]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

Center is more or less the middle of the political spectrum. It's relative to the people who make up the normal left and right positions. So center in the US is more to the right in British terms whereas the center in the UK is more to the left in US terms.

This is equally true for most of Europe, especially France and Germany.

Well the US, with it's election system which is tilted towards the right, is the most right wing country in the first world.

That might be considered difficult to quantify. As 'right' is often associated with militarism, however, the U.S. is by far the most progressed in this vein.

IIRC, no other country comes close to 600 military bases, nor our military budget

~S~

 

[sparky]

And, if one delves into the patriot act's specifics ,along with all the alphabet dept's created to save us from ourselves , we should party like it's 1937 again!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center.

Incorrect.

link?

Do you have one?

The seating arrangement was for supporters of the monarchy to sit on the right, while supporters of the revolution to sit on the left. This was effectively a division between aristocracy on the right and peasantry on the left, and was supposedly inspired by the aristocracy wanting to isolate themselves from the uncooth public behavior of the peasantry. After the French monarchy was abolished and a new legislative body was established seating arrangements often reflected similar comparisons, with those favoring a return to monarchy seated on the right most wing, while different quasi-factions were seated in the central or the left most wing areas.

Calling something incorrect and then affirming it is somewhat confusing. Is that what was intended?

What I'm saying is that you're in the general ballpark, but you're details are sufficiently inaccurate to render your statement incorrect. It wasn't a question of being to the right of the King or to the left of the King. The seating arrangement indicated whether you were with or against the monarchy.

 

[there4eyeM]

'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center.

Incorrect.

link?

Do you have one?

The seating arrangement was for supporters of the monarchy to sit on the right, while supporters of the revolution to sit on the left. This was effectively a division between aristocracy on the right and peasantry on the left, and was supposedly inspired by the aristocracy wanting to isolate themselves from the uncooth public behavior of the peasantry. After the French monarchy was abolished and a new legislative body was established seating arrangements often reflected similar comparisons, with those favoring a return to monarchy seated on the right most wing, while different quasi-factions were seated in the central or the left most wing areas.

Calling something incorrect and then affirming it is somewhat confusing. Is that what was intended?

What I'm saying is that you're in the general ballpark, but you're details are sufficiently inaccurate to render your statement incorrect. It wasn't a question of being to the right of the King or to the left of the King. The seating arrangement indicated whether you were with or against the monarchy.

"Position" often refers, in politics, to attitudes and practices, not necessarily a physical place. Since you almost certainly know this, your posts are even more confusing now. Your presence in the thread, nonetheless, is appreciated.

 

[Natural Citizen]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

One thing I know for a fact is that the term 'liberal' is the most misused word in the entire American political lexicon. And both parties are guilty of the term's bastardization. It's pure ignorance to what liberalism really is. And conservatism, consequently.

Being a real liberal, I'd prefer and appreciate that neither theoretical political side use the term 'liberal'

Just refer to big government leftists as statists, can we start doing that, please? There's a lot of big government statists on the so-called right, too, so, we'd be knocking out two cans with one stone. Heck, some of the most rabid statists in politics identify as Repubicans, to be fair about it. That's another reason I cringe when I see the term thrown around.

I cringe every time I see the term liberal thrown around so carelessly. And I, for one, am offended that us true liberals have to accept an adjective just to placate the ignorance of modern American politicos.

 

[Natural Citizen]

And another thing. Know this, all. So-called 'moderates' are the most dangerous threat to civil liberties in America today.

They're the ones who are just okay with all of the bad legislation coming out of both parties in Washington. And make no mistake, both parties are constantly putting out anti-liberty legislation. It's been a bipartisan effort. Why anyone in their right mind would meet the tyrants in the middle and just be okay with a bipartisan butt raping is beyond stupid.

The so-called moderates will have us all in shackles if we're not careful.

Any time anyone reads or hears anyone popularizing or cheering for moderates, shut em down. And shut em down quick. They really don't get it and know not what they're actually endorsing, so just be nice about it. Friends who participate in political coercion such as that which we so often see when the party of one is endorsed in such a populist manner, under the label of being moderate, understand very, very, little of coercion's function or their role in it. And absolutely nothing of its consequence to civil liberties in America, across the board.

Being right or left is far, far, far, better for civil liberties than being moderate. Be thankful we still have a right and a left. The less moderates there are, the longer some semblance of civil liberties will survive. The moderates are bringing both bullies our way. Not one or the other. They're bringing both bullies from Washington our way.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It seems to me both parties support expanding government powers when they are in power. When is the last time you actually saw either party repeal government powers?

That's why I no longer vote on the federal level. They are ALL pro-big government.

I consider myself to be an actual conservative who believes we have too much government in our lives, and therefore cannot vote for either party.

We had a massive expansion of federal police powers the last time the GOP was in total control of the legislative and executive branches. And now we see our federal deficits skyrocketing and accelerating now that the GOP is back in power.

No one will ever convince me the Republican party is the party of small government.

I caught on to that hoax a long time ago with Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge".

That was a pledge not to increase taxes.

But here's the hoax part: It did not contain a pledge not to increase spending or the size of the government.

D'oh!

eeeyep.

 

[sparky]

One thing I know for a fact is that the term 'liberal' is the most misused word in the entire American political lexicon.

because <bad> politics always dictate a target, usuallly in order for some faction to hide their ineptitude behind

And another thing. Know this, all. So-called 'moderates' are the most dangerous threat to civil liberties in America today.

>>>>

 

[danielpalos]

the left is for raising the minimum wage to raise more tax revenue, in modern times.

the right is just for tax cut economics.

 

[OldLady]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

Interesting question--where exactly is the center?

 

[danielpalos]

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, to ensure capital circulates and generates revenue!

 

[Tehon]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

One thing I know for a fact is that the term 'liberal' is the most misused word in the entire American political lexicon. And both parties are guilty of the term's bastardization. It's pure ignorance to what liberalism really is. And conservatism, consequently.

Being a real liberal, I'd prefer and appreciate that neither theoretical political side use the term 'liberal'

Just refer to big government leftists as statists, can we start doing that, please? There's a lot of big government statists on the so-called right, too, so, we'd be knocking out two cans with one stone. Heck, some of the most rabid statists in politics identify as Repubicans, to be fair about it. That's another reason I cringe when I see the term thrown around.

I cringe every time I see the term liberal thrown around so carelessly. And I, for one, am offended that us true liberals have to accept an adjective just to placate the ignorance of modern American politicos.

Did you ever consider that perhaps it is you who is misusing the word? The meaning of liberal is not really related to the size or scope of government. The idea of liberalism as it relates to government is that we are all able to participate in it.

 

[danielpalos]

the power to provide for the general welfare is general.

 

[there4eyeM]

As time has passed, many nouns and descriptions have become so over-used as to have at best very vague meanings.
'Right' and 'left' originally referred to positions with a monarch at the center. Today, what do 'right' and 'left' mean? In relation to what do they derive their orientation?

One thing I know for a fact is that the term 'liberal' is the most misused word in the entire American political lexicon. And both parties are guilty of the term's bastardization. It's pure ignorance to what liberalism really is. And conservatism, consequently.

Being a real liberal, I'd prefer and appreciate that neither theoretical political side use the term 'liberal'

Just refer to big government leftists as statists, can we start doing that, please? There's a lot of big government statists on the so-called right, too, so, we'd be knocking out two cans with one stone. Heck, some of the most rabid statists in politics identify as Repubicans, to be fair about it. That's another reason I cringe when I see the term thrown around.

I cringe every time I see the term liberal thrown around so carelessly. And I, for one, am offended that us true liberals have to accept an adjective just to placate the ignorance of modern American politicos.

Did you ever consider that perhaps it is you who is misusing the word? The meaning of liberal is not really related to the size or scope of government. The idea of liberalism as it relates to government is that we are all able to participate in it.

"Liberal" and "liberalism" mean something else in Europe. There, they mean much closer to what conservative and conservatism mean in the U.S.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Did you ever consider that perhaps it is you who is misusing the word? The meaning of liberal is not really related to the size or scope of government. The idea of liberalism as it relates to government is that we are all able to participate in it.

Well, I have Mises on my side, Tehon. I'm in pretty good company.

Speaking of Ludwig, here's a snip from a great article on the topic. It's a long piece, so long that even the snippet is long, but I'll link the page to the entore piece at the end of the snipped portion....



Ludwig von Mises and the Real Meaning of Liberalism


One of the greatest voices during the last hundred years supporting the original meaning of liberalism was the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973). This year marks the ninetieth anniversary of the publication of his concise, clear, and compelling case for this understanding of the truly liberal society, his 1927 book, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition.


When penned by Mises in 1927, the aftermath of the First World War had seen the triumph of communism in Russia, the rise of fascism in Italy and an emerging nationalist and racialist movement in Germany that would come to power in 1933 in the form of Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist (Nazi) Party.


Liberalism as a System of Peaceful Trade and Human Cooperation

This was the historical context in which Mises published in 1927 his defense of classical liberalism and its emphasis on individualism, free markets and social betterment. In place of the collectivists’ starting premises of inescapable conflicts among men in terms of “social class,” nationality, race, or narrow group interest, Mises insisted that reason and experience demonstrated that all men could associate in peace for their mutual material and cultural betterment.

The key to this was an understanding and appreciation of the benefits of a division of labor. Through specialization and trade, the human race has the capacity to lift itself up from both poverty and war. Men become associates in a common process of social cooperation instead of antagonists, with each attempting to rule over and plunder the others. Indeed, all that we mean by modern civilization and the material and cultural comforts and opportunities that it offers man is due to the highly productive benefits and advantages made possible by a division of labor. Men have learned to peacefully collaborate in the arena of competitive market exchange.

Without private ownership in the means of production, the coordination of multitudes of individual activities in the division of labor is impossible.

Of course, collectivist political force can be substituted for the “reward” of market-based and earned profits and the “punishment” of financial losses in guiding people in their peaceful competitive cooperation. However, the costs of this substitution are extremely high, Mises argued. First, men are less motivated to apply themselves with intelligence and industry when forced to work under the lash of servitude and compulsion. Thus society loses what their free efforts and invention might have produced.

Second, men are forced to conform to the values and goals of those in command. Thus they lose the liberty of pursuing their own purposes, with no certainty that those who rule them know what may give them happiness and meaning in life any better.

And, third, socialist central planning and political intervention in the market, respectively, abolish or distort the functioning of social cooperation. A sustained and extended system of specialization for mutual improvement is only possible under a unique set of social and economic institutions.


Economic Calculation Under Liberal Capitalism

Without private ownership in the means of production, the coordination of multitudes of individual activities in the division of labor is impossible. Indeed, Mises’s analysis of the “impossibility” of a socialist order being able to match the efficiency and productivity of a free-market economy was the basis for his international stature and reputation as one of the most original economists of his time. It was also the centerpiece of his earlier book on Socialism (1922).

In Liberalism, Mises once more clearly and persuasively explained that private ownership and competitive market exchange enable the formation of prices for both consumer goods and the factors of production, expressed in the common denominator of a medium of exchange – money. On the basis of these money prices, entrepreneurs can engage in economic calculation to determine the relative costs and profitability of alternative lines of production.

Without the ability to buy and sell, there will be no bids and offers, and therefore no haggling over terms of trade.

Without these market-generated prices, there would be no rational way to....


Continued - Ludwig von Mises and the Real Meaning of Liberalism

 

[danielpalos]

Did you ever consider that perhaps it is you who is misusing the word? The meaning of liberal is not really related to the size or scope of government. The idea of liberalism as it relates to government is that we are all able to participate in it.

Well, I have Mises on my side, Tehon. I'm in pretty good company.

Speaking of Ludwig, here's a snip from a great article on the topic. It's a long piece, so long that even the snippet is long, but I'll link the page to the entore piece at the end of the snipped portion....



Ludwig von Mises and the Real Meaning of Liberalism


One of the greatest voices during the last hundred years supporting the original meaning of liberalism was the Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973). This year marks the ninetieth anniversary of the publication of his concise, clear, and compelling case for this understanding of the truly liberal society, his 1927 book, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition.


When penned by Mises in 1927, the aftermath of the First World War had seen the triumph of communism in Russia, the rise of fascism in Italy and an emerging nationalist and racialist movement in Germany that would come to power in 1933 in the form of Adolph Hitler and his National Socialist (Nazi) Party.


Liberalism as a System of Peaceful Trade and Human Cooperation

This was the historical context in which Mises published in 1927 his defense of classical liberalism and its emphasis on individualism, free markets and social betterment. In place of the collectivists’ starting premises of inescapable conflicts among men in terms of “social class,” nationality, race, or narrow group interest, Mises insisted that reason and experience demonstrated that all men could associate in peace for their mutual material and cultural betterment.

The key to this was an understanding and appreciation of the benefits of a division of labor. Through specialization and trade, the human race has the capacity to lift itself up from both poverty and war. Men become associates in a common process of social cooperation instead of antagonists, with each attempting to rule over and plunder the others. Indeed, all that we mean by modern civilization and the material and cultural comforts and opportunities that it offers man is due to the highly productive benefits and advantages made possible by a division of labor. Men have learned to peacefully collaborate in the arena of competitive market exchange.

Without private ownership in the means of production, the coordination of multitudes of individual activities in the division of labor is impossible.

Of course, collectivist political force can be substituted for the “reward” of market-based and earned profits and the “punishment” of financial losses in guiding people in their peaceful competitive cooperation. However, the costs of this substitution are extremely high, Mises argued. First, men are less motivated to apply themselves with intelligence and industry when forced to work under the lash of servitude and compulsion. Thus society loses what their free efforts and invention might have produced.

Second, men are forced to conform to the values and goals of those in command. Thus they lose the liberty of pursuing their own purposes, with no certainty that those who rule them know what may give them happiness and meaning in life any better.

And, third, socialist central planning and political intervention in the market, respectively, abolish or distort the functioning of social cooperation. A sustained and extended system of specialization for mutual improvement is only possible under a unique set of social and economic institutions.


Economic Calculation Under Liberal Capitalism

Without private ownership in the means of production, the coordination of multitudes of individual activities in the division of labor is impossible. Indeed, Mises’s analysis of the “impossibility” of a socialist order being able to match the efficiency and productivity of a free-market economy was the basis for his international stature and reputation as one of the most original economists of his time. It was also the centerpiece of his earlier book on Socialism (1922).

In Liberalism, Mises once more clearly and persuasively explained that private ownership and competitive market exchange enable the formation of prices for both consumer goods and the factors of production, expressed in the common denominator of a medium of exchange – money. On the basis of these money prices, entrepreneurs can engage in economic calculation to determine the relative costs and profitability of alternative lines of production.

Without the ability to buy and sell, there will be no bids and offers, and therefore no haggling over terms of trade.

Without these market-generated prices, there would be no rational way to....


Continued - Ludwig von Mises and the Real Meaning of Liberalism

how do tax cut economics work to improve the social betterment?

 

[Natural Citizen]

how do tax cut economics work to improve the social betterment?

Explain your definition of tax cut economics, please. Thanks!

Every bill I've seen pawned off as a tax cut turned out to be a tax increase in the form of the inflation tax.

Or are you talking about income tax? Income tax is theft.

 

[Oddball]

Explain your definition of tax cut economics, please. Thanks!

Every bill I've seen pawned off as a tax cut turned out to be a tax increase in the form of the inflation tax.

Or are you talking about income tax? Income tax is theft.

Don't fall for it....He's an economic dilettante, who revels in his utter ignorance.